A Question for Creationists

[Robert]

there are living creatures with "intermediate" eyes

really ?
I can't discuss this unless you tell me which creatures (I guess it's an accident you used that word ) and what kind of eye they have.

Furthermore, computer simulations have shown that random mutations and natural selection are perfectly capable of producing an eye in a reasonable timeframe.

Computer simulations..........
of course........
If the programmer says every 100th mutation is a good one, the computer will say so. And if the programmer says that every mutation is independant to another mutation, the computer will say so. Calculation models are completely dependant on the theory of the 'programmer'.

First it's a photosensitive spot (many chemicals react to light, this can happen by accident).

how many gens are needed for this ?

Then comes the ability to detect the light and react to it

how can any organism react if there are no nerves connected with the brain, and the brain doesn't know how to handle the signal ?

Thus, the question is: how many gens are needed for this ?

then the optic nerve

How many gens does one simple nerve need ?

then a depression to make the sensor directional, then a pinhole-camera effect to make an image

It sounds indeed pretty straight.
Did I already ask you how many mutations are needed for this ?
Genetic mutations of course. Darwin didn't knew anything about genetics, thus he could dream about biologic mutations (if he would already name it mutations) but we know slightly more than Darwin.

then a transparent skin cover over the hole

Suddenly there is a hole ?
I thought we talked about a photosensitive spot.

then muscles to focus and swivel the eye, then the eyeball.

Sounds pretty easy
2 mutations ?

Um, yes, it's exactly like we have billions of stars and planets. We might even have billions of Universes also.

don't be silly, "The universe" is just the name we give to "all we can observe"

Of course there are billions of star-systems, milk ways and all that. And indeed billions of billions of billions of planets. But astronomes Ward and Brownlee have calculated that there's still a very very small change. The odds are high, you know. The odds are higher than the number of oppurtunities.

No, the Ark has NOT been found on satellite pictures.

There are satellite pictures that show a dark massive square in the ice on the top of the mount. You're right, it's not a proven picture of the arc, but it's at least evidence. You might think about this evidence whatever you want, but it is evidence.

And there are several explantions for flood stories

of course there are !
But it is evidence.
It might still not have happened, but it's pretty immature to yell "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE" while there is.
There are several explanations for the fossil record as well, but that still makes the fossil record evidence for the evolution theory.

There is PLENTY of evidence that there was NO recent worldwide flood.

like......?

That is a simple statement of fact, and books written by halfwits for gullible fundies don't change that.

yeah yeah, we know that you think that everybody who disagrees with you is a halfwit. (that's what fundamentalists always say of their unbelievers) (I would NEVER claim that any evolution scientist is a halfwit. But again, I'm not an extreme fundamentalistic follower of any theory. I just believe in a theory, and I respect and listen to people with other opinions)

Btw, if you don't like it, it still might be true.

Btw, compared to modern creationsts Darwin was for sure a halfwit, since the modern creationists have much more knowledge than Darwin had. I would still not dare to name Darwin a halfwit. He's a very respectable man who tought about the origins of life.

He didn't accept that standard theory of those days and dared to think about it himself.
I wish evolutionists like you guys would do the same, instead of naming everyone who thinks different a halfwit.
It's really unbelievable how childish and unprofessional you guys are.

Biblical creationism is wrong, wrong, WRONG.

*gasp* how scientific *gasp*
Now add the usual "I have read more books than you" and "my theory is better then yours" kind of silly arguments, and we're back at zero. *gasp* *gasp*

I'm happy that we, christians, have matured, and learned to be not that arrogant about our theory. (like we used to be in the past)

Evolution, however, is FACT. Even if it turns out that other forces have also been at work, evolution would still be happening.

that's true,
we 're not talking about the topic if evolution happens.
It does. (I think it results in degeneration, but that's another topic)

The current topic is, is everything we can observe the result of millions of years of evolution.

The common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors over millions of years is also FACT: there is no other explanation for the evidence.

