My favorite argument for the existence of God

[xianghua]

It has been shown how the very complex eye such as we have (essentially a camera oscura with a lens) had various precursor versions that were a camera oscura without a lens, the prior to that a mere divot in the surface of the life form with a photo receptive patch, etc.

again: not realy. first: if a complex eye can evolve from a simple one, but the first eye (or some steps during eye evolution) cant evolve stepwise, then its still mean that eye cant evolve by evolution. so how it will help to your argument?

secondly: it cant be reduce. you cant just add lens to an eye and it will work (but the opposite may be possible by the way). you will need also the components that support the new lans. you can test it with a real world camera. can you add a lens into a camera without a lens and it will improve the camera function? if so, i will agree that some of the steps may be possible. but again: the argument fail because the reason above.

AND why didn't the fully formed current version of the mammalian eye show up at the very beginning of life? Why does it look like it evolved?

but the first eyes are no less complex then modern once, so the claim about simple to complex isnt true.

ANd remember, just finding an insect like multi-lens eye is not the same thing.

why not? it's a complex eye no less then a modern one.

But they don't all show up at the same time in life.

look above. we can find several eyes with a different levels of complexity at the same time. so it's not true.

And that means you have to propose where THAT life form came from... and if it was "designed" where did THAT designer come from. I hope you see the issue you have to deal with here.

if he eternal he dont need a designer. very simple.

It is pointless to use human design to infer design in nature.

if someone will create a human, you will consider it also as a robot from a physical perspective?

 

[TBDude65]

again: not realy. first: if a complex eye can evolve from a simple one, but the first eye (or some steps during eye evolution) cant evolve stepwise, then its still mean that eye cant evolve by evolution. so how it will help to your argument?

secondly: it cant be reduce. you cant just add lens to an eye and it will work (but the opposite may be possible by the way). you will need also the components that support the new lans. you can test it with a real world camera. can you add a lens into a camera without a lens and it will improve the camera function? if so, i will agree that some of the steps may be possible. but again: the argument fail because the reason above.




but the first eyes are no less complex then modern once, so the claim about simple to complex isnt true.




why not? it's a complex eye no less then a modern one.





look above. we can find several eyes with a different levels of complexity at the same time. so it's not true.





if he eternal he dont need a designer. very simple.





if someone will create a human, you will consider it also as a robot from a physical perspective?

You seriously need to educate yourself on how photosensitive cells led to the gradual evolution of the first primitive eye (and not only that, but this happened multiple times in different groups. Molluscs have different eyes from arthropods and both differ from the eyes of vertebrates)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

you are only assume this because you believe that human can evolve naturally.

Timewaster.

Humans are still evolving.
5 Signs Humans are Still Evolving.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

a scientific data.

Citation?

 

[Obliquinaut]

again: not realy. first: if a complex eye can evolve from a simple one, but the first eye (or some steps during eye evolution) cant evolve stepwise, then its still mean that eye cant evolve by evolution. so how it will help to your argument?

It helps the argument because we see the progression:

1. Photochemical reactions (relative simple and straightforward)
2. Eyespots which are simple and predicated on the above photochemical reaction
3. The development of more complex eye "pits"
4. The developmet of more complex "camera oscura" type lens-less eyes
5. The development of fully lensed eyes

We don't see the fully formed mammalian eye showing up in the Cambrian.

Now I am hoping you will read what I say next closely: while we do not necessarily see every single step in between the fact that we DO SEE STEPS and we DO SEE SIMPLE-->COMPLEX development over time indicates that these things can evolve.

Unless you believe that your Intelligent designer is actively working designing new features throughtout the history of the earth's lifeforms.

At that point you should find evidence of the actual designer's existence, not just their "handiwork".

secondly: it cant be reduce.

Why not? I don't get your point here. It IS reduced just by showing the difference between the mammalian eye and a protist eyespot. That IS REDUCTION.

you can test it with a real world camera. can you add a lens into a camera without a lens and it will improve the camera function? if so, i will agree that some of the steps may be possible. but again: the argument fail because the reason above.

Pinhole cameras work fine without a lens. Hence cameras are reducibly complex.

but the first eyes are no less complex then modern once, so the claim about simple to complex isnt true.

