Evolution, directed or un-directed?

[Tart]

For all those who think evolution is not directed, nothing but random chance, how do you know that? How do you know evolution isnt directed by God (or anything else at that matter)?

[benchwarmer]

, but I have at least learned what the actual definition of the TOE is.

I've learned it too..which is why I can confidently not agree that it occurred.

That statement right there proves you don't understand it. It didn't "occur", it's occurring right now. Every time something reproduces.

It is a pretty straight-forward question...an honest, genuine, straight-forward question. You are telling me that certain animals evolved wings...and I am simply asking you why did those animals evolve wings, while other animals didn't?

And I already answered this, but you refuse to listen.

Mutations are random. They just happen. Clearly they do happen for a reason (chemical/biological reasons), but the animals are not choosing it.

Let's repeat that again. Mutations just happen.

I really would like to know. I mean, there has to be a natural answer to this, shouldn't there be?

Yes, see above.

Mutations happen. You have already agreed on this. Are you suggesting the parent organisms are choosing what mutations happen? That's what your question sounds like.

Why did birds evolve to have wings, and other animals didn't. What was so special about birds that they got the wings? Do tell.

Again, you have this all backwards. Nothing special about the reptiles that started evolving what would eventually become wings. If your child is born with an extra finger or a flap of skin that other people don't have, do you consider them 'special' or 'chosen' because of this? Why did the child 'get' to have the extra appendage?

Let's take an example. A fox pup is born with a mutation that renders one of it's legs useless. Clearly this makes it slower than all the other 'normal' foxes who do not have this mutation. Did the foxes choose this situation? No. It just happens.

Nonsense. Because even with the one "useless" leg, the fox still isn't changing into a fundamentally different animal than the rest of the foxes. That is a completely different concept than a crocodile evolving into an ostrich (in 5 minutes or a million years, doesn't matter).

You think it's nonsense that mutations just happen like in the example I gave? Did I say the fox is changing into a different animal? You keep jumping to wild conclusions and fail to acknowledge the simple process taking place.

Crocodiles don't evolve into ostriches. That's impossible. What is possible is that a crocodile could evolve into a crocodile that looks like an ostrich and we would probably slap a new label on this very odd looking crocodile in a few million years when it started looking like an ostrich.

You are continually baffled by labels humans choose to call things.

Do you think maybe this fox might have a harder time surviving?

Maybe. But then again, I think a rabbit would have a BETTER TIME SURVIVING if it evolved wings to escape from predators. Yet, no wings. So it works both ways.

And now you are back to evolution requiring a special reason for a mutation to happen.

Say it with me again, mutations just happen... It doesn't matter if FtK thinks rabbits should evolve wings, it doesn't work like that. You have a very odd idea about what evolution is.

How might that affect it's chances to reproduce? Do you think that if this fox manages to reproduce, it's pups with the same mutation will also have a harder time to survive?

That is irrelevant.

No, that's the entire point. Evolution is driven by reproduction. Your calling the product of reproduction irrelevant only further displays your lack of understanding.

It's like if I kept arguing Jesus was nailed to a cross because he was a carpenter. Doesn't matter how many time you tell me to read the entire Bible to see the real story, I'll just keep sticking to my made up version because it's convenient for me.

We are talking about the "changing of a kind". If the fox with the useless leg will have trouble surviving, along with mating..then the fox may very well die off....but nevertheless, it would die off as a FOX, not as an animal who was in a mid-morph change into a different kind of animal. It was born a fox, it lived as a fox, and it will die as a fox.

It would die off as a fox with a mutation that won't make it to any further generations assuming it didn't reproduce. Whatever novel things it possessed in it's genes is gone.

You thinking I'm trying to call a fox something else is amusing. You are arguing with yourself again.

In other words, do you think this mutation will eventually spread to a large part of the population or will it likely die out due to the issues these foxes will have surviving?

As long as I keep seeing "fox" in your analogy, it has no equivalency to what I am against, and that is the whole reptile-bird thing...something of which you, I, or anyone else have ever observed in nature.

