How We Detect Design

[DogmaHunter]

Dogma, this post consists of assertion and accusations of dishonesty. You have provided zero evidence for why the evidence of design in all living things and the universe itself is only an illusion. ZERO evidence. You want to throw out there the old mantra of "mountains of evidence" and that I am ignorant of biology to hand wave away the evidence of design with a purpose in all of life and the universe too.

I could link you to the many threads on this forum discussing ERV's, nested hierarchies, phylogenies, transitionals, etc. But I simply can't be bothered. You posted in all of them, you know they exist.

If you are looking for a university type course discussing the vast body that is evolutionary biology, then you aren't going to find that in a public forum such as this one.

What do you want me to tell you?

If there was evidence that showed this design as an illusion it would have been presented immediately with references.

As was done in the many threads I mentioned and in which you posted.

Dawkins has woven his creation story about how evolution could create all this appearance of design but doesn't provide any, he claims the evidence of design with a purpose is an illusion but give no evidence for it. You take his word for it and believe it hook line and sinker without one iota of evidence to show it. Then you call me ignorant and dishonest. Pot kettle black.

You have been presented with evidence. You didn't like it.
I can't change that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Right and Dogma just went on about how common sense is an evolutionary "problem"

I said no such thing.
I have no clue how you understood that from what I said about common sense.

How can he think that if his intelligence is the product of a mindless process devoid of intelligence due to evolution that it is even a speck more reasonable or reliable than the common sense provided by the same means. Go figure.

That makes no sense. Not to mention a complete misrepresentation of the point I was making.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I could link you to the many threads on this forum discussing ERV's, nested hierarchies, phylogenies, transitionals, etc. But I simply can't be bothered. You posted in all of them, you know they exist.

ERV's tells us nothing about how life appears to be designed.
Nested Hierarchies tells us nothing about how life appears to be designed.
Phylogenies tells us nothing about how life appears to be designed.
Transitionals tell us nothing about how life appears to be designed.

If you are looking for a university type course discussing the vast body that is evolutionary biology, then you aren't going to find that in a public forum such as this one.

I don't need a university type course thank you. Do you?

What do you want me to tell you?

I want evidence that specifically shows that organisms and their systems that appear to be engineered for a purpose are illusion. What makes those systems illusions of design?

As was done in the many threads I mentioned and in which you posted.

Zero evidence.

You have been presented with evidence. You didn't like it.

Who do you feel has presented evidence showing that organisms features and functions that appear to be designed for a purpose are illusions? # for the posts and specific quotes please.

I can't change that.

You can't change the fact that organisms appear to be engineered for a purpose just like machines humans create.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I said no such thing.
I have no clue how you understood that from what I said about common sense.



That makes no sense. Not to mention a complete misrepresentation of the point I was making.

Show me where I misrepresented you.

 

[Smidlee]

ERV's tells us nothing about how life appears to be designed.
Nested Hierarchies tells us nothing about how life appears to be designed.
Phylogenies tells us nothing about how life appears to be designed.
Transitionals tell us nothing about how life appears to be designed.

.

Notice how naturalist tries to use appearances of certain features of fossils to claim it's a transitional yet reject any appearance of design in living systems.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The fact that you can't comprehend that the evidence is the recognition of design with a purpose overwhelming in nature. To test it, we test whether natural processes are sufficient to explain the evidence.

So, if you can't find such a process, then that somehow proves that your idea has to be true?

That's a hilarious fallacy. An argument from ignorance.

No, you don't test an idea by testing rival ideas.
You test your idea by....-drumroll-...testing your idea.

If it is not, which it is not, design is not created by natural processes. It is falsifiable if there is evidence that this design with a purpose so overwhelming present in life is an illusion.

No. One does not test your idea by testing another idea.
Absent any other ideas, how does one falsify your idea?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Design - purpose, planning, or intention that exists or is thought to exist behind an action, fact, or material object.
"the appearance of design in the universe"

There is no test that proves an animal becoming a scientist either. You can't even prove science with science. Science itself is not falsifiable.

Classic.

When it turns out that you can't support ID to be scientific, simply assert science not to be scientific. :facepalm:

 

[Smidlee]

Classic.

When it turns out that you can't support ID to be scientific, simply assert science not to be scientific. :facepalm:

I'm referring to the limitation of science. If someone refuses to believe the universe is real it's impossible to prove to that person it is. The same if a scientist totally refuse to believe design is real it's impossible to prove them wrong no matter how much scientific evidence a person presents.

Naturalist has no choice but to totally reject any evidence of design and has to believe it's an illusion.
Thus all science itself is based on some kind of "truth" that can't be proven by science.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Water warms - this does not lead to life.
Water boils - this does not lead towards life.
Water evaporates, this does not lead toward life.

I don't know what the point of these random comments is.

Adding heat to anything nonliving, does not lead towards life.

How do you know?

If there is some Frankenstein concept suggesting that adding energy
to a non-living thing leads toward life, please indicate where we can find
this idea, or natural law, or concept, or theory.

I don't know how life comes about. I don't recall claiming I did.
I was merely responding to misleading claims you made about entropy.

If "scientists are working on it" what theory are they testing?

I'ld guess they work in the field of abiogenesis.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So, if you can't find such a process, then that somehow proves that your idea has to be true?

That's a hilarious fallacy. An argument from ignorance.

No, you don't test an idea by testing rival ideas.
You test your idea by....-drumroll-...testing your idea.

