|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent design??There may be proof.... | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Number_ 19 Inactive Member |
The theory of evolution relies completely on the fact that certain "things" were just laying around and then over a period of time formed togeather.But one thing evolution can't explain is the eye ball.There is no way that parts of the eye were seperated for a period of time and then just came togeather.This fact may hint at an intelligent designer.....What do you think?
Edit:I just realized I clicked on the wrong discussion board and you can shut this thread down if need be.After all I am a newbie. ------------------The above statement was 99.9% likely to be entirely false. [This message has been edited by Number_ 19, 06-26-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
19,
The theory of evolution relies completely on the fact that certain "things" were just laying around and then over a period of time formed togeather. That's abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution starts at the point of mutable heritability, ie after abiogenesis. In fact, the first organism could have been created & evolution still be true. Origins & evolution are separate.
But one thing evolution can't explain is the eye ball.There is no way that parts of the eye were seperated for a period of time and then just came togeather.This fact may hint at an intelligent designer.....What do you think? It has already been explained. For an excellent account see Richard Dawkins "Climbing Mount Improbable", eye evolution, from a flat photosensitive sheet to lensed eye has also been simulated on computer. Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye
quote: Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Number_ 19 Inactive Member |
That's interesting,I always thought that evolution was a constant from even before life began.This post totally crushed that thought.If only it were as easy to convince other people to believe that as I did.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5184 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
Number_19 writes: That's interesting,I always thought that evolution was a constant from even before life began. Evolution, as in 'things change', covers everything. The word is used many times, in many differenct theories, simply to indicate that things changed. The Theory of Evolution only deals with life, however, many people seem to think that whenever you mention evolution (change) if falls under the heading of the ToE and many then insist that the ToE must explain these things. This is not the case. ------------------He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife. - Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Number_19 writes:
quote: Question: Have you read Origin of Species? Seems that Darwin could explain the evolution of the eye and that was 150 years ago. I find it very interesting that many creationists specifically use the example of the eye as something that evolution cannot explain since the father of modern theories of evolution actually used the eye as an example of something that evolved.... ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: That's not even abiogenesis ... it's just a complete lackof understanding of the concepts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Number_ 19 Inactive Member |
I was talking about the different names for the different phases of evolution.I didn't think there was another name for it before it started mutating.And I am neither an evolutionist a creationist (In fact I'm leaning more towards being a cartoonist! )I am in a stage of my life where I am so lost I am searching for any answer,I'm just posting different arguements from the differnt viewpoints on the issue.
[This message has been edited by Number_ 19, 06-26-2003] [This message has been edited by Number_ 19, 06-26-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
Thread moved here from the The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
hi 19,
I don't even think that the eye is that well 'designed'. It can be 'disarmed' very easily by even atiny bit of dust. Two weeks ago I was taking my contact lenses' out and I managed to cause a small corneal abrasion on the surface of my eye, the next day it was absolute agony LOL , I was off work for a week. I am sure I read somewhere about the eye perhaps evolving from light sensitive cells, I am not sure but it may have been Dawkins that wrote about this theory. Brian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
...then might I suggest doing some research on the subject
before continuing ... you will find it rewarding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
quote: The concept of evolution via natural selection is certainly most important in terms of explaining the diversity of biotic forms, but don't sell it short. The differential reproductive success of forms is an algorithm that can be applied to contexts other than biological populations. If you expose equal amounts of sulphur and iron to oxygen, a greater amount of iron oxide will be created than sulphur oxide, since iron oxidizes at a faster rate than sulphur. This is by no means evolution, but the atomic properties of certain elements can give them a form of selective advantage. The exclusive optical left-handedness of amino acids used in living systems is strong evidence of an ancient selective struggle between right and left chirality in these organic compounds. On various levels of scientific study, selection strategies have been invoked to explain phenomena that were previously assumed to be either stumbling blocks for Darwinism or evidence of intelligent design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
compmage Member (Idle past 5184 days) Posts: 601 From: South Africa Joined: |
MrHambre writes: The concept of evolution via natural selection is certainly most important in terms of explaining the diversity of biotic forms, but don't sell it short. I don't and didn't intend too. I was merely trying to point out that when people use the word 'evolution' they aren't always talking about the ToE. ------------------He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife. - Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: I'm not disagreeing (entirely), but isn't the way you have phrasedthe above cyclic? Presumably you mean that there is most likely a 'selection-base'explanation for the predominance of one chirality over the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
quote: That's correct. One variant form is favored by nature, so there must be some selective advantage.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
That's OK ... I was just concerned that you seemed to be saying
that the current state was evidence for the selective struggle rather than that a selective struggle would explain it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024