Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Evolutionist doesn't seem to understand there is a huge difference between a light sensitive spot from an eyeball. A moving eyeball would be a huge disadvantage without the muscles to control it and muscles are completely useless without an movable eyeball in an eye socket. To me all evolution ever had was Darwin's "the little eyeball that could " fairy tale. They continue to repeat Darwin's fairy tale to this day.It isn't a fairy tale. Is that all you have, name calling?
The argument that creationists give us is that you need all of the parts in the human eye all at once in order to have function. This isn't true. Even something as simple as a light sensing organelle in a single celled protist can provide a selective advantage.
I'm looking for the guy who did it. If we have to know the designer before we can determine if something is designed or not.
And "the Greeks" is just a guess.
Evolutionist doesn't seem to understand there is a huge difference between a light sensitive spot from an eyeball.
A moving eyeball would be a huge disadvantage without the muscle to control it and muscles are completely useless without an movable eyeball in an eye socket.
To me all evolution ever had was Darwin's "the little eyeball that could " fairy tale.
A stationary eye would be an advantage than a moving eyeball in an eye socket without muscles.We understand it just fine. We also understand that there are several selectable adaptations that bridge the gap between the light sensitive spot and the vertebrate eyeball.
A stationary eyeball would be a huge advantage over those without any eyeballs.
Also, last I checked we use muscles for things other than moving eyeballs.
I never called Darwin a name. A fairy tale is his "the little eyeball that could" story and has nothing to do with science. In fact he wished the fossil record support his story but he knew it didn't and it still doesn't. His intermediate were living creatures of his day.Again with the name calling. Darwin gave real examples of intermediate eyes. As usual, you ignore it and throw mud.
A stationary eye would be an advantage than a moving eyeball in an eye socket without muscles.
I never called Darwin a name. A fairy tale is his "the little eyeball that could" story and has nothing to do with science. In fact he wished the fossil record support his story but he knew it didn't and it still doesn't. His intermediate were living creatures of his day.
What?I supplied as much evidence as you did for biological systems.
Be default illusion are something that can be shown to be an illusion. The universe could be an illusion but by default most of us believes it's real. Of course anyone who choose to believe the universe is an illusion it's impossible to prove to them it's real. The same with ID.That is to say, "none."
So each and every one of us make three fundamental assumptions:Be default illusion are something that can be shown to be an illusion. The universe could be an illusion but by default most of us believes it's real. Of course anyone who choose to believe the universe is an illusion it's impossible to prove to them it's real. The same with ID.
And all three points to ID. Why would you believe we can know something if the universe is created out of complete chaos?So each and every one of us make three fundamental assumptions:
1. Reality exists.
2. We can know something about reality.
3. Models with predictive capabilities work better than those without.
Why do you feel that this type of come back can in anyway improve support for your position?Since you are comparing the helicopter rotor to the bac flag, perhaps you could point to the turbine engine that is running on kerosene within the bac flag.
I don't have to "measure" design. What means of measurement do you suggest?Until you can show how to measure 'design', it is the same thing. Enough with the excuses.
Provided evidence that it is an illusion.
From what scientific evidence do you derive that?And all three points to ID. Why would you believe we can know something if the universe is created out of complete chaos?
Again if someone refuse to believe the universe is real then there is no evidence that can prove it to that person. Anyone who refused to believe "design in nature" is real then no scientific evidence could prove to that person that it is. Design in nature is part of our universe and both by default is assumed to be real unless there is good evidence to prove otherwise.From what scientific evidence do you derive that?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?