15 Sep 09
Originally posted by amannionYou do not have a falsifiable means to show me why and how eyes
Well there's a bit of a difference in the methodology don't you think?
Scientific explanations are falsifiable, peer reviewed, empirical, reasoned, amongst other traits.
Perhaps you could call a religious explanation peer reviewed, but belief in the supernatural pretty much rules out all other scientific traits. So there's a difference.
came into being, you can give me some possible reason, but saying
God did it is also a reason, and I would say, saying God did it is faith,
and not falsifiable. If you can give me falsifiable reasons, I'd be
willing to look at them,
Kelly
15 Sep 09
Originally posted by amannionFaith is either accepted or rejected, if it can be proven it is not a matter
Well there's a bit of a difference in the methodology don't you think?
Scientific explanations are falsifiable, peer reviewed, empirical, reasoned, amongst other traits.
Perhaps you could call a religious explanation peer reviewed, but belief in the supernatural pretty much rules out all other scientific traits. So there's a difference.
of faith.
Kelly
15 Sep 09
Originally posted by KellyJayThere are perfectly satisfactory - and very detailed - explanations for sight, which seems to have evolved independently at least several times. How do we know that? The mechanism for eyesight is different - mechanically different - in a variety of different species. Darwin himself developed a simple step by step process that could explain sight.
"Your notion of life requiring design strikes me in a similar way. 'I actually think it impossible' you say, but why do you think this? What's your reasoning behind such a statement, other than that believing so fits with your pre-existing view?"
Having been around a few designed items seeing the effort required
for the proper material, in the proper qu ...[text shortened]... ever been satisfactory explained
to me either with how or why that ever occurred.
Kelly
Simply describing something as 'designed' doesn't mean that it is, comparisons to human-designed objects notwithstanding.
These features - bones, nerves, eyes - occur because they are useful solutions to particular problems in living organisms.
A problem with many creationist interpretations of evolution is that you assume that everything has to be built from scratch - as we humans often do. But evolution doesn't make a human eye from out of nothing, it already has previous 'constructions' - other eyes and light sensitive cells - to build new features from.
15 Sep 09
Originally posted by amannionThese explantions matters of faith, you have some means to showing
There are perfectly satisfactory - and very detailed - explanations for sight, which seems to have evolved independently at least several times. How do we know that? The mechanism for eyesight is different - mechanically different - in a variety of different species. Darwin himself developed a simple step by step process that could explain sight.
Simply ...[text shortened]... vious 'constructions' - other eyes and light sensitive cells - to build new features from.
how these could not have happened?
Kelly
15 Sep 09
Originally posted by KellyJayProving the evolution of the eye rests on being able to demonstrate that a sufficient sequence of useful visual organs could develop. If this is not possible to demonstrate, then we could say the evolution of the eye is disproved.
Fine prove the eye evolved into being from life that didn't have it.
Lets see how it was done.
Kelly
Darwin described a likely sequence of organs from light sensitive cells in bacteria through recessed cells allowing for improved orientation through mucous blobs acting as simple lenses and on.
You can easily chase up the details if you're interested. I suspect you're not - simply looking for some foundation to rest your religious position on.
Let me ask you a question? If the human eye were designed, why would it operate upside down and back to front - both features which the body and brain have to work to circumvent and correct for?
Don't bother answering that - it's rhetorical. There are many features in living things that make no sense from a design point of view - precisely because they haven't been designed. They've been built up from and on to pre-existing features.
16 Sep 09
Originally posted by amannionI can say the samething about God, God could have done this, so does
Proving the evolution of the eye rests on being able to demonstrate that a sufficient sequence of useful visual organs could develop. If this is not possible to demonstrate, then we could say the evolution of the eye is disproved.
Darwin described a likely sequence of organs from light sensitive cells in bacteria through recessed cells allowing for improve ...[text shortened]... se they haven't been designed. They've been built up from and on to pre-existing features.
that prove anything, no it does not! I require a higher level of proof
that I have seen anyone produce. I have seen it could have happened,
this way, it may have happened that way, and things of that nature.
I do not see things like we have monitored major changes over time
taking place, only small ones that basically everyone agree's occur,
none of those however mean they can and will with time reach levels
of change so that a creature will grow a heart that at one time in time
didn't have one.
Kelly
16 Sep 09
Originally posted by KellyJayhttp://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread163678/pg1
Show me how you can disprove evolution.
