• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

The best evidence for Creationism

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟53,280.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
AV1611VET said:
You must be thinking of taotaomo'nas, eh?
Click to expand...

No idea, but pick any of the bright Bronze Age and post-Bronze Age ideas. Your choice.

Or choose from your own; I thought there was something about angels being offered to rape...

Either way. More raping now, than then?
 
Upvote 0

Ronald

Exhortations
Site Supporter
Jul 30, 2004
4,620
981
southern
✟111,578.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
 
Upvote 0

Ronald

Exhortations
Site Supporter
Jul 30, 2004
4,620
981
southern
✟111,578.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
 
Upvote 0

Mr Strawberry

Newbie
Jan 20, 2012
4,180
81
Great Britain
✟27,542.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship

Is God responsible for human nature?
.

How do you know it's God's word?
 
Upvote 0

Ronald

Exhortations
Site Supporter
Jul 30, 2004
4,620
981
southern
✟111,578.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
 
Upvote 0

NailsII

Life-long student of biological science
Jul 25, 2007
1,690
48
UK
✟24,647.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Before you go, can you just tell me how you know that Jesus wasn't being metaphorical when he said that, as you seem to imply that Satan was literally their biological fathers.
And that is just silly.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,856,299
52,680
Guam
✟5,164,654.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
NailsII said:
Before you go, can you just tell me how you know that Jesus wasn't being metaphorical when he said that, as you seem to imply that Satan was literally their biological fathers.
And that is just silly.
Click to expand...
We are adopted into the family of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

Romans 8:25 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

Galatians 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
 
Upvote 0
M

mathetes123

Newbie
Dec 26, 2011
2,469
54
✟18,144.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Mr Strawberry said:
Is God responsible for human nature?
.

How do you know it's God's word?
Click to expand...

This is just another version of the argument against the existence of God which asks how a loving all powerful God could allow evil to exist as if god created evil. This shows a lack of understanding between the nature of good And evil. Just a cold does not exist, but is a lack of heat, or darkness does not exist, but is a lack of light, evil is is a lack of good. We choose to reject God and all that is good that He represents. It is not for a lack of evidence that we reject Him, but out of rebellion for our own conscience convicts us.
 
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟53,280.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution

I have no idea why a god would do this.

When a parent leaves a loaded, unlocked and non-hidden gun in the house, and a child kills itself, no one starts apologizing for the parent.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
Ronald said:
You'll find out sooner or later.
Click to expand...
Do you realize how comical that sounds to a non-believer?
Ronald said:
OK, I'll stop.
Click to expand...
I doubt it.
Of course you have to, because if you don't then religious texts would look nonsensical.
In the continuing absence of credible evidence for creators or creationism, what do you expect?
Ronald said:
Well, happy trails to you and yours.
Click to expand...
And to you.
 
Upvote 0

NailsII

Life-long student of biological science
Jul 25, 2007
1,690
48
UK
✟24,647.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I'm sorry but I have to disagree quite strongly.
Evil is not a lack of good, as evil has been committed for a supposed greater good.
Evil is evil, and is also not from a lack of god.
Recent events in the catholic church will show you that some people will perform evil, depraved acts on innocent children and still preach to others that they belive in god (but whether they actually do is debatable I freely admit).

You do not need god to be good, and you can be evil and believe in god.
And yes, I do reject god because of a huge lack of evidence for his existance, I do not do it to be rebelious.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others

Yet your example says that you do not support the free will of others while claiming free will for yourself.

"Good" is Creative and nurturing.
Evil can only exist as a destructive force to the above.
And your example is a perfect illustration of how something good, trust,
can be altered into something evil.

If you don't "trust" someone then they don't get access to your kids.
So evil could not exist without good things first.

Only God = Good
Evil = Not God
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Non sequitur said:
I have no idea why a god would do this.

When a parent leaves a loaded, unlocked and non-hidden gun in the house, and a child kills itself, no one starts apologizing for the parent.
Click to expand...

You can't figure out why such an event disturbs you?
It's because you know that every life is precious.
Clearly you don't support the Darwin Awards.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

Non sequitur

Wokest Bae Of The Forum
Jul 2, 2011
4,532
541
Oklahoma City, OK
✟53,280.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
SkyWriting said:
You can't figure out why such an event disturbs you?
It's because you know that every life is precious.
Clearly you don't support the Darwin Awards.
Click to expand...

Well, it seems to be irresponsible of the parent to do such a thing... much like a tree in a certain garden.

Wait... or are you arguing that the child should have killed themselves, because it was stupid?

(I, unlike you, can't turn on my Conclusion-First switch, then work backwards.)
 
Upvote 0
S

SavedByChrist94

Newbie
Jun 6, 2012
796
7
✟1,168.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Wiccan_Child said:
Yes, those are all parts of the human body. But you haven't shown that they're irreducibly complex. Prove it.
Click to expand...

The Ear, from darwinismrefuted.com

The Design in the Ear
Another interesting example of the irreducibly complex organs in living things is the human ear.

As is commonly known, the hearing process begins with vibrations in the air. These vibrations are enhanced in the external ear. Research has shown that that part of the external ear known as the concha works as a kind of megaphone, and sound waves are intensified in the external auditory canal. In this way, the volume of sound waves increases considerably.

Sound intensified in this way enters the external auditory canal. This is the area from the external ear to the ear drum. One interesting feature of the auditory canal, which is some three and a half centimeters long, is the wax it constantly secretes. This liquid contains an antiseptic property which keeps bacteria and insects out. Furthermore, the cells on the surface of the auditory canal are aligned in a spiral form directed towards the outside, so that the wax always flows towards the outside of the ear as it is secreted.

Sound vibrations which pass down the auditory canal in this way reach the ear drum. This membrane is so sensitive that it can even perceive vibrations on the molecular level. Thanks to the exquisite sensitivity of the ear drum, you can easily hear somebody whispering from yards away. Or you can hear the vibration set up as you slowly rub two fingers together. Another extraordinary feature of the ear drum is that after receiving a vibration it returns to its normal state. Calculations have revealed that, after perceiving the tiniest vibrations, the ear drum becomes motionless again within up to four thousandths of a second. If it did not become motionless again so quickly, every sound we hear would echo in our ears.

The ear drum amplifies the vibrations which come to it, and sends them on to the middle ear region. Here, there are three bones in an extremely sensitive equilibrium with each other. These three bones are known as the hammer, the anvil and the stirrup; their function is to amplify the vibrations that reach them from the ear drum.

But the middle ear also possesses a kind of "buffer," to reduce exceedingly high levels of sound. This feature is provided by two of the body's smallest muscles, which control the hammer, anvil and stirrup bones. These muscles enable exceptionally loud noises to be reduced before they reach the inner ear. Thanks to this mechanism, we hear sounds that are loud enough to shock the system at a reduced volume. These muscles are involuntary, and come into operation automatically, in such a way that even if we are asleep and there is a loud noise beside us, these muscles immediately contract and reduce the intensity of the vibration reaching the inner ear.

The middle ear, which possesses such a flawless design, needs to maintain an important equilibrium. The air pressure inside the middle ear has to be the same as that beyond the ear drum, in other words, the same as the atmospheric air pressure. But this balance has been thought of, and a canal between the middle ear and the outside world which allows an exchange of air has been built in. This canal is the Eustachean tube, a hollow tube running from the inner ear to the oral cavity.

The Inner Ear
It will be seen that all we have examined so far consists of the vibrations in the outer and middle ear. The vibrations are constantly passed forward, but so far there is still nothing apart from a mechanical motion. In other words, there is as yet no sound.

The process whereby these mechanical motions begin to be turned into sound begins in the area known as the inner ear. In the inner ear is a spiral-shaped organ filled with a liquid. This organ is called the cochlea.


The complex structure of the inner ear. Inside this complicated bone structure is found both the system that maintains our balance, and also a very sensitive hearing system that turns vibrations into sound.
The last part of the middle ear is the stirrup bone, which is linked to the cochlea by a membrane. The mechanical vibrations in the middle ear are sent on to the liquid in the inner ear by this connection.

The vibrations which reach the liquid in the inner ear set up wave effects in the liquid. The inner walls of the cochlea are lined with small hair-like structures, called stereocilia, which are affected by this wave effect. These tiny hairs move strictly in accordance with the motion of the liquid. If a loud noise is emitted, then more hairs bend in a more powerful way. Every different frequency in the outside world sets up different effects in the hairs.

But what is the meaning of this movement of the hairs? What can the movement of the tiny hairs in the cochlea in the inner ear have to do with listening to a concert of classical music, recognizing a friend's voice, hearing the sound of a car, or distinguishing the millions of other kinds of sounds?

