YT2095 Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 basicly you`re saying that CCD devices are crap by comparison to the human eye, but they`re not biologicaly evolved either! and so I Agree with you! however, we are NOT the Be all and End all of eye "technology" throughout the animal kingdon, and thus my point... Why specificly sellect the Human eye as an example when many other animals can kick our ass for visual accuity?
RICHARDBATTY Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 Saying why doesn't silicon evolve into a camera is like saying why doesn't a rock evolve into a house.
fuhrerkeebs Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 Someone might argue that creationists believe that God came out of nowhere. The truth is that we believe that God has always existed, just like the laws of physics. Saying that intelligence has always existed makes sense. Saying it appeared from nowhere does not make sense to me. It doesn't make sense to me either way. How can something be around forever? Even if it's around forever it still needs come into existence...somehow. You just confuse things by saying it's been around forever. Oh, and I don't think the laws of physics have always existed...I believe the arose naturally from symmetry breaking.
herme3 Posted February 24, 2005 Author Posted February 24, 2005 It doesn't make sense to me either way. How can something be around forever? Even if it's around forever it still needs come into existence...somehow. You just confuse things by saying it's been around forever. Oh, and I don't think the laws of physics have always existed...I believe the arose naturally[/i'] from symmetry breaking. Something had to have existed forever. What could have created the universe if nothing was here before? Besides, doesn't the law of conservation of mass say that matter can't be created? Doesn't that mean that all the matter in the universe has been here forever?
Cadmus Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 Besides, doesn't the law of conservation of mass say that matter can't be created? Doesn't that mean that all the matter in the universe has been here forever? No. Something had to have existed forever. What could have created the universe if nothing was here before?The universe has existed forever. If you believe that god created the universe, then where do you believe that god resided before creating the universe? Doesn't that mean that all the matter in the universe has been here forever?If you are suggesting that all of the matter in the universe has been here forever, then you are de facto suggesting that the universe has been here forever, such that it could not have been created. Which is it?
Ophiolite Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 Yes' date=' but this thread was created by something very intelligent (me!) it didn't appear out of nowhere like evolution suggests humans did..[/quote'] You claimed you understood the principles of evolution though you did not accept them. If you did understand them you would realise that evolution does not suggest that humans appeared out of nowhere. I don't consider a lineage lasting four billion years to be one that has appeared out of nowhere. Would you accept that an amphibian could have evolved from a fish?
swansont Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 Yes' date=' but this thread was created by something very intelligent (me!) it didn't appear out of nowhere like evolution suggests humans did.[/quote'] Evolution doesn't suggest modern humans appeared out of nowhere. It suggests that we evolved from a different species. Homo erectus, and before that, H. habilis.
swansont Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 Why are people saying that eyes aren't that special? Our eyes have a higher quality picture output than any digital camera or TV. This is obvious because if they made a digital camera or TV that was higher quality than our eyes, we wouldn't even notice without using a zoom feature. Looking at a high definition TV doesn't look as good as real life, so our eyes must be better than the TV or the cameras they used to film whatever you are watching. TV is only several hundred lines, and even HDTV is limited to just over 1000. Bad comparison. The diffraction limit of our eye is somewhere around 1200-1500 dpi when the image is at the typical nearpoint. Any limiting of a good digital camera is due to blowing the picture up too big, i.e. lowering its resolution, or a limited quality printer.
swansont Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 Scientists have no problem saying the laws of physics have always existed I think you'll find that many scientists agree that we don't know what the laws of physics were before the big bang.
swansont Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 What we don't understand is how these random mutations could form something as complex as a human brain. Science can't even figure out how a brain completely works. It seems to complex to be created by an unguided force. Not knowing what the answer to how, exactly the brain evolved or how it works is not the same as demonstrating evolution to be wrong. There are plenty of things science has yet to explain. That's why there are still jobs for scientists. The feeling that it seems too complex to be explained is just argument from incredulity, and is a logical fallacy. You can't draw a valid conclusion from such an argument.
swansont Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 doesn't the law of conservation of mass say that matter can't be created? There is no such law. There is a law of conservation of energy, however. Can you show that the energy in the universe has not always existed, or that it can't be accounted for before the big bang, when we don't know what the laws of physics were then?
Hellbender Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 Both my Biology teacher and I agree that humans are too complex to have evolved from basic elements. Just look at how complex our eyes are. Evolution would be like throwing silicon and glass into a container, shaking it, and pulling out the world's most powerful digital camera. I can't imagine this ever happening even after shaking the container for millions of years. strawman. Evolution is not as random as you think. Natural selection, remember? Eyes didn't just appear suddenly, they evolved, becoming more and more complex over the eons. The simplest eyes (light/dark detecting eyespots) would have still been useful i.e. in planaria (flatworms), their eyespots are not fully formed eyes, they can just detect light and dark. Still useful for a simple organism, but with room for complexity. Our eyesight isn't that great. Compare it to the eyes of a bird of prey. Or better yet, a squid. Squids have the perfect eye structure, better than any vertebrate's eyes (including ours). (I don't quite remember, something with a reversed membrane that gets in more light, I will look it up.)
