Cross Reference
New member
To be sure, a Fool is writing all that.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
6days
New member
As above "he correctly described what it does in animals." Note I also said that in humans it seems to have different function and nothing to do with a belief in hairy ancestors.DavisBJ said:
Evolution can't explain how eyes came into existence to begin with. Well.... slight correction...I have seen evolutionists attempt to explain it showing charts of critters with a light sensitive spot then various 'steps' to complex sophisticated vision. (Ignoring the HUGE amounts of genetic differences and the impossibility of mutations creating). *If you believe that...then your explanation makes sense. If you believe God created, and that sophisticated vision systems existed in the beginning, then the degenerated eyes fit with that belief.DavisBJ said:
Sorry... my bad.*DavisBJ said:
Yes your definition is fine for the word "usefull"
But I was referring to the word 'vestigial'.
If it's used implying common ancestry... then I disagree of course. *
Yes, so it was your God that created cancer right?
Jose Fly
New member
That's one thing I've often wondered. Fundamentalist Christians insist that Genesis is literal, factual history. So does that mean they actually believe the fate and function of the entire universe was altered because two H. sapiens ate a piece of fruit?
And that makes sense?
Hedshaker
New member
It's called special pleading. The clever bit is deliberately pasted into the first premise: "Anything that begins to exist....." And guess what, God it turns out, didn't begin to exist. Who'd have guessed it? God gets an escapes route via the the first premise. No trickery going on there at all. :chuckle:
Ya'll must have thought we came down the Thames on a we we pot
alwight
New member
I've been itching to point out for some time that apparently humans have just as many hair follicles as chimps, but of course generally not as thick.
If we ever needed warmer hair in the future then the wheel would not need to be reinvented so to speak, natural selection would simply favour those with thicker hair.
Of course there is an excellent explanation for evolution of the eye, and no reason at all to presume eyesight is somehow irreducibly complex.
The fact that you personally aren't convinced by the explanation is your business and no great surprise to many others here, but then again you are somewhat contractually obliged to automatically reject anything that would seem to have taken longer than 6000 years or so to develop, right?
The fact that the human eye is wired back to front and has a blind spot is good evidence that it evolved and wasn't competently designed.
Cross Reference
New member
I've been itching to point out for some time that apparently humans have just as many hair follicles as chimps, but of course generally not as thick.
If we ever needed warmer hair in the future then the wheel would not need to be reinvented so to speak, natural selection would simply favour those with thicker hair.
Of course there is an excellent explanation for evolution of the eye, and no reason at all to presume eyesight is somehow irreducibly complex.
The fact that you personally aren't convinced by the explanation is your business and no great surprise to many others here, but then again you are somewhat contractually obliged to automatically reject anything that would seem to have taken longer than 6000 years or so to develop, right?
The fact that the human eye is wired back to front and has a blind spot is good evidence that it evolved and wasn't competently designed.
How do you know? Were you there when it was?
alwight
New member
I think it makes excellent sense if you are not compelled to believe it literally. It was clearly only ever meant to be a metaphor for the acquiring of adult knowledge, a kind of birds and bees, facts of life fantasy tale, but fundies don't do metaphor. :nono:
alwight
New member
Sorry yes I can see the evidence first hand.
In the human eye the optic nerve goes inside the eye and is terminated on the front of the retina which does obscure some of the light, while the optic nerve itself does create the famous blind spot. It's just how it is there is no need for a time machine.
You can discover for yourself your own blind spot.
A human who designed a digital camera that way would be fired.
6days
New member
It's logical.. There is nothing which ever has begun to exist which is not caused.
6days
New member
We have the same number of eyes, arms, hearts etc.alwight said:
Your point is we might have the same Creator?
(Stop itching... you might have lice in all that hair on your back?)
