Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,421 Year: 3,678/9,624 Month: 549/974 Week: 162/276 Day: 2/34 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight
RickCHodgin
Member (Idle past 5565 days)
Posts: 44
From: United States
Joined: 01-20-2009


Message 1 of 265 (494932)
01-20-2009 5:24 AM


As I was walking into the kitchen this morning, it was dark and I didn't want to turn on the lights and wake anybody else up. As a result, I made my way by memory, some very small visual cues from outside lights, and touch. A thought occurred to me:
The Earth is dominated by 12 hours of daylight, a couple hours of twilight, and then 10 hours of mostly darkness. In the extreme northern and southern hemispheres it's even more hours of darkness (or lightness) for half the year. And while there are some stars at night, and there is the moon, often times the skies are cloudy or overcast, resulting in an inability to see clearly the ground. Anyone who's ever tried to hunt at night knows what I'm talking about.
If evolution were true, there would've been significant advantages to having infrared vision, since infrared is "always on," constantly emitting heat information about the temperature of objects. Even extremely mild cues in minor heat differences would've been of benefit - especially in searching for other warm blooded animals as hunters. We've seen nocturnal animals with huge pupils. The ability to see infrared would've significantly reduced that eyeball landscape requirement, and would've provided an advantage so substantial that all offspring would've had it in short order (small number of generations).
The fact that we don't have this, and no land animals have this (to my knowledge and I could be wrong, though I know some fish have this ability), suggests evolution did not happen, but rather by design we were created this way for the express purposes of God's will.

- Rick

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 01-20-2009 8:12 AM RickCHodgin has replied
 Message 4 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-20-2009 8:30 AM RickCHodgin has replied
 Message 8 by Annafan, posted 01-20-2009 9:35 AM RickCHodgin has replied
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 01-20-2009 9:38 AM RickCHodgin has not replied
 Message 13 by dwise1, posted 01-20-2009 11:17 AM RickCHodgin has replied
 Message 29 by bluegenes, posted 01-20-2009 1:00 PM RickCHodgin has not replied
 Message 68 by Blue Jay, posted 01-20-2009 6:35 PM RickCHodgin has replied
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 01-20-2009 9:06 PM RickCHodgin has not replied
 Message 79 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-21-2009 8:04 PM RickCHodgin has not replied
 Message 153 by Meddle, posted 01-22-2009 10:16 PM RickCHodgin has not replied
 Message 225 by OLEGDEI, posted 01-03-2010 2:40 PM RickCHodgin has not replied

RickCHodgin
Member (Idle past 5565 days)
Posts: 44
From: United States
Joined: 01-20-2009


Message 15 of 265 (494982)
01-20-2009 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Larni
01-20-2009 8:12 AM


In response to Larni:
How would this be a benefit to warm blooded humans? The radiant heat from our heads would spoof the receptors. Imagine trying to see when your eyes are glowing like light bulbs.
We have blood rushing through our ears right now, and yet unless we have something wrong with us we don't hear those noises. Life is designed (by God, by the way ) to accommodate such things. Were it evolution based, an infrared cue of some sort would be of extreme benefit, even if it required significant evolutionary "capital" to get there, the reality is in the end it would be of much advantage.
Also, infrared cameras today are a particular temperature, their lenses, cases, internals, etc., they automatically calibrate themselves. So do infrared temperature sensors that are $50 at Radio Shack.
If it’s not good enough for your particular god (I have no idea which god you are referring to however), why should evolution select it?
I am a Christian. My Lord is Jesus, and I believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I believe that God gave man what was needed to operate here in this flesh. We don't need infrared because he provided us with a place to live and everything we needed to survive here. That's part of my belief that evolution does not exist in the macro form, such as some earlier form evolving over time into multiple other forms.
Vipers and some pythons actually do see like Predator but they are cold blood so their relatively low body heat will not interfere with the heat sensitive pits on their snouts (not their eyes).
The vipers' and pythons' eyes do function when they are 60F as well as 100F though, right? So the system is auto-correcting in a snake. There's no reason to believe it wouldn't operate similarly in humans. Our testacles descend regularly to maintain their temperature adequately. There is no reason to believe something similar couldn't be done with our eyes, and even via a more complex regulated circulatory system that pumps cooler materials around like an A/C unit - much as our skin and blood vessels change as our exposure to environment changes.
Animals have the sense they need to get by. If humans really did have thermographic vision on top of visible spectrum vision (with the extra cells, insulation and neural pathways to use it) it would be very strange indeed from an evolutional perspective.
I agree that animals have the senes they need to get by. I believe it's because God designed it that way. I disagree, however, that evolution would not have created infrared eyesight as the benefits of having such an ability would be extreme. The ability to see your prey even when fully camouflaged to their background surroundings, just by body heat alone ... it would enable creates to survive that could not have survived based on other evolutionary limitations - from an evolutionary point of view I mean.
I appreciate your response. I'm not trying to argue with you or be negative. I am just stating what I believe - and trying to do so in a matter-of-fact way.

