Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[justlookinla]

I'd like to answer your question, but you'll need to define design for me.

You need to offer evidence for illusion of design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What is evasion, again?

Evasion, deflection, shifting the burden, denial and claiming I am quote mining. Just the usual.

 

[HitchSlap]

You need to offer evidence for illusion of design.

You need to define design and what would falsify it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

On the other hand, still no evidence for illusion of design.

No evidence to support the claim that Dawkins makes about design being an illusion. Imagine that.

 

[justlookinla]

Evasion, deflection, shifting the burden, denial and claiming I am quote mining. Just the usual.

I wonder what the definition of design was when the claim was made of illusion of design?

 

[bhsmte]

I think the CF record for outright denial will be safe for a long time.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You need to define design and what would falsify it.

You don't see design so why worry about it?

 

[justlookinla]

You need to define design and what would falsify it.

Use the definition that Dawkins used.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not complicated, but if you can't do it and don't want to be exposed and instead rest your case on appearance (which is subjective) than you ignore this request and keep saying someone else has the burden.

And this is all repeated, with a straight face.

Your inability to understand what the claim is, who made it and who has the burden is evident. Materialists think they have no burden.

 

[HitchSlap]

Evasion, deflection, shifting the burden, denial and claiming I am quote mining. Just the usual.

Yes, I demonstrated that you quote mine. Yes, design is illusory. Yes, you're gullible for accepting it. Yes, Dawkins states the watchmaker is blind.

No, you haven't defined design. You haven't offered evidence of a designer. You haven't stated what would falsify design.

 

[HitchSlap]

Use the definition that Dawkins used.

And in 3...2...1...

 

[crjmurray]

I think the CF record for outright denial will be safe for a long time.

When someone outright lies, I feel like we may have went too far.

 

[justlookinla]

And in 3...2...1...

......no evidence for the illusion of design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I wonder what the definition of design was when the claim was made of illusion of design?

They want a definition for design that they deny? Dawkins makes it clear:
ON the cover of his book, "The Blind Watchmaker"

"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selectioin overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design."

Here is another of his quotes from the book:
"Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose. Physics books may be complicated, but ...The objects and phenomena that a physics book describes are simpler than a single cell in the body of its author. And the author consists of trillions of those cells, many of them different from each other, organized with intricate architecture and precision-engineering into a working machine capable of writing a book.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, I demonstrated that you quote mine. Yes, design is illusory. Yes, you're gullible for accepting it. Yes, Dawkins states the watchmaker is blind.

No, you haven't defined design. You haven't offered evidence of a designer. You haven't stated what would falsify design.

Explain how I have quote mined.

 

[Oncedeceived]

When someone outright lies, I feel like we may have went too far.

Who are you accusing of lying?

 

[justlookinla]

They want a definition for design that they deny? Dawkins makes it clear:
ON the cover of his book, "The Blind Watchmaker"

"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selectioin overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design."

Here is another of his quotes from the book:
"Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose. Physics books may be complicated, but ...The objects and phenomena that a physics book describes are simpler than a single cell in the body of its author. And the author consists of trillions of those cells, many of them different from each other, organized with intricate architecture and precision-engineering into a working machine capable of writing a book.

Amazing that he uses the terms 'architecture', 'engineering' and 'machine' in his denial of design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Amazing that he uses the terms 'architecture', 'engineering' and 'machine' in his denial of design.

I know right. Denial pure and simple.

 

[HitchSlap]

......no evidence for the illusion of design.

Illusion.

 

[justlookinla]

Illusion.

Evasion.