Jump to content


Photo

Goo To Sight


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 Sleepy House

Sleepy House

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • United States

Posted 07 October 2017 - 02:35 AM

Let's not ponder the process of how an eye physically evolved. That's all speculation anyway. What I'd rather is how a primitive pre-sight organism knew there was even a visual world to observe. A sightless organism would have to have some kind of awareness of a visual world that by evolving they could see for myriad purposes. How did this happen?

Also this: we know that when we are cut by an edge of some kind our bodies automatically go in defense mode, performing thousands of minute functions to clot the blood and stop us from bleeding to death. Without this we would bleed to death in a matter of minutes from a paper cut. How did we evolve going from a small life-ending cut to a defense? We couldn't have evolved this for the reason that as soon as we (any organism with blood) get cut, we die. We can't mutate and pass it to offspring. We're all too dead from minor injuries.

Pain/pleasure. How did these evolve? How does a physical sensation come to be? At what point did random accident say "well I'll never survive if I can't get a physical warning that I'm hurt, there has to be some way to mutate." Has a mutation ever been duplicated or observed?

Ladies and gentleman, I am just a person completely and utterly fascinated with the world around me. I doubt evolution with an open mind; the world seems so perfect for it to be random.

I do not see how awareness or consciousness could come from a chemical reaction, and a strong number of the civilized West considers me a "nut" or an "ignoramus" despite the fact that most people willing to talk about it cannot answer the simplest questions regarding how we came to be. The last I got was from a heated person who said they chose evolution as a worldview because smart scientists say it's true. So they believe a high-status representative with no investigation on their own part. Huh?

#2 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,306 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 07 October 2017 - 03:36 AM

 

 

Sleepyhouse: The last I got was from a heated person who said they chose evolution as a worldview because smart scientists say it's true. So they believe a high-status representative with no investigation on their own part. Huh? 

 

That's pretty much the most common response you will get from people, what amazes me is that each person that says it seems to think they are the first person to ever reason like that, kind of like an idiot fan coming up to a celebrity like Jack Nicholson and saying, "You can't handle the truth".

 

Do they expect him to laugh the 407 thousandth time around?

 

Really this person is really saying this; "I have a smart way of being dumb - I simply appeal to 'science', as they tell us evo is science fact". Give them a quiz test on evolution and I would estimate a low score.

 

To be honest, any rational person should abandon evolution after reading this short explanation about the bombardier beetle. I honestly think this explanation should be enough, if the world were a simple place, to change any reasonable persons mind simply because how much the direct evidence screams teleological purpose; (forgive the grammatical tautology I am aware that I shouldn't say "purposeful purpose")

 

 

CMI: The tiny bombardier beetle could not possibly have evolved. His defence mechanism is amazingly complicated, and could only have been created with all the parts working together perfectly. From twin ‘exhaust tubes’ at his tail, this beetle fires into the face of his enemies boiling-hot noxious gases with a loud pop.

How can this be? German chemist Dr Schildknecht discovered that the beetle mixes two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone) which would usually form a dirty ugly mixture. The well-designed beetle uses a special ‘inhibitor’ chemical to keep the mixture from reacting. How then can the explosion instantaneously occur when needed?

Dr Schildknecht discovered that in the beetle’s specially designed combustion tubes are two enzymes called catalase and peroxidase which make chemical reactions go millions of times faster. These chemicals catalyze the extremely rapid decomposition of hydrogen peroxide into water and oxygen and the oxidation of hydroquinone into quinone, causing them to violently react and explode—but not so soon as to blow up the beetle, of course!

Common sense tells us that this amazing little insect cannon which can fire four or five ‘bombs’ in succession could not have evolved piece by piece. Explosive chemicals, inhibitor, enzymes, glands, combustion tubes, sensory communication, muscles to direct the combustion tubes and reflex nervous systems—all had to work perfectly the very first time—or all hopes for ‘Bomby’ and his children would have exploded!

 

 

To say this evidence favours selection because it isn't random, and that teleology, which is an EXTREME end of the non-random spectrum, is a better cause than teleology from a designer, seems to me almost equatable with madness/lunacy. It would be no different that saying the exhaust system on a car and it's combustion process, is better explained by natural process than designer.

 

Who would seriously argue that these parts all existing in place, on purpose, doesn't explain the Bombardier's existence well? That's an explicit contradiction. We KNOW that this as a cause, would explain everything, it would explain why those chemicals were chosen, and the inhibitor, because the designer knew those chemicals would give that reaction in that situation, with those exhaust tubes.



#3 Fjuri

Fjuri

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,888 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 07 October 2017 - 07:25 AM

Let's not ponder the process of how an eye physically evolved. That's all speculation anyway. What I'd rather is how a primitive pre-sight organism knew there was even a visual world to observe. A sightless organism would have to have some kind of awareness of a visual world that by evolving they could see for myriad purposes. How did this happen?

Would you agree or not that a plant "knows" there is a visual world to observe?



#4 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 998 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 07 October 2017 - 09:45 AM

Ladies and gentleman, I am just a person completely and utterly fascinated with the world around me. I doubt evolution with an open mind; the world seems so perfect for it to be random.

I do not see how awareness or consciousness could come from a chemical reaction, . . .

i don't see how consciousness can exist without it (chemical reactions)
if it does, then that means consciousness is a fundamental law of nature.
i'm not prepared to make such a statement.
my chair DOES NOT possess consciousness.

keep those eyes open though, because i can DEFINITELY say you are being deceived by the modern synthesis.

#5 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 998 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 07 October 2017 - 10:07 AM

The last I got was from a heated person who said they chose evolution as a worldview because smart scientists say it's true. So they believe a high-status representative with no investigation on their own part. Huh?

like it or not, evolution in some form is a reality.
OTOH, if your worldview of evolution is the modern synthesis, then your worldview is wrong.

BTW, this site considers evolution as the whole 9 yards, from molecules to man.
the above concept HAS NOT been demonstrated, science has no plausible scenario for how it happened.

#6 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 863 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 08 October 2017 - 11:16 AM

The last I got was from a heated person who said they chose evolution as a worldview because smart scientists say it's true. So they believe a high-status representative with no investigation on their own part. Huh?

like it or not, evolution in some form is a reality.OTOH, if your worldview of evolution is the modern synthesis, then your worldview is wrong.BTW, this site considers evolution as the whole 9 yards, from molecules to man.the above concept HAS NOT been demonstrated, science has no plausible scenario for how it happened.


"like it or not, evolution in some form is a reality."


Back to this again?


What do you mean when you use the purposely vague, ambivalent, and duplicitous word "evolution" in this context?

Are you referring to finches beaks, moth colors, dog ears and bear coat variation and or adaptation and trying to assert to us that they are examples of Evolution when you have been shown dozens of times on this thread that they are NOT?


"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these "experts" have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully."

(Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student....have now been debunked."

(Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

#7 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 998 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 08 October 2017 - 12:38 PM

"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these "experts" have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully."

(Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

i know of no scientist that has "defected from the evolutionist camp".
however, a large number of them ARE defecting from the modern synthesis, most likely ALL of them.
and yes, the reasons are purely scientific

"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student....have now been debunked."

(Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

the only significance is that the modern synthesis is wrong.
no big deal.

it's very likely the major different between you and a mouse are transposons.

meloni is correct, genes are genes in context.

#8 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 863 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 09 October 2017 - 02:24 AM

"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these "experts" have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully."(Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

i know of no scientist that has "defected from the evolutionist camp".however, a large number of them ARE defecting from the modern synthesis, most likely ALL of them.and yes, the reasons are purely scientific

"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student....have now been debunked."(Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

the only significance is that the modern synthesis is wrong.no big deal.it's very likely the major different between you and a mouse are transposons.meloni is correct, genes are genes in context.


"it's very likely the major different between you and a mouse are transposons."

Speak for yourself Mickey..LOL.. I am a child of God, created in his image as a descendent of the very first man Adam from the Garden of Eden just like my creator told us in Genesis. He is the only One who was there so why should I believe anyone else who WASN'T?

To compare yourself to a mouse in such a manner seems quite irreverent to you as well as our Creator but I understand the worldview you have adopted allows for such thinking..

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with an even more incredible deity - omnipotent chance." T. Rosazak, "Unfinished Animal"




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users