Originally posted by ColettiI just downloaded it. It's an hour and 15 minutes long. I will try to listen to it some other time but I am not in the mood right now.
jmonkey, you might find this interesting also, or anyone else. I'm wondering if anyone has tried to download it yet.
http://www.wordmp3.com/dl.asp?Item=350049242213244879
Let's take the eye.
I've found that most Evolutionists are hard-pressed to explain the step-by-step development of the eye, which is characterized by a staggering complexity. Furnished with automatic aiming, automatic focusing, and automatic aperature adjustment, the human eye can function from almost complete darkness to bright sunlight, see an object the diameter of a fine hair, and make about 100,000 separate motions in an average day, faithfully affording us a continuous series of color stereo-scopic pictures. All of this is performed usually without complaint, and then, while we sleep, it carries on its own maintenance work.
The human eye is so complex and sophisticated that scientists STILL do not fully understand how it functions. Considering the absolutely amazing, highly sophisticated synchronization of complex structures and mechanisms which work together to produce human vision, it is difficult to understand how evolutionists can honestly believe that the eye came about through the step-by-step, trial and error evolutionary process...and this is especially true when we realize that THE EYE WOULD BE USELESS UNLESS IT WAS FULLY DEVELOPED. It either functions as an integrated whole, or not at all.
(Darwin: "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amonts of light, and for the connection of spherical and chromatic aberation, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." )
I agree with Darwin.
I think that evolutionists' problems are further complicated by the fact that the evolutionary theory calls for the chance development of the eye several times, not just once...in the squid,the vertebrate, the athropods, etc...
And don't even get me started on the bombadier beetle! That's a whole 'nother post for a whole 'nother day...
Originally posted by TheBloopGets my rec. Excellent post.
Let's take the eye.
I've found that most Evolutionists are hard-pressed to explain the step-by-step development of the eye, which is characterized by a staggering complexity. Furnished with automatic aiming, automatic focusing, and automatic aperature adjustment, the human eye can function from almost complete darkness to bright sunlight, see an object ...[text shortened]... et me started on the bombadier beetle! That's a whole 'nother post for a whole 'nother day...
I'll give the Evolutionists more to chew on before I go beddie-bye...
Let's take Population Growth
Evolutionists believe that man has been on this earth for at least one million years, whereas Creationists belive that he has been around only a few thousand years. The question then becomes, "which possibility is better supported by the data from population growth statistics?"
Answer: Using an average growth rate of 1/2% per year (a little less than one-quarter of the present rate), and starting with a population of two (guess where I got THAT from), this process would yield a population of 6 billion people in 4,375 years. This allows ample room for periods of time when, as a result of war or disease, the population growth rates were far below the normal averages.
It is statistically inconceivable that only 6 billion people could have resulted from one million years of evolutionary history. Even if the population increased by 1/2 % per year for 10,000 years, the # of people in the present generation would exceed 9.15 x 10^21.
You think the earth is crowded NOW??
Seems more likely that man's history spans only thousand of years, not millions...
Originally posted by TheBloopCome on - you are really an evolutionist trying to make creationist views look stupid, aren't you?
I'll give the Evolutionists more to chew on before I go beddie-bye...
Let's take Population Growth
Evolutionists believe that man has been on this earth for at least one million years, whereas Creationists belive that he has been around only a few thousand years. The question then becomes, "which possibility is better supported by the data from po ...[text shortened]... ed NOW??
Seems more likely that man's history spans only thousand of years, not millions...
Originally posted by steerpike...that's your answer? "come on"?
Come on - you are really an evolutionist trying to make creationist views look stupid, aren't you?
Here, let me try...
You think something like the eye can develop randomly in EVERY species?
Oh, come on...
You actually think that only 6 billion people would exisit after a MILLION years? Oh,come on...
Guess I just refuted the theory of evolution, huh? I had no idea it was that easy...
Remember that, folks, any time you want to refute something....remember these two simple words... "come on"...
Man, that works even better than "Oh yeah?".
Originally posted by TheBloopI have an idea Bloop. Before you post another idea taken straight from that pseudo-scientist Henry Morris, go to the link below and see if "evolutionists" haven't already answered the question.
I'll give the Evolutionists more to chew on before I go beddie-bye...
Let's take Population Growth
Evolutionists believe that man has been on this earth for at least one million years, whereas Creationists belive that he has been ...[text shortened]... that man's history spans only thousand of years, not millions...
http://www.talkorigins.org/
For example, here is an excellent response to Morris' silly population growth question.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB620.html
. . . and another to the human eye objection.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_1.html
I encourage you to find the answer next time.
