Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

Oncedeceived said:

It is your/his burden Davian. HIS BURDEN for HIS POSITIVE CLAIM. He must provide evidence that show the design is an illusion. The design is there, everyone admits it is there and it is up to him to show it is an illusion if you all want people to believe that it is an illusion. This isn't rocket science.

Click to expand...

Exactly. They made the claim, where's the evidence?

There is none.....it's an empty claim.

Davian said:

Is that an accusation of lying? Can you read minds?

My position needs no evidence. My position is that you cannot show actual, intended design.

Your next post without evidence of actual, intended design, will be accepted as abdication.

Click to expand...

ID is not rocket science, you only need the appearance of something to be true in your own mind. No definition is necessary and no reliable test, it is just there.

It ain't science either.

Oncedeceived said:

We just don't care.

Click to expand...

Kind of sums up how the entire global scientific community feels about ID.

lifepsyop said:

I've already addressed this point but it warrants repeating. Whether or not the field is directly related to biological evolution doesn't really matter. Their conclusions WILL bow down to the Evolutionary creation story or the researchers will be excommunicated. As we've discussed with Geology and Geochronology.. a researcher in one of those fields is simply not allowed to interpret data in a way that would contradict Evolution, (such as assigning ages or geo formation times that contradict millions-of-years models of evolutionary progression)

One of the biggest illusions permeating pop-science culture is that all fields of science independently converge on Evolution, which is laughable, because the truth is all fields of science are subjectively conformed and forced to fit Evolution. The truth of the Evolutionary faith is simply not up for questioning or testing, period.

Click to expand...

Hey, you're back. I'm still waiting for you to respond to this:
http://www.christianforums.com/posts/68199710/

HitchSlap said:

Kind of sums up how the entire global scientific community feels about ID.

Click to expand...

are you sure about that?
before epigenetics was published in science journals, the entire scientific community didn't believe it.
but that isn'[t true either because geneticists suspected epigenetics for decades.
i don't think your quote is quite accurate.
what a scientist publishes and what is on his back burner might be 2 entirely different things.

do you really believe a scientist would openly admit "hey, this looks designed"?

when you start using engineering terms and programming models to explain molecular behavior, you have passed the realm of chemical laws.

i'm going to lay this right on the line.
we will never find the truth when we deal with agendas.
koonin used the word miracle in regards to abiogenesis.
was he referring to a godlike miracle?
no, he was referring to the infinitesimal impossibilities of it.

science goes out of its way to prevent words like this, i'm amazed that koonin uttered it.
when questioned about this, koonin replied creationists are going to use whatever they can, so let them.
gradualists are in the same boat, they just can't let go of their views, probably because it might imply a god.

most of the tenets of neodarwinism are flat out wrong, they have been outright overturned or have been replaced by a more complex version.
the fossil record is not a record of gradual change, but of stasis interspersed with major changes.

of course, none of this points to god or ID, but it does show the sorry state of affairs regarding evolution.

HitchSlap said:

Kind of sums up how the entire global scientific community feels about ID.

Click to expand...

Ad Populum.

justlookinla said:

Exactly. They made the claim, where's the evidence?

There is none.....it's an empty claim.

Click to expand...

They are really good at demanding evidence for any claims that a theist makes but when the ball is in their own court they can't provide anything but assertion and mantra.

Oncedeceived said:

Ad Populum.

Click to expand...

Real world, ID is useless in it.

bhsmte said:

ID is not rocket science, you only need the appearance of something to be true in your own mind. No definition is necessary and no reliable test, it is just there.

It ain't science either.

Click to expand...

ID is not rocket Science, we see evidence of design in the smallest cell, the make up of all life and in our own intelligence. If evolution has no evidence to explain why this design is an illusion, the materialist's dogma of only natural processes for life is found insufficient to account for the evidence of design.

HitchSlap said:

Real world, ID is useless in it.

Click to expand...

Assertion and opinion based on your own personal biases.

lifepsyop said:

Sorry but it's gotten difficult to keep up with this thread.

Click to expand...

I hope you don't mind this other side of your OP topic but design is a very real and unexplained evidence in the world that the stories of evolution try to dismiss.

Oncedeceived said:

Assertion and opinion based on your own personal biases.

Click to expand...

Yep. Also happens to be true. ID is devoid of any practical scientific use, and doesn't fit anywhere within the academic rigor of research. Just ask the DI, they'll tell you.

Oncedeceived said:

I hope you don't mind this other side of your OP topic but design is a very real and unexplained evidence in the world that the stories of evolution try to dismiss.

Click to expand...

Well, you could take a job over at the DI and start 'splainin'.

lifepsyop said:

Sorry but it's gotten difficult to keep up with this thread.

Click to expand...

Deleted for irrelevance.

HitchSlap said:

Yep. Also happens to be true. ID is devoid of any practical scientific use, and doesn't fit anywhere within the academic rigor of research. Just ask the DI, they'll tell you.

Click to expand...

I find it rather humorous that everyone claims this but when ID proponents research certain molecular systems, mainstream science floods in to explain away any claims that ID makes about them. They don't try to explain anything unless ID proponents are researching them...would the BF even get a second look if not for Behe? Would the blood clotting cascade? It seems unless ID shines it light on some feature of life it doesn't instill the least amount of attention. Already ID has furthered Science along currently and modern Science was based upon the ideology of Christian theology to be where it is today.

Oncedeceived said:

I find it rather humorous that everyone claims this but when ID proponents research certain molecular systems, mainstream science floods in to explain away any claims that ID makes about them. They don't try to explain anything unless ID proponents are researching them...would the BF even get a second look if not for Behe? Would the blood clotting cascade? It seems unless ID shines it light on some feature of life it doesn't instill the least amount of attention. Already ID has furthered Science along currently and modern Science was based upon the ideology of Christian theology to be where it is today.

Click to expand...

Lol, thanks ID for making real science better.
Your motto could be: ID - Making science better one claim at a time!

lifepsyop said:

First it is important to establish what is self-evident, and what this ge frankly admits. The is te data tates" wiring evolutionary time scales.
The goal of Geochronology/Chronostratigraphy,s ution.
The goalt and never has been an independent testing of whether Evolutionary deep-time is true or not, but to find support for geologic ages under the guidance of fossil patterns depicting supposed evolutionary progression.

My conclusions flow naturally and logically from this premise. Data that is not interpreted as being useful for such calibration will tend to be filtered out as anomalous. If data does not support evolutionary time scales, then it simply has to be wrong in principle.

Click to expand...

Thanks for getting back to me, but this is the same as your last reply. It is just a reiteration of your assertion thatdiscordant dates will be ignored without identifyingg the source of discordance. I would appreciate a response to the actual content of linked in my last post.

HitchSlap said:

Real world, ID is useless in it.

Click to expand...

From a practical scientific standpoint, you are correct.

From a comforting standpoint to some, it is very useful.