Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Astrophile]

Historical science is based on forensic evidence that we find. For example, we see a planet one light year away from us and understand that what we see is not where the planet is anymore, i.e. it could have moved to another orbit position and that what we are seeing is where it was in the past.

First, there are no stars one light-year from the Sun, and a planet one light-year away would be too faint to detect. However, the point is that if such a planet existed and could be observed, it would be moving in an elliptical or parabolic orbit around the Sun; the fact that the planet is no longer in the position where it is observed to be would not prevent astronomers from using the observed positions of the planet to calculate the orbital elements. By the way, if a planet was moving in a circular orbit at a distance of one light-year, its orbital period would be about 16 million years; thus the light travel time of one year would have only a very small effect on its observed position.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'ts very hard to believe a group of amoebas became all the other animals with a process with 0% guidance, design or intelligence.

Not what the theory of evolution claims, but thanks for trying. Looks like English isn't your first language, want some help improving your abilities in it?

Nature complex designs show that they are intelligently constructed, so much that we copy nature design to make our own designed things.

Yeah, but only sometimes. We'd never design an eating and breathing system that shared the same tube part of the way down, allowing one to potentially clog the other. Not without viewing such a system as flawed.

Evo people says animals have bad designs because an 1% part of them seems bad designed not taking in account that the other 99% part that is well designed.

Actually, the majority of the "design" is garbage, right down to your very cells. You breathe inefficiently. You make proteins inefficiently. Your DNA gets shorter every time it is replicated. About 20% of the mRNA your cells make is completely garbage and was a waste of energy to produce. Your own mitochondria may be contributing to your death, as does the oxygen you breathe. Your sex organs are in such close proximity to anus as to create an infection risk.

We only go over some of the more obvious terrible "design" parts because the post would be ridiculously long if we tried to go over all of them. My list is but a drop in the pond compared to all the ways various organisms are flawed.

 

[NBB]

Not what the theory of evolution claims, but thanks for trying. Looks like English isn't your first language, want some help improving your abilities in it?


Yeah, but only sometimes. We'd never design an eating and breathing system that shared the same tube part of the way down, allowing one to potentially clog the other. Not without viewing such a system as flawed.


Actually, the majority of the "design" is garbage, right down to your very cells. You breathe inefficiently. You make proteins inefficiently. Your DNA gets shorter every time it is replicated. About 20% of the mRNA your cells make is completely garbage and was a waste of energy to produce. Your own mitochondria may be contributing to your death, as does the oxygen you breathe. Your sex organs are in such close proximity to anus as to create an infection risk.

We only go over some of the more obvious terrible "design" parts because the post would be ridiculously long if we tried to go over all of them. My list is but a drop in the pond compared to all the ways various organisms are flawed.

Yes help me with my english please is not my main language thanks...
I disagree. And even evolutionists say parts of the body 'are beautiful pieces of engineering'. We function very well to be designed like garbage.

Good luck to engineers trying to create a robot as complex as human beings...
I want to see it. No intelligence involved in the making of our bodies you say?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, please help me with my English. It is not my first language. Thanks.

I'll do my best by putting corrections to your sentences in bold. I'll make them look like they would if a native English speaker wrote them without changing their meaning. Calling one's first language their main language isn't incorrect in English, it is just more common to call it your first language. Ellipses (...) are usually used for trailing thoughts and incomplete quotes. If you follow the word "thanks" by itself with ellipses, it makes it come off as if you feel awkward or insincere. The word "please" could have also stayed at the end of the first sentence, but it flows a bit better by moving it there.

I disagree; even evolutionists say parts of the body 'are beautiful pieces of engineering'. We function very well to be designed like garbage.

Our entire species is plagued by back problems because of how our spines bear weight. I know some people sing praises for how our body functions, but that's in the context of our bodies not being designed. Humans most definitely do not have traits that suggest we were designed to walk upright, for example. Why is it that we suffer from the shape of our feet getting distorted from use and our backs hurting from our upright position and yet, birds do not have the same problem. Why would a designer that made chickens not suffer from these problems inflict them upon humans?

Good luck to engineers trying to create a robot as complex as human beings...

That was a perfect English sentence, great job! It even uses ellipses correctly.

What humans can produce is not an indication of what natural processes can do. After all, charges in clouds produce lightning, but humans were unable to create artificial lightning until fairly recently.

I want to see it. No intelligence involved in the making of our bodies, you say?

You want to see all of the ways in which the human body is flawed? That's going to take a while. To narrow down my choices to start out with, would you like to pick an organ for me to discuss?

 

[NBB]

I'll do my best by putting corrections to your sentences in bold. I'll make them look like they would if a native English speaker wrote them without changing their meaning. Calling one's first language their main language isn't incorrect in English, it is just more common to call it your first language. Ellipses (...) are usually used for trailing thoughts and incomplete quotes. If you follow the word "thanks" by itself with ellipses, it makes it come off as if you feel awkward or insincere. The word "please" could have also stayed at the end of the first sentence, but it flows a bit better by moving it there.


