Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Smidlee]

It isn't a fairy tale. Is that all you have, name calling?

The argument that creationists give us is that you need all of the parts in the human eye all at once in order to have function. This isn't true. Even something as simple as a light sensing organelle in a single celled protist can provide a selective advantage.

Evolutionist doesn't seem to understand there is a huge difference between a light sensitive spot from an eyeball. A moving eyeball would be a huge disadvantage without the muscles to control it and muscles are completely useless without an movable eyeball in an eye socket. To me all evolution ever had was Darwin's "the little eyeball that could " fairy tale. They continue to repeat Darwin's fairy tale to this day.

 

[HitchSlap]

Dawkins wants me to be gullible enough accept what he presents to explain that appearance without evidence like you seem to be .

Why do you keep repeating there's no evidence for ToE?

And please answer my question? How do you know Mt. Rushmore is designed?

 

[crjmurray]

I'm looking for the guy who did it. If we have to know the designer before we can determine if something is designed or not.

And "the Greeks" is just a guess.

Known construction methods, materials, location and astronomical knowledge points to the Greeks.

Asked and answered.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolutionist doesn't seem to understand there is a huge difference between a light sensitive spot from an eyeball.

We understand it just fine. We also understand that there are several selectable adaptations that bridge the gap between the light sensitive spot and the vertebrate eyeball.

A moving eyeball would be a huge disadvantage without the muscle to control it and muscles are completely useless without an movable eyeball in an eye socket.

A stationary eyeball would be a huge advantage over those without any eyeballs.

Also, last I checked we use muscles for things other than moving eyeballs.

To me all evolution ever had was Darwin's "the little eyeball that could " fairy tale.

Again with the name calling. Darwin gave real examples of intermediate eyes. As usual, you ignore it and throw mud.

 

[Smidlee]

We understand it just fine. We also understand that there are several selectable adaptations that bridge the gap between the light sensitive spot and the vertebrate eyeball.



A stationary eyeball would be a huge advantage over those without any eyeballs.

Also, last I checked we use muscles for things other than moving eyeballs.

A stationary eye would be an advantage than a moving eyeball in an eye socket without muscles.

Again with the name calling. Darwin gave real examples of intermediate eyes. As usual, you ignore it and throw mud.

I never called Darwin a name. A fairy tale is his "the little eyeball that could" story and has nothing to do with science. In fact he wished the fossil record support his story but he knew it didn't and it still doesn't. His intermediate were living creatures of his day.

 

[HitchSlap]

Nope, that does not identify the designer. Who was the designer?

Bob was the designer. He told me. Well, it wasn't Bob directly, I asked "the ghost who never lies," and she told me it was Bob.
Anything else you want to know?

 

[bhsmte]

A stationary eye would be an advantage than a moving eyeball in an eye socket without muscles.


I never called Darwin a name. A fairy tale is his "the little eyeball that could" story and has nothing to do with science. In fact he wished the fossil record support his story but he knew it didn't and it still doesn't. His intermediate were living creatures of his day.

Thanks for telling us how Darwin feels.

 

[Smidlee]

Thanks for telling us how Darwin feels.

That's not a mystery since he wrote about it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I supplied as much evidence as you did for biological systems.

What?

 

[HitchSlap]

What?

That is to say, "none."

 

[Smidlee]

That is to say, "none."

Be default illusion are something that can be shown to be an illusion. The universe could be an illusion but by default most of us believes it's real. Of course anyone who choose to believe the universe is an illusion it's impossible to prove to them it's real. The same with ID.

 

[HitchSlap]

Be default illusion are something that can be shown to be an illusion. The universe could be an illusion but by default most of us believes it's real. Of course anyone who choose to believe the universe is an illusion it's impossible to prove to them it's real. The same with ID.

So each and every one of us make three fundamental assumptions:
1. Reality exists.
2. We can know something about reality.
3. Models with predictive capabilities work better than those without.

 

[Smidlee]

So each and every one of us make three fundamental assumptions:
1. Reality exists.
2. We can know something about reality.
3. Models with predictive capabilities work better than those without.

And all three points to ID. Why would you believe we can know something if the universe is created out of complete chaos?

 

[bhsmte]

And all three points to ID. Why would you believe we can know something if the universe is created out of complete chaos?

Make your case.

Show us with specifics, how all three point to ID.

 

[Smidlee]

Make your case.

Show us with specifics, how all three point to ID.

I just did. We normal don't assume something is an illusion without good evidence that it is. In order for us to know design it has to be "wired" into us.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Since you are comparing the helicopter rotor to the bac flag, perhaps you could point to the turbine engine that is running on kerosene within the bac flag.

Why do you feel that this type of come back can in anyway improve support for your position?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Until you can show how to measure 'design', it is the same thing. Enough with the excuses.

Provided evidence that it is an illusion.

I don't have to "measure" design. What means of measurement do you suggest?
IN your dreams perhaps.

 

[RickG]

And all three points to ID. Why would you believe we can know something if the universe is created out of complete chaos?

From what scientific evidence do you derive that?

 

[Smidlee]

From what scientific evidence do you derive that?

Again if someone refuse to believe the universe is real then there is no evidence that can prove it to that person. Anyone who refused to believe "design in nature" is real then no scientific evidence could prove to that person that it is. Design in nature is part of our universe and both by default is assumed to be real unless there is good evidence to prove otherwise.

"On the one hand it's extremely well organized, but on the other hand the sheer scale of all of this unfamiliar well-organized stuff that happens in there makes me feel that I've stumbled onto an alternate landscape of technology that's built by an engineer a million times smarter than me."

 

[HitchSlap]

Make your case.

Show us with specifics, how all three point to ID.

It's everywhere man, can't you see it!