What's The Matter?

[Oncedeceived]

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.

Not even close.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's not objective evidence.

Yes it is. The objective evidence shows design with a purpose, the claim is that it is a faulty interpretation of the evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

Does that argument sound familiar?

bhsmte is this objective evidence?:

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes it is. The objective evidence shows design with a purpose,

What objective evidence is that?

the claim is that it is a faulty interpretation of the evidence.

The claim is that it is a SUBJECTIVE interpretation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What objective evidence is that?



The claim is that it is a SUBJECTIVE interpretation.

No it isn't. The claim is that the objective apparent design is a faulty interpretation which is produced by evolutionary processes.

 

[Loudmouth]

bhsmte is this objective evidence?:

Here is the objective measurement of cranial size.

Notice the use of numbers and measurements.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Here is the objective measurement of cranial size.

Notice the use of numbers and measurements.

Yes, these are measurements of what?

 

[Skaloop]

Yes, these are measurements of what?

Well, he specifically said cranial size, and the Y-axis is labelled cranial capacity, so I am gonna go out on a limb and say it's an objective measurement of the size/capacity of craniums in hominin fossils.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, he specifically said cranial size, and the Y-axis is labelled cranial capacity, so I am gonna go out on a limb and say it's an objective measurement of the size/capacity of craniums in hominin fossils.

Ok, and how is it determined that they are hominin craniums?

 

[Skaloop]

Ok, and how is it determined that they are hominin craniums?

Because they share the necessary traits of hominin craniums.

 

[Davian]

I know you have a hard time <snip>

Don't tell me what I am thinking.

The burden of evidence for ID is on the ID folks. Agreed?

 

[Smidlee]

Ok, and how is it determined that they are hominin craniums?

Notice this chart was done by Nick Matzke. He must be like the "Pope" of evolutionist as what he says is taken as gospel. Of course He would leave out the "hobbit" skulls that would contradict his conclusion.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

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.

Sorry, without patterns and symmetries, you don't have evidence of design.

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.

If life arrived naturally, and then evolved naturally to the present life forms, the first life forms that were simpler and barely able to reproduce would not have left fossils for us to "see". No shells or bones, you know.

 

[justlookinla]

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

Humans.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because they share the necessary traits of hominin craniums.

How do we determine they share the necessary traits?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sorry, without patterns and symmetries, you don't have evidence of design.[\quote]. There are patterns symmetries without design, there is more than than that in this.

If life arrived naturally, and then evolved naturally to the present life forms, the first life forms that were simpler and barely able to reproduce would not have left fossils for us to "see". No shells or bones, you know.

You can make any excuse you wish of why there isn't any evidence, the point is that there isn't any.

 

[Skaloop]

How do we determine they share the necessary traits?

By them having the necessary traits.

 

[Smidlee]

Humans.

Wouldn't you agree this is an appearance of a duck ?

Notice the difference between Loudmouth picture from mine? It's called "details". Living systems looked designed when looking at the details while the evolutionist story telling is very "foggy" when it comes to details. Evolution produces a product of randomness like Loudmouth picture.

It's design

vs random evolution :

I choice intelligent design myself. One thing I learn about fog is it keeps me from seeing clearly.

 

[Oncedeceived]

By them having the necessary traits.

How do we know what traits are necessary?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Wouldn't you agree this is an appearance of a duck ?

Notice the difference between Loudmouth picture from mine? It's called "details". Living systems looked designed when looking at the details while the evolutionist story telling is very "foggy" when it comes to details. Evolution produces a product of randomness like Loudmouth picture.

It's design

vs random evolution :

I choice intelligent design myself. One thing I learn about fog is it keeps me from seeing clearly.

Exactly