Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Oncedeceived]

You are assuming your conclusion. That is a logical fallacy, not evidence.

No, life forms show evidence of design, it is your burden if you claim that evidence is inaccurate and is only an illusion. Stop trying to shift the burden. You have this burden.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, its an argument used by scientists. Are you suggesting all scientists are atheists. If so, then I need to change my designated faith in my profile.

No it is not a scientific argument. When has it every been presented in a peer reviewed paper?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Back to the appearance of a face on that cliff; how would you show that something only appears designed? Is that possible to do, or not?

I just answered that.

 

[Davian]

I just answered that.

Your answer did not address my question.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your answer did not address my question.

Oh, how so?

 

[Davian]

Oh, how so?

Back to the appearance of a face on that cliff; Illusion or design?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Back to the appearance of a face on that cliff; Illusion or design?

Illusion, based on how I explained we can use inductive reasoning to come to our conclusions.

 

[Davian]

Illusion, based on how I explained we can use inductive reasoning to come to our conclusions.

Now provide evidence that it is only an illusion.

 

[Astrophile]

How so?

According to Wikipedia, 'Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, fallacy of the converse or confusion of necessity and sufficiency, is a formal fallacy of inferring the converse from the original statement. The corresponding argument has the general form:
1. If P, then Q.
2. Q.
3. Therefore P.
.......
One way to demonstrate the invalidity of this argument form is with a counterexample with true premises but with an obviously false conclusion. For example:
If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

This example is in exactly the same form as your argument, and your argument suffers from the same fallacy as this example. Of course, the fact that your argument is fallacious doesn't mean that the appearance of design in living things proves that they were not intelligently designed; it only fails to prove that they were designed.

 

[Loudmouth]

ERV is used to show common ancestry, it doesn't provide any evidence for life forms appearring to be designed for a purpose is an illusion.

It demonstrates that what you claim appears designed is actually the product of common ancestry and evolution.

Your subjective opinion of appearances is not objective evidence.

 

[RickG]

Illusion, based on how I explained we can use inductive reasoning to come to our conclusions.

Which is the very description of a philosophical argument, which we all have been trying to get you to understand.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, life forms show evidence of design,

False. They have the subjective appearance of having design. Not the same thing as evidence.

it is your burden if you claim that evidence is inaccurate and is only an illusion. Stop trying to shift the burden. You have this burden.

And there is the weasel move of shifting the burden of proof.

It is your job to present OBJECTIVE evidence to support your claims.

 

[bhsmte]

No, its an argument used by scientists. Are you suggesting all scientists are atheists. If so, then I need to change my designated faith in my profile.

You know, I always find this amusing, when by sheer numbers, more Christians disagree with her position, than atheists do.

Gotta label any disagreement as atheist though.

 

[Astrophile]

Yet, you can not give one piece of evidence that the appearance of design in living forms is an illusion.

Just to clarify this, I think that all biologists agree that living things show the appearance of design in that they are adapted to their environments, but it does not follow that that appearance is evidence of actual intelligent design. As I understand it, the appearance of design is a consequence of a process of natural selection, that is differential reproductive success.

Thus the appearance of design is not an illusion, but it is an error to regard it as evidence of actual design. Perhaps the appearance of design is like a rainbow; rainbows are real in the sense that one can see and even photograph them, but it would be an error to infer that there is an actual multi-coloured solid arch in the air.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just to clarify this, I think that all biologists agree that living things show the appearance of design, but it does not follow that that appearance is evidence of actual intelligent design. As I understand it, the appearance of design is a consequence of a process of natural selection, that is differential reproductive success.

It is also a product of pareidolia:

"Pareidolia (/pærɨˈdoʊliə/ parr-i-DOH-lee-ə) is a psychological phenomenon involving a stimulus (an image or a sound) which is perceived as significant."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

It is a human bias that causes us to see faces in clouds and make other false associations. This is why we have the scientific method, to reduce the effects of these human biases. The last thing you want to do is use this human bias as the foundation of your entire argument as the ID/creationists have done.

 

[bhsmte]

It is also a product of pareidolia:

"Pareidolia (/pærɨˈdoʊliə/ parr-i-DOH-lee-ə) is a psychological phenomenon involving a stimulus (an image or a sound) which is perceived as significant."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

It is a human bias that causes us to see faces in clouds and make other false associations. This is why we have the scientific method, to reduce the effects of these human biases. The last thing you want to do is use this human bias as the foundation of your entire argument as the ID/creationists have done.

But when this "pareidolia" satisfies a faith belief, away we go...............

 

[RickG]

You know, I always find this amusing, when by sheer numbers, more Christians disagree with her position, than atheists do.

Gotta label any disagreement as atheist though.

Even more amusing, I haven't argued against a designer, rather evidence connecting to a designer.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Now provide evidence that it is only an illusion.

To get evidence to support the cliff face is only an illusion and not produced by an intelligent agent we would look at the processes available to produce the appearance of that face. We would look at the information available to us from known natural processes such as wind, rain, gravity, and the ocean and how they affect this type of structure. We would examine the structure and take note whether the properties being examined show the properties that we know are intelligently designed or those that do not have those properties. If the evidence shows that this type of structure, the type that begins as a sea cliff, the ocean pounds this structure eroding the weaker and softer rock and leaves the harder and stronger rock behind. This erosion is a known process that is sufficient in creating the outline in the rock and no other properties of an intelligent agent are present, it would be determined that the face was not produced by an intelligent design and the natural processes or mechanisms to produce it show it is an illusion.

 

[Loudmouth]

But when this "pareidolia" satisfies a faith belief, away we go...............

That is another topic altogether. It could be said that the fundamental aspects of religious experience are nothing more than false associations that a person gives special significance to.

 

[bhsmte]

That is another topic altogether. It could be said that the fundamental aspects of religious experience are nothing more than false associations that a person gives special significance to.

What I call; cherry pick syndrome.