Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Im curious, was anyone there at the beginning to take notes of this stuff? Didnt think so.
.
An excellent argument against your version of creation, too.
Quote:
A dog has NEVER produced a non-dog.
Wait---are you now saying that God created the Chihuahua and the Great Dane? Both breeds were there right from the start? I always thought dogs were descendants of non-dogs, like wolves.
Most human eye problems are caused by reading. The human eye did not evolve for close work, and people who spend hours a day reading, as school children do, place an intolerable amount of stress and unnatural strain on their eyes. Artificial lighting and our addiction to night life is also a factor. Similarly, the human ear did not evolve to tolerate loud noises, and the modern human environment in industrialized countries virtually guarantees hearing loss at an early age. Not to mention the number of hours kids spend playing music at lethal decibels.
I've met people in third world countries, illiterates who had never been to school, who, in their 50s and 60s, had sharper vision than an American 12-year-old. They could see distant objects as clearly with their naked eye as I could with 8x binoculars, and proved it by identifying species of birds that I could only verify with binocs.
School children in China are not allowed to do close work continuously for more than 20 minutes, without taking a 5 minute break from reading, and look out the window at distant perspectives. It has had a tremendous effect on preserving their eyesight well into adulthood, and significantly reduced the need for eyeglasses.
By the way, the eye is an amazingly flawless organ in the animal world. Every species of animal has pretty much the eye it needs for its lifestyle. Predator animals have both eyes in the front of the head, for binocular vision, so they can have the depth perception to capture prey. On the other hand, non-predatory species have eyes on the opposite sides of the head, for maximum peripheral vision, to detect predators. Compare owls with chickens. Also, the density of receptors in the retina varies by need. Raptors, who soar and watch for prey on the ground, would be able to read a newspaper from across the room. Nearly all mammals are nocturnal, and sleep all day and move about only at night, and have night vision that enables them to see as clearly on a moonlit night as a human can see in the daytime. Humans have almost the worst night vision of any species on the planet.
Thank yo for making my point for me. If a perfect creator had made they eye, it wouldn't have been su vulnerable to damage by the simple act of reading or "near work".
However, I do believe animas have the same sort of incidence of dieases of the eye that humans do. However, in the wild most animals are eaten before they can set in. I know lots of dog owners have tdogs with cataracs.
Yes, if a perfect creator had created the eye, with the supposedly perfrect information, past, present and future about all aspects of the Universe taht he supposedly created, including humans and their development, a far more perect eye would have been created.
And the same screw-ups exist all over the body from sub-cellular, to cellular to tissue to organ and system.
There is no point in arguing with Creationists. They are not interested in any facts that do not fit into their beliefs.
As Carl said: "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." [Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985]
Most Creationists I have encountered are either psychologically or intellectually incapable of accepting or understanding the facts of evolution, or both.
Thank yo for making my point for me. If a perfect creator had made they eye, it wouldn't have been su vulnerable to damage by the simple act of reading or "near work".
However, I do believe animas have the same sort of incidence of dieases of the eye that humans do. However, in the wild most animals are eaten before they can set in. I know lots of dog owners have tdogs with cataracs.
Yes, if a perfect creator had created the eye, with the supposedly perfrect information, past, present and future about all aspects of the Universe taht he supposedly created, including humans and their development, a far more perect eye would have been created.
And the same screw-ups exist all over the body from sub-cellular, to cellular to tissue to organ and system.
MahiAhiOno
I respect your premise. But you have to remember that The Creator did not set out to create modern industrial man, but man to live in a world in which the lifespan was about 70 years, and there was no reading or writing. The eyes were "perfect" then, but man shifted to making new demands on them. Cataracts are a part of aging, and the body is designed to wear out, part by part, as it must, even if "perfect". That would hold true, whether created by intelligent design or evolved adaptation. The physical laws of the universe put a shelf life on all building materials, including the optic lens. A Creator would have known better than to make "perfect" bodies that would not die out by attrition to make room for replacements.
Really, we next time it happens have them take a voice recording so we know they are not delusional.
Keep adding stipulations. I see how that works.
Quote:
BTW, I don't have a belief in evolution any more than I have a belief in gravity. I accept both as facts based on evidence collected by scientists. Have they collected every scrap of evidence that will be collected - NO. Will more be collected - Yes, will more information on evolution be gained - Yes.
