Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Greg Jennings,

Man saw birds and tried to imitate them by trying to construct wings for their devices {planes}, and then man went even further and studied hummingbirds closely to understand them and man finally made his helicopter. They copied their 'design' from God and God assisted them in their endeavors, so that man could have planes and helicopters. He spoke to their thoughts regarding how to do each thing. Remember the Wright Brothers? If it weren't for God, they would still be In Memoriam. God has helped us vanquish diseases by God-given thoughts to make it happen, and for ALL that He Has Done, you treat Him like trash. Do you see where I'm going with this?? I hope so. God just keeps on giving, but His people appreciate it and you all decide it is no big deal!! For shame upon you all!!
​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[alwight]

Wow.... "American right wing Christian fundamentalist creationists".
That would be the opposite of British left wing fundamentalist atheist evolutionists?

Weeell, I'm not aware of any equivalent, associated, highly dishonest, donation seeking, agenda led institution for the purposes of providing fantasy based misinformation and pseudoscience to young people in schools. :think:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Most of us will make life choices from time to time, but unless God clearly actually wants to talk to me specifically, not just by arcane messages, or signs, or schizophrenia then I personally wouldn't even dream of asking. Why on earth wouldn't you simply decide for yourself where you wanted to be? :think:
Wasn't it 7 inches of snow btw?

I'm not interested in Revelation Michael, it's all insane nonsense imo.

Ancient superstitious ignorant people were scared of earthquakes, which is why they would be used and predicted, because sooner or later someone will guess right and will then no doubt imagine themselves to be a great prophet to tell other people that they should be listened to.

Dear alwight,

Not sooner nor later will man be able to 'predict' earthquakes. And you will be scared, even terrified, at an earthquake on the Isle of Wight, or in London. You don't know what you are saying.

Michael

 

[alwight]

Alwight, Revelation isn't all insane nonsense. It is written so that most others would not even understand it. But God's people can touch on some parts of it, while the rest of it remains hidden by God for those He wishes to reveal it to. It's quite awesome language, if you want to know the truth. It is written so that only those whom God will reveal it to will understand. The rest of you stay and remain in the dark. I don't mean just you, alwight, but the majority of the world's population. Unless God gives you the combination to the safe, you just are out of luck.

With Love, In Christ,

Michael

Apparently then Michael I need to have the secret decoder ring or safe code in order to unlock all the arcane mysteries held within Revelation currently only available to special people?

 

[alwight]

Dear alwight,

Not sooner nor later will man be able to 'predict' earthquakes. And you will be scared, even terrified, at an earthquake on the Isle of Wight, or in London. You don't know what you are saying.

Michael

I will simply accept whatever physical reality may or may not come along Michael, but I don't expect anything to come along all wrapped up in any Revelation type mumbo-jumbo or I might just die laughing first. lain:

 

[gcthomas]

If not from Dawkins, you certainly have got bad info from someone.
Re eye evolution...... its silly pseudoscience. If you had an idea of how complex even light sensitive spots are..... and the thousands of graduations between each so called simple step, you MIGHT not believe such nonsense

Yet again you avoid a specific criticism, leaving only tangential comments. To remind you, I said that evolution produces locally optimum solutions through incremental steps. It cannot reliably produce a the best possible solution as that would require changing an earlier step (it's a case of "I wouldn't have started from here, Guv'").

In fact, since evolution predicts locally not globally optimum solutions, you could use this to falsify evolution if you could find globally optimal solutions. But the inverted retina, whilst a very good solution, would have been better if it had the light sensitive cells on the front and no blind spots or shadows from blood vessels, or, indeed, 'floaters' obstructing views.

 

[6days]

To remind you, I said that evolution produces locally optimum solutions through incremental steps.

Yes... that is what you believe, That is not what evidence shows.

It cannot reliably produce a the best possible solution as that would require changing an earlier step

However, our Creator can provide the best possible solution which explains things like.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/science/02angier.html?_r=0 "the basic building blocks of human eyesight turn out to be practically perfect.

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"

But the inverted retina, whilst a very good solution, would have been better if it had the light sensitive cells on the front and no blind spots or shadows from blood vessels, or, indeed, 'floaters' obstructing views.

Hmmmmm.... But GC... You are using Dawkins arguments from 20 years ago which science has shown to be false. The inverted retina design is superior to the simpler verted version. I think I might start a new thread about our designed eye.

 

[6days]

Weeell, I'm not aware of any equivalent, associated, highly dishonest, donation seeking, agenda led institution for the purposes of providing fantasy based misinformation and pseudoscience to young people in schools. :think:

Ever heard of the British Humananist Association?

