What's The Matter?

[Oncedeceived]

"Evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence".

What overwhelming evidence do you have that shows that the design in life forms is an illusion?

I'm sure you heared that sentence before. It's true.
Find out.

Assertions are made all the time. Evolution of the gaps is not overwhelming evidence.

No.

"Design" is your claim.

No design is observed. It is the evidence.

And pretending that the idea you argue against is unsupported, while the opposite is true, is simply not honest.

Pretending that evolution of the gaps is a valid argument is what is not honest.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is subjective evidence. Your entire argument is "well, it kinda looks designed". That is subjective.

What is subjective? That is is an illusion...yes, yes it is.

Design is the claim, not the observation. You need to produce objective evidence for design. Until you do, there is nothing for us to disprove.

Biologists all admit that design is the observation. They observe the design in living things and have to make the claim that is all an illusion.

 

[Loudmouth]

What is subjective? That is is an illusion...yes, yes it is.

Your opinions on what looks designed is subjective.

Where did I ever mention anything about illusions? Stop shifting the burden of proof.

Biologists all admit that design is the observation.

No, they say it is the appearance. Now you can't even be honest about that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Does the bacterial flagellum use metal parts? Does it plug into the wall? Does it use electricity? Does it use coils of copper and magnets? Does it have blades made of wood? Does it have metal ball bearings?

Does it use metal parts...no but the parts that it does work in the same way structurally.
Does it plug into the wall...no but the motor is plugged into the cell membrane, where it can be powered by capturing the energy of chemical gradients. This turns the flagellum motor, and the spin is translated to the rest of the flagella. The flagellum is able to spin up to 1500 times per minute. The spinning of the flagellum filament results in a whip-like motion propelling the cell forward.
Does it have blades made of wood...no but it has a spinning filament made of eleven protofilaments.
Does it use electricity...see above
Does it have ball bearings...copper and magnets are equally seen in parts of the BF too.

 

[Loudmouth]

Does it use metal parts...no but the parts that it does work in the same way structurally.

No, they don't. None of the parts act as magnets or coils of copper. None of them act as metal parts.

All you have is a vague visual similarity like ducks in clouds.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your opinions on what looks designed is subjective.

Where did I ever mention anything about illusions? Stop shifting the burden of proof.

Did you not claim they were the same as ducky clouds. Stop making claims and then denying it.

No, they say it is the appearance. Now you can't even be honest about that.

They say they observe that things appear to be designed.

 

[Loudmouth]

Did you not claim they were the same as ducky clouds.

Are you saying that ducks in clouds are illusions?

They say they observe that things appear to be designed.

Appearances are not objective evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, they don't. None of the parts act as magnets or coils of copper. None of them act as metal parts.

All you have is a vague visual similarity like ducks in clouds.

Right, keep telling yourself that.

 

[Loudmouth]

Right, keep telling yourself that.

Right, keep ignoring it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you saying that ducks in clouds are illusions?



Appearances are not objective evidence.

Loudmouth, explain... Show us how scientists can determine there is an appearance of design.

 

[justlookinla]

1. misrepresentation. Evolution doesn't say "only" natural mechanisms. At best, it will say that only natural mechanisms are known to be part of it. And that it appears sufficient. If you can demonstrate unnatural mechanisms playing a role, then science will be happy to include such. Can you?

Darwinist evolution only considers natural mechanisms. As far as it appearing sufficient there is no evidence, based on the scientific method, for only Darwinist naturalistic mechanisms being solely responsible for the creation of humanity.

 

[justlookinla]

What does that mean to you? Can you explain?


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.

Amazing, simply amazing.

 

[justlookinla]

Loudmouth, explain... Show us how scientists can determine there is an appearance of design.

In my opinion, that's not going to be forthcoming.

 

[justlookinla]

What overwhelming evidence do you have that shows that the design in life forms is an illusion?

If they would just answer that one question.

 

[justlookinla]

Does the bacterial flagellum use metal parts? Does it plug into the wall? Does it use electricity? Does it use coils of copper and magnets? Does it have blades made of wood? Does it have metal ball bearings?

Is it designed?

 

[bhsmte]

One has to be initiated into the inner sanctums of science to hold that design doesn't exist in nature. Most folks are blissfully unaware of this.

If evolution/natural selection is indeed true it has produced some really great designs.

And some designs that could be a lot better as well.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In my opinion, that's not going to be forthcoming.

Doesn't appear to be so.

 

[bhsmte]

No, evidence that an unfalsifiable claim is wrong, will not be forthcoming. The fact that people need to be reminded of this, is telling.

Still waiting for someone to provide evidence that I was not abducted by aliens last week.

 

[Loudmouth]

Loudmouth, explain... Show us how scientists can determine there is an appearance of design.

Irrelevant. Appearances aren't evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

No, evidence that an unfalsifiable claim is wrong, will not be forthcoming. The fact that people need to be reminded of this, is telling.

Still waiting for someone to provide evidence that I was not abducted by aliens last week.

If you made the claim you were abducted by aliens last week, it's up to you to offer evidence to support your claim. If one makes the claim that design is an illusion, it's up to them to offer evidence to support the claim.

Neither will be offered, I'm sure.