You don't have any evidence for evolution. If you did you would demonstrate it. Instead you keep ignoring the facts. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION beyond what I have already conceded to.
You don't even seem to have a true understanding of what evolution is to begin with.
Quote:
You weren't joking, just displaying ignorance.
Really? I wasn't joking? Talk about ignorance. I was making reference to a mythological beast from South Park. Your arrogance is so overwhelming that you think you know better than I do when I'm joking?
Quote:
The common ancestor of all animals died many millions of years ago and was a single cell, or primitive ancestor of modern cells.
Yeah OK. More evidence that you don't have a clue of what you're saying. You know little more than the basics of evolution and yet you want to preach. Science has NEVER shown evidence that everything on earth came from a one cell organism. That part of the theory is still theory.
Have you ever heard of the missing link? That is just the beginning of the problems with your fantasy of evolution. There is no evidence that monkeys have ever been anything other than monkeys. At some point, working backwards, man and monkey should meld into one. They don't.
The fossil records show two completely different ancestories.
You claim to base your evolutionary religion on science. Science doesn't support you. Worse than blind faith your basing your beliefs on shear ignorance.
Simple. They have evidence, therefore their belief has a basis in fact, and is far from blind.
Contrast that with faith, where no evidence is necessary. Now THAT's blind.
Your coming into the discussion midway.
I already stipulated that things evolve. That is fact based on science.
I disagree with the extent to which people claim it's proven.
I can say that because there are churches religion is a proven fact. Religion is an undeniable truth. You can't argue with that. It's scientifically proven.
If I take the next step and say that because religion is true therefor creation is true I've taken a leap in logic that's not supported by the evidence.
It's no different with evolution. Do things evolve? Yes. Is evolution a fact. No.
I respect your premise. But you have to remember that The Creator did not set out to create modern industrial man, but man to live in a world in which the lifespan was about 70 years, and there was no reading or writing.
Now how can you say that about a perfect, all-knowing, all-seeing creator. The two are not compatible.
The eyes were "perfect" then, but man shifted to making new demands on them. Cataracts are a part of aging, and the body is designed to wear out, part by part, as it must, even if "perfect". That would hold true, whether created by intelligent design or evolved adaptation. The physical laws of the universe put a shelf life on all building materials, including the optic lens. A Creator would have known better than to make "perfect" bodies that would not die out by attrition to make room for replacements.
No you are saying the creator has to work within the confines of the laws of nature, when the mythology is that he CREATED all that exists, including the laws of nature. Sounds you are invoking selective half-assedness to your creator whenever it is convenient.
Try again, but this time think through what you are saying before you embarass yourself again.
You don't have any evidence for evolution. If you did you would demonstrate it. Instead you keep ignoring the facts. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION beyond what I have already conceded to.
You don't even seem to have a true understanding of what evolution is to begin with.
Really? I wasn't joking? Talk about ignorance. I was making reference to a mythological beast from South Park. Your arrogance is so overwhelming that you think you know better than I do when I'm joking?
Yeah OK. More evidence that you don't have a clue of what you're saying. You know little more than the basics of evolution and yet you want to preach. Science has NEVER shown evidence that everything on earth came from a one cell organism. That part of the theory is still theory.
Have you ever heard of the missing link? That is just the beginning of the problems with your fantasy of evolution. There is no evidence that monkeys have ever been anything other than monkeys. At some point, working backwards, man and monkey should meld into one. They don't.
The fossil records show two completely different ancestories.
You claim to base your evolutionary religion on science. Science doesn't support you. Worse than blind faith your basing your beliefs on shear ignorance.
MahiAhiOno
[/quote]
You speak as if you have Barrack Obama disease. You just spew out whatever you think makes your silly non-point whenever convenient, without regard to the truth.
Science has revealed more about the origins of life in any good nano-second than all the "believers" have since the issue first came up. You know it, but can't face it.
I'll take the word of science, backed by physical evidence anyday over a bunch of self-contradicting religio-babble anyday.
If science didn't support the law of evolution, I wouldn't believe it. I only hold it to be true BECAUSE of the evidence. You can issue all the silly denials you want, but the facts are against you, and the law (of evolution) is against you, so you have no alternative but to babble idiotically.
Try again, this time with intellect.
MahiAhiOno
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
