What's The Matter?

[bhsmte]

The burden of evidence for ID is on the ID folks. You go around in circles of your own making.

I guess we all know how Michael Behe felt, when he was under oath and had to answer some straight forward questions.

 

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps but...

Liquid water is not a bit player in the theatre of life — it’s the headline act

Water (H2O) is often perceived to be ordinary as it is transparent, odorless, tasteless and ubiquitous. It is the simplest compound of the two most common reactive elements, consisting of just two hydrogen atoms attached to a single oxygen atom. Indeed, very few molecules are smaller or lighter. Liquid water, however, is the most extraordinary substance contradicting its apparently simple molecular constituent. ⇒





Although we drink it, wash, fish and swim in it, and cook with it (although probably not all at the same time), we nearly always overlook the special relationship it has with our lives. Droughts cause famines and floods cause death and disease. It makes up over about half of us and, without it, we die within a few days. Liquid water has importance as a solvent, a solute, a reactant and a biomolecule, structuring proteins, nucleic acids and cells and controlling our consciousness. H2O is the second most common molecule in the Universe (behind hydrogen, H2), the most abundant solid material and fundamental to star formation. There is a hundred times as many water molecules in our bodies than the sum of all the other molecules put together. Life cannot evolve or continue without liquid water, which is why there is so much excitement about finding it on Mars and other planets and moons. It is unsurprising that water plays a central role in many of the World's religions. This web site discusses many aspects of water science. ⇒





Water is the most studied material on Earth but it is remarkable to find that the science behind its behavior and function are so poorly understood (or even ignored), not only by people in general, but also by scientists working with it every day. It can be extremely slippery and extremely sticky at the same time. The small size of its molecule belies the complexity of its actions and its singular capabilities. Many attempts to model water as a simple substance have failed and still are failing. Liquid water's unique properties and chameleonic nature seem to fit ideally into the requirements for life as can no other molecule. ⇒





A number of explanations of the complex behavior of liquid water have been published, many quite recently, with several stirring up great controversy. In this web site, I have attempted to present these ideas in a self-consistent and balanced manner, which I hope will encourage both its understanding and further work. ⇒

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/

Do we get a breath mint after that oversized portion of copy pasta?

 

[Oncedeceived]

How low can you stoop?

YOU are the one claiming designed. YOU are the one who claims there is objective evidence for design.

YOU!!

Start producing the evidence.

Let me say this one more time and hope that you will actually understand...The objective evidence is the apparent design with a purpose in all of nature. The claim of Dawkins and others is that this is a faulty interpretation of the evidence and that it is an illusion produced by evolution. It is up to Dawkins and whoever else makes the claim to produce evidence that the evidence of design is a faulty interpretation with evidence to show it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Let me say this one more time and hope that you will actually understand...The objective evidence is the apparent design with a purpose in all of nature.

"It is readily apparent to the Court that the only attribute of design that biological systems appear to share with human artifacts is their complex appearance, i.e. if it looks complex or designed, it must have been designed. (23:73 (Behe)). This inference to design based upon the appearance of a "purposeful arrangement of parts" is a completely subjective proposition, determined in the eye of each beholder and his/her viewpoint concerning the complexity of a system."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision2.html

Appearances are subjective opinions.

 

[bhsmte]

I believe those annual checkups at the doctors office just got much easier.

All the doctor has to do is look at you and observe what their eyes tell them. You have the appearance of health, so there is no need to do any blood work, EKG, breast exam, prostate exam, X-rays or any other objective verifiable test, to determine whether this appearance, is indeed reality.

The insurance companies will love this.

 

[justlookinla]

Let me say this one more time and hope that you will actually understand...The objective evidence is the apparent design with a purpose in all of nature. The claim of Dawkins and others is that this is a faulty interpretation of the evidence and that it is an illusion produced by evolution. It is up to Dawkins and whoever else makes the claim to produce evidence that the evidence of design is a faulty interpretation with evidence to show it.

And they continue to fail at producing evidence. Look for more of the same.

 

[Loudmouth]

I believe those annual checkups at the doctors office just got much easier.

All the doctor has to do is look at you and observe what their eyes tell them. You have the appearance of health, so there is no need to do any blood work, EKG, breast exam, prostate exam, X-rays or any other objective verifiable test, to determine whether this appearance, is indeed reality.

The insurance companies will love this.

Better yet, I could throw some paint around on a canvas, claim it has the appearance of a Jackson Pollack, and sell it for millions of dollars.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The problem with using "design" as a criterion for asserting a designer is, the word itself begs the question. Substitute a word that does not, in itself, already mean there was a designer. Instead of saying you see design in a living thing, say you see patterns and symmetries. Or perhaps you can speak of high levels of complexity that exceed the natural limit for complexity. Of course, it is then necessary for you to show a natural limit for complexity, to complete your logic.

Design does indeed imply a designer, according to Dawkins and others this designer from which this evidence of design is produced is the blind watchmaker. However, he doesn't provide any evidence for that claim. To claim design without any evidence of design in life forms would be perhaps begging the question, however design does immediately imply a designer without begging whatsoever. Patterns and symmetries are not the issue. What is the issue is the design like factories and machines that we recognize as those designs by intelligent design. Yet, even then, with design apparent enough to recognize and with explanations given to claim it is a faulty interpretation of the evidence; evolution alone being able to produce this evidence is not supported by the evidence that we have. We don't have evolution providing simple to complex before we see this complexity in the first forms of life.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your subjective opinions of appearances are irrelevant. Where is your objective measure of design?

Ask Dawkins, he seems to understand the concept...or read his books.

 

[Loudmouth]

Design does indeed imply a designer,

Appearances do not.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ask Dawkins, he seems to understand the concept...or read his books.

I am asking you.

What is the objective measure for design?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The burden of evidence for ID is on the ID folks. You go around in circles of your own making.

I know you have a hard time with having to provide evidence for claims being made by materialists but it is their claim and their burden.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And they continue to fail at producing evidence. Look for more of the same.

No evidence.
Shifting the burden and claiming the opposite.
Frustration with no evidence = ad hominem retorts...so typical.

 

[justlookinla]

Better yet, I could throw some paint around on a canvas, claim it has the appearance of a Jackson Pollack, and sell it for millions of dollars.

Rock, rivers and paint. Sure isn't discussing the evolution/creation of humanity though. Could that be purposeful?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Appearances do not.

Prove it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am asking you.

What is the objective measure for design?

The recognition of planning and purpose in the systems, structures and functions that show purpose and function in the same ways as those known to be produced by the mind of intelligent agents.

 

[Loudmouth]

Prove it.

This cloud has the appearance of being a duck without needing to be a duck.

That is what appearances means:

"an impression given by someone or something, although this may be misleading."
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=appearance

 

[Loudmouth]

The recognition of planning and purpose in the systems, structures and functions that show purpose and function in the same ways as those known to be produced by the mind of intelligent agents.

More subjective descriptions. Do you know what objective means?

 

[bhsmte]

More subjective descriptions. Do you know what objective means?

Recognition??? That's all it takes, for you to recognize it and it will all magically fall into place.

Does that argument sound familiar?

 

[Skaloop]

The objective evidence is the apparent design with a purpose in all of nature.

That's not objective evidence.