or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism - Page 10  

post #361 of 430
It is fine for anyone to question or bash ID or creationism if you find it nonsense. So what the world goes on.

What is disturbing to me is when you are personally treated badly in childish ways when you question the theory of evolution. This reminds me of The Bush Admin. You are not to question Bush and co.

Sorry this is just not reasonable. Reasonable people will not stand for this kind of strong arming and childish crap.

Fellowship

good night
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #362 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Questioning is good, but it's uninformed and ignorant unless you are willing to work to learn what you are questioning. Chris hasn't even put his toe in the water.

Is there anything you don't know EVERYTHING about?

Or should I study your website some more to learn what you don't know about?

You are simply amazing... a legend, an epic mind... a... (wait for it)... giant.
post #363 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Now you're pulling stuff out of left field that I never even said...again with the assumptions.

Oh well. I suspect a Mod is going to come in an shut this down tonight. I'm too tired to continue and the dogs need walking.

Get out while you can. This group is not able to answer your questions.

They will say that it is you who are not trying.

Do yourself a favor. You are light years ahead of them anyway in terms of adult manners, tact and intelligence.

With respect to all in this thread even those who got childish and under my skin.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #364 of 430
Thread Starter 
You are able to recognize why you aren't in a position to question the PSF's understanding of functions without being a good programmer in a number of languages, so why is it so hard to understand that you aren't in a position to question evolution without first learning what backs the theory?
post #365 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
It is fine for anyone to question or bash ID or creationism if you find it nonsense. So what the world goes on.

What is disturbing to me is when you are personally treated badly in childish ways when you question the theory of evolution. This reminds me of The Bush Admin. You are not to question Bush and co.

Sorry this is just not reasonable. Reasonable people will not stand for this kind of strong arming and childish crap.

Fellowship

good night

Well... I was with you up to that point... I am not sure what Bush has to do with this subject, but I'm with you on the evolution thing.

Good night.
post #366 of 430
The problem with critics of evolution is that they are unable to show any alternate real scientific explanation for the mountains of evolutionary evidence.

They criticize a theory that has ample evidence and wish to replace it with a theory that can never have any evidence. If you want to replace evolution, replace it with something MORE believable, not less.
post #367 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I think I get what you are saying. Really I do. I don't you are getting what I am saying.

It is a hypothesis that this isolation will eventually lead to state where new populations that are biologically incapable of reproducing. The picking and choosign (or not) you are referring to isn't really any different than me deciding I like blondes vs. brunnettes...so I won't have sex with brunnettes. You are suggesting (as is Marc) that eventually this can lead to a situation where I would not be able to produce children with a brunnette (as I could now). This is possible, even probable, but not certain...and there is not evidence (my reading of your linekd article notwithstanding) of this happening.

I am venturing an educated guess (based on what you've already said) that the fish and fruit flies COULD mate and produce offspring.

OK, you keep asking for proof. Here is another dose. The Hawaiian Fuit fly story:

From: http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/noframe/t233.htm

"Hawaiian Drosophila and, in particular, the large "picture-winged" species within the genus, are unique among living organisms because different levels of biological diversity within a single large, closely related group of species can be characterized by researchers. Polymorphisms ... due to inverted chromosomal segments have been used to assess genetic variation within and between species. The banding patterns of all five major chromosome arms among 106 species of Hawaiian picture-winged Drosophila have yielded a 5 million-year-old phylogeny ... that is rooted to species on the island of Kauai... "

Some background: in Drosphila the chromosomes can be viewed rather easily and they have banding paterns that look a lot like a bar code. When pieces of chromosome move, duplicate, invert, etc this can be viewed as changes in the banding pattern. It is also possible to reconstruct a series of chromosomal changes by deducing the order that the changes most likely occured. This data, together with ecological data of where the flies were found and the outward phenotypic characteristics allow one to figure out who begat whom.