- Rick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 01-20-2009 8:12 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 01-20-2009 11:47 AM RickCHodgin has replied
 Message 49 by subbie, posted 01-20-2009 2:36 PM RickCHodgin has not replied

RickCHodgin
Member (Idle past 5565 days)
Posts: 44
From: United States
Joined: 01-20-2009


Message 16 of 265 (494983)
01-20-2009 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by New Cat's Eye
01-20-2009 8:30 AM


In response to Catholic Scientist:
In addition to what Larni said, I don't think infrared vision would be a greater advantage (towards better reporduction) than evolving sleep. Having a time of rest increases the lifetime of the species.
I have seen repeatedly that we are the result of our genetics. There are people who can, for example, operate at full speed all day long, 18 hrs per day without being tired. Other people physically wear out after 8-12 hours of work and have to take a break. Their bodies can't break down waste products from muscle activity as well as other people's etc. There are 95 year old people with such failing bodies that doctors are amazed they are alive. And there are 35 year old perfectly healthy people who die for no apparent reason, and autopsies reveal nothing.
I believe very strongly that we are the product of God's creation - meaning we are the product of the genetic code He created. As such, there is a reason why we sleep that is mandated by God. I do not believe there is an evolutionary reason why beings that "evolved sleep" would've had any advantage. In fact, were a being able to get by with less sleep, even if it was somewhat less intelligent or productive in its single-source activities (such as on average one hunt might yield less food), the fact that it can hunt 24/7 means it will be more successful over all.
Evolution does not align with reason in terms of why species are the way they are, and specifically why they specifically are the way they are.
Intelligent Design makes far more sense, and when you couple it to the realities portrayed in the Christian Bible, that of Jesus (the truth) - which are evident beyond reproach for those who will not stand on pride or arrogance and hear such things, even being truthful to themselves - then it all begins to make sense. God created everything here on this Earth to operate in harmony. He blessed it, saying "be fruitful and multiply." And that is what we are seeing.
Our attempts to genetically modify life result in catastrophic failures and sterile offspring. God has this nailed as it is His purview, His domain. It will likely come to the fact that man will eventually be able to use God's resources (the information contained in genetic code) to create artificial forms of life. However, we do not have a handle on life, nor on death. We have theories, beliefs, etc., and it is still the purview of God.
These are my beliefs.

- Rick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-20-2009 8:30 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-20-2009 12:00 PM RickCHodgin has not replied

RickCHodgin
Member (Idle past 5565 days)
Posts: 44
From: United States
Joined: 01-20-2009


Message 18 of 265 (494985)
01-20-2009 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Larni
01-20-2009 8:43 AM


Good point. We also have a dire need to sleep (humans, that is) and constant activity would have been a hinderance to resting and refuel the old hypocampus and amygdala ATP levels.
As we are today we have that need for sleep. There is no reason to accept the fact that evolution created a biological need for sleep. In fact, rather the reverse. In such a system where certain species were going to sleep, other ones would be able to feed on them as prey and wipe them out while giving themselves greater advantage for reproduction.
I believe the need to sleep comes from our spiritual connection with God. When we are asleep we are not conscious and we don't know what happens to "our soul" or any other component of our existence as God created us (possibly those parts we haen't yet understood or been told about as there are still things that have not been revealed to us - according to the Christian Bible).

