What's The Matter?

[HitchSlap]

And still....not one bit of evidence.

Huge if true.

 

[justlookinla]

Huge if true.

No 'if' about it. Not one bit of evidence offered for the claim of illusion of design.

 

[HitchSlap]

No 'if' about it. Not one bit of evidence offered for the claim of illusion of design.

Nor fairies!!

 

[justlookinla]

Nor fairies!!

Nor Dawkin's claim.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Don't judge the whole Christian faith based on the opinions of a few 'floodnuts'...like me. There are many in the church that believe as you do.

Most people just want to know what the correct answer is and they do not really believe anything. The scary ones are those that let the shock jocs think for them. Which maybe the issue with Hovind. To many people were allowing him to do their thinking for them. Perhaps that is why they get upset with him.

 

[HitchSlap]

Nor Dawkin's claim.

And unicorns, don't forget about the unicorns!!

 

[justlookinla]

And unicorns, don't forget about the unicorns!!

And don't forget about the very words of Dawkins....with no evidence to support them.

 

[Skaloop]

And don't forget about the very words of Dawkins....with no evidence to support them.

So do you actually have any evidence for your position, or are you just hiding behind the idea that Dawkins et al. don't have evidence that you accept? If you're gonna say that someone is wrong, you need to show why you are right.

 

[bhsmte]

So do you actually have any evidence for your position, or are you just hiding behind the idea that Dawkins et al. don't have evidence that you accept? If you're gonna say that someone is wrong, you need to show why you are right.

Gotta keep those waters muddied.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Interesting find. This was part of the ruling in the Dover ID trial.

"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."
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitz...strict/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#Page_81_of_139

I find this humorous. If it looks designed..."purposeful arrangement of parts" is subjective. So complex systems and purposeful design is only based on appearance? We know how complex these systems are, we know they have complex functions and yet it is just subjective and eye of the beholder.

Nothing there about how this purposeful design which is clearly evident is subjective by anything other than asserting it. So it comes down to this, it looks designed...it is exceeding complex...it has purposeful arrangement of parts and we all agree that these attributes are present in all life forms but...get ready...it is only in the eye of the beholder! Every eye that beholds sees design but hey it isn't design because ...because...because why? I know why, the evidence says design and the claim is that this evidence is only subjective. This leaves us then with no evidence that this design is an illusion or subjective since it is objectively seen and admitted by even those who claim it is subjective!

 

[Loudmouth]

I find this humorous. If it looks designed..."purposeful arrangement of parts" is subjective. So complex systems and purposeful design is only based on appearance? We know how complex these systems are, we know they have complex functions and yet it is just subjective and eye of the beholder.

Nothing there about how this purposeful design which is clearly evident is subjective by anything other than asserting it. So it comes down to this, it looks designed...it is exceeding complex...it has purposeful arrangement of parts and we all agree that these attributes are present in all life forms but...get ready...it is only in the eye of the beholder! Every eye that beholds sees design but hey it isn't design because ...because...because why? I know why, the evidence says design and the claim is that this evidence is only subjective. This leaves us then with no evidence that this design is an illusion or subjective since it is objectively seen and admitted by even those who claim it is subjective!

The lady doth protest too much.

Notice that you can't present anything other than "it kinda looks designed". That's it. All you have is your subjective opinion of what something looks like.

On the flip side, we have objective measures and methods for nested hierarchies and the other evidences that support evolution.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Behe tried to use this appearance to classify ID as real science as well. Guess what, he couldn't do it either.

Misrepresent much? He didn't classify ID as real science based on appearance. He tried to use irreducible complexity to show ID was a valid scientific endeavor.

 

[bhsmte]

And he failed.

 

[justlookinla]

So do you actually have any evidence for your position, or are you just hiding behind the idea that Dawkins et al. don't have evidence that you accept? If you're gonna say that someone is wrong, you need to show why you are right.

If someone makes the claim that design is an illusion, they need to support their claim with evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The lady doth protest too much.

Not at all. What evidence do you cite that shows the design that everyone claims is objectively observed is subjectively viewed as not design? What evidence does anyone provide that the design that is shown by the features, structures and functions of all life forms is subjectively false?

Notice that you can't present anything other than "it kinda looks designed". That's it. All you have is your subjective opinion of what something looks like.

The evidence of design in present in life form and not one biologist that I am aware of claims that living forms do not have the appearance of design with a purpose. Educated and trained individuals all admit it is there. So the design appearance is not subjective but objective...everyone admits to seeing it. Where the subjective part comes in is whether those individuals "believe" it is actual design or "believe" it isn't. There is no evidence that the apparent design of life forms is in fact not actual. I don't have to provide evidence for design, it is present and admitted to by top biologists around the globe but they "believe" that it only "looks" that way and it isn't actual design but they do that with assertion and no evidence to support that claim.

On the flip side, we have objective measures and methods for nested hierarchies and the other evidences that support evolution.

Great, so give me the evidence that can show how these features and functions are the products of evolution. Evolution of the gaps or evolution did it is an assertion. We need evidence to show that evolution could produce those designs in living forms.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And he failed.

He failed for various reasons and most that had nothing to do with the actual issue.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not at all. What evidence do you cite that shows the design that everyone claims is objectively observed is subjectively viewed as not design?

The fact that you can't produce a shred of objective evidence for design. I don't have to disprove design if you can't produce a shred of evidence for it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The fact that you can't produce a shred of objective evidence for design. I don't have to disprove design if you can't produce a shred of evidence for it.

The evidence is agreed to by all biologists that I am aware of who claim that all life forms look designed. The design is the evidence. If someone observes (observes the actual structure, feature or system with purposeful function) that something appears to be designed for a purpose but then claims that it is a false appearance it is up to them to provide evidence of why that appearance is there and not a true interpretation of that evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Loudmouth is this evidence?

 

[justlookinla]

The fact that you can't produce a shred of objective evidence for design. I don't have to disprove design if you can't produce a shred of evidence for it.

Tactile sensory units thread.