|
Attention: Year 2009 is here
Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rat_bytes
Joined: 22 Apr 2008
Posts: 539
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 2:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| IandonlyI wrote: |
| intelligence cannot come without an intelligent input. So Giraffe's neck loss of hair loss from our body or starting to walk straight could all be due to evolution but input of intelligence can only come from intelligence. |
Baseless claim.
| IandonlyI wrote: |
| All the evolutionists make it sound like they all have answers and that they are right but they dont have all the answers, likewise, all the anti-evolutionists also dont have all the answers. So wisdom is in believing in both theories untill we have actual proof. Besides, dont we disbelieve in everything untill we have proff in science? So why not here? |
What would you constitute as proof? Why do you think it's wise to believe both? Would you apply this logic to any other conflict or is this "give unequal arguments equal ground" attitude exclusive to the evo vs creation "debate"?
| IandonlyI wrote: |
| In Summary, an human eye coming to the present state and form in physical looks is possible but the perfection at which our eyes sees in 3D, the fact that we know that being able to see in 3D was necessary can not come our of evolution. I mean one thing that bothers me about evolution is how did our eye know that we will be better off with 3D vision and so we have it. What the animal spoke to his eye that hey this 2D vision is no good, I need 3D because the world is in 3D? BS. |
Why do you think our vision is perfect? Do you believe our vision is perfect because you have tested all forms of biological vision from a variety of animals, or because you assumed it was? If you think our vision is "perfect", how would you describe an eagle's or a falcon's?
Before you continue, the "irreducable complexity" argument has been shown to be fallacious. It has been shown that a mammalian eye can evolve out of simpler ocular structures. I would navigate away from those creationist pages and start reading proper science if I was you, your opinions are badly misguided and in need of fact updates.
_________________
The world holds two classes of men - intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence. - Abu’l‐Ala al Ma’arri |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
crazy canuck
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 6391
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PAKI88 wrote: |
LOL, dang you. YOu figured it out so yeah how can something thats 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000x less likely to happen happen? I mean really when you walk down a street and you see a complex building with all that technology in it, do you believe it built itself? No thats almost impossible. You don't have to see the builders/contractors that built it, to know they built it. Just cause you didn't see them make it doesn't mean they don't exist.
I mean I can believe God created us, more than we came from a result of a big bang. Then all of a sudden a single cell with the conditions just right evolved into pre-humans to modern day humans over millions of years...
and you say our religion is BS... |
Mix gases like Co, Metane, nitrogen , hydrogen, in a sealed flask, jolt it with electric spark, repeat it for few days and odds are very good in making basic building blocks of life like cynogen compounds, aminoacids. Proteins can be made from these compounds.
Compare that odd with praying to Allah and telling him to make amino acid in test tube just by praying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FreePower
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
Posts: 564
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 4:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| It has been shown that a mammalian eye can evolve out of simpler ocular structures. |
Where exactly has it been shown?
_________________
The Meeting House - What convinced me - www.themeetinghouse.ca - Irreligious Christians
“The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IandonlyI
Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Posts: 2884
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rat_bytes wrote: |
| IandonlyI wrote: |
| intelligence cannot come without an intelligent input. So Giraffe's neck loss of hair loss from our body or starting to walk straight could all be due to evolution but input of intelligence can only come from intelligence. |
Baseless claim.
| IandonlyI wrote: |
| All the evolutionists make it sound like they all have answers and that they are right but they dont have all the answers, likewise, all the anti-evolutionists also dont have all the answers. So wisdom is in believing in both theories untill we have actual proof. Besides, dont we disbelieve in everything untill we have proff in science? So why not here? |
What would you constitute as proof? Why do you think it's wise to believe both? Would you apply this logic to any other conflict or is this "give unequal arguments equal ground" attitude exclusive to the evo vs creation "debate"?
| IandonlyI wrote: |
| In Summary, an human eye coming to the present state and form in physical looks is possible but the perfection at which our eyes sees in 3D, the fact that we know that being able to see in 3D was necessary can not come our of evolution. I mean one thing that bothers me about evolution is how did our eye know that we will be better off with 3D vision and so we have it. What the animal spoke to his eye that hey this 2D vision is no good, I need 3D because the world is in 3D? BS. |
Why do you think our vision is perfect? Do you believe our vision is perfect because you have tested all forms of biological vision from a variety of animals, or because you assumed it was? If you think our vision is "perfect", how would you describe an eagle's or a falcon's?
