13 Apr 11
Originally posted by dj2beckerhttp://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
[b]yes; it is the evidence for evolution.
Which animal used to have ‘eyes’ consisting of little more than just a light-sensitive spot on the skin in the past and now has fully functional eyes? Has the transition been observed?
"created" via evolution, that is correct. THEN some of those species with such a simple eye evolved to have more complex eyes.
And you KNOW this how?[/b]
11:ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists
159: ARGUMENT FROM EQUAL VALUE (PC ARGUMENT II)
(1) Evolution and the scientific worldview is a worldview. Similarly, the biblical worldview is a worldview.
(2) You are not discriminating against our worldview are you?
(3) The Biblical worldview is as good as the scientific worldview.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
253:ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (IV)
(1) I don't understand evolution; I mean how could there be nothing then something?
(2) (Well-informed atheist gives articulate explanation of evolution and gently explains that the beginning of the universe has nothing to do with evolution.)
(3) Well it seems way too complicated and unlikely to me. Plus I don't want to live my life thinking I evolved from a monkey.
(4) Therefore, God exists and Jesus died for our sins.
(5) (Atheist argues that theist's ignorance of evolution does not logically lead to the conclusion that there is a god, let alone the Christian god.)
(6) Says you! God bless.
(7) Therefore, God exists.
479: ARGUMENT FROM NERVOUS SCIENTISTS
(1) Scientists working on evolution are beginning to realize that it's a failed theory.
(2) They are so! They're just too nervous to admit their mistake, because they've led all those souls to Hell.
(3) Why would they be nervous if God didn't exist?
(4) Therefore, God exists.
602: BEHE'S ARGUMENT FROM IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY, a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (XVII), a.k.a. GOD OF THE GAPS
(1) Some structures and processes in living beings are too complex to have arisen through evolution.
(2) Only God could have created them.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
(4) What Dover Trial?
13 Apr 11
3 edits
Originally posted by dj2becker“...However, Dawkins admits that the nerves are transparent, so don’t detectably affect the image. ...”
[b]Can I think that putting the blood vessels for the retina in front of the retina is a sensible design feature? -obviously not.
This argument is commonly brought up by evolutionists against creation. Many such arguments forget the Fall, and others are based on ignorance of the need for a particular arrangement. In the latter category is the alleg ...[text shortened]... ee also Ayoub, G., 1996. On the Design of the Vertebrate Retina. Origins and Design 17(1):19-22)[/b]
But they still DO affect the image!!! so why would an 'intelligent' god put them there instead of behind?
Also, haven't you heard of the blind spot!!!?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_spot_%28vision%29
That blind spot would not need to be there if the nerves where behind the photoreceptor cells.
Also, there is NO doubt that the blood vessels (which contain blood that blocks light ) of the retina DO also affect the image!!!
“...The light-detecting structures within photoreceptor cells are located in the stack of discs. These discs are being continually replaced by the formation of new ones at the cell body end of the stack, thereby pushing older discs down the stack. Those discs at the other end of the stack are ‘swallowed’ by a single layer of retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells. RPE cells are highly active, and for this they need a very large blood supply-the choroid. Unlike the retina, which is virtually transparent, the choroid is virtually opaque, because of the vast numbers of red blood cells within it. For the retina to be wired the way that Professor Richard Dawkins suggested, would require the choroid to come between the photoreceptor cells and the light, for RPE cells must be kept in intimate contact with both the choroid and photoreceptor to perform their job. ….”
No! why not have the RPE cells STILL kept in intimate contact with both the choroid and photoreceptor cells by being between the two but each nerve connection for each photoreceptor cell going through a tiny >500nm wide pore in the RPE cell layer?
A topical cell is a lot wider than 500nm ( typically more than 1000nm wide with rod cells being unusually thin at 1000nm wide ) and a thin nerve connection from a cone or rod cell is no more than about 500nm wide so there is plenty of room on the RPE cell layer to be perforated with holes; one hole for each cone and rod cell.
Problem solved!
-I challenge you to give us a reason why not!
Also, as for the blood vessels, you can have lots of thin capillary blood vessels just a short distance behind the RPE cell layer and thus, because that distance is very short, this will still give the photoreceptor cells all the oxygen and nutrients they need without blocking any light because oxygen and nutrients from capillary vessels can efficiently defuse through about 10 layers of cells.
13 Apr 11
Originally posted by dj2becker“...Which animal used to have ‘eyes’ consisting of little more than just a light-sensitive spot on the skin in the past ...”
[b]yes; it is the evidence for evolution.
Which animal used to have ‘eyes’ consisting of little more than just a light-sensitive spot on the skin in the past and now has fully functional eyes? Has the transition been observed?
"created" via evolution, that is correct. THEN some of those species with such a simple eye evolved to have more complex eyes.
And you KNOW this how?[/b]
I don't know the names of the first ones to have it because I am not an expert on fossils. But clearly there must exist a fossil with the oldest known eyes ( http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/30738/apposition-eyeAlso, ) . Also, some creatures that live today have eyes consisting of little more than just a light-sensitive spot on the skin and these eyes ARE fully functional.
“....and NOW has fully functional eyes? ...” (my emphasis)
they were fully functional eyes from the start just as some creatures that live today that have such eyes have those eyes being fully functional. In what way would a simple eye that only functions to discriminate between light and dark NOT be “fully functional” ?
If that is the only function of a primitive eye then it is “fully functional” if it preforms that only function.
“...And you KNOW this how? ...”
the evidence that has been accumulated by many scientist over many years including fossil and genetic evidence.