Design is not an idea, it is what the evidence is. The evidence is that all organisms appear to have been engineered for a purpose. That is the evidence. Not an argument from ignorance because all biology supports that evidence. For that evidence to be faulty or inaccurate it is up to those who claim it is to show how. No one has provided any evidence to support that appearance is incorrect.

No. One does not test your idea by testing another idea.
Absent any other ideas, how does one falsify your idea?

It is not an idea, it is the evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

ERV's tells us nothing about how life appears to be designed.
Nested Hierarchies tells us nothing about how life appears to be designed.
Phylogenies tells us nothing about how life appears to be designed.
Transitionals tell us nothing about how life appears to be designed.

See? Unwillingness to address the topics with intellectual honesty. Just flat out denial.

All those things (erv's, phylogenies, etc etc etc.....etc) are all supportive of evolution theory.

Evolution through natural selection explains why life looks the way it does.

I want evidence that specifically shows that organisms and their systems that appear to be engineered for a purpose are illusion. What makes those systems illusions of design?

Natural selection.

Zero evidence.

Lot's of evidence. Entire branches of science were developed to study all that data.
You have already been presented with some of them.

You can't change the fact that organisms appear to be engineered for a purpose just like machines humans create.

Facts are demonstrable.

So demonstrate.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Show me where I misrepresented you.

I just quoted you in the message you replied to... :-/

I said no such thing concerning common sense.

 

[Smidlee]

Natural selection.
.

LOL. Is that it? There is no reason to believe natural selection can do any more than man's selection can do.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm referring to the limitation of science. If someone refuses to believe the universe is real it's impossible to prove to that person it is.

Yeah, much like when a person decides to dogmatically believe that the world is only 6000 years old, it becomes impossible to prove to that person that it isn't.

Pointing out that irrational people exist is not an argument against the scientific process.

The same if a scientist totally refuse to believe design is real it's impossible to prove them wrong no matter how much scientific evidence a person presents.

Right, right....
Scientists don't agree with your claims because "they don't want to" or they "want to sin" or there is this "giant conspiracy" against the bible or whatever.

Naturalist has no choice but to totally reject any evidence of design and has to believe it's an illusion.

Perhaps. I wouldn't know. I don't put labels on my forehead like "naturalist" or "theist" or "materialist" or whatever else.

I don't dogmatically bind myself to certain positions.

Thus all science itself is based on some kind of "truth" that can't be proven by science.

If you say so.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Design is not an idea, it is what the evidence is. The evidence is that all organisms appear to have been engineered for a purpose. That is the evidence.

"appearance of x" is not evidence of "actual x".

This has been explained to you many times.

Not an argument from ignorance because all biology supports that evidence.

1. it is not evidence
2. ignoring how biology explains it

For that evidence to be faulty or inaccurate it is up to those who claim it is to show how. No one has provided any evidence to support that appearance is incorrect.

Ignoring biology again.

And also trying to run away from your burden of proof concering your claim that there is actual design.

 

[Smidlee]

Yeah, much like when a person decides to dogmatically believe that the world is only 6000 years old, it becomes impossible to prove to that person that it isn't.

Pointing out that irrational people exist is not an argument against the scientific process.

Are you trying to change the subject?

Right, right....
Scientists don't agree with your claims because "they don't want to" or they "want to sin" or there is this "giant conspiracy" against the bible or whatever.

It's no conspiracy when man has worshiped nature throughout history. By the way not all scientist believes design in nature is an illusion.

 

[SkyWriting]

"Water warms - this does not lead to life.
Water boils - this does not lead towards life.
Water evaporates, this does not lead toward life.
Adding heat to anything nonliving, does not lead towards life."

How do you know?

Very very very easy to test. Add non-living ingredients to water, add heat.
Scientists claim people have been heating water for 300,000 years.
Plus the earth is riddled with pockets of water, and none of these
isolated pockets, on the same planet, have any unique beginnings
of life in them. So scientifically speaking:
Adding heat to anything nonliving, does not lead in the direction of life.

 

[Loudmouth]

Dogma, this post consists of assertion and accusations of dishonesty. You have provided zero evidence for why the evidence of design in all living things and the universe itself is only an illusion.

This quote right here is why we say that you are dishonest. All you do is assert that something is designed. You dishonestly portray this as evidence. Assertions are not evidence. You dishonestly shift the burden of proof to disprove design when you have zero evidence to support it other than to simply assert that it is designed.

 

[Loudmouth]

Water warms - this does not lead to life.
Water boils - this does not lead towards life.
Water evaporates, this does not lead toward life.

A high energy photon strikes a photosensitive molecule in chlorophyll and sugars are produced. This does lead toward life.

 

[Oncedeceived]

See? Unwillingness to address the topics with intellectual honesty. Just flat out denial.

Pot Kettle Black.

All those things (erv's, phylogenies, etc etc etc.....etc) are all supportive of evolution theory.

So? They do not give any evidence that shows the design seen in all living forms is false, incorrect or an illusion.

Evolution through natural selection explains why life looks the way it does.

No it doesn't. Natural doesn't supply how features of design are present but that they are an illusion. If so, please provide the evidence that show how organisms and functions are show design in the same manner as that which is produced by humans.

Natural selection.

Natural selection has no properties of design.

Lot's of evidence. Entire branches of science were developed to study all that data.
You have already been presented with some of them.

Yes, the data is the knowledge we have of the organism's functions and structures that appear engineered for a purpose.

Facts are demonstrable.

Demonstrated.

So demonstrate.

I provided videos. It is clearly evident that the molecular machines that we viewed in the videos are engineered in the same way human's have designed only on a much more efficient and remarkable way.