Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Smidlee]

We just don't care.

Well it does explain a lot.

 

[bhsmte]

Well it does explain a lot.

It does, you can't show it was an illusion and or delusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You wouldn't believe how real. Trust me, my experience was real.

I find it rather informative that the only input from you is either making general hobby psycho-babble, mocking, or cheer leading for materialists. You are consistent.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well it does explain a lot.

like?

 

[Smidlee]

It does, you can't show it was an illusion and or delusion.

I didn't witness it but I do agree man is "wired" to know there is life in the heavens.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Again an illusion is something we are conscious of because of strong evidence of one of our senses is being fooled. Dawkins only bases of believing design in living systems are an illusion is his faith in evolution. He assumes his brain is a product of evolution and not intelligent design so is not able to know "truth". He agrees his sense detects design but his senses in lying to him. He agree he is more complex than a computer or even his book which he agrees is intelligent design. This is against sound reasoning since if his mind is greater than his book which is intelligent design then logic concludes that his mind is greater than ID of his book. Thus evolution becomes Dawkin's idol as it greater than his creations yet evolution itself is man's creation.

No one can prove the universe is not an illusion. By default we don't assume our senses are lying to us (illusion) unless there's good evidence to prove otherwise. If someone want to believe something is an illusion it's impossible to prove to that person it's not.

Exactly, there is no evidence that contradicts design, it is only due to his anti-design biases that he puts forth the illusion argument. We inductively know that what we are seeing is design, data confirms it and illusion fails unless someone can give evidence that proves illusion rather than actual design.

 

[bhsmte]

I didn't witness it but I do agree man is "wired" to know there is life in the heavens.

Did I miss something? When did I mention life in heaven? Or did you imagine that?

 

[Oncedeceived]

It does, you can't show it was an illusion and or delusion.

Actually, you can't show it was illusion/delusion which is the problem when you have a materialistic worldview that says evolution explains it but doesn't provide any evidence to show it is an illusion.

 

[Smidlee]

Did I miss something? When did I mention life in heaven? Or did you imagine that?

LOL
" Does anyone have support to refute I was abducted by aliens last night?"

 

[Oncedeceived]

It is a yes or no question. Yes: you can show that it is actual, intended design, or no, it remains an illusion, your protestations notwithstanding.

Can you show that it is actual, intended design? Yes or no?

Again, and I know that you would like to ignore the fact that the claim lies with Dawkins, but design is the evidence and anyone (Dawkins specifically) must show why that evidence is as it is but that it is an illusion.

 

[bhsmte]

LOL
" Does anyone have support to refute I was abducted by aliens last night?"

And, this has what to do with life in the heavens? What is a heaven?

 

[Oncedeceived]

What design? Where? If I do not fall for this illusion, is the appearance of design not there?

You can take the road of denial but design in nature is apparent to materialist and theist alike.

Yours is a god-of-the-gaps type of god? If science can't explain it, goddidit.

Why do you not just say so?

Say you have no evidence then or concede. Saying you don't know is fine but don't continue to claim that the design in nature that all agree upon is an illusion if you can't show it is.

 

[Smidlee]

And, this has what to do with life in the heavens? What is a heaven?

You slipped up. You thought someone going to debate you over intelligent life in the heavens.

 

[whois]

i can't support the designer bit in regards to abiogenesis, but i can say the theory of the RNA world has failed.

OTOH when you look at DNA and it's transcription system you can't help but see design.

an enigmatic mystery for sure.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Still no support for the illusion position, is there?

No, just shifting the burden and denial.

 

[bhsmte]

You slipped up. You thought someone going to debate you over intelligent life in the heavens.

What is a heaven? Did I say these aliens were from a heaven?

 

[Davian]

Again,

Can you show that it is actual, intended design? Yes or no?

 

[Davian]

You can take the road of denial but design in nature is apparent to materialist and theist alike.

Is that an accusation of lying? Can you read minds?

Say you have no evidence then or concede.

My position needs no evidence. My position is that you cannot show actual, intended design.

Your next post without evidence of actual, intended design, will be accepted as abdication.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Can you show that it is actual, intended design? Yes or no?

It is your/his burden Davian. HIS BURDEN for HIS POSITIVE CLAIM. He must provide evidence that show the design is an illusion. The design is there, everyone admits it is there and it is up to him to show it is an illusion if you all want people to believe that it is an illusion. This isn't rocket science.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Is that an accusation of lying? Can you read minds?

Lying? What in the world are you saying?

My position needs no evidence. My position is that you cannot show actual, intended design.

I know you think you never have a burden of proof for your position. That isn't the way it should be even if you all think it is.

Your next post without evidence of actual, intended design, will be accepted as abdication.[/QUOTE]