Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[justlookinla]

Here you go, shying away from how the universe works.

Until you wish to discuss humanity and evolution and not rocks, rivers and clouds.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

Exactly. We know what features design creates. We know what complexity is created by humans and can recognize it inductively when we see it. We look at the one that is "obviously" naturally occurring and inductively conclude that natural processes are capable of producing it and we look at Mt. Rushmore and inductively conclude that natural processes are not capable of producing it. Inductive reasoning is used all the time.

 

[Loudmouth]

Still waiting for you to give evidence, based on the scientific method.

29+ pieces of evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

[justlookinla]

Exactly. We know what features design creates. We know what complexity is created by humans and can recognize it inductively when we see it. We look at the one that is "obviously" naturally occurring and inductively conclude that natural processes are capable of producing it and we look at Mt. Rushmore and inductively conclude that natural processes are not capable of producing it. Inductive reasoning is used all the time.

Rocks.

 

[Loudmouth]

Until you wish to discuss humanity and evolution and not rocks, rivers and clouds.

I am discussing all of nature. Why do you shy away from nature?

 

[justlookinla]

29+ pieces of evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

A link isn't evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly. We know what features design creates. We know what complexity is created by humans and can recognize it inductively when we see it.

We also know that nature produces complexity through basic physical laws.

 

[justlookinla]

I am discussing all of nature. Why do you shy away from nature?

Why do you wish to discuss the evolution of man until design is introduced?

 

[Loudmouth]

A link isn't evidence.

I have already presented those pieces of evidence, and you ignored them.

 

[justlookinla]

What methods? Just saying 'evolution' isn't describing the process of the creation of tactile sensory units.

.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

The tool marks are the structural, functional, and complexity of the features in question that we recognize as those features we humans make when we create.
The features and structures are recognized as having been designed for a purpose, that is the evidence if one wishes to claim that it is an illusion, provide evidence it is.

 

[justlookinla]

I have already presented those pieces of evidence, and you ignored them.

You've not presented anything other than baseless claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why do you wish to discuss the evolution of man until design is introduced?

Why do you ignore the evidence for man's evolution when it is presented?

 

[Loudmouth]

You've not presented anything other than baseless claims.

Such as?

 

[justlookinla]

Why do you ignore the evidence for man's evolution when it is presented?

Why do you think a link is evidence? And how are tactile sensory units produced?

 

[justlookinla]

Such as?

That tactile sensory units are produced by evolution?

 

[Davian]

That is your position, <snip>

Discussion is not all about shifting the burden of evidence to the other guy.

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?

 

[justlookinla]

Discussion is not all about shifting the burden of evidence to the other guy.

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?

Back to rocks instead of humans? So typical.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

Are you claiming I am not being cordial or open or meaningful in our discussion?

All I am asking for is supporting evidence? From a scientific point of view I see no evidence making the connection.

Do we recognize design when we see it? Do we need to know who designed it to know it is designed. Can we use inductive reasoning and do scientists use inductive reasoning in their research?

In our experience we can spot features or properties that we assign to design either by us or animals. We come across a pile of sticks with a random haphazard appearance we don't think that it is there due to design, but if we find a neat and orderly group of sticks set in some way that indicates a purpose for the way they are we can inductively deduce they are from design. The same holds true to design in nature. We have experience with designed things and recognize them.

I get the feeling that you think I am denying the existence of God. I am not.

I was just commenting that you were using a common argument used by atheists.

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 your opinion. Anything can be explainable if you don't have to provide evidence. So far there has been no evidence provided that the appearance of life forms being designed for a purpose to be an illusion.

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).

Good luck with your journey. It is an important one.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why do you think a link is evidence? And how are tactile sensory units produced?

I explain the ERV evidence over in this thread:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/lines-of-evidence-part-1-ervs.7867271/

I will expect to see your participation in that thread.