Here is another good site:

http://www.hawaii-forest.com/essays/9810.html

"The story of Hawaii's Drosophila began several million years ago. Most likely, one solitary fertilized female, carried by wind for thousands of miles, landed safely somewhere in the Hawaiian archipelago. From that single, genetic ancestor, a population of flies evolved here that today numbers in the hundreds. Five hundred and eleven to be exact with another four or five hundred in collections waiting to be described and named. Dr. Kaneshiro and others believe that eventually there will be over one thousand species of Drosophila listed. From a single colonizing event, hundreds and hundreds of new species have derived. This type of speciation is known as adaptive radiation and the Hawaiian Drosophila are considered to be the world's supreme example.

......Out of these conclusions came the Kaneshiro hypothesis. Basically it proposes that sexual selection, not the classic "survival of the fittest", is the most important influence in the early stages of species creation. Kaneshiro states, "Changes within the sexual environment may be the entering 'wedge' for the speciation process."

There you have lots of speciation with changes in body shape and behavior backed up by chromosomal analyses showing how different species are related to each other. You also have ecological relationships among the species that fit with the genetic and behavioral data.
post #368 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Wouldn't an intelligent creator of a world/universe/planet/animal kingdom/plant kingdom possibly do the same? Wouldn't he likely re-use concepts, ideas, themes, details, etc. in creating very different things?

No. Why? It could have designed things any way it wanted and made them out of absolutely anything it decided to create.

Instead it decided to create a means of biological inheritance that suggests commonality of origin and legacy in genes and anatomy. Presumably it did this as, oh, I don't know, a test, or to purposefully confuse us, in the same way it made the universe too large and light too fast.

Arg.
post #369 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
What the hell is that supposed to mean. Oh...wait...it is a substitute for a rational argument.

edit. Can't be bothered to be mean. I have three legs and two hearts and can hold my breath for nineteen minutes. You'll just have to take my word for it.
post #370 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well... I was with you up to that point... I am not sure what Bush has to do with this subject, but I'm with you on the evolution thing.

Good night.

Hey NaplesX I mean no harm. I just believe in the right to question above all in politics and in the classroom of ideas.

Read over the following and tell me something is not a similar thread between the two cases:

Case #1
Person Blue: I have some questions about the war in Iraq and why we went.
Person Red: Oh so I guess you are one of those Kerry supporters.

Person Blue: I am just talking about the war in Iraq.
Person Red: Have you been watching the liberal media again?

Person Blue: Don't you find that our "intelligence" has holes and we started the war on false pretenses?
Person Red: Just because we have not found the WMD does not mean that we will not find them.

Person Red: You are anti-American because this is about national security.
Person Blue: Are you sure about that? What if it is more about oil?

Person Blue: How is this about National Security so much?
Person Red: Well experts in the CIA tell us Iraq has WMD.

Person Red: You liberals all think this is about oil. Have you been watching Micheal Moore?
Person Blue: Well yes I do personally believe this is about oil.

Person Red: Well you are a lost cause because you are wrong and don't want to know the real facts.
Person Blue: Oh really?

Person Red: Really, you really need to watch Sean Hannity on Fox and end this liberal nonsense of yours.

Case #2
Person ID: I have some questions about evolution as it relates to origins.
Person EV: Ohh God, you must be one of those nutjob creationists.

Person ID: I am talking about evolution here and have some questions.
Person EV: Have you been brainwashed by that stupid creationist dogma?

Person ID: Don't you find that evolution has some holes and is built on lies?
PersonEV: Just because you don't see it in the fossil record does not mean we won't find the missing link.

Person EV: You are against Science because evolution is all about the natural world origins.
Person ID: Are you sure it is not about a belief system where there is no need for God? A Godless solution if you will.

Person ID: How is this about natural world origins so much?
Person EV: Well scientists tell us it is so based on the evidence.

Person EV: You creationists all think evolution a mere belief system to replace your model of there being a creator, have you been watching Pat Robertson on TV?
Person ID: Well yes I do believe evolution is a belief system that requires faith on your part.

Person EV: Well you are a lost cause because you are wrong and don't want to know the real facts.
Person ID: Oh really?

Person EV: Really, you really need to read about Charles Darwin on Talk Origins and end this creationist nonsense of yours.

Conclusion:
I find the two cases above very similar.

There is a person who questions what is stated as fact.
There is a person who puts that person in their place.

