by nicolaou 76 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Quoted:
Also, can you give me an example of irreducible complexity within biology as I am not aware of a single one?
Five bucks says she uses the eye :)
In the book I mentioned earlier - The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins, he does an exellent analysis of all the design flaws of the Eye.
Read it an convince yourself!
Quoted:
Also, can you give me an example of irreducible complexity within biology as I am not aware of a single one?
Five bucks says she uses the eye :)
In the book I mentioned earlier - The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins, he does an exellent analysis of all the design flaws of the Eye.
Read it an convince yourself!
Zoiks - i abselutely second that (insects is another noteworthy group which was not present at the cambrian explosion). Many researchers also believe the davonian explosion later was at least as interesting as the cambrian; but ofcourse creationists will only cite the cambrian since many radiations of life; each lasting millions of years and with many transitional forms both within the explosions and between, does not quite fit the agenda.
Glad you guys liked that site.
The thing is, unless you choose to see evolution as NOT being what it truly is, there is no way to refute the scientific evidence for evolution.
Now, has evolution proven that ALL species HAVE evolved? I don't know, but the fact is, there is no reason to believe they haven't.
The Genesis account can very easily be reconceiled with evolution since it is simply a story of how God created the Universe NOT THE WAY he create dit.
Evolution and God do NOT oppose each other, heck evolution and creation do NOT oppose each other since evolution has NOTHING to do with Where Life came from and WHy it is here, evolution has to do with HOW life came to be what it is RIGHT NOW.
You wouldn't expect to leave bricks/cement/timber and then expect the house to build itself would you?
No, but things would get a little more complicated if Dutch Colonials fell in love with an Elizabethian Tudors; compared their blueprints; drew up an entirely new architectural set by combining random elements of each; and then gave birth to new houses, similar to both parents but distinct from either.
Well, as long as you bow down to your tingod Richard Dawkins, everything is fine and verifiable in evolution. Strange that such incoherence has been served up as science!
Well, as long as you bow down to your tingod Richard Dawkins, everything is fine and verifiable in evolution.
Idiot.
NowAndThen: start a topic where you try to describe your ideas in detail
The creationist argument against Evolution that I held was the difference between micro and macro evolution...
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1466790112
And I was taught, and accepted, that the discovery of Lucy ended up being inaccurate, that she was actually two separate animals mistaken for one or something to that effect... However now I'm not finding anything about Lucy being false except from Christian websites... interesting... I may have to rethink this knowing she was one whole ape-person.
At any rate: I have always believed that the lack of a god's existence being proven by evolution is a non sequitor... Even with the big bang or any evolutionist theory, to me, it is logical to think, it also had a start by something that doesn't need a start. Evolution and Creation do not need to be at odds...
Thank you for addressing Lee Strobel... I see a lot of people find him laughable... I'm still learning and I, admittedly, am ignorant of the details of scientific fact...
What I get from Lee Strobel is how he speaks of it not being coincidence... how so many things happen when the probability is so unlikely. Now someone else on this board said to me something to the effect of that not being much different then picking up a grain of sand - there are billions and billions of grains of sand: yet one grain can be picked up... to which I said: yes: however: if that grain were blown to glass, and further shaped into an animal... maybe further color was added and even further gears giving it mobility... this would no longer be considered chance. One argument I enjoy still is the Watchmaker Argument... lately I've enjoyed watching youtube clips from the Thinking Atheist and even more from the Atheist Experiment... Here is an atheist's answer to the watchmaker argument (Designer Stubble the eye is mentioned):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URXuuVmgO0M
This nearly debunks the whole watchmaker argument (which Lee Strobel continues to make repeatedly only using different things then watches)... however, in spite of the great logic of Matt Dillahunty (the atheist speaking in this youtube clip) I still see the watchmaker analogy has a good point... because I don't see the common factor being whether or not watches and people occur naturally. I see the common factor being how intricate watches are and, even more so, how incredibly intricate nature (people, animals, rocks, etc) are...
Designer Stubble what's wrong with the intricacy of the human eye?
I don't see the common factor being whether or not watches and people occur naturally. I see the common factor being how intricate watches are and, even more so, how incredibly intricate nature (people, animals, rocks, etc) are...
Agreed, watches are intricate and something like the human eye is also intricate (even more than a wristwatch). But what about say, a flatworm eye?
Pigment cells block light from all directions except one. Light from that direction only can enter the eye cup to reach the light receptor cells. This sort of eye doesn't form an image, but it does let the animal sense the intensity and source of light. It's still a level of intricacy but vastly less so than a human eye, and there are creatures with 'eyes' even simpler than this!
What does this huge variety of eye types, from simple patches of light sensitive cells to something as sophisticated as a mammalian or bird eye, suggest to you? If a small improvement accrues to the simplest eye once in a million years, how simple will that eye still be after 500 million years?!
Why, you'd think it had been designed, it would certainly look like it!
Complexity and the appearance of design are not evidences against evolution, they are evolutions triumph.