The answer is most interesting, and once more reveals the complexity of the design in the ear. Each of the tiny hairs covering the inner walls of the cochlea is actually a mechanism which lies on top of 16,000 hair cells. When these hairs sense a vibration, they move and push each other, just like dominos. This motion opens channels in the membranes of the cells lying beneath the hairs. And this allows the inflow of ions into the cells. When the hairs move in the opposite direction, these channels close again. Thus, this constant motion of the hairs causes constant changes in the chemical balance within the underlying cells, which in turn enables them to produce electrical signals. These electrical signals are forwarded to the brain by nerves, and the brain then processes them, turning them into sound.


The inner walls of the cochlea in the inner ear are lined with tiny hairs. These move in line with the wave motion set up in the liquid in the inner ear by vibrations coming from outside. In this way, the electrical balance of the cells to which the hairs are attached changes, and forms the signals we perceive as "sound."
Science has not been able to explain all the technical details of this system. While producing these electrical signals, the cells in the inner ear also manage to transmit the frequencies, strengths, and rhythms coming from the outside. This is such a complicated process that science has so far been unable to determine whether the frequency-distinguishing system takes place in the inner ear or in the brain.

At this point, there is an interesting fact we have to consider concerning the motion of the tiny hairs on the cells of the inner ear. Earlier, we said that the hairs waved back and forth, pushing each other like dominos. But usually the motion of these tiny hairs is very small. Research has shown that a hair motion of just by the width of an atom can be enough to set off the reaction in the cell. Experts who have studied the matter give a very interesting example to describe this sensitivity of these hairs: If we imagine a hair as being as tall as the Eiffel Tower, the effect on the cell attached to it begins with a motion equivalent to just 3 centimeters of the top of the tower.358

Just as interesting is the question of how often these tiny hairs can move in a second. This changes according to the frequency of the sound. As the frequency gets higher, the number of times these tiny hairs can move reaches unbelievable levels: for instance, a sound of a frequency of 20,000 causes these tiny hairs to move 20,000 times a second.

Everything we have examined so far has shown us that the ear possesses an extraordinary design. On closer examination, it becomes evident that this design is irreducibly complex, since, in order for hearing to happen, it is necessary for all the component parts of the auditory system to be present and in complete working order. Take away any one of these-for instance, the hammer bone in the middle ear-or damage its structure, and you will no longer be able to hear anything. In order for you to hear, such different elements as the ear drum, the hammer, anvil and stirrup bones, the inner ear membrane, the cochlea, the liquid inside the cochlea, the tiny hairs that transmit the vibrations from the liquid to the underlying sensory cells, the latter cells themselves, the nerve network running from them to the brain, and the hearing center in the brain must all exist in complete working order. The system cannot develop "by stages," because the intermediate stages would serve no purpose.

The Reproduction of Rheobatrachus Silus
Irreducible complexity is not a feature that we only see at the biochemical level or in complicated organs. Many biological systems possessed by living things are irreducibly complex, and invalidate the theory of evolution for that reason. The extraordinary reproductive method of Rheobatrachus silus, a species of frog living in Australia, is an example of this.

The females of this species use a fascinating method to protect their eggs after fertilization. They swallow them. The tadpoles remain and grow in the stomach for the first six weeks after they hatch. How is it possible that they can remain in their mothers' stomach that long without being digested?

A flawless system has been created to enable them to do so. First, the female gives up eating and drinking for those six weeks, which means the stomach is reserved solely for the tadpoles. However, another danger is the regular release of hydrochloric acid and pepsin in the stomach. These chemicals would normally quickly kill the offspring. However, this is prevented by a very special measure. The fluids in the stomach of the mother are neutralized by the hormonelike substance prostaglandin E2, which is secreted first by the egg capsules and then by the tadpoles. Hence, the offspring grow healthily, even though they are swimming in a pool of acid.

The females of this species hide their young in their stomachs throughout the incubation period, and then give birth to them through their mouths. But in order for this to happen, a number of adjustments have to be made, all at the same time and with no mistakes allowed: The egg-structure has to be set up, the stomach acid must be neutralized, and the mothers have to be able to live for weeks without feeding.

How do the tadpoles feed inside the empty stomach? The solution to this has been thought of, too. The eggs of this species are significantly larger than those of others, as they contain a yolk very rich in proteins, sufficient to feed the tadpoles for six weeks. The time of birth is designed perfectly, as well. The oesophagus of the female frog dilates during birth, just like the vagina of mammals during delivery. Once the young have emerged, the oesophagus and the stomach both return to normal, and the female starts feeding again.363

The miraculous reproduction system of Rheobatrachus silus explicitly invalidates the theory of evolution, since the whole system is irreducibly complex. Every step has to take place fully in order for the frogs to survive. The mother has to swallow the eggs, and has to stop feeding completely for six weeks. The eggs have to release a hormonelike substance to neutralize stomach acids. The addition of the extra protein-rich yolk to the egg is another necessity. The widening of the female's oesophagus cannot be coincidental. If all these things failed to happen in the requisite sequence, the froglets would not survive, and the species would face extinction.

Therefore, this system cannot have developed step-by-step, as asserted by the theory of evolution. The species has existed with this entire system intact since its first member came into existence. Another way of putting it is, they were created.
 
Upvote 0
S

SavedByChrist94

Newbie
Jun 6, 2012
796
7
✟1,168.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The Bacterial Flagellum
The most important person to bring the concept of irreducible complexity to the forefront of the scientific agenda is the biochemist Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University in the United States. In his book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, published in 1996, Behe examines the irreducibly complex structure of the cell and a number of other biochemical structures, and reveals that it is impossible to account for these by evolution. According to Behe, the real explanation of life is intelligent design.

Behe's book was a serious blow to Darwinism. In fact, Peter van Inwagen, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Notre Dame, stresses the importance of the book in this manner:

If Darwinians respond to this important book by ignoring it, misrepresenting it, or ridiculing it, that will be evidence in favor of the widespread suspicion that Darwinism today functions more as an ideology than as a scientific theory. If they can successfully answer Behe's arguments, that will be important evidence in favor of Darwinism.349

One of the interesting examples of irreducible complexity that Behe gives in his book is the bacterial flagellum. This is a whip-like organ that is used by some bacteria to move about in a liquid environment. This organ is embedded in the cell membrane, and enables the bacterium to move in a chosen direction at a particular speed.

Scientists have known about the flagellum for some time. However, its structural details, which have only emerged over the last decade or so, have come as a great surprise to them. It has been discovered that the flagellum moves by means of a very complicated "organic motor," and not by a simple vibratory mechanism as was earlier believed. This propeller-like engine is constructed on the same mechanical principles as an electric motor. There are two main parts to it: a moving part (the "rotor") and a stationary one (the "stator").

An electric motor-but not one in a household appliance or vehicle. This one is in a bacterium. Thanks to this motor, bacteria have been able to move those organs known as "flagella" and thus swim in water.This was discovered in the 1970s, and astounded the world of science, because this "irreducibly complex" organ, made up of some 240 distinct proteins, cannot be explained by chance mechanisms as Darwin had proposed.
The bacterial flagellum is different from all other organic systems that produce mechanical motion. The cell does not utilize available energy stored as ATP molecules. Instead, it has a special energy source: Bacteria use energy from the flow of ions across their outer cell membranes. The inner structure of the motor is extremely complex. Approximately 240 distinct proteins go into constructing the flagellum. Each one of these is carefully positioned. Scientists have determined that these proteins carry the signals to turn the motor on or off, form joints to facilitate movements at the atomic scale, and activate other proteins that connect the flagellum to the cell membrane. The models constructed to summarize the working of the system are enough to depict the complicated nature of the system.

The complicated structure of the bacterial flagellum is sufficient all by itself to demolish the theory of evolution, since the flagellum has an irreducibly complex structure. If one single molecule in this fabulously complex structure were to disappear, or become defective, the flagellum would neither work nor be of any use to the bacterium. The flagellum must have been working perfectly from the first moment of its existence. This fact again reveals the nonsense in the theory of evolution's assertion of "step by step development." In fact, not one evolutionary biologist has so far succeeded in explaining the origin of the bacterial flagellum although a few tried to do so.

The bacterial flagellum is clear evidence that even in supposedly "primitive" creatures there is an extraordinary design. As humanity learns more about the details, it becomes increasingly obvious that the organisms considered to be the simplest by the scientists of nineteenth century, including Darwin, are in fact just as complex as any others.

The Design of the Human Eye
The human eye is a very complicated system consisting of the delicate conjunction of some 40 separate components. Let us consider just one of these components: for example, the lens. We do not usually realize it, but the thing that enables us to see things clearly is the constant automatic focusing of the lens. If you wish, you can carry out a small experiment on this subject: Hold your index finger up in the air. Then look at the tip of your finger, then at the wall behind it. Every time you look from your finger to the wall you will feel an adjustment.

This adjustment is made by small muscles around the lens. Every time we look at something, these muscles go into action and enable us to see what we are looking at clearly by changing the thickness of the lens and turning it at the right angle to the light. The lens carries out this adjustment every second of our lives, and makes no mistakes. Photographers make the same adjustments in their cameras by hand, and sometimes have to struggle for quite some time to get the right focus. Within the last 10 to 15 years, modern technology has produced cameras which focus automatically, but no camera can focus as quickly and as well as the eye.

For an eye to be able to see, the 40 or so basic components which make it up need to be present at the same time and work together perfectly. The lens is only one of these. If all the other components, such as the cornea, iris, pupil, retina, and eye muscles, are all present and functioning properly, but just the eyelid is missing, then the eye will shortly incur serious damage and cease to carry out its function. In the same way, if all the subsystems exist but tear production ceases, then the eye will dry up and go blind within a few hours.

The theory of evolution's claim of "reducibility" loses all meaning in the face of the complicated structure of the eye. The reason is that, in order for the eye to function, all its parts need to be present at the same time. It is impossible, of course, for the mechanisms of natural selection and mutation to give rise to the eye's dozens of different subsystems when they can confer no advantage right up until the last stage. Professor Ali Demirsoy accepts the truth of this in these words:

It is rather hard to reply to a third objection. How was it possible for a complicated organ to come about suddenly even though it brought benefits with it? For instance, how did the lens, retina, optic nerve, and all the other parts in vertebrates that play a role in seeing suddenly come about? Because natural selection cannot choose separately between the visual nerve and the retina. The emergence of the lens has no meaning in the absence of a retina. The simultaneous development of all the structures for sight is unavoidable. Since parts that develop separately cannot be used, they will both be meaningless, and also perhaps disappear with time. At the same time, their development all together requires the coming together of unimaginably small probabilities.350

What Professor Demirsoy really means by "unimaginably small probabilities" is basically an "impossibility." It is clearly an impossibility for the eye to be the product of chance. Darwin also had a great difficulty in the face of this, and in a letter he even admitted, "I remember well the time when the thought of the eye made me cold all over."351


The human eye works by some 40 different parts functioning together. If just one of these is not present, the eye will serve no purpose. Each of these 40 parts has its own individual complex structure. For instance, the retina, at the back of the eye, is made up of 11 strata (above right), each of which has a different function. The theory of evolution is unable to account for the development of such a complex organ.
In The Origin of Species, Darwin experienced a serious difficulty in the face of the eye's complex design. The only solution he found was in pointing to the simpler eye structure found in some creatures as the origin of the more complex eyes found in others. He hypothesized that more complex eyes evolved from simpler ones. However, this claim does not reflect the truth. Paleontology shows that living things emerged in the world with their exceedingly complex structures already intact. The oldest known system of sight is the trilobite eye. This 530-million-year-old compound eye structure, which we touched on in an earlier chapter, is an "optical marvel" which worked with a double lens system. This fact totally invalidates Darwin's assumption that complex eyes evolved from "primitive" eyes.


The Irreducible Structure of the "Primitive" Eye
It remains to be said that the organs described by Darwin as "primitive" eyes actually possess a complex and irreducible structure that can never be explained by chance. Even in its simplest form, for seeing to happen, some of a creature's cells need to become light-sensitive-that is, they need to possess the ability to transduce this sensitivity to light into electrical signals; a nerve network from these cells to the brain needs to emerge; and a visual center in the brain to evaluate the information has to be formed. It is senseless to propose that all of these things came about by chance, at the same time, and in the same living thing. In his book Evrim Kurami ve Bagnazlik (The Theory of Evolution and Bigotry), which he wrote to defend the theory of evolution, the evolutionist writer Cemal Yildirim admits this fact in this way:

A large number of mechanisms need to work together for sight: As well as the eye and the mechanisms inside it, we can mention the links between special centers in the brain and the eye. How did this complex system-creation come about? According to biologists, the first step in the emergence of the eye during the evolutionary process was taken with the appearance of a small, light-sensitive area on the skin of some primitive living things. But what advantage could such a minute development on its own confer on a living thing in natural selection? As well as this, there needs to be a visual center formed in the brain and a nerve system linked to it. As long as these rather complicated mechanisms are not linked to one another, then we cannot expect what we call "sight" to emerge. Darwin believed that variations emerged by chance. If that were the case, would not the appearance of all the many variations that sight requires in various places in the organism at the same time and their working together turn into a mystical puzzle?… However, a number of complementary changes working together in harmony and cooperation are needed for sight… Some molluscs' eyes have retina, cornea, and a lens of cellulose tissue just like ours. Now, how can we explain the evolutionary processes of these two very different types requiring a string of chance events just by natural selection? It is a matter for debate whether Darwinists have been able to provide a satisfactory answer to this question…352

This problem is so great from the evolutionist point of view that the closer we look at the details, the worse the quandary the theory finds itself in. One important "detail" which needs to be looked at is the claim about "the cell which came to be sensitive to light." Darwinists gloss this over by saying, "Sight may have started by a single cell becoming sensitive to light." But what kind of design is such a structure supposed to have had?
 
Upvote 0
S

SavedByChrist94

Newbie
Jun 6, 2012
796
7
✟1,168.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The Chemistry of Sight
In his book Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe stresses that the structure of the living cell and all other biochemical systems were unknown "black boxes" for Darwin and his contemporaries. Darwin assumed that these black boxes possessed very simple structures and could have come about by chance. Now, however, modern biochemistry has opened up these black boxes and revealed the irreducibly complex structure of life. Behe states that Darwin's comments on the emergence of the eye seemed convincing because of the primitive level of nineteenth-century science:

Darwin persuaded much of the world that a modern eye evolved gradually from a simpler structure, but he did not even try to explain where his starting point-the relatively simple light-sensitive spot-came from. On the contrary, Darwin dismissed the question of the eye's ultimate origin… He had an excellent reason for declining the question: it was completely beyond nineteenth-century science. How the eye works-that is, what happens when a photon of light first hits the retina-simply could not be answered at that time.353

So, how does this system, which Darwin glossed over as a simple structure, actually work? How do the cells in the eye's retinal layer perceive the light rays that fall on them?

The answer to that question is rather complicated. When photons hit the cells of the retina they activate a chain action, rather like a domino effect. The first of these domino pieces is a molecule called "11-cis-retinal" that is sensitive to photons. When struck by a photon, this molecule changes shape, which in turn changes the shape of a protein called "rhodopsin" to which it is tightly bound. Rhodopsin then takes a form that enables it to stick to another resident protein in the cell called "transducin."

Prior to reacting with rhodopsin, transducin is bound to another molecule called GDP. When it connects with rhodopsin, transducin releases the GDP molecule and is linked to a new molecule called GTP. That is why the new complex consisting of the two proteins (rhodopsin and transducin) and a smaller molecule (GTP) is called "GTP-transducin-rhodopsin."

But the process has only just begun. The new GTP-transducin-rhodopsin complex can now very quickly bind to another protein resident in the cell called "phosphodiesterase." This enables the phosphodiesterase protein to cut yet another molecule resident in the cell, called cGMP. Since this process takes place in the millions of proteins in the cell, the cGMP concentration is suddenly decreased.

How does all this help with sight? The last element of this chain reaction supplies the answer. The fall in the cGMP amount affects the ion channels in the cell. The so-called ion channel is a structure composed of proteins that regulate the number of sodium ions within the cell. Under normal conditions, the ion channel allows sodium ions to flow into the cell while another molecule disposes of the excess ions to maintain a balance. When the number of cGMP molecules falls, so does the number of sodium ions. This leads to an imbalance of charge across the membrane, which stimulates the nerve cells connected to these cells, forming what we refer to as an "electrical impulse." Nerves carry the impulses to the brain and "seeing" happens there.354

In brief, a single photon hits a single cell, and through a series of chain reactions the cell produces an electrical impulse. This stimulus is modulated by the energy of the photon-that is, the brightness of the light. Another fascinating fact is that all of the processes described so far happen in no more than one thousandth of a second. As soon as this chain reaction is completed, other specialized proteins within the cells convert elements such as 11-cis-retinal, rhodopsin and transducin back to their original states. The eye is under a constant shower of photons, and the chain reactions within the eye's sensitive cells enable it to perceive each one of these.

The process of sight is actually a great deal more complicated than the outline presented here would indicate. However, even this brief overview is sufficient to demonstrate the extraordinary nature of the system. There is such a complicated, finely calculated design inside the eye that it is nonsensical to claim that this system could have come about by chance. The system possesses a totally irreducibly complex structure. If even one of the many molecular parts that enter into a chain reaction with each other were missing, or did not possess a suitable structure, then the system would not function at all.

It is clear that this system deals a heavy blow to Darwin's explanation of life by "chance." Michael Behe makes this comment on the chemistry of the eye and the theory of evolution:

Now that the black box of vision has been opened, it is no longer enough for an evolutionary explanation of that power to consider only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the nineteenth century (and as popularizers of evolution continue to do today). Each of the anatomical steps and structures that Darwin thought were so simple actually involves staggeringly complicated biochemical processes that cannot be papered over with rhetoric.355

The irreducibly complex structure of the eye not only definitively disproves the Darwinist theory, but also shows that life was created with a superior design.

