Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Smidlee]

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.

No we are asking you to prove designs in nature that man is using to improve our designs are illusions. Illusion is something by default that can be proven.

 

[Davian]

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

Apparently Dawkins made an unscientific claim.

That you are unable to falsify it does not mean is it is unfalsifiable. All you need to do is show him that this "designer" of yours actually exists.

 

[Davian]

All known IC <snip>

Let's keep to short sentences for now.

Does the appearance of design require a designer? Yes? No?

 

[Davian]

No we are asking you to prove designs in nature that man is using to improve our designs <snip>

That is a different set of goalposts. I don't know of anyone that disputes that we learn from observations of world around us and the critters in it.

 

[justlookinla]

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.

No, it's not a negative. Dawkins made the positive claim of illusion.

Now prove it, offer the evidence.

 

[Davian]

No, it's not a negative. Dawkins made the positive claim of illusion.

Now prove it, offer the evidence.

You don't science much, apparently.

 

[justlookinla]

You don't science much, apparently.

Is complete lack of evidence, science?

 

[Loudmouth]

Design in nature is not negative but a positive evidence.

It is an assertion. Where is the evidence that what you are observing was produced by a designer?

 

[Loudmouth]

All known IC systems that is known to man requires a designer and we have no examples to prove otherwise.

We are talking about the unknown ones. Where is your evidence that those were created by a designer?

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.

Why does something need to be designed by an intelligent designer in order to be reverse engineered?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Why do they need to be designed by an intelligence in order for us to learn from them?

 

[Davian]

Is complete lack of evidence, science?

Are we on to a new subject?

 

[justlookinla]

Are we on to a new subject?

Do you science much was your question.

 

[snoopy500]

MOD HAT ON

Thread has been permanently closed due too it is turning into a General Apologetics thread.
MOD HAT OFF​