Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Oncedeceived]

You know, I always find this amusing, when by sheer numbers, more Christians disagree with her position, than atheists do.

Gotta label any disagreement as atheist though.

I really doubt that. Maybe we should stay to the posts and not the poster?

 

[Loudmouth]

What good are muscles attach to an eyeball that can't move

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.

That what I did. What Darwin wrote is nothing but a fairy tale.

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

Natural laws of themselves lacks direction and intelligence and can't plan ahead.
By definition something that is design has a designer.

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

 

[justlookinla]

Are you ok with Once using Dawkins quote that describes all who accept the illusion of design as being gullible?

Sure.

 

[HitchSlap]

Sure.

Kinda makes sense.

 

[Loudmouth]

Rocks?

Design produced by natural processes?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Just to clarify this, I think that all biologists agree that living things show the appearance of design in that they are adapted to their environments, but it does not follow that that appearance is evidence of actual intelligent design. As I understand it, the appearance of design is a consequence of a process of natural selection, that is differential reproductive success.

Yes and no. They do show design in that they are adapted to their environments but it goes deeper than even that. It goes down as far as the workings of the cell for instance.

Thus the appearance of design is not an illusion, but it is an error to regard it as evidence of actual design.

How is that shown to be an error?

 

[justlookinla]

Design produced by natural processes?

You know you never described the evolutionary process which created tactile sensory units. Why not?

 

[Loudmouth]

Cloud. Rocks. Water. You're certainly consistent in your attempt to change the focus from design elements in humanity.

Complexity, functionality and purpose are basic elements of design, bacterial flagellum or not.

Those are also found in things produced by natural processes.

 

[Loudmouth]

You know you never described the evolutionary process which created tactile sensory units. Why not?

I did. You never addressed the evidence. Why not?

 

[justlookinla]

Those are also found in things produced by natural processes.

Is it going to be rocks or rivers this time? Or a face in a cloud?

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is another topic altogether. It could be said that the fundamental aspects of religious experience are nothing more than false associations that a person gives special significance to.

It is possible to say but that doesn't mean it is true.

 

[justlookinla]

I did. You never addressed the evidence. Why not?

No, you simply gave a link. Why not just describe it? In your own words?

 

[Oncedeceived]

What I call; cherry pick syndrome.

Is that a hobbyist Dr.'s diagnosis?

 

[Loudmouth]

Is it going to be rocks or rivers this time? Or a face in a cloud?

It is design produced by natural processes. It falsifies your claims.

 

[HitchSlap]

Is that a hobbyist Dr.'s diagnosis?

More like an easy observation.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, you simply gave a link. Why not just describe it? In your own words?

I did describe it in my own words. I invited you to discuss the evidence I presented, and you still haven't. The thread is found right here:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/lines-of-evidence-part-1-ervs.7867271/

 

[Loudmouth]

It is possible to say but that doesn't mean it is true.

 

[justlookinla]

It is design produced by natural processes. It falsifies your claims.

Describe the natural process which created the bacterial flagellum from an alleged single life form. Based on the scientific method of course.

 

[justlookinla]

I did describe it in my own words. I invited you to discuss the evidence I presented, and you still haven't. The thread is found right here:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/lines-of-evidence-part-1-ervs.7867271/

You were attempting to establish a common ancestor in the thread. Now, again, describe the naturalistic process which created the bacterial flagellum, based on the scientific method.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, evidence is evidence. When are you going to present the evidence.

The evidence is the properties that denote design.

That is a philosophical assessment, and only that.

So you are claiming that Richard Dawkins, Frances Crick and many other biologists are not speaking about the facts in regard to life forms and the systems within them?

Yes, I know, but do you really understand that and that a philosophical argument does not constitute evidence?

Right, I agree. The evidence speaks for itself. It shows the properties associated with what we recognize as design. There are two options, is it actual or it is due to natural processes. If due to natural processes there should be evidence that provides an explanation for the properties we recognize as design. So far, that has not been given.