Posted on 12/14/2004 7:14:55 AM PST by wkdaysoff
Whether I have a basic misunderstanding of how science works, or whether something proves or disproves a theory is not relevant. What TOE's need to understand is that in order for their theory to work, the world needs to be as it is. Therefore the first 4 evolutions must occur exactly the precise way needed to create the environment for evolution. I don't need to have a scientific background to hold the belief that God created the universe and all life.
All the scientitic terminology and alleged "proof" and "dispositive evidence" will carry a shadow of doubt as no one can go back in time to see what happened. You can say the same thing about Creationism. Both need a leap of faith to believe in and both are forms of religious belief.
If it makes you feel better to assume your correct no matter what, then have at it. If it makes you feel better to condescend and be intolerant of others, then have at it. It is my experience that evolutionists believe that if it feels good, its right, so I am not surprised by your reaction.
It also utterly fails to account for the optic nerve element, or such things as why the pieces of an eye -- the retina, the orb itself, the eyelid, the muscle control, the lenses, etc -- all evolved in the same area of the body and how they work together. That is, yes, we may have a light-sensitive 'device' on our body. But how does our brain understand that such a thing exists, much less how on earth to make use of such a thing?
The complexity of eyesight is enormous, and while I understand that the forum afforded by this video doesn't allow for the detail necessary, it doesn't appear that the professor has an answer for that in any case.
Yes, the incremental steps provide advantage to the creatures involved. But how does a retina suddenly burst on the scene? A lens, for cryin' out loud?? One would expect that we'd be born with lenses on our fingernails just as often as they might appear over our newly-evolved eyeballs.
You know, looking at this video link, one would kind of get the understanding that the evolutionary development of an eye function might have been, ummm... directed toward a conclusion?
Have you read a Mediaeval Bestiary?
I hope its God I really do.
Discussing the evolution of an eye or any other complex organ is usless without first determining the origin of the cells of which it consists.
Scientific theory and Religion both lay claim to the correct path of the existence of life. Neither can be proved right or wrong. My heart is with Religion.
But you would have to look deeper than simple dipsomania to explain the inordinate fondness for beetles
Evolution played no part in producing a ‘viable living cell’? Interesting… It seems OOL researchers have their hands full…
But just for the record (verbatim and without commentary), following are some of the creationist gems from this thread that made me, personally, despair for the future of science education:
Whatever happened to cause life it was not "spontaneious combustion" as they once thought.
What do you mean by evolution..? The term evolution is a mishmash of concepts... If you mean a lizard decided to grow feathers.. That didnt happen.. Actually theres a whole range of other things that didnt happen either..
Regarding Change. For Creationism - what's to change?? GOD DID IT. That's the essence of the program.
Darwinsim in general: the simple evolves to the more complex when it benefits the organism in some manner. Example: eyesight obvious benefits the organism in innumerable ways.
Behe in general: have you ANY idea how complex eyesight is??? How do you POSSIBLY 'evolve' eyesight?
What type of evolution happened? There are 6 different kinds and only one has been proven.
68% of this country do not believe in evolution as a creation theory.
How can you test evolution? … I guess you'd have to be a zillion years old to do that.
Why do we want to indoctrinate children away from free-thinking?
Our children are taught that a tiny piece of dust exploded in a big bang, random chemicals ended up on earth and mixed with fluid and made goo that was electified somehow and that chemically reacted goo is our great, great ancestor. Is this not a disservice to our children?
Personally, I think the truly fascinating discussion is the mechanism by which God created. Nanotechnology seems a distinct possibility.
As so poignantly put by "alancarp" in post 94: I'll let everybody chew on these concepts for a while.
Those four processes are not evolution. And, those theories could be completely wrong and that would still not disprove the TOE. Even if aliens or Zeus created the universe and the first lifeform, evolution would still be the mechanism by which all other species came about from that life form.
It is my experience that evolutionists believe that if it feels good, its right, so I am not surprised by your reaction
What is the point of this statement?
Even though I've read all of those snippets at various points before in the discussion, I read through your selections all at once, and I believe that I am less intelligent for it. Like you, I weep for our future.
Beetles are God's chosen species. Why else would He create tens of thousands of beetle species?
I had your entire quote in the post and the OOL researchers will still have their hands full...
Don't let it get you down. I'm much more optimistic. We have a few hundred thousand scientists (more than ever before in the world's history) upon whom the future of our species depends. It seems depressingly true that the great majority of the population is stone cold ignorant of science, and a few -- so well represented in these theads -- are openly hostile to any manifestation of reason, but it has always been so.
With all that baggage trying to drag us back down into the Dark Ages, we're still making progress. If some school districts here and there get into astrology and creationism, it's tragic for those kids, but such setbacks aren't universal. Others will carry the torch of reason and learning forward.
Some species have vestigal legs and I have handled them.
God is good. And has a sense of humor.
Unfortunately, most fundamentalists don't, either online or in person.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.