Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So what are you going to do here Cadet, Richard Dawkins is considered by most on this forum a very reputable biologist and he made the claim that life appears designed for a purpose due to his experience in the field of biology. Do you believe he is lying, unaware or simply wrong?Okay. Please cite the primary peer-reviewed literature that establishes that life forms have been designed for a purpose, and establishes what that purpose is.
Right, you can't present something that doesn't exist.They not gonna do it.
What do you think Dawkins means when he says there is appearance of design?So what are you going to do here Cadet, Richard Dawkins is considered by most on this forum a very reputable biologist and he made the claim that life appears designed for a purpose due to his experience in the field of biology. Do you believe he is lying, unaware or simply wrong?
Confirmation bias works the same with everyone, why do you think it is only in those who "perceive" it as real as those having this confirmation bias?Confirmation bias.
No, what is the opinion of the observer?Confirmation bias.
1. The evidence is that life forms appear to have been designed for a purpose.That is confirmation bias with zero empirical evidence.
Do you know the cause of all natural causes?Quite the opposite. It is completely logical when all of that can be shown to be due to natural causes.
No, you are not saying that they cannot be designed. You are claiming that the evidence is being viewed with confirmation bias and that bias is on the side of actual design without any evidence for the opposing claim that it is an illusion. You are making a claim that the evidence that life forms appear designed is based on confirmation bias but you have not shown how that claim is true.No, I'm not saying they cannot be designed. I'm saying that there is no empirical evidence for a non-natural design mechanism, nothing more.
Why not?Absolutely, I agree. The trouble is we cannot physically connect them to an intelligent agent.
Design is the product of a designer.What is "Design predicts", and how can it be confirmed that it predicted something? Are you using "design" and "designer" interchangeably" as a single physical entity?
That is what we find in life forms. Science tested this and found it to be true.
You cannot observe that evolution produces the illusion of design. Science has not shown that this appearance of design is attributed to natural physical process. If you have that evidence that shows this appearance of design is an illusion present it.Science can show design and attribute it to natural physical process. It cannot attribute it to a designer it cannot observe.
“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}What do you think Dawkins means when he says there is appearance of design?
Do you think Dawkins believes in an "intelligent designer?"“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}
“We may say that a living body or organ is well designed if it has attributes that an intelligent and knowledgeable engineer might have built into it in order to achieve some sensible purpose… any engineer can recognize an object that has been designed, even poorly designed, for a purpose, and he can usually work out what that purpose is just by looking at the structure of the object.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21}
if anyone saw a machine on some other planet, he would know life had existed on that planet because machines are designed by intelligent beings. {p.2.}
Life is made up of molecular machines that are so efficient and so functionally designed that we humans can not even duplicate them.
Here? Most surely, in mainstream controlled territory, think not - start the forum and let me know. Just be sure we wont be allowing claims of Fermi's Interaction being valid at those energies when it's clearly in violation of parity and was abandoned for the electroweak theory. I'm quite sure the moderator's will agree. So basically we won't be discussing radiocarbon dating or anything leading to that process, since radiocarbon dating, as you insisted, had nothing to do with the electroweak theory, which is both beta decay and high energy interactions all wrapped up into one. So I am not sure what you plan to discuss besides a theory that would be out of scope of the OP anyways.I'll be happy to, care to do it in a formal debate that has a moderator?
"Radiometric dating has been carried out since 1905 when it was invented by Ernest Rutherford as a method by which one might determine the age of the Earth." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
(Note: I meant Fermi above, not Pauli. I didn't get much sleep last night.)
There is no evidence of life being designed with a purpose.There has been no evidence given to show that the evidence that life appears to be designed with purpose is only an illusion. If you have evidence of such present it.
Confirmation bias lacks physical evidence, or omittance of evidence that shows no confirmation.Confirmation bias works the same with everyone, why do you think it is only in those who "perceive" it as real as those having this confirmation bias?
Just an opinion unless it can be physically confirmed and verified. What you suggested did not include confirmation nor verification.No, what is the opinion of the observer?
Of course not. But by stating that, one cannot conclude that non-natural causes were invoked, unless non-natural causes can be observed, quantified, and confirmed.Do you know the cause of all natural causes?
For clarification and truth to support what I stated about Behe's testimony in bold. The rest is linked, for those who want to look at his entire testimony in the Dover trial.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A That is correct.
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.
Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?
A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html
Oh My Gosh....NO I do not believe, have any wild aspirations, nor any delusions that Dawkins believes in an Intelligent Designer.Do you think Dawkins believes in an "intelligent designer?"
I apologize, when going to look up the date on this quote I found it was made by Jacques Loeb in 1916. So it was not by Mendel but about Mendel. What do you mean by prior to this landmark discovery?
This sounds like the same thing that was said of Galileo.
He has not been prove downright wrong either. There are those who feel his view on the Bacterial Flagellum were incorrect, there is no way to show who is actually correct.
Biologists and in fact most of science in the recent past were as a majority unbelivers...
So what are you going to do here Cadet, Richard Dawkins is considered by most on this forum a very reputable biologist and he made the claim that life appears designed for a purpose due to his experience in the field of biology. Do you believe he is lying, unaware or simply wrong?
Here? Most surely, in mainstream controlled territory, think not - start the forum and let me know.
I did.Read the transcript again. You're wrong.
So yes or no?Here? Most surely, in mainstream controlled territory, think not - start the forum and let me know. Just be sure we wont be allowing claims of Fermi's Interaction being valid at those energies when it's clearly in violation of parity and was abandoned for the electroweak theory. I'm quite sure the moderator's will agree. So basically we won't be discussing radiocarbon dating or anything leading to that process, since radiocarbon dating, as you insisted, had nothing to do with the electroweak theory, which is both beta decay and high energy interactions all wrapped up into one. So I am not sure what you plan to discuss besides a theory that would be out of scope of the OP anyways.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?