I see Gods signature in the universe, earth and life on earth, you have no real scientific evidence to support molecule-to-man evolution, eye evolution etc, evolutionists assume it happened, there is no known real scientific evidence for how life arose on planet earth, how can evolution claim eye evolution?, simply because evolutionists say so, there is nothing wrong in believeing what any wants to believe. Life can only come from preexisting life of its kind so what was the first cause for life in an evolutionary framework? and can this be proven using the time tested scientific method?.
Any religious people watch the Wonders of Life last night?
- Thread starter Johnnytoxic
- Start date
What does Gods Signature look like, can you point to it? Or is it an assumption you make in the absence of another answer?
Evolution isn't a Being able to claim anything, it is simply a process. It isn't abiogenesis either and doesn't pretend to be so your point is fundamentally flawed before you begin.
Yes but that is only assumed that happened, this can not be supported by the real time tested scientific method. I have said before i don't have a problem personally with a theory or assumptions but to claim it is fact is a lie.
I don't think you are honestly interested in discussion. We have provided you with reams of rock solid evidence, and yet you continue to ignore it in favour of your beliefs.
A flaw really?, the first man was created with a pair of eyes.So there were no eyes prior to Modern Humans?
I think there is a flaw there somewhere.
God is higher than any pope, i choose God as my ultimate authority thankyou
No, he evolved from ancestors who had eyes, who evolved from further ancestors who had eyes. The entire process has been explained time and time again in the thread.
God is higher than any pope, i choose God as my ultimate authority thankyou
I thought Christianity was one body? Therefore you should really be accepting what your Pope has to say concerning evolution.
Not so imho, the real scientific method is 1,Observation, 2, testability, 3, repeatability, 4, postulation, 5, falsification or to prove true.
No, it is a complete and sound explanation that fits the evidence without contradiction. Photosensitive cells exist in the simplist organisms. Even a sunflower through pure photomechanical means rotates its flower head to point at the sun, rotating through the day. Many other flowers have similar mechanisms to open u and close their flower head in the morning.
Many single cell organisms are also photosensitive.
The first eyes were nothing more than photosensitive cells (which have proven ly been evolved countless times throughout history in many different shapes and forms). In multicelled organisms a few photosensitive cells roughly arranged is all that is required for the organisms to perform tasks such as phototaxis, e.g. Hide in the shadows during the day and only come out at night.
Te modern complex eye is nothing more than a collective of photosensitive cells that are more tightly packed than primitive ancestors. It is the processing of the visual field which is actually much more interesting. And here there are fascinating modern results that are found through cross model similarities within the computer vision And artificial evolution community. Many of the modern techniques for image processing have very similar biological counterparts, and furthermore, artificial evolution and genetic algorithms applied to neural-visual processing has indepently evolved with simulation the basic building blox of visual comprehension such as edge detection, image pyramids, optical flow computation, etc., etc.
The thing is with the eye, it is deemed by religious fanatics to be some kind of evolutionary mystery. But it is not in the slightest. It is actually incredly well understood and has been shown to have indepently evolved numerous times with the basic building blocks being in existence since the dawn of life. Why is it that such nutcases have such a difficulty in comprehending how photosensitive cells that merely comvert electromagnetic energy in the form of photons into electrons is very primitive, yet the more complex process done by plants to convert photons into chemical energy through photochemical reactions, I.e photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is exactly far more complex and to be fully understood requires invoking quantum mechanics models! Photosensitive cells really only require high school physics to understand.
To back this up we have countless ways in which we have mimicked the eye and convert photons to electrons across an array, it is called a digital camera, but even a solar panel is doing much the same thing. What we haven't managed to replicate successfully at industrial levels is photosynthesis.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,952
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
But if the bible doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny as does the way you view it to not support the theory of evolution (and the eye), then surely the bible can be dismissed in the same way as evolution? i.e it doesn't stand up to scientific ideals of complete observability?
I believe that the bible is a word of moth story passed down and written down into story, but it describes the beginning of the religion and how that religion interprets the beginning, but it doesn't appear to describe the beginning of the earth.
You act as though only the bible identifies the start and that no other book or religion or source is as credible based upon what you call, a signature in the universe.
not only are you unable to describe what the signature is, or how it relates to the bible, but you are also unable to explain why the bible is any more credible than another book when it comes to describing the origins of the earth and man.
Look up the definition of Scientific Theory. It may just be in this thread. 2000 times.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 113
Yes very true but you do agree it shows progression from simple to complex.
Yes I'm afraid you have us there, science as it stands now will never be able to give to a generation by generation account of how it formed. But even if we found a fossil or better yet preserved skeleton for every stage and managed to put them in order of it developement I wouldn't be able to post it for you because it would be MASSIVE 1000's of tiny changes, because we'd have to include the creatures that are in that branch of the family tree that didn't have mutations involving the eye so we weren't leaping fom speacies to speacies.
Again to put this along side how the theory of gravity came about. It took people using observation that had been made in the the past ie. people recording the motion of planets. But again these we're continous even if they mapped the stars position every night or even every minute your arguement could be used to argue that this data is useless as it doesn't show a constant transistion. Who know what those stars and planets might of done in the time between those recordings.
God is higher than any pope, i choose God as my ultimate authority thankyou
Does God speak to you a lot in person? Voices in yourhead?
Might explain a few things.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
God is higher than any pope, i choose God as my ultimate authority thankyou
But when did god tell you any otherwise?
Remember the bible doesn't conform to any kind of authenticity check, so what is your evidence for this position?
Please answer this point kedge, as I'm pretty sure it was you earlier in the thread claiming that Christianity was one body.
The problem you have is the so called assumptions are not merely based on opinion as you seem to think, but are based on a vast range of evidence and observable criteria and examples....the mere existence of less complex eyes is an example that simpler anatomical forms can function and exist and therefore can become more complex over time. So you can prove that the eye can pass through functional stages of development and the fossil and genetic record also offers more evidence that the eye (in its various forms) evolved over time, these are tested and verified by the scientific method and add weight to the overall theory regarding the Evolution of the Eye. That there are gaps in our knowledge is not in dispute, but the notion that those as yet undefined and undiscovered answers to questions are somehow enough to dispute what we do know is a premise without substantiation.
Prove it....show me this man and his testimony.
Associate
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2013
- Posts
- 113
Kedge, do you believe the bible is the literal word of god and that is why it's correct?