Design...actual or not and why?

[HitchSlap]

The Death's Head Moth is another example that Dawkins' uses for how the brain is biased to see images of faces and design.

And the samurai crab.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am showing you the evidence.



I attribute the appearance of design to human bias. I attribute the features of living organisms to the mechanisms of evolution.

How has human bias been used in the video I provided?

Evolution then evolution explains nothing. Explain the video which Dawkins and Crick have admitted look designed, in evolutionary terms that explains that appearance.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The Death's Head Moth is another example that Dawkins' uses for how the brain is biased to see images of faces and design.

What face are we seeing in the video that I provided?

 

[Oncedeceived]

W

And the samurai crab.

What face are we seeing in the video I provided? What face are we seeing in the measurements of the parameters of the universe?

 

[Loudmouth]

How has human bias been used in the video I provided?

How was it eliminated? What is the objective measure that you are using to measure design?

Evolution then evolution explains nothing.

Mechanisms of evolution does explain biodiversity. Please address what I actually write instead of rewriting my words.

Explain the video which Dawkins and Crick have admitted look designed, in evolutionary terms that explains that appearance.

Human bias is all you need to explain why people see things that aren't there.

 

[Loudmouth]

What face are we seeing in the video that I provided?

The human bias that causes you to see a face on the crab and moth is the same human bias that makes you see design in the video.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

You claimed:

Our brains intuitively connect dots that might not be there. We make A + B = C in our minds at times but it may not be that way. So when we first saw things like snowflakes up close they clearly look designed. Because look at the symmetry and complexity right? But that's just not how it is. But when we see things that look designed, our brains at first (before science) concluded they were designed. Emphasis mine.

So in the video how are we intuitively connecting the dots that "might" not be there?

Okay. I see you've literally committed exactly what I just said. I didn't. So don't say we. You think that because the cell works in such a tight system it must be designed. And I told you it looks that way and yet it isn't.

So yea you're connecting dots that aren't there. I just saw a video on the cell and how it works.

Here lemme ask you what's designed (bold your answers):

Tree? Yes/No
Cat? Yes/No
Snowflake? Yes/No
Amethyst? Yes/No
Water? Yes/No
Igneous Rock? Yes/No
Island? Yes/No
Forrest? Yes/No
Soil? Yes/No
Worm? Yes/No
Fungi? Yes/No
Bacteria? Yes/No
Wedding Ring? Yes/No
Appendix? Yes/No
Africa? Yes/No
California? Yes/No
Wolf? Yes/No
Prokaryotic Organisms? Yes/No
Argon? Yes/No
Photon? Yes/No
Hail? Yes/No
Car? Yes/No
Table? Yes/No
Swamp? Yes/No
A Penny? Yes/No
Watershed? Yes/No
Body Fat? Yes/No
Jupiter? Yes/No
Acid Rain? Yes/No
Fingernail? Yes/No
Europa? Yes/No

 

[Oncedeceived]

I attribute the appearance of design to evolutionary processes, including the evolution of the mammalian brain to recognize patterns and develop creation myths to answer questions that would take thousands of years or more to discover.

You would then say that evolution provides false rational thought?

 

[Loudmouth]

You would then say that evolution provides false rational thought?

And here we go with the red herrings.

 

[HitchSlap]

W

What face are we seeing in the video I provided? What face are we seeing in the measurements of the parameters of the universe?

I didn't watch your video.
Don't take offense though, I make it a personal rule to not watch cdesign proponentsist's videos.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Okay. I see you've literally committed exactly what I just said. I didn't. So don't say we. You think that because the cell works in such a tight system it must be designed. And I told you it looks that way and yet it isn't.

So what evidence do you cite that provides confirmation that it isn't actually designed?

So yea you're connecting dots that aren't there. I just saw a video on the cell and how it works.

Are the workings of the cell not connected?

Here lemme ask you what's designed (bold your answers):

Tree? Yes/No
Cat? Yes/No
Snowflake? Yes/No
Amethyst? Yes/No
Water? Yes/No
Igneous Rock? Yes/No
Island? Yes/No
Forrest? Yes/No
Soil? Yes/No
Worm? Yes/No
Fungi? Yes/No
Bacteria? Yes/No
Wedding Ring? Yes/No
Appendix? Yes/No
Africa? Yes/No
California? Yes/No
Wolf? Yes/No
Prokaryotic Organisms? Yes/No
Argon? Yes/No
Photon? Yes/No
Hail? Yes/No
Car? Yes/No
Table? Yes/No
Swamp? Yes/No
A Penny? Yes/No
Watershed? Yes/No
Body Fat? Yes/No
Jupiter? Yes/No
Acid Rain? Yes/No
Fingernail? Yes/No
Europa? Yes/No

This isn't about my position, it is about yours.

 

[HitchSlap]

You would then say that evolution provides false rational thought?

The evolution of the mammalian brain, yes. It's tough to guard against, and seems to be quite prevalent among the most adherent of religious faiths.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

So what evidence do you cite that provides confirmation that it isn't actually designed?

A fifth grade textbook on cells would do.

Are the workings of the cell not connected?

I'm not sure how you're getting that answer. It makes no sense.

This isn't about my position, it is about yours.

Yours is the one that's faulty. So examine the list and answer.. I will continue to answer your inquiries as you do so.

 

[Loudmouth]

So what evidence do you cite that provides confirmation that it isn't actually designed?

Cosmic teapots, dear. It is up to you to show that it is designed using an objective measure of design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And here we go with the red herrings.

Hitch claims that we are a product of evolution, traits that we carry are from our evolutionary past and that that past has given us the ability to create myths which he feels are false. Which means that due to our evolutionary past we should expect and do see a mind that can't be reliable in making truth statements or recognizing the difference between true beliefs and false.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hitch claims that we are a product of evolution, traits that we carry are from our evolutionary past and that that past has given us the ability to create myths which he feels are false. Which means that due to our evolutionary past we should expect and do see a mind that can't be reliable in making truth statements or recognizing the difference between true beliefs and false.

It is a red herring.

 

[HitchSlap]

Hitch claims that we are a product of evolution, traits that we carry are from our evolutionary past and that that past has given us the ability to create myths which he feels are false. Which means that due to our evolutionary past we should expect and do see a mind that can't be reliable in making truth statements or recognizing the difference between true beliefs and false.

I didn't say this. Please retract.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I didn't watch our video.
Don't take offense though, I make it a personal rule to not watch cdesign proponentsist's videos.

This is a prime example of confirmation bias, you dismiss something out of hand due to your own blind biases. The video has nothing to do with cdesign proponentsists. This is a teaching video and has no ties to any religious organizations.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I didn't say this. Please retract.

How have I misrepresented your words?

 

[The Cadet]

I am addressing your position of biology and how you feel the appearance of design is explained. What evidence provides confirmation for your position that the design we see in the universe and life forms is only an illusion?

It's the null hypothesis. I'm not interested in shifting the burden of proof. The claim that design is present has not supported its burden of proof and must therefore be rejected.

Category error. You put up a simple pattern recognition sample against complex and mechanical workings of the universe and biological life forms. It is hand waving. Address the actual issue.

But you're the one holding up intuition as though it was some way of knowing what's true. It isn't.