What's The Matter?

[Crowns&Laurels]

Why do you say that? Because they didn't discover your particular god?

Because they didn't discover anything. Except more problems.

 

[Davian]

Because they didn't discover anything. Except more problems.

What were you expecting to happen? That their discoveries would lower the price of milk at the market?

 

[Loudmouth]

I will assume then that the skulls themselves are not evidence in your opinion then?

What have I said is objective evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

The hypothesis of design is if something is designed it should be recognized by having the same or similar applications as known designs produced by intelligent agents.

How do you test the null hypothesis, that non-design mechanisms can produce those functions? Why is design required for those things to exist?

 

[Loudmouth]

Ok. You are fee to have your own opinion.

Sorry. I can't do more than I can.

That's the point we have been making. All you seem capable of doing is repeating the claim over and over. Evidence you do not have.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

What were you expecting to happen? That their discoveries would lower the price of milk at the market?

Name one great thing astrophysics has accomplished in the past thirty years besides take nice snapshots from their satellites.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yet another false dichotomy. Even if everyone else was wrong, it would not automatically prove you right.

That is not what I said. In the case of burden of proof, it rests on the one making the positive claim. Dawkins makes a positive claim that the design for a purpose that we observe in living forms is an illusion of design produced by evolutionary processes. The burden rests on him and those that agree with that contention.

 

[Davian]

Name one great thing astrophysics has accomplished in the past thirty years besides take nice snapshots from their satellites.

Those pictures seem great to me. I have no idea what you would qualify as "great".

 

[bhsmte]

Name one great thing astrophysics has accomplished in the past thirty years besides take nice snapshots from their satellites.

Should they immediately stop their work, throw up their arms and say; it was God all along?

 

[Loudmouth]

Name one great thing astrophysics has accomplished in the past thirty years besides take nice snapshots from their satellites.

The first estimates of how common Earth-like planets are, as discovered by the Kepler sattelite.

The first estimates of how many galaxies there are in the Universe, as discovered by the Hubble telescope in the deep field images.

First big surveys of type Ia supernovae for measuring the expansion of the universe, and its acceleration/deceleration through time.

The first high detail maps of the temperature and fluctuations within the cosmic microwave background which allows for calculating the age of the universe.

Those are the four big ones off the top of my head.

 

[Oncedeceived]

lol. Asking someone to prove a negative is something I consider to be intellectually bankrupt, but it may be all they have left.

It isn't a negative, it is a positive claim. It seems more intellectually bankrupt to make a claim the design observed is an illusion and have nothing to support that claim. Design is observed and the subjective claim is that it is an illusion. If design was not present and recognized there would be no illusion.

 

[Larniavc]

Individual life forms are changed randomly in Darwinist evolution.

Not true: DNA changes, though. Individuals exhibit mutations which can be transmitted down the generations and evolution takes place around the species level. An organism does not evolve: populations do.

Additionally, ToE does not predict that one one organism will morph into another.

All the best.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's the point we have been making. All you seem capable of doing is repeating the claim over and over. Evidence you do not have.

You are the one that is not supplying evidence. Not answering direct yes or no questions.

 

[Loudmouth]

It isn't a negative, it is a positive claim. It seems more intellectually bankrupt to make a claim the design observed is an illusion and have nothing to support that claim.

It makes complete sense that appearances of design are completely subjective.

Design is observed and the subjective claim is that it is an illusion. If design was not present and recognized there would be no illusion.

The claims of appearances are clearly subjective. Even federal judges can see it.

"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

You have yet to produce a single objective methodology, unit of measure, or statistical analysis for design. That's because it is subjective.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are the one that is not supplying evidence. Not answering direct yes or no questions.

Yet another shift in the burden of proof.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

The first estimates of how common Earth-like planets are, as discovered by the Kepler sattelite.

The first estimates of how many galaxies there are in the Universe, as discovered by the Hubble telescope in the deep field images.

First big surveys of type Ia supernovae for measuring the expansion of the universe, and its acceleration/deceleration through time.

The first high detail maps of the temperature and fluctuations within the cosmic microwave background which allows for calculating the age of the universe.

Those are the four big ones off the top of my head.

All which mathematics has already shown to be virtually certain, and which all is just visual confirmation.
Nothing remarkable has come out of astrophysics. They've come right out with their own mouths and said they've hit a wall. String theory has been around since the 70's, for example, and has gotten utterly nowhere.

 

[Loudmouth]

All which mathematics has already shown to be virtually certain, and which all is just visual confirmation.

How did math predict the age of the universe or the number of galaxies?

They've come right out with their own mouths and said they've hit a wall. String theory has been around since the 70's, for example, and has gotten utterly nowhere.

So they should just give up and pronounce that it's all magic?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You provided no means of testing, no units to use, and no means of falsification. I cannot test your "hypothesis".

That is ok, biologists do. Falsification would include no recognizable attributes which are the same or similar to human design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How do you test the null hypothesis, that non-design mechanisms can produce those functions? Why is design required for those things to exist?

You haven't shown any evidence for non-designed mechanisms that can produce those functions.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is ok, biologists do.

Where can we read their peer reviewed papers? Where can read about their methodologies, measurements, and statistical analyses?

Falsification would include no recognizable attributes which are the same or similar to human design.

That's not a correct null hypothesis. A correct methodology and hypothesis can differentiate between non-design producing those attributes and design producing those attributes.