Why is the process blind ?

The members showcased here present special challenges both in viewpoint and debate style, and those wishing to debate with them should enter the fray with open eyes and reasonable expectations. This is why access to the Showcase forum is restricted.These are excerpts from Message 4:

• Permission to participate can be rescinded at any time.
  ​
• There are no plans for detailed moderation. Participants are expected to moderate themselves by keeping their contributions positive and constructive. Moderation will be conducted by who is permitted to participate.

Thanks for giving it a try!

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

As I suspected you are completely ignorant. Dawkins thesis is that Paley is 100 percent correct except that natural selection produced what Paley ascribes to a Designer. I agree with you 100 percent, which makes your comment about me more ignorance or malice. I have always wondered why evolutionists have praised this book when it, in fact, contains no evidence, except a computer program designed by Dawkins that is offered as evidence that blind chance could produce complexity. Dawkins ends the book by saying that any miracles observed in creation were produced by natural selection - I kid you not. Your opinion about my science backround is a compliment since you believe apes morphed into men. Your approval would have proven me like you said....glad I didn't get it. You are shocked about Dawkins thesis which is quite evident that you did not know. The OP was short and to the point. Dawkins thesis is what all Darwinists believe (NS produced appearance of design not a Designer). Your comment above is ad hoc and abandons Dawkins = you have conceded. Imagine that...a complete anonymous ordinary Darwinian nobody dismissing Blind Watchmaker = pure frustration caused by the inability to refute. You can always comfort yourself with the comments of Darwinian Admin (= your mother).You could not answer the OP question, instead, you asked me questions attempting to deflect away from the inability to deal with the OP resolve.We have agreement on the outcome (appearance of design and organized complexity). Why is the process that produced the outcome blind instead of guided ? What justifies Darwinian special pleading ? Answer: Starting materialist/atheist needs covertly assumed as scientific fact.Honest and objective persons know the undisputed appearances correspond with the power and mind of Creator. Darwinism ASSUMES they do not and call it science = the total evidence against God = could one expect atheists to do anything else ?Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical Paulinist Edited by Herepton, : spelling

Yay, I can post here. First off, I was totally unaware of this. Apparently, that means Bush represents all republicans, the Pope represents all catholics, and the poor blacks represent all blacks. Wow, way to stereotype, dude.
how does an athiest represent a theistic evolutionist?Second off, How do the adjectives contradict the results? And what are appearance of design and organized complexity the results of?Third off, What process produces these results? Certainly you don't mean evolution, which is what you are arguing against, but so far are implying that evolution does this.A blind process does not mean random. A blind man can find his way across the street, but not by making random choices as to where he will step. Natural selection is not unguided (though not necessarily guided by God), which I'm pretty certain Dawkins wouldn't say (that is, that the process is unguided and random). Natural selection has never been described as such by anyone who knows what the ToE actually means and how it works.However, it is mindless. You could say that natural selection is some abstract entity we describe for purposes of explaining how one organism is more "fit" than another to its environment, and why the "fit" one is selected for. Of course, it's not reallly an entity (rather, it needn't be one).Science does not reflect the bias of materialsim methodology. It is based off of methodological naturalism, which does not preclude the existence or non-existence of any God or gods or other supernatural entities, events, etc. What this means is that science is concerned with how the world around us can be explained using natural, observable, testable, processes. This does not mean that the ToE says there is no God. In fact, the theistic evolutionists believe that what is driving the natural process of natural selection is God.you see, God can't be tested. At least not yet, and he may never be able to be tested empirically. Which means, science is never going to say that there is no god. The only philosophy that says this is atheism (that I know of).So the only bias in science is that of no concern over whether or not God exists. It doesn't matter.Finally, how is it logical to state that we were designed by something just because everything appears to be designed? And how can you test for such a designer? By what scientific methods do you prescribe to to come up with the assertion that all this appearance of design reflects guideness, purpose, and Mind?