Our entire species is plagued by back problems because of how our spines bear weight. I know some people sing praises for how our body functions, but that's in the context of our bodies not being designed. Humans most definitely do not have traits that suggest we were designed to walk upright, for example. Why is it that we suffer from the shape of our feet getting distorted from use and our backs hurting from our upright position and yet, birds do not have the same problem. Why would a designer that made chickens not suffer from these problems inflict them upon humans?


That was a perfect English sentence, great job! It even uses ellipses correctly.

What humans can produce is not an indication of what natural processes can do. After all, charges in clouds produce lightning, but humans were unable to create artificial lightning until fairly recently.


You want to see all of the ways in which the human body is flawed? That's going to take a while. To narrow down my choices to start out with, would you like to pick an organ for me to discuss?

I have learnt english by 'osmosis' and i'm happy to learn more.
But i still think that the well functioning part of our bodies outweights in comparison any supposedly flawed part.
If humans are not able to reproduce nature, nature designs are more clever than ourselves.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I have learned English by 'osmosis' and I'm happy to learn more.
But I still think that the parts of our bodies that function well exceed the flawed parts significantly.
If humans are not able to reproduce nature, nature designs are more clever than ourselves.

Think of nature vs design like this: it takes nature thousands upon thousands of years to carve out a deep canyon, yet humans built the Panama canal in just ten. Yet, I would never claim that the Grand Canyon isn't complex, nor would I suggest the Panama canal is equally complex to it.

What we design tends to be simpler, yet also more efficient, than what develops through natural processes. That nature tends to be more complex does not mean that said complexity makes it better.

You never did name an organ for me to talk about, though. Please do.

Feel free to ask for word definitions or ask about grammar in your posts.

 

[pitabread]

What we design tends to be simpler, yet also more efficient, than what develops through natural processes. That nature tends to be more complex does not mean that said complexity makes it better.

A parallel example can be seen via using genetic algorithms to design circuits. This example of an 'evolved' FPGA circuit is far more complex and esoteric than any human designer would ever create. It's also highly impractical to do as a deliberate design.

On the Origin of Circuits
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdo...9D847DA1?doi=10.1.1.50.9691&rep=rep1&type=pdf

There's an interesting article about the practicality of evolved hardware versus designed hardware here: https://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1266124

 

[Ophiolite]

If humans are not able to reproduce nature, nature designs are more clever than ourselves.

The cleverness of humans depends upon two things:

• The intelligence of the smarter members of our society
• The accumulation of knowledge

Our ability to imitate nature is now controlled by the second of these. It took us many millenia to develop basic tools and master the use of fire. Further millenia to learn how to practice agriculture and centuries to develop the scientific method and initiate the industrial revolution. Knowledge is currently expanding at an exponential rate. (And before anyone else says it, I am aware that knowledge and wisdom are not the same thing.)

I would argue that in some ways we are cleverer than nature, for we can design solutions to problems rather than waiting for evolution to come up with a solution via a combination of chance and selection. (We are also, unfortunately, good at creating new problems, then ignoring the solutions. e.g. climate change.)
Nature can move a rock from Mars to the Earth via the impact of an asteroid. It has done so on multiple occassions, but the rocks take many millions years for a handful of them to make the journey, nor is there any purpose behind it. In contrast, with a definite purpose, we shall soon select a specific rock and return it to the Earth in months, not centuries.

 

[NBB]

About flawed design or not:

Design virtues of the eye:

They move well in their socketsa and are coordinated.
The muscles are placed well.
It focus well.
The brain and eyes are connected well.
The signal is sent to the brain correctly and the brain process it.
We see well.
These are quiet the achievements and i'm missing some more.

Flawed:
The brain flips the image. That we ever notice anyway. so i don't know if it is a flaw.
The blind spot: very hard to ever notice as well.

Sickness are not design flaws.

I want so see a machine as half as complex as a human body and see if it heals itself like we do and last for 70 years.

If a person can see as many had for 70 something years without going to the doctor then i say it is well designed, and we were not supposed to age or get sick at all in the begining we get sick now because of the curse and our life time was shortened by God but you don't believe that.

If evolution is true, we could even see the image flipped and black and white for example, it is inconvinient yes but because you know it helps survive anyway and maybe have an eye in the back because you know, is useful. But evolution can't even do that.

And to evolution is credited our own intellect. Good luck explaining our intellect trough evolution!

 

[NBB]

The cleverness of humans depends upon two things:

• The intelligence of the smarter members of our society
• The accumulation of knowledge

Our ability to imitate nature is now controlled by the second of these. It took us many millenia to develop basic tools and master the use of fire. Further millenia to learn how to practice agriculture and centuries to develop the scientific method and initiate the industrial revolution. Knowledge is currently expanding at an exponential rate. (And before anyone else says it, I am aware that knowledge and wisdom are not the same thing.)

I would argue that in some ways we are cleverer than nature, for we can design solutions to problems rather than waiting for evolution to come up with a solution via a combination of chance and selection. (We are also, unfortunately, good at creating new problems, then ignoring the solutions. e.g. climate change.)
Nature can move a rock from Mars to the Earth via the impact of an asteroid. It has done so on multiple occassions, but the rocks take many millions years for a handful of them to make the journey, nor is there any purpose behind it. In contrast, with a definite purpose, we shall soon select a specific rock and return it to the Earth in months, not centuries.

But nature without any tools or scientific knoweldge surpass us in design cleverness?. I say there is something that is not correct here.

 

[Ophiolite]

But nature without any tools or scientific knoweldge surpass us in design cleverness?. I say there is something that is not correct here.

1. In some matters I argue that our designs are superior.
2. Nature has had billions of years to develop its designs. We have only been doing it in a serious manner for a couple of millenia, or less.

 

[the iconoclast]

Why would I be offended if you don't reply to a post that wasn't even addressed to you?

As for which post it is, you refered to it earlier yourself.


I'll go ahead and assume that you had a post in mind that you were referring to.

It's the one with all the nice pictures of transitional fossils.

Hello my treasure.

DNA and the nested hierarchy it falls into.

What dna evidence confirms evolution with the fossil record? Please provide references.

Comparative anatomy and the nested hierarchy that matches the one we obtain through genetics.

Comparative anatomy is the study of similarities and differences in the anatomy of different species. It is closely related to evolutionary biology and phylogeny.

How does comparative autonomy and best hierarchy match through genetics? Please provide references.

Geographic distribution of species which matches the evolution lineages inferred from the previous 2 and cross referenced with plate tectonic activity obtained through geology.

How does the geographic distribution of species match evolution lineages inferred from the previous 2 and how is the it cross referenced with plate tectonic activity obtained through geology? Please provide references.

The fact that we have observed speciation events in the wild as well as the lab

Such as?

The fossil record and how it matches with the previous 4 points.

How does it match?

..

In other words, the evidence is multiple independent lines of evidence spanning different fields which all converge on the exact same answer.

Could you please provide an example of this?

It doesn't get more solid then that in science.

Would you say it is 100% solid?

It is, in fact, why people say that the evidence is overwhelming.

Evolution theory is confirmed, everywhere we look.

Would you say it is 100% confirmed?

You're welcome

Why thank you. You are most welcome.

Wow. I feel like I'm back at school. Check this out. Tell me what you think

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...FggnMAI&usg=AOvVaw3rjO6wzn6t6_uuKwJ0_4qP&cf=1

Experts believe the skull is one of the most important fossil finds to date, but it has proved as controversial as it is stunning. Analysis of the skull and other remains at Dmanisi suggests that scientists have been too ready to name separate species of human ancestors in Africa. Many of those species may now have to be wiped from the textbooks.

Scientists estimate we're now losing species at 1,000 to10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day . Could it be possible that these examples are not lineage but different extinct species?

That is what the evidence suggests.

Not a SINGLE ancestor though. A population thereof.

Perhaps even multiple such populations.

Curious. Were all these single celled organism the same?

How did these populations come into existence?

Cheers. I love you my treasure.

 

[the iconoclast]

No.

Hey allan.

How's the head? Still itchy?

Fossil records for $100?

Cheers

 

[PsychoSarah]

About flawed design or not:

Design virtues of the eye:

They move well in their sockets and are coordinated.
The muscles are placed well.
It focus well.
The brain and eyes are connected well.
The signal is sent to the brain correctly and the brain process it.
We see well.
These are quiet the achievements and i'm missing some more.

Flawed:
The brain flips the image. Not that we ever notice . So I don't know if it is a flaw.
The blind spot: very hard to notice as well.

Diseases are not design flaws.

Ah, so you want to discuss the eyes? A common choice, but several things you chose as "good aspects" of our eyes are but the bare minimum they require to actually function properly, and a few of them aren't true. I will list these out:
1. Human eyes don't consistently focus well, which is why such a large portion of the human population requires glasses to see properly.
2. The brain and eyes are connected in an entirely ridiculous way. Our eyes are at the front of our heads, but the portion of the brain responsible for processing vision is at the back of our heads, making the nerve connections between the two unnecessarily long and more prone to damage. Not only that, but vision in processed in such a weird, split way between the left and right sides of the brain that I think this image does a better job of depicting it than words do.
http://www.arn.org/docs/glicksman/120104 fig3.jpg
3. Human vision is extremely average. Our vision isn't particularly good or bad compared to other vertebrate animals. Practically every bird species has better vision than we do, but we are certainly better off than most reptiles.
4. The muscles are placed in acceptable positions; I do not understand why you would expect natural processes to result in eyes surrounded by useless muscles haphazardly positioned. Evolution isn't a random process, but rather one that selects for systems that work. That a feature is capable of performing a function consistently is not an indication of design by an intelligent creator.
5. What your eye actually sends to the brain is such a mess, filled with distortions and an unnecessary blind spot, that much of what you see is filled in by the brain. This is why optical illusions work on you, and why it is so easy to overlook small objects. You don't notice your blind spot because of this filling in, which can be the difference between seeing a venomous spider or not. After all, if none of the object is outside of the blind spot, your brain just assumes it isn't there, even if you know it is there because you looked at it from a different angle.
6. That our brain has to flip the image isn't necessarily a flaw so much as it is extremely questionable. Why wouldn't an intelligent designer just make the eyes such that they send the brain an image that is already upright? Do you see how unnecessarily complex this system is yet?
7. One flaw that comes to mind that you did not mention is that our light receptor cells (rods and cones) can get fatigued very easily. This is why you see spots before your eyes after looking at a light source or staring at something of one color for a minute or two. There's absolutely no benefit to that effect and it can render you dazed for a little bit if it comes unexpectedly.
8. Another flaw is the "deer in the headlights effect". The eyes need time to adjust to different light levels, rendering you and other animals blind if the environment is made significantly darker or brighter very quickly. This temporary blindness is why deer and many other animals freeze when you shine lights on them at night. Evolution, of course, could not select for animals which can adjust immediately because artificial lighting is a fairly recent invention, but what excuse does a designer have?

I will also include some incorrect suggestions you made throughout your post in the list.

9. Humans practically never retain their vision for 70 years. In fact, most people begin to become noticeably nearsighted by the age of 40, even if they have had perfect vision their entire lives up to that point. Not to mention the "floaters" people begin to see in their vision, which is fibers clumping together in the fluids of the eye that cast a shadow on the retina. These aren't disease symptoms, these are pretty much inevitable features of aging.

9. You assert that if evolution were true, we'd have eyes at the back of our heads too for some reason. Do you not realize that you are implying a designer also couldn't give us what you assume to be a beneficial feature? In any case, if it actually benefited us to have a visual field that allowed us to see behind us as well as in front of us, we'd have eyes on the sides of our head like rabbits do, not a similarly positioned second set of eyes at the back of the head (which wouldn't even grant us a full 360 view, since binocular vision in humans only covers 114 degrees, and doubled that is 228 degrees). I am shocked you wouldn't consider the position of our eyes and number of them to be an example of a beneficial trait, because I sure would. It is very good positioning for having great depth perception, which would have helped our hunter/gatherer ancestors hunt animals. The type of visual field you describe as being "better" would compromise that depth perception and make focusing on a single object much more difficult.

I want so see a machine as half as complex as a human body and see if it heals itself like we do and last for 70 years.

I have mentioned before that a lot of systems in our body are worse as a result of excessive complexity, why would a robot comparable to a human ever be as pointlessly complex? Sounds like a lot of unnecessary effort on our part.

If a person can see as many had for 70 something years without going to the doctor then I say it is well designed, and we were not supposed to age or get sick at all in the beginning. We get sick now because of the curse and our lifetime was shortened by God but you don't believe that.

I explain earlier the flaws in your statements about the human eye here, but I also feel the need to mention that there is not a single bit of evidence for the idea that our species used to live longer than we do today. In fact, biblical scholars attribute the extremely long lifespans given early on in the Old Testament to the inefficient math system of the people that wrote it. That, or just ancient whimsy.

If evolution is true, we could even see the image flipped and black and white for example, it is inconvenient but because you know it helps survive anyway and maybe have an eye in the back because you know, is useful. But evolution can't even do that.

Again, this comes with the implication that a designer couldn't have improved their own design. I don't know why you would assume that evolution as a natural process would be more capable of variable changes than a designer would be, since evolution just works with what it gets, whereas a designer could just add whatever it wanted to.

Also, this was worded a bit too oddly for me to just correct it, so here is how a native English speaker would have said all of that:
"If evolution is true, we'd be able to see images in black and white in addition to our normal vision, because that would help with survival. We'd also have eyes at the back of our heads in addition to at the front so that we'd have a wider field of vision, because that would be more useful than what we currently have. But evolution can't seem to accomplish that."

Also, I'd love an explanation for why you think being able to see in black and white at will would help with our survival, when such vision just removes details such as the bright coloration of poisonous animals.

