Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Oncedeceived]

The natural ones are RNA transcription and protein translation. What are the supernatural ones?

How were the most frequent motifs transferred from the upstream to the downstream region of the transcription start sites of RP genes in mammals?

 

[bhsmte]

Let me get this straight, if something is complex then a magic man must have designed it because there is no other way
[as far as you're concerned] it could have come about, am I close?

This is the way it works.

If we don't have an exact answer to everything, then it must be God.

Check that; it needs to be God.

 

[bhsmte]

Why don't you explain how a supernatural deity designed the cell. Give us a step by step procedure of how it was done.

Bet you a buck, you don't get a straight answer to this question.

Upon further review, you will get a question, instead of an answer.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Bet you a buck, you don't get a straight answer to this question.

Upon further review, you will get a question, instead of an answer.

I've already answered. I don't hold to a purely naturalistic view as do materialists. It is commonly accepted that if God exists He is capable of producing the inner working of the cell and the design of the cell reflects that design.

 

[Astrophile]

I would ask what you call phenomenally complex that we know for certain were made by natural processes alone.

I don't just think I "see" design. Dawkins, Crick and most biologists see that appearance of design and some have concluded that evolution alone could not have been responsible while others dismiss it as an illusion.

Widmanstätten structure in iron meteorites, perhaps.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Widmanstätten structure in iron meteorites, perhaps.

Again, seeing patterns rather than purpose, function and complicated interaction of systems.

 

[bhsmte]

No explanation for how God did, because that is off limits and he is God and he can do whatever he wants.

Special plead much?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No explanation for how God did, because that is off limits and he is God and he can do whatever he wants.

Special plead much?

Perhaps you have forgotten how this started. It was the appearance of design and the need for hand waving it away. We recognize what design looks like and it looks designed. To claim that that appearance is only an illusion is a claim that needs to be supported as design is already supported in the appearance in living things.

 

[Astrophile]

I would ask what you call phenomenally complex that we know for certain were made by natural processes alone.

I don't just think I "see" design. Dawkins, Crick and most biologists see that appearance of design and some have concluded that evolution alone could not have been responsible while others dismiss it as an illusion.

Spiral structure in galaxies, perhaps.

 

[Astrophile]

Again, seeing patterns rather than purpose, function and complicated interaction of systems.

You asked for something phenomenally complex that was made by natural processes alone. Now you are shifting the goalposts by asking for purpose and function as well. Also, the formation of kamacite and taenite crystals from a nickel-iron melt seems to me to require a complicated interaction of systems.

 

[bhsmte]

You asked for something phenomenally complex that was made by natural processes alone. Now you are shifting the goalposts by asking for purpose and function as well. Also, the formation of kamacite and taenite crystals from a nickel-iron melt seems to me to require a complicated interaction of systems.

Those goalposts have logged a lot of miles.

 

[crjmurray]

Perhaps you have forgotten how this started. It was the appearance of design and the need for hand waving it away. We recognize what design looks like and it looks designed. To claim that that appearance is only an illusion is a claim that needs to be supported as design is already supported in the appearance in living things.

The appearance of design does not mean that design actually exists. It just appears that way. You have the burden of establishing actual design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You asked for something phenomenally complex that was made by natural processes alone. Now you are shifting the goalposts by asking for purpose and function as well. Also, the formation of kamacite and taenite crystals from a nickel-iron melt seems to me to require a complicated interaction of systems.

I actually asked what the poster would call phenomenally complex and that we know for certain were made by natural processes alone. This came after I provided the design I was speaking about...biological molecular machines which have complex function and purpose. I didn't shift anything.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The appearance of design does not mean that design actually exists. It just appears that way. You have the burden of establishing actual design.

You have this turned around. Biologist recognize that the life forms appear to be designed and must remind themselves of their own worldview that it isn't. It is up to those who clearly see design to show how that appearance is not actual and is an illusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If it is an illusion, then it isn't evidence.

What evidence do you have that it is only an illusion?

 

[crjmurray]

You have this turned around. Biologist recognize that the life forms appear to be designed and must remind themselves of their own worldview that it isn't. It is up to those who clearly see design to show how that appearance is not actual and is an illusion.

I don't have anything backwards. You're twisting the word design to fit your own ideas. Why,I do not know. This is no different than the creationists who quotemine. Certain things may appear complex enough that an ignorant person may conclude that those things were designed. But those things may not have any real indication of design, just the appearance of design. So if you want to say that something is designed you must state why.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't have anything backwards. You're twisting the word design to fit your own ideas. Why,I do not know. This is no different than the creationists who quotemine. Certain things may appear complex enough that an ignorant person may conclude that those things were designed. But those things may not have any real indication of design, just the appearance of design. So if you want to say that something is designed you must state why.

I have provided biologists claiming that life forms appear to be designed and not only life forms but the molecular machines within them appear designed for a purpose. Dawkins who is an avid atheist has a bias and yet everyone seems to have no problem taking his word for it that it is all an illusion. Ignorance is when you are unaware or do not understand the issue at hand. I've shown examples with an in depth video of what I am referring to and the details of why I hold that opinion.

IF you and others feel that evolution alone has the explanatory power to show that this appearance of design is simply illusion provide that evidence. I've provided the evidence that illuminates the complex function and complicated systems that even biologists recognize as having the appearance of design. It is up to you and others to provide evidence of why that appearance is an illusion.

 

[crjmurray]

I have provided biologists claiming that life forms appear to be designed and not only life forms but the molecular machines within them appear designed for a purpose. Dawkins who is an avid atheist has a bias and yet everyone seems to have no problem taking his word for it that it is all an illusion. Ignorance is when you are unaware or do not understand the issue at hand. I've shown examples with an in depth video of what I am referring to and the details of why I hold that opinion.

IF you and others feel that evolution alone has the explanatory power to show that this appearance of design is simply illusion provide that evidence. I've provided the evidence that illuminates the complex function and complicated systems that even biologists recognize as having the appearance of design. It is up to you and others to provide evidence of why that appearance is an illusion.

Like talking to a brick

 

[Oncedeceived]

Like talking to a brick

Right, when all else fails and no evidence can be found turn it back to the person. So typical.

 

[crjmurray]

Right, when all else fails and no evidence can be found turn it back to the person. So typical.

People have presented countless pieces of evidence supporting evolution. You literally have all of human knowledge at your fingertips. You twist the words of biologists and assert that design exists in nature without providing any actual evidence. You then demand evidence refuting design. When it is explained to you that the argument you are using makes no sense, you ignore that and keep on trucking. Then, as usual, you play the victim. Do you see a problem here?