user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Stranger7800, I don't have full scientific explanation, very shortly I can say that for better interaction with the surrounding, which is important for survivability, there is a need for senses, and nature will eventually take care of that, I believe you know the evolution theory.
But what bothered me, is that you demand from us full scientific explanation, while you don't have anything that even gets close to that. But science can fully explain the evolution of the eyes, so don't conclude based on what best and worst users can find on the internet, or explain based on what they learned at school. If you want a serious answer, you know where you can find it.
by Yosi on Fri Jun 04, 04 3:26pm
[+]
teleological arguments, though facinating, aren't valid in this case
The ones that could see, hear and smell survived so evolution kicked in and here we are...othewise you were eaten by something with sharp teeth... :)
I dont believe in adam & eve or evolution, I think they are both wrong. There is not enough proof to support either one.
by ABC on Fri Jun 04, 04 5:27pm
[+]
don't need a long explanation. it's called random mutation.
by LCD on Fri Jun 04, 04 6:32pm
[+]
Wow Yosi, that was very scientific indeed (at least for a grade school student).
You said: "I believe you know the evolution theory"
Oh yes, and I know that it had failed miserably and repeatedly throughout history since Darwin's ridiculous theory.
And you said: "But science can fully explain the evolution of the eyes"
Oh really?!? Please do share...I created this ballot to LISTEN to atheists and evolutionists like yourself. I would love to acquire more biological knowledge. Start with the amoeba/bacteria ok?
GO!
Oh, and Yosi also said: "If you want a serious answer, you know where you can find it."
Biology didn't show me the answer. I was actually very disappointed, and felt being fooled in the vicinity of my university.
"don't need a long explanation. it's called random mutation."
by LCD on Jun 04, 2004
I'm very disappointed with LCD's response as well.
allow me to elaborate on LCD's point. evolution is, as shocking as it may seem, caused by a random mutation. don't reread that sentence, you read it fine. it's RANDOM. all humans (from different ova) look different because of these random differences. some randomly acquired traits are more desirable and give the organism a greater chance of survival and reproduction, in which case this trait is passed on. lesser traits slowly resign to the sands of time, back to the drawing board so to speak. since only the strong survive, strong get stronger.
the complex eyes of most vertebrates were once photoreceptive cells which could see, not colors, but vague shadows. a lot of early animals were actually photosynthetic, which is to say that they could convert light into energy like plants. therefore, by "seeing" light, they could know which direction the surface of the water was in and stay near the light which gave them life. a lack of light sensation meant that the poor creature had no idea where it was in the water, and could ignorantly drift into the ocean's grim depths. probably to be eaten by a filter feeder of some sort. damn filter feeders.
h3jm4k, your "guess" is interesting, but never proven. Paleontology had proven over and over that living things emerged in the entire world with their extremely complex structures that are already intact. You probably know that the oldest known system of sight/vision is the 'trilobite eye'. These 'trilobites' that appeared in the Cambrian era, suddenly appeared with extremely intricate eye structures. Consisting of tens of millions of 'honeycomb-shaped' minute subdivisions and one double-lens scheme. That eye surfaced 500 to 530 million years ago in its precise and perfect condition. So, no doubt, the sudden appearance of this wonderful design cannot, perhaps will never, be explained by evolution and it confirms the veracity of creation. Furthermore, the 'honeycomb eye' structure of the trilobite has survived upto our currect time WITHOUT A SINGLE EVOLUTION or CHANGE! Some insects, such as bees and dragonflies, have this eye structure as did the trilobite. This circumstance DISPROVES evolution, BIG TIME!
Don't random mutations have a 90% chance of fail?
Lord, that's actually a very conservative percentage you used there. 10 "positive mutations" occurring consecutively (evolution of an organ requires a hella lot more than 10) is so improbable, that alone is invalid. What more if we talk about a bacteria evolving an eye. Totally absurd!
First off, this ballot lumps "athiests" and "evolutionists" together. This is based on stranger7800's conviction that if you don't believe in the bible's literal interpreation of how man was created (i.e. adam & eve) that you are therefore an atheist. So stranger7800 first we need to clear up that there are hundreds of religions that don't share your definition of 'god' or the primer of humans. .. Second "evolutionists" is not a recognized word by the scientific community. Furthermore, you put multi-celled as 'multi-celled' insinuating that organisms are not composed of cells... which makes me wonder if you have an understanding of basic high school level bilogy and how plants and animals are composed of cells. Next, I am confused at what you mean when you write "how did they realize that there's a purpose to see".. did you mean how did the organisms realize that there's a purpose to see? Sight is but one sense that through environmental pressures favored the genotype that is sensitive to light photons, which increases the survival and reproductive ability of the organism which in turn exponentiates the function in offspring.
Of course nothing I say will change stranger7800's mind. AS long as your religious myth does not harm anyone else, I don't see a problem with it.
What a minute, an amoeba's can't see. Amoebas don't have eyes, they can't see however they can snese light and tend to move out of the light.
Amoeba tend to use there false foot and feel fo rfood, if it's bigger than they are it gets eaten, if the prey is smaller it eats them.
But enough of the Amoeba. Living creatures evolve to include senses to help them survive. A Gorilla grow huge jaw muscles to eat the branches for food. The leopard has good night visions because it hunts at night. All living creatures evolve for the the survival of there race. If a race of animals stopped evolving than they would make very easy prey for an animal that had evolved.
So if your still confused because of what i wrote (i know i am) every mutation happens to benefit that creature. For survival
Im always amused to hear from the anti evolution brigade, they will try and disprove this or disprove that or use some theory to make their point.
Yet ask them to prove their theory about their gods and their creation theory, and I have yet to hear any explanation that doesnt require a leap of faith.
By all means believe, but to demand an explanation of a theory that doesnt conform to your view, without first explaining the flimsiness ofthe creation theory is abit rich.
Perhaps I should have put an "OR" instead of a slash "/" when I created this ballot.
My fault, my fault, my fault...I know! I apologize.
But this ballot is indeed targeted to both atheists and evolutionists similarly. =)
Addendum: this ballot is NOT to prove creation, but a challenge to prove the evolution of the eye. If you can't prove the evolution of the eye, then shut up.
Oh couchgnome, can you refute my 'trilobite' argument please? Since you're smarter than I am, I expect you to disprove it.
But you know what? You cannot! And you know it! You know for a fact that the 'trilobite' alone invalidates the evolution of the eye, don't you couchgnome?
To couchgnome once more:
When I said "multi-celled", that is literal. Do you even know that there are one-celled fungi, as well as multi-celled fungi? How about Dictyostelium, are you familiar with this? After reading your comment, I doubt that you do. Dictyostelium and myxobacteria, and some yeasts can transform from unicellular to multicellular 'organism type'. Does your comment resemble your Biological intellect now?
tsk tsk tsk!
"Furthermore, you put multi-celled as 'multi-celled' insinuating that organisms are not composed of cells..."
No, not all organisms are multi-celled. He was not saying that organisms are not composed of cells. He's talking about the evolution from one-celled to multi-celled...
