Evolution would've given us infrared eyesight

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. This would give them a better oportunity for more progeny, which I think would out compete better vision. Even assuming you are right about the vision thing, that it would be evidence against the Theory of Evolution does not mean that it would not be evidence for design.

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

I suppose if we went down the evolutionary path towards infrared vision and sleeplessness, then the hinderances from that would get evolved out in the wash. We'd prolly be totally different though. heh, maybe some eye gear like this: or bedrooms like this: Maybe they explain it somewhere in the Alien vs Predator graphic novels.....

---

ABE:Wait....Doesn't the Predator get his extra visions from his helmet? Without the helmet, doesn't he just have regular vision?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE:

There's plenty of information available the advantages. If you want to learn about it then you can just Google it. This alludes to a common misconception about evolution that you seem to have. Its not about being a strong survivor, its about surving long enough to reproduce. Sure it does. In Message 15 you wrote: We didn't evolve through an environment that promoted infrared vision, ergo we don't have it. How much sense it makes doesn't effect the veracity. A lot of solid scientific principles are hard to comprehend and don't make much sense. No, the pride and arrogance is from the camp that refuses to change their faithful beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence.Shit... I gotta go. I'll get back to you later.

Meh, snakes are still cold-blooded. We are of the later form, not them.But anyways, just because one later form evolves something doesn't mean that other later forms should. The genes have to be available and so does the selective pressure. Lacking either of those would prevent us from evolving the trait. Here is an interesting article on the evolution of viper's pits that says:

quote:

---

Pitvipers (Viperidae: Crotalinae) possess thermal radiation receptors, the facial pits, which allow them to detect modest temperature fluctuations within their environments. It was previously thought that these organs were used solely to aid in prey acquisition, but recent findings demonstrated that western diamondback rattlesnakes (Crotalus atrox) use them to direct behavioral thermoregulation, suggesting that facial pits might be general purpose organs used to drive a suite of behaviors.

---

Not necessarily. Its all about what the environment allows. Mutation gives a random battery of traits from which the environment selects. Yes, its call "Natural Selection". Yes, its called "Random Mutation". No, not necessarily. If the environment selected for non-better beings, then they would be what evolved. Or they (evolution as well as scientific laws) could simply be inevitabilities of our Universe.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. 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.

---

I'd also like to point out Theistic Evolution. That's the belief that god created the species by the mechanism of evolution.Evolution is not incompatible with a belief in god nor of god's creation. It is, however, incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Bible. But the Bible is clearly contradicted by reality in other claims it makes (i.e. the Flood), so we can see it is not to be taken literally before we even consider evolution.

The laws could also just be inevitibilities of our Universe. And its not hard to see that the laws that wouldn't work, would fail to stick around.You seem to be in awe that the puddle perfectly conforms to the pothole and that the pothole must have been designed to fit around the water. So then, where did the information that is built into God come from, hmm?If complexity requires design, and god is complex, the god requires design too.If God can be the exception to that rule, then why can't the Universe itself be the exception? The believability of an idea has nothing to do with its veracity. So you're just going to hide your head in the sand? If everything points to God, then really nothing is pointing to God. If you can't distinguish between whether or not two things point to God, then it makes no difference if they both do or niether do.

and if the environment was one that only allowed for bacteria to survive, then all life would be bacteria. First off, evolution doesn't have anything to do with cosmology.But lets explore your logic. You, yourself, are willing to accept the possibility that God, with all his "infinite size, scope, complexity and mathematical harmony," just happened, no? If not, who created God? If so, then why can't you give the same acceptance to the Universe itself. Why don't you ask the turd that I just created in the toilet?and if you mean living things, then that is just something that you cannot know. It is just your unsubstantiated assertion. and if you have evidence of his existence, then you have no faith, you have knowledge.Jesus said that those who believe without seeing are the blessed. How do you know that it is, in fact, Jesus?It could easily be the devil tricking you, no? actually, that was Saint Thomas Aquinas.... Where did Jesus, the man who walked here with us on Earth, say that?Or is this some extension that Jesus = God so what is in Genesis was said by Jesus?You do know that Genesis was written by men, don't you? Then you haven't looked hard enough.You can start here:29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent Yes and no.I still believe god created eveything, I just don't think that Genesis accuratly (in a literal sense) describes how he did it.

So, hiding your head in the sand it is, then?Willful ignorance.What a shame.

{Irrelevant blather hidden. Stop polluting the topic with such. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

Well, if you are gonna stick around. I'd like a reply to Message 38.Especially this part:

quote:

---

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.

​

First off, evolution doesn't have anything to do with cosmology.

​

But lets explore your logic. You, yourself, are willing to accept the possibility that God, with all his "infinite size, scope, complexity and mathematical harmony," just happened, no? If not, who created God? If so, then why can't you give the same acceptance to the Universe itself.

---

and this part too:

quote:

---

As you are born again, you know Him and He speak to you spiritually and you know implicitly of His existence.

​

How do you know that it is, in fact, Jesus?

​

It could easily be the devil tricking you, no?

---

But we don't know that for sure. It could very easliy be the exact same process of evolution. That's the beauty of simplicity.Random Mutation plus Natural Selection and you can get all the wonderous lifeforms of this planet. Slight changes probably wouldn't affect much at all. Then your point was pointless.

Well then, you can just fuck off and wallow in your ignorance.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.