Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[HitchSlap]

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.

Why do you ignore the fact that he thinks you're gullible for accepting a grand design? You're gullible because you continue to assert design, yet not piece of evidence, ergo, illusion of design, to which Dawkins states you're gullible for accepting it as so.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

The appearance of design is a subjective opinion, not an objective, empirical observation that is needed in science.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Your examples also lack all of the characteristics that life has, such as imperfect replication and a nested hierarchy.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

What subjective opinions would that be?

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.

And I asked you to provide the specific evidence that shows the appearance of design is an illusion and of course you won't because its not there. By providing this link you can pretend to have given me evidence when in fact you have done nothing but give evidence of the general evidence for evolution as a whole.

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.

If you claim that the appearance of design is an illusion it is up to you to support your claim with evidence that specifically addresses the claim of illusion.

 

[Loudmouth]

What subjective opinions would that be?

The appearance of design.

And I asked you to provide the specific evidence that shows the appearance of design is an illusion and of course you won't because its not there.

I agree that the appearance is there. The problem for you is that it is a subjective opinion, not objective evidence.

 

[HitchSlap]

And it's up to you, Once, to convince us as to why you're not gullible, as Dawkins thinks you are?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The appearance of design is a subjective opinion, not an objective, empirical observation that is needed in science.

The appearance of design is an empirical observation found from doing science. It has been claimed by a influential biologist who is considered to have great expertise in his field.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The appearance of design.



I agree that the appearance is there. The problem for you is that it is a subjective opinion, not objective evidence.

If the appearance is there and those in the biological sciences all concur it is there, how then is it subjective?

 

[Loudmouth]

Does this tree have the appearance of a nose and mouth? Is that evidence of design?

 

[Loudmouth]

If the appearance is there and those in the biological sciences all concur it is there, how then is it subjective?

For the same reason that the tree above this post has the appearance of a nose and mouth.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And it's up to you, Once, to convince us as to why you're not gullible, as Dawkins thinks you are?

Who is gullible here Hitch? Someone who understands the inner workings of systems that show apparent design which all who understand agree, or those who believe stories made up to explain that design as an illusion without any evidence to support that position. You and others to me seem to be the gullible ones. I am looking at the evidence, you are all swallowing stories to explain it without one bit of evidence that it is all an illusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Does this tree have the appearance of a nose and mouth? Is that evidence of design?

The question is would Richard Dawkins or Francis Crick be impressed that this has the appearance of design? I would think not.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You don't see the face in the cliff?

Is it designed?

I see a cliff and water.

 

[HitchSlap]

Who is gullible here Hitch? Someone who understands the inner workings of systems that show apparent design which all who understand agree, or those who believe stories made up to explain that design as an illusion without any evidence to support that position. You and others to me seem to be the gullible ones. I am looking at the evidence, you are all swallowing stories to explain it without one bit of evidence that it is all an illusion.

Go on then, show us why you're not gullible like Dawkins suggests you are for accepting the appearance of design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

We recognize design and that design invokes a designer. IF there is appearance of design and someone claims that design is not from a designer then it is their burden to show how that appearance is explained other than the normal design = designer.

 

[AV1611VET]

True designs require a designer, else it is a coincidence.

If I drop a tomato off a balcony and it hits the sidewalk and splatters GOD BLESS AMERICA -- that is design by coincidence.

If I write GOD BLESS AMERICA on the sidewalk underneath a balcony -- that is design by designer.

 

[AV1611VET]

We recognize design and that design invokes a designer. IF there is appearance of design and someone claims that design is not from a designer then it is their burden to show how that appearance is explained other than the normal design = designer.

You beat me to it!

 

[bhsmte]

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

Like a bullet proof vest, for faith beliefs.

 

[Davian]

Stac Levenish Island

I see a cliff and water.

Are you saying the appearance of a face on that cliff is only an illusion to those that see it?

 

[Loudmouth]

I see a cliff and water.

Denial hard at work.