Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Loudmouth]

No answers, no evidence. shrug.

"I would say that it is necessary. When you identify design, you are identifying a designer. It is the act of designing that leaves the evidence, such as the use of tools or methodologies."

 

[Oncedeceived]

What does the system of rivers do? Their function is to drain the continents of water, is it not?

Rivers don't do anything. There is no system in the earth that creates a path for water to flow, it just flows in accordance with from up to down. Simple.

 

[HitchSlap]

Exactly. They tend to shy away from complex, functional and purposeful systems when discussing design.

Come again? You ID types wouldn't know ANYTHING if it weren't for the real scientists putting in the work to study and describe these functions. It's the guys over at the DI who try to piggyback on the tedious, hard work of real biologists and infuse their ID non-sense.

 

[justlookinla]

No answers, no evidence. shrug.

Right....no answer. Really didn't expect one from you when I first asked.

 

[Oncedeceived]

"I would say that it is necessary. When you identify design, you are identifying a designer. It is the act of designing that leaves the evidence, such as the use of tools or methodologies."

Oh MY GOSH! There you are! It is the act of designing that leaves the evidence. BINGO!

 

[Loudmouth]

Rivers don't do anything.

Do you deny the complex and purposeful function that rivers have?

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh MY GOSH! There you are! It is the act of designing that leaves the evidence. BINGO!

So where are the equivalent tool marks in life?

 

[Loudmouth]

Right....no answer. Really didn't expect one from you when I first asked.

"I would say that it is necessary. When you identify design, you are identifying a designer. It is the act of designing that leaves the evidence, such as the use of tools or methodologies."

How many more times do I need to post it?

 

[justlookinla]

Rivers don't do anything. There is no system in the earth that creates a path for water to flow, it just flows in accordance with from up to down. Simple.

Notice the immediate attempt to change the focus from the complexity, functionality and purpose of human systems?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Come again? You ID types wouldn't know ANYTHING if it weren't for the real scientists putting in the work to study and describe these functions. It's the guys over at the DI who try to piggyback on the tedious, hard work of real biologists and infuse their ID non-sense.

Thanks for your opinion. Are you coveting science?

 

[HitchSlap]

I am not gullible enough to believe that natural processes could create the complex design we see. You don't think that MT. Rushmore was created by natural processes do you Hitch?

That's the point of Dawkins quote you keep using, he states you are gullible for accepting the illusion of design.

I asked how you know, not what you know. Take another run at it.

How do you know Mt. Rushmore was designed?

 

[Loudmouth]

Notice the immediate attempt to change the focus from the complexity, functionality and purpose of human systems?

Notice the immediate attempt to change the focus from the complexity, functionality, and purpose of natural systems that come about through natural processes?

 

[justlookinla]

"I would say that it is necessary. When you identify design, you are identifying a designer. It is the act of designing that leaves the evidence, such as the use of tools or methodologies."

How many more times do I need to post it?

How many times are you going to not answer the question? And why would you think that your evasion would make the question go away?

 

[Loudmouth]

How many times are you going to not answer the question? And why would you think that your evasion would make the question go away?

Here is the answer:

"I would say that it is necessary. When you identify design, you are identifying a designer. It is the act of designing that leaves the evidence, such as the use of tools or methodologies."

 

[Oncedeceived]

Notice the immediate attempt to change the focus from the complexity, functionality and purpose of human systems?

Exactly. It is so typical. And if that doesn't work you watch, this all will take to ad hominem attacks that will lead to shutting down the thread so that they are free from having to present evidence for their claims.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You couldn't even answer the simple question of whether there was a face in the cliff.

Do I need to go back and get the post number where I answered that?

 

[justlookinla]

Notice the immediate attempt to change the focus from the complexity, functionality, and purpose of natural systems that come about through natural processes?

Exactly. It is so typical. And if that doesn't work you watch, this all will take to ad hominem attacks that will lead to shutting down the thread so that they are free from having to present evidence for their claims.

Yeppers. And they think they're winning by evasion.

 

[justlookinla]

Notice the immediate attempt to change the focus from the complexity, functionality, and purpose of natural systems that come about through natural processes?

Notice that you cannot simply answer a simple question?

 

[HitchSlap]

Yeppers. And they think they're winning by evasion.

Did you miss where I answered your question?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Notice the immediate attempt to change the focus from the complexity, functionality, and purpose of natural systems that come about through natural processes?

You haven't provided any evidence for the design we see in the complexity, functionality, and purpose of natural systems being produced by natural processes.