How do you arrive at that? Because you found a reference to a multi-lensed eye 100million years after the beginning of the Cambrian which was, itself BILLIONS OF YEARS after the first life forms are found on earth?

if he eternal he dont need a designer. very simple.

So then you are saying it is GOD. Which of course opens you up to special pleading (first problem), AND it means if GOD then why isn't all design perfected and why don't all complex forms show up from the beginning?

if someone will create a human, you will consider it also as a robot from a physical perspective?

You REALLY need to let this point go. No one is making synthetic humans. We can make robots and maybe one day we will be able to create a fully-formed human in the lab by chemical processes, but that's a bizarred ultra-long-term idea. And, of course, it will have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE DEBATE.

You are making a logic error here: just because humans design complex things does not mean that all complex things are designed.

 

[Kylie]

so you are saying that nature always exist?

Yes.

 

[doubtingmerle]

realy? do you think that this object is the result of design or not?:

robotic hand‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

Do robotic hands require a designer? Yes.

Follow up question: Who or what is that designer? Answer, probably a human. After all we know what humans design. But there are other possibilities. For instance, computers are also good at doing design, and they have invented some unique designs. They use a process of genetic algorithms which actually mimics evolution. A code is developed to specify many possible designs in a design space, and a computer starts with random guesses, then mimics mutations and marriages to end up with various new designs. Each design is tested in a computer simulation, and the best designs live to reproduce new designs with mutations to create the next generation for testing. Rinse, lather, repeat. The final result is often surprising designs that nobody thought of. See Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation .

So computers can do designs, but there is a catch. If the design is complex, programming all those conditions takes a long time. And the computers soon bog down, as the computation time increases exponentially with increasing complexity. But it could theoretically still be done. Given enough of thought and time, a computer could theoretically be made to design a better monkey. One would first have to fully understand and program the meaning of everything in the monkey's genetic code. And then one would need to understand and program everything in the environment to program a computer simulation. Even if one programmed this all, the resulting code would require enormous computing power, and one would need lots of patience while waiting for it to complete. But with enough of time, if written correctly, it could design a better monkey.

Programming a simulation of the jungle is ridiculously hard. Of course, instead of simulating our monkey designs, we could actually build each generation of monkey to the code our computer produces, and we could turn the monkeys loose and see which survive. And if we could only find some way to track them and get the best monkey DNA codes to reproduce with variations, we could even do the design without a computer.

How could we do that?

Oh, wait I figured it out! I know of a machine that will make monkeys for us, duplicating the best DNA with variations. Its called a monkey. So if only we had some monkeys, and left them have babies, and left the fittest reproduce with variations, we would have all we need to duplicate our genetic algorithm computer for making a better monkey. The process is slow but it would work.

We already have monkeys. And they are already at work--right now--building better monkeys. Its called evolution.

So yes, in a sense, every mechanical hand, watch, penguin, computer generated design and bacteria has a "designer". But that designer could be a human, a space alien, a computer program, or natural selection. Different things have different designers.

Your error is in saying that since a watch has a human designer, therefore everything has a human designer. That is not valid. Some things have different designers. And descent with modification combined with natural selection--the blind watchmaker--is a very efficient designer.

So does a penquin need a "designer"? Yes, if you consider the blind watchmaker--the process of evolution--a designer.

 

[Ana the Ist]

because its to complex to evolve naturally. so when i see a robot i can conclude design for sure. do you agree or disagree?

Well, we know robots currently don't evolve (though I won't say that's something that could never happen) and we know they're designed...we also have a ton of evidence that evolution is a fact, so I'm not quite sure what you're asking me here.

see my answer above. we know that such objects can evolve naturally.

And what makes mankind so much more complex?

 

[dmmesdale]

Well, we know robots currently don't evolve (though I won't say that's something that could never happen) and we know they're designed...we also have a ton of evidence that evolution is a fact, so I'm not quite sure what you're asking me here.

What kind? Change ove time or common descent and blind watchmaker? Are these discredited drawings still in Biology textbooks or have they finally been removed?