Before you continue, the "irreducable complexity" argument has been shown to be fallacious. It has been shown that a mammalian eye can evolve out of simpler ocular structures. I would navigate away from those creationist pages and start reading proper science if I was you, your opinions are badly misguided and in need of fact updates. |
Yes perfect for us, not for an eagle. Anyhow, I am not a close minded religious fool either. I am open to all ideas. But the idea of evolution is as much foolish today as the idea of God creating things, if you want to call it that way. If you cant believe that some power called God created something then what justification do you have for disagreeing with someone who disbelieves in evolution? I mean shoot, maybe this eolution is fairytale where everthing just came out fine. Can you prove that everything came from single cell? Can you prove everything about evolution? Can you even prove 20% of the theories that are tossed about evolution? If you cant then your evolution is as much deep in sh!t as the idea of God. Period.
You mentioned "Perfect vision" and questioned what is my idea of perfect vision? You also said eagle has a much better vision than us. So rat tell me why I dont have a vision of eagle but of a human. And let me clarify, by perfect I mean perfect for us obviously. If I had vision of eagle it wouldn't be perfect for me, would it?
My problem with evolution is only with intelligence. I firmly believe that things can form on their own when you are talking such a vast number of inputs but for a generation of intelligence there has to be a input of intelligence. YOU evolutionists want people to believe in YOUR theories but you dont want to listen to theories of others. Science can never grow with that attitude.
We have created computers, which is a pretty good invention if you think about it. But to operate then you need intelligence(human). Well then you will quote artificial intelligence, even that requires intelligent input at first. So if science wants us to believe that since we are so related with so many others animals we can easily conclude that we all came from one cell why cant I tell you that since we can see today in our world that nthing operates without intelligent input of our own world, no intelligence can come without input of an intelligence? Why is that idea any less relevant than the idea of believing in all of us coming from a single cell? Atleast this idea has a proof in front of your eyes, while there is no proof of single cell.
Over and all, just tell me why I dont have eagle's vision and I have Human's? I mean the vision I have is perfect for me as a human. But I just want to know what decided and what created. Which if, then and else statement gave me an eye of a human and not of an eagle's. And dont tell me that we diddnt need to see far away and find a small object that is why we dont have it, because there are two problems with that statement 1) We do need to look far away and look at small objects. Have you heard of binoculors, telescopes etc.? and 2) If you tell me that anyway than we can say ok the decision was made by a process of evolution of how far a human needs to look but what actually made it happen? The theory of evolution has the power of creating chemical reactions too so that it can make it happen what it likes? Maybe evolution is god in itself? And let's say that today we need to look far away, how come we dont hear human eyes evolving into something better? Or even better, let's say that the factors for survival shaped us but what actually made it happen? If bet you dont have answer to that and if you did you wouldn't be wasting your time on FFI.
Lastly, yes I do like to believe in both theories untill one of them is properly proven, which will automatically disprove the other, and I hope you dont have a problem with that. And BTW, even Einstein and wheelchair bound british scientist(forgot his name) believe in God. Maybe not a god of religion but a God after all. Even they saw and see so much mind bogling wonders in universe that they feel like believing in God.
As long as you dont tell me what to do, we are cool, if you want to debate I warn you that this is a never ending debate and I promise to continue if you want but dont come out and say that you have disproved and thrashed this BS and that BS etc. You haven't disproved anything and I plan to disprove nothing, in fact, at this point neighter can be proven of disproven.
NOTE: The example of eye is just something I thought of rightaway, there are million other things we can talk about.
_________________
If you cannot see god in all, how can you see god at all? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Popeye
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 504
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| IandonlyI wrote: |
creation "debate"?
YOU evolutionists want people to believe in YOUR theories but you dont want to listen to theories of others. Science can never grow with that attitude. |
Dear IandonlyI
People often believe that "theory" means "imperfect fact"- This is incorrect.
Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.
Facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty.
Facts are the world's data.
To qualify as a fact, it must be observable and verifiable. The reasons why we say that Evolution is a fact is the same as why we say that gravity is a fact. We can observe it and verify it.
The fossil records, for example, show that biological entities change over time. They are all verifiable and observable.
Facts don't go away whilst rival theories are debated to explain them.
Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome.