I love the capitals you use to write 'fact' down.
You sound like a muslim, did you know that ?
Fundamentalistic evolutionist !

There are plenty other explanations of the evidence.
At least there is the explanation about a humoristic god that just did it all to fake us.

The way you use the word 'fact' shows how little you know about scientific rationalism.
Of course the evolution theory is the common explanation these days, but it's for sure not a fact my friend.

These facts will never change, just as the round Earth will never become flat again.

that example is as valuable as the storm that result in an airplane. I would never use silly arguments like that, it's a pitty that you still do.

Now please explain to me how many genetic mutations your eye need to appear without being harmful.

CyberShy

[Robert]

hmmm, I just submitted that last reply,
only to discover that Ethelred replied as well

At least ethelred seems to have written a reply to all of my argumentation. I respect that very much. Please have some patience with me.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by CyberShy
really ?
I can't discuss this unless you tell me which creatures (I guess it's an accident you used that word ) and what kind of eye they have.

Lots of intermediates. Richard Dawkins book covers this specific example very thoroughly.

There are bacteria with mere light sensors.

The nautilus has every part of the eye EXCEPT the lens. There are examples of many different kinds of light receptors in between and even not in between like multiple lens eyes in insects.

I may get around to replying to more of that later but this struck me first.

[-=Vagrant=-]

The Flood? Awhahahahahah!
Find the Ark, explain why Gilgamesh saga was copied to the Bible, explain why geology is wrong in each and every point when it explains the formation of layers in the bedrock and above it. Thanks. [walks away]

[Jack the Bodiless]

Cybershy:

The computer simulation of eye evolution used mutation rates determined from studying the actual mutation rates of living organisms.


And there was no Flood.

How do I know that?

By application of the scientific method. Scientists create hypotheses to explain the natural world, then they test them (by observations or experiments) to see if they fit. If they fail, they are discarded.

The Flood has been discarded, because it does not fit. There is no global sediment layer. There has been no recent mass extinction. DNA evidence (specifically, the sheer number of different genes present in the entire population of each species, the "gene pool") proves that modern species cannot possibly be descended from a single pair of each species a few thousand years ago. And so on, and on, and on...

Whereas, in the century-and-a-half since Darwin published Origin of Species, not a single shred of evidence which contradicts evolution has ever been discovered. All creationist claims to the contrary have been investigated and proved false.

There is no comparison between the two sides. Anybody who claims that the Biblical Flood actually happened is an idiot (or, just possibly, profoundly ignorant of science).

[Jack_www]

I see that someone has brought this subject up again. I have just seen this thread, I have not been sending that much time on apolyton lately, and for the near furture that will be the case. I dont know if I will post here or not, but it is not because I think that you guys will prove me wrong. I hope all of you have fun arguing about this for the million time in a row.

[VictorB212]

I am currently at school and have but a few minutes.

Jack, you disappoint me. I make an initial post where I make my motive very clear -- I was basically telling you that from what I knew, Evolution could not happen. I was also blatantly asking for what I was missing out on. Yet you insult me and call me close minded (you had called me that before, and you say that I have not changed). I often find Evolutionists insulting people like me. EVEN when I specifically state that although I am a creationist, I argue from a SCIENTIFIC standpoint.

I must go now, but I wanted to clear that up first. I will respond to Jack's specific arguments later.

[Jack the Bodiless]

It is not possible to be a creationist and "argue from a scientific viewpoint". Creationism (the YEC variety) requires the abandonment of science: paleontology, geology, astronomy, nuclear physics etc etc etc.

And there is nothing you "know" that says evolution cannot happen. At best, you have been misinformed. When you provide specifics, they will be dealt with. But you really have no excuse for not doing your homework, you should have discovered the falsehood of creationism by now.

Victor, you are still uncritically taking creationist claims as gospel truths. You still don't seem to understand that you are backing the losing side (actually, the long-defeated side), and no amount of wisful thinking will change that.