The person who asks the questions is mature and respectful.
The person who puts the other in their place is rude and childish.

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #371 of 430
Where is the evidence for ID?

Hassan i Sabbah:

Quote:
Presumably it did this as, oh, I don't know, a test, or to purposefully confuse us, in the same way it made the universe too large and light too fast.

Enter Bill Hicks...
"Dinosaur bones...what about those?"
- "God put those here to test our faith."
"I think God put you here to test my faith... I think I've figured this out."
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #372 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Where is the evidence for ID?


I quite frankly believe there is no evidence for either ID or Evolution.

I think for each it is more of a path of logic based on "how things seem".

I believe just exectly "how things seem" depends on your world outlook.

What do I mean by world outlook?

I actually refer you back to my two cases example above and the politics of the war in Iraq.

The people on each side of the War in Iraq issue frame the war based on how they see the world. Some see the world as filled with terrorists who only want to kill americans because they hate us whether we are nice to them or not so we might as well just round up all the terrorists and kill them before they kill us.

Others see the world as a place running out of energy and the policy of the west is to go race to grab and secure as much energy as we can before someone else does. All the while selling this aggression as "fighting the war on terror" "spreading freedom around the world" you know,, putting a nice and pretty spin on a lie. Fooling some of the fools back home into thinking this about "being a great american" and "being patriotic" "support the troops" etc.

It is no different with origins.

It is based on how you see the universe:

Do you believe it is designed by an entity that created creation.

or

Do you believe it is random chance.

Pick your belief.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #373 of 430
Quote:
I quite frankly believe there is no evidence for either ID or Evolution.

What about the fact that we can watch evolution happen right in front of our eyes?

You can't will it to not be there. It's there.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #374 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
What about the fact that we can watch evolution happen right in front of our eyes?

You can't will it to not be there. It's there.

I respect how you see the world Grove.

You don't have to respect how I see the world. I am just fine even if we have our differences.

This is how grownups act. We respect our differences.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #375 of 430
It's not just a difference of opinion. Evolution happens; it's real. If it didn't diseases wouldn't spread into new areas, they wouldn't hop from species to species. That's a fact. Stone cold solid fact.

You can't just dismiss evolution as a difference of opinion because it's inconvenient. And if ignoring reality for the sake of a lubricated social life is the "adult" thing to do then I'm happy to remain a child until I die.

There is no evidence for ID: that's a fact.
There is a mountain of evidence for evolution: that's a fact.

Sure, a lot of the fields are speculative but they have very solid rational reasoning based on sets of data that are stone cold solid.

It's evolutionary theory.

As far as respecting your beliefs. I don't know what that even means. Seems like you're trying to throw in an emotional hand grenade to cease discussion.

You know I respect you, but does that mean I have to deny facts? No.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #376 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat


You know I respect you, but does that mean I have to deny facts? No.

I said I respect our differences. Of course I respect you but I also have my own beliefs. We can have our differences and you are not forced to deny anything you don't wish to.

We each have our freedom.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #377 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
What about the fact that we can watch evolution happen right in front of our eyes?

You can't will it to not be there. It's there.

Speciation?
post #378 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
It's not just a difference of opinion. Evolution happens; it's real. If it didn't diseases wouldn't spread into new areas, they wouldn't hop from species to species. That's a fact. Stone cold solid fact.

That is not evidence of evolution.
post #379 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
No. Why? It could have designed things any way it wanted and made them out of absolutely anything it decided to create.

Instead it decided to create a means of biological inheritance that suggests commonality of origin and legacy in genes and anatomy. Presumably it did this as, oh, I don't know, a test, or to purposefully confuse us, in the same way it made the universe too large and light too fast.

Of you are hypothesizing about how he might have created things. This is fine. Where you go off is with the "it decided"...assuming how it was done...and also why (to confuse us or test us). These are certainly all possibilities.
post #380 of 430
When I have conversations with the folks who say..."Well, if God did it, he made it look like evolution did it...probably to test and confuse us"...I think about this:



Two ways of looking at the very same thing.
post #381 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
It's not just a difference of opinion. Evolution happens; it's real. If it didn't diseases wouldn't spread into new areas, they wouldn't hop from species to species. That's a fact. Stone cold solid fact.