I also have to say that this is a good indication that you have never been outside for a few hours before and after sunset consecutively without bringing a light source with you. Human night vision is in black and white. It's still decently clear as long as the eyes gradually adjust to the darkness without interference from artificial light sources. If you allow your eyes to adjust in this manner, you'll notice that you see about as well as you do at twilight or a bit better if the moon is full. You'll be able to see okay even if the sun set hours ago, but colors are very muted if present at all. Shades of red are particularly difficult to see at night.

So, if you want to see something in black and white, you can always just look at it in the dark.

And evolution is credited for our intellect. Good luck explaining our intellect through evolution!

Oh, shall we do the brain itself next?

I've always found it funny that creationists never seem to bring up organs like the spleen or kidneys when arguing for intelligent design. It's almost always the eyes, brain, lungs, or heart.

Be sure to quote me when responding to this so that I see it as an alert.

 

[NBB]

Ah, so you want to discuss the eyes? A common choice, but several things you chose as "good aspects" of our eyes are but the bare minimum they require to actually function properly, and a few of them aren't true. I will list these out:
1. Human eyes don't consistently focus well, which is why such a large portion of the human population requires glasses to see properly.
2. The brain and eyes are connected in an entirely ridiculous way. Our eyes are at the front of our heads, but the portion of the brain responsible for processing vision is at the back of our heads, making the nerve connections between the two unnecessarily long and more prone to damage. Not only that, but vision in processed in such a weird, split way between the left and right sides of the brain that I think this image does a better job of depicting it than words do.
http://www.arn.org/docs/glicksman/120104 fig3.jpg
3. Human vision is extremely average. Our vision isn't particularly good or bad compared to other vertebrate animals. Practically every bird species has better vision than we do, but we are certainly better off than most reptiles.
4. The muscles are placed in acceptable positions; I do not understand why you would expect natural processes to result in eyes surrounded by useless muscles haphazardly positioned. Evolution isn't a random process, but rather one that selects for systems that work. That a feature is capable of performing a function consistently is not an indication of design by an intelligent creator.
5. What your eye actually sends to the brain is such a mess, filled with distortions and an unnecessary blind spot, that much of what you see is filled in by the brain. This is why optical illusions work on you, and why it is so easy to overlook small objects. You don't notice your blind spot because of this filling in, which can be the difference between seeing a venomous spider or not. After all, if none of the object is outside of the blind spot, your brain just assumes it isn't there, even if you know it is there because you looked at it from a different angle.
6. That our brain has to flip the image isn't necessarily a flaw so much as it is extremely questionable. Why wouldn't an intelligent designer just make the eyes such that they send the brain an image that is already upright? Do you see how unnecessarily complex this system is yet?
7. One flaw that comes to mind that you did not mention is that our light receptor cells (rods and cones) can get fatigued very easily. This is why you see spots before your eyes after looking at a light source or staring at something of one color for a minute or two. There's absolutely no benefit to that effect and it can render you dazed for a little bit if it comes unexpectedly.
8. Another flaw is the "deer in the headlights effect". The eyes need time to adjust to different light levels, rendering you and other animals blind if the environment is made significantly darker or brighter very quickly. This temporary blindness is why deer and many other animals freeze when you shine lights on them at night. Evolution, of course, could not select for animals which can adjust immediately because artificial lighting is a fairly recent invention, but what excuse does a designer have?

I will also include some incorrect suggestions you made throughout your post in the list.

9. Humans practically never retain their vision for 70 years. In fact, most people begin to become noticeably nearsighted by the age of 40, even if they have had perfect vision their entire lives up to that point. Not to mention the "floaters" people begin to see in their vision, which is fibers clumping together in the fluids of the eye that cast a shadow on the retina. These aren't disease symptoms, these are pretty much inevitable features of aging.

9. You assert that if evolution were true, we'd have eyes at the back of our heads too for some reason. Do you not realize that you are implying a designer also couldn't give us what you assume to be a beneficial feature? In any case, if it actually benefited us to have a visual field that allowed us to see behind us as well as in front of us, we'd have eyes on the sides of our head like rabbits do, not a similarly positioned second set of eyes at the back of the head (which wouldn't even grant us a full 360 view, since binocular vision in humans only covers 114 degrees, and doubled that is 228 degrees). I am shocked you wouldn't consider the position of our eyes and number of them to be an example of a beneficial trait, because I sure would. It is very good positioning for having great depth perception, which would have helped our hunter/gatherer ancestors hunt animals. The type of visual field you describe as being "better" would compromise that depth perception and make focusing on a single object much more difficult.



I have mentioned before that a lot of systems in our body are worse as a result of excessive complexity, why would a robot comparable to a human ever be as pointlessly complex? Sounds like a lot of unnecessary effort on our part.