13 Apr 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhy do you believe God could not have created
“...Which animal used to have ‘eyes’ consisting of little more than just a light-sensitive spot on the skin in the past ...”
I don't know the names of the first ones to have it because I am not an expert on fossils. But clearly there must exist a fossil with the oldest known eyes ( http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/30738/apposition-eyeAlso ...[text shortened]... t has been accumulated by many scientist over many years including fossil and genetic evidence.
animals with different sensitivity to light?
13 Apr 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt interesting how those arguments play out over and over on these threads despite the obvious flaws. Whats even more interesting is that sometimes it the same posters who come back and rerun the argument in the hope that a bit of time has improved the logic.
[i]http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
13 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadhttp://www.timeforchess.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=138768&page=8
It interesting how those arguments play out over and over on these threads despite the obvious flaws. Whats even more interesting is that sometimes it the same posters who come back and rerun the argument in the hope that a bit of time has improved the logic.
My post earlier today on another thread exactly confirms your opinion. I quote myself from a post on April 30 2010 in response to yet another attempt by Jaywill to post the same old links to the same old cod.
These people sometimes provide an interesting debate for a while, but when their arguments fall flat they go quiet for a while, then back they come like a bad old line of the French Defence.
13 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis is the spirituality forum, if you don't want God to
It interesting how those arguments play out over and over on these threads despite the obvious flaws. Whats even more interesting is that sometimes it the same posters who come back and rerun the argument in the hope that a bit of time has improved the logic.
be included in these discussion, maybe, you should
discuss it in the science forum. I don't have to argue
that God exists, but that is my spiritual belief and I
believe the Holy Bible is about this God and His only
begotten Son. There is no other God than the God
of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.
14 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI've based my arguments on building a system cannot be done by throwing
Harder than what? Harder than one mutation certainly, but easier than the same number of mutations simultaneously.
You have based your argument on the claim that certain organs or systems require a number of simultaneous mutations - and you made that argument because you know fully well that if the mutations happen in a series it is easier.
random mutations at it. You can believe your theory is sound, by all means
you can believe whatever you want, you just cannot show any functionally
complex system will ever be put together in that way to prove it, unless you
build into the process a cheat that will stack the deck in your favor.
Kelly
14 Apr 11
Originally posted by RJHindsI have absolutely no problem with God being discussed in these forums. But if you read the post I was referring to, you would realize I was talking about the use of ridiculously bad logic by theists to support their beliefs. What is interesting is that the same logical errors seem to be remarkably common.
This is the spirituality forum, if you don't want God to
be included in these discussion, maybe, you should
discuss it in the science forum. I don't have to argue
that God exists, but that is my spiritual belief and I
believe the Holy Bible is about this God and His only
begotten Son. There is no other God than the God
of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.
I have no problem with you using bad logic in this forum either, but don't be surprised when it is pointed out to you.
Your particular 'pattern' in this forum goes as follows:
1. Present an argument or statement about why evolution is false.
2. Somebody shows that your argument is flawed or your statement is false.
3. You announce that you believe in God and the Bible and that the Bible contradicts evolution and therefore evolution must be false.
What is interesting is you generally avoid acknowledging that your argument or statement in 1. was wrong.
The above pattern is also not uncommon.
14 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI agee with points 1 and 3, but I haven't seen 2 yet.
I have absolutely no problem with God being discussed in these forums. But if you read the post I was referring to, you would realize I was talking about the use of ridiculously bad logic by theists to support their beliefs. What is interesting is that the same logical errors seem to be remarkably common.
I have no problem with you using bad logic in thi ...[text shortened]... ing that your argument or statement in 1. was wrong.
The above pattern is also not uncommon.
And I believe the logic I use is excellent. God and
the Holy Bible is the best and most logical way to
refute evolution in the spirituality forum.
14 Apr 11
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are either remarkably forgetful or a liar. You have even admitted 2. in the past, though you generally avoid doing so.
I agee with points 1 and 3, but I haven't seen 2 yet.
And I believe the logic I use is excellent. God and
the Holy Bible is the best and most logical way to
refute evolution in the spirituality forum.
If you want an example, most recently, you claimed that evolution was 'a bunch of guesses'. It has been explained to you that the Bible does not support that claim, and that you personally do not know enough about evolution to honestly make that claim. Yet you have yet to admit that you were wrong.
14 Apr 11
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd that 'cheat' as you call it, is Natural Selection, and yes, I can show that a functionally complex system can be put together that way.
I've based my arguments on building a system cannot be done by throwing
random mutations at it. You can believe your theory is sound, by all means
you can believe whatever you want, you just cannot show any functionally
complex system will ever be put together in that way to prove it, unless you
build into the process a cheat that will stack the deck in your favor.
Kelly
14 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have been known to forget things at times. That said,
You are either remarkably forgetful or a liar. You have even admitted 2. in the past, though you generally avoid doing so.
If you want an example, most recently, you claimed that evolution was 'a bunch of guesses'. It has been explained to you that the Bible does not support that claim, and that you personally do not know enough about evolution to honestly make that claim. Yet you have yet to admit that you were wrong.
I still don't recall it.
14 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadNatural Selection just has those that can live do, it isn't driving change, it isn't
And that 'cheat' as you call it, is Natural Selection, and yes, I can show that a functionally complex system can be put together that way.
directing mutations, it does nothing. You have a stacked deck for a belief system,
a cheat built into your theory that can explain away everything, nothing is beyond
reality with your belief system.
Kelly