Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, I deny design. If you accept the illusion of design as actual design, then it's incumbent upon you to show us why we shouldn't think of you as gullible. So far, nothing.

Again, Dawkins claims the design present in life forms is an illusion. It is incumbent upon YOU to show us why that design that is apparent is only an illusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So no evidence or?

The evidence is the design seen in organisms.

 

[crjmurray]

The evidence is the design seen in organisms.

What design?

 

[Oncedeceived]

What design?

Hey, if you disagree that organisms do not appear to be designed for a purpose, then you are not making any claims so you are not required to show evidence. The burden is on those that see it and claim it is an illusion.

 

[crjmurray]

Hey, if you disagree that organisms do not appear to be designed for a purpose, then you are not making any claims so you are not required to show evidence. The burden is on those that see it and claim it is an illusion.

You claim that design exists correct? I mean, you just did. So.....evidence now.

 

[HitchSlap]

Again, Dawkins claims the design present in life forms is an illusion. It is incumbent upon YOU to show us why that design that is apparent is only an illusion.

Nope, it's incumbent upon Dawkins. You're talking to me, and I deny design. If there's is a designer, he's blind. If, as Dawkins says, you accept the illusion of design as actual evidence for a designer, then you're gullible.

If you are ok with the fact that we think you're gullible for accepting as evidence something that is illusory, then, by all means, continue to not offer evidence to support your assertion for a designer. One that's not blind, at least.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You claim that design exists correct? I mean, you just did. So.....evidence now.

Oh how you would love to shift that burden and take it from you. No chance. Dawkins claims that the evidence of design is an illusion. It is incumbent on those making that claim to provide the evidence that it is an illusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nope, it's incumbent upon Dawkins. You're talking to me, and I deny design. If there's is a designer, he's blind. If, as Dawkins says, you accept the illusion of design as actual evidence for a designer, then you're gullible.

If you are ok with the fact that we think you're gullible for accepting as evidence something that is illusory, then, by all means, continue to not offer evidence to support your assertion for a designer. One that's not blind, at least.

No one has provided any evidence whatsoever to show the design seen in organisms is an illusion. IF there is no design, how would I be gullible? What would I be gullible about?

 

[crjmurray]

Oh how you would love to shift that burden and take it from you. No chance. Dawkins claims that the evidence of design is an illusion. It is incumbent on those making that claim to provide the evidence that it is an illusion.

No one is shifting anything. You are the only person here making any claim about design. So back up your claim.

 

[USincognito]

Rivers are not governed by function nor purpose so I don't know where you get that idea.

The function and purpose of rivers is to drain river valleys so they are not inundated over time.

 

[HitchSlap]

No one has provided any evidence whatsoever to show the design seen in organisms is an illusion. IF there is no design, how would I be gullible? What would I be gullible about?

Your watchmaker is blind. I thought you read the book?

Design is illusory and you are gullible.

 

[USincognito]

How can natural selection select between color variations since that would not impact someone ability to reproduce?

Loudmouth was referring to variations in the ability to detect color, not variations in eye color.

 

[USincognito]

The design is the evidence. It is up to anyone who claims this evidence is incorrect, inaccurate or an illusion to provide evidence to support it.

Actually the part in bold is the claim and it's up to you to support it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No one is shifting anything. You are the only person here making any claim about design. So back up your claim.

That is totally false. Dawkins, Crick and others make the claim.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Actually the part in bold is the claim and it's up to you to support it.

No, that is the evidence. Do you deny that organisms and their systems appear to be designed for a purpose?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your watchmaker is blind. I thought you read the book?

Design is illusory and you are gullible.

I thought you didn't agree with Dawkins. Do you know your own position?

 

[HitchSlap]

That is totally false. Dawkins, Crick and others make the claim.

Then have a discussion with Dawkins, Crick, et. al.

I've already shown you how you've quoted mined Dawkins. He claims design is an illusion, if there's a watchmaker, he's blind, and you're gullible for accepting the illusion of design.

Your little ruse of quote mining and shifting the burden of proof while taking a presuppositionalist stand is of epic proportions.

Until you provide some evidence to support design, then gullible.

 

[crjmurray]

That is totally false. Dawkins, Crick and others make the claim.

Dawkins and Crick aren't here. You are. And you have claimed that design exists. You have provided no evidence. Do so. This is not complicated.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The function and purpose of rivers is to drain river valleys so they are not inundated over time.

Hmm. Are you equating this:

To this?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then have a discussion with Dawkins, Crick, et. al.

I've already shown you how you've quoted mined Dawkins. He claims design is an illusion, if there's a watchmaker, he's blind, and you're gullible for accepting the illusion of design.

Your little ruse of quote mining and shifting the burden of proof while taking a presuppositionalist stand is of epic proportions.

Until you provide some evidence to support design, then gullible.

You are just shifting the burden and ignoring the quote that claims design. You are the one quote mining. Typical.