Well stranger, if you can't have a mature discussion, then perhaps I am wasting my time. =)
I'll have a discussion with you! Well, how does the need to be receptive to light translate into eyes? Isn't it hard for a "mutation" to be something as complex as photoreceptive organs which can detect movement, texture and color?
The distortion of the scientific principle has become so entrenched within contemporary western culture that any new evidence suggesting the basic paradigm may be flawed is routinely dismissed. No other better example of this sort of behaviour can be found than with Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Thus, despite the lack of any empirical evidence and the growing list of seemingly insurmountable technical 'problems' associated with the finer details of the theory, Darwinists continue to argue that the mutation - selection mechanism associated with the theory must have produced the changes required for the evolution of new life forms; not because the mechanism has been observed to work or that there is some irrefutable scientific proof of the same, but rather because their guiding philosophy assures them that in the absence of an overlighting 'Creative Principle', no other means is available to do the job. In other words, the theory MUST be right because in their eyes, there is no alternative
For the Darwinist style evolutionists claim there is no alternative but quite rightly dont want to be handed conventional religion
www .arthuryoung.com/barr.html
Dont worry, I wont bombard this ballot like the I did with the others
Creationism is not meant to be so literally
"The Old Testament Biblical myth of the Garden of Eden, though not necessarily the best example, suffices to mythically demonstrate the (sub)stages of the "fall" (involution) from freedom into determinism as well as to demonstrate the progression of the early (substages of process. A pure and innocent Anthropos, Adam, located in the paradisical Garden of Eden with unlimited freedom, clearly represents lst substage "anthropotheic potential". The creative extension of Eve from the rib of Adam, analogous to the linear charge or force of the "separated-but- attracted" subatomic proton and electron, symbolizes the 2nd substage "binding/desire principle". The "Tree of Knowledge" of good and evil in the center of the Garden is analogous to the establishment in the atom of a nuclear center with a stable structure and represents the self-conscious knowledge and form of the 3rd substage "identity principle". Complete banishment from the Garden (of freedom) into the ordinary physical world of constraint and law (determinism) where trial-and-error learning and responsibility of' self-initiated action takes place, with the accumulation and combination of facts, represents the physical solidity of the ordinary world of molecular combinations and obviously symbolizes the 4th substage "combination/control principle". Following this latter deterministic predicament, the New Testament introduces the "virgin birth" of the self-organizational anthropotheos (Christ) and the ascending substages leading to enlightenment (or anthropotheic realization).
In The Reflexive Universe, Young (1976a) outlines several well-known cosmological myths which collectively portray the seven stages (and substages) of process. This collection is certainly not exhaustive, as numerous other worldwide myths (Eliade 1978; 1982) can also be shown to characterize the same stages of process. These ancient myths apparently globally precipitated from the watery, charged, archetypal 2nd substage of man's development (the so-called "collective unconscious") down to the 3rd substage. At the 3rd substage, the "identity" of self-conscious man (and logic/history) began, and these myths could be recorded. The detailed study of comparative mythology, perceived through the lens of process theory, promises to further clarify both man's past and future evolution and the evolution and development of the other stages and substages of process."
Stranger said....
My fault, my fault, my fault...I know! I apologize.
But this ballot is indeed targeted to both atheists and evolutionists similarly. =)
Addendum: this ballot is NOT to prove creation, but a challenge to prove the evolution of the eye. If you can't prove the evolution of the eye, then shut up.
This is the sort of response one usually gets from someone who is so immersed in their religious myth.....'shut up'!!!!
You ask for an explanation on a specific biological organism, Im afraid my knowledge of biology goes as far as the knowledge gained at school 20 years ago, and the titbits I have garnered since.
How you would expect anyone other than someone totally familiar with the subject is stretching a bit. I have no idea how the internal combustion engine works, but I do know there is a scientific reason for it and it isnt run on fairy dust or faith.
Many of your view will throw up these little conundrums in an attempt to poo poo any theory that doesnt match yours. Why? If you believe your view is the correct one, why do you feel the need to have evolution or any other theory proven or otherwise, is your faith in your choice of mythology that flimsy?
If you are right, then you can tell me I told you so when you die, I personally dont believe in your credo, but I respect your right to do so.
Steelhamster, how many times do you have to recognize, and eventually forget, that the ballot is to defy the evolution of the eye??? If you're so eager to hear from me about the proofs of creation, my first response would be: the 'supernatural' or phenomena not bound by time, space, and matter CANNOT be DIRECTLY proven scientifically. However, I suggest that you create a ballot on challenging "Intelligent Design", then you can count me in! In fact, you may be aware that Intelligent Design is becoming a crucial branch of Science (if you will) since Phillip Johnson, Dembsky, and Schaefer.
I will repeat...if you can't prove the evolution of the eye without leaning on unproven "guesses" and "opinions", then I can plausibly support Intelligent Design with scientific facts.
Is anyone gonna create that ballot?
We evovled. Ever wonder why we have an Appendix that's useless, it's because we once needed it but now we don't.
As for creation it's very simple, poeple want to be able to expain something in sucha way it would comfort them when it comes time for there death, if there was creation then there must a something after death. However evolution does make you take a leap of faith also when your looking a a single celled Fungi and say that everyperson mutated from that organism.
stranger7800 interestingly all living creatures respond to light.
I know that you are a non believer of evolution, but you will have to come to terms with the truth of evolution and realise that it is very real and a continual on going process.
Plants sense light too and it is believed that plants can sense pain.
All living things have some sort of sense that they developed to suit their environment which is part of the survival instinct within all living things.
I can only suggest for you to put the bible down and devote more time to studying all living things on this earth to achieve enlightenment of our living world and then you may reach a higher understanding of how our world works with its great diversity of living plants and creatures being large, small or microscopic.
If you maintain your present course of ignorance of the natural world and think that everything was created from some fantasy of an ancient hippy who was most likely tripping out on mushrooms and had some wild halucinations of some fantasy all powerful being who created everything, then your out of your mind and wasting a place in a university where someone who may achieve something truly useful in life for themselves and the rest of the country.
It's all out of our hands, regardless....in the end all the matters is how we have treated each other, spent our numbered days and what we've done to pave the way for those who come before us. Whether you're gonna be playing a harp on a cloud or fertilizing the earth, we have no control so sit back and enjoy the show and stop trying to see the guy running the projecter.. :) sorry, I'll go away now. You guys were just so intense! smooches
I meant... Pave the way for those who come AFTER us... :)
doen5167, if you don't know MICROevolution, I'll tell you now that I utterly accept as true this microevolution as this has been proven countless times to be factual, supported by scientific studies and observations. This is what most evolutionists INCORRECTLY CORRELATE to their ridiculous Darwin concepts to demonstrate their theory that everything started out with amoebae or bacteria.
And Alien_Invader, I urge you to click on my username to have an idea of who I am.
And as a temporary review of people's response on this ballot on the evolution of the eye...so far, nobody has given any scientific explanation supported by facts. Nothing!
