Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Fred Williams

I'm In The Mood To Watch Evolutionists Squirm...

Recommended Posts

I realize the title goes against the forum guidelines, but, you see, I get to enjoy certain privileges as owner of the forum. :D

 

Please explain the following:

 

Posted Image

 

 

Dearest evo story-tellers, which bi-line will it be this time? Chaos theory? Occam’s Razor? Pi is wrong in the Bible?

 

Good luck…… :):rolleyes:

 

Fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize the title goes against the forum guidelines, but, you see, I get to enjoy certain privileges as owner of the forum. :)

 

Please explain the following:

 

Posted Image

Dearest evo story-tellers, which bi-line will it be this time? Chaos theory? Occam’s Razor? Pi is wrong in the Bible?

 

Good luck…… :)  :rolleyes:

 

Fred

43004[/snapback]

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200508222...trunc_sys.shtml

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4742301713635559854

 

http://images.google.co.uk/images?sourceid...ved=0CB4QsAQwAw

 

who's squirming now?? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new findings deal a serious blow to the Intelligent Design movement which has long contended that the lack of an apparent evolutionary pathway for complex eye development indicated the presence of a supreme designer.

So the argument used to have merit? If not, it couldn't be a serious blow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a powerful method of persuasion you have used there. Ignore the specific challenge made in the OP and just present the best evidence concepts available to explain the eye without an intelligent designer.

 

Powerful, but easily seen through.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of the explaination, the point is no one has observed the process of how the eye came to be. And because every part of the body is basically a design based on many things including math. It requires either side to prove what can design, and what can do math.

 

Even though evolutionists can explain away the design part with scientific work arounds. The math part cannot be explained around because only intelligence can do math. There is nothing in nature that does math on the level required to make and design life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear slick, er stick,

 

Did you even look at the picture? I'm not asking about how eye sight evolved, we've already heard your fanciful light sensing primitive protien fables. Please don't blindly (pun intended) pull up a few evolution stories off the net, that do not even remotely come close to explaining the sling at the top of the picture.

 

So, care to try again? Please explain, how did the muscle narrow to find its way through the sling to keep the eye in place? That is your challenge for today. Class dismissed. :rolleyes:

 

Fred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear slick, er stick,

 

Did you even look at the picture? I'm not asking about how eye sight evolved, we've already heard your fanciful light sensing primitive protien fables.  Please don't blindly (pun intended) pull up a few evolution stories off the net, that do not even remotely come close to explaining the sling at the top of the picture.

 

So, care to try again? Please explain, how did the muscle narrow to find its way through the sling to keep the eye in place? That is your challenge for today. Class dismissed.  :unsure:

 

Fred

43040[/snapback]

Ok, ok, I'll respond a bit later! I posted those links at about 5 am after a sleepless night. Just a quick thought though, I expect the answer would be something like - the same way that everything else on earth evolved.

I'm off to celebrate a guy who attempted to blow up our houses of parliament.

(I'm not a scientist, just a humble car mechanic)

 

Stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Same old rebuttal. There's a common gene. You are either ignoring or not understanding the principle going on here. The gene/genes have to code unguided for two different morphologic features--the bone and the muscle and the muscle has to fit through the bone.

 

Reminds me of grade school when we learned about simple machines. This feature follows the principles of a pulley.

 

Evos will ignore ID as long as they continue to accept simplistic explanations like common genes for things and ignore the utter impossibility of simultaneous coding in so many bio-mechanisms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same old rebuttal.  There's a common gene.  You are either ignoring or not understanding the principle going on here.  The gene/genes have to code unguided for two different morphologic features--the bone and the muscle and the muscle has to fit through the bone.

 

Reminds me of grade school when we learned about simple machines.  This feature follows the principles of a pulley.

 

Evos will ignore ID as long as they continue to accept simplistic explanations like common genes for things and ignore the utter impossibility of simultaneous coding in so many bio-mechanisms.

43058[/snapback]

 

So, that must mean that we were all created by the Judeo Christian God. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, ok, I'll respond a bit later! I posted those links at about 5 am after a sleepless night. Just a quick thought though, I expect the answer would be something like - the same way that everything else on earth evolved.

I'm off to celebrate a guy who attempted to blow up our houses of parliament.

(I'm not a scientist, just a humble car mechanic)

 

Stick.