Here are some easy short videos about evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=potholer54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXfIop5ZOsY
| IandonlyI wrote: |
And BTW, even Einstein and wheelchair bound british scientist(forgot his name) believe in God. Maybe not a god of religion but a God after all. Even they saw and see so much mind bogling wonders in universe that they feel like believing in God. |
Three relevant quotes from Einstein:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954.
"Thus I came...to a deep religiosity, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached a conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true....Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience...an attitude which has never left me."
The Quotable Einstein.
"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
Maybe this will help you figure out how Einstein really felt...
_________________
Surtout, pas trop de zele. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FreePower
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
Posts: 564
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Popeye wrote: |
| IandonlyI wrote: |
creation "debate"?
YOU evolutionists want people to believe in YOUR theories but you dont want to listen to theories of others. Science can never grow with that attitude. |
Dear IandonlyI
People often believe that "theory" means "imperfect fact"- This is incorrect.
Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.
Facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty.
Facts are the world's data.
To qualify as a fact, it must be observable and verifiable. The reasons why we say that Evolution is a fact is the same as why we say that gravity is a fact. We can observe it and verify it.
The fossil records, for example, show that biological entities change over time. They are all verifiable and observable.
Facts don't go away whilst rival theories are debated to explain them.
Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome.
Here are some easy short videos about evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=potholer54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXfIop5ZOsY
| IandonlyI wrote: |
And BTW, even Einstein and wheelchair bound british scientist(forgot his name) believe in God. Maybe not a god of religion but a God after all. Even they saw and see so much mind bogling wonders in universe that they feel like believing in God. |
Three relevant quotes from Einstein:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954.
"Thus I came...to a deep religiosity, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached a conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true....Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience...an attitude which has never left me."
The Quotable Einstein.
"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
Maybe this will help you figure out how Einstein really felt... |
I have not seen any fossil records that show change over time. Could you please point me to where I can check this out?
_________________
The Meeting House - What convinced me - www.themeetinghouse.ca - Irreligious Christians
“The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crazy canuck
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 6391
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FreePower wrote: |
| Popeye wrote: |
| IandonlyI wrote: |
creation "debate"?
YOU evolutionists want people to believe in YOUR theories but you dont want to listen to theories of others. Science can never grow with that attitude. |
Dear IandonlyI
People often believe that "theory" means "imperfect fact"- This is incorrect.
Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.
Facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty.
Facts are the world's data.
To qualify as a fact, it must be observable and verifiable. The reasons why we say that Evolution is a fact is the same as why we say that gravity is a fact. We can observe it and verify it.
The fossil records, for example, show that biological entities change over time. They are all verifiable and observable.
Facts don't go away whilst rival theories are debated to explain them.
Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome.
Here are some easy short videos about evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=potholer54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXfIop5ZOsY
| IandonlyI wrote: |
And BTW, even Einstein and wheelchair bound british scientist(forgot his name) believe in God. Maybe not a god of religion but a God after all. Even they saw and see so much mind bogling wonders in universe that they feel like believing in God. |
Three relevant quotes from Einstein:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954.
"Thus I came...to a deep religiosity, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached a conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true....Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience...an attitude which has never left me."
The Quotable Einstein.
"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
Maybe this will help you figure out how Einstein really felt... |
I have not seen any fossil records that show change over time. Could you please point me to where I can check this out? |
There are numerous fossil records showing changes from animal kingdom & plants, In mammals , reptiles , birds, invertebrates. Well known is evolution of horse, marine mammals and what not. There was no grass growing on land 500 million years ago. Algae and fungus only!!
You are not going to belive .Its futile to argue with people who wont put forward their own theories. First it was 7 day creation and now its Intellectual Design.  . Just because macro evolution cant be observed in test tube, creation has to be true.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IandonlyI
Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Posts: 2884
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Popeye wrote: |
| IandonlyI wrote: |
creation "debate"?
YOU evolutionists want people to believe in YOUR theories but you dont want to listen to theories of others. Science can never grow with that attitude. |
Dear IandonlyI
People often believe that "theory" means "imperfect fact"- This is incorrect.
Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.
Facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty.
Facts are the world's data.
To qualify as a fact, it must be observable and verifiable. The reasons why we say that Evolution is a fact is the same as why we say that gravity is a fact. We can observe it and verify it.
The fossil records, for example, show that biological entities change over time. They are all verifiable and observable.
Facts don't go away whilst rival theories are debated to explain them.
Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome.
