How We Detect Design

[Oncedeceived]

Just like we see ducks in clouds. Already explained. You have presented no evidence that these structures were designed outside of your own subjective opinions.

Someone, I don't remember who told you that it wasn't the same thing (an atheist on this forum) yet you continue this lame attempt to equate biological engineering to duckies in clouds. It only shows your lack of understanding of the biological systems and structures associated with this argument.

It shows that you can't explain the observations made in biology using ID.

Shifting the burden for your own claim. What does that say about your position? Think about that.

The same thing that prevents God from planting fingerprints at crime scenes. Do we have to throw out forensic evidence because God could have planted the evidence?

You seem to think that Natural Selection and evolution are entities. Natural selection and evolution are names humans determined were processes that allowed life to adapt. They are explanations for the way life adapts and changes and were devised and categorized by humans. We are looking back in time and interpreting what we see. In no way is God planting evidence, what is there was there long before evolution or natural selection were ever thought of.

Read the title of the thread. Stop shifting the burden of proof.

Are you under the false assumption that due to the topic of the thread you are free from providing evidence for your claims? That is bizarre.

 

[Oncedeceived]

My claim is that we wouldn't expect to see a nested hierarchy. Dogma did a great job of explaining why, so I will quote him here:

You love to point to human-designed similarities... why don't you do it with this one?
Not a single human manufactured productline in the history of the world falls into a nested hierarchy.

Reason being that it is simply not efficient to do so.
There would be no reason to. Unless, off course, the point of doing all that extra work is deception... to make all the evidence point to the designer having nothing to do with it. To trick us in believing false things.

It's not reasonable.
Why would we need to invent such fantastical stories, when we have a perfectly sufficient explanation, supported by all the data, for which we don't need to invent anything?​

Evolution has an explanation for the nested hierarchy. ID doesn't, as your posts clearly show.

Does any product in the history of man reproduce? This argument has been used by you and Dogma both I believe. Why equate things that have the ability to reproduce to things that can not?

Why would deception be needed for ID to be true? Why would ID not create life that would fall into a nested hierarchy? Dogma doesn't say why and you haven't either.

​

Never did I claim that ID would not allow life to fall into a nested hierarchy. What I claimed is that ID can't explain why we see a nested hierarchy instead of trillions of other possibilities.

This is what was said so we have the exact words used:

Loudmouth said: ↑
One of the most fundamental features of DNA across eukaryotes is that the sequence falls into a nested hierarchy. Only evolution explains this. I have yet to see a creationist explain why we would necessarily have a nested hierarchy if ID/creationism is true.
I said:
Why would life not fall into a nested hierarchy if ID is true?

You have not as of yet explained why if ID is true life would not fall into a nested hierarchy?


That's the claim. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE??????[/QUOTE]
No, that is the evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Read the title of the thread.

Loudmouth, if you make a claim it is up to you to support it. It doesn't matter what the title is, you are not free to make claims and assertions and not back them up.

 

[Oncedeceived]

First off, I'm concerned that you may have interpreted my statement as a commentary about the education level of people other than loudmouth. I have no basis for gauging the educational grounding of most forum members in the sciences. I can make certain inferences based on the level of discussion in the moment, but that is all. For example, if someone cites Harry Wong and drops terms like critical pedagogy, I'd probably assume they have had some training in education. If someone is using terms such as protista as a kingdom of life, I can assume they have not had any formal training in biology (at least not recently) because that is a rather old term. However, it's also specific enough that I can assume they have an interest in the subject and at least a layman's understanding of the topic. If I'm talking to someone who isn't sure what internet browser they are using, I am fairly confident they neither have formal training in computer science or much interest in the topic.

I know my own education covered this topic, and from previous conversations, I seem to recall loudmouth has some formal training in the sciences that would almost certainly have covered this. I could be wrong though, as i certainly don't have everyone's educational levels on the forum memorized.

But if we are unsure about his meaning, let's ask him.

Loudmouth,
Is it your opinion that the very earliest life could possibly be a phototroph? Why or why not?

That should settle it pretty well.

Ok, I appreciate you clarifying your statement.

 

[Loudmouth]

Someone, I don't remember who told you that it wasn't the same thing (an atheist on this forum) yet you continue this lame attempt to equate biological engineering to duckies in clouds.

You have yet to show how they are different.

Shifting the burden for your own claim. What does that say about your position? Think about that.

Look at the title of the thread. Where is the scientific methodology, unit of measure, and statistical tests for detecting design?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You don't like it because it destroys your entire argument. Humans really do come about through natural means, unlike the things you keep trying to compare them to. LEGO cities don't get together and have LEGO city children. Cars don't mate and produce baby cars. Life does.

What do you think that creationists believe that every person born is poofed into existence? Really?

 

[Loudmouth]

Loudmouth, if you make a claim it is up to you to support it. It doesn't matter what the title is, you are not free to make claims and assertions and not back them up.

Read the title of the thread. Stop shifting the burden of proof. I don't have to disprove design because you have presented no evidence for design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Baloney. Now you are just making stuff up so you can avoid reality.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You have yet to show how they are different.

Yes I have you just refuse to accept it. Even someone who holds the same materialistic view as you has pointed out your error but you stick to it because you don't or can't accept it.

Look at the title of the thread. Where is the scientific methodology, unit of measure, and statistical tests for detecting design?

You made a claim and you have the burden of proof. Simple as that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Just as I thought, this thread should be in the new conspiracy section.

You know how it goes, if desperate, just claim the person that disagrees with you is not credible.

