Wysisyg

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
In computer language WYSIWYG means "what you see is what you get".

In collage I studed Theater. Esp. stage design and construction and stage lighting. I worked for the Ohio Ballet Company on lighting for three years. I studied under one of the Best lighting designers at the time.

We controled what people see, and in doing so, you control their reality for the time they are sitting there. The idea was to take them into another world. If you put a white costume on a person, then you contol the color of that costume with the gels that we put on the lights, so that costume could be any color we wanted it to be and we could change it as often as we wanted to change it. Or we could put flesh colored costume on the dancers and make them look nude. We could put light very low and shine them up and make it look like the dancers were jumping way high in the air. So was it real, or was it a illusion? Of course this does not even get into how to create a spectacle. We studied that going all the way back to the Greeks. They were the first to use perspective and the first to create a spectacle on the stage.

What has never left me, in 30 years now. Something I think about all the time, is the relationship between the universe or the world we live in, and what we are able to perceive. All that really matters is what our senses are able to detect. Or indirectly if you use scientific equipment, still our senses have to read that equipment. So there is a strong connection between the universe that we live in, and our ability to be able to see it, hear it or in some way perceive it.

So, just what was it that Darwin said about how the eye evolved?
 

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Revenant said:
Darwin certainly isn't the be all and end all of evolutionary theory, but anyway:
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/quote_darwin.html

Ok, lets take a look at your link about what Darwin says:

"To suppose that the eye [...] could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

So at first Darwin admits the eye could not have evolved. But then he starts to do the back stroke:

"the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory".

He decides it is no longer absurd, it is now just insuperable. Then he throws in the part he is famous for: the missing link. This is all well and good, but for the most part Darwin says: Do not expect much, and he does not deliver much at all.

Simply to address the eye as a receptical does not even begin to address the issue that there is a LOT of universe out there, and our eye preceives a VERY small part of it.

So to say the eye could have evolved, does not even begin to address the issue of WHY the eye evolved the way it did to preceive what it preceives. Much less to go beyond this to discuss why they eye does not precieves what it does not preceive.

His theory falls so short in this area, that it would be impossible to go beyond this to discuss just what it is that we are able to be aware of in the universe around us, and what we are not able to be aware of.

Darwins whole theory crumbles, because it is based on observations and he can not qualify himself as a creditable observer. He simply does not address the issue of why our ability to observe is so limited. So he does not begin to address all there is that we are not able to observe.

Let us give him the benifit of the doubt. Let us say that man can be aware of 10%, sense they say 90% of the data has not been discovered yet. How can we, based on how little we know, come up with a theory that is going to explain the meaning and the "origin" of life?

Darwin takes on a monumental task of trying to explain something with so very little information, knowledge or understanding of what he is trying to come up with a theory to explain.

I suggest that this is not a question of a missing link, that all Darwin has is a single link. It is whole chain that he is missing. He is trying to tell us about a chain, when all he has is one link from that chain.
 
Upvote 0

notto

Legend
May 31, 2002
11,130
664
54
Visit site
✟22,369.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
JohnR7 said:
Let us give him the benifit of the doubt. Let us say that man can be aware of 10%, sense they say 90% of the data has not been discovered yet. How can we, based on how little we know, come up with a theory that is going to explain the meaning and the "origin" of life?

Darwin takes on a monumental task of trying to explain something with so very little information, knowledge or understanding of what he is trying to come up with a theory to explain.

Where does Darwin even attempt try to address the meaning and origin of life? My cookbooks don't tell me how to build a bookshelf, therefore, they are worthless.
 
Upvote 0

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
JohnR7 said:
Ok, lets take a look at your link about what Darwin says:

"To suppose that the eye [...] could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

So at first Darwin admits the eye could not have evolved.

Darwin admits to no such thing, and all of your quote-mining cannot make it so.


JohnR7 said:
But then he starts to do the back stroke:

"the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory".

Actually, he posed a rhetorical question, and then proceeded to answer it. But you have, in the usual creationist fashion, chosen to discard those bits which you found unplesant. Let's look at Darwin's passage in its entirety:


Charles Darwin said:
To suppose that the eye [...] could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

makes a lot more sense when you read it honestly, doesn't it?

JohnR7 said:
He decides it is no longer absurd, it is now just insuperable. Then he throws in the part he is famous for: the missing link. This is all well and good, but for the most part Darwin says: Do not expect much, and he does not deliver much at all.

