Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[HitchSlap]

Where is the evidence that the design in the body is an illusion?

I don't see design in the body. Which is why I'm asking you, what design? It's a question.

 

[HitchSlap]

They need to give us evidence that they belief that design in nature is an illusion is not an illusion.

Why?

 

[Davian]

Where is the evidence that design in the human body is an illusion again?

The evidence is the inability of those that claiming design to substantiate their claims, to show that it is more than illusion. You have made your own contribution to this.

 

[justlookinla]

I would say that science is not interested in your religious opinion.

Is science interested in truth?

 

[Davian]

Is science interested in truth?

Define "truth". Are we still talking about your religious opinion?

 

[justlookinla]

The evidence is the inability of those that claiming design to substantiate their claims, to show that it is more than illusion. You have made your own contribution to this.

Actually, the inability to offer evidence that design in the body is an illusion is from the Dawkins camp.

 

[Davian]

They need to give us evidence that they belief that design in nature is an illusion is not an illusion.

What design?

 

[Smidlee]

Why?

This is why an illusion is something that needs to be proven. Someone trying to claim design in nature is an illusion is a self-defeating position since the person who thinks this could be the one who having the illusion.

 

[justlookinla]

Define "truth". Are we still talking about your religious opinion?

We're talking about that which is true as contrasted to that which is false.

Is science interested in the truth? Or is science unconcerned about truth or falsity?

 

[Davian]

Actually, the inability to offer evidence that design in the body is an illusion is from the Dawkins camp.

The evidence is that no one has been able to show otherwise. And you keep contributing to that evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

What design?

The design which Dawkins claims is an illusion...with no supporting evidence.

 

[Davian]

We're talking about that which is true as contrasted to that which is false.

Is science interested in the truth? Or is science unconcerned about truth or falsity?

Dodge. Define "truth". Are we still talking about your religious opinion?

 

[Davian]

The design which Dawkins claims is an illusion...with no supporting evidence.

He has your support.

 

[justlookinla]

The evidence is that no one has been able to show otherwise. And you keep contributing to that evidence.

The evidence is that no on has been able to show design in the human body is an illusion.

 

[HitchSlap]

This is why an illusion is something that needs to be proven. Someone trying to claim design in nature is an illusion is a self-defeating position since the person who thinks this could be the one who having the illusion.

I have no way to prove what you consider to be an illusion or not. That's for you to decide.

 

[justlookinla]

Dodge. Define "truth". Are we still talking about your religious opinion?

No, I'm not going to entertain your evasive 'define this/define that' behavior.

Is science interested in the truth?

 

[Davian]

This is why an illusion is something that needs to be proven.

How does one prove a negative?

 

[justlookinla]

I have no way to prove what you consider to be an illusion or not. That's for you to decide.

It's what Dawkins considers to be an illusion of design....with no supporting evidence for that conclusion.

 

[HitchSlap]

The evidence is that no on has been able to show design in the human body is an illusion.

No one has been able to show design in the human body.

 

[justlookinla]

How does one prove a negative?

It's not a negative. Dawkins claims that design in the human body is an illusion. That's a positive claim with no evidence.