It is just lucky that you all don't have a moderator in these forums that would make you support your assertions and claims.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What evidence demonstrates that design is real? What are the scientific methodologies, units of measure, and statistical tests that support the detection of design? Or is it just, "It sort of looks designed"?

What options are available to us? The evidence of design (biological structures and systems appear engineered for a purpose) is present in life forms. What options are available to explain it?

 

[Loudmouth]

Keep telling yourself that.

You have invented a conspiracy out of whole cloth. You have tried to cast doubt on the findings of scientists through a completely fabricated fantasy that there is some evil cabal forcing them to say that.

 

[Loudmouth]

What options are available to us? The evidence of design (biological structures and systems appear engineered for a purpose) is present in life forms.

Appearance isn't evidence, it is a subjective opinion.

Where is the scientific methodology, unit of measure, and statistical tests for detecting design?

What options are available to explain it?

That would be the argument from ignorance.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes I have you just refuse to accept it.

There is nothing to refuse.

Even someone who holds the same materialistic view as you has pointed out your error but you stick to it because you don't or can't accept it.

I completely agree that there is the appearance of design. I also completely agree with them that it is nothing more than subjective opinion. Until you provide an objective means of detecting design, that is all you have.

You made a claim and you have the burden of proof. Simple as that.

I have made the claim that you have provided no objective evidence for design. That continues to be true.

 

[Oncedeceived]

A designer would have to go out of his way to create such an hierarchy and it would have no benefit whatsoever.
In fact, only costs are associated with it.

Such as?

You love to point to human-designed similarities... why don't you do it with this one?
Not a single human manufactured productline in the history of the world falls into a nested hierarchy.

First of all a nested hierarchy is a man made organizing tool originated to group organisms that had common design. Secondly, we do see similar nested hierarchy in man made designs that show for instance transportation. We see the first man made transportation systems being grouped in ever evolving designs up to today.

Reason being that it is simply not efficient to do so.
There would be no reason to. Unless, off course, the point of doing all that extra work is deception... to make all the evidence point to the designer having nothing to do with it. To trick us in believing false things.

We are the ones that are making interpretations based on past history, what do you think would be deceptive in the nested hierarchy?

It's not reasonable.
Why would we need to invent such fantastical stories, when we have a perfectly sufficient explanation, supported by all the data, for which we don't need to invent anything?

You do invent fantastical stories to explain the design that appears in structures and systems in organisms which is not supported by any evidence that shows that design is an illusion.

Knowledge is demonstrable.
Faith - based beliefs are not.

Like the faith based belief that evolution can account for the design biologists see in structures and systems in organisms?

I submit that you don't have any knowledge. You have faith-based beliefs.
You can prove me wrong by demonstrating your claimed knowledge.

And I submit that you have assertions and equally faith-based beliefs. You can prove me wrong by demonstrating that the design biologists see in organisms is an illusion.

Catholics, the majority of those 2.2 billion, accept evolution.
From the remaining billion, the majority also accepts evolution.

You again mistake the issue as being one that evolution is not happen. That is not the case. Most ID proponents do accept evolution as defined.

In fact, it's pretty much correct to state that only in the US evolution-deniers make up a good portion of christians (not a majority though).

Very few, a great minority of Christians don't believe that God was behind evolution or interjected into evolutionary processes.

But all that is still pretty much irrelevant.
Theists are random people with faith-based beliefs.
Among the people with the actual credentials, making them qualified to judge these scientific ideas, the consensus is evolution.

Which is also irrelevant. Evolution happening is not the issue. The issue is that there is no evidence of evolution providing the design apparent in organisms and their systems and structure.

I really don't care what a random home-schooled christian has to say about it.
Just like I don't care for a medical diagnose by my gardener.

Are you implying I am a home-schooled Christian with no formal education?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Appearance isn't evidence, it is a subjective opinion.

So you are taking the position to not accept what the majority of scientists claim which is organisms have the appearance they were designed with a purpose? Is that what you are saying?

That would be the argument from ignorance.

Explain?

 

[Oncedeceived]

There is nothing to refuse.

I completely agree that there is the appearance of design. I also completely agree with them that it is nothing more than subjective opinion. Until you provide an objective means of detecting design, that is all you have.

Please provide the quotes that claim it is a subjective opinion. They claim it is an illusion created by evolutionary processes so far undisclosed. Why would scientists claim they are making a subjective opinion about anything let alone something that is present in life forms?



I have made the claim that you have provided no objective evidence for design. That continues to be true.[/QUOTE]

 

[Oncedeceived]

You have invented a conspiracy out of whole cloth. You have tried to cast doubt on the findings of scientists through a completely fabricated fantasy that there is some evil cabal forcing them to say that.

Ok, you are now passing from bizarre into realms unknown.

 

[SkyWriting]

I'm saying that we can't draw any conclusions based on ignorance.
We don't know.
We can never prove that it is impossible.
And until such time, the best we can say is that we don't know.
When you make the assertion that it is impossible then you are making a claim to knowledge. A claim you cannot support. You do not know. But with that claim, you pretend that you do. But you don't.

We are talking about proof that God does not exist, right?

 

[bhsmte]

From post #273 and I quote:

"Not to mention that if he were to claim that evolution could not produce such features his position would be at risk. He is walking a tight rope."

This would appear to be a positive claim that Collins concludes what he does, because if he didn't, his position would be at risk.

Did I miss it, was there any evidence provided to support this claim?

Does this appear to be a claim Collins is lying, to go along with the consensus?