Creation vs. Evolution

[DavisBJ]

In other words you interpret evidence within your worldview, or your belief system. (As do I)

Maybe you didn’t read what I actually said, so let me say it again – “If I knew of evidence that seemed to favor intelligent design, I would acknowledge that.” Are you willing to admit when the evidence favors the correctness of evolution?

.... the reason you refuse to accept contrary evidence is because *of your bias.*

Again you are rephrasing what I said into what I did not say. I have not said I “refuse to accept contrary evidence.” If I find evidence that, in my mind, favors creationism, then to be true to myself, I admit that. That does not mean I am required to say creationism is correct, since a single data anomaly against evolution does not overwhelm the rather robust set of evidences for evolution. But I do keep the anomaly in mind, as favoring creationism, with the expectation that if my belief in evolution is wrong, the data will accumulate more and more to creationism’s favor.

As an atheist do you maintain that there is no Creator God of the universe?

No, maybe God is disguising Himself as a doorknob in my house, so as to keep tabs on me.

If so then you are biased in interpreting evidence. You can't follow evidence wherever it leads, because you start with the conclusion that it can't lead to an Intelligent Designer.

But since that is not my position, but rather a strawman you have constructed, you will need to tear it down, not me.

As we discussed recently, science has proved him wrong.

I presume your quotes from some medically qualified people is what you have accepted as proof that Dawkins was wrong. Within the last year or so, I recall being presented a totally different argument by the creationist community that supposedly established why the eye was benefitted by being built backwards. I will endeavor to find that communication. Anyway, it was something totally different than this newest evidence that you seem to think proves your case.

And, since this little sub-thread was started when you responded to my post #12599, let me touch on what I was saying there again. Far back in antiquity, when our ancestors were probably not even yet scurrying primitive creatures, our eyes started to develop. But as happens in evolution, any change, like improved sight, that helps in survival, can become embedded in the population. That includes changes that, long-term, would have been better done in a slightly different way – like the two ways in which we see the nerves can be routed to the light-sensitive cells. So our lineage took an improved, but not the best, route to vision – nerves in front of the light-sensitive cells. Now, eons later, Dawkin’s points that out. But in those intervening eons, other aspects of vision continued to improve under evolutionary pressure, resulting in a pretty good system, with the exception of the backwards design. You creationists focus on the evolutionary improvements (but call that “good design), and Dawkin’s argument is still valid.

BUT, even if you accept Dawkins as correct, there still are several other possible conclusions. For example...it could be like "junk" DNA, where we lacked knowledge. Or, it could be that an original perfect design has been corrupted by mutations.

Which is why it is the “Theory” of Evolution. Theories don’t get proven, and sometimes they have to be modified as new understandings come along. Bring on the data, else you are just blowing hopeful hot air.

You made my point. Evolutionists say both good design and bad design is evidence for evolution.

In the same way that you say that created eyes prove God, and yet vestigial eyes in dark caves are what would be expected if you started with created eyes. I don’t object to that line of reasoning, based on a premise that God did the creation of eyes. But you seem to think a similar line of reasoning, eyes as the product of evolution, and yet errors in design cannot both be acknowledged if evolution is true. Once again, that is silliness, evolution can result in surprisingly good design, and it can result in just a minimally functional design. Sorry if that offends you.

In effect you are saying the evidence doesn't matter... its interpreting evidence to fit your bias.

Your strawman again. Of course evidence matters. Found any pre-Cambrian rabbits yet?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear DavisBJ,

You never did give much response to this, but it makes a lot of sense. If evilution is fact, then how do you explain the following:

The theory of evolution proposes that mankind once lived in the trees of Africa, mankind in the distant past was a tree dwelling primate. Mankind then proceeded to leave life in the branches behind, and evolved into a land based, hunter and gatherer. This it appears is the tale that the evolutionary theory offers as an explanation as to where mankind came from.

There is a deep contradiction between the evolutionary model and the observed physical traits that mankind exhibits. Mankind is inherently unfit for survival in the natural world.

Here are the observed traits that directly contradict this evolutionary model.