- Rick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Larni, posted 01-20-2009 8:43 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Larni, posted 01-20-2009 1:37 PM RickCHodgin has not replied

RickCHodgin
Member (Idle past 5565 days)
Posts: 44
From: United States
Joined: 01-20-2009


Message 19 of 265 (494986)
01-20-2009 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Dr Jack
01-20-2009 9:18 AM


I suspect the real answer lies in the nature of the infrared sensing pits. As you noted, snakes don't "see" infrared with their eyes, but with specialised organs. Why is that?
I think there are two likely reasons:
1. Thermoreceptors need a system of cooling; putting such a system into the retina would considerably degrade visual quality.
2. Photoreceptors work via certain pigments that are modified (bleached) by incoming photons. I'd hazard a guess that the lower energy levels of infrared photons aren't high enough for this method to function efficiently.
There is no reason to think that evolution would not have created similar thermoreceptors or adpated photoreceptors in humans. We would not have to look like we do today, and if evolution were truly at work it seems very unlikely that we would look like we do today.
At the cellular level, there is such an artwork of machinery in operation. I refuse to accept the fact that it came from something like evolution. We are intelligently designed, and in my belief it is by the Christian God.

- Rick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Dr Jack, posted 01-20-2009 9:18 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dr Jack, posted 01-20-2009 1:37 PM RickCHodgin has not replied

RickCHodgin
Member (Idle past 5565 days)
Posts: 44
From: United States
Joined: 01-20-2009


Message 21 of 265 (494989)
01-20-2009 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Annafan
01-20-2009 9:35 AM


The additional ability (just the fact by itself, not considering possible "engineering" consequences as already pointed out by Larni) to have infrared vision would indeed be an advantage. But even acknowledging this, it doesn't follow that because of our lack of infrared vision evolution must be false.
I grant this.
Evolution does not predict that organisms should be perfect. In fact, one of the consequences of evolution is that often an organism has to, metaphorically speaking, "row with the oars it has available" (is this English? ). Evolution has taken a certain path somewhere in the past, and as a consequence other paths which may have been followed by other organisms (branched off in the tree of life earlier in history), are simply not available to its own lineage.
I understand this is a reality of the mechanics of evolution. However, I don't buy it. It results in too many direct and specific changes needing to have occurred for it to be real - even over extremely long periods of time.
I have seen scientific reports which claim there are more than 1 billion genes in a human's DNA. In order for us to have gotten to where we are today over the (I believe) 1.5 billion years scientists claim life has existed on Earth in multi-cellular form, it would've required a direct change rate of nearly one gene change per year on average. If we assume an average reproductive lifespan of 24 hours from the early forms until much later ones, that means a maximum of 36 billion generations from single-celled life to us.
It is not possible to generate the changes necessary to create us without having gone through literally trillions of failed species. And there is no evidence of the variations that should exist in us today which would allow us to continue to evolve. We are all pretty similar to one another, maybe a little better at breathing, or able to deal with cold better, etc., but nothing significant that would allow us to evolve over time.
I just don't see any evidence. And that's me being completely honest.

