A Logical account of creation

It's OT but needs to be said.It is a simple matter, they hate Darwin more than they love God.

Actually, he didn't - we're so used to it being missed, that we don't see it when it is there You may want to correct that...HOWEVER, Traste's post is a minimal re-write of this page: Did eyes evolve by Darwinian mechanisms?But did you notice this? Melnick? Who the f'ck is Melnick??? And where did he say this? Notice the '8' at the end of Traste's text? That's the reference included on that webage He definitely needs lessons in plagerism. That reference gives us:

quote:

---

Melnick, J., Vision: an evolutionary enigma, Christian Citizen 1(9):26,1981

---

Hell, I'm convinced Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Thanks! Clearly not paying enough attention. It's still pretty pointless bringing up the quote though. Darwin has been dead a long time and it no longer really matters what he thought. Yeah, I did notice that and I'm none the wiser as to who Melnick is than you are. When employing an argument from authority it is usually a good idea to know who you're quoting. I wonder if tratse can provide us with Melnick's first name?Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

And your religious belief is testable how?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

1: Evolution is not a belief system. There is no "belief" in evolution. The sooner you can accept that, the sooner you will see the light.2: Is anyones knowledge in anything "their own"? Unless YOU do the research, publish the papers, get it perr reviewed, and submit it, YOURSELF, you are using someone elses knowledge. Whenever i quote something, I do my best to verify it against other reputable sources. Anything i have EVER seen documented at a creationist site is drivel. It is wrong.

---

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan

Hello, I understand. Is this rating due to psychological reason, or belief system? As I told you, and your co supporters that if reason really tell Darwin that the eye evolved, then we can observed the following evolutionary stages which Darwin though necessary to prove his theory.1.photosensetive cell.2.aggregates of pigment cells with out a nerve.3.an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin.4.pigment cells forming a small depression and then a deeper depression.5.the skin over the depression gradually taking a lens shape..6.evolution of the muscles that allow that alllow the lens to adjust.Darwin believe that this shoul be observed, yet you did not reply to this argument, instead accusing me of being irrelevant.

Hello, Congratulations!! You have a very primative way of thinking. Actually this kind of thingking dates back to the time of Copernicus,where his critiques accused him of being irrelevant, nonsense,etc. Yes they dont evaluate his argument but they do evaluate him. rolleyes::

Hello, Actually this question was in my mind when I wrote that sentence, yet no matter how far I will carry the explanation it is stiil inaccurate in your part, that is your cage.

Hello, Well, the reverse of his sentence is true to you and your co supporters. Actually we dont hate Darwin, we only criticized his idea that is the real reason that we do not employed ad hominem attack.

Hello, It is. In fact one of Darwin's great protagonist Thomas Huxley( also known as Darwin's bulldog) once said that he accepted evolution because of his philosophical faith. I doubt that, given that even supporters expresses negative comments and attack evolution in private. Absolutely No. We cannot even say that Eintien's knowledge on the theory of relativity is his own due to the fact that he study the result of other scientist, even if we argue that his idea is different from the others it still not absolutely his own because he deduced it from the result of others. Im pretty sure that scientist like Behe and Kenyon are not among of your" refutable source." You dont need to explain I completely understand the cause.Edited by traste, : correcting spelling

Source? or is this another of your statements you make that you have no evidence for. There is no discussion as to the validity/FACT of evolution in scientific circles. The only thing that is debated/argued/questioned: is the manner in which it occurs. If behe ever had a legitimately peer reviewed paper on anything, i would consider him a legitimate source. until then? He is nothing.

---

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan

Hello, Actually there is a lot. In fact the idea that the primative atmosphere was reducing is seriously question today yet biology textbooks tell us that it is a fact. The idea that molecules can replicate without the help from other molecules has been descrideted yet biology textbook stell us that it is a fact,the idea that protein can formed without the help from DNA has been discredited, yet biology textbooks tell us that is a fact. Satisfy? Actually Im not really sure if you understand what you are talking about. The fact that there is wide disagreement among elite scientific figures, can be considered that they dont have yet the satisfactory explanation of how life began. Let me ask you, are therestill debate, argue ,question that the earth is round? Are there still debate, question , argue, that gravity cause objects to fall downward? These things are considered as facts to some degree,that is why we dont heared any scientistist arguing or questioning them. How about evolution? You yourself implied that there are still contreversies because you there are still "argued/questioned" yet you considered them as fact. Iam confused. Very confused. Behe has a Ph.D in Biochemistry and won the zigma prizes for best thesis. The real reason why you dont read his argument published in prestigious scientific journals like Nature, New Scientist,The Scientific American,etc, its not because he have no repliesbut its because his replieswas prevented to occured by many die hard Darwinist. I understand that peer review is the method being use to determine the correctness of scientific arguments but in the case of Behe that method is not fair. You might ask why. Because all the reviewers believe in evolution and they have a prejudiced towards ID. It is like throwing sheep to the cave of lion and hoping to come out.Edited by traste, : correcting grammar

