Oh look, it’s duplicitous apologetics time again, folks!
Ahem, YOU were the one who asserted that we purportedly needed a cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology to explain sophisticated behaviour in animals. Nice goalpost switch you’ve attempted (and failed) to pull there.
Meanwhile, I notice you gave up trying to explain how an invisible entity could have an “image” or a “likeness”. Apparently defending your own assertions is too much hard work for you.
Oh look, it’s the tiresome resurrection of Paley’s Watchmaker bullshit again. Which Ive already dealt with at length in two places, namely here, and in the document I provided here. Indeed, in that first link, I provided an example of a product “designed” using evolutionary algorithms. I also provided three more examples of useful products being “designed” by evolution in the document provided here.
Do you ever pay attention to the free education you’re receiving here?
Oh, and don’t bother resurrecting Canard #8 from my list, as you’ve done in the past, or Canard #9.
Quite simply, drop the fatuous presumption that there was a “who” involved in any of the vast panoply of observable entities and interactions that science has explained, without once needing to invoke a fatuous cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology.
Except that no one here asserts that cars are anything other than the products of human engineering. Drop the strawman caricatures that you and other mythology fanboys are so fond of, and address what we, and for that matter, scientists, actually postulate with respect to the requisite questions. Your blatant shilling for the Duplicity Institute is becoming tiresome.
Again, no one asserts this. We have evidence that Ferrucio Lamborghini was involved with, for example, the Miura. Indeed, elsewhere I wrote a documentary post on this very subject, which you can read here.
Going to set fire to those strawmen of yours once and for all, mythology fanboy?
Except that the scientists in question have provided data informing us that testable natural processes were responsible, not a ridiculous cartoon magic man from a goat herder mythology, and have also provided experimental test and verification of the requisite postulates. Which has never happened with “Magic Man did it”. At bottom, all that mouth on a stick mythology fanboys have ever had to offer, can be summed up as “my mythology says so”, with a leavening of “here’s some ex recto apologetics I produced in a vain attempt to conjure my fantasies into life with a magic spell”.
Learn once and for all that the “design” assertion is bullshit, and we have numerous cogent reasons why it’s bullshit. If you need schooling on this, I’ve provided the reading material.
And, predictably, our mythology fanboy has resurrected Canard #24 from my list, the asinine “were you there?” canard.
Guess what, Looby Loo? Scientists don’t need to have been present in the past, to know what happened in the past. All that they need, is:
[1] For the requisite physical processes to leave behind them persistent physical evidence of their occurrence (fossils being possibly the canonical example), or;
[2] For the requisite physical processes to be demonstrated to work in laboratory experiments.
And before you try to peddle some specious apologetic garbage, to the effect that the laws of physics were purportedly “different” in the past, we know otherwisse, courtesy of several well-documented phenomena. SN1987A, for example, not only demonstrates that the laws of physics were the same 167,000 years ago, but requires trigonometry to be wrong in order for creationist assertions to be right. Good luck with that one. The Oklo natural nuclear reactor tells us that the laws of physics were the same around 2 billion years ago. Indeed, there are numerous scientific papers informing us that the laws of physics have remained essentially constant right across deep time, one relevant paper being this one:
A Search For Time Variation Of The Fine Structure Constant by John K. Webb,. Victor V. Flambaum, Christopher W. Churchill, Michael J. Drinkwater and John D. Barrow, Physical Review Letters, 82: 884-888 (1st February 1999) [Full paper available for download here
Another relevant paper is this one:
Direct Test Of The Time-Independence Of Fundamental Nuclear Constants Using The Oklo Nuclear Reactor by Alexander I. Shylakhter, arXiv.org (SPECIAL NOTE: this paper was a transcript of a lecture given at ATOMKI, 18 November, 1982. This document was re-entered manually; scanned original is available at http://alexonline.info . This document was uploaded to arXiv.org by Ilya Shlyakhter (contact info at http://ilya.cc) after the death of its author) [Full paper available for download here].
We also have this:
The Oklo bound On The Time Variation Of The Fine-Structure Constant Revisited by Thibault Damour and Freeman Dyson, Nuclear Physics B, 480(1-2): 37-54 (25th November 1996) [Full paper available for download here]
and this:
Probing The Cosmological Variation Of The Fine-Structure Constant: Results Based On VLT-UVES Sample by Hum Chand, Raghunathan Srianand, Patrick Petitjean and Bastien Aracil, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 417(3): 853-871 (3rd April 2004) [Full paper avaialble for download here]
Oh, by the way, I was dealing with fatuous creationist assertions about the supposed “difference” of the laws of physics in the past a long time ago. For example, there’s this post of mine elsewhere from 2014, or this post of mine elsewhere from 2011, and this post of mine elsewhere from 2010. As you can see, I’ve been quite busy on this matter. It’s the reason I’m able to anticipate the sort of duplicity you’re plotting to deploy next.
Oh, and as I’ve already mentioned in my detailed coverage of creationist canards, the “were you there?” canard is even more lethal to your adherence to your goat herder mythology, because, wait for it, no one was there BY DEFINITION to “document” the hilarity asserted to have taken place in Genesis 1. Yet despite there being ZERO evidence for those assertions, you treat said assertions as fact, while dismissing actual experimental laboratory results from scientists, though I’m used to this double standard from creationists.
But you duplicitously claim that this negates scientific findings that destroy the assertions of your goat herder mythology. Double standard and hypocrisy, thy name is creationism.
First of all, your duplicitous attempt to reverse the burden of proof fools no one here. YOU are the one asserting that your cartoon magic man exists, therefore YOU are the one required to support that assertion. All we are required to do is sit back and watch you fail, as you have failed repeatedly here before.
Oh, by the way, we have, as icing on the cake, several cogent reasons to dismiss your imaginary cartoon magic man, but even if we didn’t, your failure to support your assertion is sufficient grounds for dismissal.
BARE FACED LIE.
Natural selection has been observed taking place in living organisms. Oh wait, I HAVE ALREADY POINTED YOU AT A SCIENTIFIC PAPER, DATING BACK TO 1948, DOCUMENTING AN EXPLICIT EXPERIMENTAL TEST AND VERIFICATION OF NATURAL SELECTION, IN THIS PAST POST.
STOP LYING.
YOUR double standards being particularly obnoxious.
When are you going to STOP LYING, mythology fanboy? Especially when your LIES are EASILY EXPOSED AS SUCH? Oh wait, doesn’t your favourite goat herder mythology have something to say about LYING???