I'm trying to take it one step at a time and you continually jump to millions of years worth of changes. If you can't understand the changes that take place in one generation and the impact that might have, you are forever lost understanding the changes over many generations.

That is natural selection.

Natural selection "selects"..and you can only "select" something if there is something already there to "select" from. So obviously, in your analogy, "useless" legs was already in the fox' gene pool, which would probably make the hunting and mating difficult, therefore decreasing the foxs' chances of survival.

Well, you've almost got it. No, the mutation wasn't there to begin with in my 'story'. Two perfectly healthy adults give birth to a pup with a mutation. Or do you think foxes with bum legs rode on the Ark or something?

Anyway, natural selection, in a nutshell, is simply survival to reproduction. That's it. You live long enough to reproduce, you have 'selected' naturally. There's no invisible man in the sky making the selections.

So once that fox died off, and only the "useful" legged foxes existed, then you will have even more generations of "useful" legged foxes...because all of the useless legged foxes would have died off, along with their gene pools of "useless legged" traits.

Wait, did you just grasp evolution? No more excuses for railing against the false definitions.

However, either way, whether we are talking about useful or useless, the animal was still a fox. It isn't changing into a bird or a snake (or any other fundamentally different non-fox)....so that analogy has NOTHING to do with what I am picketing against...and natural selection has NOTHING to do with macroevolution.

Well, that was short lived. Macroevolution, at least how you likely understand it, is not the TOE. It's a straw man created by anti evolutionsists. Scientists may use the term to describe large time periods compared to others, but it doesn't change anything about how evolution happens. There is no such thing as micro/macro evolution when it comes to one happens and the other doesn't. There is only one theory of evolution in biology and as soon as you start talking about micro/macro other than to distinguish between time scale where the exact same process is happening, you are making stuff up.

SMH.

You can shake it until it falls off, it's not helping you understand apparently.

A very simple concept which I'm sure you actually understand, but can't bring yourself to admit as it somehow (not sure how) destroys your religious beliefs.

Continually harping on science and observable reality as 'faith' is not winning you any arguments.

And you harping on science instead of Jesus Christ isn't winning you any salvation.

You think harping on Jesus Christ wins you salvation? Wow, you don't understand your own religion either. Not surprised.

[For_The_Kingdom]

I don't understand, why must there be a deeper meaning, over the actual mechanism and string of event that lead to a talking printer?

SMH. So this is the price of atheism^.

First of all, that's not how things work. Honesty/dishonesty depends entirely on intention, not the factual correctness of the answer. If you acknowledged my intention to be honest, then you got an honest answer.

No one is doubting the honesty answer...the truthfulness of the answer...that is what is in question.

Secondly the only reason why you'd think the answer is false in the first place, is that it is at odds with your understanding of your religion's doctrine.

Plenty of Christians out there who believe in evolution, and if I had reasons to believe it, I would be one of them.

Because they already have stuff that works!

Tell that to the mouse who just became the cat's dinner. It coulda used some "helpful for survival" wings.

Animals at the bottom of the food chain have lots more offspring, can digest plentiful food for example.

They themselves are also plentiful food for the predators that eat them. Again, those wings..

If that is all there is to it, then how are you so sure it's false, instead of mere agnostic over it?

Because I have reasons to take an even bolder position than that..instead of saying "I don't know, maybe, maybe not"..I am flat out saying "It didn't happen at all".

Why do you want it to be more complex?

I don't.

Sure we can go into the mutations or what have you, but the concept itself really is that simple - organism reproduce; reproduction are not direct copies but varies; said variations changes it fitness; survival of the fittest; repeat.

If the concept is so simple, it wouldn't take hundreds of millions of years to occur. If that is what you call "simple", then how long does something complicated take? An eternity?

Sure, the leonberger dog is an example. Still a dog, tho.

Right.

X is just more handy than Y, I picked whatever is close by, I picked whatever worked.

