Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[HitchSlap]

Shifting the burden usually has that consequence.

When you figure out how to prove a negative, let me know.

 

[Oncedeceived]

When you figure out how to prove a negative, let me know.

That is not my problem. Dawkins wrote the book to explain how life that appears to be designed with a purpose due to illusion. You read the book. I don't see you providing that evidence that makes those who see it gullible for thinking it is actual.

 

[USincognito]

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

As has been suggested, perhaps he needs to come here and argue for or against design then.

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

Yes.

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.

I never said you asserted rivers have no purpose. I merely noted that if you wished to defend Smidlee's position or attack mine, you were free to do so.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As has been suggested, perhaps he needs to come here and argue for or against design then.

Or those who hold the same belief can provide it.

Yes.

Ok.

I never said you asserted rivers have no purpose. I merely noted that if you wished to defend Smidlee's position or attack mine, you were free to do so.

Did I need your permission?

 

[bhsmte]

When someone outright lies, I feel like we may have went too far.

When you figure out how to prove a negative, let me know.

The ultimate get out of jail free card:

Prove my non falsifiable claim, false.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The ultimate get out of jail free card:

Prove my non falsifiable claim, false.

So you believe the claim that Dawkins made is an unfalsifiable claim?

 

[bhsmte]

If anyone claims "intelligent design" in humans in this thread, please stand up.

After you stand, please provide a definition of this design and a reliable and falsifiable test to determine it's presence.

Thank you kindly.

 

[HitchSlap]

That is not my problem. Dawkins wrote the book to explain how life that appears to be designed with a purpose due to illusion. You read the book. I don't see you providing that evidence that makes those who see it gullible for thinking it is actual.

Not my problem either.

 

[Atheos canadensis]

Have you all lost your minds? This thread is f****** awful. You've all been making slight variations on the exact same post for days! Fortunately the mods will soon put it out of its misery, judging by how worthlessly ad hom the posts are becoming.

 

[crjmurray]

Have you all lost your minds?

Yes

 

[HitchSlap]

Have you all lost your minds? This thread is f****** awful. You've all been making slight variations on the exact same post for days! Fortunately the mods will soon put it out of its misery, judging by how worthlessly ad hom the posts are becoming.

Thanks for the cold water dowsing!
I'm outa' here.

 

[bhsmte]

Have you all lost your minds? This thread is f****** awful. You've all been making slight variations on the exact same post for days! Fortunately the mods will soon put it out of its misery, judging by how worthlessly ad hom the posts are becoming.

In a way yes, just in different ways.

 

[whois]

what happened to crisbot?
by the post count, this thread should have been split twice already.

 

[Davian]

It is

It is a yes or no question.

The design is there, everyone admits it is there

I don't see this "design" that you see. Perhaps it is only an illusion.

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

 

[Davian]

Lying? What in the world are you saying?

I do not see this alleged "design" you speak of. In post #2212 you accused me of denial - that I am lying about it. Can you read minds?

I know you think

Lay off trying to tell me how I think.

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

...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.

Abdication accepted.

 

[whois]

How are the gradualists using an argument from ignorance?

by continually ignoring current research, and by ignoring that which is already known.
niles eldridge was on record almost 30 years ago stating that we have little to no transitional fossils.
yes, yes, i know, he was on drugs, right?

In which science journal did they say that if life did not evolve gradually that this would imply a supernatural creator?

"gradualists are in the same boat, they just can't let go of their views, probably because it might imply a god."--whois

i bet you could build the world trade center from straw, couldn't you.

You have consistently proven that you don't understand their reasoning or their conclusions.

and you have consistently failed to show how their conclusions and reasoning is wrong.

"The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns (e.g., 27])."--Eugene Koonin

you know full well that i have presented 2 links that prove HGT in animals are more frequent than thought.

No, it doesn't. Punctuated Equilibria is entirely Darwinian. Stasis is completely in keeping with Darwinian evolution.

stasis punctuated with major changes DOES NOT comport with the darwinian concept of slow gradual change.
furthermore, "mutated" genes are not responsible for these changes.
maynard smith drives that home in the paper he co-authored.

 

[Davian]

Exactly. They made the claim, where's the evidence?

There is none.....it's an empty claim.

It is well supported by individuals such as yourself. You can't show that is it more than an illusion, can you?

 

[Smidlee]

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

What make you think otherwise especially since I mention those who are color blind?

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

Just like Loudmouth you are confusing "function" with a "result". A river is just the result of water running down hill.

It is well supported by individuals such as yourself. You can't show that is it more than an illusion, can you?

By default people doesn't assume the universe and things we witness in the universe is an illusion unless proven otherwise. Most illusions are even created by man which means they are designed. All illusion can be shown to be just that an illusion. Ex: A magician can easily prove his trick was an illusion by revealing how he did it.

If you want to believe the universe or anything in the universe is an illusion it's impossible to prove to you otherwise. This is hyperskepticism.

 

[Loudmouth]

How ironic. You have not provided one piece of evidence..zero to show that the design we see in life forms is incorrect, inaccurate or an illusion.

Shifting the burden of proof. I don't have to disprove that which you can't evidence. Cosmic teapots, Oncedeceived.

 

[Loudmouth]

How many times are you going to shift the burden of proof?