- Rick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Annafan, posted 01-20-2009 9:35 AM Annafan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Annafan, posted 01-20-2009 12:30 PM RickCHodgin has replied
 Message 33 by Coragyps, posted 01-20-2009 1:20 PM RickCHodgin has not replied
 Message 168 by Buzsaw, posted 02-24-2009 6:45 PM RickCHodgin has not replied

RickCHodgin
Member (Idle past 5565 days)
Posts: 44
From: United States
Joined: 01-20-2009


Message 22 of 265 (494991)
01-20-2009 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by dwise1
01-20-2009 11:17 AM


In resposne to dwise1:
So then, Rick, because we don't have infra-red vision even though you think it'd be very useful you say that is evidence of intelligent design.
No.
But your Intelligent Designer also failed to install those features that you believe we should have if we were properly designed. That means that you believe in an incompetent Fool of a Designer who can't get anything right. Why do you want to believe in such a god?
I believe God designed us the way we needed to be designed. The fact that God didn't listen to my advice is indication (to me) that He knows far better than I do.

- Rick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by dwise1, posted 01-20-2009 11:17 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by dwise1, posted 01-20-2009 3:33 PM RickCHodgin has replied

RickCHodgin
Member (Idle past 5565 days)
Posts: 44
From: United States
Joined: 01-20-2009


Message 24 of 265 (494993)
01-20-2009 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by NosyNed
01-20-2009 11:27 AM


Re: Getting there from here....
In response to NosyNed:
I don't see the point made that it doesn't matter at all if IR vision would be very useful to humans. There are lots of things that would cleary be more useful.
It doesn't matter how useful something is if it simply never happens to arise through mutation. Natural selection works with what comes up.
I would agree. In evolution, if something doesn't come up it would not be possible. However, how did we "evolve" cells which detected light in the visible spectrum? Visible light energies are of significantly lower energies than infrared. In addition, everything emits infrared constantly, visible light is only present when the Earth is facing the sun, and star light is of far lower in intensity.
We do row with the oars we have as noted above.
Maybe there happens to be no path from what we have to IR vision.
Maybe that is a mechanical reality of evolutionary theory. How would snakes and fish get such an ability if we can't? It doesn't seem reasonable that they would "evolve" those abilities when we could not? Or, more to the point, it doesn't seem reasonable that some other species in our past would not evolve those abilities and then overtake others which did not have them.
From everything I see and understand, creation is the only likely possibility - and this becomes even more true when you look at the inner workings of cells. They are an artwork of complexity and astounding abilities - in fact, it's almost beyond comprehension how much information there is in every cell.

- Rick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by NosyNed, posted 01-20-2009 11:27 AM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by fallacycop, posted 01-20-2009 3:09 PM RickCHodgin has not replied

RickCHodgin
Member (Idle past 5565 days)
Posts: 44
From: United States
Joined: 01-20-2009


Message 25 of 265 (494994)
01-20-2009 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Coyote
01-20-2009 11:47 AM


Re: Belief
In response to Coyote:
When you accept an idea based on the evidence, you often have little problem modifying that idea as the evidence changes and improves.
What I believe is derived from evidence and reason. They are still my beliefs, however - just derived from those sources.

- Rick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Coyote, posted 01-20-2009 11:47 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Coyote, posted 01-20-2009 1:18 PM RickCHodgin has replied

RickCHodgin
Member (Idle past 5565 days)
Posts: 44
From: United States
Joined: 01-20-2009


Message 27 of 265 (495002)
01-20-2009 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Annafan
01-20-2009 12:22 PM


