Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Oncedeceived]

I don't think the scientists have me in mind when working out the most probable ways life began, do you?

I could predict 100% that they are not worried in the least about you when "working" out the "most probable" ways life began. I could also predict 100% that they are not going to consider the most probable way life began was God. Do I care? Nope. If they come up with the way non-life began to live in terms of natural materials I have no problem with that, it is when after that discovery it would be used to claim something that is not in the evidence...that God wasn't needed. Just as evolution is used to make the claim that God wasn't needed. The requirements for life as we know it are so great and matched so perfectly that to claim God wasn't needed in this case would be very arrogant in my opinion.

 

[Goonie]

I'm trying to see this vast continental conspiracy from your POV.

All fifty states and the District of Colombia were motivated to write these articles from somewhere.

And if they are truly hoaxes, then maybe the FBI should check and see where it is originating?

I am not making conspiracy claims,

I'm trying to see this vast continental conspiracy from your POV.

All fifty states and the District of Colombia were motivated to write these articles from somewhere.

And if they are truly hoaxes, then maybe the FBI should check and see where it is originating?

I am not a conspiracist, though looking my posts it is possible to misunderstand. I am just questioning the reliability of the sources that have been presented, and the interpretation of said sources.

 

[bhsmte]

Why would you even think about reporting him? why not just tell him why he is wrong? explain to him why it is you never give a straight answer to 95% of questions you're asked? why not enlighten him instead of reporting him.
I can read so I know you are not good at giving answers to questions you're asked, why do you think that is?

You are not the first to make this observation and I doubt you will be the last.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are not the first to make this observation and I doubt you will be the last.

Right on cue! You never disappoint.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Just as evolution is used to make the claim that God wasn't needed. The requirements for life as we know it are so great and matched so perfectly that to claim God wasn't needed in this case would be very arrogant in my opinion.

Where does evolution say that a God was not needed? for that matter where is the evidence to claim that a God was involved anywhere in anything?

 

[bhsmte]

Where does evolution say that a God was not needed? for that matter where is the evidence to claim that a God was involved anywhere in anything?

If I had a nickel every time what you state above has been pointed out to this poster, lets just say I would have a lot of nickels. And yet, it keeps repeating itself, over and over and over again. There is reason for that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Where does evolution say that a God was not needed? for that matter where is the evidence to claim that a God was involved anywhere in anything?

I said evolution is used to say, not that evolution says.

The appearance of design in the universe and life itself. Materialists have to explain away that evidence and claim it is an illusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If I had a nickel every time what you state above has been pointed out to this poster, lets just say I would have a lot of nickels. And yet, it keeps repeating itself, over and over and over again. There is reason for that.

This poster just pointed out that evolution is used to say it, evolution says nothing.

 

[Jan Volkes]

I said evolution is used to say, not that evolution says.

By whom? who says that?

The appearance of design in the universe and life itself.

Just because you see something and jump to a conclusion is no ones problem but your own.

Materialists have to explain away that evidence and claim it is an illusion.

What evidence?

 

[Oncedeceived]

By whom? who says that?
Just because you see something and jump to a conclusion is no ones problem but your own.
What evidence?

Materialists say that.
Just because biologists see design and label it an illusion and others believe them is their problem not mine.
The elements that have the appearance of design.

 

[Jan Volkes]

Materialists say that.
Just because biologists see design and label it an illusion and others believe them is their problem not mine.
The elements that have the appearance of design.

No evidence then, you are pinning your hopes on an appearance [illusion] of design, I see.

 

[AV1611VET]

No evidence then, you are pinning your hopes on an appearance [illusion] of design, I see.

There's a whole industry that pins its hopes on appearance of design -- the fashion industry.

And they probably make more money than me, myself, and I put together.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No evidence then, you are pinning your hopes on an appearance [illusion] of design, I see.

Actually I don't "pin" my hopes on the evidence of the world, but the evidence of God in my life and the world confirms that. You believe it is an illusion because you have been told a good story and believe it and then you are able to dismiss the reality of it.

 

[RickG]

Materialists say that.
Just because biologists see design and label it an illusion and others believe them is their problem not mine.
The elements that have the appearance of design.

I'm a bit confused, could you present an example of biologists seeing design and labeling it an illusion, along with its source?

 

[Oncedeceived]

There's a whole industry that pins its hopes on appearance of design -- the fashion industry.

And they probably make more money than me, myself, and I put together.

Where do you get this stuff.

 

[HitchSlap]

I'm a bit confused, could you present an example of biologists seeing design and labeling it an illusion, along with its source?

 

[AV1611VET]

Where do you get this stuff.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm a bit confused, could you present an example of biologists seeing design and labeling it an illusion, along with its source?

The illusion of design is so successful that to this day most Americans (including, significantly, many influential and rich Americans) stubbornly refuse to believe it is an illusion. To such people, if a heart (or an eye or a bacterial flagellum) looks designed, that’s proof enough that it is designed. Richard Dawkins. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-11-23/
Dawkins has said this in his books as well. I can get you more from him if you like.

Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.
— Francis Crick
What Mad Pursuit (1990), 138. Science quotes on: | Biologist (18) | Design (44) | Evolution (355)

 

[Jan Volkes]

Actually I don't "pin" my hopes on the evidence of the world, but the evidence of God in my life and the world confirms that. You believe it is an illusion because you have been told a good story and believe it and then you are able to dismiss the reality of it.

You have got that wrong, show me some evidence that a God exists and I will believe in him/her,
show me some evidence that fairies exist and I will believe in them, and so on..

 

[Loudmouth]

How so?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.