Here are some easy short videos about evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=potholer54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXfIop5ZOsY
| IandonlyI wrote: |
And BTW, even Einstein and wheelchair bound british scientist(forgot his name) believe in God. Maybe not a god of religion but a God after all. Even they saw and see so much mind bogling wonders in universe that they feel like believing in God. |
Three relevant quotes from Einstein:
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
From a letter Einstein wrote in English, dated 24 March 1954.
"Thus I came...to a deep religiosity, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached a conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true....Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience...an attitude which has never left me."
The Quotable Einstein.
"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."
Maybe this will help you figure out how Einstein really felt... |
Popeye,
Thank you!! Finally a post that makes sense instead of a post that just wants to cuts you off in the belief of "I am right and you are wrong" attitude.
Firstly, few things. I am not a christian. In fact, I am not a believer of any religion upto a point I can say I am A Hindu or sikh or a Muslim or anything. But I do believe in God.
Going to your post. I agree about theories and facts. I also understand that theories diddn't pop out of someone's imagination and they do have some reason to be. I also agree about fossil finds. I agree that horse and donkeys are related. I agree that man and monkey are related. There is no question about it. I also believe in evolution and I am also willing to believe that everything came from one semi-living virus like cell. I am also open to science. I am not a close minded fool either. I am willing to listen to and actually learn from things. I dont like to be ignorant either so thank you for the informative videos and I knew most it in theories, instead of detailed explanation in second video. And lastly I agree that chemical reaction and processes can happen on their own in the chemically charged planet 4.5 billion years ago.
So above are all the agreements. But there is a thing that causes disagreements in my mind. I dont think even contemporary scientists have answer to.
1) Question: (Let me confess first, I am not very good at explaining but I hope I can get the point across) Since you see all the agreements above you can see that I agree that physical things like the structure of an eye can come about on its own or human's penis and vagina. But do you see the perfection here? I mean the fact that light enter's our eyes, gets analyzed by our brain and so we know what is in front of us. Now in a way it is a simple process and we know it all. But the fact that somethign knew that that much that we see is a requirement and we got just that much. That brings us to second thing about analysis. Think about it popeye? If someone told you today that things generated on its own through a process and became so intelligent on its own, would you believe it? So I believe things came about on its own but I have a hard time believing in intelligence that runs it all. First of all, How did this process know that we needed an eye? Secondly, what runs our eye? Thirdly, what decided that we needed two eyes to see 3D properly, just about right for an human?
Seonc thing here is human penis and vagina(no joking here). This one cell turned from semi-living to living, from living to plants and animals, from animals to males and females. From males and females to multiple species allt he way to monkeys. But how did males and females evolve so collectively? I mean the fact that females have a a organ that can hold male's organ to get the job done and they both knew on its own is very hard for me to believe. I mean why diddn't males and females both evolve with vagina or a penis? How come it diddnt happen?
_________________
If you cannot see god in all, how can you see god at all? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crazy canuck
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 6391
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| lndonyl:My problem with evolution is only with intelligence. I firmly believe that things can form on their own when you are talking such a vast number of inputs but for a generation of intelligence there has to be a input of intelligence. YOU evolutionists want people to believe in YOUR theories but you dont want to listen to theories of others. Science can never grow with that attitude. |
What kind of problem you have with intelligence. I take it that you cant accept intelligent creature like humans are product of evolution. Unless there was input of intelligence ( by god?) there cant be intelligent creature like man making all inventions. To you evolution is acceptable as long as theory is confined to non humans.
Intelligence in primates also evolved. Human brain evolved from less develpoed brains of primates like lucy.
Evolution as popularly known is theory of evolution by Darwin. Process of natural selection, competetion for natural resources and adaptation is the corner stone of this theory.
Human Eyes is not perfect.Humans are not born with perfect vision. Newly born child does not have perfect vision its near sighted. Eye site develops, matures and deteriorates like other organs. Why we have people who are color blind although have normal vision in all respect?Any explanation ofrom intelligent designers? If it was made by god in one go, it would have developed and stayed perfect through out human life time. There wont be color blindness or people having old age vision problems.