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

I don't know if he answered this yet, so I will.Natural selection is blind. It is not directed, which iswhy it is blind. Now then, how do we know it is not directed?Keep in mind, by directed I mean guided to a purpose, like specifically driving organisms to evolve into humans, or any other living thing today. In other words, the process does not have a pre-stated goal.Let's take a population of 100 organisms. Now then, this type of organism reaches sexual maturity at age X. This type of organism, like all organisms that have been observed, produce more offspring than the environment can support. Let's say these 100 produce 300 offspring. Let's also say that the environment can only support 100 units of this type of organism. Let's also say, that upon reproduction (when the offspring are now living) the parent(s) die. That leaves us with 300 organisms. Now then, which will survive until age X? The ones best adapted to the environment. This is what is known as being more "fit".Only 100 will survive to reproduce. There may be a few more, there may be a few less, but the population will stabilize around 100 units of this organism. As these hundred are the only ones alive at age X, they are the only ones to pass on their genes. This is how natural selection is directed. However, since the genetic code is altered by mutations, which ARE random, that means that the 100 who survived are randoml predetermined to survive (barring any unusual event, like volcanic eruptions, comets and asteroids blasting into the earth, stuff like that, which could kill all the units of this type of organism). It's not contradictory. There is no telling who will get the mutation that gives them an advantage that ultimately allows them to pass on their genes. however, those with the advantage will most likely survive.And voila, the process is blind, and guided at the same time. But NOT random.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

You do realize that Darwin, the dude who realized how evolution really operates, was a clergyman in training when he jotted his notes down on the HMS Beagle? And that he did infact believe in God for a good chunk of his life?And if you look closely at the quote box you are complaining about, you will see the EZ forgot the beginning bracket (

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

It's similar to me claiming I have won the war by just saying it."I won, I won, you guys didn't, I won, haha, checkmate!"Of course, the war hasn't even started, and then I look like a fool for doing it.What you are saying is that: because you cannot refute MY opinions, then I have won the scientific debate.You are, in this matter, dead wrong.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Guess that means you're in the wrong. I mean, you are the one that wrote: The bias you have here is that there IS a God. And you try to present it as the objective answer to the question. Tch,Tch, nothing but hypocrisy.ABE: who to youEdited by kuresu, : No reason given.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

I take it someone has actually observed the Designer in the process.We have, and do, observe natural selection in work.Can you say the same for the designer?ABE:oh, and athiests don't require Darwinism to reject genesis. Genesis assumes there is a god. Atheists assume there is none. That is all they need to reject it and all other holy works.Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Further proof that you are in the wrong, with respect to one of my recent replies. The assumption of God's existence is a bias, therefore subjective, not objective. Science doesn't care whether there is a god or not. This is being objective--standing away from the issue and letting no bias (either assuming existence or assuming non-existence) interupt.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Then why do ALL of them support Darwinism ? Logic says if Darwinism was anything about supporting Genesis they would not support. Now a flip flop by Kuresu: I agree 100 percent. The total evidence against the Genesis Creator is an atheist assumption: science fiction packaged as evidence follows.Ray

Maybe because they aren't blinded by some subjective need to believe in some fanciful creator. Maybe because they tend to be more objective. And I'm certain you can find an atheist who rejects evolution. Much like you can find a christian who accepts evolution. Your argument is a moot point. Why the hell would something dealing with natural processes attempt to confirm a supernatural explanation? Science will never confirm genesis, if anything, it will explain away the errors in genesis. Not that that means that no GOd exists, mind you. Even without genesis, you can still believe in God, esp. if you're a christian. Then all that's important is that you accept Jesus as your lord and savior.I'm so glad you see a "flip-flop", as this is apparently the only argument you can muster against my several posts to you. After all, 16 hours, and this is all you write? C'mon.Oh, by the way, evolution wouldn't even be able to explain away Genesis on its own. It would take several branches of science, like physics, astronomy, and biology. So, there is no "flip-flop".You know, science fiction tends to be more scientific then your creationism, so . . .

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Your replies evaded. You INITIATED the first nonsensical blue box comment. Its not a matter of opinion: for all intents and purposes ALL atheists support neo-Darwinism and that means the theory is NOT about supporting Genesis. IF Darwinism supported Genesis they would not support. This is self-evident axiomatic truth. I agree 100 percent. ToE is intended to say Genesis is scientifically incorrect. All atheists support ToE = ToE is anti-Genesis. What are we arguing about ? Very predictable atheist philosophy. Then the miracle of the Resurrection of Christ is true but not the miracle origin of creation ? Is this your contention ?How can a TEist think he is having a relationship with a miraculously risen Savior and the genealogic blood-line of Christ, voluminously documented in Scripture, beginning with Adam, be wrong about the origin of Adam ?Everyone in the 1st century (including Jesus) was a Creationist.How do we explain the TEist belief about themselves (they think they are true Christians) ? Luke 22:48

​

But Jesus said unto him, Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss?Judas WAS AN APOSTLE and he betrayed Jesus to His face with a kiss.TEists CLAIM to be and THINK they are Christians (Jesus is my Savior = Judas kiss) and like Judas they are completely deceived brown nosing the enemies of Christ (atheist Darwinism).Looks like the Bible perfectly corresponds with reality - nothing has changed. Persons close to Christ are still betraying Him. John 6:70,71

​

Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

​

He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.TEists prove that they fulfill the Judas typology.Objectively, atheists and theists are mortal enemies, but when it comes to origins (of all issues) they agree ? This means one is not genuinely as such. The evidence says any theist who thinks he is having relationship with Christ is actually deceived and having relationship with the devil, unless, of course, Jesus their Savior is wrong - LOL !Ray

Dang your stupid.Your contention that because athiests all support Darwinism means darwinism is about disproving Genesis is flat out wrong. And unlike EZ, I decided to try and arghue your points. Instead, you claim they are evasions of your point. Well, if I'm evading it, then why don't you just give to me in plain english? [qs]All atheists support ToE = ToE is anti-Genesis/qsBiggest load of crap I've seen in a while. Just because something is in support of one thing doesn't mean its automatically against something else. (There's always the mum on the issue position)Let's look at this mathematically.
Atheists support evolution = A
Evolution rejects genesis = B.What you are saying is that A = B. This on its own is a logical fallacy. All math and logic theorems that I know of do not stop at this point, becuase without the addition of a third part it is impossible to show, logically, a link between the two.Much like if I were to say:
Christians accept religion = A.
religion rejects science = BA = B. but wait? what the hell, that makes no sense? What is linking A to B? There is nothing.All logic statements are like this--if A = B, and B = C, the A = C. The rest are just variations, with the exception that if A = B then B = A. Which means in your statment that Genesis rejects evolution (and how could it?), and in mine, it means that science rejects Christians? Niether statement is true. Then it wouldn't be science--nothing in Genesis has been found to be true as to how the world, or even universe, was created by natural processes. At any rate, ToE doesn't even attempt to put down Genesis--all it is is a scientific theory explaining the diversity of life we see today, and how it came to be through natural processes. Genesis assumes a supernatural explanation that's isn't testable nor verifiable by science. As such, it is curently outside of that realm, and until its not, then science will never prove or disprove God. ANd by the way, what does genesis have to do with God, as far as proof is concerned?As I said, it's only important that Genesis assumes there is a God, and that's all an aethiest needs to reject it. If it didn't assume there was a God, but left the question open, it might find more acceptance (except that factually it's wrong) by aethiests. Nothing to do with ToE.Now then, how about responding to my other points?I really think you're picking on this minor issue because you have nothing to say against what my several posts were? If you do have something to say against them, answer them, or else I think you're through.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

ar U arach's bruther ? hillbillierAyP.S.I know your Darwinian brothers are cringing after this post by you.Ray

wow. I mispelled argue. Now then, how about responding to some of my posts, or even my points. If you don't, it's now you evading the arguement.Have you nothing to say on why your logic is fallacious? Especially when written out as a mathematical formula, like I showed you? Come on, you gotta be better than this.Oh, and get it right. Southwest virginia isn't known for hillbillies. Try rednecks. The hillbillies (if I'm not wrong) are down in the hills of tennessee and north carolina.Again, answer my posts, don't run around them, like you've been doing.ABE:And I doubt that they are cringing. Mayhaps some are reading it, and if they get permission, they can further show your logic to be wrong. But something tells me this whole aside you started has nothing to do with your OP. So can we get back to it, or I have I thouroughly thrashed it for you?Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences