-
This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.
Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
You're predictable because sooner, rather than later, you will resort to name calling, jumping up-and-down, slamming your fist on the table, and shouting, "I'm right and you're not!!!", without one shred of evidence with which to back your bald assertion(s).
Quit trying to shift the burden of proof. I already said I have never claimed to know how life happened nor does anyone else who accepts evolution as the explanation, backed by a mountain of evidence, for the biodiversity on this planet. You claim, "I do. God did it.", without one shred of evidence with which to back your bald assertion.
It is really up to YOU to prove all life DIDN'T arise from inert matter and energy resulting in life as it exists today and that your preferred deity is entirely responsible.
All you have is your argument from personal incredulity, "Abiogenesis without my personal concept of deity's involvement is impossible because life from non-life is so incredibly amazing, not understandable, and unimaginable it must be wrong".
Never mind that evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life. Yet, creationists like to use every available unknown to insert their preferred deity. It's called "the god of the gaps" for a reason. Perhaps you've heard of it?
Non sequitur. Denying the possibility of your personal concept of a deity's existence (which I don't, there's simply no evidence FOR "his" existence) does not in any way mean that I somehow "know" the origin of life.
Simply because your questions cannot be answered, because we presently don't know the origin of life, doesn't mean goddidit by default (see also the "argument from personal incredulity" above).
"Goddidit" is scientific? Seriously?
A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment (Wikipedia).
Please elaborate on how "goddidit" applies to this definition. My guess is your explanation will include something similar to, "Abiogenesis without my personal concept of deity's involvement is impossible because life from non-life is so incredibly amazing, not understandable, and unimaginable it must be wrong".
6days
New member
BarbrianSlightly more than half of the world's Christians are Roman Catholics and they accept that evolution is consistent with God's creation.
ReplyDid you care to respond to the actual argument? Apparently, you you find it easier to create snowjobs and straw men.
BarbrianHalf-century ago, my histology professor taught that (appendix)had other functions.
Reply Even IF that was true... it is a straw man. What I said...and is true, is that evolutionists DID, (and do)call the appendix "useless".
Barbrianthe leader of your movement has declared that blacks are spiritually and intellectually inferior to other people:
ReplyGoalposts? You don't like the ones we are now using?
BarbrianNope. They lied to you about that, too. Because light has to go through other tissue to get to the retina in vertebrates, acuity is thereby reduced, measurably so.
ReplyYou are stuck with your evolutionary beliefs and false arguments that are about 50 years out of date. You were previously shown how modern science / research has revealed the inverted retina design is superior / optimal.
BarbrianNope. (inverted retina) a hold over from when chordates first evolved. The retina is backwards for two reasons.
ReplyScience is revealing the superiority of the inverted retina design... It is evidence of an Intelligent Creator. It is evidence (research in the past 25 years) you have been shown, but reject.
Barbrian(quoting an evolutionist) "The tissue scatters some light, which leads to loss of light and image blur...In many species...
ReplyThe sentence you omitted (quote mining) says "The inverted retina has, therefore, long been regarded as inferior. Here, we provide evidence that the inverted retina actually is a superior space-saving solution, especially in small eyes." And, that is only one of several reasons why the inverted retina design is superior. The reason you reject the newer research is it contradicts your belief system from the past. Evolutionists, as your article admits, once believed the inverted retina was inferior. It seems you are stuck in the past.
BarbrianYou're O.K. with that (Proverbs verse "Ears that hear and eyes that see-- the LORD has made them both")but only if He does it the way your new doctrine demands. Let Him be God and accept it His way.
Replya I'm "O.K. with that" verse because that is what God's Word says; and science helps confirm the truth of his Word.
ReplyDid you care to respond to the actual argument? Apparently, you you find it easier to create snowjobs and straw men.
BarbrianHalf-century ago, my histology professor taught that (appendix)had other functions.
Reply Even IF that was true... it is a straw man. What I said...and is true, is that evolutionists DID, (and do)call the appendix "useless".
Barbrianthe leader of your movement has declared that blacks are spiritually and intellectually inferior to other people:
ReplyGoalposts? You don't like the ones we are now using?
BarbrianNope. They lied to you about that, too. Because light has to go through other tissue to get to the retina in vertebrates, acuity is thereby reduced, measurably so.
ReplyYou are stuck with your evolutionary beliefs and false arguments that are about 50 years out of date. You were previously shown how modern science / research has revealed the inverted retina design is superior / optimal.
BarbrianNope. (inverted retina) a hold over from when chordates first evolved. The retina is backwards for two reasons.