Right..and I am saying wings on hamsters can work...but wings are never "selected" for hamsters. So back to my question, why do some animals get wings and some animals don't?

But somehow that's not a good enough answer for you. Why would there be a deeper meaning?

As the traits/characteristics get "deeper", then so does the meaning, which is the difference between going from a simple drawing of a stick figure to the Mona Lisa painting.

I'll have you know that I was smart enough when I was 5 years old to know there is no objective difference between "what is so special about everyone else in the classroom that they got a cupcake" and "what is so special about me that I didn't get a cupcake?" As such would have left "special" out of the question.

Well, imagine the kid who asked the question wasn't you, and it was another student who wasn't "smart enough" to make such a splitting hairs distinction that you apparently would have made at that age.

Same question applies.

More to the point, I would have accepted "no particular reason, I just ran out of cupcakes" as a valid (but entirely unfair) answer to my question, without insisting on there being a deeper meaning on me missing out.

That's funny, because "I ran out of cupcakes" strikes me as a "particular reason". So, what is the particular reason why birds got wings and hamsters didn't?

You shake your head but that's exactly what mindless and blind processes do.

So, a process that can't see created eyes..and a process that can't think created consciousness. SMH. Again, the price of atheism.

You need to bring more to the table than simple incredulity.

It ain't incredulity, though. It is something even bolder than that...I am saying it is impossible for it to happen your way.

And that's exactly why evolution is the scientific answer, it is backed with observation, experimentation, and prediction.

It is? Lets take this one for a spin...

Have you ever observed a reptile-bird transformation in nature? No.

Have you ever conducted an experiment in nature that will get you a reptile-bird transformation? No.

Can you make any educated prediction as to when the "next" reptile-bird transformation will occur? No.

You are 0-3. Macroevolution ain't science, it is the naturalistic religion.

True enough, but I have personally done the experiment to scientifically observe (granted a tiny part of) evolution and the prediction matched the theory. You do accept that observation in science doesn't mean seeing with your own two eyeballs, right?

Well, I "observe" microevolution with my own two eyeballs. I observe it, I have knowledge of experiments as it relates to it, and I also have knowledge of predictions that were made as it relates to it.

Therefore, microevolution is certified; SCIENCE. It passed all 3 tests. Unlike you above, who went 0-3 in your "is it science?" test.

Microevolution...we can see it, we conduct experiments, and we can make predictions. SCIENCE!!!

Sure, IF I believe it despite no evidence, but I have evidence so that's moot.

And what evidence is that? *please don't say "fossils"*

You are just confirming my thesis - the reason you go beyond agnostic to active rejection of evolution and abiogenesis for one reason: because it does not gel with your religious belief.

I can accept evolution and still believe in Jesus Christ for my eternal salvation. Evolution has nothing to do with the atonement, sir.

That right there is part of the evidence for evolution - it says animals will produce after their own "kind" and that's exactly what we observe.

I don't consider (and neither does my interpretation of the creation account) consider a reptile and bird the same "kind" of animal. But you apparently believe that a reptile and bird are two peas in a pod.

I simply disagree.

There are of course additional things like genetics

Could very well mean common designer.

and fossils

Does not prove macroevolution.

, not to mentioned observed instances of speciation with bacteria experiments.

Speciation has nothing to do with macroevolution.

Of course the answer is no, there is a distinction! That's why there is a different term. No one has ever denied that. Evolution acknowledges there is distinction and explains how such distinctions can arise naturally. That's the point I was making: the mere existence of distinction between species is not a valid attack on the theory of evolution.

A reptile/bird are more than different "species"...they are different "kinds" of animals altogether. If you can't see that, then I don't know what else to tell ya LOL.

Ironically that's exactly the "distinction" games you are playing now. In every day life you'd have no problem accepting that "iphones and androids are different but both are phones; cars and buses are different but both are vehicles; iphones and buses are very different but both are machines."

Whether or not they are different or they are the same...no one is saying that one evolved naturally from the other. So faulty comparison.

