14 Apr 11
Originally posted by KellyJayIt is easy to repeat that over and over and over, but you haven't shown it. Where is there a cheat built into the theory? Where is the 'stacked deck'? How does any of this equate to 'nothing is beyond reality'?
Natural Selection just has those that can live do, it isn't driving change, it isn't
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
14 Apr 11
Originally posted by RJHindsAnd I believe the logic I use is excellent.
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.
Jesus H. Christ on a bike!!!!
14 Apr 11
Originally posted by RJHindstwo reasons:
Why do you believe God could not have created
animals with different sensitivity to light?
1, I disbelieve that there is a god for the same reasons I disbelieve that there is a tooth fairy.
2, why would a god design an eye with an OBVIOUS flaw to have less sensitivity to light?
If a god wants to make an eye less sensitive to light, why not simply make the eye smaller (so that it takes in less light) and thus less cumbersome rather than give it a really stupid defect?
14 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds“...but I haven't seen 2 yet. ...”
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.
yes you have! Here is just ONE recent example that you HAVE just seen becuase I just gave you it!!! :
You gave me a flawed argument; specifically, that having blood vessels and nerves in front of the retinal is not a flaw (thus implying that a god could have credibly created it ) with:
“...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. ….”
and I then completely debunked that with:
“....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. ...”
I have yet to hear any counterargument to that.....have you any?
Perhaps you just don't see what you don't want to see?
14 Apr 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI would agree that adaptation could play a part in the
two reasons:
1, I disbelieve that there is a god for the same reasons I disbelieve that there is a tooth fairy.
2, why would a god design an eye with an OBVIOUS flaw to have less sensitivity to light?
If a god wants to make an eye less sensitive to light, why not simply make the eye smaller (so that it takes in less light) and thus less cumbersome rather than give it a really stupid defect?
sensitivity of the eye, but there must be some built-in
mechanism to allow for changes that improve sensitivity.
It is easy to see how changes can occur that would
reduce sensitivity to light or even cause total loss of sight.
If there is not some controlling factor how is improve eyesight
possible? And if there is a controlling factor what is it and
how did it get there? Assuming there is no God or gods,
can you explain this so it makes sense to me. I also do not
see how an eye being less sensitive to light means God put
a flaw or defect in it. Maybe there is a reason that one
animals eyes are made less sensitive to light than another
animals eyes. Why does this have to defect caused by a stupid
god? What are your answers, please?
14 Apr 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou must be thinking of what someone else told you.
“...but I haven't seen 2 yet. ...”
yes you have! Here is just ONE recent example that you HAVE just seen becuase I just gave you it!!! :
You gave me a flawed argument; specifically, that having blood vessels and nerves in front of the retinal is not a flaw (thus implying that a god could have credibly created it ) with:
“...The light-detecti ...[text shortened]... terargument to that.....have you any?
Perhaps you just don't see what you don't want to see?
I know my memory is not the greatest, but I certainly
could not have said all that, because I don't know
enough about the eye to even argue that point. I'd
rather just keep it simple.
15 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI've told you in the real world, systems that have some function to them that are
It is easy to repeat that over and over and over, but you haven't shown it. Where is there a cheat built into the theory? Where is the 'stacked deck'? How does any of this equate to 'nothing is beyond reality'?
complex just don't build themselves with random inputs, yet you accept this as
one of the easiest things to believe in. Between your ears and those other true
believers like you accept and preach evolution and natural selection can over
come all the odds of random inputs being thrown together and have it produce
stable systems like are found within life. You have not shown that as wrong, you
just repeat the mantra, one mutation at a time through natural selection can do it
as if that proves it can.
Kelly
15 Apr 11
Originally posted by KellyJayBut everything in the real world has random inputs. Absolutely everything.
I've told you in the real world, systems that have some function to them that are
complex just don't build themselves with random inputs, yet you accept this as
one of the easiest things to believe in.
So either you are mistaken, or complex systems do not exist.
If what you meant was that systems in the real world that have some function to them that are
complex just don't build themselves purely from random inputs, then I would agree and point out that evolution does not operate that way either - that is a strawman argument - and you know it and have admitted it already.