C.C. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FreePower
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
Posts: 564
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
There are numerous fossil records showing changes from animal kingdom & plants, In mammals , reptiles , birds, invertebrates. Well known is evolution of horse, marine mammals and what not. There was no grass growing on land 500 million years ago. Algae and fungus only!! |
I asked where I could check this out and you simply went on with the same thing Popeye said. I did not mean in real life, but a credible source.
| Quote: |
You are not going to belive .Its futile to argue with people who wont put forward their own theories. First it was 7 day creation and now its Intellectual Design. . Just because macro evolution cant be observed in test tube, creation has to be true. |
Contrary to what you might think I am not ignorant. I am willing to listen to all sides of the fence.
_________________
The Meeting House - What convinced me - www.themeetinghouse.ca - Irreligious Christians
“The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IandonlyI
Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Posts: 2884
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crazy canuck wrote: |
| Quote: |
| lndonyl:My problem with evolution is only with intelligence. I firmly believe that things can form on their own when you are talking such a vast number of inputs but for a generation of intelligence there has to be a input of intelligence. YOU evolutionists want people to believe in YOUR theories but you dont want to listen to theories of others. Science can never grow with that attitude. |
What kind of problem you have with intelligence. I take it that you cant accept intelligent creature like humans are product of evolution. Unless there was input of intelligence ( by god?) there cant be intelligent creature like man making all inventions. To you evolution is acceptable as long as theory is confined to non humans.
Intelligence in primates also evolved. Human brain evolved from less develpoed brains of primates like lucy.
Evolution as popularly known is theory of evolution by Darwin. Process of natural selection, competetion for natural resources and adaptation is the corner stone of this theory.
Human Eyes is not perfect.Humans are not born with perfect vision. Newly born child does not have perfect vision its near sighted. Eye site develops, matures and deteriorates like other organs. Why we have people who are color blind although have normal vision in all respect?Any explanation ofrom intelligent designers? If it was made by god in one go, it would have developed and stayed perfect through out human life time. There wont be color blindness or people having old age vision problems.
C.C. |
I guess I am not explaining it right. Let's just stick to human eye and just tell me one thing. okay fine, I am willing to believe that something can come upto a point of our eye and its workings on its own(just for the sake of argument, dont really believe it). But just tell me what made a decision that animals will need an eye. If we go by evolution any animal or plant that cant make it to or adapt to its environment will die and without a doubt all animals would've died without an eye. So the question is, what really made a decision that animals need an eye? Are you saying that at some point in evolution something in our mind or body or external forces came to a conclusion that we will need an eye and so eye popped out of no where? I mean eye couldn't have taken million years to develop otherwise no animal would've survived. So CC, what made the decision for the requirement of an eye in an animal?
Again and again, when I say perfect eye, I mean perfect for humans. We dont need to look for a rat from the height of 2000 feet so we dont need an eagle eye. We just have an eye that is just about perfect for us. Also, please dont mind but examples of colorblindedness etc that you said are problems with an eye and it makes no sense in a debate about evolution. Shoot, we have siamese kids born with attached asses. Does that mean most kids are born that way?
Believe it or not CC, I know you for long time and your points are mostly very informative and direct and scientific and modern but this post was an disappointment but then I will have to admit that I dont explain things right. Anyway, I hope I am clear in my question this time.
_________________
If you cannot see god in all, how can you see god at all? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crazy canuck
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 6391
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="IandonlyI"]
| crazy canuck wrote: |
| Quote: |
| lndonyl:My problem with evolution is only with intelligence. I firmly believe that things can form on their own when you are talking such a vast number of inputs but for a generation of intelligence there has to be a input of intelligence. YOU evolutionists want people to believe in YOUR theories but you dont want to listen to theories of others. Science can never grow with that attitude. |
What kind of problem you have with intelligence. I take it that you cant accept intelligent creature like humans are product of evolution. Unless there was input of intelligence ( by god?) there cant be intelligent creature like man making all inventions. To you evolution is acceptable as long as theory is confined to non humans.
Intelligence in primates also evolved. Human brain evolved from less develpoed brains of primates like lucy.
Evolution as popularly known is theory of evolution by Darwin. Process of natural selection, competetion for natural resources and adaptation is the corner stone of this theory.
Human Eyes is not perfect.Humans are not born with perfect vision. Newly born child does not have perfect vision its near sighted. Eye site develops, matures and deteriorates like other organs. Why we have people who are color blind although have normal vision in all respect?Any explanation ofrom intelligent designers? If it was made by god in one go, it would have developed and stayed perfect through out human life time. There wont be color blindness or people having old age vision problems.