1) Man walks in an upright posture, using only two legs for movement, and not four legs. A bipedal creature takes more time to reach a maximum running speed, than a quadrupedal creature does. In both pursuit of prey and evasion from predators, man is at a distinct disadvantage using this bipedal method of movement. Man cannot run at speed, cannot change direction quickly, man cannot even jump effectively. So how did mankind ever establish himself as a land based, hunter and gatherer, given that his method of movement is handicapped?

2) The offspring of every other species in Africa after being born, are up and running in some instances in a matter of days, from other observations it might be only a few weeks. The offspring of man will take about three to four years to learn to run. The observed duration of time the human offspring requires to be able to evade predators is far too long. Without any doubt, this one observation alone, will contradict the notion of a survival of the fittest in man's case.

3) Human offspring after birth must be carried by the parents for a minimum of two to three years. Other creatures such as monkeys for example, have offspring that are able to cling to their mother's fur. It is observed that the human infant cannot cling to its' mother's fur, the human infant must be carried by the mother. This places the human mother at a distinct evolutionary disadvantage. Every creature on earth after being born will fight to survive, almost from birth they compete for a share of the food that the mother provides. Human offspring are powerfully handicapped, human offspring must be deliberately fed by the mother and for some considerable time. It takes years before the human infant may locate food without any assistance. Why has evolution handicapped the human female of the species with a very long gestation period. Then the longest duration of all the species on earth for the development of the young into adulthood. Talk about an immense evolutionary handicap, man is unfit for survival by any measure.

4) During the day and especially at night, Africa is a very dangerous place for the slow moving, bipedal human. A human has no natural defensive or aggressive features to its' anatomy. Man does not have a thick hide, no fangs to speak of, claws are absent, shall we also mention that man is also a very weak species. Even a chimpanzee at half our size, is approximately three times stronger than we are. So how did early man ever become established on the plains of Africa as a hunter and
gatherer? Well not in strength or speed, or any natural attribute. The evidence dictates that man must have had access to tools, and tools at the very moment he set foot on level ground. Survival in the wild is impossible for mankind without spears, clubs, shields, etc. An evolutionary contradiction is observed.

5) Having mentioned that man is a remarkable creature in that the male is not a very strong creature. The human female is a far weaker physical creature than the male, so then, the human female cannot take part in the hunting of other creatures. Around the world in primitive tribes, the female is consigned to raising the offspring in a safe environment. Every other species of predator on earth, the female will do the hunting. Mankind is the standout contradiction to this rule of survival. Mankind has only half or less of the available population, to partake in the hunt. Another observable handicap for survival.

6) Since man was defined as an omnivore by evolutionary design, a hunter and a gatherer. There arises another serious problem with this ideology. Man cannot eat raw meat and definitely cannot eat meat that is not fresh. Every other predator is able to eat raw meat and meat that is not fresh. Why has evolution favored a creature with such special dietary restrictions? When man first hunted, man must have also had access to fire. The ability to create fire precedes the ability to hunt. It is safe to therefore to assume, that man must have been a herbivore. Then after discovering how to make fire, man was only then enabled to hunt. Our evolutionary digestive system does not favor man as a hunter. I reject the notion that man was ever an omnivore by evolutionary design.

7) Man has no inbuilt navigation system like every other creature on earth. Evolutionists propose the following idea to explain this evolutionary handicap in mankind, 'man must have lost the ability to navigate in the distant past'. A very technical explanation and an explanation that also lacks any intelligence. How does an essential attribute such as the ability to navigate ever become a lost attribute. The ability to navigate is critical to survival. How does the mechanism of evolution just forget an essential ability? How can a creature survive if it cannot find it's way
home. How can a creature navigate and find an essential water source. Where was that fruit tree I ate from last week? Evolutionary theory needs to address this observed contradiction in natural selection.

8) Where in the world have primitive tribes been observed that do not live in shelters? How did man protect himself and his young offspring from the rain and the cold? There are not enough caves in Africa to house early man? How did mankind protect himself day and night without walls to hide behind. How the devil did mankind ever survive without these shelters, weaponry, and fire? Observation and theoretical ideology are in conflict.

9) Man's intellect is vastly beyond what is necessary for man to survive in the wild. Science as usual has no answer to this anomaly.

10) If man ever lived in the trees, how did the female hold onto her infant for two to three years, and still move through the canopy?