In response to Annafan:
The problem here is that you are assigning abilities and properties to evolutionary processes that are not part of our current concept of evolution (not anymore since Darwin even, probably). The combination of random mutation and natural selection (plus some other mechanisms like genetic drift, sexual selection etc.) would most definitely NOT result in what you are envisioning. Or it would certainly be orders of magnitude more "unlikely" than the situation we do observe (which is why we don't see it, obviously )
The abilities I'm talking about (infrared vision) would not have evolved in human beings. They would've evolved in some very early mammal or even earlier creature. I believe this because it evolved eventually in later forms, like snakes and fish. The raw materials for those forms would've had to have some common ancestor, which means that other species - unless they just simply shed that genetic information (which, to my knowledge, science is showing us is not the case as genetic information is not lost, just no longer rendered active) would also have the same abilities to evolve those abilities.
The mechanisms as they are accepted currently, do much better explain than design why:
(1)- adaptations are often just "good enough" instead of anything close to perfect
(2)- the existence of different mechanisms/strategies to handle similar challenges (hibernation next to seasonal migration next to developing a thicker coat etc.)
(3)- the absence of combinations of traits, which exist in seperate species, that would seem to fit together perfectly (and seem to not exclude each other), because of historical reasons
These are all explanations as to why evolution could exist, or how it might mechanically come into being. But it doesn't make sense. Such a system would require the framework within which it exists to have the programmed purpose to yield benefits of design over time. It would include a filtration system to weed out things that are less valid or viable than other forms, and it would consistently feed in new information to the offspring's design in such a way that over time the better being would be created.
Even if evolution occurred, it would require a system that was already in place which guides and directs it. And when you realize that, you're back at the same level as either choosing or not to believe in an Intelligent Designer.
I don't see evolution as any viable solution. I see the mechanics of how it could work as they are explained as being sufficient-enough explanations that, on faith, we could accept it is possible. But it is still a walk of faith to get there.
I walk of faith I choose to follow is the one that leads to a loving Lord, Jesus Christ. He has a purpose for us, He created us for His purposes, and the life that we have here is the result of our sin - that everything dies, everything disintegrates, everything decays over time. Nothing here lasts ... and yet the foundation of everything that is around us does last - meaning God is eternal.
To me, it's not even close to reasonable to consider significantly the mechanics involved in arriving us to this place. It is a far, far better thing to consider that we are here, that we do have a purpose, that we are to love one another and help one another. I believe this will all of my being, and I try to present it in everything I do.

- Rick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Annafan, posted 01-20-2009 12:22 PM Annafan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-20-2009 1:08 PM RickCHodgin has replied

RickCHodgin
Member (Idle past 5565 days)
Posts: 44
From: United States
Joined: 01-20-2009


Message 28 of 265 (495003)
01-20-2009 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Annafan
01-20-2009 12:30 PM


In response to AnnaFan:
What you must drop, is the idea that evolution is working towards a specific goal.
That is the nature of the framework of existence that everything is in. All matter, all atoms, all forms of energy, everything obeys laws. Those laws, through an evolutionary mechanism, would require that they be setup in such a way that over time benefits created by the random action of other mechanism at work (genetic drift, mutations, etc.) be weighed against other ones, resulting in a better adapted being for its environment.
This reality requires that the framework itself have purpose.
We look now deep into matter, space, time, and an understanding of the many universal constants and absolutely beautifully harmonious interactions of math in physics. It's breathtaking to view.
These forms are the framework in which everything exists. There is nothing within that framework that can account for evolution without having a governing ability to decide what is better. And that means that even from an evolutionist's point of view there's a scale somewhere which determines what is better than the other thing. And those variables are information, and that information came from somewhere - even in an evolutionist's view of the universe.
It's not possible to operate in this universe without acknowledging Intelligent Design. And if you can wrap your mind around that idea, that notion, that thought ... then you are faced with the ultimate choice -- are we here for the sake of some alien's creation? Or is it of God?
God has revealed Himself to us in countless ways. The Bible says it beautifully in Psalm 19, which reads in part:
"1 The heavens declare the glory of God;
the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
2 Day after day they pour forth speech;
night after night they display knowledge.
3 There is no speech or language
where their voice is not heard."
It is unbelievably true, even from an evolutionist's viewpoint. The system, the framework within which everything operates has information built in to it. That information had to come from somewhere, and this is what God is telling us: I did it.
Is it less believable that God actually created us, and that everything we see with its infinite complexity and harmony came from God - than to believe we simply evolved from a bunch of pre-animate goo? Such a goo-to-man universe is not a place I would want to exist in.
God has revealed what He has in store for us. If you will open your heart, your mind and receive it ... it is beyond glory, it is beyond imagination. He is a wonderful God, a loving Father, and He cares deeply about us - more so than we can know. He is calling out to each of us every single day with everything that we encounter, as it says in Psalm 19.
"There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard."
To state it again, there is nothing that we can look at where God is not revealed.

