The Scotsman

Joined

• started 33 topics
• posted 394 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by The Scotsman

• 
  38

  The Evolution of the Eye.

  by whereami in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  fascinating stuff.. .

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb9_x1wgm7e.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  The Scotsman

  Not true at all. I learned that you don't understand biology, chemistry, genetics, don't want to learn them.

  Ah - now comes the arrogance. You nothing of me or about me. I do not need to have full understanding of biology, chemistry etc to believe that someone / something made/designed the human eye.

  Just like I do not need to understand the full mechanics / details of how my 10 megepixel camera works to KNOW that someone (or a group of people) designed and built it.

  God did it....that's easy. It's...comfortable.

  Easy??? - do you think so??? I don't think its easy at all. I did not mention God - I merely stated that intelligence existed before the eye did - but your probably right - it probably was God....
• 
  38

  The Evolution of the Eye.

  by whereami in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  fascinating stuff.. .

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb9_x1wgm7e.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  The Scotsman

  I know. Learning it hard. It's easier to just believe what you want. Keep up the good work.

  Your right - learning "can" be hard for all of us. I have learned nothing on this thread and neither have you - which pretty much solidifies my point - debates on this subject are pointless, they very rarely, if ever change someone's pre-position.

  And it is not about taking some easy route because I maintain my own beliefs.

  To believe the eye evolved without intelligent input - now thats far from easy....
• 
  38

  The Evolution of the Eye.

  by whereami in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  fascinating stuff.. .

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb9_x1wgm7e.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  The Scotsman

  It's irrelevant what most people think. The camera is inorganic, not self re-producing and isn't combing it's parts with another camera to make new models. Your analogy doesn't make sense and collapses.

  The argument makes perfect sense and by stating that a camera is inorganic is irrelevent - the camera exists because an intelligent being created it - simple really. If the intelligence was not there "first" we would have no camera.

  Evolution is by no means random.

  To deny the basic fact that the premise of evolution is in fact random processes does not help your argument. If not random - what is it? Controlled? If so - who / what is the controller?

  If i pick up pots of paint and just through them at the canvas - THATS random. This will produce a very colourful canvas - but it is not going to be a portrait, or a landscape.

  But if someone were to take some time, use brushes and use their talent they could produce beautiful artwork - same canvas, same paint - just not random. The key though is this - to produce the beautiful artwork requires understanding, tools and some talent BEFORE the painting is produced.

  Anyway - I am breaking my own rule here - "never engage in a creation / evolution debate" - it is uttely pointless. You believe what you want and I will do the same.
• 
  57

  When You First Saw This Place What Was Your Reaction?

  by minimus in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  were you shocked?.

  was it eye opening?.

  did you think these "apostates" were pretty much right?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  The Scotsman

  I thought you were all crazy - and still do in some cases.

  I was really shocked at first but then it started to all make sense.
• 
  38

  The Evolution of the Eye.

  by whereami in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  fascinating stuff.. .

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb9_x1wgm7e.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  The Scotsman

  Hey Caedes

  You did not deny that my digital camera had a designer - in fact you stated that it definately did.

  Now we will put the "human eye is a botched job argument" to once side for a moment.

  I would wager that most people would agree that the human eye is more impressive than my cluncky 10 megapixel camera. Your view is that my inferior camera "definately" had a designer and yet tthe vastly more superior human eye did not - argument collapses.

  As I said at the start - it is truly laughable that people actually believe wonderful, beautiful, detailed objects like the eye are the result of random processes. Of course the evolutionist community have got to attempt to explain the eye from a non creator perspective - but it seems to dig evolutionists into a deeper hole.

  Anyway - no big deal - we agree to disagree.

  The Scotsman -
• 
  38

  The Evolution of the Eye.

  by whereami in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  fascinating stuff.. .

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb9_x1wgm7e.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  The Scotsman

  But then presumably the designer of your camera isn't claiming to be an omniscient, omnipotent creator of the universe who demands worship

  No - the designer is just an intelligent human (or group of humans) who design and construct cameras. If not for these humans digital cameras would not exist -or would they have evolved to? Intelligence existed first before the camera (that's kinda my point).

  Also, your camera engineer presumably hasn't left in fundamental design flaws he has fixed in other cameras he has designed.

  Who decides if something is a flaw or not. People point to other living things that clearly have better eyesight than humans as proof "somehow" that God bungled human eye sight. To live my life I do not need eagle eye vision or radar sight or night vision - my eyes are just fine for me.

  And yes. eyes are not perfect - no part of a human being is perfect. I am sure I read that in a book somewhere..............
• 
  38

  The Evolution of the Eye.

  by whereami in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  fascinating stuff.. .

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb9_x1wgm7e.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  The Scotsman

  I have just picked up my 10 megapixel camera and I was just thinking to myself - "Why is this not a 15 megapixel?

  The designer clearly made a botched job of the 10 megapixel camera - because its not the best.
• 
  38

  The Evolution of the Eye.

  by whereami in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  fascinating stuff.. .

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb9_x1wgm7e.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  The Scotsman

  To say the eye evolved is laughable......

  """If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design."""

  LOL........
• 
  3

  Do's and Don'ts Debating Creationists

  by bohm in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  after watching lwts thread where maher was floored by orielly i thought this would be interesting to post.

  ken miller and fred edwords discuss how to debate creationists:.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppmu081ge9y.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  The Scotsman

  Do's and don'ts debating Creationists??!!!

  Don't do it - its pointless.

  Do's and dont's debating evolutionists??!!!

  Don't do it - its pointless.

  Do's and dont's debating atheists??!!!

  Don't do it - its pointless.

  Everything that can be said has been said on these subjects - countless debates have been held on this site for years and not led anywhere very quickly. Why can't everyone just except that others may have different beliefs - live and let live.
• 
  3

  37% of Brits are Atheists or Aggies ?

  by wobble in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  a consumer activist site here in the u.k runs an on-line straw poll on a different subject each week.. this time the question was "what religion are you ?

  the tick boxes listed all the common faiths, r.c, cof e, jewish etc, along with "other" and "non-practising".

  out of 5,000 respondents 22% said non-practising.. 22% said atheist.. !3% said agnostic.. i think this may be a fair reflection of belief in the u.k today, 37% who do not believe in god, plus another 22% who are not convinced, hence non-practising.. after over 100 years of preaching the dubs are fighting a losing battle.. of course they were far too small a group to warrant their own tick-box on the survey.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  The Scotsman

  Only 22% claim to be atheist - this is good news. The last survey of this type I read had atheism at 25% in the UK.

  Interesting quote on Sky News the other day (related to the coverage of the Pope last week). A survey was conducted in the UK and the question was - Do you consider yourself "Spiritual"?

  71% said yes.

  Thats surveys for you - it depends who you ask and what questions that are used.

  The UK definately has a fairly strong atheistic, agnostic under-current - but has this had a positive influence on this nation - hmm......