Evolution of the eye? The myth goes on...

I think it would also be constructive to define the metaphysics behind creation and why it is better (in a metaphysical sense) given the empirical evidence we have today.I think we can all agree that everything relies upon personal interpretation, even how green the grass is. To me, naturalistic methodology grants science a foundation in common experience. What science measures and describes can be repeated independent of who experiences it. Creation as a theory first requires personal experience (conversion into a faith system) in order to interpret data. Personal experience that can not be shared between two people is not a strong foundation for a metaphysical interpretation.

All of them. Have you even considered the possibility that "all truths" may have a single, foundational Truth?quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come now, what are you expecting - for me to write a few sentences that answer all your questions?
Ask yourself, "What do I truly think and believe that life is all about?"
This will give you a good start.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I don't recall asking any deep and spiritual questions that you would have to answer, Joralex. You are talking to a guy that considers all matters interrelated.In any case, I have never looked to others for spiritual answers. Not very wise. Do you honestly think that you will find answers only within yourself?The answer to the question you propose above is no one's business but mine. Correct, it is your business.Why are you looking for a seeker of truth if all you tell them is that they have to make up their own mind? That's not all that I am able to say. But it does begin with a personal decision - no amount of evidence or argumentation will ever get anyone past the point of their desired choice. Do you understand? (this is not as transparent as may appear)Isn't that what they are already doing, independently? Most people do many things without deep thought into exactly what it is that they're doing. Most young people, for instance, hardly give too much thought to death. Talk to a ninety-year-old and ask him/her how often he/she thinks about it. Yet, death comes at any time.

​

My point : I was merely trying to get you to reflect on the fact that it all comes down to a decision - a conscientious decision - as to what you wish to find. quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spiritual attitude : does the idea of a God as described in the Bible make you want to get closer to Him or get away from Him?
For instance, many people are repulsed by even the thought of 'God' - that is their spiritual inclination/attitude on the matter. Other people feel drawn to God but allow all manner of obstacles (including 'what-will-people-think' and/or pride) to keep them from Him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I am not a Christian - what do I care about what the bible says? There, you see, that wasn't hard - you've answered the question.I follow the 'inclination of my heart', as you say, and the bible is not a part of it. Bingo! You are your own master - your own 'god'.I ask again - why are you looking for a seeker of truth? What do you hope to find? I hope to find those that have figured out (with God's help!!) that the world HAS to be more than what the natural senses reveal. Then, maybe, God may use me as an instrument to help answer the questions that are keeping this person from taking that final step towards the one, true God. Honestly, that's it.

​

Joralex

Helllooooooo....Joooooraleeeexxxx....You started this topic (evolution of the eye). Why are you so reluctant to address it?

Joralex You make this statement.I hope to find those that have figured out (with God's help!!) that the world HAS to be more than what the natural senses reveal. Then, maybe, God may use me as an instrument to help answer the questions that are keeping this person from taking that final step towards the one, true God. Honestly, that's it.It was not done with God's help but science regularly SHOWS that the world IS more than what the senses reveal.Again I will give you a website and please trust me it will not require you to give up your belief(as if THAT could happen) but it will show you things you may not have known before. http://www.explorepdx.com/feynman.htmlLet me know what you think.{Made link clickable, by adding space before "http" - AM}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 10-11-2003]

Joralex? Hello? I know you're out there.I've pointed out the hanging questions relevant to this thread's topic several times now.Do you concede?

*grin*I just love how he won't tough the evolution of a sensor rhodopsin response mechanism into a light response mechanism with a 10 foot pole Is it that painful, Joralex, to acknowlege that in fact it is not only likely to happen, but virtually guaranteed?------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

The bear thought his son could talk in space about the time matter has to rotate but twisted heaven instead.

In message 152
There is more to the world than what our senses reveal. This is why we use NMR machines to identify molecules, MRI to look into peoples' bodies, radio telescopes to probe the sky, chromatography and fluorescence to read DNA, scanning EM to look at things to small for the eye to see or the fingers to sense, and the list goes on. I have a feeling this isn't what you are talking about, but science uses more than a cursory inspection with our very crude, "god given" senses. What the eye can't see, man has made a machine that can.[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 10-17-2003]
added in edit, link to original quote made by Joralex[This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 10-17-2003]

The quote you took from my post actually belongs to Joralex so I hope you can refer the point to him as I am in agreement with you .

quote:

---

I hope to find those that have figured out (with God's help!!) that the world HAS to be more than what the natural senses reveal.

---

But that is not all you are doing, Jopralex.You are also wanting me to reject hundreds of years of scientific discovery in favor of literal belief in Bible stories.You are asking me to give up my rationality, my intellectual honesty, and my critical thinking skills.

quote:

---

Then, maybe, God may use me as an instrument to help answer the questions that are keeping this person from taking that final step towards the one, true God. Honestly, that's it.