I explain earlier the flaws in your statements about the human eye here, but I also feel the need to mention that there is not a single bit of evidence for the idea that our species used to live longer than we do today. In fact, biblical scholars attribute the extremely long lifespans given early on in the Old Testament to the inefficient math system of the people that wrote it. That, or just ancient whimsy.


Again, this comes with the implication that a designer couldn't have improved their own design. I don't know why you would assume that evolution as a natural process would be more capable of variable changes than a designer would be, since evolution just works with what it gets, whereas a designer could just add whatever it wanted to.

Also, this was worded a bit too oddly for me to just correct it, so here is how a native English speaker would have said all of that:
"If evolution is true, we'd be able to see images in black and white in addition to our normal vision, because that would help with survival. We'd also have eyes at the back of our heads in addition to at the front so that we'd have a wider field of vision, because that would be more useful than what we currently have. But evolution can't seem to accomplish that."

Also, I'd love an explanation for why you think being able to see in black and white at will would help with our survival, when such vision just removes details such as the bright coloration of poisonous animals.

I also have to say that this is a good indication that you have never been outside for a few hours before and after sunset consecutively without bringing a light source with you. Human night vision is in black and white. It's still decently clear as long as the eyes gradually adjust to the darkness without interference from artificial light sources. If you allow your eyes to adjust in this manner, you'll notice that you see about as well as you do at twilight or a bit better if the moon is full. You'll be able to see okay even if the sun set hours ago, but colors are very muted if present at all. Shades of red are particularly difficult to see at night.

So, if you want to see something in black and white, you can always just look at it in the dark.


Oh, shall we do the brain itself next?

I've always found it funny that creationists never seem to bring up organs like the spleen or kidneys when arguing for intelligent design. It's almost always the eyes, brain, lungs, or heart.

Be sure to quote me when responding to this so that I see it as an alert.

Those 'bare minimum' of the eyes are more difficult to achieve that you may know.
We see well there is more virtue than flaw in our eyes. You really want a flawed eye? think about the possibilities of what could have gone wrong but it didn't because it was not evolution that built our eyes.
Machines need knowledge to be built, a process *with a source that is random* can't build a machine and we are biological machines more or less, well we have a soul and spirit too. You can't build a simulation with the source being random and build in it a machine. The supposed simulations about evolution that i saw they give in the answer already for what is correct making them false and dishonest.
I have discerned my soul, is an advantage of being alive with the spirit of God (born again), some people can detect spiritual things, so i have little hopes for evolutionists to explain our intellect. But you would call that very unlikely to have happened. Now scientists (if serious i think they are) are saying consciousness keeps going somehow after death after analysing a lot of NDE.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I see. Well, there is more virtue than flaw in our eyes.

I demonstrated that over half of your list of good eye aspects weren't valid, so I'd like to know how you justify that conclusion. Just because they work doesn't make them good.

You really want a flawed eye? think about the possibilities of what could have gone wrong but it didn't because it was not evolution that built our eyes.

-_- What makes you think that none of those "wrong" pathways ever occur? Are people not sometimes born blind? What benefits survival persists better than that which doesn't. By virtue of this, it doesn't matter really how many terrible eyes have come into existence as long as some of them work; the ones that work persist and the ones that don't fail to persist.

Machines need knowledge to be built, a process *with a source that is random* can't build a machine and we are biological machines more or less, well we have a soul and spirit too.

Soul and spirit aren't usually counted as separate things, but regardless, neither demonstrably exist. All evidence points to your personality, hopes, dreams, consciousness, etc. being a product of the brain. However, if the soul/spirit was a demonstrable part of our bodies, there is no reason to assume it couldn't develop via evolution just as much as your heart or liver.

Machines don't function like living organisms do. Notice how they are so much more efficient, yet so much less complex than naturally occurring items tend to be. This is because machines are made with specific function in mind.

In contrast, living cells are a nightmare when it comes to efficiency. Rather than, say, making wood chips by turning on a wood chipper and accurately filling it with wood until the required wood chips are made, your cells would make wood chips by having a wood chipper that is always on with wood haphazardly drifting around it, with only some of it ending up in the correct hole in the wood chipper and the wood chipper only stopping once it is clogged by the wood chips it produces. Does the latter sound all that intelligent to you? Well, that's how enzymes in your cells work, and people usually praise that as one of the more elegant cell systems. That's the bar your cells set when it comes to efficiency; a wood chipper that only has wood enter it by chance and only stops when it is clogged.

You can't build a simulation with the source being random and build in it a machine.