- Rick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Annafan, posted 01-20-2009 12:30 PM Annafan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-20-2009 1:19 PM RickCHodgin has not replied
 Message 39 by bluescat48, posted 01-20-2009 1:58 PM RickCHodgin has replied

RickCHodgin
Member (Idle past 5565 days)
Posts: 44
From: United States
Joined: 01-20-2009


Message 34 of 265 (495010)
01-20-2009 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by New Cat's Eye
01-20-2009 1:08 PM


In response to Catholic Scientist:
(1) Yes, its call "Natural Selection".
(2) Yes, its called "Random Mutation".
(3) No, not necessarily. If the environment selected for non-better beings, then they would be what evolved.
With regards to (3), the mechanisms of the environment would've selected whatever was better for the environment - meaning that there are still scales of some sort in operation which revealed the final being.
Or they (evolution as well as scientific laws) could simply be inevitabilities of our Universe.
Our universe has information built in to it. That information either spontaneously came into existence with so many harmonies, or it was created. If you're willing to accept the possibility that the universe, with all of its infinite size, scope, complexity and mathematical harmony, just happened ... then there you go - evolution becomes possible.
You don't choose to not believe in an Intelligent Designer if you simply have a default of non-belief until evidence convinces otherwise. Lacking the convincing evidence of ID does not mean that someone chose to not believe it.
According to my personal experience as a human being, and what I have (much later) learned from the Bible, that is exactly what happens. The Bible teaches that everything knows God implicitly. There is not a single created thing that does not know it is created, and who created it. However, with man He gave us free will. He gave us the ability to turn our back on belief, reason, etc., which is the whole story of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden.
God allows us to believe what we choose to believe. However, that does not negate His existence or His authority or His purposes for us and promises to us.
No, it isn't.
I have faith in Jesus despite the lack of evidence. I accept evolution because of the positive evidence. When there's positive evidence, it is no longer faith.
If you have truly accepted Jesus as your savior, then you have evidence of His existence. As you are born again, you know Him and He speak to you spiritually and you know implicitly of His existence. There is a great line in the TV show Deep Space Nine where Major Kira says regarding faith: "To those who don't believe, no explanation is sufficient. For those who do believe, no explanation is necessary."
I have faith in Jesus Christ. I have no faith in anything in this world, including man's reasoning ability. I accept on faith what Jesus has said, that in the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth ... and I leave it there.
Still, even within that belief I am able to see the universe through His eyes and see His reason in its creation. I see no evidence whatsoever of evolution, outside of micro-evolution which is the variation within species from the genetic data already there (meaning no dog has ever produced a non-dog).
The Bible teaches that God made all of the animals, and brought them to Adam for their name. Do you disagree with God's revelation of His creation in Genesis? I don't expect you to answer, but I do expect you to think about it.

- Rick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-20-2009 1:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-20-2009 1:50 PM RickCHodgin has not replied

RickCHodgin
Member (Idle past 5565 days)
Posts: 44
From: United States
Joined: 01-20-2009


Message 35 of 265 (495012)
01-20-2009 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Coyote
01-20-2009 1:18 PM