You can't just dismiss evolution as a difference of opinion because it's inconvenient. And if ignoring reality for the sake of a lubricated social life is the "adult" thing to do then I'm happy to remain a child until I die.

There is no evidence for ID: that's a fact.
There is a mountain of evidence for evolution: that's a fact.

Sure, a lot of the fields are speculative but they have very solid rational reasoning based on sets of data that are stone cold solid.

It's evolutionary theory.

As far as respecting your beliefs. I don't know what that even means. Seems like you're trying to throw in an emotional hand grenade to cease discussion.

You know I respect you, but does that mean I have to deny facts? No.

Evolution happens, huh?

Eskimos still have no fur. That seems an obvious step in their "evolution", yet even after thousands of years they still appear just like you and me - no protective fur.

Inter-speces variety is not evolution. A calico and a tabby still produce feline offspring. If you were going to "see" evolution, I would think you would see it in the canine family, I have seen dogs that will screw anything. Yet we have dogs and more dogs. My fathers hair was dark brown and my mother's blonde yet I came out with Auburn, yet I was still human with human hair.

Actually monkeys are where we should see the most evidence, according to the evolutionary theory, yet no evidence of it there either.
post #382 of 430



Um.....I had some left over I thought I would throw some on the fire.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

post #383 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz



Um.....I had some left over I thought I would throw some on the fire.

Instigator!

post #384 of 430
Chris Cuilla:

Quote:
Speciation?

Yes, that's exactly what went on. Thanks for notificing.
A flu virus can move from a chicken to a human. After a certain period among humans, the virus will no longer infect chickens. Speciation.

Quote:
That is not evidence of evolution.

How is it not? Explain.

Quote:
Two ways of looking at the very same thing.

Can you explain the other way; how God can simultaneously know exactly what is going to happen along with creating us whole AND how we can make our own choices.


NaplesX:

Quote:
Eskimos still have no fur. That seems an obvious step in their "evolution", yet even after thousands of years they still appear just like you and me - no protective fur.

Define: "obvious".

In your mind, is evolution individual or even group will manifesting itself in physical changes?

Quote:
Inter-speces variety is not evolution. A calico and a tabby still produce feline offspring. If you were going to "see" evolution, I would think you would see it in the canine family, I have seen dogs that will screw anything. Yet we have dogs and more dogs. My fathers hair was dark brown and my mother's blonde yet I came out with Auburn, yet I was still human with human hair.

What you're creating here is a false choice. If it suddenly can't interbreed it's a different species so it doesnt count. You talk about looks but what do looks matter?
Horses and donkeys breed and create mules. What can mules breed with?
What of the Emperor and Megallanic penguins?
What of ring species, can you explain those?

We have been observing things in an evolutionary sense for the last ~150 years, who would expect to see large scale speciation in 150 years?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #385 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Yes, that's exactly what went on. Thanks for notificing.
A flu virus can move from a chicken to a human. After a certain period among humans, the virus will no longer infect chickens. Speciation.

I'd have to think about this...and read the relevant materials. This might, in fact, be an assumption of speciation...but in reality be something else entirely...like the virus is exactly the same...but has lost the ability to infect one of its former "infectees"...or that the former "infectees" have developed a resistence. If these things were true we'd still only be seeing variations within a species, not the emergence of a new species.
post #386 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Can you explain the other way; how God can simultaneously know exactly what is going to happen along with creating us whole AND how we can make our own choices.

To the first part, my point was that it is often possible to look at something and see one thing, and another person look at it and see another. If you are really good, you can see it both ways. This is the point of that optical trick/illusion.

To the second part, I cannot explain that. I'm afraid I don't have a complete and comprehensive understanding of God and His ways. Are you asking me if I believe in an omnipotent God as well a human free-will? Yes. How can I reconcile these things? I cannot. Sorry.

But...back to the topic...evolution.
post #387 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Can you explain the other way; how God can simultaneously know exactly what is going to happen along with creating us whole AND how we can make our own choices.

Actually this is not complicated.

