Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Oncedeceived]

Lol, thanks ID for making real science better.
Your motto could be: ID - Making science better one claim at a time!

The really humorous element in science right now is that areas of study are supplying more and more evidence of design. Science is science and we always want it to follow the evidence.

 

[crjmurray]

The really humorous element in science right now is that areas of study are supplying more and more evidence of design. Science is science and we always want it to follow the evidence.

And yet no one can provide evidence for design. Or a criteria for determining said design. That doesn't sound very scientific.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And yet no one can provide evidence for design. Or a criteria for determining said design. That doesn't sound very scientific.

As much as you would like to forget it, the evidence is that life forms and the systems within them are designed for a purpose. This evidence is throughout all of nature and recognizable as design.

 

[crjmurray]

As much as you would like to forget it, the evidence is that life forms and the systems within them are designed for a purpose. This evidence is throughout all of nature and recognizable as design.

You keep saying that..... but no evidence is presented. Nor have you presented HOW you determined that design exists. So...ya know, do that. And the conversation will move forward.

 

[bhsmte]

And yet no one can provide evidence for design. Or a criteria for determining said design. That doesn't sound very scientific.

Yes, they just know it is designed, but yet, can't define design or test whether this design is present, in any reliable falsifiable way.

Yet, they are ok with that. Good thing real science doesn't work that way.

 

[bhsmte]

You keep saying that..... but no evidence is presented. Nor have you presented HOW you determined that design exists. So...ya know, do that. And the conversation will move forward.

If the evidence is there in the life forms, why can't they define it and or test for it???

Much better to shift the burden and say; prove this appearance is an illusion. So, someone asks someone else to disprove something they; can not define and can not test for, themselves.

You gotta love this stuff.

 

[Smidlee]

ID is not rocket science, you only need the appearance of something to be true in your own mind. No definition is necessary and no reliable test, it is just there.

It ain't science either.

Rocket science is ID. We automatically assume the appearance of something to be true unless there is evidence to prove otherwise. You can't even do science without making this assumption. The universe we know exists in our own mind.

 

[Smidlee]

And yet no one can provide evidence for design. Or a criteria for determining said design. That doesn't sound very scientific.

Your eyes you are using to read this post is evidence of design.

 

[bhsmte]

Rocket science is ID. We automatically assume the appearance of something to be true unless there is evidence to prove otherwise. You can't even do science without making this assumption. The universe we know exists in our own mind.

Well, you keep right on assuming, if it suits you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You keep saying that..... but no evidence is presented. Nor have you presented HOW you determined that design exists. So...ya know, do that. And the conversation will move forward.

The design with a purpose is the evidence. Why don't you get that? Evidence is the overwhelming feature of design with a purpose in all living things and the universe too. That evidence has to be explained, even Dawkins understands that. He knows that the evidence must be explained and explained by natural processes and so he creates a story to explain it. You believe it, so much in fact that you have forgotten the reason he needed an explanation in the first place.

 

[bhsmte]

Your eyes you are using to read this post is evidence of design.

Prove it, but first start with this;

What is the definition of design?

How do you test for design, to determine if it is present, that is falsifiable?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Rocket science is ID. We automatically assume the appearance of something to be true unless there is evidence to prove otherwise. You can't even do science without making this assumption. The universe we know exists in our own mind.

Bingo! You can't even do science without working within that assumption.

 

[Smidlee]

Prove it, but first start with this;

What is the definition of design?

How do you test for design, to determine if it is present, that is falsifiable?

This system is more complex than any man-made IC systems.

 

[bhsmte]

This system is more complex than any man-made IC systems.

Who is this guy, what are his credentials?

You realize I can post videos that refute this, correct?

 

[crjmurray]

The design with a purpose is the evidence. Why don't you get that?

Because it's not true. The ability of a trait to perform a function or serve a purpose does not mean design. It may look designed to you but that does not make it so. Organisms do not look designed to me because I am not aware of any evidence of design. Just the assertion that "this appears designed to me, therefore it was designed". This is why I am asking for actual evidence and a criteria for determining that evidence. I created an entire thread on it.

Evidence is the overwhelming feature of design with a purpose in all living things and the universe too. That evidence has to be explained, even Dawkins understands that. He knows that the evidence must be explained and explained by natural processes and so he creates a story to explain it. You believe it, so much in fact that you have forgotten the reason he needed an explanation in the first place.

I don't care what Dawkins has to say. I'm asking for evidence of design.

 

[HitchSlap]

I thought you read Dawkins book? He talks about how bad the design is... You know, the designer is blind...

The design with a purpose is the evidence. Why don't you get that? Evidence is the overwhelming feature of design with a purpose in all living things and the universe too. That evidence has to be explained, even Dawkins understands that. He knows that the evidence must be explained and explained by natural processes and so he creates a story to explain it. You believe it, so much in fact that you have forgotten the reason he needed an explanation in the first place.

 

[bhsmte]

Because it's not true. The ability of a trait to perform a function or serve a purpose does not mean design. It may look designed to you but that does not make it so. Organisms do not look designed to me because I am not aware of any evidence of design. Just the assertion that "this appears designed to me, therefore it was designed". This is why I am asking for actual evidence and a criteria for determining that evidence. I created an entire thread on it.



I don't care what Dawkins has to say. I'm asking for evidence of design.

Well, the poster seems to care very much about portions of what Dawkins has to say, but then chooses to ignore other things he says.

It tend to think this was designed, with a purpose.

 

[Loudmouth]

As much as you would like to forget it, the evidence is that life forms and the systems within them are designed for a purpose.

That is an assertion, not evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

This system is more complex than any man-made IC systems.

How is this evidence for design? Why can't natural processes produce complex IC systems that humans have difficulty reproducing?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because it's not true. The ability of a trait to perform a function or serve a purpose does not mean design. It may look designed to you but that does not make it so. Organisms do not look designed to me because I am not aware of any evidence of design. Just the assertion that "this appears designed to me, therefore it was designed". This is why I am asking for actual evidence and a criteria for determining that evidence. I created an entire thread on it.

So you deny that there is no appearance of design in molecular systems, the cell, no appearance in life anywhere?

I don't care what Dawkins has to say. I'm asking for evidence of design.

Whoops, missed this. So you don't care what Dawkins says. Fine, who's work do you feel is more influential in your estimation?