The Lobster Eye
There are many different types of eye in the living world. We are accustomed to the camera-type eye found in vertebrates. This structure works on the principle of the refraction of light, which falls onto the lens and is focused on a point behind the lens inside the interior of the eye.

However, the eyes possessed by other creatures work by very different methods. One example is the lobster. A lobster's eye works on a principle of reflection, rather than that of refraction.

The most outstanding characteristic of the lobster eye is its surface, which is composed of numerous squares. As shown in the picture, these squares are positioned most precisely. As one astronomer commented in Science: "The lobster is the most unrectangular animal I've ever seen. But under the microscope a lobster's eye looks like perfect graph paper."356

These well-arranged squares are in fact the ends of tiny square tubes forming a structure resembling a honeycomb. At first glance, the honeycomb appears to be made up of hexagons, although these are actually the front faces of hexagonal prisms. In the lobster's eye, there are the squares in place of hexagons.

Even more intriguing is that the sides of each one of these square tubes are like mirrors that reflect the incoming light. This reflected light is focused onto the retina flawlessly. The sides of the tubes inside the eye are lodged at such perfect angles that they all focus onto a single point.


The lobster eye is composed of numerous squares. These well-arranged squares are in fact the ends of tiny square tubes. The sides of each one of these square tubes are like mirrors that reflect the incoming light. This reflected light is focused onto the retina flawlessly. The sides of the tubes inside the eye are lodged at such perfect angles that they all focus onto a single point.


The extraordinary nature of the design of this system is quite indisputable. All of these perfect square tubes have a layer that works just like a mirror. Furthermore, each one of these cells is sited by means of precise geometrical alignments, so that they all focus the light at a single point.

Michael Land, a scientist and researcher at the University of Sussex in England, was the first to examine the lobster eye structure in detail. Land stated that the eye structure had a most surprising design.357

It is obvious that the design in the lobster eye presents a great difficulty for the theory of evolution. Most importantly, it exemplifies the concept of "irreducible complexity." If even one of its features-such as the facets of the eye, which are perfect squares, the mirrored sides of each unit, or the retina layer at the back-were eliminated, the eye could never function. Therefore, it is impossible to maintain that the eye evolved step-by-step. It is scientifically unjustifiable to argue that such a perfect design as this could have come about haphazardly. It is quite clear that the lobster eye was created as a miraculous system.

One can find further traits in the lobster's eye that nullify the assertions of evolutionists. An interesting fact emerges when one looks at creatures with similar eye structures. The reflecting eye, of which the lobster's eye is one example, is found in only one group of crustaceans, the so-called long-bodied decapods. This family includes the lobsters, the prawns and shrimp.

The other members of the Crustacea class display "the refracting type eye structure," which works on completely different principles from those of the reflecting type. Here, the eye is made up of hundreds of cells like a honeycomb. Unlike the square cells in a lobster eye, these cells are either hexagonal or round. Furthermore, instead of reflecting light, small lenses in the cells refract the light onto the focus on the retina.

The majority of crustaceans have the refracting eye structure. According to evolutionist assumptions, all the creatures within the class Crustacea should have evolved from the same ancestor. Therefore, evolutionists claim that refracting eye evolved from a refracting eye, which is far more common among the crustacea and of a fundamentally simpler design.

However, such reasoning is impossible, because both eye structures function perfectly within their own systems and have no room for any "transitional" phase. A crustacean would be left sightless and would be eliminated by natural selection if the refracting lens in its eye were to diminish and be replaced by reflecting mirrored surfaces.

It is, therefore, certain that both of these eye structures were designed and created separately. There is such superb geometric precision in these eyes that entertaining the possibility of "chance" is simply ludicrious.
 
Upvote 0
S

SavedByChrist94

Newbie
Jun 6, 2012
796
7
✟1,168.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Wiccan_Child said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...

Go to DebunkedEvil.blogspot.com debunks all the slander towards The Bible.

God never condones rape and you know it.


from onyxbits.de:

Social security, retirement pension and health insurance are all concepts that came up along with industrialization. Before that, the only safeguard against starvation in old age or while being too sick to work was to have a family that could and would care for you.

In pre industrialized societies, having a daughter means raising a child that will eventually leave your household to live with the family of her husband (at least in a patriarchy - in a matriarchy it's the other way round) and will therefore not contribute to your old age pension. In such societies, it is only reasonable to ask for compensation.

The bible leaves no doubt that women were/are to be treated as property. As such they either belong to their parents or their husbands and enjoy virtually no rights nor freedom, especially not when it comes to their own sexuality. In other words: Considering wifes to be property has the side effect of making it socially acceptable for their respective owner to decide upon when they must or must not have sex, without asking for consent.

The "biblical society" was a patriarchy and men were most concerned about illegitimate children. You cannot blame them for this though. Given the agricultural state of the middle east, the idea of feeding children that were not your own must have been a nightmare.

Without pregnancy test or contraceptives being available at that time, the only way of making sure that you are not marrying an already pregnant woman was to insist on her being a virgin. A woman that had lost her virginity was therefore pretty much off the marriage market.

So, with these premises in mind, what does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 actually mean in it's historical context?

When a man had raped an unmarried/young woman in old Israel, he had literally turned her into "damaged goods". She would not have been able to find a "respectable" husband afterwards and therefore she would also not have been able to start a family of her own. The implication of this being that the crime deprived her of any chances to gain what was then considered to be social security, health insurance or old-age pension.

As much as any feminist today must shiver with the mere thought of a woman being sold to her rapist, this is not what it was seen as in those days, at all. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 describes a law suit where the cause of action is not so much the violation itself but the consequences it bears on the victim's future. Namely, the financial loss she could be expected to suffer by not being able to start a family for her own support. The court rule is an attempt to make the violator pay damage repair by forcing him into a marriage and (most importantly) denying him the right to divorce, which he normally would have had (Deut. 24:1-2). In other words: what we see as adding insult to injury today was actually putting the woman in a very strong legal position back then. She became financially secured in a way she could not have archived by a regular marriage.

Now, one could of course point out the insanity of forcing a woman to live with an abusive husband. This, however, is only insane by modern day standards. In biblical times, women generally did not pick their husbands themselves. The idea of a love marriage is a relatively new concept in western societies and has only been around since the romantic era. Before that, marriage was typically arranged by the family and about support, political influence or financial benefit.
In ancient Palestine, a woman's consent was not a requirement to anything. The rule of thumb simply was: you married whom your family picked and you had sex when your husband decided to have it. Women were not emancipated and thinking of domestic violence as a crime did not cross anybody's mind (including the women's - compare it to the situation in poor Arabic countries, where women, subject to the same treatment, do not rebel either). Whether or not it was ok to force a woman into having sex pretty much was only a question of whether or not you were married to her.

So, what's the conclusion here? The laws in the bible were created by a bronze age society for a bronze age society which, given the circumstances and available resources, had to set their priorities differently than we do today. The kind of harm, we can nowadays easily compensate with modern medicine or insurance systems, was often a matter of life and death back then.


And the Very next verse, 25, But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die.

Again, no rape. verses 23-24 speak of adultery, no rape. the very next verse is where rape is mentioned, and condemned.

Stop the slander.




Wiccan_Child said:
'Complexity' is not the same as 'design'. Being complex is not a hallmark of design - designed things can be simple, and undesigned things can be complex.
Click to expand...

Your proof that something irreducibly complex that shows intelligent design could come by accident or without a designer?




being irreducibly complex alone needs a designer, add that to the fact that the irreducible complex design works and shows an intelligent function/design, thus we need an intelligent designer. and since we are intelligently designed with irreducible complexity, we must have an intelligent designer, and that is God.


Wiccan_Child said:
'Extremely improbably' doesn't mean 'didn't happen'.
Click to expand...

when I said extremely improbable, I mean Extremely improbable. add it up, it is improbable to the point where it is just impossible. "macro-evolution" is impossible. to believe in it would take too much faith. "macro-evolution" didn't happen. it is even biologically and logically impossible and incoherent.

add that to the fact that if you take God out the picture then "macro-evolution" is completely 100% impossible.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The best of all possible worlds?
Replies
4
Views
266
General Theology
Aaron112
A cry for change!
Replies
0
Views
238
Daily Devotionals
joechristianwarrior
G
NASA reports discovery of signs of ancient life on Mars
Replies
4
Views
651
Physical & Life Sciences
FreeinChrist
How to teach faith for healing?
Replies
0
Views
230
Spiritual Gifts
FutureAndAHope
might seem silly but I just wonder
Replies
4
Views
683
Deeper Fellowship
linux.poet
Menu
Log in
Register