But when it comes to evolution: "ostriches are ostriches and crocodiles are crocodiles. They are fundamentally different and that's all there is to it! YOU LOSE! GOOD DAY SIR!" But they are both verte... "I SAID GOOD DAY!"

The fact that they are fundamentally different is itself proof that they are different kinds of animals. And regardless of what you "call" them...prove that one evolved from the other. Can you? Nope.

So don't. I am not the one evoking anything beyond nature.

But you are evoking things beyond the kinds, which is beyond observation, experiment, and prediction...or what I'd like to call; The Big Three.

Why oh why would a species evolve something that does not work?! Isn't that the most basic thing about evolution, that features evolve because it works? I can even imagine what you had in mind that lead you to ask me this to give you a preemptive answer.

Calm down. I misspoke.

Then explain in detail what you found nonsensical about the article. (that was the article, right?)

I did during our last exchange. Something about the article also committing a lot of non sequiturs amongst other things.

And had rabbits evolved wings, that response would have been the perfectly sensible answer. I don't understand why you'd think it worth mentioning. I just told you traits that evolve, works for those organism; traits that are discarded, they don't work (or not as well.)

Those rabbits sure could use those wings...

No, that it's ridiculous because the implication was an organism can, via the power of his preference, will a feature such as wings to evolve.

You've just left science. You are right there with benchwarmer. You've left science and resorted to faith...relying on the unseen.

No, I would not. Instead I would have said "reptiles willing themselves to evolve wings by preferring to fly, that is just ridiculous!" And I would still say that now, after I came to realize reptiles evolved wings. You simply misunderstood what I said.

No, I had it correct. If they have wings, it is because they've found it useful for survival. If they don't have wings, it is because it just didn't "work for them". That is pretty much the whole idea of what you are saying.

Yet, a hamster that can fly from predators, I am sure that wings would "work for them" (hamsters). Yet, they have no wings. In fact, they are pretty much defenseless against predators. So back to my original question; why do some animals have wings and others don't?

Correct. 3 out of 3! The following conclusion however:

"Therefore, the 2-wheeled motorcycle and 4-wheeled honda civic are of the same kind," is perfectly logical.

I disagree...they aren't the same kind.

It would be nice if you could acknowledge that ostriches and crocodiles are indeed of the same kind (vertebrate,) could you bring yourself to say that?

What a coincidence!! I disagreed with what you said above, which only follows logically that I disagree with any synonymous scenario that you'd like to make as a result of what I previously disagreed with.

Do I really need to prove it when you accept that Grey wolves (vertebrate) evolved into Leonberger (vertebrate)? Seems like a waste of my time to prove something you already know to be true.

Yeah, but dogs evolving into "other dogs" is what I already stated to be an observational fact. You see, I believe that wolves are a "kind" of dog. They are all apart of the "dog" kind.

No, still quite amusing, but this doesn't need to be about me, you know; maybe just leave the chip off your shoulder for a moment? Take the time to understand what we are telling you. You don't need to compromise any of your religious belief to understand an alternative. I see you saying evolution doesn't make sense, we are here to explain it until it makes sense to you.

Take some time to understand what I am telling you; which is that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish.

That is what we can observe in nature. Anything beyond that is religion...faith...relying on the unseen.

If you can admit that it is faith, we can simply agree/disagree...and keep it moving. But continuing this path of "it is absolutely 100% positively true"...that is where you and me have problems.

Indeed it is, but repeating that doesn't make a fox any less a vertebrate. It's about time you stop holding on to the "kinds" argument.

N one said that it makes a fox any less of a vertebrate, but it does make it less than a bird..doesn't it?

You know full well that's not the extent of the evidence; just as you know full well we are not drawing the conclusion that crocodile and ostrich share a common ancestor simply because we observed that they are both vertebrates. So don't you "SMH" at me.

Bro, it is false!!! Regardless of how you got to the falsehood, you are still in falsehood. You can believe whatever you want about crocs and ostriches...I am simply saying; show me!! prove it!!

I repeat my earlier plead, this doesn't have to be a confrontation despite being in a debate forum.

