Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Oncedeceived]

I can only speak for myself, but I'm familiar with the mountains of evidence, which is why I accept ToE.

Yet, you can not give one piece of evidence that the appearance of design in living forms is an illusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Need to purchase any tank tops?

[/QUOTE]

 

[HitchSlap]

Yet, you can not give one piece of evidence that the appearance of design in living forms is an illusion.

Right, I have zero proof to support your opinion that there is appearance of design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you deny the appearance of the face on that cliff?

Do you have something other than subjective appearances?

What face? I see a cliff.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Right, I have zero proof to support your opinion that there is appearance of design.

So you feel Dawkins, Crick and others also have zero proof to support their claim that living forms have the appearance of design?

 

[Loudmouth]

You don't see the face in the cliff?

Is it designed?

 

[Loudmouth]

What face? I see a cliff.

And there is the denial?

 

[Oncedeceived]

29+ evidences of evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Nothing in your bible that provides evidence for the appearance of design being an illusion.

 

[HitchSlap]

So you feel Dawkins, Crick and others also have zero proof to support their claim that living forms have the appearance of design?

I feel that you are blatantly misrepresenting what Dawkins meant when he said that - which I've already pointed out to you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nothing in your bible that provides evidence for the appearance of design being an illusion.

It's not a bible. Why do you try to discredit scientific findings by making them look like your religious beliefs? You are revealing more than you would like.

You didn't deal with any of the pieces of evidence on that list.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because to verify that it was indeed designed by an entity you need to show a connection. You are not showing a connection to a designer.

Design connects the designer. If something is designed there is a designer.

We don't have to know the designer to see this is designed. We connect the design to a designer we don't assume that the shelving just fell into place. We recognize design from a random set of visuals.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I feel that you are blatantly misrepresenting what Dawkins meant when he said that - which I've already pointed out to you.

He has repeatedly voiced that opinion. I am not misrepresenting him in anyway.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's not a bible. Why do you try to discredit scientific findings by making them look like your religious beliefs? You are revealing more than you would like.

You didn't deal with any of the pieces of evidence on that list.

Present your specific evidence for the appearance of design being an illusion, or present Dawkins evidence but don't put up a link that is evidence of evolution because that is a cop out and isn't the issue in the first place.

IF it isn't a bible why can't you present evidence without posting that link repeatedly when asked to provide evidence for a particular feature or system?

 

[HitchSlap]

He has repeatedly voiced that opinion. I am not misrepresenting him in anyway.

He also says that you are impressed by design. Why did he say that, do you think?

 

[Davian]

Why do that, when it is simpler to shift the burden?

It would appear that she has nothing else but to try and shift the burden.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why do that, when it is simpler to shift the burden?

Just because you think that materialists have no burden of proof, they do. You need to understand the nuances of the process of discussion. Your side of the issue does not get a free ride.

 

[Loudmouth]

Present your specific evidence for the appearance of design being an illusion, or present Dawkins evidence but don't put up a link that is evidence of evolution because that is a cop out and isn't the issue in the first place.

I don't have to deal with your subjective opinions since they are not relevant to the scientific question.

You asked for evidence. I gave you a link to the evidence that we have presented to you several times now. As usual, you are in denial.

IF it isn't a bible why can't you present evidence without posting that link repeatedly when asked to provide evidence for a particular feature or system?

I am presenting the evidence that we do have. I wasn't aware that we had to have omniscience in order to evidence a scientific theory.

 

[Oncedeceived]

He also says that you are impressed by design. Why did he say that, do you think?

And why do you continue to ignore the fact that I have presented his view of that appearance of design he has said exists. He wants you to believe that it is an illusion and he tells you stories of how that is an illusion but there is no...no evidence given that it is an illusion.

 

[HitchSlap]

Just because you think that materialists have no burden of proof, they do. You need to understand the nuances of the process of discussion. Your side of the issue does not get a free ride.

Once claims: Appearance of design = Designer!
Once fails: No evidence of design/Designer

 

[Loudmouth]

Just because you think that materialists have no burden of proof, they do.

And Oncedeceived immediately shifts the burden of proof once again.