Isn't anyone erudite enough to refute my truthful trilobite argument?
*smooches* to Tadema as well =)
*smooches* to Tadema as well =)
aha! you just accepted the phenomenon of microevolution as a scientifically proven fact. don't you realize that the evolution from single-cell to human (macroevolution, if you will) is merely microevolution on a larger scale? of course, a more profound change would take a longer amount of time. would you consider that maybe this is why it takes hundreds of millions of years? because it's not a smooth transition, and it's very gradual. but hey, if several single-celled creatures can function as a colony (as in most algaes), then why can't several single-celled creatures permanantly fuse into one supercreature?
i hereby rest my case.
You said: "don't you realize that the evolution from single-cell to human (macroevolution, if you will) is merely microevolution on a larger scale? of course, a more profound change would take a longer amount of time."
You make me laugh, h3jm4k. You are a perfect example of what I was describing above as to evolutionists who correlate micro with macro, with no evidence whatsoever! Give me ONE specific scientific research demonstrating a 'macro' jump evolution. And to not drift away from our ballot too far, perhaps that one scientific study can be linked to this ballot's challenge. I'm here to be humiliated if that's the case. But where is the proof?
You ask: "if several single-celled creatures can function as a colony (as in most algaes), then why can't several single-celled creatures permanantly fuse into one supercreature? "
BECAUSE THEY CANNOT! Never have, never did, never will! Never proven! Actually, that sounds more like a supernatural miracle to me. And no, you can't rest your case. Unless you can't refute the trilobite argument, then go ahead, you can rest and stop posting your guesses here.
"Refute my truthful trilobite argument?" REFUTE IT DAMN YOU!! Sorry stranger..just struck me as funny...carry on gentlemen
"Ever wonder why we have an Appendix that's useless, it's because we once needed it but now we don't."
by doen5167 on Jun 05, 2004
And yet another ignorant evolutionist! You obviously don't know that even going back to the 1970's medical textbooks (specifically in 1976) were beginning to acknowledge that the appendix had purpose or functions:
From the book 'Gastroenterology' of Dr. Bockus, M.D., in the chapter "The Appendix", this was stated:
"The appendix is not generally credited with significant function; however, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologic mechanism."
And in as current as 1995, from Dr. Martini, Ph.D., 'Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology', this was stated:
"The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system."
LOL@Tadema.
I just love your sense of humor. Too bad, you're married. Hahaha!
I'm married??...well dang it, look at that ring...keep forgetting that.. :) Thanks Stranger, wasn't trying to sabotage your ballot but it was just so intense...I was the commercial break! :)
Despite this, almost all school texts still force indoctrinating students in the notion that the appendix is one dignified evidence that man evolved. What a very sad fact that students are being brainwashed each day.
Did you know that in fact in 1925, evolutionists hypothesized that there were 180 functionless or vestigial organs/structures, including the appendix in the human body?
From 'The World's Most Famous Court Trial, Tennessee Evolution Case' , THE EVOLUTIONISTS stated this:
"There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigal structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities. Among these is the vermiform appendix. These and numerous other structures of the same sort can be reasonably interpreted as evidence that man has descended from ancestors in which these organs were functional. Man has never completely lost these characters; he continues to inherit them though he no longer has any use for them."
Currently, this list of 180 has diminished to virtually ZERO. Imagine going to the hospital and asking a doctor in the year 1925 to remove ALL these functionless compositions from your body!
I bet if doen5167 lived in the 1920's, he would have done it.
"evolution does make you take a leap of faith also when your looking a a single celled Fungi and say that everyperson mutated from that organism."
by doen5167 on Jun 05, 2004
Sounds like evolution is a 'religion' after all. You know what, it is the 'religion' of the MOST EVIL PEOPLE AND DICTATORS who lived on this earth! These include Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Nikolai Lenin, and Mao Tse Tung just to name the worst among them.
lol, how can you people take someone who say "the purprose to see" seriously. The expression itself is pulled out of his ass.
Your spelling of your 'purpose' smells like it came out of your ass too.
Alrighty then, let's hear your case, SubVersion. Or better yet, rebut any of my above comments.
yeah like a letter is a big deal. moron.
AFAIK you didn't prove anything. You just said that the eldest eye fossil found was a trilobites. So what, not every type of fossil has been found.
And first explain " purpose to see". What do you think " see " is ? Like a camcorder sending animated pictures into the awareness ?
No, seriously, " realization of the purprose of the other senses ".
It doesn't even make sense. Do you think the Universe is prepared and multimedia in 5 channels that the senses connect to ?... And of course, therefore they must " realize " that there are video, audio, etc out there and evolution is about finding the right decoder.
When your ballot will be sound and not made out of wild deduction maybe there will be something to argue about.
You said: "You just said that the eldest eye fossil found was a trilobites. So what, not every type of fossil has been found."
And so it is clear. You have NOTHING, ZERO, ZIP to prove the evolution of the eye!
That's the lamest argument I've ever seen so far.
Ok, next in line please!
Me! ME ME ME! I'm next! ooh oooh ooooooohhh!!
OMG! lol
Just when you thought I was gone...... :)
OK so we take your ballot's question stupidity as a given. As you can't explain your dumb expressions.
If we stay in the eye context then the eye as part of an organism evolved simply because its part of the DNA. It has no special status.
If you're asking how sight (the " first " form) came to existence, then its an evolution from photosensitivity. No different than other biochemical reactions at the source of other functions. Of course nobody's going to prove every single functions.
Now if you're asking to prove how the eye came as is and how it fits evolution then your question has no point.
If there was no " eye " before then it couldn't evolute. Its just in the continuum of evolution of sight. Specimen from simple light sensitivity, simple detectors, to different versions of eyes being just part of it.
The evolution of the eye has nothing to do with the " realization of the purprose to see ". The last expression making no sense.
The theory of Intelligent Design continues to march on, masquerading as science and trying to poke holes through evolution, offering Creationists a new strand of hope from which to hang. Deep within the obvious beauty and complexity of life we are supposed to be able to see the hand of god, the final product of a supreme creator and designer. But this strand is beginning to wear thin.
The following are a few reasons, why we should all immediately become skeptical of the New Creationism and its claim of scientific validity:
1) Intelligent Designer's personal beliefs and biases tend to drive their conclusions more than anything. Everyone is biased, but it is importannt to know how much these biases and beliefs affect one's research. There's a difference between going where the facts lead us and molding the facts to lead us where you want us to go.
All IDer's are theists, but most are indeed Christian. Leading Intelligent Design advocate William A. Dembski states this clearly when he says, 'As a Christian, I am a theist and believe that God created the world.' Michael Behe, author of Darwin's Black Box and the leading supporter of 'irreducible complexity' is a Roman Catholic, even though he barely hinted at the possible divinity of his designer in his book. I've often found a link or two to a Christian think tank website on a few of the Intelligent Design sites that I have visited. When a theory arises that conveniently supports the personal beliefs of all of its supporters, this should immediately raise a caution flag.
