What's The Matter?

[Loudmouth]

This is what Oncedeceived considers to be evidence for design:

"Pareidolia (/pærɨˈdoʊliə/ parr-i-DOH-lee-ə) is a psychological phenomenon involving a stimulus (an image or a sound) wherein the brain perceives familiar patterns in a vague or obscure stimulus."

For example, this geologic formation on Mars has the appearance of a face:

Most of us understand this as a subjective appearance. Apparently, ID/creationists don't understand what objective evidence is or how to gather it.

 

[bhsmte]

We are asking for evidence, not appearances.

I always thought simple appearances were subjective and this is solidified by the fact that people don't see the same appearance of anything.

To use my analogy again, if I go to my doctor for a checkup, he could take a look at me and say; you have the appearance of being healthy. Does he stop their with the checkup? No, he wants to verify the appearance is supported with objective testing; blood work, EKG, etc..

It could very well be, when he receives the results of these objective tests, that the appearance was wrong, and I could have significant disease.

Lets all be glad real science doesn't draw conclusions in this manner.

 

[Skaloop]

I will take that to mean that you only accept that evidence that you wish to accept

Fine. You'd be wrong in doing so, though.

and the fact that nearly all microbiologists and biologist admit to life forms appear to be designed for a purpose.

Citation needed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And here goes the ad hominem rather than provide the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

And here goes the ad hominem rather than provide the evidence.

It is your claim that these things are designed. You provide the evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

It is your claim that these things are designed. You provide the evidence.

Long time has passed and no evidence. I don't think it is coming.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I always thought simple appearances were subjective and this is solidified by the fact that people don't see the same appearance of anything.

Appears to be is used to establish something that seems to be the case. I got sunburned, appears to be the case. I found this card, it appears to be a visa credit card...etc.

To use my analogy again, if I go to my doctor for a checkup, he could take a look at me and say; you have the appearance of being healthy. Does he stop their with the checkup? No, he wants to verify the appearance is supported with objective testing; blood work, EKG, etc..

Yes, and the objective test is to use new technology available to us today to observe systems in the cell which is not possible without this technology and observe their structure and features along with the function included. The design is overwhelming apparent and biologists admit it. You seem to want to dismiss that. The observation (evidence) is design. It is the claim that this apparent design is an illusion. In fact, for it to be an illusion at all it must be present in the form of design.

Lets all be glad real science doesn't draw conclusions in this manner.

Science has, it is the scientists that claim this overwhelming evidence of design in living things is an illusion. That is the subjective part.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Fine. You'd be wrong in doing so, though.

Citation needed.

Frances Crick:
Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.
— Francis Crick
What Mad Pursuit (1990), 138.
Richard Dawkins:
"Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose. Physics books may be complicated, but ...The objects and phenomena that a physics book describes are simpler than a single cell in the body of its author. And the author consists of trillions of those cells, many of them different from each other, organized with intricate architecture and precision-engineering into a working machine capable of writing a book. " p1-3.

"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selectioin overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design." Cover of The Blind Watchmaker

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is what Oncedeceived considers to be evidence for design:

"Pareidolia (/pærɨˈdoʊliə/ parr-i-DOH-lee-ə) is a psychological phenomenon involving a stimulus (an image or a sound) wherein the brain perceives familiar patterns in a vague or obscure stimulus."

For example, this geologic formation on Mars has the appearance of a face:

Most of us understand this as a subjective appearance. Apparently, ID/creationists don't understand what objective evidence is or how to gather it.

You have been corrected not only by me but by someone that shares your worldview and yet you continue to present this faulty view of this issue.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Long time has passed and no evidence. I don't think it is coming.

The evidence is the overwhelming design in living organisms. The claim is that it is an illusion. The burden rests on the one making the claim that it is an illusion.

