Originally posted by tomtom232Genesis reads this way, if you are going to quote scripture at least
When Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of [b]KNOWLEDGE They were banished from the garden of eden where they would have lived FOREVER
They were banished before they could aslo eat of the tree of life so that they didn't have knowledge of good and evil in the world and also an eternity to learn all things.
Edit: Reading the bible, or anything for that matter, does not entail comprehension.[/b]
quote it instead of making it up, or if you did quote it, give reference
to translation, book, chapter, and verse.
Kelly
Genesis 2:17 (American Standard Version)
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Originally posted by Nemesio[/b]I do not care one way or another, not squat about the octopus eye
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]You claim the blind spot is a flaw.
I said, two things concerning that.
1st I don't know what the results long term would be if it was not that
way, so I'm not incline to call it a flaw, just because.
2nd If it is a flaw, I pointed out that living systems are degrading from
the time of creation, and the flaw coul ...[text shortened]...
Regarding the second: what reason do we have to believe that the flaw 'evolved?'
Nemesio
sight. I have repeated told you that, I have also repeated told you
that for where it is, and where we are, our eyes are fine. Were our
eyes better than they are now, I'd say yes. Are our eyes better
than the octopus' eyes now, again do not know, do not care! They live
in the water, we do not, so it is an apples and oranges type of issue as
far as I'm concern.
I have told you why our eyes along with everything else has degraded,
that is what systems do over time. It is the belief that life is getting
better that is a topic of debate, many think evolution is an ever
changing process that causes life to improve over time getting more
complex with greater functionality, but the only place that really has
ever been seen is between the ears of man. Man can write code to
show that can happen, but than that is ID not true blue aimless,
goal-less, without a guide or agenda evolution at work when man
does it.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThat just proves my point. Look at an above post to see the verse I was referring to.
Genesis reads this way, if you are going to quote scripture at least
quote it instead of making it up, or if you did quote it, give reference
to translation, book, chapter, and verse.
Kelly
Genesis 2:17 (American Standard Version)
17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Originally posted by convectCreationists are far from fair in their dealings, so if they want to have a scientific discussion on the origin of the vertebrate eye, a certain precision of language is required.
To be fair, in everyday discourse we do say that science "proves" things all the time. While maybe a philosopher of science might point out that what's actually happening is that a hypothesis has never been falsified and has been repeatedly verified to the point that is regarded as "true" (or something like that), the word "prove" gets used a lot.
Of cou ...[text shortened]... ey actually do anything but argue and quote the Bible in order to "prove" their point.)
In everyday science, the word prove is not employed and yes it does ultimately stem from the work of philosophers of science like Karl Popper, but it is useful for the development of new ideas and how to see if they hold water. It is an immensely practical thing and not something quite so esoteric.
The point remains that the conservation of the rhodopsin gene encoding the visual pigment of the eye is seen in a diverse array of species. The proposed explanation for this observation is that an ancestor of these species contained this gene from which it's descendent's inherited it and the degree of homology between extant sequences reflects most recent common ancestry of a founder species between them. This requires the least assumptions and is direct evidence for evolution.
Originally posted by Diodorus SiculusThey demand proofs from scientists, yet deliver none themselves.
Creationists are far from fair in their dealings, so if they want to have a scientific discussion on the origin of the vertebrate eye, a certain precision of language is required.
One fundamentalist once tried to prove the existance of god to me, by quoting the bible. If this is the correct method then scientists can quote any schoolbooks in the subject and call this a proof for BigBang, evolution, atomic theory or whatever the fundamentalists doesn't believe in.
They cannot ever think outside their small box. If it's not in the bible, then its false by default. But if it in the bible it's the divine Truth, even if it contradicts observations. If I say, because Einstein says so, they call it a blind belief of autohorities and that I cannot think for myself. If they say, because my priest says so or because the bible says so, then they themselves have a blind belief of authorities and they cannot think for themselves. I don't get it, how can they criticize others when using it themselves?
And now I have to emphasize - normal thinking good christians with a sound and healthy faith in god, i.e. the majority, are totally alright. The fundamentalists, the young earth creationists, the anti-science so called christians (because satan laughs at them) are blurred in their cognitive functions. They are programmed by their authorities to have a very narrow-minded view of the reality.
Originally posted by KellyJay
I do not care one way or another, not squat about the octopus eye
sight. I have repeated told you that, I have also repeated told you
that for where it is, and where we are, our eyes are fine. Were our
eyes better than they are now, I'd say yes. Are our eyes better
than the octopus' eyes now, again do not know, do not care! They live
in the water, we do not, so it is an apples and oranges type of issue as
far as I'm concern.
Again, you're answering some question I didn't ask. The issue here is 'Intelligent Design.'
According to ID hypothesis, some designer created both the octopus eye and the human eye.
The latter has a blind spot, the former does not. Given that humans are typically viewed as
the height of Design, this seems to make no sense.
You have proposed two 'reasons' to explain this: 1) The eye was created without a blind spot,
but 'degraded' into having one; or 2) The octopus model would be more harmful to humans
than the present eye because it wouldn't work as well somehow.
In science, we offer explanations and then provide evidence to support them. What reasons
would have have to believe that the eye didn't have a blind spot when it was created? What
reasons would we have to believe that a blind-spotless eye would make a human fare less well?
I have told you why our eyes along with everything else has degraded,
that is what systems do over time.
KellyJay: it's so frustrating when you ignore what I've written at least half-a-dozen times before.
The octopus eye is no more or less complicated than a human eye. There is no 'degrading'
from one to the other. The only difference is the location of the fibers relative to the retina. That's
it. You have not answered why these fibers would suddenly move from an advantageous
spot
to a disadvantageous spot. You have not provided evidence to support that supposition.
Your non-responses to these simple questions only support the notion that ID shouldn't be taken
seriously. If you can't provide defensible, plausible explanations to simple phenomena -- provide
reasonable justifications for holding a belief -- then the belief has no currency.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesio[/b]"According to ID hypothesis, some designer created both the octopus eye and the human eye.
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]I do not care one way or another, not squat about the octopus eye
sight. I have repeated told you that, I have also repeated told you
that for where it is, and where we are, our eyes are fine. Were our
eyes better than they are now, I'd say yes. Are our eyes better
than the octopus' eyes now, again do not know, do ications for holding a belief -- then the belief has no currency.
Nemesio
The latter has a blind spot, the former does not. Given that humans are typically viewed as
the height of Design, this seems to make no sense. "
They live in two completely different worlds, not saying this again if you
are not happy with this, to bad. They started off in different places they
are currently in two different places, the eyes they have suit them for
the place they are, one in water the other not. You are making a false
argument when you claim the human should have been given the
better eye between the two, because they are not in the same place
as I have been saying to you over and over.
If they were given the same eye at the beginning, the human eye gets
direct sun light much more often than the octopus so the stresses on
the eye would be quite different and the effects over time would be
completely different.
Find an argument worth discussion, this one is just bunk.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou're still not answering the question. I realize that octopodes and humans live in 'different worlds.'
They live in two completely different worlds, not saying this again if you
are not happy with this, to bad. They started off in different places they
are currently in two different places, the eyes they have suit them for
the place they are, one in water the other not. You are making a false
argument when you claim the human should have been given the
...[text shortened]... ld be
completely different.
Find an argument worth discussion, this one is just bunk.
Kelly
Why do you think the blind spot makes it more suitable for this world?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI never said it did makes it more suitable, I said two things on that
You're still not answering the question. I realize that octopodes and humans live in 'different worlds.'
[b]Why do you think the blind spot makes it more suitable for this world?
Nemesio[/b]
topic.
1. If it is there for a reason, I do not know what that reason is.
2. If it is a matter of degrading and it came about due to the system
failing over time, it is simply a matter of degrading.
As far as your notion God has to give man the best eye sight is
bogus, God has to give man what man needs nothing more.
Kelly
@ KellyJay
This is what the father of the intelligent design movement has to say on intelligent design:
* Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.[80]
* This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy.[81]
* If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this....We call our strategy the 'wedge.'[82]
* So the question is: "How to win?" That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the "wedge" strategy: "Stick with the most important thing" —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, "Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?" and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do.[83]
– Phillip E. Johnson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy#The_Discovery_Institute
In other words, even he doesn't believe it has any scientific merit.
Originally posted by PBE6I would say rather, that he KNOWS it has no scientific merit, and it doesn't matter to him. If for instance, by some ungodly miracle the ID'ers win out and say, force evolution out of schools to be replaced by creation 'science', the science part would be dropped like a hot coal. There would be no further use for science and they would drop back to the 18th century and stay there with their bible firmly in place up their collective asss.
@ KellyJay
This is what the father of the intelligent design movement has to say on intelligent design:
* Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools.[80]
* This isn't really, and never has been ...[text shortened]... y_Institute
In other words, even he doesn't believe it has any scientific merit.
They have no use for science except as a device to further the 'wedge'.
They are pathetic sick stupid cynical people and should be locked up in a looney bin never to be able to talk to the outside world. They are a blight on civilization.