The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old

[Statler Waldorf]

So in your mind the experimental data point to an illusion, and there is contrary data. I'm pretty sure I know where you're getting this "contrary data"- from the folks at the DI, who love to misrepresent the scientific works of practicing scientists because they know their base is too ignorant to read the papers themselves. Let me know when that data yields something useful in medicine.

You do realize that the founders of the Discovery Institute believe the Universe is billions of years old don’t you? I am not sure why you keep bringing them up then. My point is that whenever you allow for the concept of illusion in scientific inferences you have undermined the very possibility of science itself.

If your god exists, it would be entirely consistent with his character to plant mountains of evidence for common descent and genomic change over time just to fool people. If this is the case, he's sure busy making sure living organisms adhere to the illusion consistently, and allowing useful discoveries based on evolutionary principles. What a great joke!

You’re committing the fallacy of reification. A person must first possess a working conceptual scheme before they can interpret evidence, if you begin with an anti-Biblical conceptual scheme and then use that to interpret the evidence incorrectly that is not God’s fault, it’s your own. What evidence for common descent are you referring to by the way? I am intrigued.

No wonder everyone here hates you- you are a dishonest fellow. If you need to play word games to feel better about your position, there's no helping you.

Not everyone here hates me, only those I embarrass in debates. You clearly stated that only an uneducated person would believe that life appears to be designed, and yet Dawkins has admitted that to him life appears designed (he merely believes this appearance is an illusion)- so I merely asked if that means Dawkins is uneducated.

No- it's very difficult to ignore the evidence. You seem to be doing it well, though.

You’ve presented no evidence to be ignored.

Because I see natural selection every day in the lab I work in, as do all other geneticists?

And you see the appearance of design everyday as well so that does not answer my question. How do you know that it is the appearance of design that is the illusion and not the Darwinian mechanisms at work?

Well, you did word the point really badly.

I’ll use smaller words next time.

Evolutionary biologists do experiments all over the world every day that shore up evolutionary theory and teach us more and more about the behavior of genomes. Creationists do their best to misrepresent that work while doing none of their own experimental work. So get cracking in the lab and then you can show me what your experimental data says- then we'll have a fair scientific argument about it.

More fallacious reification, data doesn’t say anything. You seriously believe creationists do not do any of their own research? I was laboring under the misconception that you were knowledgeable regarding this subject.

-SW