Evolution isn't random. Traits that benefit survival and reproduction, by virtue of them doing that, persist better than traits which are neutral or are detrimental to either of those things. Mutation is the only somewhat random aspect of evolution as a whole, but mutations also aren't completely random. For example, a region of human genes that is related to intelligence is one of the most frequently mutating sections of our DNA. Regardless, that somewhat random aspect of mutation is a huge part of why organisms that live in identical environments don't always end up with the same adaptations for it. For example, not all animals that live in cold areas have thick fur to keep them warm; some have thick fat deposits, while others have an anti freezing agent in their blood, etc. Anything which cannot adapt to its environment dies, which is why the vast majority of species that have ever existed are extinct. Nature is cruel.

The supposed simulations about evolution that I saw they give in the answer already for what is correct making them false and dishonest.

This sentence is so strange I actually am not 100% sure what you mean. My best guess is that you saw a program that simulated evolution, but since the person presenting it spoke authoritatively or because you disliked their conclusions, you decided that they must be dishonest.

By the way, you mention souls a lot in this post, but the theory of evolution doesn't require souls to not be real. They very well could be real, we just haven't measured them yet. Because of this lack of evidence for the existence of souls, I don't personally believe in them, but I used to despite never being a theist.

Also, remember, the letter "I" by itself is always capitalized.

I have discerned my soul, is an advantage of being alive with the spirit of God (born again). Some people can detect spiritual things, so I have little hopes for evolutionists to explain our intellect. But you would call that very unlikely to have happened.

I know some people claim to have supernatural powers and to experience miracles, etc.

There was a retired magician that, for decades, offered up a large sum of money to anyone that could demonstrate that they have supernatural abilities. That sum eventually exceeded 1 million USD. Thousands of proclaimed physics, wizards, prophets, etc. attempted to win that award, but not one was legitimate. They all used tricks or they failed to demonstrate their ability entirely.

That isn't to say that I 100% assume that humans cannot have such currently inexplicable abilities. In fact, I know a person that is very shy and awkward about "their ability to see the future through dreams", and I have documented their most widely affecting prophecy on here to see if it comes to pass in 2021 and to have documented evidence that the prophecy was made before 2021. But I'm not going to assume that they have powers before they demonstrate them. Real prophecies, aside from coming to pass, have to have certain qualities to ensure that they aren't just lucky guesses.
1. The prophecy cannot be of an inevitable event such as a prediction of an earthquake occurring at a fault line.
2. The prophecy cannot be vague. Specific details such as time and location, as well as an apt, clear description of the event must be provided.
3. The prophecy must be traceable back to a source that predates the predicted event.
4. The prophecy cannot be made on the grounds of insider info, such as a company CEO anonymously "predicting" that a specific line of products from their company is going to be produced in the future.
5. The prophecy cannot be of an event likely to occur by pure chance, such as predicting the gender of a woman's first child. That's a 50/50 shot, so you'd have to repeat that dozens of times in a row and have all predictions be correct before it could be considered impressive.
6. The prophecy cannot be considered to have come to pass if a similar event with different details occurs. For example, if a claimed prophet predicts that there will be an explosion in a Coca Cola factory in South Africa in the month of June in 2019, and in June of 2019 a Pepsi factory in the United States explodes, the latter would not fulfill the prophecy.
7. The prophecy cannot under any circumstances be an event the prophet or anyone that hears about the prophecy can force to come to pass. Consider the exploding factory example, and how it wouldn't be all that impressive if the explosion was caused by a bomb the prophet planted.

Regardless as to whether or not there is anyone on this planet that can predict the future or anything similar, the presence of such a person would not be evidence for the existence of deities.

 

[NBB]

I demonstrated that over half of your list of good eye aspects weren't valid, so I'd like to know how you justify that conclusion. Just because they work doesn't make them good.


-_- What makes you think that none of those "wrong" pathways ever occur? Are people not sometimes born blind? What benefits survival persists better than that which doesn't. By virtue of this, it doesn't matter really how many terrible eyes have come into existence as long as some of them work; the ones that work persist and the ones that don't fail to persist.



Soul and spirit aren't usually counted as separate things, but regardless, neither demonstrably exist. All evidence points to your personality, hopes, dreams, consciousness, etc. being a product of the brain. However, if the soul/spirit was a demonstrable part of our bodies, there is no reason to assume it couldn't develop via evolution just as much as your heart or liver.

Machines don't function like living organisms do. Notice how they are so much more efficient, yet so much less complex than naturally occurring items tend to be. This is because machines are made with specific function in mind.

In contrast, living cells are a nightmare when it comes to efficiency. Rather than, say, making wood chips by turning on a wood chipper and accurately filling it with wood until the required wood chips are made, your cells would make wood chips by having a wood chipper that is always on with wood haphazardly drifting around it, with only some of it ending up in the correct hole in the wood chipper and the wood chipper only stopping once it is clogged by the wood chips it produces. Does the latter sound all that intelligent to you? Well, that's how enzymes in your cells work, and people usually praise that as one of the more elegant cell systems. That's the bar your cells set when it comes to efficiency; a wood chipper that only has wood enter it by chance and only stops when it is clogged.