 

[alwight]

Ever heard of the British Humananist Association?

What specifically have they done that you disapprove of?

 

[Jose Fly]

Does the genome of the whisk fern have more information than that of humans?

Um, that's the question we've been asking you, and you've refused to answer. :duh:

 

[alwight]

Hmmmmm.... But GC... You are using Dawkins arguments from 20 years ago which science has shown to be false. The inverted retina design is superior to the simpler verted version. I think I might start a new thread about our designed eye.

Discovery Institute July 13, 2012

Go to:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/dawkins_on_the_062111.html
Here you can read how the Discovery Institute's "David Klinghoffer" snipes and carps at this video but in the end totally misses the point, that the human eye has a blind spot which would be bad design whichever way a sensible, rational and discerning person (not a YEC obviously) looks at it.

"Nesse goes on, by the way, to explain why we rarely perceive our blind spot. For that you can thank an involuntary eye movement, called nystagmus, a sort of jiggling:"

"If it wasn't for the eye jiggling constantly just a little bit, that blind spot would always be in the same spot and you'd never see anything there. But because the eye moves slightly you end up getting a complete coverage of your field of vision."​

"In other words, for a typical healthy person, there's effectively no blind spot to speak of. Well done, natural selection!"

David Klinghoffer (Senior Fellow - Discovery Institute) pretending that effectively there is no blind spot is nonsense, there is a blind spot which would clearly be bad design if indeed the human eye was designed not evolved. lain:

 

[DavisBJ]

... The most scientific explanation to our origins is "In the beginning, God created"

It is an oxymoron when you specify God as an answer to a scientific question.

 

[DavisBJ]

… God's Word as truth who helped usher in modern science based on the belief that we live in an orderly universe...

Is that “orderly universe” you speak of the one where God’s Word says snakes and donkeys engage in conversations, rivers are composed of red and white blood cells, wooden sticks and serpents are interchangeable, decomposing dead guys get up and start discussing the day’s events, and the intestines of living giant fish are good places to hide for a few days? Or is it the one where people walk through closed doors, or tap on rocks to get water, or the women sometimes transform into pillars of sodium chloride?

 

[Daniel1769]

It is an oxymoron when you specify God as an answer to a scientific question.

So some answers are off limits? It is easy to work out your equation when you start with the answer.

 

[gcthomas]

Yes... that is what you believe, That is not what evidence shows.


However, our Creator can provide the best possible solution which explains things like.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/science/02angier.html?_r=0 "the basic building blocks of human eyesight turn out to be practically perfect.

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"


Hmmmmm.... But GC... You are using Dawkins arguments from 20 years ago which science has shown to be false. The inverted retina design is superior to the simpler verted version. I think I might start a new thread about our designed eye.

I'll have a read of your link and get back.

Edit. OK I have read it now, and it doesn't say that the retina of practically perfect, but that the photoreceptor cells are the best they can be in the location they have found themselves - a local optimum as I predicted. Haven't you got a paper that says that the inverted retina is better than the alternative?

 

[alwight]

So some answers are off limits? It is easy to work out your equation when you start with the answer.

I was always taught that simply having the answer isn't of much value without having the methodology of how to derive it.

 

[Jose Fly]

I was always taught that simply having the answer isn't of much value without having the methodology of how to derive it.

And that brings up yet another question that creationists refuse to answer....

If "In the beginning, God created" is proposed as a scientific answer, exactly how do we investigate and test God?

 

[DavisBJ]

So some answers are off limits?

I take it you either do not know that (or do not agree with) natural science restricting itself to looking for natural explanations?

It is easy to work out your equation when you start with the answer.

I said nothing about starting out with an answer. You got a burr in your saddle?

 

[6days]

(6 days asked)"*Does the genome of the whisk fern have more information than that of humans?"
Um, that's the question we've been asking you, and you've refused to answer.*

No Jose... you have been answered many times.*
My question is not a trick question.... it isn't difficult.


Lets try an analogous question.

You have a complete set of Encyclopedia Brittanica...and you have 120,000 duplicate sets of instructions on how to care for your bonzai plant.*

Which has more information?

 

[6days]

And that brings up yet another question that creationists refuse to answer....

If "In the beginning, God created" is proposed as a scientific answer, exactly how do we investigate and test God?

A good place to start would be some simple logic. For example if things have the appearance of design, could there be a designer?
Atheists must exclude the most logical answer and would rather believe in aliens, than an Intelligent Designer.

The most logical, and the most scientific explanation to origins is that in the beginning God created