Of course we all have our own biases and preconceptions, but in real science circles (unlike Intelligent Design) it is somewhat different - this is usually taken care of. 'But at some point, usually during the peer-review system (either informally, when one finds colleagues to read a manuscript before publication submission, or formally when the manuscript is read and critiqued by colleagues, or publicly after publication), such biases and beliefs are rooted out, or the paper or book is rejected for publication. Intellect stumbles and falters without critical feedback. If you don't catch your biases in your research, someone else will.'
2) Intelligent Design directly attacks evolution, but does little to support itself. These people ought to be called 'Anti-Evolutionists' because that's what they spend the most time doing. If all that evolutionists did was sit around and make fun of creationists then evolution as a theory wouldn't last very long. You could spend all the time you want discrediting other theories, but alas, you still have to prove your own in the end. Unfortunately, not everything in this world has a nice, dichotomous nature to it. Intelligent Designers assume that either evolution is true or intelligent design is true. If only it really was that easy, but that's not necessarily true. While science changes and improves with the evidence, IDer's sit in the back throwing vegetables at the passing parade - not realizing that it is passing them by.
3) All roads lead to Intelligent Design - Any claim where all possible evidence ends up leading to the same conclusion supporting that claim is bogus, or non-scientific at best. No matter what nature reveals to us, this can be used in favor of design and an intelligent designer. Nature is complex - the designer was meticulous and crafty. Nature is simple - the designer was efficient. Nature appears to form through evolution - the designer got this process started.. Nature doesn't appear to form through evolution - the designer made everything as is. Nature is perfect - the designer is perfect. Nature is flawed - the designer meant for it to be flawed. When one leaves the natural realm anything is possible, and in this case 'the designer' can be whoever you want it to be.
Science requires falsifiable hypotheses. Evolution is falsifiable because we know what it would mean for evolution to be false. Transitional fossils would be non-existent. No intermediate forms would be visible in nature. There would not have been enough time for evolution to evolve complex beings. All of the above examples converge to the falsification of the evolution hypothesis.
But then, what does it mean for nature to not exhibit design? Apparently nothing. Michael Behe is the only Intelligent Design advocate to answer this important question that I know of. He writes, 'To falsify design theory a scientist need only experimentally demonstrate that a bacterial flagellum, or any other comparably complex system, could arise by natural selection.' Great, and we can do that too! Unfortunately, Behe doesn't seem to realize that - or he is selectively avoiding evidence? Which leads me into the last one...
4) Selectively avoiding or ignoring counter-evidence - The human eye can be used as another eexample here. Many supporters of Intelligent Design ignore the fact that logic and evidence points to a complex eye that's evolved through natural selection and go ahead and assume a creator anyway. They also ignore the fact that the eye is simply not well-designed.
William Dembski suffers under this category as well. He says that he has developed a mathematical 'explanatory filter' that he asserted can distinguish randomness from complexity designed by an intelligent agent. Yet, as a Slate Article explains, 'So, even if Dembski does have some test that can determine whether a being's complexity is of the precise sort that an intelligent designer would produce, that won't help his cause. For that is exactly the sort of complexity evolutionary biologists expect to find in the first place. In fact, according to evolutionary biologists, it produces arrangements that look for all the world as if they were composed by an intelligent designer.'
While the truth of one or two of these may not be enough to scream 'bogus', the convergence of all of these facts together lead me to believe that Intelligent Design as a scientific theory is suspect and verges on nonsense. This is where science and myth depart roads.
You said: "If you're asking how sight (the "first" form) came to existence, then its an evolution from photosensitivity." Photosensitivity alone is NOT a scientific explanation for the "realization of the purpose to see". The ability to sense light is useless unless that organism (in your moronic evolution's case, the amoebae or bacteria or a multi-celled organism offspring of either) has extremely sophisticated computational mechanism to make use of this sensed information! This is where the "brain" enters the story. For example, this organism must have the capability to translate "reduction of photon intensity" to "a shadow of a stronger predator is somewhere out there" to "it's time to evade this place", and it must be able to work on this sensed information for it to have any natural selective value.
Wow, Steelrodent found that website geocities. com/ anatheist2001/ subsciencemyth. htm
And what exactly did you prove? Pathetic!
Time to continue to explore this thing called our eye and what evolution has to say about it. Intelligent Designer advocates, Creationists and others will have us believe that it was designed and created by an 'intelligent' being, more often than not God. If a natural explanation can be found, why hold on to such assumptions? That's a question you'll have to answer yourself, but I have already explained why we should be skeptical about Intelligent Design and critical of those who claim design can be found in nature. To now move on to more of mango2000's notes (spelling left unedited):
'With respect to the Simple Eyespot, how do explain the existence of a 'handful of light sensitive cell'? How did they come into existence? Why did they come into existence? Why would some of an organisms cells be sensitive to light and not others? Why would only some cells form the ability to collect information about a light source?'
In order to answer these questions one must first understand how mutations and natural selection work. What is Evolution is a good place to start, but I will summarize here. Natural selection says that eventually a variation will come along that makes an individual organism better adapted to his environment. In this case, due to mutations and gene variations, an organism comes around featuring an area of cells that are actually sensitive to light.
Mango asks why wouldn't all cells eventually become capable of collecting information about a light source, but this is as silly as asking why all of our cells didn't become muscle cells. If all of an organism's cells became light-sensitive then its body parts would become dysfunctional and it would die. Being one big eye wouldn't do you much good.
For some reason or another this provides the organism with an adaptive advantage. It shouldn't take much thought to realize that 5% sight is significantly better than total and complete blindness. Thus, those with this simple eyespot had a slight advantage over those with no eyespot. Eventually natural selection saw to it that the former survived and the latter did not. As eye equipment improved, those with better sight capabilities survived in greater numbers and reproduced more often.
'Does it not make sense that if the first simple cell was sensitive to light, upon dividing, future cells would possess the same sensitivity to light? ...if cells were not sensitive from the beginning, why become sensitive?'
The first simple cell would not have been sensitive to light. Again, organisms originally wandered around blindly until mutations and alterations in genetic make-up produced an organism with very simple light detection abilities and this proved to be advantageous because you can see this screen with a pair of your own eyes.
' that we have samples of all of the stages to trace and examine to support such a hypothesis and that each stage is without a doubt linked to the former and gave rise to the later. This is impossible to examine and therefore even more impossible to prove.'
No, actually I am not making that assumption. Just about - if not every - major stage in the evolution of the eye can be found in nature today. Thus, not only can we observe how they are constructed, but we can also observe what uses they might serve.
Biologist George Williams mentions this when he wrote, 'As Darwin pointed out, familiarity with the animal kingdom shows the existence today of just about every stage in a plausible sequence from primitive light-sensitive cells on the surfaces of tiny wormlike animals, through the rudimentary camera eyes of scallops, to the advanced optical instrumentation of squids and vertebrates. Every stage in this sequence is subject to variation, and every stage is clearly useful to its possessor.'
Now taking a closer look at the eye's evolutionary path:
Light Sensitive Eye Patches
Called a stigma, an example of this can be found in Euglena, a unicellular organism that lives in a water medium and moves by beating its flagellum.
Features:
1. Located at the anterior end of the organism
2. Contains a red pigment
Use: Light directs the movement of Euglena, which orients itself to expose photo-sensitive cells to light (a phototactic response).
Simple Eye Cup
An example is Planaria, a free-living multicellular organism living in fresh water ponds or ditches.
Features:
1. Cup-shaped, heavily-pigmented cells as retina.
2. Sense cells in contact with retina cells.
Use: It can differentiate the direction and the intensity of light because cup-shaped pigment cells of the eyes shield the light sensitive cells in all directions with only one opening for light entry.
Pinhole Eyes
Nautilus is an animal with a shell (cephalopoda) and lives in the ocean bottom of low light intensity.
Features: With retina, no cornea, no lens.
Use: The pinhole eye brings about poor resolution and images formed are dim. It is suitable for the living habitat of Nautilus, which is why nothing better would provide much adaptively.
Simple Eye
Found mostly in larva.
Features:
1. Cuticular lens with light sensitive cells underneath joined to the brain by a single nerve.
2. No image formed, not good in color discrimination, sensitive to different degrees of light intensity.
Use: Good for reacting to fluctuations in light intensity.
Compound Eye
Can be found in all insects.
Features:
1. Made up of thousands of units called ommatidia.
2. 3D image formed, but not sharp. With color, mosaic image.
Use: Good for noticing movements. Ever wonder why it is so difficult to swat that damn fly?
Still, some may be wondering exactly how long it would take nature to produced as something as complex as our camera eyes (the last stage that I did not mention here, but take a look at yourself for an example). Richard Dawkins assures us that evolution has had ample time to do the job. After a series of specific calculations, he concludes that "it seems that it would take less than half a million years to evolve a good camera eye. In the light of Nilsson and Pelger's results, it is no wonder "the" eye has evolved at least 40 times independently around the animal kingdom. There has been enough time for it to evolve from scratch 1,500 times in succession within any one lineage. Assuming typical generation lengths for small animals, the time needed for the evolution of the eye, far from stretching credulity with its vastness, turns out to be too short for geologists to measure! It is a geological blink.'
And for one last spin on the eye subject, answer for yourself whether it is evolution or intelligent design that better explains the situation of the mole rat. Supposedly its ancestors used its eyes to survive above the ground, but since the mole rat has adapted to living in complete darkness. It's eyes are now buried beneath a layer of skin and fur and couldn't be used even if it wanted to, for the nerve connecting the eye to the brain has been put to use for other sensory functions. Evolution by natural selection or a sloppy and/or lunatic creator?
It's your choice.
To SubVersion, read my above comment on photosensitivity. Hmmm, sounds like you need to "realize your purpose to" know how the eye works.
Its called researching ones subject Stranger, or do you believe one should just spout untruths and be taken at face value?
I have given you the alternate argument and it is up to the individual to choose which is correct.
Or do you believe we should all just blindly follow your dictates?
Just for the record, Intelligent design is psuedo science and not REAL science as you would have people believe.
Steelhamster said: "but I have already explained why we should be skeptical about Intelligent Design and critical of those who claim design can be found in nature."
Oh really?!? YOU did?!? Are you on crack or something? Did you see the link of where I found that exact chunk of non-sense? Yeah, that's right.
If you are incapable of debate, then it's time for me to take a dump. Oh, and yes, what about your above posts?!? NOTHING from those cut & paste crap demonstrates the evolution of the eye, NOTHING! Would you do yourself a favor and read your posts first yourself and try to comprehend what you're passing on?
SubVersion said: "Specimen from simple light sensitivity, simple detectors, to different versions of eyes being just part of it."
I have this strong feeling that SubVersion misconceptualizes the physics of light sensing and detection.
*shakes my head*
Steelhamster said: "Or do you believe we should all just blindly follow your dictates?"
Or should I follow your UNPROVEN guesses instead? I'd rather not.
Hmmmm, well guess thats me told.
If you can just call people names then I guess you really are in need of a chill pill.
I wasnt trying to debate the point with you. You asked for 'athiests' to explain the evolution of the eye. As I had already stated, I didnt have a degree in bio-chemistry, so I had to look it up for you.
I am not here to prove or disprove your theories, merely to ask questions as any open minded person would. You seem closed to any alternative ideas, so I guess it shouldnt matter what people offer in the way of debate or evidence, as you seem to be blinkered in your thinking and only able to insult those who try to put an opposite view.
If you're an agnostic, then I'll put you under the 'evolutionist' category. How's that?
A single retinal cell of the human eye consists of a nucleus, a mitochondrial rod, and a rectangular array containing discrete layers of photon-trapping pigment. The evolutionary development of the eye evidently required an increase in such layers. An inferential staircase being required, the thing virtually constructs itself, Dawkins believes, one layer at a time. "The point," he writes, "is that ninety-one membranes are more effective...than ninety, ninety are more effective that eighty-nine, and so on back to one membrane, which is more effective than zero."
This is a plausible scheme only because Dawkins has considered a single feature of the eye in isolation. The parts of a complex artifact or object typically gain their usefulness as an ensemble. A Dixie Cup consists of a tube joined to a disk. Without the disk, the cup does not hold less water than it might; it cannot hold water at all. And ditto for the tube, the two items, disk and tube, forming an irreducibly complex system.
What holds for the Dixie Cup holds for the eye as well. Light strikes the eye in the form of photons, but the optic nerve conveys electrical impulses to the brain. Acting as a sophisticated transducer, the eye must mediate between two different physical signals. The retinal cells that figure in Dawkins' account are connected to horizontal cells; these shuttle information laterally between photoreceptors in order to smooth the visual signal. Amacrine cells act to filter the signal. Bipolar cells convey visual information further to ganglion cells, which in turn conduct information to the optic nerve. The system gives every indication of being tightly integrated, its parts mutually dependent.
The very problem that Darwin's theory was designed to evade now reappears. Like vibrations passing through a spider's web, changes to any part of the eye, if they are to improve vision, must bring about changes throughout the optical system. Without a correlative increase in the size and complexity of the optic nerve, an increase in the number of photoreceptive membranes can have no effect. A change in the optic nerve must in turn induce corresponding neurological changes in the brain. If these changes come about simultaneously, it makes no sense to talk of a gradual ascent of Mount Improbable. If they do not come about simultaneously, it is not clear why they should come about at all.
Im not here to convert you Stranger, with 'unproven guesses' just as you havent offered any credible evidence to prove your theories.
I looked up the Intelligent Design argument so as to counter your assertion that ID was the new testament.
Like I say, its for individuals to believe whatever they wish, not for you or I to make up their minds for them.
You said: "You seem closed to any alternative ideas"
I am VERY CLOSED-MINDED when I see 'unproven' scientific explanations infront of me.
And of course the Bible is totally proven?
Well, like I said, that me told.
Im pleased you have found a path you are comfortable with, lets hope its all you want.
I for one will look at ALL possibilities, and perhaps come to some conclusions in time.
Steelhamster said: "just as you havent offered any credible evidence to prove your theories"
What the hell is my theory?!? I created this ballot for one purpose, and one only...to challenge people like you to scientifically prove that the amoeba/bacteria or multicellular eukaryotes or whatever, somehow became photosensitive and it had the 'idea' that it somehow needed to see, and on and on, then finally evolved an eye!
Viktor Schauberger
Our direct mental approach towards the understanding and investigation of natural phenomena (our present materialistic and scientifically ingrained view that only the physically palpable and measurable represents the true reality), has lead to greater and greater confusion and the need to elaborate more and more complex theories to explain the various functions of the physical world. Our great omission has been our total disregard and our failure to come to grips in depth with the more ephemeral, unseen, yet fundamental energetic causalities. Like the negative mentioned in the quotation above, these energies manifest themselves only indirectly, the physical constructs of the outer physical world being a positive reflection of their respective functions. What we perceive as the foundation of physical reality - a reality to which we have ascribed laws - is therefore only half of the truth, for in their dynamic these formative magnitudes conform to a sublime inner law of energetic reciprocities:
"Nature is not served by rigid laws, but by rhythmical, reciprocal processes. Nature uses none of the preconditions of the chemist or the physicist for the purposes of evolution. Nature excludes all fire, on principle, for purposes of growth; therefore all contemporary machines are unnatural and constructed according to false premises. Nature avails herself of the biodynamic form of motion through which the biological prerequisite for the emergence of life is provided. Its purpose is to ur-procreate 'higher' conditions of matter out of the originally inferior raw materials, which afford the evolutionally older, or the numerically greater rising generation, the possibility of a constant capacity to evolve, for without any growing and increasing reserves of energy there would be no evolution or development. This results first and foremost in the collapse of the so-called Law of the Conservation of Energy, and in further consequence the Law of Gravity, and all other dogmatic lose any rational or practical basis."
In contrast to contemporary science, Viktor saw will and spirit as the principal causative forces of physical existence. They work through the agency of various lower orders and magnitudes of energy belonging to the 4th and 5th dimensions, i.e. through those more subtle, non-spacial dimensions of being that are inherent, but are not perceived, in the three dimensional world to which we are accustomed. Of ethereal nature and endowed with very high frequencies and formative potencies, they could also be termed 'potentialities', which in their extremely sensitive and unstable state of energetic equilibrium await the right stimulus and occasion to manifest themselves. In being able to speak of these higher and therefore more powerfully and profoundly structuring dimensions of reality, Viktor's own comprehension of them must have been at the level of the 6th dimension, a level where the encapsulation and understanding of a given concept or phenomenon is both simultaneous and total. Perhaps this might be termed the dimension of 'thought' or pure truth, a crystal-clear transparency, a complete comprehension of the wholeness devoid of all uncertainty and unclarity.
You said: "And of course the Bible is totally proven?"
Proven to be the MOST authentic text in terms of archeological, historical, and philosophical grounds. But that of course is irrelevant to this debate.
I thought I'd point out there were many evil people who worked for the church and believe in creationism just like there were evil people who believed in evolution.
I personally believe that God created evolution and all the scientific laws. I have a huge problem with the something came from nothing theory I just cant see how one day there was nothing there and the next poof there were those protones and stuff that caused the big bang.
by seon on Sun Jun 06, 04 1:27am
[+]
I dont truly believe you want it proven. Several posters have written what could be plausible explanations, but coming from a stand point such as your, you wouldnt believe it even if it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
I really dont want this thread to become a flaming war, as I am not convinced you really want an explanation.
Lets hope someone more articulate can answer your questions, as I dont feel I am making much headway.
"Proven to be the MOST authentic text in terms of archeological, historical, and philosophical grounds."
The unaltered original texts.Not the tampered with, greatest hits colllection of the religionists
i'm sorry, what was i thinking when i associated macro with micro, you fucking idiot? don't you get it? i don't need to prove that there's a connection between microevolution and macroevolution, it's common fucking sense! get it through your thick inbred white trash skull that small changes on a microscopic level can add up to tremendous changes! haven't you ever heard of the butterfly effect? in the same way that a million tiny little ants can devour an entire chicken casserole, little things add up! are you that fucking stupid? a lot of little changes make one big change! if we were created in God's likeness, why do we all look different? huh? huh? huh? huh? he can't have made us ALL in his likeness, could he have? why do we have different races then? if Adam and Eve were dark skinned, where did white people come from? we adapted to colder and less sunny climates. we evolved! explain THAT, sir! and don't get political, your use of historical figures to invalidate evolution is just childish. Mao Zedong, fyi, was a saint compared to you.
"what was i thinking when i associated macro with micro, you FUCKING idiot?"
by h3jm4k on Jun 06, 2004
Hahahahaha! I know it's really easy to pursuade evolutionists to show their character's profanity. Hahahahaha!
Why would anyone believe an ill-bred individual like you?
Steelhamster said: "you wouldnt believe it even if it was proven beyond any reasonable doubt"
Oh yes I would. But that's what evolution does NOT have: 'proof beyond any reasonable doubt'. But you and the others like yourself? You would NOT denounce evolution even if it has NOT been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
What a sad, sad situation.
Hey bigmonkeynuts, create that 'Bible authenticity refuted' ballot. I challenge you to a debate on that matter!
h3jm4k, your human 'races' argument is irrelevant to the evolution of the eye. Create that ballot and I will prove how ignorant you are.
The Evolutionists have created an answer to the question that fits the postulate of Darwinian style evolution
But as far as fact and theory go Darwinian style Evolution has been completely discarded by Science as it continues to move ahead.Quantum Physicists especially have been wishing it would just piss off
See you all tomorrow! Bye!
stranger7800, I have read your user page as you requested, which was a terrible mistake on your part for I have now reached a conclusion that you are an intellectual IDIOT of Infinite STUPIDITY.
To come onto this site and ask people for an answer to such a question and to expect a complex answer is a sure sign of stupidity on your part. If you think that there is a complex answer for everything in existence, then you will continue to overlook answers that may be staring you boldly in your face.
I can understand that you may want a scientific biological answer to this question, which means to research this subject with a fully equipped laboratoy.
Why haven't you done this?
In regards to eyes, it stands to reason that microscopic life most likely developed crude light sensitivity as predessesor to the evolution of the eye. Most life prefers to live with light as light is related to creating food sources.
The other senses would have developed over time as the need to be able to survive in various environments.
Excess heat may kill some forms of life, hence the need to be able to sense heat.
Adverse enviriomental conditions being it atmospheric or aquatic creates aneed for life to develop their senses to survive.
Now directly to evolution, you are learning every day something new and so is everyone and every living creature around you.
This alone is evidence of evolution in action, for if we did not learn, then we and all living creatures would have died out, and then there would have been nothing.
Not even a stranger7800.
I shall not reply any further than what I have up until now, for if you still fail to understand , then I pity you.
A finishing last word, do yourself a favour, go out into the forest and isolate yourself for 6 to 12 months and study the wildlife, for it will give you many answers that a university cannot.
"Hey bigmonkeynuts, create that 'Bible authenticity refuted' ballot. I challenge you to a debate on that matter! '
stranger7800
In case you havent noticed Ive challenged you on numerous occasions.
And i've also posted quite a lot of things and you have run away.I assure you , you will lose that debate
And stranger7800
On you user page you have the 2nd law of thermodynamics .
The laws of thermodynamics have long been established as false
We can have a little debate on that too
This debate seems as though it is getting nowhere on either side.
Maybe one thing we can all agree on is that both theories Evolution/Creation depend on a little thing called FAITH, in one way or another?
Huh? Eh? Nudge, Nudge, Know what I mean?. Eh?
Like many of Strangers ilk, he will construct an argument he feels is water tight, but as more and more holes appear the more aggressive and abusive he becomes.
He believes the bible is irrefutable, please, even reknown theologists would struggle to answer the glaring inconsistancies in the bible.
He pretends to want a question answered, knowing the who subject is a complex one.
No doubt he will now direct other asanine comments at me, in order to illicit a response.
I just wish people like him would keep their faith and allow other to search for the answers to our question about life and the meaning of existence.
One cannot hope to find answers if one is not prepared to search for them.
Who the hell is Nikolai lenin?
Who the hell is Nikolai Lenin?
My point is proven.
Also, some of the issues here ,Random mutation, survival of the fittest , punctuated equlibrium were dealt with on other ballots
Ok, that's enough boys. I've made a HUGE pan of lasagna...who's coming to dinner this afternoon? You can bring your little eyeball discusion with you... :)
Many single celled organisms respond to both light and darkness. An organism’s ability to understand these changes would benefit its survival.
A better example of evolution than the human appendix is the wings of the Dodo Bird. The wings were completely useless and thus served no purpose. Proving that it had evolved from another bird but had no use for the birds wings.
Stranger i ask you to prove Creation. The problem with the theory of creation is it's based on one religion, so which one do you go with. Monothestic or Polythestic. Chatholic, Muslum, Jewish, there's so many so which is right.
If you need more evidnece to evolution look at the past. Human culture has evolved, our speech has changed. Now as for one god creating everything then why did he create Asian so differently than Whites and Blacks different than the french. We can't all be made in his own image, and what if he's a woman. He amde 50% of the world in the opposite of his image.
Wow. Fantastic discussion. I read everything, and I'm not sure where to begin.
We all choose what to believe, whether we are aware of it or not. The strength of our conviction is tempered by our attempt to decide the intent or purpose of, in this case, quantifying reality.
Science and religion, or evolutionism and creationism, are two sides of an ancient coin. We can see both sides, the area that they are joined in the middle, but we cannot see INSIDE. Rigid believers on each side cannot accept the possibility that both are NOT mutually exclusive, so it is ESSENTIAL that they grasp for ways to weaken the foundation of the other.
Science will continue to prove, disprove, theorize, hypothesize, and discover many things, but it will never find God. Those who believe in God as a supernatural being conceived as an omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of our universe will never be able to be objective, because God is a little different for every person.
P.S. This debate will go further if we continue to explore what people are presenting, and not the MANNER in which it is being presented.
"Create that ballot and I will prove how ignorant you are." stranger7800, i've decided to take you up on your challenge. my poll is aptly titled "h3jm4k vs. stranger7800".
Pierre, Nikolai Lenin was the founder of the Bolshevik Revolution and the Soviet Union. i know it's boring, but try to stay awake during history lessons.
"A better example of evolution than the human appendix is the wings of the Dodo Bird. The wings were completely useless and thus served no purpose."
You say it proves.
This is where its pointed out the lack of scientific credibility of Darwinian Evolutionists.To say it "proves" is a total leap of logic,an almighty presumption to fit the preconceived model.It doesnt "prove" anything.Birds have wings, Ive never seen one that doesnt.The assumption there is that wings must have a specific "purpose" .Only a darwinist would presume that due to the (proven false) survival of the fittest , random mutation dogma
"Only the strong survive, as shown with mice. Skeletons show that mice used to be much much larger then today."
Again , the word used here is that it "proves".In fact it doesnt and other legitimate theories(not postulates) have been put forth to explain the reduction in size of ALL mammals, not just mice.The survival issue simply doesnt apply.And it would only apply if something radically different occured.All beings are perfectly a part of their environment.Something would have to effect the ENTIRE environment and thus all within it for an extinction to occur.
"If you need more evidnece to evolution look at the past. Human culture has evolved, our speech has changed."
That would require both a "political" response as well as scientific.Devolution has happened to humans.Evolution wont occur again until this present age is over
"Science will continue to prove, disprove, theorize, hypothesize, and discover many things, but it will never find God."
Science has "found God".Its not the creator-God of Islam and Christianity though.Cant find something that is merely a mathamatical equation i. e. Doesnt exist
"We evovled. Ever wonder why we have an Appendix that's useless, it's because we once needed it but now we don't."
Heres an example of why the Darwinists best friends , the species known as the much feared and dreaded, the devolved white coat Quack are to be AVOIDED if you value your health and/sanity.Other (true) forms of REAL approaches to wellness and health can and will tell you exactly what the appendix is for.Today as well as the distant past
"The assumption there is that wings must have a specific "purpose" "
Meant to put emphasis on "specific" .As in flying, rather than balance etc ,
Arthur Young , The Reflexive Universe
"Its a shame there aren't more penetrating and expansive minds like Young's. He makes one of the best arguments for teleology in nature that I have read. The arguments between religious fundamentalists with their hopeless textual literalism and arrogant scientific materialists shouldn't keep the rest of us from seeing a reasonable and cohesive synthesis between the physical and metaphysical worlds."
www. bestandworst. com/ pages/ vote/ vote-36181. html
omit the spaces, if you will.
Wasn't Lenins first name Vladimir?
Actually Lenin's real name was Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov, he took the name Vladimir Ilyich Lenin in 1901.
And now the lasagnas cold....tisk tisk
I am sorry I didn't read all the comments, but please tell me: has someone already explained how the cheerios acquire the purpose to see? :o)
huh, because God says so.
h3jm4k, the leader of the October Revolution in 1917 in the Russian Empire was VLADIMIR Lenin. History is not boring. It's my favourite subject. You can learn or lot from it. Or not in some cases.
Hi Guest 010d2...I read the poll you were talking about and Im really sorry, I don't understand why you think he's a perve. Angelina Jolie's a beautiful, super sexy grown woman. It's normal for him to think so. Some of the guys were really getting graphic in that poll and, honestly, I thought some of them were much worse. The guy who said he got turned on from the smell of the morgue was much more disturbing to me. Anyway, we are ruining these guys nice eyeball/cheerio arguement but if you register, please message me and we can talk more. Have a great day. :)
i'd hate to have to burst your bubble, Pierre, but Nikolai Lenin and Vladimir Lenin are one and the same. and how could they possibly be different people, now that i think about it? Lenin isn't a real last name, pal, it's a pseudonym. bam.
to clarify, Nikolai was a name by which he was referred in western countries. its origins are obscure.
One of the interesting things about these debates is that one of the parties has an emotional attachment to their position whereas the other does not (or it is much weaker, and different in kind). What is at stake for the theists is (in general) the possibility of eternal life, happiness and reassurance. The atheists have no such prizes to gain from being proved correct. This does not mean that the atheists must be correct, but in general one could expect them to be more open-minded and rational. After all, most of them would be very happy to be convinced that there was a benevolent creator god, it's simply that nothing so far has been able to do so.
So here's a question, 7800. Do you think we have souls, or do you think that a creator has designed as as physical life forms, but that there is no reason to suppose that our existence will continue in any way after our death in a supernatural manner?
Says 7800:
"so far, nobody has given any scientific explanation supported by facts. Nothing!"
And can you show me where the facts are for a creator god are, please? I appear to have missed them.
you know, stranger7800, i thought you were pretty clever using the complexity of the eye as a disproof of evolution until i realized that thousands of fools have used that argument before you. that would make you little more than a christian parrot. since that argument is so popular, several pages have been made against it. here are two to start you off.
www. abarnett. demon. co. uk/ atheism/ evolution. html#EYES
www. cs. colorado. edu/ ~lindsay/ creation/ eye. html
H3J, I'm on your ballot. See you there!
h3jm4k, I am quite aware that 'Lenin' was not the man's real name. His name was Vladimir Illych Ulyanov. His origins are not obscure. He was born in Simbirsk on 10 April (22 April in GC) 1870. His father was Ilya Nikolaevich Ulyanov, a man employed by the Russian Civil Service. His mother was Maria Alexandrovna Blank, a liberal. He had Jewish origins through his maternal grandfather and Volga German origins through his mother. He was never known as 'Nikolai' in Russia and neither in Europe. maybe in the USA though. This name is erroneous.
And to clairfy, Simbirsk was renamed Ulyanovsk in 1924 in honour of Lenin.
Theonly Nikolia I can think of whom you maybe refering to was Nikolai Krestinsky at the Chairman of
the Central Executive Committee of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR)
" You would NOT denounce evolution even if it has NOT been proven beyond any reasonable doubt."
And you would NOT denounce God even thought it has NOT been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The basic argument is, did we come into being over millions of years of painstaking evolution and adaption to our surroundings and environment, or just sort of flash into existence in a thunderbolt from the tip of gods finger? Hmmm......
by RobL on Tue Jun 08, 04 5:59pm
[+]
They didn`t. Your incomprehension of the subject is quite immense though. Ask your pastor if he has read and understood any books on evolution.
The first comment from Stranger7800 on this ballott is a put-down. Stranger7800 acts as though he is above everyone when I thought TRUE christians were humble!?! In case yall havnt noticed he seems like a fairly smart guy but he needs a constant ego massage and I think he gets that by making DEMANDS and telling people to SHUT UP as he did above.
Anyway, just because current science may not be able to explain EVERYTHING, that doesnt mean it was God. 20 years ago Science didnt know how AIDS worked that doesnt mean it was an act of God, it just took time to get the facts. So maybe in 20 years they will be able to explain your "trilobite eye" and if they do, then you will move on to another creature that science has yet to explain and use that as your argument?
What was the purpose of the poll anyway? Do you really want someone to try to explain the evolotion of the eye? NO, you didnt, because if you did you would go elsewhere for the answer, you come here try to belittle people.
You must lead a sad life.
Why does God give us an appendix if we don't need it?
Why did God give us foreskin if it is a health hazard? (as some people say)
Why does God let the suffering on earth go on when it is usually the innocent who suffer?
How is is that a being such as God could make and design the world with his vast knowledge and abilities and his supposed invention (man) has the ability to destroy all that he built with the press of a button?
Why is it we can't find a sign of Noah's Arc but we can find the remains of fish from a million years ago?
Why should i have to read the Bible, why isn't it engraved in my memory from birth? Some people never learn to read so why was God's word put into written words, why doesnt it just echo from the skies ever so often?
Why are Neanderthal Skeletal remains so much like our own but the scull is shaped differently? Did these guys know the word of God? Why did they go extinct?
Hey peeps, I found the ULTIMATE answer to this fuckin' thread. Go drink some booze and snort some pills. There is no purprose except to get HIGH.
I forgot to login.^ =)
Man, where do I start with their questions?
Hmmm...
Duckhead said: "In case yall havnt noticed he seems like a fairly smart guy but he needs a constant ego massage"
Thanks, at least you think I'm smart. =)
Duckhead said: "So maybe in 20 years they will be able to explain your "trilobite eye" and if they do, then you will move on to another creature that science has yet to explain and use that as your argument"
The explanation is currently on the table, but you just refuse to take it. I see that you'd rather wait for 100 more million years instead of believing in the alternative.
Duckhead said: "Do you really want someone to try to explain the evolotion of the eye? NO, you didnt, because if you did you would go elsewhere for the answer, you come here try to belittle people.
You must lead a sad life."
I am here to reveal to you that evolution is false (macro, that is). Nothing more, nothing less, and definitely not to belittle people as your accusation suggests. The sarcasm I use once in a while is a strategy in all debates. And regarding my 'sad life', seems like you're the one who's lonelier than most of us for you have so many "unanswered questions".
Duckhead said: "Why does God give us an appendix if we don't need it?"
One of Duckhead's many questions, which is an obvious duplication of doen5167's previous question. Thus, I strongly recommend that you scroll up so you might understand that your appendix has uses.
Duckhead said: "Why did God give us foreskin if it is a health hazard? (as some people say)"
The prepuse, or the foreskin, though completely useless as it may seem, has a very important role in the child's first weeks.
But before going there, let's look at the fetus. The 'foreskin' develops in the foetus at 8 weeks as a ring of condensed epidermis. After 16 weeks, the foreskin grows forward to the tip of the glans. It already protects the fetus' penis at this stage, and medical research shows that if there had been no prepuce, the penis would likely suffer slight 'haemorrhage'. Moreover after birth, when the child is only a few minutes/hours old, lacking a prepuce's protection would cause the glans to become susceptible to injury. "Meatal ulcer" is almost restricted to circumcised male infants, and is only rarely seen in the uncircumcised child when the prepuce happens to be unusually loose and the glans therefore expose.
On the other hand, you should explore 'circumcision', Duckhead, so you'll be familiar with its advantages.
Duckhead said: "Why does God let the suffering on earth go on when it is usually the innocent who suffer?"
I had posted a loooong response on this query. So here you go...
First of all, I disapprove your phrase "it is usually the innocent who suffer". Nobody's innocent, we're all guilty of hell . But God provided free salvation through Jesus Christ . But this world is NOT all that there is and so Christians like me have a very different perspective on suffering and evil on this world. Here it goes...
IF GOD EXISTS, THEN | |