43056[/snapback]

Car mechanic? We have something in common then. I used to work on cars before my back and leg started borthering me so I had to quit doing it everyday. But I keep up with what new and self teach myself by buying professional repair books. I guess because I used to race an build race cars, it just got into my blood :D .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Car mechanic? We have something in common then. I used to work on cars before my back and leg started borthering me so I had to quit doing it everyday. But I keep up with what new and self teach myself by buying professional repair books. I guess because I used to race an build race cars, it just got into my blood  :D .

43115[/snapback]

 

Hi ikester, sorry to hear about your back, (I Know ALL about back pain) I think it's great that people can have similar jobs/backgrounds and interests yet have completely different worldviews, it makes life so interesting!

 

As for the op, you've probably guessed that I dont know the answer so I'm going to back away from this thread slowly and continue lurking :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, that must mean that we were all created by the Judeo Christian God. :D

43114[/snapback]

It would seem that He just doesn't go away. He brought witness to me this morning--and my imagination can not produce the peace, assurance and power He produces in a troubled heart going through numerous stresses. Seems to me if He is a living eternal Spirit--he will communicate spiritually.

 

How does imagination produce upholding power? "Sensation" or "feeling" can not fully express this. "Presence" can. Knowing He is here. David in the Psalms said "He is my Rock..." He is not a physical rock, but a spiritual, personal Rock who cares for each one of us personally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FrankH

I don't know what to say here.

 

Why do you think that a "supposed problem as you've not seen something 'proven' (there's that word again) to your satisfaction (is that possible?)" is an issue for Evolution?

 

Not a problem for Evolution.

 

When you find evidence that contradicts evolution then it is in trouble.

 

First, the development of eyes were considered to be "show stoppers". Now we have very good understandings how eyes can form and as we have noted, there are several different ways.

 

Here's a question for ID. Any engineering student would know NOT to put the blood supply through the part you want to receive light, yet that is what is going on with the mammalian eye! The Squid's eye doesn't have that flaw. Yes, flaw. As the blood must come through the back of the light sensitive regions and cause a blind spot. The Squid has no blind spot.

 

Why would any designer produce such a flaw?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what to say here.

 

Why do you think that a "supposed problem as you've not seen something 'proven' (there's that word again) to your satisfaction (is that possible?)" is an issue for Evolution?

 

Not a problem for Evolution.

 

When you find evidence that contradicts evolution then it is in trouble.

 

First, the development of eyes were considered to be "show stoppers".  Now we have very good understandings how eyes can form and as we have noted, there are several different ways.

 

Here's a question for ID.  Any engineering student would know NOT to put the blood supply through the part you want to receive light, yet that is what is going on with the mammalian eye!  The Squid's eye doesn't have that flaw.  Yes, flaw.  As the blood must come through the back of the light sensitive regions and cause a blind spot.  The Squid has no blind spot.

 

Why would any designer produce such a flaw?

43173[/snapback]

Started an article on this--back to work tomorrow--don't have time to finish. But it is not blood vessels that are supposedly "in the way,' It's small nerve fibers. Vertebrate eyes are much more complex than invertebrate--but maybe I'll get back to this.

 

Seems arrogant for someone that has never produced a vertebrate eye to criticize it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm finally convinced evolutionary biology is false.

 

There is no way something that complex could occur in evolution. Nature and its processes are simple. Just look at how objects fall. They go down. So the muscle could only be created by a designer, because its above the eye. Not below.

 

And because the evolutionist cannot explain how the eye got like that, it clearly shows evolutionism is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems arrogant for someone that has never produced a vertebrate eye to criticize it.

43174[/snapback]

I agree. I'd like to see Frank make an eye!

 

Let me guess, he'll mix some slime in a soup bowl and wait several hundred million years for it to evolve. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tharock220

Evolution has no reason to squirm. It has given creation a constant beatdown in every arena from the academic to the legal.

 

As for the trochlea, I'm not ashamed to say I don't know. Just because scientists can't explain the evolutionary steps of every structure seen in biology doesn't mean it's wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems arrogant for someone that has never produced a vertebrate eye to criticize it.

43174[/snapback]

You know what I think is arrogant? Labelling something as impossible just because you can’t think of a way it could have happened. Do you actually think so highly of your own intellect that anything you can’t personally explain must be completely inexplicable? That would be an incredibly arrogant claim.

