Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Oncedeceived]

Does not compute.

Obviously.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yep. Time for more rivers and rocks.

When you have nothing...

 

[HitchSlap]

When you have nothing...

... like evidence for design, it all looks designed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

... like evidence for design, it all looks designed.

The evidence is life forms have the appearance of designed with a purpose. Why are you having so much trouble with that?

 

[justlookinla]

For sure. I'm totally against pseudo-science and faith based Darwinist beliefs and worldviews.

I see we're making progress. That's encouraging.

Nor would I ever expect someone to accept something they couldn't possibly understand.

Did you have something in mind when you wrote this? Would you like to share it?

 

[HitchSlap]

The evidence is life forms have the appearance of designed with a purpose. Why are you having so much trouble with that?

Because it's a tautology. Provide evidence for a designer, then we can have a meaningful discussion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because it's a tautology. Provide evidence for a designer, then we can have a meaningful discussion.

You have been asked to give evidence of how this design is produced by evolutionary processes and have not provided anything. Dawkins doesn't provide anything. IF you can not provide evidence that this design is an illusion, what does that say about your own position? You are the ones that claim you have all the evidence but when asked for it, it never comes.

 

[HitchSlap]

I see we're making progress. That's encouraging.



Did you have something in mind when you wrote this? Would you like to share it?

Pearls before swine, you know.

 

[Smidlee]

About as useful as muscle attached to bones that can't move, as is the case in the human coccyx and the extensor coccygis muscle. What would be better would be an eyeball that can stay stationary all by itself, as well as being influenced by the face muscles around it.

What does coccyz has to do with the eyeball? The eyeball has six control muscles to move the eye around in the eye socket.

What Darwin wrote exists in real, living species.

"In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans . . ."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html

Basically Darwin logic goes something like this. Crustaceans have different types of eye which so Darwin believe came from a common ancestor so if you can imagine natural selection created all those different eyes then with a little more imagination you can believe a complex human eye evolved from s simple light sensitive spot. All you need is to use your imagination.

The design of a snowflake is entirely produced by natural laws. Obviously, it doesn't require direction or intelligence.

I don't believe in Frosty the Snowman so snowflakes has nothing to do with living systems including our brains.

 

[HitchSlap]

You have been asked to give evidence of how this design is produced by evolutionary processes and have not provided anything. Dawkins doesn't provide anything. IF you can not provide evidence that this design is an illusion, what does that say about your own position? You are the ones that claim you have all the evidence but when asked for it, it never comes.

I don't believe in design. That's the point of Dawkins book. If there is indeed a watchmaker, he's blind and stupid. Sorry, that's your horse.
You're the one who touts the Dawkins quote. I'm just here to remind you of the context of his quote, that you're gullible.
You're the one that sees design in everything... so, you know, we're gonna' need to see this designer now.
ID is a dead horse, as it has never provided anything towards our understanding of the natural world, and is used by nobody in the physical science world, ergo, all disputation over ID and your imagined illusions are yours alone. Every bit of evidence we've ever discovered is best explained by ToE. What you fail to understand is, EVEN if ToE turns out to be wrong, it would need to be replaced with a better theory that better explains everything we see. As ID is not even a viable hypothesis (as evidenced by it's proponents), so it would replace nothing.
At the end of the day, after all the fun and games here on CF, ID is nothing more than an quasi-academic discussion, which is best left dead in the water.

 

[justlookinla]

Pearls before swine, you know.

Well....that's a disappointment. Not unexpected though.

 

[HitchSlap]

Well....that's a disappointment. Not unexpected though.

Of course it was.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't believe in design. That's the point of Dawkins book. If there is indeed a watchmaker, he's blind and stupid. Sorry, that's your horse.

I think this is just more of the brainwashing you have undergone. Blind and stupid? Ironic really when you consider that what you attribute your own mind arising from is ....get ready...blind and stupid.

You're the one who touts the Dawkins quote. I'm just here to remind you of the context of his quote, that you're gullible.

Oh no need to remind me, I am very well aware of Dawkins dogmatic hatred of anything related to God and how he views theists.

You're the one that sees design in everything... so, you know, we're gonna' need to see this designer now.

What we need to see is evidence to support your position for once.

ID is a dead horse, as it has never provided anything towards our understanding of the natural world, and is used by nobody in the physical science world, ergo, all disputation over ID and your imagined illusions are yours alone.

Oh Hitch you are just spewing angst and misinformation. Science had its start by the ideology that God provided order and intelligibility in the universe so that we could comprehend the universe.

Every bit of evidence we've ever discovered is best explained by ToE.

That is simply has not been shown. Information which is central in all living things has only been known to be produced by intelligent beings. Systems that show biological engineering that far surpasses any produced by man is found in systems within systems. You are misled if you believe that the evidence is best explained by evolution alone.

What you fail to understand is, EVEN if ToE turns out to be wrong, it would need to be replaced with a better theory that better explains everything we see.

What you fail to understand is that the theory claims more that it has been shown to provide.

As ID is not even a viable hypothesis (as evidenced by it's proponents), so it would replace nothing.

Even if this were true and I believe that it is not, new branches of study are doing much in the way of showing design. Biological engineering is being studied and much of what is being discovered is supportive of ID.

At the end of the day, after all the fun and games here on CF, ID is nothing more than an quasi-academic discussion, which is best left dead in the water.

It is far from dead in the water as I just explained. Your logic and reason that you claim as your own if only due to evolutionary processes can not provide truth or even reason or logic that you can be certain of.

 

[HitchSlap]

What flavor's that Kool-Aid anyways, cherry?
If you need ID to make your worldview fit, have at it.
In the real world it isn't used and is unneeded. As I said, apart from inane and sometimes amusing chatter here at CF, there really is no value to ID.

When you're ready to produce a designer, then we can have a discussion that truly matters.

I think this is just more of the brainwashing you have undergone. Blind and stupid? Ironic really when you consider that what you attribute your own mind arising from is ....get ready...blind and stupid.

Oh no need to remind me, I am very well aware of Dawkins dogmatic hatred of anything related to God and how he views theists.

What we need to see is evidence to support your position for once.

Oh Hitch you are just spewing angst and misinformation. Science had its start by the ideology that God provided order and intelligibility in the universe so that we could comprehend the universe.

That is simply has not been shown. Information which is central in all living things has only been known to be produced by intelligent beings. Systems that show biological engineering that far surpasses any produced by man is found in systems within systems. You are misled if you believe that the evidence is best explained by evolution alone.

What you fail to understand is that the theory claims more that it has been shown to provide.

Even if this were true and I believe that it is not, new branches of study are doing much in the way of showing design. Biological engineering is being studied and much of what is being discovered is supportive of ID.

It is far from dead in the water as I just explained. Your logic and reason that you claim as your own if only due to evolutionary processes can not provide truth or even reason or logic that you can be certain of.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What flavor's that Kool-Aid anyways, cherry?
If you need ID to make your worldview fit, have at it.
In the real world it isn't used and is unneeded. As I said, apart from inane and sometimes amusing chatter here at CF, there really is no value to ID.

When you're ready to produce a designer, then we can have a discussion that truly matters.

IF having no evidence that you can present is something that doesn't bother you when your whole life is built upon it, then no discussion will matter to you.

 

[HitchSlap]

IF having no evidence that you can present is something that doesn't bother you when your whole life is built upon it, then no discussion will matter to you.

As I stated, believe what you need to.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As I stated, believe what you need to.

Right back atcha.

 

[Astrophile]

Dawkins also speaks of coincidental mimicry as just an appearance of design. He cites the suggestive shape of the coco de mer, and such things as the skull on the back of the death's head moth:

A good point; these features are not likely to be adaptive.

I am always careful to point out that if life were designed, then why would the watch stick out amongst so many other designed things on the heath?

Another good point.

 

[Davian]

Right back atcha.

Why would I not want to believe that there is something more to human existence than this relatively brief biological stint on Earth?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why would I not want to believe that there is something more to human existence than this relatively brief biological stint on Earth?

Wanting to believe when you don't think something is true is impossible.