Re: Belief
Response to Coyote:
I would venture to guess that your "evidence and reason" will never stray very far from strict creationism.
Your posts read more like religious apologetics than actual science, coming up with reasons that your beliefs must be true.
Science, when properly applied according to the scientific method, works strictly from data to theory with no overriding goals or requirements to conform to a particular belief.
Sorry, but I don't tend to see that in your posts.
I understand. The truth is I accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and without reserve. There is nothing in Heaven or on the Earth that He does not have authority over - having raised from the dead. The Bible is extremely clear, and it is confirmed with everything in my being, that God created the universe, and that everything that exists was created by His authority and upon His word.
I accept that reality. And I can look at science and see God in it. I do not see what man often sees in it because it results in concepts like "Maybe it's the nature of the Universe," as if the universe could come into existence on its own with this level of perfection.
There is some intelligent design at work. That intelligent design either came from a spontaneous existence with everything as it is today, or some alien, or from God. I believe with everything in my being that it is from God, and that is not just based on looking around, but also on God talking to me the way He does in everything around me.
In short, I trust in Him and what He has revealed to us through the Bible. I do not trust in man because man has proven himself time and time again to be capable of lying, cheating, deceiving, presenting half-truths, ignoring real truths, embracing falsehoods, etc. God is incapable of those qualities, which is why the universe is perfect - because He is perfect.

- Rick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Coyote, posted 01-20-2009 1:18 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 01-20-2009 2:10 PM RickCHodgin has not replied

RickCHodgin
Member (Idle past 5565 days)
Posts: 44
From: United States
Joined: 01-20-2009


Message 43 of 265 (495034)
01-20-2009 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by bluescat48
01-20-2009 1:58 PM


In response to bluescat48:
In a sense it is. It is called survival of the fittest. Those best adapted to the environment survive those that don't become extinct.
What may seem to be a totally neutral mutation today, may eventually become a positive trait should the environment change or it could be come a detriment for the same reason. There is no purpose.
The universe is a system. It operates continuously obeying its laws. It cannot violate its laws, at least we haven't ever observed that it does.
The fact that we look at an instance in time and see a particular mutation as neutral, but in fact that mutation has some far-future advantage, is no less an affirmation that the universe itself has purpose than if we were to see something which seems to us to be an advantage today, but in the long run proves otherwise.
The universe, from the evolutionist's point of view, is constantly working toward that better thing. And if that requires everything going away and only microbes existing for a few billion years before then again creating an evolutionary effort? Then that's the way it would be - from an evolution's point of view.
If it isn't like that, then by definition it's working toward something willy nilly or negative - and that's not what I believe the evolutionists believe as they constantly state that the most adapted being is the one which, over a long period of time, survives.
The whole idea of evolution is a ridiculous argument. We are here today. What should we do? Stand opposed to one another arguing over semantics? Or do we look to each other, realize that we love each other and care about each other and then desire to help that other person?
I choose the latter. In fact, I debated with someone named Jo H. about even coming here. I can see now that I made a mistake as I have no desires whatsoever to debate points which are ultimately pointless when I have neighbors who need help, and friends, and co-workers, and loved ones. I would rather spend time working with them, showing them I love them, than arguing over points that none of us will ever truly know the answer to (until after we die by my belief anyway).
I apologize for wasting everybody's time. If you'd like to reach me, please do so at rick@tgdaily.com. Peace.
Edited by RickCHodgin, : Clarifying the last bit of my statement.

- Rick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by bluescat48, posted 01-20-2009 1:58 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by bluescat48, posted 01-20-2009 2:23 PM RickCHodgin has replied
 Message 45 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-20-2009 2:24 PM RickCHodgin has not replied
 Message 62 by Annafan, posted 01-20-2009 3:16 PM RickCHodgin has not replied

RickCHodgin
Member (Idle past 5565 days)
Posts: 44
From: United States
Joined: 01-20-2009


Message 47 of 265 (495042)
01-20-2009 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by bluescat48
01-20-2009 2:23 PM


In response to bluescat48:
The universe isn't working toward anything, and has nothing to do with evolution.
I'm not sure how you can make this statement. Evolution is a system which exists within the universe. Were the universe altered even slightly, everything else would be different.
Evolution depends exactly upon the universe being the way it is.

- Rick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by bluescat48, posted 01-20-2009 2:23 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Huntard, posted 01-20-2009 2:38 PM RickCHodgin has replied
 Message 51 by Coragyps, posted 01-20-2009 2:40 PM RickCHodgin has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024