---

It seems to me that I would have to stop using my Brain to become a YEC, Biblical literalist, and I don't think it's good for me to stop thinking critically and rationally avout the natural world.So, even if I was searching for the one true God, I doubt I would be drawn towards your religion, Joralex. It would mean I would have to lie to myself about what I see with my own eyes.

But the little bear had the last laugh as the cleavage of his pseudo two-dimensional Mobius dimension rendered the father bear's 3D existence an inescapable prison. Hehehe, couldn't help it.

I am bumping this topic, so that Joralex can find these questions more easily, as per our discussion in the thread "Existence of God".Message 148 of 152 10-07-2003 03:06 PM--------------------------------------------------------------------------------quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As for the evolution of the eye, that's just a very small part of this puzzle. "
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------But it is, if you recall, the topic of this thread. Let's see if you can pick up that discussion where it left off. I think you're trying to shrug off that topic, leaving it to "I think it's unlikely". You're free to think so, but you've made much stronger claims in this thread. If you want to leave this discussion clinging to the Argument from Personal Incredulity, go ahead.If you still think you have apoint, though, how about a reply to my post 73:"Do you, or do you not, agree with this simple, specific point:If there exists a functioning organism (this topic isn't about the origin of life; it's about the origin of vision in pre-existing organisms), it is possible that photo-sensitive chemicals exist within it, and it is possible that these chemicals may react with other chemicals, and that this reaction may be modulated or changed depending on the state of the photo-sensitive chemical. At least one of these chemicals involved may be coded for by DNA, and is thus heritable.If I read you right, you've objected to this in the past, which seems impossible, so I want to make sure we have some minimum understanding of what the other is saying."Or a related question from my post #61:
"Fine, let counter with an example which we know is encoded by DNA:
When enzyme X catalyzes reaction Y, how much infrastructure is necessary?"You, of course, have left others dangling on this topic as well.

"Do you, or do you not, agree with this simple, specific point:If there exists a functioning organism (this topic isn't about the origin of life; it's about the origin of vision in pre-existing organisms), it is possible that photo-sensitive chemicals exist within it, To some measure, ALL chemicals are 'photo-sensitive'. Do you now understand (at least a little bit) why I hadn't responded to this?.and it is possible that these chemicals may react with other chemicals, Under the appropriate conditions, ALL chemicals 'react with other chemicals'. Do you now understand (at least a little bit) why I hadn't responded to this?.and that this reaction may be modulated or changed depending on the state of the photo-sensitive chemical. Need I repeat the above statement?At least one of these chemicals involved may be coded for by DNA, and is thus heritable. If this chemical is complex then we have many bits of information. This means lots of 'information coding'. But there is nothing (known) that naturally encodes complex specified information. We know of copying what is already encoded but not encoding the first time. So, what exactly are you proposing? If I read you right, you've objected to this in the past, which seems impossible, so I want to make sure we have some minimum understanding of what the other is saying." Dig away. My feeling is that you are treating this at too superficial a level.Or a related question from my post #61:
"Fine, let counter with an example which we know is encoded by DNA:
When enzyme X catalyzes reaction Y, how much infrastructure is necessary?"You, of course, have left others dangling on this topic as well. For the same reason expressed above - I find the questions extremely superficial.

​

Look here, if you isolate a single chemical reaction then you will find a number of natural mechanisms capable of explaining/generating that reaction - I certainly won't argue that point. The problem is that even a "simple" vision system (say, that of a horseshoe crab) ISN'T a single chemical reaction. The 'infrastructure' that I speak of covers hundreds, maybe even thousands of chemical and/or mechanical processes that must work in harmony to produce "sight".

​

You people attempt to analyze this problem via a reductionist-type analysis; i.e., you believe that if you can explain a grain of sand then you will be able to explain the building. Sorry, it won't work. But, of course, you will insist that it does work since this is part of your belief system - materialistic Naturalism. This is where the crux of our disagreement lies.

​

Joralex

Joralex,I'm still awaiting a response.------------------
"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

You people attempt to analyze this problem via a reductionist-type analysis; i.e., you believe that if you can explain a grain of sand then you will be able to explain the building. Sorry, it won't work. But, of course, you will insist that it does work since this is part of your belief system - materialistic Naturalism. This is where the crux of our disagreement lies.

---

The thing you may want to consider is how often the analysis actually does work. Biological phenomena do have chemical bases, and chemistry is based on the physical properties of molecules and atoms. If we can explain something through reductionism, then it automatically beats supernaturalism, which explains zip.There's no reason to look at Nature as a heap of inert Legos awaiting an Intelligence to form it into something worthwhile. Nature does appear to be just as magical and amazing as you consider it banal and unworthy of realistic analysis.------------------
The bear thought his son could talk in space about the time matter has to rotate but twisted heaven instead.
-Brad McFall