The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!

[Perfection]

My question is, how could they possibly get that figure? Dragonflies are insects, and so they don't have bones, so they couldn't even leave fossils.

Insects leave fossils all the time! Remember that bug in amber in Jurrasic Park? Those things really exist! (and I own one)

Really, show me. Show me how the human eye can be better.

I adressed that here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4572131&postcount=396

But if you look at all the differences between the two structures, you will that there is very little in common.

How do you know that?

There are plenty of creatures that have the ability to be both adept in water and land, so I do not see the point in this example.

Sea Otters are adept on land? They clearly aren't built for running like you said Remingtonocetus was.

All that proves is that the fall is in effect. This important fact goes with creation because it shows us why there are defects.

Well to be scientific you'd need facts that could go against your theory. It seems like all good things get attributed to god and then anything bad goes to the fall, you end up with no predictive power on the states of our body. Can you think of a possible fact that would disprove creationism?

Also all these are doing is improving on something that is already there. We are working with an already working device whereas when ever we start. Plus I am talking from a design POV. If anyone is able to build a device that works like the human eye, then that person will get a noble prize for his efforts. So those who say it is not a good design, then get me something better.

Actually the eye has been superceded by technology in all parameters but dynamic range of intensity. You're not gonna get a nobel prize for solving that.

 

[carlosMM]

Really, show me. Show me how the human eye can be better.

it could contain pigments able to receive UV light
it could contain pigments able to receive IR light
it could have a 1to1 relationship between nerves and receptor cells all over, not only in one spot
color receptor cells could be spread all over, so color vision at the edges of the view field would not fail

and so on.....

it is a sucky design job, but an excellent development from inauspicious beginnings. So is it design or development, hu?


btw, you still fail to answer the whale questions......

 

[Janitor_X]

it could contain pigments able to receive UV light
it could contain pigments able to receive IR light
it could have a 1to1 relationship between nerves and receptor cells all over, not only in one spot
color receptor cells could be spread all over, so color vision at the edges of the view field would not fail

and so on.....

it is a sucky design job, but an excellent development from inauspicious beginnings. So is it design or development, hu?


btw, you still fail to answer the whale questions......

I know this is an old thread but I'm new here and had ta put in my 2 cents. Evolution in itself doesn't mean that creationism is dead. The only real way to squash the bug is to figure out just what went on before the singularity. We're a long way off from that. God might not be done... we may be an imperfect step in his whole evolution towards creating a more perfect man. We just might not be the final product, eh.

 

[classical_hero]

btw, you still fail to answer the whale questions......

I already did. They are basically land animals.

I have a few questions for evolutionists.

Are you going to say that we evolved from Parrots since they show an intelligence level that is similar to a five year old child that even Chimps do not show? http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4592/

 

[carlosMM]

I already did. They are basically land animals.

No, you do not and did not.

You were asked, specifically, how many whale skeltons you had studied, how many fossil whales you had studied, what your training and experience in comparative vertebrate anatomy was in general, and which adaptations on the fossil whales (originally I was asking about Ambuloceutes, now let me broaden that to the second whale you also posted, too) make you convinced they were no less effective at terrestrial locomotion than their next kin, whom scientist regard as pure landlubbers.

if you do not understand the questions I will be happy to explain them to you.

Answers, please?

 

[Souron]

I know this is an old thread but I'm new here and had ta put in my 2 cents. Evolution in itself doesn't mean that creationism is dead. The only real way to squash the bug is to figure out just what went on before the singularity. We're a long way off from that. God might not be done... we may be an imperfect step in his whole evolution towards creating a more perfect man. We just might not be the final product, eh.

Well God did sacrifice his son for us. So final product or not clearly we have some worth in the eyes of god.

Creationism is the the idea that God made the world in 7 days. Evolution is the scientific theory that contradics that. In this way the two are incompatible.

You can use a loose definition of creationism to say that God is the creator of the Univerce, and few would argue with that. It goes along with standard theory quite nicely. But that's not what this thread is about.

"What went on before the singularity?" is actually a meaningless question, according to standard theory. The big bang was the beginning. Just like the bible begins with "In the beginning . . ." so does science. (actually we don't know to much about the first 10^-370 second, but after that we can discribe the world pretty well)

 

[El_Machinae]

Are you going to say that we evolved from Parrots since they show an intelligence level that is similar to a five year old child that even Chimps do not show? http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4592/

Do you believe that anybody who believes in Evolution believes this? There is no point even in responding to this quality of question.

Why did you not comment on the blind spot in the eye as an obvious design defect?

Edit: Classical; this posting of yours points to deeper ethical problems. The website that you're pulling from forwards your link as a legitimate argument. As a legitimate one. Now, either they're entirely stupid, or they're lying and deliberately obfuscating the argument. I cannot accept that there are informed people who believe that that article is a legitimate 'debunking' of evolutionary theory. That means that they are presenting lies as if they are the truth, in an attempt to deceive the less informed.

THAT is a huge problem. One that you should think about.

 

[Che Guava]

I have a few questions for evolutionists.

Are you going to say that we evolved from Parrots since they show an intelligence level that is similar to a five year old child that even Chimps do not show? http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4592/

A pretty weak argument if you ask me. There's no one road to intelligence, there's no single 'smart gene', and I don't know of any evolutionary biologist who holds that animals of high intelligence have to be closely related to us.

There are plenty of intelligent birds, pigs, hell, even marine invetebrates. All this tells me is that in many situations in can be advantageous to be intelligent and that animals of different stripes have evolved to have larger brains in response to that.

 

[Peri]

This is bugging me and I hope someone can provide the answer. I was reading at a Creationist website and discovered that it is believed that the world is only a few thousand years old based solely on faith. I dont wish to de bunk any of their arguments based on physical evidence at this time. However if they are right how can there be objects in space further than 6000 light years away from us?

 

[Souron]

Are you going to say that we evolved from Parrots since they show an intelligence level that is similar to a five year old child that even Chimps do not show? http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4592/

You know Dolfins are a much better example of an inteligent animal that humans did not evolve from. Dolfins are in fact argueably smarter than humans (but not nearly as smart as mice ).

But of course, inteligence is not the defining feature that tells us that we evolved from a common ansester to monkeys. The best evidence that we have that we have of that, is the fosil reccord, which shows that the farther as we look farther in time (using Radioactive dating, and rock layers to figure out the age), we see a progression of human like fossils that look more and more like ape fossils. The most recent of such fossils actually looks human enough, and recent enough that some scientist have guessed that the organism could, if it were alive today, successfully breed with humans.

 

[Fifty]

This is bugging me and I hope someone can provide the answer. I was reading at a Creationist website and discovered that it is believed that the world is only a few thousand years old based solely on faith. I dont wish to de bunk any of their arguments based on physical evidence at this time. However if they are right how can there be objects in space further than 6000 light years away from us?

The generic "response" is that God used his magic wand (or perhaps a spell from a spellbook, creationist researchers are still working furiously to figure it out) to make the light go uber-fast for a while, so it just LOOKS like the light must have travelled longer to get here.

 

[classical_hero]

Do you believe that anybody who believes in Evolution believes this? There is no point even in responding to this quality of question.

Why did you not comment on the blind spot in the eye as an obvious design defect?

Edit: Classical; this posting of yours points to deeper ethical problems. The website that you're pulling from forwards your link as a legitimate argument. As a legitimate one. Now, either they're entirely stupid, or they're lying and deliberately obfuscating the argument. I cannot accept that there are informed people who believe that that article is a legitimate 'debunking' of evolutionary theory. That means that they are presenting lies as if they are the truth, in an attempt to deceive the less informed.

THAT is a huge problem. One that you should think about.

Did you even read the artilce that I referenced? There is a reason why we have two eyes is so that each eye can cover for the blind spot. It is impossible not to have a blind spot when ever you have an eye because you need to focus the nerves at some point. This is a good design because. EDIT. So far noone has been able to show that it was designed poorly and that they can come up with a better design for an eye. I have not seen this happen yet. Sure it is imperfect, but that does not mean it's overaall design is bad. END EDIT.
As with everything there are trade offs. http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1683

The human visual system cannot register motion as accurately and sensitively as that of a fly, but if it did, we would see all fluorescent lighting and television flickering continually. We cannot see at night as well as a cat, but we surpass it in some other areas. For example, cats have no colour vision. The human eye represents an excellent balance between versatility and performance, which has enabled man’s astonishing technological achievements in antiquity.

The fact that I had to relink that article shows that some people did not read it in the first place when they started to discuss this, which is not a good thing.

Basically you are saying that since you disagree with what they are saying, then they are lying. I bid you good day for that.

 

[Phlegmak]

This is bugging me and I hope someone can provide the answer. I was reading at a Creationist website and discovered that it is believed that the world is only a few thousand years old based solely on faith. I dont wish to de bunk any of their arguments based on physical evidence at this time. However if they are right how can there be objects in space further than 6000 light years away from us?

Then that would mean the rest of creation is older than 6000 years, while the Earth was only made 6000 years ago.

Actually, it looks like the question you want to ask is:

How can we see objects that are more than 6000 light years away from Earth?

 

[El_Machinae]

No, I'm not saying that they're lying because I disagree. I'm saying that no reasonabely informed person would believe what was written. If I assume that the author is reasonabely informed, then I have to conclude that he was presenting a lie in order to deceive. If their intent is to deceive, then you should be concerned.

 

[carlosMM]

c_h. you keep saying nobody has shown the eye to suck - well, how about you explain how a broader spectrum of wavelengths would NOT be an improvement?

and, btw, answer my whale questions, please!

 

[classical_hero]

I am not quite sure what you are saying here. The structures look similar initially, and you can understand their eventual structure by understanding where they come from evolutionarly. For example the nerve supply of organs derived from the gill arches comes from the relative cranial nerves.

Why would they be designed this way, other than to decive people into beliveing that our organs are derived from the fish structures?

You want to see the how the real Embryos look like then have a look here. The top row is the errant drawing of Haeckel with the Photos by Dr Richardson. http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/747

As you can see that there is a massive difference and yet there is so much focus on one small area of the embryo. My point with the Parrot is that since we are so readily willing to examples that agree with the common view and yet I was giving an example that does not follow the common pattern. Any similarities between man and apes are blown away by the massive differences between them. We are made for upright walking, where as they d are not made for that and their anatomy even shows that. When they try to walk in a fashion similar to us, they have to us their knucklers to do that, thus they are knuckle walkers. Their pelvic bone structure is not made for upright walking like we are. Also the Genetics of the two are different. http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4327/

# The chimp/human difference is actually 4%—much greater than the ‘only 1%’ commonly claimed in the past.
# 29% of the protein-coding genes are the same; leaving ~70% that are different.
# There are genes present in humans that are completely missing in chimps.
# The differences include 35 million single letter ‘substitutions’; 40–45 million ‘insertions’ and a similar number of ‘deletions’. This adds up to some 120 million letters, which is 4% of the ~3 billion total number.
# The differences represent at least 40 million separate mutation events, which is impossible for evolution even with an evolutionary timeframe of 300,000 generations (133 preserved mutations per generation, which means a vastly greater number, which is impossible without causing ‘error catastrophe’—extinction!).

What you see as similar, I see as very different.

@CarlosMM, what is the point of even having UV and IR seeing? having these two abilities will greatly alter what we have, so how will that be better for us in the environment that we live in?

The Environment we live in means that we need to see colours not heat signatures or even UV light. I would lik to see you live for a day with these abilities and see what it is like. I know that we have the technology to do this, so it would be a great experiment of you to show one and for all that the human eye actually is faulty as a result of not having these abilities.

 

[Janitor_X]

Well God did sacrifice his son for us. So final product or not clearly we have some worth in the eyes of god.

Creationism is the the idea that God made the world in 7 days. Evolution is the scientific theory that contradics that. In this way the two are incompatible.

You can use a loose definition of creationism to say that God is the creator of the Univerce, and few would argue with that. It goes along with standard theory quite nicely. But that's not what this thread is about.

"What went on before the singularity?" is actually a meaningless question, according to standard theory. The big bang was the beginning. Just like the bible begins with "In the beginning . . ." so does science. (actually we don't know to much about the first 10^-370 second, but after that we can discribe the world pretty well)

As for God sacrificing his only son for us, that don't really make us important. Maybe just a bit primitive and outta control. Maybe somethin like that was the only way to get us on the path that would produce what he's really aiming to produce with his process of evolution. Meanin he'd have known the sacrifice was needed even before he caused the big bang...

Question aint meaningless just on account of science not yet being able to answer it. They can say (and probably do) that we aint really able ta see anything from before the big bang as we can't see anything from before then as all of the light from our known universe didn't even exist yet. No matter how far we could find a way to "see" into the past it would technically all end at the point of that there singularity. Science has a higher standard ta live up to than does religion. Religion has the luxury of being able to shrug and say that's just how it always was, god just was always there. If science takes this approach then it is reduced to just another belief system leavin cracks that creationism can seep into. Not really knowing how the big bang came about being the biggest crack of all. God coulda worked the whole thing out in seven days and changed the laws of physics along the way and we just mistakenly interpret the clues based on the present laws. Then based on our mistaken readin of the clues we determine that the earth couldn't have been put together in seven days on account of how old some things then appear to be. Who's ta say that there weren't a bunch of mirror earths created by god sharing different histories and we aint nothin more of a hodgepodge mixture of all of those hitories? Heck, each of 'em coulda been created inside of a bubble of accelerated time and then crammed into our universe altogether in a period of seven days according to our universe. There wouldn't be no reason to mention the others in our bible because we'd only experience the one resulting from all of em. Somethin that's supposed ta be omnipotent like god really makes it hard ta corner all of the possibilities. Ya just aint never gonna really be able to prove such things without all the mysteries solved. We are a long way off from that, but maybe someday science will make god go away once and for all, or maybe it will even bring him home.

 

[carlosMM]

@CarlosMM, what is the point of even having UV and IR seeing? having these two abilities will greatly alter what we have, so how will that be better for us in the environment that we live in?

There's billions of possibility, just because you can't think of any doesn't mean it would not help us. How about seeing at night, hu? Now answer the question and show how it would not be advantagous to HAVE MORE DATA!

The Environment we live in means that we need to see colours not heat signatures or even UV light.

yeah, right, nightime has SOOOO much visible light. As do caves. and cellars.....

I would lik to see you live for a day with these abilities and see what it is like.

moronic argument: if I was designed with it, I'd obviosuly be designed to be able to live with it
Youa re so bad at grasping at straws it makes me weep.

I know that we have the technology to do this, so it would be a great experiment of you to show one and for all that the human eye actually is faulty as a result of not having these abilities.

and now, WHAT ABOUT THE WHALES????????

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Enough with Haeckel. There are still a lot of similarities in embryos. And on both the physiological and genetic level, there are huge similarities between humans and other apes.

 

[carlosMM]

and more @c_h, or shoudl I say in c_h:

# The chimp/human difference is actually 4%—much greater than the ‘only 1%’ commonly claimed in the past.

encoding or ballast DNA?

You don' know? Well, that's an important idstinction, you know.......


ceterum censeo.... (whales)