What's The Matter?

[bhsmte]

You don't even know you are doing it do you?

Strong defense mechanisms tend to be on autopilot.

 

[Loudmouth]

As evolution is not universally accepted is it not just another subjective belief?

Evolution is a theory backed by objective evidence, which makes it objective instead of subjective.

 

[Loudmouth]

We have objective evidence that this exists in the Bacteria:

Where is the objective evidence that it was designed by a deity?

Appearance of the design of the BF is nearly the same as the design we see in the human designed rotor system. That is objective evidence that the BF appears to be designed for a purpose as we can see the same design in the rotor system.

That is subjective evidence. For objective evidence you have a scientific methodology, a unit of measure, and statistical tests used in tandem with a null hypothesis. You have none of those things.

 

[Skaloop]

Appearance of the design of the BF is nearly the same as the design we see in the human designed rotor system. That is objective evidence that the BF appears to be designed for a purpose as we can see the same design in the rotor system.

Appearances of being nearly the same is not objective evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

Evolution is a theory backed by objective evidence, which makes it objective instead of subjective.

The Darwinist form of evolution isn't backed by the scientific method. Other forms of evolution are backed by the scientific method.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think science would be ok with purposeful design but not a designer. Things can design themselves just fine, no designer needed.

 

[bhsmte]

I think science would be ok with purposeful design but not a designer. Things can design themselves just fine, no designer needed.

Science would be ok with whatever it can test and gather objective evidence on.

 

[Skaloop]

The Darwinist form of evolution isn't backed by the scientific method. Other forms of evolution are backed by the scientific method.

Well, that's true in that Darwin's theory of evolution wasn't correct in every detail, but in general it is totally backed by the scientific method and has been for over 150 years of rigorous testing. There aren't really any other forms of evolution that are backed by the scientific method. Lamarckism, for example, is wholly refuted.

 

[justlookinla]

Well, that's true in that Darwin's theory of evolution wasn't correct in every detail, but in general it is totally backed by the scientific method and has been for over 150 years of rigorous testing. There aren't really any other forms of evolution that are backed by the scientific method. Lamarckism, for example, is wholly refuted.

I disagree. The view that only naturalistic mechanisms created the incomprehensibly complex human body isn't supported by the scientific method. No doubt the scientific method supports certain forms of evolution, but not that form.

 

[Skaloop]

I disagree. The view that only naturalistic mechanisms created the incomprehensibly complex human body isn't supported by the scientific method.

But it is.

No doubt the scientific method supports certain forms of evolution, but not that form.

What other forms are you alluding to?

 

[justlookinla]

But it is.

Evidence?

What other forms are you alluding to?

Bacteria evolving into bacteria, ect.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You don't even know you are doing it do you?

I want in your own words what you believe evolution is. Can you provide that?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Where is the objective evidence that it was designed by a deity?


That is subjective evidence. For objective evidence you have a scientific methodology, a unit of measure, and statistical tests used in tandem with a null hypothesis. You have none of those things.

The evidence is the design. You have to show why it is not actual design and only an illusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Appearances of being nearly the same is not objective evidence.

Really, why don't you then give me the evidence that show this design we see in life forms is an illusion?

 

[bhsmte]

In other words folks, something has the appearance of design = God did it.

Just be thankful, science in general doesn't draw conclusions in this manner, because we would be living in the stone age.

 

[justlookinla]

In other words folks, something has the appearance of design = God did it.

Just be thankful, science in general doesn't draw conclusions in this manner, because we would be living in the stone age.

When you say "appearance of design", what do you mean by design?

 

[Loudmouth]

The evidence is the design.

That is the claim, not the evidence.

You have to show why it is not actual design and only an illusion.

I don't have to disprove that which you have no evidence for. The burden of proof lies with you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Really, why don't you then give me the evidence that show this design we see in life forms is an illusion?

We don't have to disprove claims that have no evidence. The burden of proof lies with you to show that ID is real.

 

[bhsmte]

We don't have to disprove claims that have no evidence. The burden of proof lies with you to show that ID is real.

That clutch is gotta be on its last legs, with all this shifting.

 

[Skaloop]

Evidence?

All known evidence from multiple lines of study and investigation going back billions of years.

Bacteria evolving into bacteria, ect.

Which is still "Darwinian" evolution.