1. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    08 May '15 08:573 edits
    When arguing for irreducible complexity, creationists often make the case that something as complex as the eye could not have evolved in gradual steps, the idea being that you need all the parts to be in place and fully functional before you have an actual eye. Any intermediate from "no eye parts" to an "all eye parts" would be useless baggage that natural selection should have weeded out.

    Note that the argument is not just that we haven't observed the evolution of the eye, but that it logically couldn't have evolved through microevolutionary processes. Which is indeed a bold argument to make, yet so easily refuted. However, if the refutation is not properly understood in context, you may find yourself saying silly things like in the following video:

    YouTube : onceforgivennowfree

    This demonstrates a complete failure in understanding the point made. The point of referring to now living organisms with eyes of differing complexity is not to say that the human eye necessarily has evolved through those specific steps, but to refute the claim that our eyes couldn't have evolved from simpler beginnings.

    I just thought I'd put it out there to save any resident creationists the embarrassment from making the same mistake in the future. 🙂

    (If the video is scrambled, try pressing the full screen view button on the lower right of the video view.)
  2. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148450
    08 May '15 10:10
    Originally posted by C Hess
    When arguing for irreducible complexity, creationists often make the case that something as complex as the eye could not have evolved in gradual steps, the idea being that you need all the parts to be in place and fully functional before you have an actual eye. Any intermediate from "no eye parts" to an "all eye parts" would be useless baggage that nat ...[text shortened]... s scrambled, try pressing the full screen view button on the lower right of the video view.)[/i]
    Every time I've seen it explained here and else where it is very lame and in my opinion it
    would never happen that way. Only a true believer that accepts it as true can accept it as
    true, because nothing about that process would ever occur naturally, in my non-believing
    opinion.
  3. Joined
    24 Apr '10
    Moves
    14579
    08 May '15 10:46
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Every time I've seen it explained here and else where it is very lame and in my opinion it
    would never happen that way. Only a true believer that accepts it as true can accept it as
    true, because nothing about that process would ever occur naturally, in my non-
    scientific, non-expert
    opinion.
    Fixed that for you.
  4. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    08 May '15 10:54
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Every time I've seen it explained here and else where it is very lame ...
    why?
    perhaps you should publish your findings?
  5. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    08 May '15 10:56
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Every time I've seen it explained here and else where it is very lame and in my opinion it
    would never happen that way. Only a true believer that accepts it as true can accept it as
    true, because nothing about that process would ever occur naturally, in my non-believing
    opinion.
    Its very easy to just deny something without justification. Justifying your beliefs with anything other than Bible verses, now that would be a challenge.
    What is worse, claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is a 'true believer' is just outright rude - especially given your near total lack of knowledge of the subject.
  6. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148450
    08 May '15 11:57
    Originally posted by Great King Rat
    Fixed that for you.
    Yea, that changed everything do nothing for the discussion just insult those that do not
    agree.
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    08 May '15 12:18
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Yea, that changed everything do nothing for the discussion just insult those that do not
    agree.
    Given that that is exactly what you did, you shouldn't be complaining. But I don't see how pointing out that you are not an expert is an insult. On the other hand, what you did: calling those who are experts 'true believers', which is essentially belittling their very real professional knowledge most definitely was an insult.
  8. Joined
    24 Apr '10
    Moves
    14579
    08 May '15 13:47
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Yea, that changed everything do nothing for the discussion just insult those that do not
    agree.
    It’s got nothing to do with “ agreeing”. You know zilch about how the eye might have evolved and clearly make statements about it purely on the basis of what you want: you want there to be a Creator and you distort the truth so that you can end up with the conclusion you favor. For once I’m not insulting, I’m stating a fact.

    Or would you say that you are in fact an expert and your conclusion was scientific?
  9. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    08 May '15 14:23
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Every time I've seen it explained here and else where it is very lame and in my opinion it
    would never happen that way. Only a true believer that accepts it as true can accept it as
    true, because nothing about that process would ever occur naturally, in my non-believing
    opinion.
    This is what I get for trying to preemptively help you guys not look foolish. 🙄

    The point is not that the evolution of the eye went through those precise steps (in fact, there are several different kinds of eyes with different evolutionary histories). The point is to refute the argument that half an eye, or third an eye, or any part an eye, can't function, which has led you creationists to the false conclusion that the eye could not have evolved incrementally (what scientists call evolution and you call microevolution).
  10. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12695
    08 May '15 16:571 edit
    Originally posted by C Hess
    This is what I get for trying to preemptively help you guys not look foolish. 🙄

    The point is not that the evolution of the eye went through those precise steps (in fact, there are several different kinds of eyes with different evolutionary histories). The point is to refute the argument that half an eye, or third an eye, or any part an eye, can't f ...[text shortened]... have evolved incrementally (what scientists call evolution and you call microevolution).
    The point we creationists are making is that the parts did not evolve (come together by magic) but were created (made and put together) by an intelligent designer called God. 😏

    Maybe if you could understand this, you wouldn't look so foolish.
  11. Joined
    04 Feb '05
    Moves
    29132
    08 May '15 17:25
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Yea, that changed everything do nothing for the discussion just insult those that do not
    agree.
    truth hurts?

    do you wish to challenge what he said? that yours is an uninformed, unscientific opinion?

    would you like to present a peer reviewed, supported by evidence scientific paper?
  12. Joined
    31 Aug '06
    Moves
    40565
    08 May '15 18:44
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    The point we creationists are making is that the parts did not evolve (come together by magic) but were created (made and put together) by an intelligent designer called God. 😏

    Maybe if you could understand this, you wouldn't look so foolish.
    That's not a point, you schmuck. That's a baseless statement. The point in saying that something is irreducibly complex, is to say that it could not have formed in a tiny step-wise manner. And the point of the refutation is that we see today many examples with just some of the parts that supposedly can't work on their own. I can't believe you're not getting it, so I'll have to (once again) conclude that you're wilful in your ignorance. 🙄
  13. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148450
    08 May '15 22:441 edit
    Originally posted by C Hess
    This is what I get for trying to preemptively help you guys not look foolish. 🙄

    The point is not that the evolution of the eye went through those precise steps (in fact, there are several different kinds of eyes with different evolutionary histories). The point is to refute the argument that half an eye, or third an eye, or any part an eye, can't f ...[text shortened]... have evolved incrementally (what scientists call evolution and you call microevolution).
    There are several different eyes and stories applied to each, that doesn't mean any of the
    theories around those eyes are correct.

    So spell out the first step in the evolution of the eye, just the first step, and show me how
    it is science and not a belief!
  14. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148450
    08 May '15 23:46
    Originally posted by Great King Rat
    It’s got nothing to do with “ agreeing”. You know zilch about how the eye might have evolved and clearly make statements about it purely on the basis of what you want: you want there to be a Creator and you distort the truth so that you can end up with the conclusion you favor. For once I’m not insulting, I’m stating a fact.

    Or would you say that you are in fact an expert and your conclusion was scientific?
    You know someone who knows how it happen, or just believes, or thinks they know?
  15. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    09 May '15 01:00
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    You know someone who knows how it happen, or just believes, or thinks they know?
    Scientists just think they know.
    They think they know how your cell phone works.
    They think they know how your microwave oven works.
    They think they know how the laser in your cd player works.
    They think they can land objects on comets!!

    They just think they know.
Back to Top