Observation proves that mankind needs an external force to oversee mankind in order for mankind to survive. Evolutionary theory leads to extinction in 99% of species, in man's case that figure should be 100%. Man was never designed to survive in the natural world by any standard of natural fitness, mankind is rather, a greatly handicapped and special species. Man had been gifted with everything in order to survive as a species, before the race to survive actually began.

klutedavid
Christian Forum


What do you make of this, DavisBJ? Any insight?

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear alwight,

I hope you are having a good night. We had TWO storms move into Phoenix 2nite. One blew in, then another one about 1/2 hour after it. It was a very rare occurrence. That's what the weatherman said anyway. Downright scary!! We get humongous dust storms that blow in preceding the storm and rain, and lightning and thunder. Well, this time, we got two. Usually we only get one and then it cools down everything and that's that. This time, after the second storm, it lowered our temperature outside to 78 degrees. It was 101 initially. So it's going to be kind of muggy 2morrow, but it's not supposed to make it to even 100. How about you? Autumn is coming soon. You getting cooler weather yet? Well, I should find out the results of my lung x-ray soon. It will probably be okay. I'm optimistic. I'm just that way. Well, will let you go for now. I will PM you in a bit.

Cheerio, Matey!!

Michael

 

[alwight]

Michael,
I'm not allowed to post a link to another forum but you seem to have copied the words of a certain "klutedavid" above on another Christian forum. You really should attribute words that aren't yours and not suggest that they are yours. :sherlock:

 

[alwight]

Dear alwight,

I hope you are having a good night. We had TWO storms move into Phoenix 2nite. One blew in, then another one about 1/2 hour after it. It was a very rare occurrence. That's what the weatherman said anyway. Downright scary!! We get humongous dust storms that blow in preceding the storm and rain, and lightning and thunder. Well, this time, we got two. Usually we only get one and then it cools down everything and that's that. This time, after the second storm, it lowered our temperature outside to 78 degrees. It was 101 initially. So it's going to be kind of muggy 2morrow, but it's not supposed to make it to even 100. How about you? Autumn is coming soon. You getting cooler weather yet? Well, I should find out the results of my lung x-ray soon. It will probably be okay. I'm optimistic. I'm just that way. Well, will let you go for now. I will PM you in a bit.

Cheerio, Matey!!

Michael

Hi Michael again,
Apart from one day which was the hottest on record here this has turned out to be the coldest summer I can remember. We usually get a period when you start looking for cooler weather but it just hasn't happened this year.
Of course I really hope that all is well with your X-Ray, they do seem to take their time with these things. lain:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Michael,
I'm not allowed to post a link to another forum but you seem to have copied the words of a certain "klutedavid" above on another Christian forum. You really should attribute words that aren't yours and not suggest that they are yours. :sherlock:

Dear alwight,

No, they are not my words. I didn't do that the first time. Thanks tons for pointing that out to me.

Much Respect,

Michael

:thumb: :wave2:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Hi Michael again,
Apart from one day which was the hottest on record here this has turned out to be the coldest summer I can remember. We usually get a period when you start looking for cooler weather but it just hasn't happened this year.
Of course I really hope that all is well with your X-Ray, they do seem to take their time with these things. lain:

Dear alwight,

Doesn't that beat all heck. You had a record heat day this year? I hope everyone got to go to the beach this summer where you are at. I wish we had the ocean that close to us. The only reason we have lakes is because they are man-made here around Phoenix. And instead of sand, they used jagged rocks and smooth stones, and dirt for the beaches. We had kind of a hot summer here.

Yes, I am going to call my doctor 2morrow and see if he got any results in yet. I'm interested about it, but I'm thinking it will be okay. I've been lucky about all of that so far. Thanks so much for caring, Al. You are a wonderful person!!

Michael

:thumb: :banana: :angel: :cloud9:

 

[alwight]

Dear alwight,

No, they are not my words. I didn't do that the first time. Thanks tons for pointing that out to me.

Much Respect,

Michael

:thumb: :wave2:

Posters here are not looking for a relayed third party conversation Michael, it's your own words and understanding that matters here not someone else's list of stuff to "stump-the-evolutionists" with. lain:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Posters here are not looking for a relayed third party conversation Michael, it's your own words and understanding that matters here not someone else's list of stuff to "stump-the-evolutionists" with. lain:

Dear alwight,

I know that too, but every once in a while, I come across something that stands out, so I like to post it to see what others think of it also. It doesn't happen often, though. It's too bad.