Kelly
http://www.biblelife.org/evolution.htm
http://www.realtruth.org/articles/080502-004-eedfs.html
http://www.decimation.com/markw/2007/10/27/evolution-proven-false-proof-using-peanut-butter/
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/evolution_is_false_religion.htm
http://2012forum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13913&view=previous
16 Sep 09
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you can demonstrate that a particular organism or a particular feature of an organism did not evolve, that would disprove the theory.
Show me how you can disprove evolution.
Kelly
This is essentially the notion behind the falsifiability concept.
Not that it is wrong, but that it can be proven wrong if the right evidence is found.
This can not be said of fairies, ghosts or gods - these phenomena are not falsifiable. I can not prove them wrong.
16 Sep 09
Originally posted by KellyJayLet me firstly say, I'm not an evolutionary biologist - just a science teacher - so my knowledge of evolution is not as an expert.
I can say the samething about God, God could have done this, so does
that prove anything, no it does not! I require a higher level of proof
that I have seen anyone produce. I have seen it could have happened,
this way, it may have happened that way, and things of that nature.
I do not see things like we have monitored major changes over time
taking pla ...[text shortened]... change so that a creature will grow a heart that at one time in time
didn't have one.
Kelly
However, I would characterise any scientific theory or model as simply the best natural explanation available to explain something. If and when a better theory or model appears, then that one takes the place of the older one. (Not necessarily very easily mind you - scientists are people and get wedded to their ideas.)
So an explanation for the development of eyes or whatever is simply the best natural explanation we have at the time - ie. now.
I myself think it seems pretty good, but I guess you would say I'm biased towards the model anyway.
Did you notice a key word that I used a couple of times?
Natural.
What we don't use in our scientific explanations are supernatural theories or models. Why? Because they don't have any of the hallmarks or features of a scientific model - some of which I've mentioned before.
The major changes over time that you mention are interpretations of the evidence - fossils, genetic and others - that fit into our current best theory or model. It may change. We may find it doesn't work. We may have to modify or replace it. But it is our current best theory or model - our current best natural theory or model.
17 Sep 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasamannion:
This is the spiritual Forum, therefore I answer the question as there was a intelligent designer behind, like god.
This intelligent designer is rather stupid. This must be one of his worst achivements. Like it is the first thing he did in the designer school, and failed.
If the intelligent designer really was intelligent, he would do it right in th ...[text shortened]... this intelligent designer I would do it correctly right away. Why build in flaws in the design?
Worker bees - which have the barbed stingers - are sterile: that is, they don't pass on their genes to future bee generations. When one stings a mammal or bird (the barb only sticks into mammals and birds) the stinger sticks and pulls out, killing the worker bee. As it dies it releases a chemical into the air which alerts other bees to the danger in the area.
It kills one bee, but saves many through the alert system.
your argument crumbles.
17 Sep 09
Originally posted by ZahlanziI've learned a lot from this thread about the stinger of a bee. I learned that the evolution did things that is incomprehensive, but infact is logical. No intelligent designer is needed.
[b]amannion:
Worker bees - which have the barbed stingers - are sterile: that is, they don't pass on their genes to future bee generations. When one stings a mammal or bird (the barb only sticks into mammals and birds) the stinger sticks and pulls out, killing the worker bee. As it dies it releases a chemical into the air which alerts other bees to the dan ...[text shortened]... a.
It kills one bee, but saves many through the alert system.
your argument crumbles.[/b]
Okay, if we take my first flawed posting when it was about the stinger of the bee, and apply it to the flawed construction of the human eye (you know, why are the blood vessels in front of the retina in the human eye, not a very intelligent design, is it?) then my posting is perfectly valid.
So here is my posting again, as if we discussed the nature of the design of human eye:
"This is the spiritual Forum, therefore I answer the question as there was a intelligent designer behind, like god.
This intelligent designer is rather stupid. This must be one of his worst achivements. Like it is the first thing he did in the designer school, and failed.
If the intelligent designer really was intelligent, he would do it right in the first place. But perhaps he is not a real designer.
If you designed a car as badly as this, then we wouldn't have any car production at all, there would simply be no cars if the driver dies whenever he uses some of the gadgets. Who would by it?
If I was this intelligent designer I would do it correctly right away. Why build in flaws in the design?"
Let's face it, the designer isn't especially intelligent, rather non-existant. The evolution theory, however, answers the question perfectly.