Design...actual or not and why?

[Oncedeceived]

Cosmic teapots, dear. It is up to you to show that it is designed using an objective measure of design.

It is up to you my friend to answer the question and support your position with evidence that confirms it. If you are not able to support your position then perhaps this thread is not for you.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

It is up to you my friend to answer the question and support your position with evidence that confirms it. If you are not able to support your position then perhaps this thread is not for you.

Please examine my list.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's the null hypothesis. I'm not interested in shifting the burden of proof. The claim that design is present has not supported its burden of proof and must therefore be rejected.

Is it not your position that there is an appearance of design in the universe and life forms but that appearance is an illusion set up by natural processes?

But you're the one holding up intuition as though it was some way of knowing what's true. It isn't.

I'm sorry I don't know what you are saying here.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Please examine my list.

The list supports your position in what way?

 

[HitchSlap]

How have I misrepresented your words?

I didn't say this: "Which means that due to our evolutionary past we should expect and do see a mind that can't be reliable in making truth statements or recognizing the difference between true beliefs and false."

Are you going to retract?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

The list supports your position in what way?

It will show you the errors of intuition and will show us how you think. It may even help us understand you better.

It's a simple task.

 

[HitchSlap]

This is a prime example of confirmation bias, you dismiss something out of hand due to your own blind biases. The video has nothing to do with cdesign proponentsists. This is a teaching video and has no ties to any religious organizations.

If it has anything to do with ID/Creo, then it's not science. I stopped beating that dead horse a long time ago.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I didn't say this: "Which means that due to our evolutionary past we should expect and do see a mind that can't be reliable in making truth statements or recognizing the difference between true beliefs and false."

Are you going to retract?

Did you not say that evolution has provided the ability of the mind to create myths?

 

[Oncedeceived]

If it has anything to do with ID/Creo, then it's not science. I stopped beating that dead horse a long time ago.

Like I said, blind confirmation biases. It has nothing to do with anything but the inner workings of the cell.

 

[The Cadet]

Is it not your position that there is an appearance of design in the universe and life forms but that appearance is an illusion set up by natural processes?

It's my position in the same way "I don't believe in god" is my position. However, I carry the burden of proof for neither. I reject the god hypothesis, and I reject the design hypothesis. I'd like to know why you consider the design hypothesis worthy of consideration, and what evidence you have that this appearance of design translates to actually being design.

I'm sorry I don't know what you are saying here.

"I think I've had a few too many Bahama Mamas." It was a nonsensical assumption made about your position which in retrospect I should not have made. And then I formulated it badly.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It will show you the errors of intuition and will show us how you think. It may even help us understand you better.

It's a simple task.

You seem to misunderstand the OP. I am not interested in the way I think. I know how I think and why. If you find the question in the OP too difficult to answer just move on.

 

[Loudmouth]

Like I said, blind confirmation biases. It has nothing to do with anything but the inner workings of the cell.

The added assertion that it appears designed is due to human bias.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's my position in the same way "I don't believe in god" is my position. However, I carry the burden of proof for neither. I reject the god hypothesis, and I reject the design hypothesis. I'd like to know why you consider the design hypothesis worthy of consideration, and what evidence you have that this appearance of design translates to actually being design.

Then start your own thread.

"I think I've had a few too many Bahama Mamas." It was a nonsensical assumption made about your position which in retrospect I should not have made. And then I formulated it badly.

LOL no problem.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The added assertion that it appears designed is due to human bias.

What evidence supports the appearance of design is an illusion and the product of human bias?

 

[Loudmouth]

It is up to you my friend to answer the question and support your position with evidence that confirms it. If you are not able to support your position then perhaps this thread is not for you.

I have supported it.

1. I have pointed to several examples of human bias causing us to see things that simply aren't there when we lack an objective criteria to filter out that bias.

2. I have pointed to the nested hierarchy as evidence that these adaptations came about through evolutionary mechanisms.

Where is your evidence that a supernatural deity designed these things? Where are the objective and testable hypotheses? Where is your model that deals with the nested hierarchy and genetic data?

 

[Loudmouth]

What evidence supports the appearance of design is an illusion and the product of human bias?

The multiple examples that I have given, such as the duck in the cloud and the death's head moth. They are examples that Dawkins gives as well.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

You seem to misunderstand the OP. I am not interested in the way I think. I know how I think and why. If you find the question in the OP too difficult to answer just move on.

We're interested in how you think. It actually helps my argument quite a bit and you'll be able to see my position clearly. Why are you avoiding this? It's part of how I will discuss with you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have supported it.

1. I have pointed to several examples of human bias causing us to see things that simply aren't there when we lack an objective criteria to filter out that bias.

I asked you what we were seeing in the inner workings of the cell that simply were not there? How are we seeing the measurements of the parameters in the universe incorrectly with human bias? You have not answered that.

2. I have pointed to the nested hierarchy as evidence that these adaptations came about through evolutionary mechanisms.

Nested Hierarchy has no bearing on the parameters of the universe appearing designed. Nested Hierarchy has no bearing on how things appear designed.

Where is your evidence that a supernatural deity designed these things? Where are the objective and testable hypotheses? Where is your model that deals with the nested hierarchy and genetic data?

This is a thread for non-believers to support their positions on the appearance of design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The multiple examples that I have given, such as the duck in the cloud and the death's head moth. They are examples that Dawkins gives as well.

I asked, what face are we seeing in the inner workings of the cell or the parameters of the universe?

 

[HitchSlap]

Did you not say that evolution has provided the ability of the mind to create myths?

Either show where I said this: "Which means that due to our evolutionary past we should expect and do see a mind that can't be reliable in making truth statements or recognizing the difference between true beliefs and false."

Or retract.

Otherwise, you're being intentionally dishonest. You're a ID/Creo, so I'm not surprised in the least in your disingenuous posts. It's obvious you're interested in making a point, even to the extent of lying, rather than trying to understand my point.