Best Wishes,

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear All,

I'm sorry I could not include the pictures from this, but they wouldn't post. Hope you like the article. It's awesome!!


The Vastness Of The Universe


1) The sun is incomprehensibly huge

Sun

(John Brady)

We all know the sun is big. But this image, part of a great series on the size of astronomical objects by John Brady, underscores that it's vast on a scale that's simply impossible for our puny human minds to understand. We think of the Earth as a big place: flying around the equator on a 747 at top speed would take about 42 hours. Flying around the sun at the same speed, by contrast, would take about six months.

Related 40 maps that explain outer space

2) Even the moon is really far away

solar system

(CapnTrip)

Compared with the overall vastness of space, the moon is very close to us: it's just 238,900 or so miles away. But compared with our daily experience, absolutely everything in space is absurdly far apart. In the gap between us and the moon, you could neatly slide in all seven of the other planets — with a bit of room to spare. That includes Saturn and Jupiter, which are about nine and 11 times as wide as Earth, respectively.

3) From Mars, Earth looks like a tiny blip in the sky

earth from mars

(NASA/JPL-Caltech/MSSS/TAMU)

If you traveled just a little ways away from Earth — say, to Mars, the second-closest planet to us — our home planet would become a tiny blip in the sky. This photo, by NASA's Curiosity rover, was actually taken when the two planets were relatively close together: about 99 million miles away (at other times in the planets' orbits, they can be five times farther apart).

4) What North America would look like on Jupiter

jupiter

(John Brady)

Jupiter is famous for being big. But this image, another one of John Brady's great astronomical size comparisons, will overwhelm you with just how big. Jupiter's Great Red Spot — a cyclone that was first spotted in 1655 — is shrinking, but it's still many times wider than North America. Jupiter and the other gas giants are so big because their colder temperatures allowed them to hold on to lighter gases such as hydrogen and helium, which floated away from the hotter, rockier planets closer to the sun.

5) If you replaced the moon with Saturn

saturn

(Ron Miller)

Another way to understand how big the gas giants are is to picture what they'd look like to us if they replaced the moon. Illustrator Ron Miller did this with a photo of a full moon over Death Valley, replacing it with each planet in turn. In this location, Saturn would blot out a large swath of the sky, and solar eclipses would last hours. (Of course, the gravitational consequences of having Saturn that close to us would also be devastating.)

6) Even a single comet is pretty darn big

comet 67

(anosmicovni)

This is the comet 67P/C-G — which the Philae probe landed on in November 2014 — superimposed on Los Angeles. In terms of space, the comet is absolutely tiny: just 3.5 miles wide. But once again, this image shows how most things in space are way bigger than you realize.

7) All of US history has occurred within a single Pluto orbit

new horizons orbit

(NASA/New Horizons)

It's not just the size of objects in space that boggles the mind — it's the vastness of the timescales on which events in space occur. Pluto takes 248 Earth years to orbit the sun. To put it another way, the entirety of US history has occurred during a single Plutonian orbit. When Pluto was last in its current location, we hadn't invented aviation, let alone spaceflight. This map was released by NASA's New Horizons team in anticipation of the probe becoming the first spacecraft to visit the dwarf planet in July.

8) Pluto isn't even at the edge of the solar system

oort cloud

(NASA)

Many of us imagine cold, little Pluto to be at the outer edge of the solar system. But that's far from the truth. Pluto's orbit fits inside the tiny blue box at the center of this map. Beyond it is the Kuiper belt, then the Oort Cloud — which is believed to extend a thousand times farther out than Neptune, about halfway to the next closest star to us.

9) Other stars are utterly gigantic

stars

(Dave Jarvis)

Once you leave the solar system, you once encounter objects — other stars — that dwarf our sun in the exact same way the sun dwarfs Earth. And even bigger stars (like Antares and Betelgeuse, in pane 5) dwarf those stars in the same way. Over and over, as we've looked out at the universe, we've found it exists on a scale that basically makes no sense to the human brain.

10) Every star you can see is in the yellow circle

milky way

(New Scientist/Pikaia Imaging)

Sure, stars are huge. But the Milky Way is, once again, mind-bogglingly bigger. This rendering, which shows the galaxy in its entirety, is a way of seeing that. The yellow circle likely encompasses every individual star you've ever seen in the sky without the aid of a telescope. It's based on the fact that under ideal conditions, the farthest star system visible to people in the Southern Hemisphere is the especially bright Eta Carinae — but in most places, the yellow circle would actually be much smaller.

11) Our galaxy is one of 100,000

laniakea

(Nature Video, based on Tully et al. 2014)

For all its vastness, the Milky Way is just one of billions of galaxies in the universe. Recently, scientists mapped the 100,000 or so galaxies near the Milky Way and found that it's part of a broader supercluster called Laniakea. This supercluster is made up of several forks, with the Milky Way lying on one distant fringe of it. What's more, it borders another supercluster (called Perseus-Pisces) that's moving in the opposite direction, and both seem to fall in a broader web, made up of dense supercluster networks alternating with relatively empty voids.


I hope you liked this. It puts everything into perspective, to say the least!

Michael

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear DavisBJ,

You never did give much response to this, but it makes a lot of sense. If evilution is fact, then how do you explain the following:

The theory of evolution proposes that …

What do you make of this, DavisBJ? Any insight?

Michael

Dear Michael,

There are a number of interesting issues in the list you posted. I feel I have a basic understanding of evolution, but I am not a scientist that is directly involved in any aspect of evolutionary studies. Accordingly, as I do whenever I am confronted with any new question, I do a bit of research to see what has been done on it already. As our British pal from the Isle of Wight pointed out, the list you posted was recently posted in another forum, and quickly garnered a number of comments there.

If you are truly interested in how to answer the questions in your list, a good place would be to cull through the extant responses there. If, however, your desire is to just take another swipe at evolution, then we are at cross purposes from the outset, and I will excuse myself from the game.

 

[alwight]

Here are the observed traits that directly contradict this evolutionary model.

1) Man walks in an upright posture, using only two legs for movement, and not four legs. A bipedal creature takes more time to reach a maximum running speed, than a quadrupedal creature does. In both pursuit of prey and evasion from predators, man is at a distinct disadvantage using this bipedal method of movement. Man cannot run at speed, cannot change direction quickly, man cannot even jump effectively. So how did mankind ever establish himself as a land based, hunter and gatherer, given that his method of movement is handicapped?

We could discuss such things, as the above, one at a time if you were actually keen to understand Michael?
But are you I wonder? :think:

So humans evolved to be bipedal, the question is why?
So why didn't our ancestors just stay in the trees if we assume Darwinian evolution is true?
The author of these words you quoted seems to erroneously think that mainly speed and agility are the overriding factors, perhaps because he doesn't actually want to accept any rational Darwinian type explanation?

I say that anything that provides a benefit is all it takes and since other animals have already cornered the market in speed and agility then we needed something else.

I haven't checked recently what the general scientific consensus might be so this is only off the top of my head.

Climbing around in trees rather requires using all four limbs to hold on.
Spending more time on the ground allows us to get around quicker on two legs while having arms to carry food or tools or perhaps weapons. If danger strikes then we could still climb up a tree of course.
But the "something-else" we humans have is that we can think, reason, make and use tools. It's by having hands free for other things is what probably has helped make us become more intelligent, we have the ability to use things to our advantage. Once early humans could use tools and weapons then they could probably have survived in areas without trees and defended themselves, particularly if they could also use fire.

Do you want to dispute any of this?
We could go looking for evidence if you wanted to?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Michael,

There are a number of interesting issues in the list you posted. I feel I have a basic understanding of evolution, but I am not a scientist that is directly involved in any aspect of evolutionary studies. Accordingly, as I do whenever I am confronted with any new question, I do a bit of research to see what has been done on it already. As our British pal from the Isle of Wight pointed out, the list you posted was recently posted in another forum, and quickly garnered a number of comments there.

If you are truly interested in how to answer the questions in your list, a good place would be to cull through the extant responses there. If, however, your desire is to just take another swipe at evolution, then we are at cross purposes from the outset, and I will excuse myself from the game.

Dear Davis,

Thanks for getting back to me about my questions to you. No, I'm not trying to baffle the evolutionists. I just thought they were intriguing and poignant questions to ask. I thought it would be good to find answers to those questions. I happen to agree with Alwight.

