Originally posted by KellyJaySo you would be much happier *not* bringing in religion to Science Forum then...? But discuss your religion in the Spiritual Forum where it belongs? And let the Science Forum remain Science Forum? From now on? (*yess, yess, yess*)
That is almost the full content of every conversation you and I have
ever had with respect to your side of the discussions.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat is the evidence for your skepticism that leads you to believe that it is credible to think
I bring my skepticism yes, you are on the band wagon that only a
select few should be able to discuss matters such as the beginning
of all things, or evolution? I have been giving reasons for my
skepticism the evidence for it is the same evidence you have to
support it, we just look at it differently.
that a human eye without blind spots would deteriorate more rapidly than the eye we have?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioYou need to read my responces, repeating myself isn't something
What is the evidence for your skepticism that leads you to believe that it is credible to think
that a human eye without blind spots would deteriorate more rapidly than the eye we have?
Nemesio
I'm going to do here any more.
Kelly
Originally posted by FabianFnasI'm all for that, you get others to quit bringing up my faith and stick
So you would be much happier *not* bringing in religion to Science Forum then...? But discuss your religion in the Spiritual Forum where it belongs? And let the Science Forum remain Science Forum? From now on? (*yess, yess, yess*)
to those things we see and touch we will have what you want here.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou haven't answered this question, KellyJay. If you had, it would be
You need to read my responces, repeating myself isn't something
I'm going to do here any more.
in the form of a sentence that reads like this:
The evidence that leads me to believe that the human eye without blind
spots would deteriorate more rapidly than our current eye is....
If you don't want to repeat it, then point to the page and post upon which
this answer sits.
I thank you in advance.
Nemesio
I'm sorry, I just joined this discussion and have not gone through all 20 pages of it. However, I wanted to ask, has anyone simply suggested that the poster KellyJay read more about evolution? I suggest reading the blind watchmaker. That will address a bit about how complexities can come about from natural selection. the mutations may be random, but as frequently stated in the book, evolution is NOT a random process. Natural selection is the key and the opposite of randomness. Whatever the environment "deems" advantageous, that will be more likely to get passed on to future generations. of course, you all know this, but this is for kellyJay and all those who think life is too complex to have evolved.
EDITED: of course, those things that are not detrimental will also be passed on, as stated earlier by another poster and is evidenced by our genetic code.
KellyJay, if you really want to learn more about it, read the selfish gene and the blind watchmaker. Someone else might've already provided those references for you; I apologize if so. Just as much as you are in awe of the complexity of life, so am I at the awesome ability of natural selection and evolution to create such complexities. it is beautiful...even though "god" didn't make it.
Originally posted by kastI have the blind watch maker, and read it, it assumes a great deal
I'm sorry, I just joined this discussion and have not gone through all 20 pages of it. However, I wanted to ask, has anyone simply suggested that the poster KellyJay read more about evolution? I suggest reading the blind watchmaker. That will address a bit about how complexities can come about from natural selection. the mutations may be random, but as freq ...[text shortened]... olution to create such complexities. it is beautiful...even though "god" didn't make it.
without good cause.
Kelly
Originally posted by kastYou assume that if I don't agree with your beliefs I don't understand
I'm sorry, I just joined this discussion and have not gone through all 20 pages of it. However, I wanted to ask, has anyone simply suggested that the poster KellyJay read more about evolution? I suggest reading the blind watchmaker. That will address a bit about how complexities can come about from natural selection. the mutations may be random, but as freq ...[text shortened]... olution to create such complexities. it is beautiful...even though "god" didn't make it.
them, because if I did I'd agree with you?
Kelly
If you assume that the eye or other parts of life are too complex for evolution to possibly have done without some intelligent designer, then you don't understand the full scale of how complex evolution could lead an organism to become.
Even if you read through the whole book and find it assumes too many things, it doesn't make sense AT ALL to then succumb to simply attributing the whole thing to god or some other "intelligent" designer. How could you possibly sit there and state that something with a pretty strong foundation for explaining the complexity of life (evolution - and in this case the eye) has too many holes or that Richard Dawkins assumes too many things and then turn around and attribute the whole thing to the biggest assumption of all?! Well, if I just don't get it, well then, it must follow that GOD did it ... that is the biggest assumption mankind has made.
So if you "assume" an intelligent designer did whatever you currently can't comprehend, then you have an improper way of explaining things.
Originally posted by kast…So if you "assume" an intelligent designer did whatever you currently can't comprehend, then you have an improper way of explaining things...…
If you assume that the eye or other parts of life are too complex for evolution to possibly have done without some intelligent designer, then you don't understand the full scale of how complex evolution could lead an organism to become.
Even if you read through the whole book and find it assumes too many things, it doesn't make sense AT ALL to then succumb t ever you currently can't comprehend, then you have an improper way of explaining things.
If there is one thing I have learned about KellyJay over many months on these forums is that he comprehends just fine as long as he is not offended by the implications of what there is to comprehend but, and this it the critical part, if he IS offended by the implications of what there is to comprehend then he somehow manages not to quite fully comprehend it because he doesn’t want to and, by use of twisted logic, he picks “holes” in it.
So am afraid you misunderstand him slightly here for it is not quite true that he “assumes” that if he cannot comprehend it then an intelligent designer must have had something to do with it -the truth is more like he “assumes” that if the implication of what there is to comprehend goes against his belief in the existence of an intelligent designer then what there is to comprehend must somehow be erroneous or even somehow impossible to comprehend!
Originally posted by KellyJayIn this particular case, you probably would agree with him on this particular matter if you allowed yourself to understand -but you don’t want to understand and so you wouldn‘t ever allow yourself to understand.
You assume that if I don't agree with your beliefs I don't understand
them, because if I did I'd agree with you?
Kelly
Originally posted by kast…evolution is NOT a random process. Natural selection is the key and the opposite of randomness....…
I'm sorry, I just joined this discussion and have not gone through all 20 pages of it. However, I wanted to ask, has anyone simply suggested that the poster KellyJay read more about evolution? I suggest reading the blind watchmaker. That will address a bit about how complexities can come about from natural selection. the mutations may be random, but as freq olution to create such complexities. it is beautiful...even though "god" didn't make it.
I am afraid we have already explained this simple fact to him (using different words) many times before but he still insists evolution is ALL “random” by emphasising the randomness of the random mutations while conveniently ignoring the fact that natural selection itself (that selects for or against those random mutations after they have occurred and which is an absolutely essential part of the evolution process) is NOT random.
I have noticed that some other creationists also employ the same tactic in order to make evolution sound absurd by saying such claptrap as: “the theory of evolution says we were created by a totally random accident” -this, of courses, is not what the theory of evolution says.
Originally posted by NemesioThe eye more than likely was from the time of creation better than
Hmm?
it is now, as all life was. The blind spot, I do not know when it first
occurred on the time line, it could have there from the beginning. I
do not know; however, if true there should be a diminishing
soundness in our visual systems that will more than likely continue
if I’m correct and evolution is really a path of entropy, verse
continually getting life to be more functionally complex.
Kelly