Eye evolution - Misunderstood

Originally posted by C Hess
Fair enough, but what if I can demonstrate that you do operate on blind faith? Is it still an insult? Or could it be a friendly heads up?

Originally posted by RJHinds
We all operate on a certain amount of blind faith, so for you or I to demonstrate that fact would not change our feeling unless we choose to change them.

Originally posted by C Hess
Is that so?

An explanation that contains more unsupported assumptions is clearly inferior to an explanation with less assumptions. Also, if an assumption is directly contradicted by evidence, how much stronger must not your blind faith be to trust an explanation relying on that assumption? The less unsupported assumptions you make, the better. And disprove ...[text shortened]... on this record my "blind faith" can be considered non-existant, but feel free to prove me wrong.

Originally posted by RJHinds
😴

The error Kelly has made in this thread is he thinks that people are claiming evolution took place because they know every detail of how it happened. He therefore thinks that if you don't know one detail, then you are basing your understanding that evolution took place on mere faith. He thinks that if you don't have evidence for exactly how the first life form acquired an eye, then there is no evidence for evolution and everyone who accepts evolution just has faith and is a 'true believer'.

In reality, there are mountains of evidence for evolution. This does include, but is hardly limited to, evidence for the evolution of the eye. Even if we knew nothing whatsoever about how the eye evolved, there would still be mountains of evidence for evolution and good reasons for thinking it happened - and therefore good reasons for thinking the eye evolved.

For Kelly to have any reasonable argument whatsoever, he must show that there are good reasons to think that the eye could not have evolved. He started off well, by stating that he believes that the eye could not have evolved. But then his whole argument collapsed because he could not substantiate his reasoning but instead tried to turn it into an argument claiming that if others do not know exactly how it evolved then they are 'true believers' believing something without evidence.

Originally posted by C Hess
Blind faith is when you have faith in a story being true even in the light of evidence to the contrary, or when evidence is completely lacking. You said that my "belief" in evolution was supported by no evidence whatsoever, which is to say that I have blind faith in its accuracy.

Originally posted by C Hess
Look up point mutations and mutation rates, then consider the fact that species are usually large in numbers, and that the only thing that makes a photoreceptor cell is a single protein. Now, ask yourself what the odds are that the code for a single protein could have formed by natural selection acting on random mutation over many generations on a large popul ...[text shortened]... ith it, nor do you need blind faith to accept evolution as true. The facts speak for themselves.

Originally posted by C Hess
Blind faith is when you have faith in a story being true even in the light of evidence to the contrary, or when evidence is completely lacking. You said that my "belief" in evolution was supported by no evidence whatsoever, which is to say that I have blind faith in its accuracy.

Originally posted by C Hess
But that's where you're wrong. A scientific explanation must take into account all known evidence. We can't pick and choose, and it's considered a very bad thing when we do. If the explanation can't account for the evidence, it's discarded. If it can, it remains. This means that the explanation must be testable. If you put the explanation beyond what we can t ...[text shortened]... uccessfully reject evidence is to demonstrate them wrong or mistaken. Ignoring them will not do.

Originally posted by C Hess
Too many words? Sentences too long?

Supported assumptions = very good
Less assumptions = good
Unsupported assumptions = bad
Disproven assumptions = very bad

Conclusion: In your explanations, keep the assumptions to a minimum, try to avoid unsupported assumptions as much as possible, and never include disproven assumptions.

I'm sorry, but that's about as short and concise I can make it without using pictures. 😕

We all operate on a certain amount of blind faith, so for you or I to demonstrate that fact would not change our feeling unless we choose to change them.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Can you answer this for me too?
I admit up front simply because we prove evolution didn't do it, that does not in any way
shape or form automatically mean creation is true, one is not tied to the other that way.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If the light of evidence were to the contrary I'd agree, but as I told you from the largest to the
smallest pieces of the universe they are all in sync so that life can be here. For me that is
beyond a doubt evidence for a creator.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I can look at numbers and bad mutations compared to good ones, what are those rates?
With something that can end life springs up just once it is over, with something that limits
life in ways it needed to preform it can be over too. So just making the claim we can get
there over time due to random mutations by only keeping the good ones makes for a
good ...[text shortened]... out the test group
you'll always reach your intended goal. Do I believe life is like that, no.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe natural selection will take established life forms, and filter all those best suited for one eco system to become the only ones in that area while those that are greatly hindered in it will die off or leave.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No evidence what so ever, did I use those words? If I did I was wrong...

The reason I am asking for a conversation is to point out you have nothing other than possible beliefs nothing solid in the form of evidence!