Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Loudmouth]

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

I already asked the question. Please answer it.

Does that tree have the appearance of a nose and mouth?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

What??

 

[Oncedeceived]

Denial hard at work.

Shall I post another irony meter.

 

[bhsmte]

Denial hard at work.

The hole is dug, no getting out now.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I already asked the question. Please answer it.

Does that tree have the appearance of a nose and mouth?

Yep, which has no relationship to what we are discussing and if you think so then you must admit that those you believe should be in the know and who should know the difference between a tree having something that looks like a mouth and nose and the complexity of function and form of the systems in question.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yep, which has no relationship to what we are discussing . . .

It has everything to do with what we are discussing. Everyone can see the face in the tree and the face in the cliff. Does that make them designed because of the appearance of design?

and if you think so then you must admit that those you believe should be in the know and who should know the difference between a tree having something that looks like a mouth and nose and the complexity of function and form of the systems in question.

Adding ID buzzwords doesn't change the situation. You claim that the bac flag is designed because it looks like a motor. It is no different than a rock that looks like a face.

 

[justlookinla]

We can use evidence in the designed object to determine the techniques and mechanisms used to design the object. We can find tool marks. We can measure isotope and atomic ratios to determine how the metal was made and even what quarry it came from. We can determine if it was cast or forged.

So where is the equivalent evidence for life? What were the techniques and tools used to design life?

I don't think you're purposely ignoring the single simple point I'm trying to make, so I ask once again. The identification of the designer isn't necessary in determining if something is designed, is it?

 

[HitchSlap]

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.

Nope. All we're asking is what design? This is where you get to jump in and show us why you're not gullible for accepting the illusion of design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

I'm pretending to not see the face just like others pretend that seeing a face in a cliff or a tree is equivalent to the function and form in systems within systems.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nope. All we're asking is what design? This is where you get to jump in and show us why you're not gullible for accepting the illusion of design.

You haven't provided evidence that it is an illusion.

 

[HitchSlap]

I don't think you're purposely ignoring the single simple point I'm trying to make, so I ask once again. The identification of the designer isn't necessary in determining if something is designed, is it?

Nope.

But lemme' guess, it's the Jesus you believe in, amiright?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yep, which has no relationship to what we are discussing and if you think so then you must admit that those you believe should be in the know and who should know the difference between a tree having something that looks like a mouth and nose and the complexity of function and form of the systems in question.

Oncedeceived, remember, you're talking about a craft (science) that once used to teach that the moon had seas and Mars had canals & polar caps, based on what they thought they saw.

Not to mention seeing Pluto as our 9th planet, Haeckel's drawings, and a host of other ghosts in their machines.

If they would have applied these same arguments to their own "discoveries," we wouldn't have had those gaffs in history.

It's rare if you can find a scientist who walks his talk.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm pretending to not see the face just like others pretend that seeing a face in a cliff or a tree is equivalent to the function and form in systems within systems.

Adding ID buzzwords does not change anything. It is nothing more than the appearance of design, just like the appearance of faces in trees.

 

[HitchSlap]

You haven't provided evidence that it is an illusion.

At some point, you're going to proffer actual evidence for a designer/s. Otherwise, you remain gullible, as the Dawkins quote you like to use, suggests you are for accepting the appearance of design.

BTW, I don't need to provide evidence for illusions. I do not accept there is appearance of design in nature, that's the horse you're riding in this race.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oncedeceived, remember, you're talking about a craft (science) that once used to teach that the moon had seas and Mars had canals & polar caps, based on what they thought they saw.

Not to mention seeing Pluto as our 9th planet, Haeckel's drawings, and a host of other ghosts in their machines.

If they would have applied these same arguments to their own "discoveries," we wouldn't have had those gaffs in history.

It's rare if you can find a scientist who walks his talk.

Luckily with technology today we don't have to rely on the scientists interpretation of the evidence but study the evidence ourselves. It is very clear that the Bacterial Flagellum and the helicopter are designed similarly not by appearance alone but the mechanics and function that they provide.

 

[HitchSlap]

At some point, you're going to proffer actual evidence for a designer/s. Otherwise, you remain gullible, as the Dawkins quote you like to use, suggests you are for accepting the appearance of design.

BTW, I don't need to provide evidence for illusions. I do not accept there is appearance of design in nature, that's the horse you're riding in this race.

I agree, you should probably move this discussion to the Philosophy forum, as we do like to discuss actual evidence here.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't think you're purposely ignoring the single simple point I'm trying to make, so I ask once again. The identification of the designer isn't necessary in determining if something is designed, is it?

I was showing how the designer is identified by the marks the designer leaves. You can determine how something is built by looking at the thing that is built. So where have you done this with life?

 

[justlookinla]

Yep, which has no relationship to what we are discussing and if you think so then you must admit that those you believe should be in the know and who should know the difference between a tree having something that looks like a mouth and nose and the complexity of function and form of the systems in question.

Exactly. They tend to shy away from complex, functional and purposeful systems when discussing design.

 

[Loudmouth]

Luckily with technology today we don't have to rely on the scientists interpretation of the evidence but study the evidence ourselves. It is very clear that the Bacterial Flagellum and the helicopter are designed similarly not by appearance alone but the mechanics and function that they provide.

Where is the turbine engine made of steel in the bacterial flagellum? How is the bac flag powered by jet fuel? Where are the metal blades in the bac flag?

 

[Loudmouth]

Exactly. They tend to shy away from complex, functional and purposeful systems when discussing design.

You shy away from evidencing purpose in these systems.