Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Oncedeceived]

Sexual reproduction is a natural process, yes?

It is now. Care to explain how it arose and why it would be more advantageous over asexual reproduction?

 

[crjmurray]

It is now. Care to explain how it arose and why it would be more advantageous over asexual reproduction?

Are you changing the topic before I finish my point? Impressive.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why do you keep repeating there's no evidence for ToE?

And please answer my question? How do you know Mt. Rushmore is designed?

Not only have I not Kept repeating there no evidence for TOE nor have I said it even once.

I answered your question.

 

[Davian]

I don't have to "measure" design.

You can't? How then do you know it is there?

What means of measurement do you suggest?
IN your dreams perhaps.

Not my problem

I am still waiting for what you would provide as evidence for the face in that cliff being an illusion.

 

[RickG]

Again if someone refuse to believe the universe is real then there is no evidence that can prove it to that person. Anyone who refused to believe "design in nature" is real then no scientific evidence could prove to that person that it is. Design in nature is part of our universe and both by default is assumed to be real unless there is good evidence to prove otherwise.

That's not what I asked. I asked for scientific evidence for a designer.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you changing the topic before I finish my point? Impressive.

The topic was sexual reproduction, which is the topic you posted.

 

[crjmurray]

The topic was sexual reproduction, which is the topic you posted.

That's correct. Not the development of sexual reproduction or asexual reproduction. Are you done with this scenic detour?

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's correct. Not the development of sexual reproduction or asexual reproduction. Are you done with this scenic detour?

Oh I see, you just want to talk about it as if it just popped into existence as is...

 

[Oncedeceived]

You can't? How then do you know it is there?

I didn't say can't I said I don't need to.

Not my problem

What makes it necessary to measure something to know it is designed?

I am still waiting for what you would provide as evidence for the face in that cliff being an illusion.

A real face has skin, muscle and bone, pores, and hair. The cliff face only mimics the contours of a face and has none of the features or qualities of an actual face.

 

[crjmurray]

Oh I see, you just want to talk about it as if it just popped into existence as is...

I wanted to address a single topic. If you can't hold a conversation without moving the goalposts that's fine.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's not what I asked. I asked for scientific evidence for a designer.

In biological life forms the appearance of design in the evidence of design. IN the universe the fine tuning provides the evidence of design, both of which have been established by scientists.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I wanted to address a single topic. If you can't hold a conversation without moving the goalposts that's fine.

IF you can't discuss the topic in full why bother?

 

[RickG]

In biological life forms the appearance of design in the evidence of design.

Appearance is not evidence, correlation must have causation. Quantify the causation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Appearance is not evidence, correlation must have causation. Quantify the causation.

Design must by definition quantifies a designer.

 

[crjmurray]

IF you can't discuss the topic in full why bother?

OK then

 

[bhsmte]

I just did. We normal don't assume something is an illusion without good evidence that it is. In order for us to know design it has to be "wired" into us.

I dont think that gets it done.

 

[Davian]

I didn't say can't I said I don't need to.

lol. If you could, then you would have already.

What makes it necessary to measure something to know it is designed?

So that it is not simply opinion.

A real face has skin, muscle and bone, pores, and hair. The cliff face only mimics the contours of a face and has none of the features or qualities of an actual face.

That is was an actual human face was not the issue; it may be an intentional design in the rock, or it may just be an illusion. What would you provide as evidence for the face in that cliff being an illusion?

 

[Davian]

In biological life forms the appearance of design in the evidence of design. IN the universe the fine tuning

...the appearance of fine tuning, if tuning was possible...

provides the evidence of design, both of which have been established by scientists.

...both of which are opinions of scientists. Please make an effort to be accurate.

 

[Davian]

Design must by definition quantifies a designer.

You have yet to establish "design".

 

[Smidlee]

That's not what I asked. I asked for scientific evidence for a designer.

Design in nature is the scientific evidence of the designer and what better testimony than from my video of someone who hates what he see that living systems seem to be designed by someone a million times smarter than him.
You can't get better scientific evidence than that.