Goku: According to polling data the vast majority of religious scientists are theistic evolutionists. Of course this doesn't prove anything, but it does strongly speak to evolution's ability to persuade scientists that have no bias in favor of an atheistic paradigm. IOW you can't explain ToE's overwhelming acceptance among scientists due to some non-religious bias.
Turkeys voting for Christmas. And why do they vote? Because they are treated well, like the turkeys, "sure you can be a Christian and believe evo", then behind their backs..."we've bagged another useful idiot here, folks!" To believe Darwin did not come up with evolution with the idea to explain life without God, is ridiculous, he even said that if his theory depended on God being a part of it then he would abandon it completely, meaning, "theistic evolution" is against evolution theory even if it is popular, because evolution as an explanation, does not require theism. And your figure isn't born-again Christians, yet again you generalise with, "theism". The percentage of serious Christians that are evo are few. If you watch Christian tv very seldom do the Christians that are on those shows, accept evolution.
But I think it's the other way around though. We are not raised theist, not raised Christian to the point of having a born-again experience as Christ taught, and not taught what a real Christian walk with God is all about. Really I had to listen and do bible studies and listen to Christians on Tv for an awfully long time before I really knew what it was all about. A famous english pastor called David Pawson once said, "it took me about 7 years to be born again". So I think, "theistic evolutionists" that are raised catholic or secular but are semi-aware of Churchianity, or have some Christian connection, are really evolutionist-theists. I think primarily, people are raised and taught evolution, then because they are told it is a fact, when they formulate some VERSION of Christianity we may call "wishy washy theism" they then accommodate and bend that theism to fit with the evolution they have been raised to think is factual. So the majority of evolutionists being theist? To be honest I think it more likely that the majority of evolutionists are theist, because they are first and foremost evolutionist.
You place a great deal of emphasis on this statistic I have noticed. So then what is really happening, what does the statistic really mean? I think it means that probably people accept that if they want to believe in God they somehow have to marry evolution and God. Most people believe that can't be avoided. Most people of average intelligence, of average study, don't really dig deep into these issues to the extent we do. People like us that discuss these things inside out every week, in a sense we are fanatical, so then when you take the "majority" of people you have to ask the question; "what does the majority represent?"
Does the majority represent the portion of the most informed individuals, for example?
Goku: The 1 in 2^40 is just laughable. With statsitics you can show that virtually anything in the real world is highly improbable; what is the probability that all 300 million Americans wore the exact shirt that they are wearing today?
1 in 1.
Of course the "probability" of life evolving eyes separately 40 times, can't be compared to your example, because we already know the outcome posteriori. Therefore to say evolution is 1 in 1 is begging-the-question fallacy, because it GRANTS evolution that which you are supposed to be proving. So then, obviously my 1 in 240 example is laughable, only because of the 1 in 2 figure. Realistically, the chances of evolution just happening upon all of the types of correct materials and contingency plans and parts of the eye, even once would be a large figure, and that doesn't deal with whether it is physically feasible because of problems such as error-catastrophe, from genetic rust.
Goku: Of course the biological answer for the eyes would be that each individual is an 'experiment' which would mean that trillions upon trillions of 'experiments' were performed where environmental pressures selected those that could 'see' or 'see better' with reproduction allowing those traits to be kept in the gene pool generation after generation for millions of years.
Exactly. An absolute logical shambles of an argument, depending upon fictional elements and the magic invisibility of time you say happened. There aren't any transitionals for them, they are conspicuously absent. You ask me to believe in millions of experiments which have no evidence. Basically you are tacitly admitting that you believe these eyes evolved, by faith in the evolution-story.
Goku: Of course intelligently designed things are intelligently designed, but you have yet to demonstrate that eyes are intelligently designed in the sense that some mysterious alien or some magical, immortal, anthropomorphic entity drew up a set of blueprints and implanted them into our heads like a geranium in a flower pot
Red-herring. I don't have to do that to show design. All I have to do is show that the object-in-question has all of the usual features of intelligent design. I don't have to provide bluprints for the anitkythera mechanism or some odd object I find in an old loft, if it has the features of design, then it's a contradiction to say it wasn't designed.
Goku: Light sensitive patches, at least for animals, probably did have one origin where the subsequent evolution into eyes occurred independently. Where these light sensitive patches/eyes are located on the body is controlled by the Pax-6 genes I mentioned earlier, which as far as I know are present in all animals that have eyes.
What do you mean animals "probably did" have one origin of light patches. I assume you mean one common ancestor gave rise to "light patches" and a whole host of animal kinds then kept them, and after millions of years or diversification, then they all developed eyes where the patches went? Oh that's plausible, I can also see right now as we speak, thousands of species with ear holes but no ears, all waiting for their ears to come along.
Can't you see with your considerable intelligence you seem to suppress on evolution's behalf, that this is all a story. Where are these light-patch species in the fossils? I am afraid that even the trilobites had compound eyes exquisitely preserved in the cambrian with 50% chitin, 50% calcite lenses, which are one of the most sophisticated designs of eye. "Probably did" isn't good enough, intellectually, for me, because that just means, "I believe it happened that way", but the scenario is absurd, when all of the evidence shows completed and sophisticated, intelligently designed eyes.
It seems like a game, where you have two magic tricks. If it can't be divergence you say, "convergence", now when I say, "can't be convergence or they would all have light patches randomly spread on their bodies", you then switch back to "divergence". Seems to me that is a rigged game, where you simply believe one or the other.
So we have convergent eyeballs, and divergent light-patches?
"Mr policeman, I am telling you, I was both in China and America when it happened. I got on the plane in China, then four minutes later I was in America."