ReplyScience is revealing the superiority of the inverted retina design... It is evidence of an Intelligent Creator. It is evidence (research in the past 25 years) you have been shown, but reject.
Barbrian(quoting an evolutionist) "The tissue scatters some light, which leads to loss of light and image blur...In many species...
ReplyThe sentence you omitted (quote mining) says "The inverted retina has, therefore, long been regarded as inferior. Here, we provide evidence that the inverted retina actually is a superior space-saving solution, especially in small eyes." And, that is only one of several reasons why the inverted retina design is superior. The reason you reject the newer research is it contradicts your belief system from the past. Evolutionists, as your article admits, once believed the inverted retina was inferior. It seems you are stuck in the past.
BarbrianYou're O.K. with that (Proverbs verse "Ears that hear and eyes that see-- the LORD has made them both")but only if He does it the way your new doctrine demands. Let Him be God and accept it His way.
Replya I'm "O.K. with that" verse because that is what God's Word says; and science helps confirm the truth of his Word.
(6days denies that most of the world's Christians accept evolution)
Slightly more than half of the world's Christians are Roman Catholics and they accept that evolution is consistent with God's creation. Ditto for Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, and many Protestants. You're a rather small minority.
Have you changed your mind now? Apparently, you you find it easier to create snowjobs and straw men.
(6days falsely claims that "evolutionists" said the appendix is useless)
Barbarian chuckles:
Half-century ago, my histology professor taught that (appendix)had other functions.
It was in the literature. You someone told you another lie, and you swallowed it whole.
If you extend "evolutionist" to mean "dictionary writers." I could say with much more truth that creationists regard black people as spiritually and intellectually inferior since that was said by a leader of the creationist movement, not some obscure guy writing dictionary entries.
Barbarian regarding 6days false claim that the reversed retina works better than the right-side-out version:
Nope. They lied to you about that, too. Because light has to go through other tissue to get to the retina in vertebrates, acuity is thereby reduced, measurably so.
I showed you in the literature. I posted the evidence. Why lie about it? Do you think anyone is fooled?
Are you switching back to your original story that the appendix is useless? The cite I gave you for the loss of acuity in the reversed retina is from the last decade. It says that unless an organism is very small, there's no benefit to it, and that it's a drawback for any size animal in that it causes blurring and loss of acuity.
Barbarian observes:
The inverted retina is a hold over from when chordates first evolved. The retina is backwards for two reasons.
Only a creationist would consider blurring and loss of acuity to be "superior."
Barbarian observes:
You're O.K. with that (Proverbs verse "Ears that hear and eyes that see-- the LORD has made them both")but only if He does it the way your new doctrine demands. Let Him be God and accept it His way.
No, you're constantly trying to show that God did it your way instead of His.
Slightly more than half of the world's Christians are Roman Catholics and they accept that evolution is consistent with God's creation. Ditto for Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, and many Protestants. You're a rather small minority.
Have you changed your mind now? Apparently, you you find it easier to create snowjobs and straw men.
(6days falsely claims that "evolutionists" said the appendix is useless)
Barbarian chuckles:
Half-century ago, my histology professor taught that (appendix)had other functions.
It was in the literature. You someone told you another lie, and you swallowed it whole.
If you extend "evolutionist" to mean "dictionary writers." I could say with much more truth that creationists regard black people as spiritually and intellectually inferior since that was said by a leader of the creationist movement, not some obscure guy writing dictionary entries.
Barbarian regarding 6days false claim that the reversed retina works better than the right-side-out version:
Nope. They lied to you about that, too. Because light has to go through other tissue to get to the retina in vertebrates, acuity is thereby reduced, measurably so.
I showed you in the literature. I posted the evidence. Why lie about it? Do you think anyone is fooled?
Are you switching back to your original story that the appendix is useless? The cite I gave you for the loss of acuity in the reversed retina is from the last decade. It says that unless an organism is very small, there's no benefit to it, and that it's a drawback for any size animal in that it causes blurring and loss of acuity.
Barbarian observes:
The inverted retina is a hold over from when chordates first evolved. The retina is backwards for two reasons.
Only a creationist would consider blurring and loss of acuity to be "superior."
Barbarian observes:
You're O.K. with that (Proverbs verse "Ears that hear and eyes that see-- the LORD has made them both")but only if He does it the way your new doctrine demands. Let Him be God and accept it His way.
No, you're constantly trying to show that God did it your way instead of His.
6days
New member
You and Barbarian must have evolved from the same Namacalathus; Neither of you seem to to be able to counter an arguement without logical fallacy of a straw man.
And..... even if someone said 'God did it'; that would be more logical and more scientific than the atheist claim of 'nothing did it.
(It is more logical and scientific to conclude an intelligence created everything vs the belief that nothing can create everything. nuthindidit
]
No, it is more logical and scientific to consider the evidence, not to rely on a Holy Book cobbled together from the oral traditions of a particular Middle Eastern tribe.
6days
New member
iouae
Well-known member
There are many places where you, the amateur, can find dozens of animal fossils in one day.
http://intelligenttravel.nationalgeographic.com/2010/10/12/dig_your_own_fossils/
Even though fossils are a dime a dozen, the fossil record still is mostly ghost lineages. But evolutionists are great men of faith.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
6, you REALLY need to get a grip on what constitutes a "logical fallacy". You made no "argument", you made an assertion. You should read up on "proof by assertion" to further your education. I can counter an assertion pretty much any way I see fit and I most certainly didn't do so by invoking a "straw man".
All you have stated here is pure assertion and all you are doing is attempting to shift the burden of proof similar to musterion and using a straw man as well!! No one is claiming "nothing did it" only that life happened due to a natural cause, what that was we do not know, and nothing more.
Since science rules out "goddidit" as an explanation (not a straw man) YOU (the creationist) must find some way to substantiate "logic" explains "goddidit". My guess is your explanation will include something similar to, "Abiogenesis without my personal concept of deity's involvement is impossible because life from non-life is so incredibly amazing, not understandable, and unimaginable it must be wrong".
Right Divider
Body part
That is a non-sequitur. Just because there a lots of fossils in one place does NOT mean that fossilization is common in all ages and all times.
Since the formation of fossils is very rare, that would explain the problem with trying to trace things that are not there.
iouae
Well-known member
The fossil record is like owning a super low definition TV with huge pixels and lots of snow.
Then over time, as we upgrade out TV, the picture gets better as we approach high definition.
But what is not changing is the picture. The ghost lineages are still there. Modern phylogenetic trees and spindle diagrams still have these thin or dashed lines.
As the paleontological picture becomes clearer, there will come a time to say "This is it. This is as good as it gets"! Is it too soon?
Then over time, as we upgrade out TV, the picture gets better as we approach high definition.
But what is not changing is the picture. The ghost lineages are still there. Modern phylogenetic trees and spindle diagrams still have these thin or dashed lines.
As the paleontological picture becomes clearer, there will come a time to say "This is it. This is as good as it gets"! Is it too soon?
Last edited:
musterion
Well-known member
And you know this because of your intensive and extensive study?
iouae
Well-known member
If one has a jigsaw puzzle which somebody gives one without the picture.
The first few pieces one finds will show one the most, e.g. is this a Swiss mountain scene, or animals.
As you find and fill in more pieces of the puzzle, one learns less and less.
You don't have to find all the pieces to more or less get the picture.
I don't know if it takes intensive and extensive study to understand this, or just (not so) common sense.
No, perhaps not. but science, logic and the real world evidence make it clear that your week long special creation event 6000 years ago simply did not occur.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Well, "irradiated soil" IS a better explanation than, "Goddidit!!!", it explains more and doesn't add the necessity of explaining another (unnecessary) unknown.
All you have is your argument from personal incredulity, "Abiogenesis without my personal concept of deity's involvement is impossible because life from non-life is so incredibly amazing, not understandable, and unimaginable it must be wrong".
It is really up to YOU to prove all life DIDN'T arise from inert matter and energy resulting in life as it exists today and that your preferred deity is entirely responsible.
Never mind that evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life. Yet, creationists like to use every available unknown to insert their preferred deity. It's called "the god of the gaps" for a reason. Perhaps you've heard of it?
Oh, SNAP!!! I forgot "argument by insult" (ad hominem).
Do you have any evidence to substantiate your claim? How long will I have to wait?
I am of the opinion there was a natural cause for life, the universe, and everything. Creationists are the ones who choose to invoke magic.
musterion
Well-known member
Well...If you are stupid and want to believe in truly retarded fairy tales that contradict all known science (mud + lightning + time + unidentified magic = life is as anti-science as it gets), and you love your sin, then yes, I suppose it would seem more reasonable. May as well run around with a bone in your nose.
Silent Hunter
Well-known member
Good grief man you claim "science... proves god's word" (goddidit) every chance you get, so, yeah, I'm challenging you on it.
I include "context" in every post. In what context does, "even if someone said 'God did it'; that would be more logical and more scientific than the atheist claim of 'nothing did it. (It is more logical and scientific to conclude an intelligence created everything vs the belief that nothing can create everything)", not claim science supports "goddidit"?
6, you REALLY need to get a grip on what constitutes a "logical fallacy". You should read up on "proof by assertion" to further your education.
You jump up-and-down, slam your fist on the table, and shout, "Strawman", to every reply all the while totally ignoring your own strawmen as I pointed out in a prior post.
Science absolutely rules out "intelligent design" despite your claim(s) to the contrary:
"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment." (Wikipedia)
According to science, everything in the natural world is assumed to have a natural cause. "Goddidit" IS NOT a natural cause.
Since science rules out "goddidit" as an explanation YOU (the creationist) must find some way to substantiate "logic" explains "goddidit". My guess is your explanation will include something similar to, "Abiogenesis without my personal concept of deity's involvement is impossible because life from non-life is so incredibly amazing, not understandable, and unimaginable it must be wrong".
Last edited:
Here's why a backwards retina reduces visual acuity (in spite of your creationist papers in an open journal)
The light has to pass through glial cells of differing refractive indices. When that happens, it's refracted in various ways, blurring the image. There's no way to get around this; it's why putting bits of even a perfectly transparent material.
Creationist Jerry Bergman admits that the inverted retina degrades the image, but asserts that a work-around exists:
An area of the retina in the central macula called the central fovea is part of the solution to the problem of light loss due to the reversed retina. The nerve cell bodies in this area are displaced sideways to provide a clearer path for light to reach the photoreceptor cells.52 The macula area is no larger than pencil lead in diameter but is about 100 times more sensitive to small features than the rest of the retina. Vision is the sharpest at the macula, which is critical in providing the brain with information needed to construct an image. It allows us to read, watch television, recognize friends, and even walk. Most of the rest of the retina actually is concerned with peripheral vision. The macula provides information needed to maximize image detail, and the information obtained by the peripheral areas of the retina helps to provide both spatial and contextual information.
The peripheral retina also functions to survey a large visual area for clues to determine where a person should focus his or her macula for more input. The peripheral area does not need to pick up much detail because its role is primarily to inform the brain of locations that may need more informational input. This structure allows the person to be aware of a wide visual field, yet at the same time not be distracted by it.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Bergman.html
Which is making the best of it. "If our vision was better, we'd just be distracted all the time." Apparently, that's not a problem for octopi, but we couldn't handle it, Jerry supposes.
He also cites another unfortunate consequence of a backwards retina:
The vertebrate eye has a blind spot where the retinal nerves and the blood vessels exit the eye. There is no comparable blind spot in the cephalopod eye.
Usually, this doesn't matter, because our brain confabulates an image to cover the hole, and since such a small area normally isn't a big deal, it works, kind of. Unless you're a fighter pilot, or live where there are poisonous snakes or something like that.
No one in his right mind would argue that this is optimal design, however.
The light has to pass through glial cells of differing refractive indices. When that happens, it's refracted in various ways, blurring the image. There's no way to get around this; it's why putting bits of even a perfectly transparent material.
Creationist Jerry Bergman admits that the inverted retina degrades the image, but asserts that a work-around exists:
An area of the retina in the central macula called the central fovea is part of the solution to the problem of light loss due to the reversed retina. The nerve cell bodies in this area are displaced sideways to provide a clearer path for light to reach the photoreceptor cells.52 The macula area is no larger than pencil lead in diameter but is about 100 times more sensitive to small features than the rest of the retina. Vision is the sharpest at the macula, which is critical in providing the brain with information needed to construct an image. It allows us to read, watch television, recognize friends, and even walk. Most of the rest of the retina actually is concerned with peripheral vision. The macula provides information needed to maximize image detail, and the information obtained by the peripheral areas of the retina helps to provide both spatial and contextual information.
The peripheral retina also functions to survey a large visual area for clues to determine where a person should focus his or her macula for more input. The peripheral area does not need to pick up much detail because its role is primarily to inform the brain of locations that may need more informational input. This structure allows the person to be aware of a wide visual field, yet at the same time not be distracted by it.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Bergman.html
Which is making the best of it. "If our vision was better, we'd just be distracted all the time." Apparently, that's not a problem for octopi, but we couldn't handle it, Jerry supposes.
He also cites another unfortunate consequence of a backwards retina:
The vertebrate eye has a blind spot where the retinal nerves and the blood vessels exit the eye. There is no comparable blind spot in the cephalopod eye.
Usually, this doesn't matter, because our brain confabulates an image to cover the hole, and since such a small area normally isn't a big deal, it works, kind of. Unless you're a fighter pilot, or live where there are poisonous snakes or something like that.
No one in his right mind would argue that this is optimal design, however.