C.C. |
| Quote: |
| Indonyl:I guess I am not explaining it right. Let's just stick to human eye and just tell me one thing. okay fine, I am willing to believe that something can come upto a point of our eye and its workings on its own(just for the sake of argument, dont really believe it). But just tell me what made a decision that animals will need an eye. If we go by evolution any animal or plant that cant make it to or adapt to its environment will die and without a doubt all animals would've died without an eye. So the question is, what really made a decision that animals need an eye? Are you saying that at some point in evolution something in our mind or body or external forces came to a conclusion that we will need an eye and so eye popped out of no where? I mean eye couldn't have taken million years to develop otherwise no animal would've survived. So CC, what made the decision for the requirement of an eye in an animal? |
Not only mammals ( humans and others) have eyes. Even invertebrates like bugs and bees have eyes . Ancient marine invertebrates had eyes.
Why eyes developed. Very lowly bacteria, creatures living in darkness at bottom of ocean , creatures living in caves where there is darkness all the time dont need eyes.Plants dont have eyes as they lack even centralise nervous system , eyes is of no use to them. Photosynthesis is evrything to them.They have other senses by means of which they differentiate between day and night. Even some creature who adapted to eternal darkness lost their eyes and perfected other senses like hearing, smell and sensing gravity, magnetism etc.
Best guess is that the phenomenon of day and night, cycle of sunlight and darkness favored survival of some invertebrates in shallow sea. All invertebrates having this sense had distinct advantage over blind creatures. Eyes evolved in invertebrates, then in all vertebrtrates. Binocular vision( two eye located like binocular) and perception of seeing things in 3d had distinct advantage for survival catching prey as well as escaping from predators.
| Quote: |
| Again and again, when I say perfect eye, I mean perfect for humans. We dont need to look for a rat from the height of 2000 feet so we dont need an eagle eye. We just have an eye that is just about perfect for us. Also, please dont mind but examples of colorblindedness etc that you said are problems with an eye and it makes no sense in a debate about evolution. Shoot, we have siamese kids born with attached asses. Does that mean most kids are born that way? |
Not only human eye helped it to survive but even compound eyes of invertebrate help them to survive for half billion years. In that sense they are all perfect in their own way. Eye of owl is perfect too for night vision.
Yes color blindness has to do with evolution. Lots of mammals dont see things in living colors. Except some primates and some species of monkeys dependent on eating colored fruits and flowers developed color vision. Humans inherited it from them. In hunting culture, descerning colors had definite advantage in seeing prey camoflaged in jungle. After advent of agriculture some color blind genes did ok and survied.Some color blind people are descendents of these genes.
| Quote: |
| Believe it or not CC, I know you for long time and your points are mostly very informative and direct and scientific and modern but this post was an disappointment but then I will have to admit that I dont explain things right. Anyway, I hope I am clear in my question this time. |
I hope I explained as best as I can. Read articles in popular science magazine or national geographic books about ddevelopment and evolution of vision in animal kingdom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IandonlyI
Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Posts: 2884
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
CC, I do subscribe to NG. Anyway, your post was good but it still does not answer a central question that I asked in last debate. What made the decision that we needed an eye? What actually made it happen? Which factor decided we needed an eye and what out of mind, body and external sources actually made it happen?
I did read you say that it developed in creatures that lived in shallow area but it still does not answer the questions above. Anywway, I am not anti-evolution but these are the questions that I do not answer to but would like to. Chemical processes are simple but intelligence is in decision making, analysis, memory and reasoning(logic) and that I dont believe can come without an input and I am open to an explanation from science, but only when they have one, untill then there is no difference in believing in the God theory or evolution theory. There are big unknowns with both.
CC we are only in last 50-100 years starting to invent and discover in large numbers but we still haven't scratched the surface. Heck, we cant even figure out a device that is closest to us, human brain.
_________________
If you cannot see god in all, how can you see god at all? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crazy canuck
Joined: 20 Mar 2004
Posts: 6391
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| [quote="IandonlyI"]CC, I do subscribe to NG. Anyway, your post was good but it still does not answer a central question that I asked in last debate. What made the decision that we needed an eye? What actually made it happen? Which factor decided we needed an eye and what out of mind, body and external sources actually made it happen? |
In evolution theory, no decisions are made, just selection of certain set of organisms having certain advantages. Invertebrates having some vision had definite advantage over blind invertebrates once cycle of day light and night was well established once deep dark clouds surrounding primitive earth were lifted. Before that eyes had no advantage, everone was blind. Many blind creatures did ok too by developing other senses.Some dug up a whole and lived underneath the dirt others crowled to caves.