Hellbender Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 Yes, but this thread was created by something very intelligent (me!) it didn't appear out of nowhere like evolution suggests humans did. no one said humans appeared out of nowhere. You need to imagine the bigger picture, of gradual change over time periods unfathomable to us. Given enough time in constanty shifting environments, I don't see it as impossible for self replicating molecules to become intelligent organisms.
herme3 Posted February 24, 2005 Author Posted February 24, 2005 If you are suggesting that all of the matter in the universe has been here forever, then you are de facto suggesting that the universe has been here forever, such that it could not have been created. Which is it? Matter could have always existed, but it was changed to something else. For example, turning a lump of silicon into a computer chip. According to The Bible, God took dirt and created the first man. The matter would have always existed, but it was changed into a person.
Cadmus Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 Matter could have always existed, but it was changed to something else. Then I was correct. You believe that god did not create the world, since you believe that matter could have always existed. According to The Bible, God took dirt and created the first man. The matter would have always existed, but it was changed into a person. Actually, he took clay, not dirt, as I understand it. In what langauge did you read the bible?
herme3 Posted February 24, 2005 Author Posted February 24, 2005 Ok, I guess it didn't make sense when I said evolution states that humans appeared from nowhere. I understand that this was over billions of years. However, during this time, there was nothing to really guide the process. Even with natural selection, there was no intelligent force to guide it to something as complex as humans. For example, if you don't clean your house, things will keep getting messier until you get organized and clean up. There would be trash on the floor until you pick it up. The trash would never automatically go into the trash can. The point of this example is that everything becomes less organized until something intelligent makes it organized.
Hellbender Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 Ok, I guess it didn't make sense when I said evolution states that humans appeared from nowhere. I understand that this was over billions of years. However, during this time, there was nothing to really guide the process. Even with natural selection, there was no intelligent force to guide it to something as complex as humans. one question: why can't the process of natural selection account for complex organisms? I think you don't understand the basic premises of this phenomena.
herme3 Posted February 24, 2005 Author Posted February 24, 2005 Then I was correct. You believe that god did not create the world, since you believe that matter could have always existed. According to The Bible, the Earth did exist before God started creating things. It said that the Earth was dark and empty. There were no plants, animals, water, or light. Actually, he took clay, not dirt, as I understand it. In what langauge did you read the bible? I read the New International Version. The exact phrase was, "the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground" I guess that is the same thing as dirt.
herme3 Posted February 24, 2005 Author Posted February 24, 2005 one question: why can't the process of natural selection account for complex organisms? I think you don't understand the basic premises of this phenomena. We just don't see complex things such as computers form without being built by someone intelligent. Why would life form without someone intelligent even after billions of years? By the way, a creationist web site said that the Earth can only be a few million years old. It said that there would be much more salt in the ocean water if Earth was older.
Hellbender Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 For example, if you don't clean your house, things will keep getting messier until you get organized and clean up. There would be trash on the floor until you pick it up. The trash would never automatically go into the trash can. The point of this example is that everything becomes less organized until something intelligent makes it organized. This is true for a messy house (like mine) but again, evolution is not random, its directed by natural selection i.e. the environment selecting the fitness of random genetic traits.
Hellbender Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 We just don't see complex things such as computers form without being built by someone intelligent. Why would life form without someone intelligent even after billions of years? this is correct, for computers, but alas, another strwman of evolution. Computers are not organisms with the ability to reproduce, meaning they cannot evolve (to put it simply). Natural selection acting on random traits does not need any "guiding intelligence" but you can bet things would be much more perfect than they are if there was.
Hellbender Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 I read the New International Version. The exact phrase was, "the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground" I guess that is the same thing as dirt. just a question, you obviously don't accept that evolution through natural selection took place. But you think some abstract being molded people out of dirt is a better explanation?
Hellbender Posted February 24, 2005 Posted February 24, 2005 By the way, a creationist web site said that the Earth can only be a few million years old. It said that there would be much more salt in the ocean water if Earth was older. thats a new one. I am not an oceanographer, so I can't say whether this is true or not, but I suspect it is just a strawman to further their religious beliefs. My advice, should you choose to take it, is to stay away from creationist sites. Not that I am withholding some kind of evidence (biblical creationism has none), but you won't get any unbiased, reasonable information about evolution (or biology, geology or astronomy, for that matter) from those sites. All they are out to do is further their religious dogma.
herme3 Posted February 25, 2005 Author Posted February 25, 2005 just a question, you obviously don't accept that evolution through natural selection took place. But you think some abstract being molded people out of dirt is a better explanation? It can be explained if you think about how it was caused by God, who has unlimited power. By believing in someone with unlimited power, you can believe in anything. However, evolution doesn't make sense because it says unrealistic things can happen without someone with unlimited power. It says the universe just magically appears and begins creating itself.
Gnieus Posted February 25, 2005 Posted February 25, 2005 However, evolution doesn't make sense because it says unrealistic things can happen without someone with unlimited power. It says the universe just magically appears and begins creating itself. One planet collides with other planet, one breaks the other not, it survives. Now imagine the planet changes somehow and reproduces and you are done with evolution.
Recommended Posts