What's The Matter?

[Loudmouth]

You haven't shown any evidence for non-designed mechanisms that can produce those functions.

You haven't shown any evidence for design mechanisms that can produce these functions. Where have we ever observed deities using magic to make biological organisms?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yet another shift in the burden of proof.

No, that would require it to be my claim which it is not. It is a claim made by Dawkins and others.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, that would require it to be my claim which it is not. It is a claim made by Dawkins and others.

When has it ever been made by me?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

How did math predict the age of the universe or the number of galaxies?

Lol, they didn't get the numbers by simply looking.

 

[Loudmouth]

Lol, they didn't get the numbers by simply looking.

Then how did they get those numbers without any of the data collected from astronomical observations?

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Then how did they get those numbers without any of the data collected from astronomical observations?

They didn't get it from anything recent. Recent findings just concluded what was already assumed.

And anyways, none of these things are leaps in astrophysics. Every time they try to solve something, they end up with the more problems.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Where can we read their peer reviewed papers? Where can read about their methodologies, measurements, and statistical analyses?

http://www.artofthecell.com/the-inner-life-of-the-cell

Here is a good representation of the research and findings using scientific methods in visual form.

That's not a correct null hypothesis. A correct methodology and hypothesis can differentiate between non-design producing those attributes and design producing those attributes.

Right, what produces design...intelligent beings or physical or natural processes. How do we recognize intelligent design over the natural processes. We have to recognize what intelligent agents produce what nature produces and determine which is more reasonable considering the way each designs. The evidence is design, which way it was designed is determined by how it is best explained. Is it better explained by natural occurring processes or intelligent agent?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You haven't shown any evidence for design mechanisms that can produce these functions. Where have we ever observed deities using magic to make biological organisms?

What!!!! We have design by intelligent agents all over the place which we can recognize because we have a history of design in evidence.

 

[Davian]

That is not what I said. In the case of burden of proof, it rests on the one making the positive claim. <snip false dichotomy>.

Are you claiming actual, intended design in biological systems? Yes or no?

 

[Davian]

It isn't a negative, it is a positive claim. It seems more intellectually bankrupt to make a claim the design observed is an illusion and have nothing to support that claim. Design is observed

No, design is perceived...

and the subjective claim is that it is an illusion.

All that is needed to support that claim is for some people to see "design" (whatever they mean by that) in whatever is being discussed. Personally, I do not see this "design" that you allude to.

If design was not present and recognized there would be no illusion.

Recall the 'face' in the cliff face; did it have to be a real face to produce the illusion of a face?

 

[bhsmte]

Are you claiming actual, intended design in biological systems? Yes or no?

You won't get an answer to that simple question.

 

[Davian]

You are the one that is not supplying evidence. Not answering direct yes or no questions.

 

[justlookinla]

That is not what I said. In the case of burden of proof, it rests on the one making the positive claim. Dawkins makes a positive claim that the design for a purpose that we observe in living forms is an illusion of design produced by evolutionary processes. The burden rests on him and those that agree with that contention.

Dawkins is such a despicable anti-theist and anitChrist he makes these claims that the gullible will embrace, never realizing until it's too late that his claim of illusion of design had absolutely no evidence to back it up. But, since it's an anti-theist rant, the blind will follow the blind.

 

[justlookinla]

You haven't shown any evidence for non-designed mechanisms that can produce those functions.

And won't.

Time for the duckie in the cloud evasion? Or a rock. Or rivers?

 

[Davian]

That is ok, biologists do.

You have provided nothing.

Falsification would include no recognizable attributes which are the same or similar to human design.

I do not think you fully understand the concept of falsification. That you perceive design (or not) is not a test for design.

 

[Davian]

Dawkins is such a despicable anti-theist and anitChrist he makes these claims that the gullible will embrace, never realizing until it's too late that his claim of illusion of design had absolutely no evidence to back it up. But, since it's an anti-theist rant, the blind will follow the blind.

Are you now reduced to throwing out insults?

 

[bhsmte]

You have provided nothing.

I do not think you fully understand the concept of falsification. That you perceive design (or not) is not a test for design.

Desperation phase, take number 342, now in full force.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You haven't shown any evidence for design mechanisms that can produce these functions. Where have we ever observed deities using magic to make biological organisms?

If the physical world is all there is and evolution the only process from which this illusion of design produced it is up to you to show the natural physical processes produced the design from which this illusion is claimed.

 

[justlookinla]

Are you now reduced to throwing out insults?

Point out the insult if you will.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You have provided nothing.

That's ok, they have. SEE: http://www.artofthecell.com/the-inner-life-of-the-cell

I do not think you fully understand the concept of falsification. That you perceive design (or not) is not a test for design.

You are absolutely right, I don't perceive design I observe it and so do all biologists that I am aware of. The test is the recognition of intelligent agents designs being compared to those in life forms and the observation that the design is the same or similar to those made by intelligent agents.