How We Detect Design

[Loudmouth]

To help ID/creationists understand why they are not presenting evidence by merely asserting that something is designed, perhaps this analogy will help.

There is a murder case, and the prosecution thinks they have a slam dunk argument. They argue that Joan Doe, the murder victim, was killed by John Smith. Their evidence? Joan Doe is dead. They argue that since Joan Doe is dead that John Smith had to kill her. As their evidence, they cite the inability of anyone else to provide evidence that someone else did it.

That is equivalent to the argument that ID/creationists are giving us. They give us nothing other than the repetition of the claim.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

Prove it.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Evidence that evolution produced the genome of humans is not evidence? How so?

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.

Bare assertions that something is designed is not evidence that they are designed.

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

Where is the evidence that they are engineered for a purpose. Again, bare assertions are not evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

To help ID/creationists understand why they are not presenting evidence by merely asserting that something is designed, perhaps this analogy will help.

How arrogant of you. You can't provide one piece of evidence to support your claim that design is an illusion but then you are going to "help" us understand. Wow.

There is a murder case, and the prosecution thinks they have a slam dunk argument. They argue that Joan Doe, the murder victim, was killed by John Smith. Their evidence? Joan Doe is dead. They argue that since Joan Doe is dead that John Smith had to kill her. As their evidence, they cite the inability of anyone else to provide evidence that someone else did it.

That is equivalent to the argument that ID/creationists are giving us. They give us nothing other than the repetition of the claim.

This is nonsense and purely a straw man. Burn Burn Burn.

 

[Loudmouth]

Prove it.

"Photosynthesis is the process of converting light energy to chemical energy and storing it in the bonds of sugar."
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/photosyn.htm

You haven't heard of photosynthesis? It is what makes the species we see on Earth possible.

 

[Loudmouth]

How arrogant of you. You can't provide one piece of evidence to support your claim that design is an illusion but then you are going to "help" us understand. Wow.

The only arrogance is in thinking that subjective appearances and human bias can equate to real evidence.

This is nonsense and purely a straw man. Burn Burn Burn.

Then produce a method for detecting design that isn't, "Well, it sort of looks that way". You do understand why that isn't science, right?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Evidence that evolution produced the genome of humans is not evidence? How so?

Evidence of what? What are you claiming they are evidence of specifically?

Bare assertions that something is designed is not evidence that they are designed.

Bare assertions that something is not designed and just an illusion even though the evidence we have shows that organisms appear designed with a purpose.

Where is the evidence that they are engineered for a purpose. Again, bare assertions are not evidence.

Shifting the burden. Fail.

 

[Oncedeceived]

"Photosynthesis is the process of converting light energy to chemical energy and storing it in the bonds of sugar."
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/photosyn.htm

You haven't heard of photosynthesis? It is what makes the species we see on Earth possible.

You said this lead to life. It is critical for life but where do you see it leads to life?

 

[Loudmouth]

Evidence of what? What are you claiming they are evidence of specifically?

That there is evidence for the human genome being the product of evolutionary mechanisms.

Bare assertions that something is not designed . . .

And the dishonest shift in the burden of proof. How predictable.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The only arrogance is in thinking that subjective appearances and human bias can equate to real evidence.

So evidence is not only subjective but arrogant...interesting. You are denying something that is right there for all to see. Denial is not pretty from someone that says they only believe what can be shown empirically.

Then produce a method for detecting design that isn't, "Well, it sort of looks that way". You do understand why that isn't science, right?

Provide it is inaccurate, incorrect or an illusion or concede.

 

[Loudmouth]

You said this lead to life. It is critical for life but where do you see it leads to life?

If all photosynthesis had stopped in the past, there would be no life now, or very little life that would probably be centered around hot water vents.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That there is evidence for the human genome being the product of evolutionary mechanisms.

So?

And the dishonest shift in the burden of proof. How predictable.

And here we go...no evidence so lets call the opponent dishonest. How predictable.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If all photosynthesis had stopped in the past, there would be no life now, or very little life that would probably be centered around hot water vents.

Does it produce life from non-life? Yes or no?

 

[Loudmouth]

So evidence is not only subjective but arrogant...interesting.

The only evidence you have yet to present is your subjective opinion on how things appear.

You are denying something that is right there for all to see. Denial is not pretty from someone that says they only believe what can be shown empirically.

Then show us the methodology, unit of measure, and statistical tests used for this empirical observation.

Provide it is inaccurate, incorrect or an illusion or concede.

And once again, the dishonest shift in the burden of proof. It isn't up to me to disprove the cosmic teapots.

 

[Loudmouth]

Does it produce life from non-life? Yes or no?

Yes. The photons, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and water that produce the sugars are all non-living, and it becomes part of living organisms.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes. The photons, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and water that produce the sugars are all non-living, and it becomes part of living organisms.

You are dodging. Did photons, carbon dioxide, oxygen and water that produces sugars produced the first life on earth? Yes or no?

 

[Loudmouth]

You are dodging. Did photons, carbon dioxide, oxygen and water that produces sugars produced the first life on earth? Yes or no?

Why didn't you ask about the first life to start with? I don't know how the first life came about.

Do you think life is somehow able to ignore the laws of thermodynamics?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why didn't you ask about the first life to start with? I don't know how the first life came about.

You claimed that is what led to life. To lead to life, life had to come from non-life.

Do you think life is somehow able to ignore the laws of thermodynamics?

What?

 

[MikeEnders]

Do you think life is somehow able to ignore the laws of thermodynamics?

What?

lol.....yep you read that right. He's actually arguing that the law of thermodynamics leads to the conclusion that abiogenesis must be true. Your eyes did not deceive you.

 

[SkyWriting]

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

Chlorophyll originated from life. It has no non-living source.
That's like saying turtles warm in the sun and become alive.