6days
New member
It was research scientists who used that word Kdall.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
6days
New member
As Purdom said...the evidence from gents is compelling. As is often the case evolutionist are wrong about the years and they will keep changing it
It doesn't really matter what term is used by who. You know yourself that our eyes are imperfect, to say the least. Correct?
This is the evidence Purdom is citing:
Mitochondrial Eve is estimated to have lived between 99,000 and 200,000 years ago,
A bit out of range for YE creationism to be true, um?
Maybe the blind spot was designed to keep us from seeing bad stuff?
6days
New member
We are talking about the design which was perfect. Our eyes like the rest of our body is now subject to sickness and disease.
Shhh.....don't trouble YECs with details
And the science behind that comment is where exactly?
6days
New member
Maybe you have a blind spot that prevents you from seeing our Creator in His creation.
Which your God created right?
6days
New member
It seems you rely on old evolutionary beliefs from Dawkins and others. You are unaware of science in the past 15 years that realizes optimal design in our eyes.
So the blind spot is optimal? That's what you're saying? Because you can't provide ANY science to back up your absurd claim that our eyes were created perfectly, then deteriorated.
Ridiculous. Creationism is a freaking joke. Even you must realize what you post is nonsense now. Getting The Barbarian banned for pointing that out won't change it
So you quote science as you understand it in one point, but you ignore all other science that doesn't agree with your version of faith.
By the way, sciences agnostic about the results. It's just reports them. You and many other creationist just ignore anything that doesn't agree with your preconceptions.
6days
New member
You have some misconceptions of what science is...and isn't. Science doesn't report anything. Science involves examine / observing data...doing repeatable experiments and making conclusions. The data needs to be interpreted. Both evolutionists, ID'ISTS, and Biblical creationists examine the same design and function in our eyes. Even many evolutionists now admit it's "nearly perfect"..... or that our bodies have the appearance of design .
Oh... and by the way...eye witness testimony and historical records are evidence.
I spent the better part of two decades making policy decisions based on science. I understand science and have relied on it, particularly biological science, well.
Eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate. All I have to do is talk to the police and ask him about that.
If you're so hung up on historical records, let's talk about the most amazing thing that is discussed this far as the crucifixion is concerned.
Where is there extra biblical record of all the zombies wandering around in Jerusalem , supposedly seen by many. Where is that record? Where are the eyewitnesses?
Is that a quote from Ken Ham? He isn't a doctor btw, just a Mr, which is another way that you can tell what a sham creationism is: the main organization dedicated to its "study" isn't even headed by a guy with a doctorate.
You seem to have science confused with an American court of law.
Jose Fly
New member
It's pretty simple. 6days insists that creationists and "evolutionists" look at the same data, but just interpret it differently. But I think we all agree that that by itself doesn't mean anything. I'm pretty sure no one would argue that all interpretations are equally valid. IOW, some interpretations are better than others. So how do we tell?
In this case we can easily tell by what I stated, i.e., that the evolutionary interpretation is the explanitory framework for all the life sciences, and has been for over a century, and produces actual useful results (e.g., the discernment of genetic function). Creationism OTOH hasn't contributed a single thing to science in at least a century.
So based on that, it's pretty obvious that the evolutionary interpretation of the data is immensely superior to the creationist interpretation.
That has no bearing on its accuracy.
The accuracy of a scientific explanation is independent of how distasteful it might be to a group of people.
Good design / Bad Design of the Human Eye
Good design / Bad Design of the Human Eye
Thinking a little bit about the “bad design - inverted eye” issue. Two questions dealing with evolution come to mind.
1) The “design flaw” would presumably have occurred long before the species of homo sapiens was in existence. I would expect that other mammals that are recognized (by other evidence) as having a close evolutionary kinship to man would have the same bad eye design. Is this in fact seen?
2) Regarding how “superbly” the human eye seem to actually be designed (in the creationist’s view) – consider that the functional but “bad design” had embedded itself in the population, it was not going to be ripped out and easily replaced with a better design. However, wouldn’t evolutionary improvements that were compatible with the “bad design” be expected to be favored by natural selection? So that Dawkins’ “bad design” is in evidence, but superimposed on it are evolutionary-driven changes that made it much better – what the creationists see as the neato design of the eye?
Good design / Bad Design of the Human Eye
Thinking a little bit about the “bad design - inverted eye” issue. Two questions dealing with evolution come to mind.
1) The “design flaw” would presumably have occurred long before the species of homo sapiens was in existence. I would expect that other mammals that are recognized (by other evidence) as having a close evolutionary kinship to man would have the same bad eye design. Is this in fact seen?
2) Regarding how “superbly” the human eye seem to actually be designed (in the creationist’s view) – consider that the functional but “bad design” had embedded itself in the population, it was not going to be ripped out and easily replaced with a better design. However, wouldn’t evolutionary improvements that were compatible with the “bad design” be expected to be favored by natural selection? So that Dawkins’ “bad design” is in evidence, but superimposed on it are evolutionary-driven changes that made it much better – what the creationists see as the neato design of the eye?
Interplanner
Well-known member
Are you so cerebral and clinical that you cannot hear what even the writer of CREATION thought necessary to show about Darwin even though the drift of the movie was to salivate over evolution's success? Do you have no fellow-feeling? And so you have written off a number of things (as non-contributions) that the Christian worldview has given mankind over against the brutality of an animal worldview that you end up with in naturalistic uniformitarianism and Haeckl's proto-Nazi monism. Ahhh, there's the lizard in the room no one wants to talk about. And what's this? One of his disciples over in LA in 1910 with Ms. Sanger "contributing" genetic purging of the US population. But they were sure "accurate" as scientists!
Sorry, sir, but the doc THE PRIVILEGED PLANET "contributed" 20 reasons why it is so fantastic to see God's design on all levels from wavelengths to celestial mechanics.
In THE ABOLITION OF MAN, Lewis describes modern education's mission to completely rid mankind of any instinctive sense of morality by its pursuit of clinical "accuracy." It is hideous.
- Status