Michael

:guitar: :cheers: :angel: :cloud9:

 

[MichaelCadry]

We could discuss such things, as the above, one at a time if you were actually keen to understand Michael?
But are you I wonder? :think:

So humans evolved to be bipedal, the question is why?
So why didn't our ancestors just stay in the trees if we assume Darwinian evolution is true?
The author of these words you quoted seems to erroneously think that mainly speed and agility are the overriding factors, perhaps because he doesn't actually want to accept any rational Darwinian type explanation?

I say that anything that provides a benefit is all it takes and since other animals have already cornered the market in speed and agility then we needed something else.

I haven't checked recently what the general scientific consensus might be so this is only off the top of my head.

Climbing around in trees rather requires using all four limbs to hold on.
Spending more time on the ground allows us to get around quicker on two legs while having arms to carry food or tools or perhaps weapons. If danger strikes then we could still climb up a tree of course.
But the "something-else" we humans have is that we can think, reason, make and use tools. It's by having hands free for other things is what probably has helped make us become more intelligent, we have the ability to use things to our advantage. Once early humans could use tools and weapons then they could probably have survived in areas without trees and defended themselves, particularly if they could also use fire.

Do you want to dispute any of this?
We could go looking for evidence if you wanted to?

Dear alwight,

I have read what you've had to say and I agree with you. I think your responses make excellent sense. Good reasoning. I congratulate you. Will chat again soon.

Michael

atrol: :cheers: :guitar: :cloud9: :angel:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear alwight,

What did you think of my article about The Vastness of the Universe? Isn't it incredible? It's too bad I couldn't send the pictures with it. But even reading about it sounds awesome. I will see if I can type it in my browser and see if I can find the article with the pictures.

Michael

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear alwight,

I tried but no luck finding the pics. Will have to keep searching a bit later.

Michael

 

[Interplanner]

Stroebel writes that the force of gravity is so precise that we should imagine a tape measure across our galaxy. Then find the inch mark measuring how strong the force of gravity is. If the force was changed one inch on the tape, either way, it would be a disaster. The vastness of the universe is amazing but the precision of God's creation is chilling.

"Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens..." Haggai 2:6. We are recieving a kingdom that cannot be shaken... Heb 13:27.

 

[6days]

As we discussed recently, science has proved him wrong.(Dawkins on poor eye design)

I presume your quotes from some medically qualified people is what you have accepted as proof that Dawkins was wrong.

Opthamologists are medically qualified and have made statements, based on current research. Dawkins hower is not an expert on the eye, and keeps repeating his discredited arguments, which science has proven wrong. Ophthalmologists have said 'anyone who argues the eye was built backwards lacks knowledge'.

....argument by the creationist community that supposedly established why the eye was benefitted by being built backwards.

I sincerely doubt any Biblical creationist would say such a thing, because our eye is NOT built backwards. The inverted lens along with Mueller cells operating like a fiber optic network has been described as best possible / optimal design. The 'fiber optic ' cables which concentrate the light delivering to the photoreceptors has been described as an "optimal light guidance" system.

Far back in antiquity, when our ancestors were probably not even yet scurrying primitive creatures, our eyes started to develop. But as happens in evolution, any change, like improved sight, that helps in survival, can become embedded in the population.

Yes...long long ago, in a land far far away.....

Your 'just so' story is not based on science, but a faulty belief system.

Now, eons later, Dawkin’s points that out. But in those intervening eons, other aspects of vision continued to improve under evolutionary pressure

Science has proven Dawkins wrong on that. Evolutionists now admit that complex sophisticated vision systems existed from what they consider to be over 500 million years ago. Example: "Very few modern animals, particularly arthropods, have eyes as sophisticated as this,”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21251-first-top-predator-was-giant-shrimp-with-amazing-eyes/

*resulting in a pretty good system,

It would seem you resist evidence that challenges your belief system. "Pretty good" you say? I think you rely on Dawkins faulty arguments, now proven wrong by science.

"The basic building blocks of human eyesight turn out to be practically perfect. Scientists have learned that the fundamental units of vision, the photoreceptor cells that carpet the retinal tissue of the eye and respond to light, are not just good or great or phabulous at their job. They are not merely exceptionally impressive by the standards of biology, with whatever slop and wiggle room the animate category implies. Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light -- the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped."
Natalie Angier, NY Times Science

*with the exception of the backwards design.