God knows what we will do from a vantage point of time which we do not have the luxury of. He knows what happens from start to finish. Does this mean that God made / makes our choices for us? No absolutely not. We make our choices. God just knows what we did do and will do for all of the generations.

Nothing complicated about this. God did create us. We do have free will.

Free will means just that.

Does God know what we did, do and will do? Yes. God is eternal and has a different level of perspective concerning time and the rest. Did He make our choices for us? NO

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #388 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
I quite frankly believe there is no evidence for either ID or Evolution.

What you believe has no bearing on what the facts or observations are. Whether you believe in the facts or not has no bearing on the truth of the facts either, they will still be true, the facts.

Quote:
What do I mean by world outlook?

The people on each side of the War in Iraq issue frame the war based on how they see the world. Some see the world as filled with terrorists who only want to kill americans because they hate us whether we are nice to them or not so we might as well just round up all the terrorists and kill them before they kill us.

Others see the world as a place running out of energy and the policy of the west is to go race to grab and secure as much energy as we can before someone else does. All the while selling this aggression as "fighting the war on terror" "spreading freedom around the world" you know,, putting a nice and pretty spin on a lie. Fooling some of the fools back home into thinking this about "being a great american" and "being patriotic" "support the troops" etc.

There are beliefs and there are facts.

Here is an example of facts. The USA and it's coalition invaded Iraq. It replaced its government. Prior to the invasion, statements were made to the effect about nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons were in Iraq and posed a danger to the world; Iraq was a cruel dictatorship that broke many UN resolutions; the effort would cost XXX billion dollars; etc. After the invasion, no nuclear, biological or chemical weapons were found. Iraq had an election. There is on-going violence and strife. The USA has spent 200+ billion dollars. Do you deny any of these are facts?

Now there is one thing in that list of facts that should alter people's beliefs rather convincingly. A statement of belief, that there are nuclear, bioligical and chemical weapons in post-Gulf War, pre-invasion Iraq, is found to have no merit. 2 years after the invasion, and many search groups later, no nuclear, biological and chemical weapons have been found in Iraq.

What's the rational thing to do here? Continue to believe that there were nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in Iraq, or change one's belief to what the facts say.

Quote:
It is based on how you see the universe:

Do you believe it is designed by an entity that created creation. or Do you believe it is random chance. Pick your belief.

Go with the facts.

Darwin proposed a model of biological diversity in the mid-19th century. To this day, every single fact, observation, and study supports Darwin's model. There are some details that are wrong, but that is normal in any theoretical model that stands the test of time.

The collection of fossils are morphologically consistent and time consistent. Fossil finds to this day continue to support an evolutionary model. Ages of fossils based on geological dating techniques in the 19th century have not been turned over by 20th century radiological techniques. Early 20th century radiological techniques have not been overturned by late 20th century DNA dating techniques. Morphology-based - the shapes of lifeforms (bones in fossils) - evolutionary trees developed since Darwin's day to the present have not been overturned by late 20th century DNA, genetic studies. All the modern techniques have only corrected details and filled in details while greatly supporting Darwin's model.

Contrast this with the Creation model, started ~4000 years ago, and today's version of it, ID. Every single fact, observation, and study does not support it. Every single fact, observation, and study goes to support the evolutionary model. The fossils, ages, and geological does not support a world-wide flood. Studies of the ages of cultures do not indicate dates and lineage back to Noah, but much older across large swaths of geography. Linguistic studies do not a indicate a direct lineage to Noah. Studies of fabrics, construction techniques, religious models, you name it, do not indicate a lineage to Noah. There is zero evidence for a Creation biological model.

Lastly, Independent Design is largely a proposal of negative consequence on evolution's lack of detail on the minutia of biology, and doesn't present an actual model of anything. In other words, it doesn't explain anything except for an inference of a designer, and is rather, nitpicking. And you know what happens when people nitpick a theory? Other people will work to solve the nitpick.

The evolution of the eye is a classic example. It is nitpicked to be something that couldn't have evolved, that no logical model could be proposed. The mantra of the Creationists and IDers. Darwin himself proposed a model of eye evolution after saying it was such a complex thing. (I actually don't think it is that complex.) And amazingly enough his model still stands the test of time: light-sensitive cells slowly evolved to become the multitude of eye designs we see today.