In this example, time is the hero of the plot. With evolution time is also the hero of the plot, you can invent as much as you want of it, then invent grandiose numbers of none-existent species for your evolution to happen within that time, all hidden by "gaps" in the fossil record.
"Mike, I'll have a sandwich a coffee and a bagel".
mike; "no worries, I have the sandwich right here, under my table cloth, but I can't show you it, the coffee is in my pocket, I promise, and the bagel is in that bag on my hip but you'll have to trust me because I can't serve your food right now."
Goku: Science uses logic all the time; it is one of science's tools
Then that must mean scientists acknowledge that a handful of transitionals, appealing to them and blabbing about them, is logically a case of slothful induction fallacy, since 99.9999% are missing.
That's an example of reductio-ad-absurdum;
"If the scientists knew their logic, they would conclude that the majority of the evidence is non-evolutionary, pertaining to transitionals, to avoid slothful induction."
"They clearly don't acknowledge this, and are clearly not even aware of the error, therefore they do not heed logic."
Sorry Goku but the evolutionary scientists haven't heard of slothful induction. If you want me to, I can contact evolutionary scientists and play-act, like Sherlock Holmes, by disguising my motives, and ask them if they have heard of the fallacy. I predict 90% of them would not have even heard of it or if they have, don't fully understand what it means. They are not required to understand logical notation as part of their science, and part of studying evolution.
Is it fair that you would consider I am not qualified to discuss which reasoning is sound, when they are not qualified to either? Remember, if you have a qualified evolution-scientist, logically that only proves they have studied biological evolution. It doesn't prove they have studied logical notation to my level, and have an understanding on my level. The evidence suggests they tend to bolster the few transitionals, without even being aware that the conspicuously absent transitionals would fill 1,000 time more museums. Logically, this is inescapable, intellectually, for you MUST commit intellectual suicide to ignore the vast majority of the evidence. Just because that evidence is not tangible, doesn't mean it does not exist. The non-existence of pre-bat transitions, or pre-dragon fly transitions, or pre-pterosaur transitions, or pre-seahorses, etc....vastly SWAMPS all of the tenuous, circumstantial "candidates" they argue are transitionals.
If they are logical, they have to admit that evolution's almost total absence, means you must argue slothful induction in order to infer evolution from all of the non-evolution we see.
Goku: I don't deny that Sudoku requires logical thinking to solve, and your ability to do them well along with other logic-type puzzles means that you have an innate ability in those areas. However, evaluating academic theories is often more nuanced, deals with more variables, and requires general and specific knowledge in that subject
All that matters is that I show the logical errors in the reasoning used to infer evolution, which I am able to do. If I am not arguing against the technical minutia, that minutia won't prove evolution anyway. The very best technical argument for evolution, that surely seems to only lead to an evolutionary conclusion, would not be consequential BECAUSE of affirmation-of-the-consequent, meaning even if I don't know all of the technical hypothetics, that is not required to falsify evolution. I need to understand what falsifies evolution, logically. I do know. Pretending I need to know more, is just an assertion of personal incredulity. Naturally you think it too hard for me to achieve it. That shows ignorance of the logic of evolution Goku, because if you understood the logic you would realise it is not really all that hard to fault evolution as a theory. So I can't accept your blind faith in evo and blind faith in science-authority, as being superior to me. Even if they did know something I don't, I could study it and then refute the reasons they give for why it must mean evolution. If they can, I can. Fundamentally, this is the key to intelligence I found - the belief that your own mind can think what any other human mind can think. Thus the real answer is determination. I find that the evolutionary scientists are passionless. This gives me an edge, because I have fire in my bones, and that fire compels me to victory because I believe God can make me wiser than them because why would He give wisdom to the fools that say He did not create that which He so very evidently did create?
Obviously I can't convince you of my ability to refute evolution because the power the epithet has over your mind. (brainwashing since youth). That's fine, we can move on now. I accept that you don't believe me. I accept that it would be impossible to convince you unless you saw the great debate for yourself and even then you must understand WHY the technical logic can't be broken. I actually wouldn't mind doing a great debate with a top PHD scientist on a forum like this. But the problem is that it's hard for me to find a neutral referee that understands WHY the things I say are correct. To understand why the things I say are technically correct, it can be difficult to understand/convey, because intuition is very different to putting that intuition/ability, into words.
I see the correctness in my mind but I can't convey it to other people.
Usually because people have to understand things on their own level, they tend to indulge cognitive dissonance. if they can't/won't think like me, it is much, much easier for them to understand the belief that I must simply be wrong, than it is to do the homework in order to realise I am correct. Unfortunately, technical logic is not an easy subject because it's not enough to learn it you also have to have the ability to dissect arguments/claims. That can't be taught, and where the ability is absent, it is much easier for the individual to simply conclude I am not correct and am simply stating that I am correct.
That's why I shown you the puzzle, because it is much easier to convince someone by demonstration. I thought if you saw I had beaten 13000 attempts that you might see that my ability was true. You have to have the same ability to understand why I am correct in my arguments. So then, if an evolutionary scientist can match my score, that is at least an indication he may be able to understand my arguments.
Your sole focus has been on understanding evolution, in a court-of-great-debate. But my counter-arguments also have to be understood, and it is clear that I am the inventor of them, and I am the one who has figured out why they are correct. So your focus is a bit of a decoy, because you have to prove the evolutionary scientists are able to deduce because my arguments require it, by showing by demonstration they have the same abilities. Thus I can equally conclude that they do not qualify to refute my counter-arguments, in a fair court, with two sides of debate, where claims are made on both sides. They cannot, I believe, refute my counter-evolutionary arguments, and will flounder I would predict, by muddying-the-water, appealing to science, and all of the other unintelligent TRICKS people convince themselves hold great credence, having never put them through the fallacy-filter.