- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,058
- 16,810
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
And you need to quit trolling the forum with sockpuppets John/Jazer/norman321.
Upvote
0
Top evolutionists drop neo-Darwinism
- Thread starter spiritualwarrior77
- Start date
And you need to quit trolling the forum with sockpuppets John/Jazer/norman321.
- Dec 25, 2003
- 42,058
- 16,810
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Craig appears to do a bit of conflating in his "1." response, but it's my understanding that he's been pretty consistent on a theological Genesis and not a supporter of hyper-literalist YECism. He seems to remain so in "2.".
2. If evolution is true, then why didn't God write Genesis differently?
It seems to me that the answer to this question must be that the purpose of Genesis is not to teach science. Rather its purpose is theological; it demythologizes the pagan creation myths of Israel’s neighbors, so that the sun, moon, and stars are no longer deities but just things God made, like the plants and animals. It is the demythologization of nature and an assertion of God’s sovereignty.
It seems to me that the answer to this question must be that the purpose of Genesis is not to teach science. Rather its purpose is theological; it demythologizes the pagan creation myths of Israel’s neighbors, so that the sun, moon, and stars are no longer deities but just things God made, like the plants and animals. It is the demythologization of nature and an assertion of God’s sovereignty.
Upvote
0
Peer reviewed articles is not hard "evidence" that eyes evolve. It amazing how many evolutionist think it does. There are a few atheist who can "see" that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRDAY39Zd9M
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,138
- 51,515
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
That's because it's a mirror, isn't it?
The Average Person Lies 3 Times Per Ten Minutes of Conversation
And people like to amaze themselves, don't they?
Upvote
0
Naraoia
Apprentice Biologist
That just has nothing to do with what I said at all.
Pretty sure I've been through the exact same stuff with you before, but let's see what the first part of the video has to offer. All of the claims and questions below occur within the first 2:36:
(1) The "minimal visual system". Video author says a visual system requires a retina, an optic nerve, a visual cortex and a "complex code" (no idea what he means by that) at the minimum. Is that true?
No. The simplest "visual" systems occur in single cells. Even bacteria can sense light with pigments and react to it by, e.g., swimming out of the way. The simplest animal visual system I know of is found in jellyfish larvae and consists of a single pigmented cell equipped with a cilium for movement. It's a system capable of sensing and reacting to light without the need for a retina, a brain, an optic nerve or a "complex code" of any kind. A visual system doesn't have to perceive sharp images (or indeed any images) to be useful!
(2) Accounts of eye evolution ignore the nerves. That's because
(a) Nerves are all over the place in most animals (especially in ones with diffuse nerve nets, like jellyfish). It really doesn't take much to hook one up to a photoreceptor in the skin. Nerves will take an electric signal from any source, so as long as the photoreceptor can generate a light-dependent ion flow, we're good.
(b) Creationists don't complain about the complexity of the optic nerve, eh? They're all over the eye. If you don't ask the question, don't complain when you don't get the answer.
(3) The code again. Maybe he explains what kind of "code" he's talking about later in the video, but certainly not in the part I've seen. Is he just trying to suggest there's a problem without having any idea what he's talking about??(b) Creationists don't complain about the complexity of the optic nerve, eh? They're all over the eye. If you don't ask the question, don't complain when you don't get the answer.
(4) Which part evolved first?
Photoreceptors, since they don't need any of the other parts to be useful. Then the rest coevolved. If you have photoreceptors, hooking them up to an integrating/processing apparatus (i.e. a nervous system) might be beneficial by giving you more sophisticated, global control over your reactions. Once you have the nervous system to process visual information, it opens the way to more complex eyes that collect more of it. With more information, it can be advantageous to upgrade the nervous system again. And so on.
(5) How did mutations keep track of what was already evolved?
They didn't. They just didn't have an advantage, and therefore didn't spread through the population, "before their time". A mutation that makes a patch of skin dimple in is pretty useful if you already have light sensitive cells there. In that case, it'll make a simple eye cup that's better at telling the direction of light than a flat eye patch. Otherwise, there's no advantage and the mutation simply drifts into oblivion. We're not talking about earth shattering mutations that will only arise once in a billion years here...
(5b) How did the 3 million retinal cells already there know that another 3 million are still needed?
The monster of teleology rears its ugly head again. Nothing knew anything in this whole process. The genome of some random little worm 600 million years ago wasn't striving to spit out a camera eye. If more photoreceptors benefited the animal, animals with more photoreceptors just ended up reproducing more successfully than their less visually acute conspecifics. That's it.
(5c) How did evolution know that two eyes are necessary for depth perception? (Or teleology rears higher)
It didn't. Bilaterian animals have a tendency to have pairs of eyes because they are, well, bilaterally symmetrical. If you asked the same question about kidneys or lungs, it'd immediately sound silly - there's no special need for two of either of these organs, they just occur in pairs because of general body symmetry.
Also, two is the minimum number of eyes required for depth perception. Quite a few animals have other numbers of eyes, even if we count a compound eye as a single eye. In fact, even many vertebrates have three, though the parietal eye is not image forming and mainly acts as a daily timekeeper. Lancelets, our distant relatives, have a single frontal eye that shares molecular and structural similarities with vertebrate eyes. My good old friend, the stem arthropod Opabinia had five eyes just in case it wasn't weird enough already. Scallops have whole series of eyes inside the edges of their shells. The same box jellyfish whose larvae we met under point (1) have four sets of six eyes, two of which are complex eyes with a lens and everything.