You are right, it doesn't have to be confrontational. I just want evolutionists to admit that there is an element of faith; even to their beliefs. Think I will ever get it?

Don't just shut down the conversation by shaking your head, the mere existence of theistic evolutionists should be enough to prove that evolution isn't something that could be dismissed out of hand with a LOL.

I disagree with theistic evolutionists, too.

[Inigo Montoya]

FotK

Quick question attack-

How long do you think life has been on Earth?

If ^ is longer than 6000-1000 years (can't remember if you're a YEC, and I can't be bothered to hunt it right this second) do you accept that micro evolution (which you've acknowledged as science/certified) has been occurring nonstop, generation to generation, from beginning to present?

[Bust Nak]

SMH. So this is the price of atheism^.

It's a bonus, a perk.

No one is doubting the honesty answer...the truthfulness of the answer...that is what is in question.

The record shows otherwise, and I quote "and since it is false and being passed off as true, that makes the answer; dishonest."

Plenty of Christians out there who believe in evolution, and if I had reasons to believe it, I would be one of them.

That it is demonstrably true is a good reason.

Tell that to the mouse who just became the cat's dinner. It coulda used some "helpful for survival" wings.

Only because you asked nicely, "Hey! Dead mouse! Legs are good enough for your species survival!" Eaten mouse don't read internet posts, as expected. Now what?

They themselves are also plentiful food for the predators that eat them. Again, those wings..

No need, what they have are good enough.

Because I have reasons to take an even bolder position than that..instead of saying "I don't know, maybe, maybe not"..I am flat out saying "It didn't happen at all".

Okay, but I am not interested in religious reasons.

I don't.

If you don't want the theory to be complex, then why make such a big fuss over being given simple answers?

If the concept is so simple, it wouldn't take hundreds of millions of years to occur...

Your conclusion does not follow: simple does not imply quick, nor would complexity imply slow.

Right..and I am saying wings on hamsters can work...but wings are never "selected" for hamsters. So back to my question, why do some animals get wings and some animals don't?

The answer is still the same, wing works fine for some, legs works fine for others.

As the traits/characteristics get "deeper", then so does the meaning, which is the difference between going from a simple drawing of a stick figure to the Mona Lisa painting.

It's takes more step to draw a good painting than a stick figure, but how does that mean there is deeper meaning?

Well, imagine the kid who asked the question wasn't you, and it was another student who wasn't "smart enough" to make such a splitting hairs distinction that you apparently would have made at that age.

Same question applies.

The same answer would work, "no particular reason, I just ran out of cup cakes."

That's funny, because "I ran out of cupcakes" strikes me as a "particular reason". So, what is the particular reason why birds got wings and hamsters didn't?

If running out of cupcakes counts as "particular" then what's wrong with the particular reason you were already given: Wings work for birds and legs work for hamsters.

It ain't incredulity, though. It is something even bolder than that...I am saying it is impossible for it to happen your way.

I meant other than theology.

It is? Lets take this one for a spin...

Have you ever observed a reptile-bird transformation in nature?

Have you ever conducted an experiment in nature that will get you a reptile-bird transformation?

Can you make any educated prediction as to when the "next" reptile-bird transformation will occur?

You are 0-3. Macroevolution ain't science, it is the naturalistic religion.

You conclusion that macro evolution isn't science, does not follow from the premise that I have not any experience with reptile-bird transformation.

Try asking if I or other scientist have observed a macro-scale transformation in nature?

Try asking if I or other scientists have ever conducted an experiment in nature that will get you a macro-scale transformation?

Try asking if I or other scientists can make any educated prediction regarding macro-scale transformation?

Had you asked that instead you'd get 3 for 3.

Well, I "observe" microevolution with my own two eyeballs. I observe it, I have knowledge of experiments as it relates to it, and I also have knowledge of predictions that were made as it relates to it.

Therefore, microevolution is certified; SCIENCE. It passed all 3 tests.

So too is Macroevolution...we can see it, we conduct experiments, and we can make predictions. SCIENCE!!!