Now you know this is not what Darwin does. Why do you insist on spreading such obvious lies?


JohnR7 said:
Simply to address the eye as a receptical does not even begin to address the issue that there is a LOT of universe out there, and our eye preceives a VERY small part of it.

Because Darwin's not talking about the universe, he's talking about eyes.


JohnR7 said:
So to say the eye could have evolved, does not even begin to address the issue of WHY the eye evolved the way it did to preceive what it preceives.

Why did our eyes elvolve the way they did? Probably because they had no impetus to evolve any further. Dogs and cats are color blind, and generally have poorer eyesight than humans, but they have evolved far superior senses of smell and hearing to make them efficient hunters. How good do you want our eyes to be?


JohnR7 said:
Much less to go beyond this to discuss why they eye does not precieves what it does not preceive.

You mean why don't we have X-ray vision? Or telescopic sight? or infrared? We've survived pretty well without them, so what are you complaining about?


JohnR7 said:
His theory falls so short in this area, that it would be impossible to go beyond this to discuss just what it is that we are able to be aware of in the universe around us, and what we are not able to be aware of.

Again John, Darwin is not talking about Man's place in the universe, he's talking about how man (and the rest of life) got to where it is today. If you're concerned about how little you know about the universe around you, that's an issue you should bring up with God, not Darwin.


JohnR7 said:
Darwins whole theory crumbles, because it is based on observations and he can not qualify himself as a creditable observer. He simply does not address the issue of why our ability to observe is so limited. So he does not begin to address all there is that we are not able to observe.

Utter nonsense, and you know it.


JohnR7 said:
Let us give him the benifit of the doubt. Let us say that man can be aware of 10%, sense they say 90% of the data has not been discovered yet. How can we, based on how little we know, come up with a theory that is going to explain the meaning and the "origin" of life?

For the sake of argument, I'm going to stick with your made-up 10%/90% numbers.

Because Darwin formulated a theory based on the 10% he did see. And he knew what all scientists know:

1: He was aware that he only had 10% of the information (if that),

2: He knew that others would come along with information he didn't have(which has happened), and would add on to that 10% (which has also happened).

3: He knew that those later scientists would add their information to his own, and correct the things he got wrong (which has also happened; Darwin didn't know anything about DNA or genetics, for example, althogh he did observe hereditary variations).

4: He knew that those later scientists, adding their data to his own, would either:
-Support his theory (which it has, for the most part)
-modify or correct his theory (which discoveries such as DNA have done)
-Or possibly falsify his theory entirely (which has not happened, although you constantly life to say it has.)

5: he knew that later scientists, who added to his incomplete information, would themselves have incomplete information. As they corrected him, someone else will eventually come along and correct them.


JohnR7 said:
Darwin takes on a monumental task of trying to explain something with so very little information, knowledge or understanding of what he is trying to come up with a theory to explain.[/i]

You are right, relatively speaking. Darwin did have very little information to work with, especially considering what was known and believed in 1859.

What makes Darwin so impressive is how much he got right, based on the fact that what we now know and have observed (nowhere near 100%, I grant you, but a lot more than the 10% you credited Darwin with) supports him.


JohnR7 said:
I suggest that this is not a question of a missing link, that all Darwin has is a single link. It is whole chain that he is missing. He is trying to tell us about a chain, when all he has is one link from that chain.

Darwin had more than a "single" link, and you know it. All you have managed to establish is that Charles Darwin did not have all possible information; a fact that nobody, Creationist or not, is disputing.

You pounded on your strawman pretty hard, John, but in the end, you got nowhere.
 
Upvote 0

NeilUnreal

Active Member
Jul 29, 2002
77
3
Visit site
✟217.00
Faith
Christian
Darwin was a pretty bright guy (so was Wallace). It's amazing how much he got right given the evidence he had. He deserves to be remembered as a genius.

However, at this remove, anything specific Darwin may or may not have said or thought is vanishingly irrelevant to any specific of the modern science of evolution.

-Neil
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Nathan Poe said:
5: he knew that later scientists, who added to his incomplete information, would themselves have incomplete information. As they corrected him, someone else will eventually come along and correct them.

Interesting how no one had to "correct" Moses. He had God's whole plan of redemption and salvation. Nothing has been added that was not already known 3500 years ago. All the people who came along after Moses just help us to understand it better.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
JohnR7 said:
In computer language WYSIWYG means "what you see is what you get".

