- Oct 20, 2017
- 890
- 103
- 93
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Widowed
Upvote
0
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.
I'm Tired Of Seeing This Charles Darwin Quote Taken Out Of Context:
"In the sixth chapter of On The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin addresses "Organs of Extreme Perfection" – organs like the eye, the formation of which due to natural selection, Darwin "freely confessed," seems "absurd in the highest possible degree." But this is only part of a much longer quote.
~
In fact, the full quotation demonstrates Darwin's thoughts on the matter to be quite the opposite:
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, 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. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility."
What he or anyone else says is irrelevant unless you can explain genetically how parents with no gene for eyes can have a kid with eyes.
The real strawman is you presenting similar bone structure as if that is evidence. Pictures are not evidence. You must explain HOW it is genetically possible
You are claiming dna came from a god correct? I want you to provide evidence of this claim and shifting the burden of proof to me, is simply evasion.
Just to be really clear here, are you saying it is not possible to have offspring with different physiology? It's not possible to have extra bones/muscles/ligaments? Or not possible for those bones/muscles/ligaments to be slightly different to those of the parent?Basically genetics. All characteristics are determined by the gene pool of the parents. If the parents don't have a gene for fins, they can't have a kid with fins.
I didn't present it as evidence, I merely said it wasn't so dissimilar as you claimed, however, I'm not an expert on whale evolution. If you'd like to know how it's possible maybe have a read through these...
Adaptive Evolution of 5′HoxD Genes in the Origin and Diversification of the Cetacean Flipper | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic
Limbs in whales and limblessness in other vertebrates: mechanisms of evolutionary and developmental transformation and loss
Neuromuscular Anatomy and Evolution of the Cetacean Forelimb
so here we have ^^ This ^^ which shows all the measurable sizes for all the skulls we've found so far for all the hominids ranked by time, size and species. As you can plainly see, there's most certainly a trend towards gradual increase in brain case volume over time. You can even see this trend in increasing skull volume within particular species of hominids that were around for some time...
It always ends when the person can't provide any evidence for what they say.
Have a very + day.
Science shows us that the world we live in is a very real world. Jesus really did go to Calvary to die for the Sins of the World. He lived His life as an example for us to follow as to how we are to live our life.
There is no evidence. Since DNA is in existence, it had to be created or it is eternal. As I said it is far to complex to have happened by accident. I want you to provide a way for it to have come into existence.
I have quit reading links because they NEVER provide any evidence for what they say. Feel free to cut and paste any evidence in your sources. I will only comment on what you offer as evidence.
Do the research and stop faking it.
A neo-Darwinian understanding of the mechanism for generating new biological structure generates three specific predictions or empirical expectations concerning the fossil record. Given the operation of the neo-Darwinian mechanism, the fossil record should show: (1) the gradual emergence of biological complexity and the existence of numerous transitional forms leading to new phyla-level body plans; (2) small-scale morphological diversity preceding the emergence of large-scale morphological disparity; and (3) a steady increase in the morphological distance between organic forms over time and, consequently, a steady increase in the number of phyla over time.
No non-sequiturs please. Act like you have had a college class or two.
I can tell that I am going to be particularly tough on my students' false and unsuported [sic] claims tomorrow. My fault for taking these discussions outside the faculty club.
Just to be really clear here, are you saying it is not possible to have offspring with different physiology? It's not possible to have extra bones/muscles/ligaments? Or not possible for those bones/muscles/ligaments to be slightly different to those of the parent?
LOL. If you want to maintain your ignorance on the topic that's up to you - I won't be spoon feeding you though.
One does not have to have a degree in science to understand some simple basics. I have the ability to understand what creation scientists say about evolution.
It is not necessary to test what is known. If something is known, it has been proved.
To know it you must have some evidence. Post your evidence so we can know if you know. Just make sure it is scientific, not someones opinion.Yes, I know.Apes and humans are different species and DNA prove it.
But not legitimate ones?
if you don't understand the science, how - exactly - can you understand what the creationists claim? HOW do you know that what they claim is correct?
Whaaa??????
If you test a method on a known, and the method reproduces what is known, then we have verification that the method produces accurate results.
Have you ever flown on a plane? Do you know what a wind tunnel is, and why/how they are used?
Wait.. So YOU want ME to provide "evidence" that humans and apes are different species?
I was agreeing with you! You want me to give you evidence for something YOUR wrote and I agreed with???
Do you not actually read what others write?
Clearly not.
It seems that further exchanges with you will be a waste of time and effort.
Just to be really clear here, are you saying it is not possible to have offspring with different physiology? It's not possible to have extra bones/muscles/ligaments? Or not possible for those bones/muscles/ligaments to be slightly different to those of the parent?
It might be possible through a mutation, but mutations NEVER result in a change of the species.
You are not qualified to classify me as not knowing sdomething.
Non-sequitur. I asked how you know that what you read from creationists is accurate. It seems obvious that you merely take what they write at face value.When you present the science for any claim mad in the TOE, I will explain it to you.
You said something about testing a known, not on a known. Big difference.
It is such a comfort to have someone in the forum who never misreads anything.
Yes I totally get that my friend. However those "predictions" must be anchored in observational facts...e.g. we can predict that if another universe exists it is like all other one universes we have observed. We can't predict it is all illuminated in pink and sound travels faster than light there. If our universe is the product of a multiverse scenario then we must base our predictions of what those other universes might act like based on what we have observed. We have observed that the universe is finite thus if other universes exist they must likewise be predicted to be finite. Otherwise we are just talking sci-fi nonsense.
So then based upon observation our universe has to have some ultimate infinite source
"predicted" from the observation that finite things do not randomly form from nothing.
..and therefore if ever there were a time when nothing existed then nothing would still exist.
So logic dictates that something else infinite in nature must exist.
We observe that the characteristic of specificity only comes from intelligent sources and never once has been observed forming from random unguided processes.
We also observe that the arrangement and makeup of our universe, solar system, laws of physics, and life itself all consist of the characteristic of specificity.
Human intelligence?Thus we can "predict" that the infinite source of the universe must also posses intelligence.
You tell me...what term in the English language is defined as an infinite, intelligent, creator of the universe and all life? Gee I brought us all the way there only using observation and never cracking a single Bible.
It is time for you to grow up both intellectually and emotionally. You could have engaged my points about the ramifications (knock down objections) of thencambrian explosion. Instead I get ad hominem attacks.You are not in any such club.
Actual faculty understand how dishonest and pathetic blatant plagiarism is.
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?