Why is the process blind ?

Dawkins, in "Blind Watchmaker" (1986) goes out of his way to carefully describe many different organisms and organs using terminology associated with things that were designed. From bat echolocation and electric fish to the human eye. After these very detailed descriptions he asserts each one was produced by natural selection - cumulatively ("numerous successive slight modifications").Dawkins, (who represents all evolutionists) and myself both agree that the inhabitants of nature and physical reality exhibit the appearance of design and organized complexity. I contend that we do not need to special plead the appearance of design, that it logically corresponds with a Designer. Dawkins says the appearance is an illusion produced by a blind and mindless process (natural selection).However, the point remains: we both agree physical reality appears designed. This is a fact that the Evolution-Creation debate has agreement on: nature and its organisms exhibit the appearance of design.When Dawkins or any evolutionist says the evolutionary process is blind or mindless or unguided or purposeless these are adjectives that contradict the undisputed results: appearance of design and organized complexity. Based on the undisputed fact that the process produces the appearance of design AND organized complexity AND the interconnecting precision of nature the evolutionist choices to describe the process are false and reflect the bias of Materialism methodology. Objectively, based upon the undisputed results of appearance of design and organized complexity and the interconnecting precision of nature we can disregard the bias and accurately describe the same process as reflecting guidedness, purpose and Mind.By the way: checkmate.Ray Martinez Romans 1:25

​

Who changed the truth of God into A LIE, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. All Darwinists are the liars for special pleading the appearance of design (what more can God do ?) to not correspond with Designer but a blind and mindless process of their own imagination and need.Edited by Herepton, : add contentEdited by Herepton, : No reason given.

Your initial post is disappointing (butcher shop of quote mines, format disuniformity, ad hoc substanceless one liners). The biggest disappointment, though, was the evasion of my main OP (opening post) argument, which was (in a nutshell): Both Dawkins (who represents all evolutionists) and I agree that nature exhibits the appearance of design and organized interconnecting complexity. Based on these undisputed results I logically conclude the process that produced the results is not antithesis: blind and mindless.My question for you (as seen in the topic title) is why do Darwinists insist the process is blind and mindless when in fact it produces contra-resultant reality ? I contend that which produces appearance of design and interconnecting organized complexity can logically and scientifically be attributed to have been produced by Designer or Mind. The evidence of my contention is the undisputed results of appearance of design and interconnecting organized complexity. Darwinists are demanding an atheistic (adjective not a noun) ideological conclusion (blind and mindless) be accepted as scientific fact contrary to the undisputed observational facts. This is called special pleading and you need to explain why it is justified. Instead, you dodged the issue: Your reply is a dodge because it is purely reliance on argument by authority. I could produce persons with Ph.D.'s who say the exact opposite. IF the issue was about the genetic code randomly mutating THEN in this type of matter lay persons need authorities to establish facts because the issue is only resolvable by persons with Ph.D.'s. Outsiders are not qualified nor do they have knowledge to render opinions about the genetic code.The present issue is why is the process that produces appearance of design and organized interconnecting complexity judged to be blind and mindless ? Based on these outcomes anyone who asserts the process is NOT blind and mindless is perfectly justified. We can explain Dawkins opinion and his perceptions of the process to be observations based on the needs of his known worldview. What are Dawkins qualifications to rely on a non-scientific principle (illusion) to explain away observational facts ? We know Dawkins is protecting his worldview. You are doing the same by implying the atheistic starting presuppositions of Methodological Naturalism are scientific fact.EZscience, why is the process blind ? It is a word used by Dawkins and many others. "Observation" is a synonym: the cornerstone of science. It is the ONLY criteria Darwin used to produce Origin of Species. This is a YEC argument. They too special plead the geological ages to be a deception from God in order to evade an old Earth. I contend we do not need to special plead anything, unless of course you can argue a rational exemption. Nonsense. "Appearance" is observation and neither have anything to do with speculation. This reply is ad hoc. Atheist philosophy pretending to speak for science. Is this the reason why the process is blind ? ....your atheistic zealotry ? Randomness and chance and accident is satisfying to account for the continuous production of organized complexity and order ? The OP clearly relays the Blind Watchmaker thesis. Have you read this book ? Again, Dawkins does NOT dispute the appearance of design - he asserts it was produced by blind mindlessness not connected to Mind. I ask, again, based on the undisputed results, why is the alternative view incorrect ? I contend Dawkins belief about the observational facts is wrong. All polls have consistently showed 40 percent of the American public sees nature reflecting Mind. Your view is the untenable attempt to insult everyone who does not agree to be "stupid, ignorant, insane or wicked" (Dawkins).Ray MartinezEdited by Herepton, : minor grammatical edit

