Originally posted by PenguinIt is a view I have had for years.
I nipped onto the "Slightly biased attempt to discredit evolution" thread and realised that KJ had already suggested this in that thread.
I think this is a hypothesis that KJ has just heard / dreamed up and is plugging it wherever he can. Nothing wrong with that per se but maybe we should keep it in the 'slightly...' thread, or make a new thread that expl ...[text shortened]... itely deals with it rather than trying to slide it in through the back door.
--- Penguin.
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseThe question I was asked was, "Are you suggesting that the eye was better when God first created it and subsequently evolved
You mean like Neandertals and Australapithicus and Homo Habilis? The original men? They were superior to us?
to become inferior? "
What my answer addressed was that question asked, at creation it was
better than it is now.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayOkay, I see your point. But you have to know that creation is *not* science. I stand for science, therefore I don't want anyone using my words in favour for creation.
If you do not want quoted, do not write.
I did not infer your words to anything that has to do with creation, I
refered your words to that which you spoke about. I did not add to
or twist what you said, quite unlike what you just did to me by saying
I refered your words to creation.
not
So now I say for the record:
Creation is not science, any thoughts of creation is false.
Anyone pro-creation is anti-science.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWhat reasoning? He is referring to the biblical Genisis tale, where mankind was in the Garden of Eden and in a pristine state.
What is the premise for this belief?
What reasoning/evidence has led you to conclude this?
Nice tale but reality sets in pretty quickly, eh.
Originally posted by sonhouseI think you are responding to this:
There are animals alive today that have regressed evolutionarily speaking. Like salamanders in dark caves, they lost their eyes after thousands or millions of years living in those dark caves.
"As far as I am aware, no cases have been found of life forms
becoming less complex through time, as I think you are suggesting."
and I apologise for that one. I did not feel comfortable about it when I wrote it because I am well aware of such changes: vestigial organs, flightless birds, blind mole-rats etc etc. The term 'complex' was the wrong one to use. Maybe the question should have been put thus:
As far as I am aware, no cases have been found of life forms becoming less well adapted to their environment through time and successfully breeding, as I think you are suggesting.
Meanwhile, KJ has failed, so far, to suggest any evidence in support of his theory. Can anyone think of any real world evidence that could be interpreted in support of this?
I won't hold my breath.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by KellyJaySo, our eye was like the octopus' eye -- with the nerve fibers behind
Yes, the whole human race was better when man was created than
it is now.
Kelly
the retina rather than in front which creates a blind spot?
Is that your contention?
Can you provide:
1) An explanation why the eye would evolve to a state that is less beneficial;
2) Some scientific evidence for this claim?
Nemesio
Originally posted by KellyJayI am a programmer by profession and I can assure you that I can design a program that does not do what you tell it to do but rather makes a random choice based on a random number generator. It does not require me to have a completely unreliable computer to do this.
If you are a full time programmer you should know that is all they
do, nothing more, nothing less! They may not do what you want, but
they most certainly do in deed do what you tell them too, if not you
have a system that is completely unreliable.
Kelly
To prove it, type "=RAND()" into a cell in Microsoft Excel. I can guarantee that the number it puts in the cell will not be a number that you specifically told it to put there.
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI'm not on a quest to kill evolution, I actually believe it occurs, I just
Yes but that is not going to help you in your quest to kill evolution.
do not think it happens the way many here do. I also think that the
fossils back my views up better than your views do.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think you need to read what you wrote
I am a programmer by profession and I can assure you that I can design a program that does not do what you tell it to do but rather makes a random choice based on a random number generator. It does not require me to have a completely unreliable computer to do this.
To prove it, type "=RAND()" into a cell in Microsoft Excel. I can guarantee that the number it puts in the cell will not be a number that you specifically told it to put there.
You can write a program and cause it to make random choices,
based on a random number generator. I imagine when you get
random numbers it isn't what you programmed your program to do?
Kelly
Originally posted by FabianFnasThank you for acknowledging that point.
Okay, I see your point. But you have to know that creation is *not* science. I stand for science, therefore I don't want anyone using my words in favour for creation.
So now I say for the record:
Creation is not science, any thoughts of creation is false.
Anyone pro-creation is anti-science.
I have on so many times said that creation is not science it is almost
disturbing to me that people I have had these discussions with keep
coming back to that point as if I was attempting to make another
claim after years of saying the other thing. Creation is a matter of
faith, it cannot and will not lend itself to being anything other than
a matter of faith, which does not mean it didn’t happen, only that it is
a special event beyond the abilities of man to prove or disprove it.
Creation is a supernatural event that only happened once, it cannot
be shown true or false by science, which as I have said again makes
it a matter of faith.
Talking about matters of faith is not being anti-science, they both
have their place in human life.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThat's all well and good, but the bottom line is you will be forever denying that evolution could be true because it flies in the face of your religious dogma so why are we having this discussion?
Thank you for acknowledging that point.
I have on so many times said that creation is not science it is almost
disturbing to me that people I have had these discussions with keep
coming back to that point as if I was attempting to make another
claim after years of saying the other thing. Creation is a matter of
faith, it cannot and will not lend itse ...[text shortened]... ut matters of faith is not being anti-science, they both
have their place in human life.
Kelly