And what evidence is that? *please don't say "fossils"*

Request noted and denied. I will say fossils.

I can accept evolution and still believe in Jesus Christ for my eternal salvation. Evolution has nothing to do with the atonement, sir.

That's good to hear. One fewer objection to evolution.

I don't consider (and neither does my interpretation of the creation account) consider a reptile and bird the same "kind" of animal. But you apparently believe that a reptile and bird are two peas in a pod.

I simply disagree.

Facts are not things for you to agree or disagree on: reptile and bird are both vertebrates.

Could very well mean common designer.

Sure, it could. But unless you are implying that genetics cannot mean evolution,your response here brings nothing to the table.

[and fossils] Does not prove macroevolution.

You asked for evidence, not proofs. And if by "prove" you meant scientific evidence, then you are simply incorrect. Fossils does indeed "prove" macroevolution.

Speciation has nothing to do with macroevolution.

Incorrect. Speciation is the one most important aspect of macroevolution.

A reptile/bird are more than different "species"...they are different "kinds" of animals altogether. If you can't see that, then I don't know what else to tell ya LOL.

Tell me you give up and will never say one word about evolution ever again. Just a suggestion, I will accept that in lieu of you accepting the obvious.

Whether or not they are different or they are the same...no one is saying that one evolved naturally from the other. So faulty comparison.

Incorrect. The comparison here is to highlight whether they are the same kind or not. No one has ever implied that iphones evolved naturally form buses.

The fact that they are fundamentally different is itself proof that they are different kinds of animals. And regardless of what you "call" them...prove that one evolved from the other. Can you?

Why yes, assuming by "prove" you meant provide scientific evidence.

But you are evoking things beyond the kinds, which is beyond observation, experiment, and prediction...or what I'd like to call; The Big Three.

Incorrect. I am evoking things within the kinds (vertebrates,) confirmed by observation, experiment, and prediction.

I did during our last exchange. Something about the article also committing a lot of non sequiturs amongst other things.

There is a different between non sequiturs and things you reject because you can't envision it happening.

Those rabbits sure could use those wings...

Foxes regularly catches birds you know.

You've just left science. You are right there with benchwarmer. You've left science and resorted to faith...relying on the unseen.

I don't see where you are getting that impression from. Everything we have seen tells us rabbit can't evolve wings by preferring to fly.

No, I had it correct. If they have wings, it is because they've found it useful for survival. If they don't have wings, it is because it just didn't "work for them". That is pretty much the whole idea of what you are saying.

Yet, a hamster that can fly from predators, I am sure that wings would "work for them" (hamsters). Yet, they have no wings. In fact, they are pretty much defenseless against predators. So back to my original question; why do some animals have wings and others don't?

You've already stated the answer: For those animals with wings, it is because they've found it useful for survival. For those that don't have wings, it is because it just didn't "work for them." That IS indeed pretty much the whole idea. You keep shaking your head but you've never given me a reason why that's not acceptable to you.

I disagree...they aren't the same kind.

So which one isn't a kind of vehicle, the motocycle or the Honda?

What a coincidence!! I disagreed with what you said above, which only follows logically that I disagree with any synonymous scenario that you'd like to make as a result of what I previously disagreed with.

So which one isn't a kind of vertebrate? The crocodile or the ostrich?

Yeah, but dogs evolving into "other dogs" is what I already stated to be an observational fact. You see, I believe that wolves are a "kind" of dog. They are all apart of the "dog" kind.

Well there you go, vertebrate evolved into another vertebrate, proven!

Take some time to understand what I am telling you; which is that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish.

That is what we can observe in nature. Anything beyond that is religion...faith...relying on the unseen.

Easy enough to understand. Your turn, understand what I am telling you; which is that Macroevolution is what we can observe in nature. It is not beyond nature and hence that is not religion or faith. It is relying solely on the seen.

If you can admit that it is faith, we can simply agree/disagree...and keep it moving. But continuing this path of "it is absolutely 100% positively true"...that is where you and me have problems.

