Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Not_By_Chance]

All you have offered is your subjective opinion of what something looks like. Where is the objective evidence?

Just to add my penny's worth - We have an in-built ability to detect design based on logic and experience. For instance, nobody would conclude that the presidents' heads carved into the cliffs at Mount Rushmore came about by accident. Furthermore, complex living cells are undergoing chemical reactions that require not only the instructions to carry out their incredible tasks, but they do some of them against the "wishes" of the chemicals themselves. In other words, the processes are artificially imposed on the chemicals by the life within the living creature. As soon as the creature dies, the chemicals start reverting to what they naturally want to do. At least, that is how it has been explained to me by an expert in biology. All the above requires information, masses of it which only comes from a mind. Experience tells us that such thought processes don't come about by chance. Where did it come from? It's not part of the chemicals themselves, just as the message I am writing now is not a physical part of the text but is coming from my mind (such as it is). Did this text come about by chance - no, of course not. To quote an old saying, "If something moves like a duck, quacks like a duck and lays eggs like a duck, it probably is a duck." So if life, with all its complexity, looks designed, logic and observation would suggest that it probably is. Now all you've got to do is decide the identity of the designer. That's everyone's personal choice, but the consequences of getting it wrong could have eternal implications.

 

[HitchSlap]

What about it?
What satisfies you?

Dawkin's book.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Dawkin's book.

Satisfies what?

 

[HitchSlap]

Satisfies what?

"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selectioin overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design."

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution-believing scientists do it all the time. Ask them where the matter came from to create the Big Bang and they say "a singularity" (a fancy word for magic).

It is a rather simple word for a collection of energy and matter. Nothing magical about it whatsoever.

Ask them how life got started - they don't know. Oh yes, they have fancy theories, but they are riddled with problems.

That is how all scientific knowledge starts. That is why we keep training new scientists, to solve these problems.

If man, with all his intelligence, can't even make the most basic of life forms, then why should we be expected to believe that chemicals could do it all on their own, and I don't care how many billions of years you care to allow for the process - it ain't gonna happen.

It took man thousands of years to make something as simple as urea. In the Miller-Urey experiment, they showed how abiotic conditions can produce chemicals that man took centuries to make. The only problem is your assumption that man can do what nature can do with the same ease.

Really? LOL

Yes, really. Notice how you can only scoff. Why don't you try and read about the science instead of blowing it off.

To say that 96% of the universe is composed of this magical dark stuff is almost as ludicrous as to say that everything came from nothing and life arose spontaneously all on its own.

The Big Bang says that all of the energy in the universe was there at the very beginning, and that what matter we do have condensed from that energy. That is not everything from nothing. Also, I fail to see how scoffing at abiogenesis makes your case for you. What evidence do you have for a supernatural origin to life?

But there is a major difference - we can test the effects of gravity, so we can prove its effects without a shadow of a doubt.

We can do the same for dark energy by surveying supernovae.

Open your heart to Jesus and you will be able to see it.

Most people I know see with their eyes, and to whom an open heart would be fatal. When you are done with metaphors, please provide some evidence for these claims.

 

[Oncedeceived]

"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selectioin overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design."

The book has satisfied you that the design that overwhelmingly impresses us is just an illusion?

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you think Richard Dawkins is not using scientific methods to determine that life looks designed for a purpose, how about Francis Crick? If not seen by scientific observation what kind of observation did they use?

Where did you use a scientific methodology, a unit of measure, and statistical analyses to determine if something is designed?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Where did you use a scientific methodology, a unit of measure, and statistical analyses to determine if something is designed?

Do you think Richard Dawkins is not using scientific methods to determine that life looks designed for a purpose, how about Francis Crick? If not seen by scientific observation what kind of observation did they use? Yes or no?

 

[Not_By_Chance]

I couldn't do a better job explain it than he does:

"To be able to control something this way requires having at least three different parts all working together in perfect harmony. The first thing you need is a sensor to detect what needs to be controlled. If you have no way of being aware of what needs to be controlled, how can you control it? The sensor is like the reconnaissance team that an army sends out to check on the whereabouts and activities of its enemy. Without this sensory information the army would be in the dark and would have no way of taking control of the situation.

The second thing you need is an integrator which interprets the information from the sensors, compares it to a standard, makes decisions about what needs to be done, and then sends out orders. If you don't understand the information from the sensors, don't have any idea about what is required, and can't make decisions about what should be done or send out orders, then what use are your sensors? The integrator is like army headquarters where the information from the reconnaissance team is analyzed, compared to the strategic plan, decisions are made about what needs to be done, and orders are sent out. Without this work of integration at HQ, there would be no coordinated action in the field and, again, no way of taking control of the situation.

The third thing you need is an effector which receives the orders from the integrator and does something. If you have a sensor to detect what needs to be controlled and an integrator to know what needs to be done and sends out orders, but not an effector to take those orders and do something, then what's the use of having the first two? The effector is like the soldiers who, at the orders received from headquarters, go and do what needs to be done. Without soldiers to take effective action, the battle is lost."

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/what_the_body_m095051.html

Wow, that's as brilliant exposé of the myth of evolution that I have seen in a long time. I sometimes think that God has deliberately put all these problems in place to confound anyone trying to explain how everything came to be without His divine power. And the more we learn about how life and the universe, the more problems are discovered in trying to offer a naturalistic explanation for it all, so scientists have to resort to fudge factor like dark matter and dark energy. The whole tale of evolution gets more fanciful as every year passes. God would probably be in hysterics if it all didn't have a much more serious side, i.e., refusing to give credit to the creator, rather than His creation...
Rom 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Rom 1:22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.
Rom 1:25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.[emphasis added]

 

[Not_By_Chance]

This is a fallacy. Natural selection only selects from what is already there (the clue is in the title). Where did the material and information to build it come from in the first place? Give me a pile of materials to build a watch, take some away and then blindfold me; do you think I would ever manage to build a watch (especially if everytime I failed, you took away another component or two). Once upon a time...

 

[HitchSlap]

The book has satisfied you that the design that overwhelmingly impresses us is just an illusion?

"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selectioin overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design."

 

[Loudmouth]

Just to add my penny's worth - We have an in-built ability to detect design based on logic and experience.

We have an in-built bias to make false associations. The whole point of the scientific method is to lessen the impact of those human biases, not build an entire argument around them.

What you need to produce is an OBJECTIVE measurement of design, not "well, it sort of looks designed". You need a methodology, unit of measure, and statistical tests that are capable of detecting false positives.

For instance, nobody would conclude that the presidents' heads carved into the cliffs at Mount Rushmore came about by accident.

People claim that images on toast were purposefully put their by aliens or deities. People claim that shapes in the stars are evidence of gods. What about this one?

Furthermore, complex living cells are undergoing chemical reactions that require not only the instructions to carry out their incredible tasks, but they do some of them against the "wishes" of the chemicals themselves.

Can you give an example of these supposed instructions? How is it any different than the instructions that hydrogen and oxygen follow to make water?

As soon as the creature dies, the chemicals start reverting to what they naturally want to do. At least, that is how it has been explained to me by an expert in biology.

When you start giving DNA volition, you need to put the bottle down.

All the above requires information, masses of it which only comes from a mind.

Evidence, please.

Experience tells us that such thought processes don't come about by chance. Where did it come from? It's not part of the chemicals themselves, just as the message I am writing now is not a physical part of the text but is coming from my mind (such as it is). Did this text come about by chance - no, of course not. To quote an old saying, "If something moves like a duck, quacks like a duck and lays eggs like a duck, it probably is a duck." So if life, with all its complexity, looks designed, logic and observation would suggest that it probably is. Now all you've got to do is decide the identity of the designer. That's everyone's personal choice, but the consequences of getting it wrong could have eternal implications.

It "looks" designed? Will we be getting some objective evidence any time soon?

 

[Loudmouth]

This is a fallacy. Natural selection only selects from what is already there (the clue is in the title). Where did the material and information to build it come from in the first place?

Have you learned about "the birds and the bees"? Do you know where babies come from? Do you know where their DNA comes from? Have you heard of these things called mutations?

Give me a pile of materials to build a watch, take some away and then blindfold me; do you think I would ever manage to build a watch (especially if everytime I failed, you took away another component or two). Once upon a time...

Take two watches and let them spend some time together. Do you get a baby watch that has slight changes to what mom and dad watch were? If you don't, then you need to find a new analogy.

 

[Oncedeceived]

"Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selectioin overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design."

Unless otherwise corrected I will assume then that you agree with Dawkins quote in full which means your post that claimed you didn't see design was false?

 

[HitchSlap]

Unless otherwise corrected I will assume then that you agree with Dawkins quote in full which means your post that claimed you didn't see design was false?

Correct. I do not believe in design. It's an illusion.

 

[Loudmouth]

Unless otherwise corrected I will assume then that you agree with Dawkins quote in full which means your post that claimed you didn't see design was false?

So you are saying that the appearance of an illusion is an illusion? You are going to have to prove that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Correct. I do not believe in design. It's an illusion.

Then you do see design in life forms yet you said you didn't.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So you are saying that the appearance of an illusion is an illusion? You are going to have to prove that.

I am not saying anything.

 

[Loudmouth]

Then you do see design in life forms yet you said you didn't.

Do you see a duck in this cloud? If you say yes, does that mean it is a real duck?

Do you still not understand that "appearance" does not mean "really is"?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you see a duck in this cloud? If you say yes, does that mean it is a real duck?

Do you still not understand that "appearance" does not mean "really is"?

Do you still not understand that you are not comprehending the difference between duckies in clouds and biological systems?