You CANNOT win. If you begin with a false premise, then your arguments will inevitably fail.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by CyberShy

Of course you are depending on faith.
You did not see the earth evolve, you did not witness all those experiments. You believe that the scientists tell you the truth. You believe that the calculating models are right.

The birth of planets has been and can be observed all the time.

http://www.sciencenews.org/20010526/bob14.asp

http://www.iac.es/gabinete/noticias/2000/oct051.htm

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0010/08planets/

My favourite

http://scicom.ucsc.edu/SciNotes/0101/planets.html

Are we seeing God doing His work? Or is this it just a natural explanation? Am I a believer when I think the current theory for birth of planets is accurate?

And in 20 years, you'll agree with me that much scientific models of these days were wrong, like you agree with me that much scientific models of 20 years ago were wrong.
The evolution theory has never been consistant since darwin made it up. The invention of gens and dna in fact changed the entire technical content of it.

CyberShy

It took 100 years before Darwins theory became an accepted fact among scientists. There was so little hard evidence for it, but it accumulated with time. That is why it takes active ignorance to think that evolution is not a fact. The theory for the mechanism of evolution has changed and most likely will change. So does every other scientific theory. Bad theories are replaced with more accurate and propable theories. I'm sure that there are at least hundres of theories that are now obsolete. Only those which stand against scientific critisism are kept. It's so simple.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Lest I be accused of being some sort of closed-minded fanatic:

The problem, as always, is the contradictory evidence.

Let's assume that the remains of a gigantic wooden boat are actually found. It's carbon-dated to the time of the Flood (which can be calculated from the Biblical genealogies, 2500 BC or thereabouts). It contains the remains of animal cages.

Does this make the story possible after all? NO, it does not.

This discovery will not magically create the worldwide Flood deposits that are required to exist, or create the required mass-extinction event in the fossil record, or alter DNA to reduce the gene pools of all species, or edit the Egyptian records to mention the Flood which they failed to mention before. It would do nothing to remove the contradictory evidence.

Therefore it would just be a big boat, built for an unknown reason.

This is why creationism cannot possibly succeed.

Science proceeds by falsification. Genesis is false, and has been discarded. To change that verdict without somehow explaining ALL the contradictory evidence is to abandon the rules of science.

[Boris Godunov]

Um, please provide a link or something showing those supposed satellite images of Mt. Ararat. A big squarish dark spot means exactly nothing. You're grasping at straws. Had Noah's Ark been found, it would have been major, world-wide news. It has not been found.

The Ark itself is a physical impossibility. At 450 feet long, it could not of held even 2 of every mammal, let alone the birds, insects and amphibians. And such a ship, made entirely of wood, would not have been seaworthy. Even 300-ft long wooden vessels made 200 years ago were horribly leaky, unstable and prone to breaking up. Especially under the kind of weather conditions that would be going on during a world-wide flood. Not to mention that the wood itself would have rotted to the point of worthlessness faster than they built the ship.

Ohhh, but when you have an omnipotent God who will break every law He supposedly created to fix his own mistakes, I guess that's all perfectly explainable.

[VictorB212]

Jack, how do you explain people like Michael Behe, who doubt Evolution from a SCIENTIFIC standpoint? He is Catholic, but not a very active one, and stated explicitly that he believed Evolution could only happen if some sort of designer had implanted all the genetic information available today in the first living organism.

According to what you said, it is impossible to argue for a point that you do not agree with in debate class. I am a creationist: what that really means is that I believe God somehow created the earth, through a non-random process. (Unless you claim abiogenesis was non-random...) To tell the truth, I don't care whether God created the earth in 1 nanosecond or 1 billion years. What I do care about is that the Earth was not created from some random (poetic license used) process that can explain life on earth WITHOUT the need for some sort of creator. One of Evolution's main claims is that there is no need for a god, as you assuredly know. I disagree with that.

