Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[bhsmte]

And it's obvious why you won't answer it.

Same pattern different day.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I gave you a complex system with purpose and function that came about through natural processes. That example was the complex river systems that have the function of moving water off of the continents with the purpose of moving water to the ocean.

This goes with what I was just posting to RickG, it is a matter of the basic laws of physics which are one level of overall design but that can act in random and unexpected ways while staying within the order of the whole.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You still haven't answered how you know Mt. Rushmore is designed.

Yes, I did. Post #1786:
Looking at the information available it is conceivable that the cliff face could have been produced by natural processes, Mt. Rushmore on the other hand appears designed, we understand how natural processes such as wind and rain can affect structures such as rock and we understand as well that that process could not have created Mt. Rushmore due to the complexity of the features and even if we were not to know who the faces are, we do know that the intent of the intelligent agent had purpose..i.e. carving four men's faces in the cliff.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I predict, the next response will be; your question was answered.

FAIL
I did:

Looking at the information available it is conceivable that the cliff face could have been produced by natural processes, Mt. Rushmore on the other hand appears designed, we understand how natural processes such as wind and rain can affect structures such as rock and we understand as well that that process could not have created Mt. Rushmore due to the complexity of the features and even if we were not to know who the faces are, we do know that the intent of the intelligent agent had purpose..i.e. carving four men's faces in the cliff.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yep, her entire paradigm is one thread away from implosion.

You really have a different way of looking at reality.

 

[Loudmouth]

This goes with what I was just posting to RickG, it is a matter of the basic laws of physics which are one level of overall design but that can act in random and unexpected ways while staying within the order of the whole.

ID proponents argue that intelligent design does not come about through basic laws of physics. You are arguing the same with evolution.

 

[Davian]

...
Looking at the information available it is conceivable that the cliff face could have been produced by natural processes, ...

Is that an admission that there are things that are the product of natural processes, yet only appear designed? Yes or no?

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's a circular argument.

Have you forgotten that you said:

Loudmouth said: ↑
"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."
Emphasis mine.

 

[Oncedeceived]

ID proponents argue that intelligent design does not come about through basic laws of physics. You are arguing the same with evolution.

I would need to have some quotes to that affect to respond to that.
ID proponents do not claim that evolution doesn't happen, they claim that the mechanisms that evolution uses are not sufficient for the complex function and features of some systems and structures in living forms.

 

[Loudmouth]

Have you forgotten that you said:

Loudmouth said: ↑
"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."
Emphasis mine.

And what did I say that evidence was? It was tool marks and methods of manufacture. Where is that evidence in life?

 

[RickG]

I assume that you are using the atheist argument of if God designed everything what is not designed?

No, I am presenting an argument from a scientific point of view in one of the science forms of the CF, from which I expect cordial, open, and meaningful discussion in science. All I am asking for is supporting evidence? From a scientific point of view I see no evidence making the connection. I get the feeling that you think I am denying the existence of God. I am not. However, I do disagree with the process of how things come into existence. The process we see things occurring is explainable and evidenced through natural processes. That is a fact. I do not view Genesis as literal. I doing that I do not have to make things and processes up that I know do not or cannot happen to make them literal. I have previously mentioned that the Genesis account presents the existence of things out of order. It is more than obvious that fruit trees grasses and herbs cannot exist before the sun, not to mention other problems with the genesis account. I have not come to subscribe to it, but I have wondered if God is not a product of the universe (big bang).

 

[Oncedeceived]

Is that an admission that there are things that are the product of natural processes, yet only appear designed? Yes or no?

At certain levels yes. The bridge I presented for instance. If you read the post to RickG it explains that better.

 

[bhsmte]

And what did I say that evidence was? It was tool marks and methods of manufacture. Where is that evidence in life?

That part of the question was ignored, the "how" would one determine it was designed with objective evidence; tool marks, methods etc...

And I think we all know why?

 

[HitchSlap]

You really have a different way of looking at reality.

I can understand how logic and reason may seem different to you.

 

[Loudmouth]

I would need to have some quotes to that affect to respond to that.

Evolution is a basic law of physics. You are saying that finding an evolutionary pathway, a basic physical law, would disprove intelligent design. That is what you are arguing with the bacterial flagellum and other IC systems.

ID proponents do not claim that evolution doesn't happen, they claim that the mechanisms that evolution uses are not sufficient for the complex function and features of some systems and structures in living forms.

They claim, but never evidence. It is an empty assertion.

We can also see that natural processes do, in fact, create all of those features.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes, I did. Post #1786:
Looking at the information available it is conceivable that the cliff face could have been produced by natural processes, Mt. Rushmore on the other hand appears designed, we understand how natural processes such as wind and rain can affect structures such as rock and we understand as well that that process could not have created Mt. Rushmore due to the complexity of the features and even if we were not to know who the faces are, we do know that the intent of the intelligent agent had purpose..i.e. carving four men's faces in the cliff.

So you're able to make the distinction that Mt. Rushmore is designed, because you have something non-designed to compare it to.
The word "design" is a definition of necessity, it helps up to describe things that were engineered by agency, compared to things that happen naturally. You have just made a tacit admission that design is only obvious when compared to non-designed. Unless you're prepared to provide a metric by which one can quantify design, and proof of a designer, you remain gullible for the reasons Dawkins states in the quote you repeatedly use.

 

[Davian]

At certain levels yes.

Now, how would you show that something only appears designed?

 

[justlookinla]

Known construction methods, materials, location and astronomical knowledge points to the Greeks.

Asked and answered.

Right, it's just a guess.

 

[justlookinla]

Darwinists will stick with their guesses and suppositions on what created humanity, but when design is introduced into the discussion, they suddenly wish to drop humanity and start talking about rocks and rivers.

Why is that?

 

[Loudmouth]

Darwinists will stick with their guesses and suppositions on what created humanity,

You have never been able to point to one of those.