Absolutely not! Not only did you NOT back up your original statement, you just made MORE statements which are devoid of evidence AND not even addressing the topic to which they were a response. You do know what a 'source" is, right? How about "evidence"? Which has fuck all to do with evolution. I understand English is not your first language, but please, don't misrepresent what I say. I said that the FACT of evolution is NOT debated. it is a non-secquitor. however, there IS debate/discussion as to the ways in which the FACT of evolution can occur. BIG difference my misguided friend. Obviously. Try reading a book on the subject you are debating. No. He is not published, not because of "hateful darwinists" (catchy buzzwords are poor form), but because he is out of his league and his papers are NOT science and have been disproven. You DO remember Dover, yes? Not fair? if he wishes to be a legitimate scientist (he doesn't), then he WILL go through the same rigors that any other scientist goes through in order to be published. until then, he is nothing, a nobody. Hmmm. let's see. IF ID were a serious scientific study, papers WOULD be published. however, since there is no legitimate study EVER conducted, it's not science.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

"Some people think God is an outsized, light-skinned male with a long white beard, sitting on a throne somewhere up there in the sky, busily tallying the fall of every sparrow. Othersfor example Baruch Spinoza and Albert Einsteinconsidered God to be essentially the sum total of the physical laws which describe the universe. I do not know of any compelling evidence for anthropomorphic patriarchs controlling human destiny from some hidden celestial vantage point, but it would be madness to deny the existence of physical laws."-Carl Sagan

While this is definitely OT, it is not only difficult to let this go but also central to the entire debate.Ultimately, there are two positions. One curses any attempt to learn about all God's creation outside of one arbitrarily chosen 'book' out of 30,000 variations which then is not only insisted upon being infallibly interpreted but also renders any discussion as heresy........and the other does not.If you would like more elaboration on this subject, we can meet either one-on-one or some other battlefield of your choice.Edited by anglagard, : elaborationEdited by anglagard, : No reason given.

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Hi traste, Just an opinion. You provide nothing but a copy-and-paste effort. It's not exactly impressive. Just out of interest, where did he say this?Since you have only presented a copy of a creation.com article, I don't really see why I should put in much more effort, so here are a couple of links that detail the kinds of intermediate stages you ask about.

quote:

---

* Simplest of all we have the mere eyespot, as sported by the limpet Patella: a flat collection of pigmented cells and nerves with nerve fibers leading to whatever Patella has resembling a brain. This allows sufficient vison for phototaxis.

​

* In the slit shell mollusc Pleurotomaria, the eyespot has been deformed into a cup. This allows the mollusc to tell in which direction light or shadow lies, according to which side of the cup it falls on.

​

* In Nautilus, the far end of the cup has nearly closed off, leaving a "pinhole" aperture. This has the effect of reducing the amount of light entering what we might now call an "eye", but it improves acuity of vision, since now the view of each photoreceptor is confined to light passing in a straight line that passes through the pinhole and terminates at the photoreceptor.

​

* The eye fills up with a thick fluid: we have not been able to find out whether this has happened in Nautilus, as our sources conflict on this issue.

​

* A transparent layer of skin grows over the pinhole opening. A primitive spherical lens develops in the fluid in the eye. We should emphasize that the acquisition of a lens is not an all-or nothing step: the refraction of light is caused by differences in density between the media that the light has to pass through, and density is a property capable of almost infinitely fine gradations. This stage is represented by the eye of Murex. The focus provided by the primitive lens is sufficient that the pupil can get bigger again, allowing more light into the eye.

​

* Finally, we have the lens-shaped lenses of octopods and squid such as Loligo. Note that the ability to change focus, either by moving the lens backwards and forwards, as cephalopods do, or by stretching and contracting it, as we do, is certainly advantageous; and any small ability to do so, or small improvement on this ability, must therefore be favored by natural selection.

---

Source; Page not found – Skeptic WikiI suggest you take a close look at the Skepticwiki page, it has a lot of good information. Alternatively, take a look at this page on mollusc eyes;http://www.weichtiere.at/english/mollusca/eyes.html Is this rating due to psychological reason, or belief system?In all seriousness, you need to answer this question. You are the one who cited this Melnick character. You should know who he or she is, otherwise how are we to know how seriously to take Melnick's opinion? Who is J Melnick? Is he or she a biologist? A scientist? A road sweeper? A burger flipper? Without this kind of information, your appeal to Melnick's authority falls a touch flat.Of course, you don't know any of this, because you just copied and pasted an article without the least attempt to demonstrate that you understand it.AbE; Oh, one other thing; it doesn't really matter what Darwin thought. Darwin is not some kind of all-knowing, infallible prophet, whose every pronouncement is law. You might be getting him a bit mixed up with Jesus there. Darwin's work was pioneering, but it has been superseded. Modern evolutionary biology does not depend on what Darwin did or did not think. Creationists on the other hand seem veritably obsessed with the man. Maybe it's the beard...Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod