What's The Matter?

[Skaloop]

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

And if someone makes the claim that design is not an illusion, they too need to support their claim with evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

And if someone makes the claim that design is not an illusion, they too need to support their claim with evidence.

And if someone makes the claim of illusion of design they need to support their claim with evidence. Dawkins sold a few books making that unsubstantiated claim.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And if someone makes the claim that design is not an illusion, they too need to support their claim with evidence.

The design is the evidence we don't have to show it is not an illusion. The illusion is the claim that this evidence is faulty.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What was the evidence?

What was the evidence?

I just told.

If you are obviously going to ignore it, why would I bother repeating it for the gazillionth time?

So if we look at this:

We know that this didn't naturally arise from the materials that make it what it is. It came about by a plan for a purpose. It has a design based on what that purpose is.

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/5/1260/F1.medium.gif

This works on the same design and shows a plan for a purpose.

The difference is that the first is made from not-naturally occuring materials and does not reproduce with variation.

As such, it is not subject to the laws and processes of bio-chemistry. Evolution.

So your analogy is completely invalid.
You are not even comparing apples and oranges.
You are comparing organic apples with plastic oranges.

It is made up of materials but the materials don't make it what it is anymore than the first one does. Get it now?

But the materials of one of them are subject to evolutionary processes.
The other is not.

Because of this, one needs to be assembled by a third party.
The other doesn't.

Can you guess which is which?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

The evidence for evolution.
You can turn to the biologists you like to quote mine for more detail.
You may start by actually reading the books you were quote mining from.

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

The information is easily accessible in book shops, public libraries, the internet, high school, college courses, university courses....

Clearly, you aren't interested in it. If you were interested in it, you would have already looked it up for yourself a long time ago. And you would have known it is all right there.

The long term experiments, the phylogenies, the comparative anatomy studies, the geographic distribution of species, the fossils,... etc
Plenty of independent fields that all converge on the same central idea of evolution.

No design is observed. It is the evidence.

Explanations are never observed.
Data is observed. Explanations are then formulated to explain the data.

The explanation of science for why life looks and works the way it does is Evolution Theory.

Your explanation is "design".

Why else would you pit it against evolution as an explanation?

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

Evolution is not an argument.

It's a scientific theory. You can deny science if you want to.
Just be honest about it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

They say they observe that things appear to be designed.

Do you understand the difference between:

"this appears blue"

and

"this is blue"?

Because it sounds like you don't...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Darwinist evolution only considers natural mechanisms.

Only because there is no evidence of any unnatural mechanisms playing any kind of role.

 

[DogmaHunter]

This is clearly evasion. I take this as a fail for you.

He answered your question quite clearly.

Appearances are not evidence.
Appearances are subjective opinions.

And they are valid purely by the fact that a person holds the opinion.
It's not something that can be right or wrong. It's about what goes on in the brain of the person formulating the opinion.

What appears like "X" to you, might appear like "Y" to me.
And both opinions would be valid.

The whole thing would only change once you change your opinion from "it appears like X" to "it is X".

Which is what you have been doing this entire thread.

You took a subjective opinion and turned it into a claim of knowledge.
And when asked for evidence in support of that claim of knowledge, you fall back on you subjective opinion again.

Is the fallacy starting to sink in now?
I bet it doesn't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Dawkins sold a few books making that unsubstantiated claim.

Try reading more then just the cover.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I just told.

If you are obviously going to ignore it, why would I bother repeating it for the gazillionth time?

The difference is that the first is made from not-naturally occuring materials and does not reproduce with variation.

As such, it is not subject to the laws and processes of bio-chemistry. Evolution.

So your analogy is completely invalid.
You are not even comparing apples and oranges.
You are comparing organic apples with plastic oranges.

But the materials of one of them are subject to evolutionary processes.
The other is not.

Because of this, one needs to be assembled by a third party.
The other doesn't.

Can you guess which is which?

All materials are subject to the laws and processes of physics and have a bio-chemistry.
How do you know that one needs to be assembled by a third party and the other doesn't? Please provide the evidence that a third party was not needed to produce the design with purpose that appears in life forms.

Science has a multitude of areas that use the recognition of design as its base. We understand from our own creation of design how design looks and functions. It shows intent, it shows planning, it shows purpose and function and complex mechanisms that work together in a system. This is shown in all life forms on earth. Now if you propose as Dawkins does that this is only an illusion created by natural processes it is incumbent on you and him to produce actual evidence that evolution could produce it. The whole book was stories and maybe, should and could be's but not one shred of evidence to show evolution produces the illusion of design. Imagination is not evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The evidence for evolution.
You can turn to the biologists you like to quote mine for more detail.
You may start by actually reading the books you were quote mining from.

I've read it. ASSUMPTIONS, stories, imagination and could have and should have are all assertions. We can just imagine how is not evidence. There is no evidence that shows the evidence of apparent design in life forms is an illusion.

The information is easily accessible in book shops, public libraries, the internet, high school, college courses, university courses....

Clearly, you aren't interested in it. If you were interested in it, you would have already looked it up for yourself a long time ago. And you would have known it is all right there.

The long term experiments, the phylogenies, the comparative anatomy studies, the geographic distribution of species, the fossils,... etc
Plenty of independent fields that all converge on the same central idea of evolution.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You assume I don't have knowledge of biological evolution but you are wrong. The long term experiments, the phylogenies, the comparative anatomy studies, the geographic distribution of species, the fossils, the nest hierarchy, the genetic similarities, the Systematics, the DNA studies, the chemistry bases, the study of molecular biology, the study of evolutionary ecology, Zoology, field biology, development biology and even micro biology while giving evidence of genetic change and modification within all life forms does not give any evidence that shows evolution can produce the systems and structures, the inter workings of even the cell alone. So don't blanket evolution without giving actual evidence to support how design with purpose could be produced by evolutionary processes alone.

Explanations are never observed.
Data is observed. Explanations are then formulated to explain the data.

The explanation of science for why life looks and works the way it does is Evolution Theory.

Your explanation is "design".

Why else would you pit it against evolution as an explanation?



Evolution is not an argument.

Exactly. The data is design with purpose in living things. The explanation you would like to claim is that evolution produced this data. Show it.

It's a scientific theory. You can deny science if you want to.
Just be honest about it.

Perhaps you should be honest and provide the evidence that shows evolution does produce design with a purpose in all life forms and be honest about it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

He answered your question quite clearly.

Appearances are not evidence.
Appearances are subjective opinions.

And they are valid purely by the fact that a person holds the opinion.
It's not something that can be right or wrong. It's about what goes on in the brain of the person formulating the opinion.

What appears like "X" to you, might appear like "Y" to me.
And both opinions would be valid.

The whole thing would only change once you change your opinion from "it appears like X" to "it is X".

Which is what you have been doing this entire thread.

You took a subjective opinion and turned it into a claim of knowledge.
And when asked for evidence in support of that claim of knowledge, you fall back on you subjective opinion again.

Is the fallacy starting to sink in now?
I bet it doesn't.

Assertion and begging the question.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you understand the difference between:

"this appears blue"

and

"this is blue"?

Because it sounds like you don't...

You clearly don't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

All materials are subject to the laws and processes of physics and have a bio-chemistry.

No. Airplanes, cars, computers,.. aren't subject to biological processes.

They don't reproduce with variation, they don't pass on their body plans with modification, they do not compete for limited resources, etc etc.

How do you know that one needs to be assembled by a third party and the other doesn't?

Because one reproduces by itself and the other does not...........

Did your mom never tell you the story about the flowers and the bees?

Science has a multitude of areas that use the recognition of design as its base.

Such as?

We understand from our own creation of design how design looks and functions. It shows intent, it shows planning, it shows purpose and function and complex mechanisms that work together in a system

That's not how one detects design.

Plenty of manufactured things have no function and / or only subjective purpose.
Furthermore, how does one test for "purpose"?

Complexity is, again, not at all a requirement for design. Plenty of extremely complex things are natural phenomena while a things way simpler are designed.

This is shown in all life forms on earth. Now if you propose as Dawkins does that this is only an illusion created by natural processes it is incumbent on you and him to produce actual evidence that evolution could produce it.

Evolution theory.

The whole book was stories and maybe, should and could be's

It's called intellectual honesty. I know the concept is foreign to you, but hey... that's how science is done.

I know you prefer strong authorities that just say "that's how it is, now believe or go to hell" require you not to think at all.

But science simply doesn't work that way.

but not one shred of evidence to show evolution produces the illusion of design. Imagination is not evidence.

It's literally what evolution does. "optimise" organisms for their environment.

It's like talking to a wall. I wonder why I continue.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I've read it. ASSUMPTIONS, stories, imagination and could have and should have are all assertions. We can just imagine how is not evidence. There is no evidence that shows the evidence of apparent design in life forms is an illusion.

Read it again.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You assume I don't have knowledge of biological evolution but you are wrong.

Then why do you say things about evolution that are obviously wrong?
It's not even hard to find out, since it's about very basic, fundamental stuff here.

We aren't even talking about details.

The long term experiments, the phylogenies, the comparative anatomy studies, the geographic distribution of species, the fossils, the nest hierarchy, the genetic similarities, the Systematics, the DNA studies, the chemistry bases, the study of molecular biology, the study of evolutionary ecology, Zoology, field biology, development biology and even micro biology while giving evidence of genetic change and modification within all life forms does not give any evidence that shows evolution can produce the systems and structures, the inter workings of even the cell alone.

Except that it does.

Like every single, literally every single, practical application of this theory shows.
Need I put up the web app again that evolves cars from random polygons?

So don't blanket evolution without giving actual evidence to support how design with purpose could be produced by evolutionary processes alone.

Evolution explains how organisms are "optimised" over time for the habitat they find themselves.

The evidence that this theory is accurate is, off course, overwhelming.
So overwhelming that biologists actually had to split up in different branches of biological science to cover it all.

Exactly. The data is design with purpose in living things. The explanation you would like to claim is that evolution produced this data. Show it.

This is hilarious.... I wonder if you do this on purpose...

You say "exactly" and then move on to state the exact opposite of what I said......

I can only repeat myself:
The data is just the biological system. This data needs an explanation.

The explanation that science offers is EVOLUTION.
The explanation that theists like you offer is DESIGN.

These are rivalling explanations.
No, the data is not the explanation.

Evolution is well evidenced, as it is a very mature scientific theory.

Design? Not so much.

Perhaps you should be honest and provide the evidence that shows evolution does produce design with a purpose in all life forms and be honest about it.

It's what evolution inevitably results in. It's nature's optimisation module. It's what natural selection does.

The evidence for this mechanism is overwhelming and contradicted by nothing (except certain faith-based religions - but like...who cares about that, except those who believe it).

 

[DogmaHunter]

Assertion and begging the question.

What the...?

Are you going to address the post, or just make random comments?
I didn't even assert anything.

I tried to explain the difference between "x appears Y" and "x IS y".

Unsurprisingly, it fell on deaf ears.

Again, why do I even bother......

 

[Skaloop]

And if someone makes the claim of illusion of design they need to support their claim with evidence. Dawkins sold a few books making that unsubstantiated claim.

I don't care about Dawkins. I never brought up Dawkins. I also never made the claim of illusion of design.

 

[Loudmouth]

The evidence is agreed to by all biologists . . .

No, it isn't. They only agree on appearances, not evidence.

Stop evading. Produce the objective evidence or admit that you have none.

 

[Loudmouth]

The design is the evidence . . .

Design is the subjective appearance.

Stop evading. Produce the objective evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

I don't care about Dawkins. I never brought up Dawkins. I also never made the claim of illusion of design.

Is design in the human body an illusion? Why or why not?