Is it really possible for sense organs such as the eye to evolve?

Your replies and your buddies are no more than a 'tabual rasa' in substance... I'm finished here. Is this what people who've posted more the 10,000 posts turn into?

Definition of those members of the 10k + on this topic would be: how to make sure you never lose an argument by never having one but insulting those who are willing to.

Would you lookie there....

igm just called me names rather than responding to the substance of my posts.

You do get points for irony however igm..

I dont know the recipe for that

Okay I found the precognition experiments and the link is here to a short video clip (17mins) and the relevant experiment is between 4 and 5 mins into the video. The link is http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2011/08/reality-and-extended-mind-part-1.html
the video is called "Reality and the Extended Mind part 1" and the Scientist belongs to the well respected organization of Noetic Sciences and you will find them at http://www.noetic.org
ESP guys is for real. And also bear in mind these experiments are being done in accordance with the scientific method.

Which, of course, has absolutely no bearing on the creationist bullshit you're trying to peddle here.

No it's not. And no they're not. And "Neotic Science" is an oxymoron; certainly NOT a respected scientific institute.

It has everything to do with it because Darwininan evolutionary theory depends on there being only a physical realm, only the material world. If there is a non-physical aspect to reality that is imbued with intelligence then there is no natural selection as Darwin proposed.
I have looked at the Jelly fish and the sightless fish in caves that have eyes without lenses in which you can put a lens in the embryo stage and it becomes sighted just like their cousins in the sea above the cave but none of it explains the problem I am stating. The problem is that natural selection cannot explain sightedness when two different systems have got to develop, either side by side or one in anticipation of the other evoving some time late. If we take in intelligence as something outside of the physical realm and which is influential then it's a whole different kettle of fish. It points to some sort of creationism taking place and that does not exclude there being adaptation happening but not in the way Darwin proposed.

If you look into the experiments closely you will find that they are done scientifically and indeed they are going overboard trying to be scientific. They are for instance double blinding everything which I don't think is necessary or even desirable because ESP within relationship is where it can be best proven.

Then you need to look more closely, because you're understanding is just flat out wrong.

As Roswell has pointed out, the scientific method was not used in the linked material you provided. You're attempting to take it even further with this drivel about "ESP" in personal relationships--you're choosing to make claims that cannot be tested.

Of course, you're playing fast and loose with the truth. Scientific naturalism doesn't "depend on there being only a physical realm." It simply ignores anything which cannot be tested by scientific naturalism. This is like that drivel that the creationists trot out about the origins of life. Evolutionary theory is indifferent to how life began, it is only concerned with proliferation of diverse forms and the causes thereof. Evolutionary theory is also indifferent to allegations about "non-physical aspects" to reality, since it only describes a mechanism in the naturalistic world.

If you make claims about a "non-physical aspects to reality," you assume the burden of proof. You have provided no proof.

Divergent evolution is commonly seen in genetic complements of species and is also evidenced in the fossil record. Your argument about how various species of different phyla evidence "eyespots" is merely an example of how, if we go far back enough into the fossil record, we find common ancestors to about everything .

Bullshit and bullshit. You are obviously not very well armed to discuss what Darwin did or did not theroize. EVidence is what we work with and so far, no evidence of an "intelligence
is visible . Even if it was, the very path of development of life on this planet follows Darwins theroy in ever increasing levels of facts and evidence.

Youve seemingly tried to avoid answering how evidence of all "Created " creatures seem to follow a sequence of appearance on the planet and dont show up "all at once" as Creation "Science" would predict.
If you admit that species occured at various time sequences (usually as a result of adaptation to a new niche presenting itself by gradual change or else by cataclysmic environmental disruption.
Creationism is silent on gradual emergence of life. There are no horses in the Cambrian and no trilobites in the Holocene.

All of Radin's "experiments" rely on anecdotal reports by the participants, and all references to statistical probability assume what he claims to prove. If a statistical anomoly appears in standard scientific research, the research is held to be inconclusive unless and until the statistical anomoly can be explained. So-called paraphsychologists, however, assume that any anomolies are "proof" of the "psi" activity which their research attempts to prove--rather than proving the "psi" activity and showing that it is responsible for statistical anomoly. It is the equivalent of rhetoically begging a question, it is equivalent to assuming as a premise the conclusion one hopes to prove. In science, rigorous review of an hypothesis requires that the hypothesis explain the data, not that the data are just assumed to be a product of the hypothesis. You examine evidence, data, and come to conclusion. Your "parapsychologists" come to a conclusion, and then set out to shoe-horn data into the hypothesis.

