Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Smidlee]

Where is the evidence that the appearance of design was created by an intelligent designer?

And this is why Dawkins has no choice but to claim the designs in nature he sees is an illusion in order to avoid addressing the designer.

 

[Loudmouth]

And this is why Dawkins has no choose but to claim the designs in nature he sees is an illusion in order to avoid address the designer.

Where is the evidence for an intelligent designer producing what we observe? If you don't have any evidence, then we can not conclude that a designer did it.

 

[bhsmte]

And this is why Dawkins has no choice but to claim the designs in nature he sees is an illusion in order to avoid addressing the designer.

Where is the evidence he asked for. Deferring to Dawkins won't help you with that.

 

[justlookinla]

The process was started by the DNA that your parents gave you. That DNA didn't come from a creator deity. It came from your parents.

You didn't describe how your parents created you from conception to birth.

Why not?

 

[Smidlee]

Where is the evidence for an intelligent designer producing what we observe? If you don't have any evidence, then we can not conclude that a designer did it.

Prove to me you can have designs (IC systems) without a designer.

 

[Loudmouth]

You didn't describe how your parents created you from conception to birth.

It starts with the combination of egg and sperm to create a diploid genome. With me so far?

 

[Loudmouth]

Prove to me you can have designs (IC systems) without a designer.

It is your burden of proof to supply the evidence for your claims. You claim that they are the product of design. It is YOUR JOB TO SUPPLY THE EVIDENCE. Stop shifting the burden of proof.

 

[Davian]

There is a field of science that studies design in nature to improve man-made design including improvement in computers by studying physical brains. Design in nature is not questioned and is part of nature which is part of the universe. There is no evidence that design in nature is an illusion any more than human designs are illusions.

This is why Dawkins is smart enough to know in order to be taken seriously he can't deny he "sees" design in nature but the only way around a designer is to claim he is seeing an illusion created by evolution to help pass on his genes.

If you see design in nature that you think requires an intelligence of some sort behind it, the burden is on you to demonstrate it. No one can prove a negative for you.

 

[bhsmte]

It is your burden of proof to supply the evidence for your claims. You claim that they are the product of design. It is YOUR JOB TO SUPPLY THE EVIDENCE. Stop shifting the burden of proof.

They learn well.

 

[Smidlee]

It is your burden of proof to supply the evidence for your claims. You claim that they are the product of design. It is YOUR JOB TO SUPPLY THE EVIDENCE. Stop shifting the burden of proof.

They are so much design found in nature that man can copy and learn from them to improve our designs. You don't get better evidence than that.

 

[justlookinla]

It starts with the combination of egg and sperm to create a diploid genome. With me so far?

Your parents created a diploid genome?

 

[Davian]

And this is why Dawkins has no choice but to claim the designs in nature he sees is an illusion in order to avoid addressing the designer.

What designer?

 

[Smidlee]

If you see design in nature that you think requires an intelligence of some sort behind it, the burden is on you to demonstrate it. No one can prove a negative for you.

Design in nature is not negative but a positive evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

It is your burden of proof to supply the evidence for your claims. You claim that they are the product of design. It is YOUR JOB TO SUPPLY THE EVIDENCE. Stop shifting the burden of proof.

There's no evidence for Dawkins claim of illusion.

 

[bhsmte]

Design in nature is not negative but a positive evidence.

You are outdoing yourself.

 

[Davian]

Design in nature is not negative but a positive evidence.

Let me try shorter sentences.

Does the appearance of design require a designer?

 

[Davian]

There's no evidence for Dawkins claim of illusion.

His statement has yet to be falsified. Do you science much?

 

[justlookinla]

[Science E="Davian, post: 68267346, member: 285427"]His statement has yet to be falsified. Do you science much?[/QUOTE]

Apparently Dawkins made an unscientific claim.

 

[Smidlee]

Let me try shorter sentences.

Does the appearance of design require a designer?

All known IC systems that is known to man requires a designer and we have no examples to prove otherwise. Design in nature doesn't just appear to be designed they are in fact designed so much so we can reverse engineer many of these designs. Man study of designs found in nature is helping to improving our computers.

 

[Davian]

It's not a negative, it's an unsubstantiated claim.

It is a negative. What you are asking for is as vacuous as the old "prove my god does not exist" rhetoric. Same stuff, shovelled into a new pile.