 

[Skaloop]

Frances Crick:
Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.
— Francis Crick
What Mad Pursuit (1990), 138.
Richard Dawkins:
"Biology is the study of complex things that appear to have been designed for a purpose. Physics books may be complicated, but ...The objects and phenomena that a physics book describes are simpler than a single cell in the body of its author. And the author consists of trillions of those cells, many of them different from each other, organized with intricate architecture and precision-engineering into a working machine capable of writing a book. " p1-3.

"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selectioin overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design." Cover of The Blind Watchmaker

I am amused that you think that those quotes support your position. Both of them mention "appear" to have been designed, or "appearance" of design. Neither of them say that they were designed for a purpose.

Also, if you actually read The Blind Watchmaker, you'd know that it obliterates the idea of intentional design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am amused that you think that those quotes support your position. Both of them mention "appear" to have been designed, or "appearance" of design. Neither of them say that they were designed for a purpose.

Richard Dawkins: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}

Also, if you actually read The Blind Watchmaker, you'd know that it obliterates the idea of intentional design.

I did and if you can provide any evidence that Dawkins gives for the appearance of complicated things being designed for a purpose being only an illusion...please provide it.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Right, I am not surprised.

Nor should you be, I am not basing my life on evolution but you are basing your life on ID and creationism.

I doubt if I say the word evolution once a year, I might say evolve when I talk about something getting bigger or better or changing but that's it, you are only concerned with evolution because it makes a mockery of what you want to believe and you don't like it, your religion is not based on evidence it's based on faith so why don't you just believe and have done with it? or is faith not enough for you?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nor should you be, I am not basing my life on evolution but you are basing your life on ID and creationism.

I doubt if I say the word evolution once a year, I might say evolve when I talk about something getting bigger or better or changing but that's it, you are only concerned with evolution because it makes a mockery of what you want to believe and you don't like it, your religion is not based on evidence it's based on faith so why don't you just believe and have done with it? or is faith not enough for you?

The problem is not evolution, it is materialism. Science has been part of my life a good portion of it in fact, unlike you. It seems you are the one that believes what you are told about evolution and haven't researched anything for yourself.

 

[Skaloop]

Richard Dawkins: “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}

Again, the key part is "give the appearance of having been designed". Not that they were designed.

I did and if you can provide any evidence that Dawkins gives for the appearance of complicated things being designed for a purpose being only an illusion...please provide it.

A direct quote by Dawkins saying that specific thing? No. But he does call it an illusion of design. Never does he say that it is actually designed.

 

[justlookinla]

All of it. As I said, all evidence from multiple lines of study and investigation supports evolution. None of it contradicts it.

"All of it" isn't presenting evidence based on the scientific method.

There was no "creation" of humanity.

Humanity didn't exist, now it exists. Something/someone/somehow it was created.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Again, the key part is "give the appearance of having been designed". Not that they were designed.

What does that mean to you? Can you explain?

A direct quote by Dawkins saying that specific thing? No. But he does call it an illusion of design. Never does he say that it is actually designed.

A direct quote by Dawkins saying what specific thing? Not sure what you are saying here.
So let me get this straight, Dawkins who is an outspoken atheist and I would say militant atheist, makes an asserted claim that the design we see is an illusion but gives no evidence for that claim and you accept that without any evidence; and then claim I am the one without evidence. Priceless.

 

[justlookinla]

No it is the evidence. The claim is that this design is an illusion.

If one wishes to dismiss this evidence they need to provide evidence that shows this design is an illusion.

Yeppers. A claim was made but no evidence to support the claim after many requests for the evidence. Plenty of personal attacks for actually asking for evidence, but no evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

The simple answer would be, It's the creationists nightmare.

LOL. What evasion.

 

[Skaloop]

"All of it" isn't presenting evidence based on the scientific method.

It is, since all of the evidence is based on the scientific method.

Humanity didn't exist, now it exists. Something/someone/somehow it was created.

Not necessarily. Again, "created" implies intent. Life arose, life developed, life evolved; that doesn't mean life was created.