 

[Ana the Ist]

What kind? Change ove time or common descent and blind watchmaker?

I hope this clears things up...

Evolution - Wikipedia

Are these discredited drawings still in Biology textbooks or have they finally been removed?

How should I know? Did I give you the impression that I was a teacher or textbook writer?

 

[Jimmy D]

Are these discredited drawings still in Biology textbooks or have they finally been removed?

I'm going to guess they've been removed, am I right?

It's a bit pathetic that you need to cling to 100 year old drawings to attempt to make a point though, have you got anything to say about modern comparative embryology? It isn't 1892 anymore.

 

[xianghua]

Yes.

but we have many scientific evidences that it has a beginning. so you are argue against the scientific evidences.

 

[dmmesdale]

I'm going to guess they've been removed, am I right?

It's a bit pathetic that you need to cling to 100 year old drawings to attempt to make a point though, have you got anything to say about modern comparative embryology? It isn't 1892 anymore.

Oh c'mon Jimmy. The fraud was still in the bio textbooks up until 2000 and beyond. It is fair game to expose all the blunders and deceits. Surely you don't want poor students purchasing overpriced textbooks with discredited information in them. It took Well's book to expose all the bogus outdated information in the textbooks including the embryo pics being used as evidence for common descent. Common descent does not self correct unless outsiders expose their errors. It is you guys who should clean up your own mistakes. If you don't then others have to do it for you.

What do Modern Textbooks Really Say about Haeckel's Embryos? | Center for Science and Culture

As Jonathan Wells points out in his recent article, The Cracked Haeckel Approach to Evolutionary Reasoning, “Many modern biology textbooks inform students that Haeckel’s dictum, ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,’ has been discredited, but the same textbooks often use Haeckel’s drawings (or modern versions of them) to persuade students that human embryos provide clues to our evolutionary history and evidence for Darwin’s theory.” Therefore, what we are claiming is that various modern textbooks have used Haeckel’s embryo drawings in precisely the manner that Darwinists now deny:

• (1) They show embryo drawings that are essentially recapitulations of Haeckel's fraudulent drawings — drawings that downplay and misrepresent the actual differences between early stages of vertebrate embryos;
• (2) They have used these drawings as evidence for evolution — in the present day — and not simply to provide some kind of historical context for evolutionary thought;
• (3) Even if the textbooks do not completely endorse Haeckel’s false “recapitulation” theory, they have used their Haeckel-based drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos, which is the key misrepresentation made by Haeckel. They then cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry.

That is why they say things like this. Quote.

''Although it is stated that science is self-correcting, which it is, it is also evident that the theory of evolution, almost exclusively among theories, is massively tarnished by both fraud and mistakes. It isn't wise to present students with confusing information that is quite likely inaccurate or is liable to be so readily overturned by further research.''

 

[xianghua]

It helps the argument because we see the progression:

ok. first: i never said that every step in eye evolution must be ic (irreducible complexity) . i do said that several steps in eye evolution are ic. so i gave the first step as example. the first step (a light detector system) is too complex and cant evolve stepwise because it's need several parts at once. and if it's true then its means that eye cant evolve by evolution and evolution is false. and in this c ase all other things arent matter.

We don't see the fully formed mammalian eye showing up in the Cambrian.

but we do find several complex eyes that arent less complex. human actually have only one lens when some creatures from the cambrian have about 30,000. so by some factors this more complex then human eye.

Now I am hoping you will read what I say next closely: while we do not necessarily see every single step in between the fact that we DO SEE STEPS and we DO SEE SIMPLE-->COMPLEX development over time indicates that these things can evolve.

again- not true. you can remove parts from a video camera and it will still work fine. but it doesnt mean that the entire parts in the camera can be remove too.

How do you arrive at that? Because you found a reference to a multi-lensed eye 100million years after the beginning of the Cambrian which was, itself BILLIONS OF YEARS after the first life forms are found on earth?

do you have evidence for simpler eyes before this fossil?

You REALLY need to let this point go. No one is making synthetic humans.

so if someone will create such a human, we can consider it as a robot or not?