Evolution isn't random. Traits that benefit survival and reproduction, by virtue of them doing that, persist better than traits which are neutral or are detrimental to either of those things. Mutation is the only somewhat random aspect of evolution as a whole, but mutations also aren't completely random. For example, a region of human genes that is related to intelligence is one of the most frequently mutating sections of our DNA. Regardless, that somewhat random aspect of mutation is a huge part of why organisms that live in identical environments don't always end up with the same adaptations for it. For example, not all animals that live in cold areas have thick fur to keep them warm; some have thick fat deposits, while others have an anti freezing agent in their blood, etc. Anything which cannot adapt to its environment dies, which is why the vast majority of species that have ever existed are extinct. Nature is cruel.



This sentence is so strange I actually am not 100% sure what you mean. My best guess is that you saw a program that simulated evolution, but since the person presenting it spoke authoritatively or because you disliked their conclusions, you decided that they must be dishonest.

By the way, you mention souls a lot in this post, but the theory of evolution doesn't require souls to not be real. They very well could be real, we just haven't measured them yet. Because of this lack of evidence for the existence of souls, I don't personally believe in them, but I used to despite never being a theist.

Also, remember, the letter "I" by itself is always capitalized.



I know some people claim to have supernatural powers and to experience miracles, etc.

There was a retired magician that, for decades, offered up a large sum of money to anyone that could demonstrate that they have supernatural abilities. That sum eventually exceeded 1 million USD. Thousands of proclaimed physics, wizards, prophets, etc. attempted to win that award, but not one was legitimate. They all used tricks or they failed to demonstrate their ability entirely.

That isn't to say that I 100% assume that humans cannot have such currently inexplicable abilities. In fact, I know a person that is very shy and awkward about "their ability to see the future through dreams", and I have documented their most widely affecting prophecy on here to see if it comes to pass in 2021 and to have documented evidence that the prophecy was made before 2021. But I'm not going to assume that they have powers before they demonstrate them. Real prophecies, aside from coming to pass, have to have certain qualities to ensure that they aren't just lucky guesses.
1. The prophecy cannot be of an inevitable event such as a prediction of an earthquake occurring at a fault line.
2. The prophecy cannot be vague. Specific details such as time and location, as well as an apt, clear description of the event must be provided.
3. The prophecy must be traceable back to a source that predates the predicted event.
4. The prophecy cannot be made on the grounds of insider info, such as a company CEO anonymously "predicting" that a specific line of products from their company is going to be produced in the future.
5. The prophecy cannot be of an event likely to occur by pure chance, such as predicting the gender of a woman's first child. That's a 50/50 shot, so you'd have to repeat that dozens of times in a row and have all predictions be correct before it could be considered impressive.
6. The prophecy cannot be considered to have come to pass if a similar event with different details occurs. For example, if a claimed prophet predicts that there will be an explosion in a Coca Cola factory in South Africa in the month of June in 2019, and in June of 2019 a Pepsi factory in the United States explodes, the latter would not fulfill the prophecy.
7. The prophecy cannot under any circumstances be an event the prophet or anyone that hears about the prophecy can force to come to pass. Consider the exploding factory example, and how it wouldn't be all that impressive if the explosion was caused by a bomb the prophet planted.

Regardless as to whether or not there is anyone on this planet that can predict the future or anything similar, the presence of such a person would not be evidence for the existence of deities.

No, i'm not going to respond more, we just don't seem to understand each other.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No, i'm not going to respond more, we just don't seem to understand each other.

A shame you don't have any arguments to debate me with, and also that you would just up and leave rather than even trying to explain any of the possible misunderstandings that you are alluding to.

Regardless, I will still offer help with your English skills, just send me direct messages with any language specific questions and I will answer them to the best of my ability.

 

[NBB]

A shame you don't have any arguments to debate me with, and also that you would just up and leave rather than even trying to explain any of the possible misunderstandings that you are alluding to.

Regardless, I will still offer help with your English skills, just send me direct messages with any language specific questions and I will answer them to the best of my ability.

I have some arguments but we don't seem to agree on anything anyway it gets tiresome. And thanks for the english part. ok. Take care.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Our entire species is plagued by back problems because of how our spines bear weight. I know some people sing praises for how our body functions, but that's in the context of our bodies not being designed. Humans most definitely do not have traits that suggest we were designed to walk upright, for example. Why is it that we suffer from the shape of our feet getting distorted from use and our backs hurting from our upright position and yet, birds do not have the same problem. Why would a designer that made chickens not suffer from these problems inflict them upon humans?

Chickens don't wear shoes, sit in chairs all day, work 8 hours a day.

Go ahead, do a study and put shoes on chickens feet for a few hundred years. I'm willing to bet by the end of the study they have back problems too.