Once again, I find that actually knowing a little bit about the real diversity of life is death to arguments from ignorance. A lot of the "problems" creationists find with evolution stem from a limited knowledge of the natural world. If your education in zoology ends with your dog, of course you'll have a hard time imagining functioning animals wildly different from it.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Peer reviewed scientific articles aren't evidence, but a Youtube video is? Do you understand how ridiculous you look by saying that?
Upvote
0
verysincere
Exegete/Linguist
Interesting how the creationist video claimed to base its arguments on "common sense" and then proceeded to lie and defy basic facts. If this is the best argument which creationists and ID/IR fans can present, I say let's post it everywhere! It will sink such nonsense faster than anything an honest person could possible state.
However, I must admit that I had to watch the creationist eye video for a while before deciding whether it was simple parody.
However, I must admit that I had to watch the creationist eye video for a while before deciding whether it was simple parody.
Upvote
0
Do you see the you-tube video? He never claim to have evidence that eye evolved (or even created) but it's the evolutionist who needs to provide the evidence.
I don't know the guy personally but from his statements he states he's not a creationist. Of course evolutionist are good at coming up with conclusions with little or no evidence to support them.
So can plants sense light and react to it. Wonder why plants didn't evolve eyes.
He's an atheist so we are not in agreement. The only thing we do agree on is about what evolutionist accept by faith then tries to deny their faith.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
verysincere
Exegete/Linguist
Moreover, self-sabotage---a proud tradition in both creationist and ID circles---has considerable didactic value in preparing the honest viewer for self-education on the facts of evolution. And for those of us who value the Bible, we appreciate each and every opportunity for educating the public on the differences between the CHERISHED TRADITIONS of Christians and the ACTUAL TEACHINGS of Christ (which, of course, say absolutely nothing about the age of the earth or evolutionary processes.)
After all, how many dabblers in these topics have paused to consider that the Bible says NOTHING about a 4004 B.C. creation date, nothing about "the human one" (i.e., HADAM, the man) being created "instantly" as a mature adult male, or even a GLOBAL flood (i.e., Genesis only speaks of flooding "the entire land".) Tradition is a powerful force and it is the ever present backdrop to ALL of these creation-evolution debates. People may THINK they are defending the Bible but, in fact, they defend a cherished tradition represented by a popular interpretation of the Bible. [[And that's fine---as long as they don't (a) confuse tradition with what the Bible actual says, and (b) don't confuse their own wishful thinking for their own favorite tradition to be true with what the actual scientific and scriptural evidence actually tells us. With the Genesis flood, for example, it describes a flood which totally destroyed the only land/world [ERETZ] Noah knew and remained on that region for an entire year. If the reader remains faithful to what the Biblical text actually states, there is no major conflict with the scientific evidence.]]
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
No, why would I?
Yeah, said evidence has been around for years.
Are you joking? You really can't figure out why natural selection didn't favor the evolution of full blown eyes in plants? You seriously need this explained?
Upvote
0
verysincere
Exegete/Linguist
Oh really? Of course, you are quite good at coming up with "conclusions" of that sort which have little or no evidence to support them. How about your BEST EVIDENCE to support the conclusion you just posted? What is your BEST EXAMPLE of a conclusion of evolutionary biology "with little or no evidence" to support it?
As for the all too ubiquitous dependence upon the Argument from Personal Incredulity, you seem to think that your failure to educate yourself on the EVIDENCE for evolution means that the evidence does not exist. Of course, Michael Behe helped set the standard for this practice during his disastrous testimony during the Dover Trial. He settled once and for all the emptiness of the "irreducible complexity" argument----probably the most infamous argument from ignorance in the history of modern pseudo-science. Every time he was asked about published, peer-reviewed articles explaining various evolutionary mechanisms, he not only admitted his ignorance, he even stated that HE HAD LITTLE INTEREST IN THOSE FACTS, despite his writing books making claims about IC which presumed such evidence did not exist!
So yours is a "proud tradition." [And if your sarcasm meter is turned off, I would emphasize that that tradition has nothing to be proud about.]
Meanwhile, we shall await your BEST EVIDENCE of a conclusion of evolutionary biology which is not supported by copious evidence. (HINT: Simply declaring "There is zero evidence for ____" is neither helpful nor honest. But it is very traditional among your ranks!)
Upvote
0
Do you think gravity is smart? Or is this where I have to remind you that natural forces and basic ecological principles aren't actually gods? I understand why thousands of years ago primitive peoples would anthropomorphize natural forces into gods, but that sort of thing is rather silly these days.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
CabVet
Question everything
- Dec 7, 2011
- 11,738
- 176
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Yes, it is one lie after the other. All claims are false. There is plenty of evidence to explain eye evolution, I posted the first of a series of 10 videos explaining just that, but I bet you didn't look, did you? Better to keep believing in lies.
How about you support your statements with facts for a change? Please, provide evidence for evolutions "coming up with conclusions when they have no evidence". If you do not, I will assume you are misleading.
Because they don't move.
I don't need to know his religious beliefs to know that he is not only wrong, but also blatantly falsifying information and telling lies. There is no faith involved in accepting evolution, all you need to do is look at the evidence.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Locked