It's a silly belief.alwight said:
Mutations can only create vision in an evutionists dreams. Arranging things in patterns to fit your beliefs is not science.*
alwight said:
Hard to believe evolutionists still try to use that argument. Science demolished that argument years ago.*Researchers Amichai Labin and Erez Ribak at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa found, “The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images." So instead of it being a backwards design it is actually an optimal design.... evidence of our Creator.
As ophthalmologist *Dr.*George Marshall said:
“The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy.”
Cross Reference
New member
Hedshaker
New member
What about existence itself? The Big Bang "event" may well have been the beginning of the universe we know about but beyond that is an argument from ignorance.
alwight
New member
The first quote above seems to be more of a quote mine, sorry if I gave up too early, the internet seems to produce little more than creationists who have all homed in on these words here, I didn't have time to read and digest the actual work by Amichai Labin and Erez Ribak which I did find, so yes I gave up, since quote mines are not exactly unheard of around here.
However there does seem to be some possibility that what is meant by "optimal" refers only to it being optimal for the way the eye is actually wired up, not that it is the optimal possible setup. Note it says "an" not "the" optimal structure.
Also I've seen an argument that suggests that daytime colour vision is marginally improved by our current set up, but which comes with a loss of night vision, you pays your money you take your pick?
Then again some creatures with our type wired up eyes don't see colours anyway so....?:liberals:
Personally though I still think it's more than crystal clear and twenty-twenty that having a blind spot is definitely not optimal for an organ used to see with.:sherlock:
Of course if the optic nerve had connected at the rear of the retina instead then there would have been no blind spot, while also not discounting any optimising and tweaking that still could have been designed into the front of the retina by any extant competent intelligent designer worth His salt.
Since I was bogged down with internet creationists all frantically trying to show what a perfect design the human eye was I thought I'd post this I came across from your beloved George Marshall since he seems to be very popular with the Creation Ministries at least.
Naturally, as a YEC, Genesis must always trump even George Marshall's own science, he must get some doozie headaches.
| George Marshall Biased YEC? | |
alwight
New member
Then I'm sorry that you can't see the truth nor provide a worthwhile
When you get chilled, do you get goosebumps? If so, why does your body do that?
So your response was nothing more than a creationist bait-and switch? Instead of focusing on how a lack of light would eventually cause eyes to become vestigial, in fact you used some slight-of-hand and pretended the question was really whether or not eyes could have formed naturally, or had to be products of a divine act of creation?
Which means you are making no pretense about examining the question on its scientific merits, and instead you simply have your Goddidit trump card in reserve to use against any argument that you may not win if you don’t use that card.
6days
New member
Dave Miller, Ph.D. "You’ve experienced goose bumps. When you have gotten cold, you’ve noticed bumps rise on your arms (or even your legs, neck, and other areas of the skin that have hair). Evolutionists continue to claim that goose bumps are leftover from our evolutionary ancestors. That’s silly. Everything about your body was designed by God. The different parts of your body serve important purposes as God intended.
"Goose bumps get their name from bumps that can be seen on a goose when its feathers are plucked. Goose bumps happen when tiny muscles at the base of each hair follicle contract and force the hair to stand up. These muscles are called erector pili [ih-RECK-ter PIE-lie] muscles. Isn’t it amazing that this happens without you thinking about it? God made them to work whether you think about them or not.
"But why do we get goose bumps? Consider two reasons. First, goose bumps occur when we get cold. The muscles that contract cause the skin to “bunch up,” forming little bumps that cause your hairs to stand up straight. In addition to the muscle tension, the rising hair forms a layer that traps air between the hairs and skin, creating insulation and warmth. This amazing way for the body to preserve its own heat, reducing heat loss, had to have been designed by God. Goosebumps are not evolutionary leftovers!
"Second, we also get goose bumps when we get hot, or face extreme heat. God made our bodies to sweat as part of an efficient cooling system. As perspiration accumulates on our skin, it naturally evaporates. As the sweat evaporates, it cools down the skin surface. But this process causes a dramatic temperature difference. So the body responds to the “chill” of the sweat evaporation by engaging the “goosebump response” when we get too chilled.