The problem between us is hardly worth mentioning when you have a problem with science.

N one said that it makes a fox any less of a vertebrate...

You say that, yet you insist it is a different kind to birds.

but it does make it less than a bird..doesn't it?

A fox doesn't have to be a bird to be the same kind as birds.

Bro, it is false!!! Regardless of how you got to the falsehood, you are still in falsehood. You can believe whatever you want about crocs and ostriches...I am simply saying; show me!! prove it!!

Lets start by the obvious similarity between crocs and ostriches, both lay eggs, 4 limbs, and since we are talking about vertebrates, their bone structures.

You are right, it doesn't have to be confrontational. I just want evolutionists to admit that there is an element of faith; even to their beliefs. Think I will ever get it?

No, you are never going to get that. But I am still hopeful you'd eventually drop the "kinds" argument against evolution.

I disagree with theistic evolutionists, too.

Right, but my point was, the existence of theistic evolutionists is surely enough to show that evolution isn't something that is trivially false.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 192 by For_The_Kingdom]

So, a process that can't see created eyes..and a process that can't think created consciousness. SMH. Again, the price of atheism.

Why on earth would you think that a "process" able to create eyes would itself need to see, or a process resulting in consciousness to think? You need to go from nonliving molecules to a relatively simple, replicating single-cell organism first, then let evolution explain how we got from that population of single-celled organisms to something that can talk (or see and think) some 4 billion years later.

If your god of choice created different "kinds" as you call them, did he/she/it posses every body part that each of these kinds have (wings, tails, a digestive system, etc.)? If not, then how could the god have created these creatures if it is a requirement that any creator have the same body parts and functions it is creating? See how that doesn't make any sense?

Eye development can begin with light sensitive molecules that would not be called eyes by any definition ... just molecules that can react differently in the presence of light than in darkness. Eventually collections of these can localize and became primitive eye patches with a little more functionality. After many thousands or millions of generations full-blown eyes can emerge, each step in the process providing a little more advantage to the organism and so surviving across generations.

Evolution has carried out analogous steps many times to create many different forms of seeing mechanisms that we call eyes (eg. the compound eyes of insects, multiple individual eyes, etc.). It is relatively commonplace, and no need for the process itself to have sight.

[For_The_Kingdom]

You are living under the assumption of a false dichotomy.

Apparently you view science as secular materialism (which it isn't). So you've already made a grave error of misunderstanding there.

Naturalism (metaphysical) and materialism...is just like "shut up" and "be quiet". Same thing, different terminology.

Secondly, you seem to believe that either secular materialism is true, or Hebrew mythology is true, and specifically the offshoot of Hebrew mythology that became Christianity. Again, this is a grave error on your part. Thinking that the truth of reality must either be secular materialism or a specific offshoot of Hebrew mythology is your second grave error of misunderstanding.

Um, no. My gripes against evolution stems from the argument from design...and based on that argument, the designer is unidentified. So you don't necessary get to Christian theism based on the argument alone.

So no, it has nothing to do with "Hebrew mythology"...even though I happen to believe that the designer is in fact the Judeo-Christian God, for other reasons.

There are countless other possibilities.

Sure there are...but I have reasons to believe in this possibility (Christianity).

Many of which make far more sense than the offshoot of Hebrew mythology called Christianity.

Unless you can provide a logical contradiction as it relates to Christianity, what "makes sense" and what doesn't make sense is entirely subjective.

So you are living your life based on an entirely false dichotomy.

Um, no I'm not. It would be a false dichotomy if my argument was "Christian theism, or metaphysical naturalism"...because obviously, there are more options than Christian theism.

But instead, my argument is "Naturalism, or supernaturalism"...which is in fact the case...as there are no options that fall outside of those two categories.

So you, sir, are factually incorrect. Get ur fallacies together (never thought I would have to tell someone that).

Also, there is nothing in science that says that there cannot be a creator God. So science itself does not proclaim secular materialism.