Between your ears and those other true
believers like you accept and preach evolution and natural selection can over
come all the odds of random inputs being thrown together and have it produce
stable systems like are found within life. You have not shown that as wrong, you just repeat the mantra, one mutation at a time through natural selection can do it as if that proves it can.
Kelly
It does prove it can. Its a very short and simple proof.
1. Random mutations take place.
2. Natural selection, selects only some of the mutations and discards others.
3. Point 2. affects the probabilities of certain mutations remaining in a population
4. Therefore, all the odds of random inputs being thrown together are no longer mathematically valid ie they have been 'overcome'.
You may dispute the new probability calculation, but I have proven without a doubt that the original odds based on random mutations no longer apply.
15 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds“...but there must be some built-in
I would agree that adaptation could play a part in the
sensitivity of the eye, but there must be some built-in
mechanism to allow for changes that improve sensitivity.
It is easy to see how changes can occur that would
reduce sensitivity to light or even cause total loss of sight.
If there is not some controlling factor how is improve eyesight
possible ...[text shortened]... als eyes. Why does this have to defect caused by a stupid
god? What are your answers, please?
mechanism to allow for changes that improve sensitivity. ...”
why must it be a “ built-in” mechanism? Why not simply the mechanism of evolution?
“...It is easy to see how changes can occur that would
reduce sensitivity to light or even cause total loss of sight. ...”
not really -not unless the eye became redundant such as in some cave-dwelling species etc
else natural selection will constantly and inevitably weed out the bad mutations that processes poorer sight.
“...If there is not some controlling factor how is improve eyesight
possible? ...”
who says there is no “ controlling factor” ? Why can't evolution be a “controlling factor”?
“...And if there is a controlling factor what is it ….”
evolution.
“....and how did it get there? ...”
that is like asking how the downward flow of a river “get there? “
“...Assuming there is no God or gods,
can you explain this so it makes sense to me. ...”
just have; see above.
“...I also do not
see how an eye being less sensitive to light means God put
a flaw or defect in it. Maybe there is a reason that one
animals eyes are made less sensitive to light than another
animals eyes....”
why not make the eye less sensitive to light by making it smaller rather than by putting a stupid flaw in it?
“...Why does this have to defect caused by a stupid
god? What are your answers, please? ...”
why would an intellegence that isn't stupid and is supposed to be incapable of stupidity make a stupid defect? -if your answer is "no reason" then that is the answer to your question above.
15 Apr 11
Originally posted by RJHindsYes you are correct. It was dj2becker that said all that on page 12. My memory is always a bit dodgy.
You must be thinking of what someone else told you.
I know my memory is not the greatest, but I certainly
could not have said all that, because I don't know
enough about the eye to even argue that point. I'd
rather just keep it simple.
But still, what I said in that post proves my point! That Clearly is an example of “2” i.e. “Somebody shows that your argument is flawed or your statement is false” (in the context of a theists making a claim)
15 Apr 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIt is apparent that I'm not going to get any reasonable answers
“...but there must be some built-in
mechanism to allow for changes that improve sensitivity. ...”
why must it be a “ built-in” mechanism? Why not simply the mechanism of evolution?
“...It is easy to see how changes can occur that would
reduce sensitivity to light or even cause total loss of sight. ...”
not really -not unless the eye be ...[text shortened]... tupid defect? -if your answer is "no reason" then that is the answer to your question above.
from you, because you have faith in evolution to answer all questions
and solve all problems, because you do not want to believe in a God
that might judge you one day.
15 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHinds“...It is apparent that I'm not going to get any reasonable answers
It is apparent that I'm not going to get any reasonable answers
from you, because you have faith in evolution to answer all questions
and solve all problems, because you do not want to believe in a God
that might judge you one day.
from you, ...”
show me one of my answers that is not “reasonable”and say why and I will address that now....
“...because you have faith in evolution ...”
No; I have acknowledgement of the fact of evolution because of the overwhelming evidence for it that proves it beyond any reasonable doubt.
“...to answer all questions
and solve all problems ...”
No; evolution doesn't “ answer all questions and solve all problems” nor have I ever said/implied/believed that it does.
“...because you do not WANT to believe in a God
that might judge you one day. ...” (my emphasis )
No; I do NOT “WANT” to believe that there is no god or gods.
The reason I believe evolution is fact is because of the overwhelming evidence for it -a 'possible god' has nothing to do with it.