Using Russel Fernald as my guide. Why do we only see EM radiation in the "light" wavelengths (400 to 800 nm)? We speculate that life originated in the water on a very young planet with an inhospital atmosphere. Water allows for the proteins to come together easily, for vesicle to form. Lastly there were two energy sources, radiation from the Sun and heat generating by the Earth's gravity. Let's look at this chart:



Look, it so happens that EM radiation of 400 to 800 nm can penetrate water really well. A unique characteristic of water. So organisms, evolved from either hot vents or the surface, could have developed light sensitive cells on their skins. I don't think that's a very extraordinary thing itself. Many organisms called plants or algea were already light sensitive. A cell being co-opted for another use, converting light energy into electrical impulses, isn't all that extraordinary to me either. In fact, the original light-sensitive cells were in all likelihood for an entirely different use, likely a rudimentary nerve cell that had a mutation allowing for the usage of opsin proteins that are sensitive to light. That development of that one light sensitive cell is the key.

Once that cell is developed, it is then the typical evolutionary story:

  1. Pit eye, common throughout the lower phyla.
  2. Pinhole of Haliotis (abalone) or Nautilus.
  3. Eye with a lens.
  4. Eye with homogeneous lens, showing failure to focus.
  5. Eye with lens having a gradient of refractive index.
  6. Multiple lens eye of male Pontella.
  7. Two-lens eye of the copepod crustacean Copilia. Solid arrow shows image position and open arrow the movement of the second lens.
  8. Terrestrial eye of Homo sapiens with cornea and lens; Ic = image formed by cornea alone; Ir = final image on the retina.
  9. Mirror eye of the scallop Pecten.

And a pictoral landscape of eyes found in the world. This is Darwin's model. He proposed the simple eye to the complex one based on the fact that eyes of varying complexity exist today in many lifeforms.



You wanted a step-by-step explanation of the development of the eye. It exists today. The chief complaint was that the eye is irreducibly complex and couldn't evolve. Well, an evolutionary model has been proposed. An actual physical mechanism of development exists today based on physical mechanisms found in genetics and the myriad of eyes in existence today. Many said there can't be one.

One can choose to believe in what is physical, the facts, and one can choose believe in the fiction, something that has no facts. But point of rationalism is to have methodical and factual basis for our beliefs. It's obvious to me which way a person chooses to believe. It's also obvious to me which way is the right way, the fair way.
post #389 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
Actually this is not complicated.

God knows what we will do from a vantage point of time which we do not have the luxury of. He know what happens from start to finish. Does this mean that God made / makes our choices for us? No absolutely not. We make our choices. God just knows what we did do and will do for all of the generations.

Nothing complicated about this. God did create us. We do have free will.

Free will means just that.

Does God know what we did, do and will do? Yes. God is eternal and has a different level of perspective concerning time and the rest.

Fellows

Thanks Fellows...this is the "God is outside of time" explanation I have heard explained before.
post #390 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
You wanted a step-by-step explanation of the development of the eye. It exists today. The chief complaint was that the eye is irreducibly complex and couldn't evolve. Well, an evolutionary model has been proposed.



You said it. A model.. Not a fact. You believe the model evolution provides is true. The key word "believe" You believe the model is accurate.

I don't

There is no evidence that your model is an accurate explination of origins of life on the planet.

Quote:

One can choose to believe in what is physical, the facts, and one can choose believe in the fiction, something that has no facts. But point of rationalism is to have methodical and factual basis for our beliefs. It's obvious to me which way a person chooses to believe. It's also obvious to me which way is the right way, the fair way.

You are believing in a belief not a fact.

So am I

I can admit it

You are hell bent on calling a theory a fact as you can't seem to be honest.

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
post #391 of 430
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
I quite frankly believe there is no evidence for either ID or Evolution.

Wrong. Evolution is a reliable theory for which there is abundant evidence. I don't "believe" in evolution any more than I "believe" that plants need sunlight. It's the best explaination for millions of datapoints.

ID, in contrast, is a philosophical and theological concept. Science and ID really have nothing to do with one another since scientific efforts can't affect ID and the ideas behind ID can't affect scientific efforts.

They are completely and totally different. ID is not a scientific theory, it is a philosophy.
post #392 of 430
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
You said it. A model..

Just like the round earth model. It's the best explanation for millions of data points.
post #393 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Wrong. Evolution is a reliable theory for which there is abundant evidence. I don't "believe" in evolution any more than I "believe" that plants need sunlight. It's the best explaination for millions of datapoints.

ID, in contrast, is a philosophical and theological concept. Science and ID really have nothing to do with one another since scientific efforts can't affect ID and the ideas behind ID can't affect scientific efforts.

They are completely and totally different. ID is not a scientific theory, it is a philosophy.

Okay...we get it...evolution is an indisputable explanation of the origins of species.
post #394 of 430
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Okay...we get it...evolution is an indisputable explanation of the origins of species.

No, it's disputable. If someone comes up with a better explanation that fits the millions of data points, it will replace evolution, but someone who just says "evolution is wrong" without providing a comparable theory is just a quack.
post #395 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
No, it's disputable. If someone comes up with a better explanation that fits the millions of data points, it will replace evolution, but someone who just says "evolution is wrong" without providing a comparable theory is just a quack.

Right.
post #396 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
No, it's disputable. If someone comes up with a better explanation that fits the millions of data points, it will replace evolution, but someone who just says "evolution is wrong" without providing a comparable theory is just a quack.

That's a good resume of the way Science is working. A theory who explain 95 % of the things is superior to the one who explain 85 %. If a new theory come and explain 99 % of the things it will replace the older one.
Now theory evolve also. The theory of evolution is not exactly the one of Darwin. But the general idea of theory stayed.
The updated theory of evolution fits more with the reality than the Darwin's one.
Theory not only die, they also evolve.
post #397 of 430
Creationists should only be allowed to drive 4000 year old cars and read 4000 year old newspapers. It is obvious that these people are trying to hamper all human development. Dissmissing all logic anbd scientific thought. In their super idiotic narrowminded view of God they believe god is not flexible enough or smart enough to have created evolution. Shame on them. God is far bigger than this. He is able to embrace all human achievment.

Fellowship be ashamed. you make god look stupid. You say you embrace him yet you spend no time loving his creation which includes evolution, period.

God is eternal and has eternal wisdom. Evolution is the proof.
post #398 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by jamac
you make god look stupid

And you just made yourself look the same, and, perhaps...by association...those that share your views.
post #399 of 430
For those impatient to see evolutionary changes in action in realtime... (bold mine)

From LiveScience.com's list of "Top10 Vestigal Limbs"

Quote:
#6, Blind Fish Astyanax Mexicanus: growing up in the wrong neighborhood.



In an experiment designed by nature, the species of fish known as Astyanax mexicanus, dwelling in caves deep underground off the coast of Mexico, cannot see. The pale fish has eyes, but as it is developing in the egg, the eyes begin to degenerate, and the fish is born with a collapsed remnant of an eye covered by flap of skin. These vestigial eyes probably formed after hundreds or even thousands of years of living in total darkness.

As for the experiment, a control is needed; and luckily for us, fish of the same species live right above, near the surface, where there is plenty of light, and these fish have fully functioning eyes.

To test if the eyes of the blind mexicanus could function if given the right environment, scientists removed the lens from the eye of the surface-dwelling fish and implanted it into the eye of the blind fish.

It was observed that within eight days an eye started to develop beneath the skin, and after two months the fish had developed a large functioning eye with a pupil, cornea, and iris. The fish were blind, but now they see.
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
"I do not fear computers. I fear the lack of them" -Isaac Asimov
post #400 of 430
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I DO agree that PARTS of what the theory of evolution suggest have ample evidence to support them. But the big kahuna...the mother of them all...that new species have come into existence through this process doesn't. And this is the hook that so many evolutionists are hanging their hat on.

I have given you many examples and page after page you just keep going on with claiming that there is no proof.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Scientific American admits it was wrong on creationism