Originally posted by TheBloopWell the eye issue never gets old, no matter how many times it's refuted. I've posted this answer before but for your sake I'll do it again.
Let's take the eye.
I've found that most Evolutionists are hard-pressed to explain the step-by-step development of the eye, which is characterized by a staggering complexity. Furnished with automatic aiming, automatic focusing, and automatic aperature adjustment, the human eye can function from almost complete darkness to bright sunlight, see an object ...[text shortened]... et me started on the bombadier beetle! That's a whole 'nother post for a whole 'nother day...
It's not in my words but I agree with the content so I won't rephrase it.
Oh, and by the way, the Bombardier Beetle isn't hard to explain either, please follow the provides link for further info:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
By the way, do you have an alternative to the TOE or are you just in here to criticize it?
Evolution of the Eye:
When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years?
If evolution occurs through gradations, the critics say, how could it have created the separate parts of the eye -- the lens, the retina, the pupil, and so forth -- since none of these structures by themselves would make vision possible? In other words, what good is five percent of an eye?
Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.
Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.
Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.
Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.
Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
Originally posted by nickybuttWhat I'd like to know is since when is science based on speculation? Every step they described is speculative. The process has never been observed and science should be based on real time observation and hard data, not on speculations.
Well the eye issue never gets old, no matter how many times it's refuted. I've posted this answer before but for your sake I'll do it again.
It's not in my words but I agree with the content so I won't rephrase it.
Oh, and by the way, the Bombardier Beetle isn't hard to explain either, please follow the provides link for further info:
http://www.t ...[text shortened]... light-sensitive patch.
Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
A little known, but rising alternative to evolution is the Intelligent Design movement. Intelligent Design can be CONTRASTED with creationism because it only focuses on detecting the presence of an "intelligent" force via scientific impossiblity of evolution in certain cases. This intelligence is not hailed as a god or even an unnatural force. If you are interested in biology and the darminist controversy I would recommend any of the following books on this general movement:
"Doubts About Darwin" James Woodward - (good one to start with)
"Icons of Evolution" Jonathan Wells
"Evolution: A Theory In Crisis" Michael Denton
"Darwin's Black Box" Michael Behe
These views all stem directly from empircal evidence that appears to be irreconcilable with current evolutionary theory. They are not well accepted among most academic biologists who have worked with Darwin's theory for years.
Originally posted by TheBloopYou are really the only creationist to put up real scientific evidence - we can calculate the age of the earth by counting the number of people, assuming a population growth rate, and going back to the first couple.
...that's your answer? "come on"?
Here, let me try...
You think something like the eye can develop randomly in EVERY species?
Oh, come on...
You actually think that only 6 billion people would exisit after a MILLION years? Oh,come on...
Guess I just refuted the theory of evolution, huh? I had no idea it was that easy...
Remember that, ...[text shortened]... ember these two simple words... "come on"...
Man, that works even better than "Oh yeah?".
There are flaws in this approach. First, you assume a population growth over the history of our species - while if the population remained constant and without increase, the age of the earth would be much longer. And if you used a rapidly increasing species - such as blowflies - and took their total numbers, reproductive potential, and worked back to Adam and Eve Blowfly, you would conclude the earth is only about ten years old.
So - I do actually think that only 6 billion people would exist after a MILLION years.
Originally posted by ColettiIt's funny (in a sad kind of way) how Creationists and Intelligent Designees always bring out the eye issue, when they themselves are blind to scientific arguments. Look at this sentence and tell me where the speculative is:
What I'd like to know is since when is science based on speculation? Every step they described is speculative. The process has never been observed and science should be based on real time observation and hard data, not on speculations.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve.
Originally posted by nickybuttPerhaps I'm wrong but it looks to me like the speculative exists in the word "hypothesis".
It's funny (in a sad kind of way) how Creationists and Intelligent Designees always bring out the eye issue, when they themselves are blind to scientific arguments. Look at this sentence and tell me where the speculative is:
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this ran ...[text shortened]... itive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve.
Originally posted by Coletti<Coletti's philosophy on>
What I'd like to know is since when is science based on speculation? Every step they described is speculative. The process has never been observed and science should be based on real time observation and hard data, not on speculations.
Gravity is a religion which serves the god, Science.
Gravity has never been directly observed. We only see "the effects of gravity" on objects. QM, Classical Mechanics, and Gen. Relativity will never be reconciled because they are not science!
Some say String Theory unites QM, CR, and GR, but String Theory is not science! It's pure speculation!
<Coletti's philosophy off>
Fortunately for physicists working on these problems, QM, CM, and GR do not really upset Coletti's worldview to much. Ah, the cognitive dissonance.