Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Oncedeceived]

And when this design can not be defined and or tested to determine if it exists in any reliable way, how in the world can one claim there is evidence to support it??????????????????

Please help me understand this!

As I have explained previously, in our experience there are certain properties that we recognize as design and those that lack those properties that are not designed. It is tested by way of known natural processes and whether or not there is evidence to support those processes produced it. There is no evidence to support natural processes produced it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Right. Special pleading. Rules don't apply to you. I remember.

No, you are simple comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Loudmouth]

Your desire to believe this is evident. If the appearance equated to appearance of bunnies in clouds, there would be not need to explain it.

There is no need to explain why you have subjective opinions about appearances. It isn't scientific evidence.

You only take this stance when the observation is not what you want to believe.

I take that stance when there is no methodology that produces the observation, no measurements, and no statistical analysis that could test the null hypothesis. This is the case with your subjective appearances of design.

The observation is design,

That's an opinion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Bzzzzzzzzz

No evidence has been presented.

The evidence which biologists have observed is life forms appear to be designed with a purpose.

 

[Loudmouth]

The claim is that the evidence of design . . .

You don't have evidence. Your subjective opinions are not scientific evidence.

 

[Davian]

The claim is that the evidence of design is not a product of design but a product of natural processes. Evidence-appears to be designed...explanation -->product of design or -->product of natural processes. There is no evidence which shows that this evidence is explained by natural processes.

What alternative process could be considered, scientifically?

 

[bhsmte]

You don't have evidence. Your subjective opinions are not scientific evidence.

She, really, really, really wants to believe she has evidence though, can't you tell?

 

[Davian]

The evidence which biologists have observed is life forms appear to be designed with a purpose.

You mean, some unnamed biologists may have an opinion that some things may appear designed. Is that all you have?

 

[Davian]

She, really, really, really wants to believe she has evidence though, can't you tell?

I can. I do wonder when, if ever, she will notice its absence.

 

[Davian]

What I am saying here is "biologists claim that the life forms on earth and the systems within them appear to be designed for a purpose." What we observe is evidence. Scientific observation is the central element of scientific method or process. The core skill of scientist is to make observation. Scientists/biologists OBSERVE that life forms appear to be designed for a purpose. I see this evidence and it confirms what the Bible predicts should be found in the life forms God created. I am capable of making comprehensive and cognitive analysis of said evidence due to being equipped with intelligence that comes from intelligence which is more cohesive and reasonable than claiming to have my intelligence a product of a non-intelligent, mindless process devoid of intelligence.

But the appearance is only opinion.

 

[bhsmte]

I can. I do wonder when, if ever, she will notice its absence.

When it is the least painful option to do so.

 

[Davian]

As I have explained previously, in our experience there are certain properties that we recognize as design and those that lack those properties that are not designed. It is tested by way of known natural processes and whether or not there is evidence to support those processes produced it. There is no evidence to support natural processes produced it.

What other kinds of processes can be considered, scientifically?

 

[justlookinla]

And what are they?

Whatever naturalistic processes created humanity from a single life form.

If natural processes can produce the elements of design, then they aren't elements of designer. That's what you can't seem to understand.

Show, using the scientific method, that naturalistic processes created bacterial flagellum and tactile sensory units. No might be's, could have been's and possibly's. Not interested in Darwinist guesses and suppositions.

River systems are complex, functional, and have purpose. They have all of the supposed elements of design, yet they are the product of natural processes. Your claims have been falsified.

You certainly wish to talk about evolution until the design present in humanity is presented. Then you do a switcheroo to water and rocks. Not gonna work.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have never seen these "criteria of design". What are they?

Biological systems exhibit the properties of sophisticated engineered systems that resemble methods developed by human engineers to accomplish complicated tasks. In biological systems we have those systems similar in human designs that include control signals that include information, detection and decision, signaling to induce a response from other systems all for a set goal. Planning is shown from mechanisms that are for correction and back-up systems that do not go into effect unless some event occurs which shows planning to address possible occurrences.

We see in human engineering of computational systems parts that executes actions in response to external inputs as well as internal stored information, in which timing and sequence are critical. Biological systems have clocks and an exquisite structure for synchronization of different processes, with triggers, delays, and several different clock cycles operating simultaneously.

Biological systems have similar mechanisms that reflect human designs in the machine. Rotors, structures that have similar mechanical design as those in human machines but much much more efficient and much faster too. We have gears and turning mechanisms that work in the same way as those humans design.

We see similar elements in biological systems that we find in computer design. We see levels of tasks and subtasks as in modularity and folder systems in computers. A cell has a community of molecular systems that show this type of system.

Here is a video that Scientific Animation created to show the powering of the cell: Mitochondria

 

[justlookinla]

What we observe is evidence. Scientific observation is the central element of scientific method or process. The core skill of scientist is to make observation. Scientists/biologists OBSERVE that life forms appear to be designed for a purpose.

Right, there is observation, very plain indicators of design. There is no question a motor is designed, unless one is into denial of the obvious.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What other kinds of processes can be considered, scientifically?

Intelligent Design finding those properties that are recognized as design in systems and life forms that can't be shown to be by evolution alone.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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.

You keep ignoring the possibility of evolution giving the results we see, instead of design. Why do you ignore the usual scientific reason for the patterns we see in living things?

 

[Oncedeceived]

She, really, really, really wants to believe she has evidence though, can't you tell?

Put your evidence where your psycho-babble is.

 

[justlookinla]

You keep ignoring the possibility of evolution giving the results we see, instead of design. Why do you ignore the usual scientific reason for the patterns we see in living things?

Do you have evidence, based on the scientific method, that bacterial flagellum and tactile sensory units are created by Darwinist evolution?

 

[Smidlee]

You keep ignoring the possibility of evolution giving the results we see, instead of design. Why do you ignore the usual scientific reason for the patterns we see in living things?

Why would I believe something magically evolve that appears to be designed by someone a millions time smarter than man? Even the fossil evidence support creation more than evolution.

If I assume the product of the human mind are intelligent design then why question the human mind, which is more complex than it's creations, is a even superior design?