Not only humans but all mammals have two eyes. Right question should be why mammals have eyes? Why reptiles have eyes,? Why birds have eyes ? Why bees have eyes? If there was no sun and eternal darkness ( just heat source to make DNAs) no eyes, no photosynthesis, just fungus and bacteria.Indeed thats how it all started.
| Quote: |
| I did read you say that it developed in creatures that lived in shallow area but it still does not answer the questions above. Anywway, I am not anti-evolution but these are the questions that I do not answer to but would like to. Chemical processes are simple but intelligence is in decision making, analysis, memory and reasoning(logic) and that I dont believe can come without an input and I am open to an explanation from science, but only when they have one, untill then there is no difference in believing in the God theory or evolution theory. There are big unknowns with both. |
There is whole range of memory and intelligence in mammals like elpehants, marine maammals and primates. Human species got its brain lot larger and hence lot more input of intelligence in all its endevors.
| Quote: |
| CC we are only in last 50-100 years starting to invent and discover in large numbers but we still haven't scratched the surface. Heck, we cant even figure out a device that is closest to us, human brain. |
Lots of advances are made in filed of human brains & neurology in last 50 years, but lot more to be learnt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IandonlyI
Joined: 26 Aug 2006
Posts: 2884
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="crazy canuck"]
| Quote: |
| IandonlyI wrote: |
| CC, I do subscribe to NG. Anyway, your post was good but it still does not answer a central question that I asked in last debate. What made the decision that we needed an eye? What actually made it happen? Which factor decided we needed an eye and what out of mind, body and external sources actually made it happen? |
In evolution theory, no decisions are made, just selection of certain set of organisms having certain advantages. Invertebrates having some vision had definite advantage over blind invertebrates once cycle of day light and night was well established once deep dark clouds surrounding primitive earth were lifted. Before that eyes had no advantage, everone was blind. Many blind creatures did ok too by developing other senses.Some dug up a whole and lived underneath the dirt others crowled to caves.
Not only humans but all mammals have two eyes. Right question should be why mammals have eyes? Why reptiles have eyes,? Why birds have eyes ? Why bees have eyes? If there was no sun and eternal darkness ( just heat source to make DNAs) no eyes, no photosynthesis, just fungus and bacteria.Indeed thats how it all started.
| Quote: |
| I did read you say that it developed in creatures that lived in shallow area but it still does not answer the questions above. Anywway, I am not anti-evolution but these are the questions that I do not answer to but would like to. Chemical processes are simple but intelligence is in decision making, analysis, memory and reasoning(logic) and that I dont believe can come without an input and I am open to an explanation from science, but only when they have one, untill then there is no difference in believing in the God theory or evolution theory. There are big unknowns with both. |
There is whole range of memory and intelligence in mammals like elpehants, marine maammals and primates. Human species got its brain lot larger and hence lot more input of intelligence in all its endevors.
| Quote: |
| CC we are only in last 50-100 years starting to invent and discover in large numbers but we still haven't scratched the surface. Heck, we cant even figure out a device that is closest to us, human brain. |
Lots of advances are made in filed of human brains & neurology in last 50 years, but lot more to be learnt. |
As I told rat in my second post, there is no end to this discussion as we do not know a lot. Now you are saying selection of species that have particular advantage. I know that too about evolution.
But you fail to answer my questions. CC without some reason nothing happens in this universe. Even in evolution, there was always a reason for anything.
IN previous post you said later on species developed binocular vision. All that is well that they developed but do you want me to believe without an input it happened? What was the input? Who told who to develop that?
I am sorry, let me reiterate, without any analysis, reasoning and decision making nothing can be produced. It just does not happen. All the fossils etc are fine. Even I can find something if I was a scientist, observe it and come to theories but untill you can answer the central questions of intelligence this is all futile.
Animals had one eye, which should've been enough but NO, something told someone that we would need a second eye FOR A REASON and it pops out..... Come on..............
I rest my case here untill the next big discovery ............... Our science is in infancy, if you want to bet on a infant of what will become of it later on, I wish you luck. But I am a sceptic. I will believe it when I see it. As far as evolution is concerned Scientists have only observed and come to theories which any PDH level educated person can do.... BIG DEAL.
_________________
If you cannot see god in all, how can you see god at all? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