I don’t know how the eye muscles evolved. But that certainly doesn’t give me the authority to deem evolution as impossible. I don’t think anyone here has that authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what I think is arrogant? Labelling something as impossible just because you can’t think of a way it could have happened. Do you actually think so highly of your own intellect that anything you can’t personally explain must be completely inexplicable? That would be an incredibly arrogant claim.

I don’t know how the eye muscles evolved. But that certainly doesn’t give me the authority to deem evolution as impossible. I don’t think anyone here has that authority.

43194[/snapback]

I don't care what you have decided to consider arrogant. I know what most assuredly is arrogant:

Claiming something is a done deal when nobody can begin to imagine how it happened, and there are a multitude of reasons for believing it didn't.

 

If you don't need an origin story to explain origins, what exactly are you doing advocating evolutionism?

 

Darwin lowered the bar unacceptably. He wasn't trying to prove his speculations ever happened. The standard for evolutionism was merely that it be possible. Yet even this isn't low enough to suit today's evolutionists. It need not even be conceivable, and they are satisfied.

 

My question: can the bare even be lowered further, or has anything-but-the-truthism reached the final limit? The only evolutionist who can squirm is one who cares, so we may not see so much as expected. Then again, all evopushers care about sales...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realize the title goes against the forum guidelines, but, you see, I get to enjoy certain privileges as owner of the forum. :lol:

 

Please explain the following:

 

Posted Image

Dearest evo story-tellers, which bi-line will it be this time? Chaos theory? Occam’s Razor? Pi is wrong in the Bible?

 

Good luck…… ;)  :lol:

 

Fred

43004[/snapback]

Hi Fred,

 

I too think it does an excellent job at refuting evolution.

 

The first time I heard about evolution was when I was in grade 9, in the 1960's. It sounded too incredible for me to believe. But I just ignored it and carried on with my life anyway, until I learned more about it through other Bible believers.

 

I can't swallow it no matter how much I might like to. It is still too incredible for me to believe.

 

The Story of creation as it appears in the Bible has all the characteristics of a non-fictional story and the story of evolution doesn't. So, naturally, I gravitate towards Genesis, and reject evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what to say here.

 

Why do you think that a "supposed problem as you've not seen something 'proven' (there's that word again) to your satisfaction (is that possible?)" is an issue for Evolution?

 

Not a problem for Evolution.

 

When you find evidence that contradicts evolution then it is in trouble.

 

First, the development of eyes were considered to be "show stoppers".  Now we have very good understandings how eyes can form and as we have noted, there are several different ways.

 

Here's a question for ID.  Any engineering student would know NOT to put the blood supply through the part you want to receive light, yet that is what is going on with the mammalian eye!  The Squid's eye doesn't have that flaw.  Yes, flaw.  As the blood must come through the back of the light sensitive regions and cause a blind spot.  The Squid has no blind spot.

 

Why would any designer produce such a flaw?

43173[/snapback]

Ah, now we see the dogmatism inherent in the belief system. Help! Help! I'm being indoctrinated.

 

I do not know what to call your attitude to this issue except invincible ignorance. You clearly don't require the knowledge of how this particular feature came about via evolution yet you are sure it is not a problem for evolution; evolution must have done it!

 

Do you want evolution to be the answer? If you do, please do us all the courtesy of admitting your faith. I reason, hope and believe that there is a loving and kind designer who created this universe. See, I can admit my faith, can you?

 

Would anything we found in biology be a problem for you? (please not that I used the word 'problem' not 'falsifier')

 

Now we have very good understandings how eyes can form and as we have noted, there are several different ways.

Shouldn't someone committed to science require evidence not merely understanding? Anyone can claim they understand something.

 

 

Ps. Lest anyone think my words were rude or unnecessarily harsh may I point out that the utter denial FrankH has attempted to spread here is contrary to honest discussion and examination and needs to be nipped in the bud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution has no reason to squirm.  It has given creation a constant beatdown in every arena from the academic to the legal.

43192[/snapback]

Here we are again with majority rules science. Yes China "beats down" young college students who want freedom also. Stalin was an atheist and he more than "beat down" millions of people. Evolution is the official view of origin in both those countries.

 

 

As for the trochlea, I'm not ashamed to say I don't know.  Just because scientists can't explain the evolutionary steps of every structure seen in biology doesn't mean it's wrong.

43192[/snapback]

The greatest minds in the world can't come up with a mechanism for it's production? I can--at least two simultaneous transitional traits that have no reason to be selected for--followed by a lucky jump or a slow transition of the muscle right through the bone (sorry, don't know what it's called)!!!!!

 

You have much more faith than I have. You might be able to walk on water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FrankH

Started an article on this--back to work tomorrow--don't have time to finish. But it is not blood vessels that are supposedly "in the way,'  It's small nerve fibers. Vertebrate eyes are much more complex than invertebrate--but maybe I'll get back to this.

Not really. And you're correct, it is the nerve bundle.

 

But the moron who designed the mammalian eye gets a "C" for not putting the nerve bundle BEHIND the light sensitive parts.

Seems arrogant for someone that has never produced a vertebrate eye to criticize it.

43174[/snapback]

No the arrogance is believing that anything that would design an eye that way is "intelligent".

 

But as we don't "know" who or what the designer is, wink, wink, casting disparaging remarks it okay, right?

 

After all, the designer could be a moron who needed 13.5 billion years as all of it's previous design creations died.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FrankH

The new findings deal a serious blow to the Intelligent Design movement which has long contended that the lack of an apparent evolutionary pathway for complex eye development indicated the presence of a supreme designer.

So the argument used to have merit? If not, it couldn't be a serious blow.

43023[/snapback]

The argument didn't have merit. Like almost all creationist arguments, it picks something that is either difficult or hasn't been deeply studied, yet, and says "See, can't explain it, it was designed!"

 

This sort of fallacious argument is the "God of the Gaps" style which continues to place the designer into an ever shrinking box of what they "just had to do" to make things work.

 

This is not an issue for Evolution but for our understanding of the natural world around us.

 

Previous "toughies" for "evolution":

 

1: Lightning (after all nobody's seen lightning actually form in the clouds, let alone that it's these "electrons" that did it!)

 

2: Blood Clotting systems (ala Behe but now we know how things can form ad hoc)

 

There are more but the point is people took up the challenge and answer them, like this one;

 

http://www.viswiki.com/en/Evolution_of_the_eye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So the argument used to have merit? If not, it couldn't be a serious blow.

43023[/snapback]

The argument didn't have merit. Like almost all creationist arguments, it picks something that is either difficult or hasn't been deeply studied, yet, and says "See, can't explain it, it was designed!"

 

This sort of fallacious argument is the "God of the Gaps" style which continues to place the designer into an ever shrinking box of what they "just had to do" to make things work.

It is your pathetic evogoddess who resides in the "gaps". Anywhere you can convince people they don't know something, you come along and provide evostories. I have history; you have to deny history in order to even create the first gap for your goddesses.

This is not an issue for Evolution but for our understanding of the natural world around us.

Either there is or there is not a reasonable Godless explanation for origins. The one being swiftly eliminated, we can - nay must - conclude the other to be the case. History is vindicated; the process of imagining what one desires to have taken place actually has taken place scores yet another monumental failure.

 

Previous "toughies" for "evolution":

 

1:  Lightning (after all nobody's seen lightning actually form in the clouds, let alone that it's these "electrons" that did it!)

 

2:  Blood Clotting systems (ala Behe but now we know how things can form ad hoc)

 

There are more but the point is people took up the challenge and answer them, like this one;

 

http://www.viswiki.com/en/Evolution_of_the_eye

43231[/snapback]

Ah yes ...and since when has evolutionism explained lightning? I missed that one.

 

---------------------

 

But let's not overlook the context of this evopushing post.

 

The new findings deal a serious blow to the Intelligent Design movement which has long contended that the lack of an apparent evolutionary pathway for complex eye development indicated the presence of a supreme designer.

 

So the argument used to have merit? If not, it couldn't be a serious blow.

43023[/snapback]

The argument didn't have merit. Like almost all creationist arguments, it picks something that is either difficult or hasn't been deeply studied, yet, and says "See, can't explain it, it was designed!"
The source says it's a "serious blow". Frank's dispute is with his own source, I should think. Unless he can explain how a "serious blow" has been dealt. Arguing against me might feel better, but it accomplishes nothing in the way of resolving his actual problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms