Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[justlookinla]

You have never been able to point to one of those.

You'll keep trying to change the issue from humanity to rocks?

 

[Loudmouth]

You'll keep trying to change the issue from humanity to rocks?

Yet another post where you can't cite a single guess or supposition that is a part of the theory of evolution.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you want to play that game, we demand that you show us how the designer came about before we will accept any claims of something being designed. Or do you want to talk about the designer as if it just popped into existence as is?

There are two options being discussed here, with those two options there are certain elements within each that are set..i.e in a materialistic view one must stay within how things are viewed with only materialistic known mechanisms and the other we must adhere to a supernatural view and what would be logical and cohesive within that view.

In your materialistic view everything must be viewed cohesively with the evolutionary mechanisms in relationship to life. That is why it is your burden to show that natural processes all the way down are responsible for all aspects of life. I have not demanded that you provide how life came from non-life which had to come from somewhere in our cause and effect universe. However, it is consistent and cohesive in my position that God is not part of our cause and effect universe but has created it. If we created a house that a life form lived in and could not ever know what what "outside" of that house it might seem to the life form that everything happened by something else inside the house and so only that existed but we exist outside of it.
It is the same type of thing if you ask how God exists, that I then would be free to demand that you provide evidence of how life began before accepting anything after the fact.

My question in regard to sexual reproduction stays within the materialistic view that all life present and it features must be explained by a materialistic evolutionary explanation.

 

[Loudmouth]

There are two options being discussed here, with those two options there are certain elements within each that are set..i.e in a materialistic view one must stay within how things are viewed with only materialistic known mechanisms and the other we must adhere to a supernatural view and what would be logical and cohesive within that view.

Stop right there. In order to have design, you have to have a designer. Therefore, you need to show how the designer came about. This is your argument in a nutshell.

Stop trying to weasel your way out of it.

 

[justlookinla]

Yet another post where you can't cite a single guess or supposition that is a part of the theory of evolution.

It's supposed that tactile sensory units were created randomly.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's supposed that tactile sensory units were created randomly.

No, it isn't.

 

[justlookinla]

No, it isn't.

Really? They were created according to a plan?

 

[Loudmouth]

Really? They were created according to a plan?

Again, not a guess or a supposition that is part of the theory of evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

Again, not a guess or a supposition that is part of the theory of evolution.

It's proven, by the scientific method, that tactile sensory units were created randomly?

 

[Loudmouth]

It's proven, by the scientific method, that tactile sensory units were created randomly?

The theory of evolution neither guesses nor supposes that human hands were produced by random or planned processes.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I can understand how logic and reason may seem different to you.

It isn't a matter of logic and reason that is the issue.

 

[justlookinla]

The theory of evolution neither guesses nor supposes that human hands were produced by random or planned processes.

How were tactile sensory units produced?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Now, how would you show that something only appears designed?

That is your position, it is up to you to determine that and so far no one has given any evidence that provides confirmation that the design we see in nature is an illusion.

 

[Loudmouth]

How were tactile sensory units produced?

Through evolution, as supported by evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is your position,

It is your position as well, as it applies to things like ducks in clouds and faces on cliffs.

 

[justlookinla]

Through evolution, as supported by evidence.

What methods? Just saying 'evolution' isn't describing the process of the creation of tactile sensory units.

 

[Loudmouth]

What methods? Just saying 'evolution' isn't describing the process of the creation of tactile sensory units.

We are still waiting for you to point out the guesses and suppositions that scientists are using. Still not seeing any.

 

[justlookinla]

It is your position as well, as it applies to things like ducks in clouds and faces on cliffs.

And here we go shying away from the creation of humanity.

 

[Loudmouth]

And here we go shying away from the creation of humanity.

Here you go, shying away from how the universe works.

 

[justlookinla]

We are still waiting for you to point out the guesses and suppositions that scientists are using. Still not seeing any.

Still waiting for you to give evidence, based on the scientific method. Until then, it's guesses and suppositions.