I am arguing from the Intelligent Design standpoint. There is no need for me to provide my own theory, all I need to do is to conclusively demonstrate that Evolution is lacking in a major area, without which it cannot survive. I am in no way arguing for a major flood, or a 6000 year lifespan for the earth. You are trying to force me into a religious defense -- something I will not do. I am going to argue scientifically. Don't tell me that all scientists believe in Evolution -- I know there are movements in the scientific community against it that are not religion-based, but science-based.

You "know" that evolution is a fact -- I "know" that evolution cannot occur. We both "know" the other is wrong. We BOTH think the other is misinformed. Please stop your ad-hominem insults -- they get nowhere. Also, you state that I am starting from a false premisis. I.e., that intelligent design is required. How often have you debated with someone who takes this stance, instead of a creationist stance? Do you really deny that there is a movement in the scientific community against evolution, which does not just consist of two scientists in Alaska?

I haven't mentioned any "Gospel truths." I'm starting from a scientific base. My religious beliefs have no role in this debate; a judge would declare them irrelevant.

---

Regarding your new information web page: If you want to regard that as new information, then fine; I will have to change what I said to New Information or something like that. This seems to be exactly the case between microeveolution and macroevolution. The bacterium did not grow a new feature, or anything remotely like that. All that happened was an enzyme changed. This really cannot explain how the enzyme was originally formed. You will have to provide me with a few more links (and I will look for examples as well, so don't hit me with the "you expect me to find everything for you" attitude).

---

I suggest you be careful in your "Evolution is a FACT" attitude. It is as bad as the ardent creationists who believe that natural selection does not work. You will claim that you have science on your side, but that does not change this: you are actually being close-minded when you say that. Remember, the mind is like a parachute; it works best when open.

---

To those arguing for a flood, or how the Bible has been proven accurate in many ways: Stop. Don't try to mix religion with science. Evolutionists love twisting the Bible and making absurd claims. All you can do is make them question the premises Evolution lays on. AFAIK, that is best done with the Intelligent Design movement. Religion vs. Science will NEVER work.

---

I must go again; I will search for more New Information examples and probably put together a more unified response.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Ethelred
That would make the god a deceptive one. Hiding how it made the world. Such a god could just as easily have seen to it the Bible is deceptive.

No it wouldn't. You just have a very strange definition of 'good'. What is your definition by the way, and why is it any less arbitrary than defining God to be good?

Indeed, it would be pretty stupid to go and give us proof that he exists, if he wants us to believe that he exists through an act of faith.

Its a pretty strange definition in christianity since it says men are evil and corrupt. Yet allegedly we were created by a perfect god that is omnipotent and omniscent. The two concepts there are very much mutually exclusive. Either that or god deliberatly created man to be evil and corrupt and therefor its god that is responsible for that.

That is not contradictory at all. Do you believe you have free-will? Would you rather be an automaton? Or maybe you believe you are?

True. Still it leaves us with a devious and deceptive god that can't be trusted at all. You want to live with that belief go right ahead. I will stick with Agnosticism.

If you are an agnostic, then I must be a mormon! You are the least agnostic person I have ever come across. You have an opinion on everything to do with religion, and make leaps of faith left, right and centre!

[monkspider]

Well put Victor

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Um, please provide a link or something showing those supposed satellite images of Mt. Ararat. A big squarish dark spot means exactly nothing. You're grasping at straws. Had Noah's Ark been found, it would have been major, world-wide news. It has not been found.

http://www.bibleplus.org/discoveries/noahsark.htm

This site has some photos. It's a picture of a rather weird looking land form. I'm not familiar with how it could be formed geologically, but the clearer picture is from after an earthquake, so that might have had something to do with it.

The claims on the site should be taken with a grain of salt as they admit excavations haven't started, yet they somehow know it's the ark. Read through the other pages for some good laughs too. It's something I'd expect to see on somethingawful if it hasn't already been awful link of the day.

One of the burial crypts was later recovered and is in a back room of a museum in Ankara, Turkey. It is 18 feet long! Enormous human bones appeared in some of the hotels in the area soon after the graves were robbed. The size of the bones suggests that the Antediluvians were between 12-15 feet tall!