In collage I studed Theater. Esp. stage design and construction and stage lighting. I worked for the Ohio Ballet Company on lighting for three years. I studied under one of the Best lighting designers at the time.

We controled what people see, and in doing so, you control their reality for the time they are sitting there. The idea was to take them into another world. If you put a white costume on a person, then you contol the color of that costume with the gels that we put on the lights, so that costume could be any color we wanted it to be and we could change it as often as we wanted to change it. Or we could put flesh colored costume on the dancers and make them look nude. We could put light very low and shine them up and make it look like the dancers were jumping way high in the air. So was it real, or was it a illusion? Of course this does not even get into how to create a spectacle. We studied that going all the way back to the Greeks. They were the first to use perspective and the first to create a spectacle on the stage.

What has never left me, in 30 years now. Something I think about all the time, is the relationship between the universe or the world we live in, and what we are able to perceive. All that really matters is what our senses are able to detect. Or indirectly if you use scientific equipment, still our senses have to read that equipment. So there is a strong connection between the universe that we live in, and our ability to be able to see it, hear it or in some way perceive it.

So, just what was it that Darwin said about how the eye evolved?

Are you suggesting that God stage-managed the universe so what we see isn't real?

If that is the case, perhaps God stage-managed the Resurrection and it isn't real either, and therefore salvation isn't real.

Congratulations, John, once again you have managed to put forth an argument that, if it were true, would destroy Christianity. Unfortunately, we aren't going to let you get away with destroying Christianity with false arguments.

God created a real universe. That universe tells us that eyes evolved and that our senses (also God-created) can reliably tell us about that universe and how God created. And God created by evolution.

Darwin said the eye evolved in small stages. And the living creatures we see today strongly support that view. See Climbing Mt. Improbable by Richard Dawkins for the details.

BTW, did you ever go to a real college instead of a "collage"? Or, if you did, didn't they teach you the proper spelling of "college"?
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
JohnR7 said:
Interesting how no one had to "correct" Moses. He had God's whole plan of redemption and salvation. Nothing has been added that was not already known 3500 years ago. All the people who came along after Moses just help us to understand it better.

Wait a minute. Didn't Jesus correct Moses in Mark 10:1-0 and Matthew 3:16-21? Yes, he did. Also, Moses said that you had to obey the dietary laws for redemption and salvation. Yet God corrected Moses in a dream to Peter and removed the laws.

Finally, Moses said males had to be circumcised for redemption and salvation. Paul removed that.

Instead of simply memorizing verses at your bible "collage", perhaps you should simply READ the Bible and try to get some meaning out of what you read.
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Nathan already showed your false witness about the Darwin quote. I have to ask you, JohnR7: how is it OK for a "child of God" to, let us say, give false witness?

JohnR7 said:
So to say the eye could have evolved, does not even begin to address the issue of WHY the eye evolved the way it did to preceive what it preceives. Much less to go beyond this to discuss why they eye does not precieves what it does not preceive.

"Why the eye evolved"? You don't know? Doesn't the perception of light -- vision -- confer many advantages in the struggle for existence? Such as finding food and avoiding predators, just for starters? Or simply avoiding falling over a cliff?

What the eye can't perceive, of course, are air waves (sounds), chemicals (smell), contact with other entities (touch), vibrations in the ground, etc.

Why do eyes deal with only part of the electromagnetic spectrum? That's simple. Chemical bonds respond to light in these wavelengths. Perception is limited by physics and chemistry.

Darwins whole theory crumbles, because it is based on observations and he can not qualify himself as a creditable observer.

A theory crumbles because it is based on observations!!?? Does that mean that Christianity crumbles because it is based on observations -- observations of the risen Jesus? It must. Once again you advance an argument that, if we take it as true, destroys Christianity.

Even IF that last sentence were true, others observe the same things Darwin did. So we don't have to rely solely on Darwin. Yet in Christianity we have to rely that the authors of the gospels are either 1) credible observers or 2) accurately recorded those who did observe.

In your case, aren't we being asked to accept Angley's healings based on observers that might not be credible in medicine?

How can we, based on how little we know, come up with a theory that is going to explain the meaning and the "origin" of life?

Since evolution never tried to explain those things, what's the problem? Several times I've posted the quote from Origin where Darwin has the Creator breathe life into the first cell. So the origin of life is not part of what Darwin is trying to explain. Nor is the "meaning of life". Science doesn't deal with that.

Darwin is trying to explain:
1. The origin of species (they arise from other species)
2. The material origin of the designs in biological organisms. Those designs come from natural selection.

In both areas Darwin did VERY well. He did find the origins of both of those.
 
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

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
JohnR7 said:
Interesting how no one had to "correct" Moses. He had God's whole plan of redemption and salvation. Nothing has been added that was not already known 3500 years ago. All the people who came along after Moses just help us to understand it better.

What exactly did Moses say that was so true? I thought Christ was the whole key to God's plan of redenption and salvation. I don't seem to recall Moses mentioning Christ in any way.

Surely you're not referring to creationism as per Genesis, which has been refuted time and time again.

You must be referring to morality, the laws he set down in the other four books credited to him. But we're not talking about morality or social laws, we're talking about science.

Even so, Moses' "morality" was also "corrected..." by Christ, if I'm not mistaken. You yourself are fond of pointing out that Christians no longer live under law, but under Grace (Grace meaning whatever you want it to mean at the time)

So by all means, Johnny, point out something scientifically relevent that Moses said, and we'll look at it in detail.

Make sure it's scientific, John. I will not fall for your all-too-common tactic of sidetracking scientific discussions into "this is what the Bible says" debates.
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Nathan Poe said:
Make sure it's scientific, John. I will not fall for your all-too-common tactic of sidetracking scientific discussions into "this is what the Bible says" debates.

You think that there is something unscientific about the Bible?
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
JohnR7 said:
You think that there is something unscientific about the Bible?

You think there is something scientific about the Bible? Why?

Another distraction.

Nathan asked you, John: "So by all means, Johnny, point out something scientifically relevent that Moses said, and we'll look at it in detail."

Ball is in your court. No more attempts to distract and duck the issue. Give us something scientifically relevant that Moses said.
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
lucaspa said:
Ball is in your court. No more attempts to distract and duck the issue. Give us something scientifically relevant that Moses said.

Ok, first tell me what YOU mean by science, so you do not accuse me of talking about something that is not related to science.
 
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

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
JohnR7 said:
Moses deals with things that are eternal. That is just what I was looking for, when I found out about christianity.

That's theology, not science. You know the difference; don't play dumb.


I'm disappointed. Usually you're quick with a quote from the Bible. Actually, usually you're quick with nothing but a quote from the Bible. Why are you getting so vague all of a sudden?

Now John, you have a lot of room to work with: Biology, Geology, Cosmology, Chemistry, Physics, etc... What great scientific advances can we attribute to Moses that have stood the test of time?

Hmmm? Anything?


Anything at all?


(crickets chirping in background....)
 
Upvote 0

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Nathan Poe said:
That's theology, not science. You know the difference; don't play dumb.

Science only deals with the temperal world, the things that are going to be destroyed? Or maybe recycled would be more accurate if you want to look at it from a scientific perspective.

Now John, you have a lot of room to work with: Biology, Geology, Cosmology, Chemistry, Physics, etc... What great scientific advances can we attribute to Moses that have stood the test of time?

Most of what Moses writes about is history. So we can learn a lesson from the lives of others. He does give us one chapter on creation. It may not be much, but what he has given us has held up for 3500 years. Better one chapter that is eternal, then a whole library that is going to be burned up and lost when it is tested for it's truthfulness.
 
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

Nathan Poe

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2002
32,198
1,693
49
United States
✟41,319.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Democrat
JohnR7 said:
Science only deals with the temperal world, the things that are going to be destroyed? Or maybe recycled would be more accurate if you want to look at it from a scientific perspective.

And you know this how...?



Most of what Moses writes about is history. So we can learn a lesson from the lives of others.

I can read Shakespeare for that. It's good morality, but that doesn't mean it really happened.



He does give us one chapter on creation. It may not be much, but what he has given us has held up for 3500 years. Better one chapter that is eternal, then a whole library that is going to be burned up and lost when it is tested for it's truthfulness.

Are you talking about Genesis again? Don't you read any of these posts? Creationism has been falsified. The only way Genesis is "true" is by reinterpreting it to the point where it no longer means what it says on the page.

And you're still ducking the question and being vague.

Really John, would it be too hard for you to do the honorable thing and admit you've made a mistake? Or are you too prideful for that?
 
Upvote 0