Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[HitchSlap]

Evasion.

I have no evidence for design.

 

[justlookinla]

I have no evidence for design.

Do you have evidence for illusion of design?

 

[HitchSlap]

Amazing that he uses the terms 'architecture', 'engineering' and 'machine' in his denial of design.

Amazing you accept an illusion as reality.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Amazing you accept an illusion as reality.

Illusion of what?

 

[HitchSlap]

Explain how I have quote mined.

Re read my previous posts.

 

[HitchSlap]

Illusion of what?

Reality.

 

[justlookinla]

Amazing you accept an illusion as reality.

Do I?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Re read my previous posts.

Just explain how I have quote mined. I have shown what Dawkins says about design, that it appears in living forms and that he considers it an illusion. How have I misrepresented him in anyway?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Reality.

Illusion of what?

 

[USincognito]

No, that is the evidence.

Which is your claim. One that you have yet to support.

Do you deny that organisms and their systems appear to be designed for a purpose?

I do not perceive organisms and their systems to appear to be designed for a purpose.

 

[USincognito]

Hmm. Are you equating this:

To this?

No. I'm stating exactly what I said I wish people would address exactly what I say instead of trying to add to what I say and then address what is a straw man. The assertion was that rivers have no purpose. I provided a purpose for rivers. If you want to argue with that, fell free to do so.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Which is your claim. One that you have yet to support.

I have no claim in this thread. The claim of an appearance of design is made by Dawkins.

I do not perceive organisms and their systems to appear to be designed for a purpose.

You do not hold the same position that biologists and other scientists hold then.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No. I'm stating exactly what I said I wish people would address exactly what I say instead of trying to add to what I say and then address what is a straw man. The assertion was that rivers have no purpose. I provided a purpose for rivers. If you want to argue with that, fell free to do so.

I wish that you would address what I actually said rather than putting words into my mouth. I never asserted that rivers have no purpose.

 

[justlookinla]

I wish that you would address what I actually said rather than putting words into my mouth. I never asserted that rivers have no purpose.

They certainly try to turn to rivers and rocks instead of discussing creation and evolution.

 

[Oncedeceived]

They certainly try to turn to rivers and rocks instead of discussing creation and evolution.

Indeed. They like simple. They like deflection. They like control.

 

[HitchSlap]

Indeed. They like simple. They like deflection. They like control.

They like evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

They like evidence.

But can't provide it.

 

[HitchSlap]

But can't provide it.

Yep. We keep asking and nada.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yep. We keep asking and nada.

Shifting the burden usually has that consequence.

 

[HitchSlap]

Do I?

Among other illusions, yes.