Opthamologist Dr. H S Hamilton:*"instead of being a great disadvantage, or a “curse” or being incorrectly constructed, the inverted retina is a tremendous advance in function and design compared with the simple and less complicated verted arrangement. One problem amongst many, for evolutionists, is to explain how this abrupt major retinal transformation from the verted type in invertebrates to the inverted vertebrate model came about as nothing in paleontology offers any support."

Bring on the data, else you are just blowing hopeful hot air.

There is lots of data Davis. But, it seems you have bought into Dawkins who does not understand the design of the eye. Science has demolished his argument. Newer research on the vertebrate retina shows that the inverted design in vertebrates is superior to the verted design, even compared to the most advanced cephalopods. The research has discovered that our retina has a neurological feedback system improving contrast and sharpening edges without sacrificing shadow detail."
PLoS Biology May 2011 A positive feedback synapse from retinal horizontal cells to cone photoreceptors. (S.L.Jackman). There is lots of other amazing research in last few years which shows evolution to be an illogical conclusion.

You made my point. Evolutionists say both good design and bad design is evidence for evolution.

In the same way that you say that created eyes prove God, and yet vestigial eyes in dark caves are what would be expected if you started with created eyes. I don’t object to that line of reasoning, based on a premise that God did the creation of eyes. But you seem to think a similar line of reasoning, eyes as the product of evolution, and yet errors in design cannot both be acknowledged if evolution is true. Once again, that is silliness, evolution can result in surprisingly good design, and it can result in just a minimally functional design. Sorry if that offends you.

Good comments.
Yes...it is in the same way. We both interpret the data according to our beliefs about the past. But examine your own statements and you might realize your faith in evolution is not the best fit for the evidence.

We have observable evidence that a complex, sophisticated, "optimally" designed system can degenerate. (In us and blind fish)The degeneration can fit either model. But what caused this almost perfect optimal system?

In your belief system it's hard to imagine that mutations and selection can create an "almost" perfect system. Our eyes detect one photon... you can't get better than that. It seems illogical to believe that natural selection and mutations can fix perfection in a population when there would seem to be no compete time advantage. IE. If my eyes can detect only 100 photons where yours detect 10...its such an insignificant amount that selection won't eliminate me. Phew

And, that's aside from the argument that mutations can't create even sub optimal systems without using a pre-existing code.*

In effect you are saying the evidence doesn't matter... its interpreting evidence to fit your bias.

Your strawman again. Of course evidence matters.

OK. .. yes, evidence matters.

But you demonstrate that evolutionism is not really about science...it isn't falsifiable. You are arguing that both good and bad design are evidence for common ancestry. Your belief is like a fog that can cover any landscape.

*
Found any pre-Cambrian rabbits yet?

That might shock me as much as you. We don't think bunnies live and die with crayfish, trilobites and cephalopods.

Howrver we certainly do find Cambrian 'rabbits'. I'm sure you have read articles where new finds in the fossil record are "puzzling" or "surprising" to evolutionists. In fact one such 'rabbit' was discussed above where evolutionists seem shocked that sophisticated eyes are found in a creature they think is 515 million years old. In the absence of evidence for eye evolution, they pull a rabbit from the hat saying sophisticated vision evolved in a geological blink of an eye.

 

[alwight]

Dear alwight,

What did you think of my article about The Vastness of the Universe? Isn't it incredible? It's too bad I couldn't send the pictures with it. But even reading about it sounds awesome. I will see if I can type it in my browser and see if I can find the article with the pictures.

Michael

Michael it would be easier if you could paste the link to where you got it from. Do you have a specific point to make?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Alwight,

Hi buddy!! No, I can't find a link. It's too late. Next time, I will make sure I get links for my posts, if I can. I didn't know that the pictures would not get copied when I copied the article, but when I go to post the article on TOL, it doesn't include the pics. I hope you enjoyed the article somehow though. When I copy it, the pictures show. But when I try to put it on TOL, the pics don't show. I'm so sorry!! I will try copying the URL or something. I don't really know what I'm doing about it all yet. Will try.

Much Respect!!

Michael