PBS Offers Intelligent Design Documentary

CREATION - Evolution Headlines ^ | 04/28/2003 | Illustra Media/CREATION - Evolution Headlines

[capitan_refugio]

"I don't think Christians are threatened by evolution. They find it assinine."

Junior, don't pretend to speak for all Christians, or for that matter, speak for anyone but yourself.

[Aric2000]

You haven't studied evolution much have you?

Otherwise you would not ask questions that have been answered on these threads forever.

If you are really that interested follow the links that PatrickHenry so nicely provided at the beginning of this thread. You might learn something.

Because I sure as heck am not going to go into something that has been discussed and answered a thousand times.

If you are REALLY interested, then you will follow my instructions above.

[plusone]

I've studied it enough to know that an underdeveloped eye will confer no advantage to its holder, and as such will not survive the natural selection process. Only complete systems can do that, and there is no way for them to evolve starting from scratch.

[general_re]

I've studied it enough to know that an underdeveloped eye will confer no advantage to its holder...

Ponder this, and you will understand your error: "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

[plusone]

That is my point. Blind people still have eyes, yet because of some little misconnection, they are left blind. The whole system must work perfectly to be of any use. What good is a 'proto-eye'? If it doesn't work, then it doesn't give the holder any advantage over his rivals.

[general_re]

The one-eyed man doesn't have a fully functioning vision system either - why is he king in the land of the blind?

[Aric2000]

Sorry, but this is a creo strawman that does not hold up to scientific evidence.

If you are trying to convince yourself, then you had better try something else.

Again, this has been explained, and explained, and explained, over and over and over again.

I told you where to go to find the information that you seek, you just obviously wish to hold onto your wrong information for some other reason.

[plusone]

I am not a believer in creationism. I did a quick look at those links, and they are concerned with debunking Creationism/ID. This does not concern me. Point me to a link that shows what value an under developed organ/apendage will confer onto its holder. What good is a proto eye or a proto feather?

[Aric2000]

OK, fine, I will just call in the man with the links and let him have a gander at you.

Patrick, we seem to have someone that is actually asking a serious question, mind pointing him in the right direction?

Thanks

[general_re]

What good is a proto eye or a proto feather?

No jumping ahead - first you have to take the red pill and think about #706...

[Aric2000]

I will send you to a link that got this whole thread started as a matter of fact.

Go here, it explains it in laymans terms and does not get into it too deeply, but you will get the point.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

[Aric2000]

LOL,

and about that vow of silence....;)

You asked me to ask!! LOL

[general_re]

Pie Iesu domine...
WHACK!
...dona eis requiem.

[carl in alaska]

"Evolution has nothing to do with how the first life forms came into being."

Not true. I took a class at UC San Diego called "Biochemical Evolution". The entire class was about how the first life forms could have come into being. The arguments were not very convincing. When I have a little more time, I'll try to explain some of the scientific arguments against evolution and for ID. Right now I have to get some rest.

[carl in alaska]

You're speaking the truth my friend. Where's Medved to help with the ID arguments when you need him? Hopefully this weekend I'll have enough energy to make some skillful arguments for you.

One of the best arguments is to get beyond the molecular level of DNA and proteins, and instead look at all the management that occurs within a living creature from gestation all the way through life. For example, there is an ongoing construction and reconstruction project that occurs during the life of a human being: this is what allows us to grow up with arms and legs of equal length, matching hands and feet, shoulders of equal size and shape...the bilateral symmetry of the human body. Who manages this construction project? Every such project has to have a manager, a force that is directing the construction process. No building builds itself, nor can any animal build itself without management assistance from an outside force. To the evolutionist, the DNA molecules manage everything, and yet we know that DNA is merely the blueprint for protein molecules. DNA has no management ability, no capacity to direct all of the intricate construction of the human body during gestation and the growth of a child. Nor does HGH or any other molecular substance. This is a subtle concept for the laymen to grasp, and scientists often miss it too or refuse to see it.

It is not difficult to believe in God. God is all around us every day, visible in every tree, every animal, every dog and cat running across the grass. This is why it's so easy to not see the creation, because it's right in front of us in so many ways every day. I'll try to chime in again this weekend. Good luck with the evo crowd.

[general_re]

Where's Medved to help with the ID arguments when you need him?

He got banned three months before you signed up here. Is this your original handle, or have there been others?

[Dimensio]

Not true. I took a class at UC San Diego called "Biochemical Evolution". The entire class was about how the first life forms could have come into being.

SO you took a class by professors who misrepresented the theory of evolution, or they were using the term "Biochemical evolution" to refer to the fact that they were speaking of other than the traditional theory of evolution. This proves nothing except that you are unable to comprehend the fact that because the theory deals with existing life forms, it has nothign to do with how those life forms came into being.

Why is it that when I bring up various possible scenarios under which the first life forms could have come to being as demonstration that evolution says nothing on the ultimate origins of life that creationists who insist upon repeating that lie refuse to address it? It's like the deliberately ignore it because it totally defeats their argument. Again, it matters not if the first life forms came about through an electrical charge in amino acids, were brought to Earth by interdimensional life forms, were seeded on earth by time-travellers or were zap-poofed into existence by a divine agent. When dealing with evolution, it does not matter which of those processes, if any, brought the first life forms onto this planet.

[capitan_refugio]

"Xarg, the Sufficiently Powerful"

Hey. I thought about that as a sceen name, but it was too long! ;^)

[Dimensio]

What good is a 'proto-eye'? Well, a creature with a sensory organ that can detect between different light levels will do better than one that cannot detect such things at all.

The whole 'eye' argument is beyond buried. There are examples of 'partial' eyes if you bother to look.