 

[xianghua]

Well, we know robots currently don't evolve

but if a walking creature is a kind of a robot then this claim isnt true according to evolution. so the question here is if we can consider a walking creature as a robot. and if it can be consider as a robot then according to evolution a robot can evolve naturally.

we also have a ton of evidence that evolution is a fact, so I'm not quite sure what you're asking me here.

we will check this claim later. but first we need to check my first claim about the robot.

 

[xianghua]

Your error is in saying that since a watch has a human designer, therefore everything has a human designer.

i actually never said that. i only said that if a watch need a designer (and it could be any designer) then human need a designer too. very simple.

That is not valid. Some things have different designers. And descent with modification combined with natural selection--the blind watchmaker--is a very efficient designer.

you are welcome to believe that a robot can evolve without a designer. so far the scientific evidence point otherwise.

 

[pitabread]

the first step (a light detector system) is too complex and cant evolve stepwise because it's need several parts at once.

But you can't prove this. Just because a biological system needs several 'parts' does not means it's inherently unevolvable especially given what we do know about evolution co-opting existing parts via functional changes.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What kind? Change ove time or common descent and blind watchmaker? Are these discredited drawings still in Biology textbooks or have they finally been removed?

Have you ever bothered to compare these drawings with modern photographs? Maybe you should.

If anything, I'ld say it is quite amazing that Haeckel succeeded to producing drawings wich such level of accurate detail in 1873.

Obviously, they aren't as accurate as actual photographs. But they are accurate enough for the point it made. When compared to actual photographs, it is clear that at a fundamental level, Haeckel was bang-on-the-money correct.

As usual, this entire thing is just another case of cdesign proponentsists and creationsts to take 1 or 2 comments from an actual biologist in an article of 1998 in which he says that the drawings aren't 100% accurate.

As usual, "not 100% accurate" in context of evolution then gets translated into "COMPLETELY WRONG! FRAUD!" in their propaganda mill.

 

[pitabread]

but if a walking creature is a kind of a robot

Living creatures are not robots.

 

[Jimmy D]

Oh c'mon Jimmy. The fraud was still in the bio textbooks up until 2000 and beyond. It is fair game to expose all the blunders and deceits. Surely you don't want poor students purchasing overpriced textbooks with discredited information in them. It took Well's book to expose all the bogus outdated information in the textbooks including the embryo pics being used as evidence for common descent. Common descent does not self correct unless outsiders expose their errors. It is you guys who should clean up your own mistakes. If you don't then others have to do it for you.

What do Modern Textbooks Really Say about Haeckel's Embryos? | Center for Science and Culture

As Jonathan Wells points out in his recent article, The Cracked Haeckel Approach to Evolutionary Reasoning, “Many modern biology textbooks inform students that Haeckel’s dictum, ‘ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,’ has been discredited, but the same textbooks often use Haeckel’s drawings (or modern versions of them) to persuade students that human embryos provide clues to our evolutionary history and evidence for Darwin’s theory.” Therefore, what we are claiming is that various modern textbooks have used Haeckel’s embryo drawings in precisely the manner that Darwinists now deny:

• (1) They show embryo drawings that are essentially recapitulations of Haeckel's fraudulent drawings — drawings that downplay and misrepresent the actual differences between early stages of vertebrate embryos;
• (2) They have used these drawings as evidence for evolution — in the present day — and not simply to provide some kind of historical context for evolutionary thought;
• (3) Even if the textbooks do not completely endorse Haeckel’s false “recapitulation” theory, they have used their Haeckel-based drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos, which is the key misrepresentation made by Haeckel. They then cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry.

That is why they say things like this. Quote.

''Although it is stated that science is self-correcting, which it is, it is also evident that the theory of evolution, almost exclusively among theories, is massively tarnished by both fraud and mistakes. It isn't wise to present students with confusing information that is quite likely inaccurate or is liable to be so readily overturned by further research.''

Which textbooks? The first one on your Discovery Institute list is this....

In what way is this drawing one of Haeckel's, what is inaccurate about it, or about the accompanying text?

The only one on your list that actually shows Haeckel's drawings is talking about them in a historical context.

As I said, pathetic.

If you've found a flaw in modern comparative embryology please point it out.