Notice that goose bumps serve very important purposes for people. Goose bumps were designed by God. They most certainly are not unused, unnecessary “vestigial organs” left over from evolution!"
http://www.apologeticspress.org/DiscoveryPubPage.aspx?pub=2&issue=1124&article=2161
Loss of genetic information is the Biblical model. So your example of blind fish fits.
In our everyday experience, it seems a pretty safe bet to say that “nothing which ever has begun to exist which is not caused.” But that is an empirical observation, not a demand that nature is obligated to obey.
There are a couple of ideas that you need to keep in mind. First – think of a game, such as chess. You know how the pieces in chess can be moved, and the consequences a move will have in the game. A pawn can only move a limited distance and in limited directions. But does that rule, which is non-negotiable within the game of chess, apply when the game itself is being set up? If your buddy, getting the pieces out of the box, picks up a pawn and walks across the room, has he violated the rules of the game? Who says the rules that must be followed in bringing the universe into existence are the rules that are operative within it, once it exists?
Creationists, in defining a God that exists outside of the universe, that creates from nothing, etc. are gleefully making up whatever rules they want without paying any heed to the rules that apply within our universe.
The second thing to keep in mind is that from hard experience, in science we have learned that it is unwise to dictate to nature how it must act. Much better to learn about how nature works, and strive to conform your thinking to reality, no matter how “illogical” it may seem. For example,
It’s logical that one discrete particle cannot be in two places at the same time. But it happens.
It’s logical that if I am riding a bicycle at 10 km/hr and I throw a rock ahead of me at 10 km/hr, then that rock will be gong 20 km/hr over the ground. But it doesn’t.
It’s logical that a child cannot be older than it’s parents. But in high speed experiments, exactly that type of effect is routinely observed.
If someone asks what existed before the universe to cause it come into existence, I immediately wonder what they are talking about. “Before”, as in “before the universe existed” presumes there was time before the universe existed. But the thing we call time came into existence when the universe did, and it makes no more lexicological sense to talk about something “before” our universe than it does to ask what is north of the North Pole.
Dear alwight,
Yes, Jesus Himself said those words first, not me. He said "Blessed are those who believe without seeing." You've got to engage your brain and your heart. The brain alone doesn't make it.
You are okay to think whatever you like.
The list of people who have claimed to have this special knowledge is pretty long even if you don't include Jehovah Witnesses. To say that their success rate is abysmal is giving credit where none id due. I have no shred of rational doubt at all that this year will simply pass just like all the previous ones, with me or without me in still in it.
I am not affiliated with Jehovah's Witnesses. I am affiliated with God and Jesus, and what I've been told by Them. You believe what you want. I have something called Faith. You don't. It's okay. No reason you should believe me when all of the earth's people won't believe me. It's meant to be. Who am I to hope it would be different. Whatever.
May God Let You Believe What You Will,
Michael
:angrymob: :angel: :angel: :angel: :cloud9: :cloud9:
P.S. I initially was visited by three angels in the space of 3 weeks. That's why I include 3 angels here.
Dear alwight,
Of course I have considered the theory of evolution. It's just that I don't believe it. If it pits Darwin against Jesus, then who do you think I am going to pick? Geology doesn't show how old the Earth is. It's someone else's interpretation and an error in their methods to measure the age of the Earth. It is not billions of years old. So nip that in the bud right away. It is 7,000 years old. Isn't that old enough for you? The same with the Universe and mankind. 7,000 years old! Not 3.5 billion years old. Dream on![/quote]
The only adaptations that have happened have been orchestrated and purposed by God doing them through His Own power. He is the Master Chemist, including a change of genes, genomes, DNA, RNA, atoms, molecules, etc. He makes the changes, not natural selection. That is man's way of disbelieving that there is a God. For shame.
Michael
- Status