There was, for more than 30 years, a parapsychological unit at Duke University. In 1986, the university stopped funding and ended their relationship with the "Rhine Institute" because of the failure of the researchers to ever demonstrate a "psi" effect which could be shown to produce and explain a consistent statistical anomoly.

You just believe this because you want to--calling it scientific evidence is a lie. Furthermore, despite your unconvicing protestations, your obvious motive is to promote your religious agenda.

Hes been reading too much Dan Brown ****.

Claims about ESP rely upon a statistical fallacy which is known as the enumeration of favorable circumstances. ESP researchers simply don't report contradictory or null evidence--they only report "evidence" which is consonant with the conclusion they wish to reach; this is also known as a confirmation bias. When i was in university, i met a lot of people who were excited about ESP, and eager to claim it was "scientifically" proven. They almost always relied upon the fallacy of the enumeration of favorable circumstances. Here is a case in point. One joker confidently told me that the Rhine Institute received over one hundred letters per year from people who had had premonitory dreams which had "come true." So i asked him to consider a little thought experiment. Solely for sake of argument, i stipulated that these premonitory dreams "coming true" were real, leaving aside the strong possibility of the witnesses having "remembered" the dream post hoc when the premonition seemed to have been confirmed. Sleep research (something which i had assiduously studied) shows that people who sleep eight hours in a 24 hour period go through 90 minute cycles of brain wave activity, each cycle culminating in a stage characterized by researchers as Alpha IV brain wave activity, when the Alpha waves are just slightly longer than the Alpha wave activity characteristic of waking consciousness, and associated with REM--rapid eye movment, considered by researchers to be dream sleep. Selecting the United States and Canada, English-speaking countries from which the Rhine Institute could reasonably expect to receive such letters, i pointed out that the population was one quarter of a billion people (at that time, the late 1960s). If only 80% of that population reliably slept eight hours per 24 hour period, that yields one billion "dreams" per 24 hour period--80% of the five, 90 minute cycles in normal sleep which culminate in Alpha IV activity associated with REM.

So that would yield 365 billion dreams per year. If even only one one hundredth of those dreams could be described as premonitory, that still leaves 36,500,000 premonitory dreams. Want to be more rigorous? Even if only one ten thousandth of one percent of those dreams could be described as premonitory, that still means 365,000 premonitory dreams per year. One hundred premonitory dreams "coming true" per annum is a pathetically insignificant statistic out of 365,000 such dreams.

His objection was predictable. He said to me that many thousands of people might have had such dreams, but had not written to the Rhine Institute. I had him there. I pointed out that all the people who had had such dreams which didn't "come true" simply hadn't sat down to write a letter to the Rhine Institute to tell them that they'd had such a dream which hadn't come true.

And that's what the fallacy and confirmation bias are all about. So long as you never see, or choose to ignore any data which does not confirm your thesis, you're going to be able to make all sorts of wild claims about your "proof." That will be very useful to people who are selling things to a gullible public--like your boy Radin. If one follows your link to the blog, and then clicks on "Home," one can find the books and videos which are for sale. I'm sure Mr. Radin lives very comfortably. To paraphrase Mencken, no one ever went broke underestimating the credulity of the public.

Have you ever tried to read one of Brown's books? I tried to read one . . . awful ****. I don't think i made it through 20 pages. That he is wildly popular is only somewhat less inexplicable than that so many people don't seem to realize that it's fiction.

I took the easy way. I borrowed an MP3 audio of his last book. It was total **** and I gave it a good try ( made it halfway).
I saw the Da vinci Code movie with Tom Hanks and that was tripe too. Even Hanks didnt help it. I think he phoned in his performance.

You know, though, Brown exploits precisely the type of credulity that leads people to fervently believe in ESP . . . not to mention all the routine, established religious claptrap. After the Da Vinci code movie came out, we had a lot of nut bags coming around telling us they were descended from Mary Magdalene and Jesus.

That post was nicely laid out Set. I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears.

Yes, i agree, probably a wasted effort in that sense. Thank you for your kind remark.

I hate to see this guy's thread die because I love to peer around folks minds when they hold ideas based upon deep religious beliefs over evidence and fact.

Very interesting in fact.