Which was never the case/claim that I ever made. So bringing up this point is not only irrelevant, but a straw man.

The reason the God of Hebrew mythology cannot be true is because that mythology proves itself false via the countless contradictory claims it makes about it's God character.

I would prefer specifics, not generalizations.

Not to mention that its God character behaves like an immature spoiled brat who is totally absorbed in his own ego as the most important think on his mind.

Hmm, you raise an interesting point; a point worth exploring. So, God behaves like an immature spoiled brat, right? But then again..Leviticus 26:3-13...


3 “‘If you remember my laws and commands and obey them, 4 I will give you rains at the right season; the land will produce crops, and the trees of the field will produce their fruit. 5 Your threshing will continue until the grape harvest, and your grape harvest will continue until it is time to plant. Then you will have plenty to eat and live safely in your land. 6 I will give peace to your country; you will lie down in peace, and no one will make you afraid. I will keep harmful animals out of your country, and armies will not pass through it.

7 “‘You will chase your enemies and defeat them, killing them with your sword. 8 Five of you will chase a hundred men; a hundred of you will chase ten thousand men. You will defeat your enemies and kill them with your sword.

9 “‘Then I will show kindness to you and let you have many children; I will keep my agreement with you. 10 You will have enough crops to last for more than a year. When you harvest the new crops, you will have to throw out the old ones to make room for them. 11 Also I will place my Holy Tent among you, and I will not turn away from you. 12 I will walk with you and be your God, and you will be my people. 13 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, where you were slaves. I broke the heavy weights that were on your shoulders and let you walk proudly again.

So, if God is a spoiled, immature brat when he is being disobeyed and renders discipline...then what is he when he renders blessings, when he is being obeyed?

Does that make him a kind, loving, caring parent??

Hmm. I think there is a bigger question here...as it relates to how we view love, discipline, and rewards. Maybe I will create a thread..

I mean seriously, as religions go you could do far better to be sure.

Again, subjective.

Pitting a clearly flawed Hebrew mythology against science is truly nothing more than an act of extreme ignorance.

Maybe, maybe not. But since that ain't what I am doing anyway..it is irrelevant.

All you've managed to do is twist Christianity into being propaganda machine to spew hatred toward science and the intellectual pursuit of knowledge.

I love science.

In short, you are demanding that Christianity represents a religion that despises truth and demonizes truth.

What truth?

All because you have embraced the idea that some self-centered egotistical monster created humans for his own personal enjoyment, which apparently includes a sadistic desire to watch humans suffer, potentially for all of eternity.

Oh, that is what God is to you?

Christianity is one seriously sick religion to be sure.

Subjective.

"There must be a God, therefore Christianity is true"

That was never my mindset or argumentation. Straw man.

, is not even close to being a logical statement. Yet that appears to be the only argument you have to support this self-contradicting mythology.

LOL.

[For_The_Kingdom]

FotK

Quick question attack-

How long do you think life has been on Earth?

I honestly don't know.

If ^ is longer than 6000-1000 years (can't remember if you're a YEC, and I can't be bothered to hunt it right this second) do you accept that micro evolution (which you've acknowledged as science/certified) has been occurring nonstop, generation to generation, from beginning to present?

If I had to put money on it, my money is on OEC, all day. But no, I just don't accept that micro evolution has been occurring nonstop, generation, from beginning to present.

From what I can tell, OEC is consistent with long, micro evolutionary changes from beginning to end.

[Bust Nak]

If I had to put money on it, my money is on OEC, all day. But no, I just don't accept that micro evolution has been occurring nonstop, generation, from beginning to present.

From what I can tell, OEC is consistent with long, micro evolutionary changes from beginning to end.

What is OEC, if not another name for theistic evolution?

[Inigo Montoya]

,

From what I can tell, OEC is consistent with long, micro evolutionary changes from beginning to end.

Ok, great. So billions of years, countless millions of generational mutations in an organism's ancestry from the earliest life to present day, yes?

[Pipiripi]

...

Moderator removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complimenting or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.