I missed this opinion in my first reply.Materialism only allows non-supernatural explanations, interpretations and conclusions. This is an undisputable atheistic bias. You are attempting to assert that atheists have no bias = could one expect an atheist to try anything else ? Everyone has a bias (not a matter of opinion).The reason why the process is blind is because Darwinists are grinding a philosophic atheistic axe under the disguise of science. You MUST assert the process is blind despite the contra-resultant outcome because of your anti-Creator worldview.I could produce quotes by evolutionists saying all of the evidence in existence for hominid evolution could fit on a billiard table. This, of course, is untrue. The accurate space needed to fit all of the evidence for human evolution could fit in a space 1 inch long and a quarter inch wide, that is, in the amount of space that the word assumption takes up. That assumption is the Materialist starting assumption that appearance of design does not correspond with Designer. EVERYTHING that follows after the assumption is faithful to the assumption despite the observational facts.Now that I know you are uneducated and/or ignorant I will not waste anymore time reading or responding to your messages.Percy: Send me a TEist or I am through with this atheistic nonsense packaged as neutral objective science.Ray MartinezEdit:Subscribing to Materialism does not disable the capacity to have bias. What could possibly make a person come under this delusion ? Answer: Need. The need to mask the atheistic biases and starting assumptions of Materialism.RMEdited by Herepton, : No reason given.

EZ: Why are you unable to produce a post reflecting format uniformity ? Blue box your opponents text all the time and not some of the time. I have every right to walk away knowing what is written leaves you wanting. But I am caged and my handlers want performance. So I have reconsidered and will re-commence grinding. This was your reply to my OP argument = inability to refute. That OP argument says there is mutual agreement pertaining to the outcomes of the process that produces observational reality (appearance of design, interconnecting ORGANIZED complexity). The Darwinian description of the process is diametrically counterintuitive. The Design description is perfectly congruent. The disharmony between the two is caused by worldview starting assumptions (philosophic) and not scientific facts or data.I suppose you will continue to evade and butcher my quotes ? Of course it is. But you are deflecting away from the narrow OP argument. The implication of your point is pure (rhetoric) misuse of logic. You have yet to address the OP argument in good faith. Dawkins agrees with Paley about the results and outcomes. We, logically say the same corresponds with Designer. Dawkins says the process is non-sentient, inantimate and blind. These are atheistic adjectives that defy the undisputed results. Your part is to evade.My logic is invulnerable. It all boils down to starting assumptions and methodology. A chance catastrophe is not evidence that the process that produced the ecosystem was driven by chance. You are arguing in a incoherent circle.Human engineered mechanisms of complexity are undisputably produced by purposeful design. But the same in nature is not = only when a worldview need is present. The source of ALL misunderstanding about the Bible is really caused by the complexity of the Author. Science has voluminously determined that complexity is the irrefutable sign of His involvement. Dawkins in Blind Watchmaker asks the same (phony) question - a question that little kids who do not know any better ask. Then Dawkins, unaware of his hypocrisy goes on to say pure chance caused First Cause. Impossible. DNA replication machinery needed to jump start cumulative selection did not poof into existence. The only source for poofing is the Bible. You cannot have it both ways. Once you rely on and invoke chance, this is equivalent to Biblical "out of nothingness". EDIT: Genesis says nature and mankind had supernatural beginnings. Dawkins knows this but the needs of cumulative selection have boxed him in. Darwin knew this too. This is why in the 2nd Edition of Origin he added the word "Creator" in the last famous paragraph. Both views require "out of nothing" origins. We have a source and you do not. Darwin has no source for his Creator invocation since, whatever Genesis says, it says origins was NOT by common ancestry.Whether the outcome or the origin we have the upper hand. Darwinists special plead the outcome and need the "out of nothing" beginning. We are faithful to observation and have always insisted origins was supernaturally commenced.RMEdited by Herepton, : add content

You have evaded the OP argument because you cannot refute. That is why my last comment in the OP said: "By the way: checkmate."Ray

I've carried you and tried to provoke an answer to my OP. Let me make it very easy: Why is the process blind EZ ? You are unable to answer a simple question about Darwinian science. I will now stop being an opponent and try and help you: The answer is because the personal worldviews of atheism are being "covertly" objectified. I feel you have been genuinely duped by older and smarter evolutionists and that you are actually ignorant of the materialistic/atheistic bias entrenched within the Darwinian worldview. Everyone has a bias and it is not wrong nor is it avoidable. What is wrong is the intentional hiding of bias under color of a false objectivity that does not exist. Hope this helps you in understanding your Materialistic science.Ray

I have pointed out that the Dawkins Blind Watchmaker thesis accepts Paley's Argument from Design in all aspects, except, of course, the source and cause of the undisputed appearances. It is Darwinists who assert the process contrary to the outcome. IDists logically assert that which produces these outcomes is guided in accordance with the results. Darwinists are exposed to be attempting to objectify their atheistic worldviews under the color of "it is science" = deception = indigenous trait of Satan and sign of his presence according to the Bible. Logically, blind chance cannot produce organized complexity, unless of course, you are a Darwinist with atheistic needs. Nothing on this Earth was designed by a blind human who by chance produced his invention every step of the way. Bat sonar and mimicry reek with ID. Because they are biological Darwinists steal the ID from God and assert their moronic ideas (blind and mindless NS) were responsible.You have not produced one piece of scientific evidence to justify your atheistic conclusions except to say "it is science". Atheism is not science and 40 percent of the population knows you are liars. You are unable to correct your errors or acknowledge them. Why are you here ? Now I know why you post under a pseudonym. I have just obtained controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn - email me if you want in ? In the meantime: The above dating is 20 years before Origin of Species was written. Like I said in my previous message - you are uneducated or ignorant. Your "position" betrays a fear of the Bible and an unsound theory. ALL atheists would not embrace Darwinism if they didn't think it refuted Genesis. Science has objectively tested for a Designer and found one. Only Darwinists deny for obvious reasons. Nature exhibits design because a Designer made it - logical and observed.Ray

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

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

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

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

You need to return to message number #1 (the OP) and blue box each point and tender a reply.This is what you agreed to when requesting to debate here. The OP is the subject. After you address the OP THEN I will answer your points and questions.Ray

Yes, Dawkins represents ALL Darwinists. The context of that statement was his assertion and description of the evolutionary process: blind and mindless AND it produced the appearance of design and organized complexity in biological reality.And the Pope represents ALL Catholics - that is undisputeable and Bush represents all Republicans. You are showing breathtaking ignorance.You cannot ex post facto assert contrary to Dawkins since his beliefs are the OBJECTIVE claims of evolutionary theory. EZ Science was completely ignorant to what the most famous book on evolution said. Dawkins says the appearance of design in nature is an illusion produced by blind and mindless natural selection = all evolutionists believe this - it is the central claim of your theory. Creationists (represented by me in this case) and Evolutionists (represented by Dawkins in this case) that is, BOTH of us agree nature appears designed. Creationists say the appearances correspond with an invisible Designer, Evolutionists say they do not VIA the adjectives of "blind and mindless".My question to you: why is natural selection judged to be a blind and mindless process contra-resultant to the undisputed outcome of design ?We say the appearances of design and organized complexity correspond with an invisible Creator. Evolutionists say the same corresponds with antithesis to the results - I am wondering what is the scientific justification ?As it stands now, evolution is true by starting philosophical assumption and not scientific evidence or data. Why is the process scientifically blind and mindless ?RayEdited by Herepton, : format stuff

You have completely evaded the OP and most recent condensed versions. We know this is caused by the inability to refute.I will now answer your questions and/or points. Its not a matter of opinion; the Pope surely does represent all Catholics and Bush represents all Republicans. You are an absolute moron. I have never disagreed with this. Maybe you can evidence your claim that I did not know that Darwinian science uses MN for its philosophy and starting assumptions ? Again, you are an absolute moron. The philosophy and methodology that all atheists use is neutral about God ? Where is God in MN ? This is rhetorical. God is excluded. Since when is exclusion neutrality ? This is rhetorical.Since you believe MN is neutral about God, Kuresu, I just obtained controlling interest in a bridge in Brooklyn, looks like a cash cow - email me if you want in ? Ordinary atheist dogma. All genuine scientific theories credit God as the Creator - only atheist theories do not for obvious reasons. Do you have a source cite for this opinioin ? Chapter and verse ? Atheist philosophy. To an atheist. Could one expect an atheist to believe anything else ?Darwinists mindlessly assert "Natural selection-did-it" replacing God and the genius we see in nature with their lunacy and needs. God is verifiable by what we see in nature. He ONLY requires Creator credit - nothing else. Naturalism says God does not exist - the dogma that all atheists abide by. You are confused and/or ignorant. We know you are ignorant in 2 + 2 issues so lets go with the latter.Science has always proven God, only atheists and atheists who happen to own a cross say otherwise. Could one expect a Darwinist to believe anything else ? Standard atheist belief, which I already knew. Now I know you know too.You can have the last word being the atheist lap dog that you are.You might say "I am a theist or Christian."If so, then why do you abide by atheist philosophy ?You are what you argue and not as you label yourself. You argue standard atheist rhetoric, therefore I conclude you are an atheist.Ray

Unfuckingbelievable.Here we have a Darwinian Moderator placing common sense on the defensive.Darwinist (Kuresu) moronically repeats that the Pope does not represent all Catholics and Bush the same with Republicans. I make a self-evident identification that Kuresu is an absolute moron only to have a Darwinian Moderator defend the same.At least Kuresu has an excuse as he does not know any better, unlike you. This makes you the absolute moron.Here you are in my private cage, which is a state of banishment, implicitly threatening to ban me. Your moronic post and silent threat to further banish don't mean a fucking rats ass to me. Anyone who says what Kuresu said is a fucking moron and anyone who covertly defends this moron under the guise of "Moderation" in the Showcase Forum is more of a moron.I am serving lifetime bans at:InfidelGuy for one theological post about the love of Christ.TWEB for saying TEists are nothing but atheists who happen to own a cross.ChristianForums for pointing out that when atheists and theists agree on origins one aint as such.Now NWR wants to ban me for calling a moron a moron = the real reason is the points above that I have made here at EvC too.Ray Edited by Herepton, : spellingEdited by Herepton, : No reason given.