Evolution of the human eye

[Mr Laurier]

John 1:3
Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Huh?
This is a total non-sequitur.
And its just bizzare

 

[AV1611VET]

... unique creations,

Indeed.

They didn't even generate any evidence.

 

[Mr Laurier]

ahh ok so 290,000 years to learn to make a bow then 10,000 more to make everything we have today?

No.
You are so far off that you needed a Sherpa guide to get there.
Modern humans also inherited tool making from our Homo Erectus ancestors. That tool making tradition goes back at least a million years.
We have been refining our took kit for over 500,000 years. But some technologies require agriculture. We started farming some 15,000 to 20,000 years ago. And this opened a whole range of new technologies. Before that we had no use for anything we could not carry easily from place to place.

 

[Estrid]

ahh ok so 290,000 years to learn to make a bow then 10,000 more to make everything we have today?

No. Such a gross and inaccurate simplification gets a zero.

 

[Shemjaza]

ahh ok so 290,000 years to learn to make a bow then 10,000 more to make everything we have today?

Progression of technology and civilisation isn't automatic.

Western and Northern Europeans didn't have writing or forge iron until they met the Romans

 

[renniks]

It's not really a contradiction.

The evidence tells us what happened and then you just have to critically analyse the causes.

Given the constant variation and small changes of life currently and through the eons of the past, if it has been under constant deliberate control by God then there are has been many weird littler bits of fiddling... if it's a consequence of natural processes it doesn't matter if that was ultimately the will of God or not.

Only as a human, you are only seeing a tiny bit of reality, while God sees it all. So all your analysis is very insignificant. There is not such thing as natural processes if it's controlled by a supernatural being.

 

[Speedwell]

Only as a human, you are only seeing a tiny bit of reality, while God sees it all. So all your analysis is very insignificant. There is not such thing as natural processes if it's controlled by a supernatural being.

So how do you tell which is which?

 

[renniks]

ahh ok so 290,000 years to learn to make a bow then 10,000 more to make everything we have today?

Yeah, it doesn't make sense. Just in a couple hundred years we've gone from communicating through letters carried by horses to the internet. But it took us all these thousands of years before that to get basically nowhere? I don't think the people using stone-age technology were at all stupid. Flaking a stone tip takes smarts and more skill than most have not. There's no reason they would not have been smelting iron, etc much earlier if the supposed time periods are right.

 

[renniks]

So how do you tell which is which?

You still aren't getting it. There are not two different sorts of processes. It's all God.

 

[Estrid]

Yeah, it doesn't make sense. Just in a couple hundred years we've gone from communicating through letters carried by horses to the internet. But it took us all these thousands of years before that to get basically nowhere? I don't think the people using stone-age technology were at all stupid. Flaking a stone tip takes smarts and more skill than most have not. There's no reason they would not have been smelting iron, etc much earlier if the supposed time periods are right.

Proof of God!

 

[AV1611VET]

There's no reason they would not have been smelting iron, etc much earlier if the supposed time periods are right.

Indeed.

Adam's near descendants were doing just that.

Genesis 4:22a And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron:

QV also:

Recently someone posted a two-hour video of an atheist debating Kent Hovind.

The atheist started his rant describing the [human] authors of the Bible as 'ignorant.'

I disagree.

If you make a ratio of knowledge acquired to knowledge available, it's hard to call them "ignorant."

What the atheist was doing, was comparing knowledge acquired back then, with knowledge on hand now.

And that's not a fair comparison.

Let's see a scientist ... any scientist ... make a boomerang without the use of computers.

 

[AV1611VET]

Proof of God!

Demanding proof now, are we?

The scientific method can take a hike, can't it?

 

[Speedwell]

You still aren't getting it. There are not two different sorts of processes. It's all God.

Oh, I get it. I believe it. But that has nothing to do with creationism--you know, the subject of this thread?

 

[Speedwell]

Demanding proof now, are we?

Scoffing at it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Scoffing at it.

Hmmm -- scoffing at something scientists say they don't incorporate into their scientific method?

 

[Mr Laurier]

Yeah, it doesn't make sense. Just in a couple hundred years we've gone from communicating through letters carried by horses to the internet. But it took us all these thousands of years before that to get basically nowhere? I don't think the people using stone-age technology were at all stupid. Flaking a stone tip takes smarts and more skill than most have not. There's no reason they would not have been smelting iron, etc much earlier if the supposed time periods are right.

Except that iron smelting requires agriculture, and ceramics, and bronze smelting.
It also requires access to sources of iron ore.
Alas, the best sources of iron ore, are far removed from the places where early agriculture could develop.
The people who had the ore, had no technology to smelt it. It was just a pretty red rock that made a nice pigment for decoration.
It took time for agriculture to spread to iron rich areas. And more time for bronze working to become advanced enough to allow iron to be extracted from clay.
And more time for the bronze workers to recognize the value of the slag they were finding in their hottest furnaces.

 

[Shemjaza]

Only as a human, you are only seeing a tiny bit of reality, while God sees it all. So all your analysis is very insignificant. There is not such thing as natural processes if it's controlled by a supernatural being.

If I was having a conversation with an all powerful supernatural being, then you would have a point... but I'm talking to another human as limited and flawed me.

So the verifiable and repeatable will be preferable to conviction that all the varied, yet consistent evidence is false, for mysterious reasons.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Demanding proof now, are we?

The scientific method can take a hike, can't it?

Yeah we’ll no one has been able to prove the “theory” of evolution either so...

 

[BNR32FAN]

Proof of God!

We can’t prove God nor evolution but we can present evidence.

 

[Estrid]

Yeah we’ll no one has been able to prove the “theory” of evolution either so...

Only the grossly uneducated think God or a scientific theory can be proved.