Printable View
Define "just not as well" - and then we could perhaps have some sort of Platonic dialogue on whether or not a thing that functions "not as well as it should" is actually "functioning" in any way that is germane to the thing's proper mode of operation.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
If I were to remove your cataracts and not put in an artificial lens, for example, you would be unable to drive a car, but you would be able to keep from being run over by one (an important function of the eye). If I were to remove your iris as well, you would be unable to adjust to how close or far away an object is to you, but you wouldn't be totally blind. If I were to remove all the structures in your eye except for the retina, you would not have functional vision, but you would be able to tell the difference between light and dark, which would be useful if you happened to be a small, cave-dwelling arthropod who eats plants that grow in the light.
On the other hand, if I could, by some very complicated operation, remove only the colour-sensitive cells in your retina, you would still have perfectly functional vision, it's just that the glories of technicolor film would be lost on you.
OK - then let's hypothesize for a moment: since removing any of the parts you mentioned (which, by the way you did not mention all of the parts available for removal and one must wonder if there are other parts of the eyes' structure that are affected by the disabling of a less-than-necessary part) significantly limits the creature's ability to function, then how does that jive with natural selection? A creature that doesn't see well cannot be expected to survive long.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
And, even if that supposition is weak (I think it is) I still contend that the untold thousands of random positive mutations that had to occur for the eye to develop requires me to believe in odds that I find unacceptable. Are the odds for the existence of God greater or lesser than the incredible odds that have to exist for evolution to be correct?
1) this has been so twisted to make it sound wrong that its tough to see what cupofjoe was even talking about in the first place. you just built a STRAW MAN of the michael behe eye argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
2) mutations are natural events. the odds of somthing natural explaining events leading up to "us" seem better to me than the odds of something unatural and made-up explaining "us."
My lack of sophistication makes this point of yours difficult for me to see. If you'd explain it in more detail I'd be very appreciative.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
Only if all of reality can only be comprehended via the "natural." I'm not sure how I'm not supposed to see the incredible leap of faith required to believe that blind force and random chance resulted in the complexity of human beings - that to me appears no more reasonable than the idea of a supernatural being. I suggest that you (and other evolutionists) like evolution because "we" came up with the explanation - and I will admit there's a certain comfort in feeling like you've explained everything all by yourself. Nonetheless, the explanation offered by humanity is just as incredible as creation - but because we can "see" a good chunk of it, we take comfort from that (despite the massive obstacles that must be overcome to accept it as true) rather than the (perhaps) larger leap of faith that the believer must make.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
Why don't you tell me what the odds of God existing are as compared to the odds of all these random mutations? I'm still waiting on those numbers.
really.....mutations 95% of the time are harmful to the organism it affects, and usually are lethal. Also something i would like to ask is this: why do we have gay people today? If natural selection and evolution were true, nature would have "weeded" out so to speak the ones that could not reproduce (homosexuals).Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
Ah, Summa Theologica. The old faithful infinite regression, or in your words, the god of the first cause....Quote:
Originally Posted by watkinsguy
Everything must have a cause, so what caused the first cause?
It is a tricky ontological question, because we don't actually know the answer to the question. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, we don't even really understand the question.
The way I look at it is that if at the dawn of creation of the entire universe, some entity lit the fuse and the universe has proceeded on its own ever since then, he's not much of a god for anyone to worry about, so I don't.
When you see a painting, you know there was a painter, but do you need to know that he had a father, who that father was, who his father was, who his grandfather was, back to homo erectus and beyond? do you need to know that the tempura paint was created from an egg, which was laid by a chicken and how that chicken came into being?
Infinite regress is infinitely dumb.
what on earth are you talking about? its very simple logic that I would like to be answered. Don't try and put it down, all you did was prove that the arguement I put forth is valid because no where in that post did you ever present a valid counter-arguement.
i doubt mutations are harmful 95% of the time. even so, they exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by watkinsguy
gay people ey? well, i think it is a contemporary phenomenon that gays have decided to be exclusively homosexual. back in the day and in the animal world today we see not gays, but bisexuals. bonobo monkees have sex with everybody. they're also just as smart as chimps but 99% less aggressive. sex makes them calm, cool, collective. point is, exclusive homoesexuality hasnt been going on long eneogh to have any evolutionary significance on population numbers. keep in mind, evolution is a process that takes hundreds of thousands of years. homo sapien sapien only's been around, what...? couple hundred thousand years.
1) you lobbed me in there with the evolutionist just becaus i questioned creation. i actually responed to this poll that i wasnt sure. see how religion is forced to deal in absolutes like siths. its neccessary in order to have some cause for your tribe to rally around. kind of like how in 1984 the oceanics need war to stay focused and together. my apologies for using a made up story to help make my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
2) the straw-man was created thusly: you took one part of the "eye argument" brought up by cup of joe and twisted it into something that it wasnt. that is fallicious.
3) odds? what odds? odds of mutation making man: who knows, but some percentage exist, no matter how low, but lets say .001 % for argument sake. odds of an all powerful god consciously deciding it was time to make man : 0%...because this all-powerful god is an idea that hasnt been proven in reality. mutations have been proven. my money's on reality over ideality.
ok billyjack look up the % of mutations that are actually beneficial to an organism and get back to me.....one last question for you to answer and then I will get back to debating whatever nonsense you through out:why do we still have other animals if we evolved from them? i am very aware that this is one of the most over asked questions of evolution, and know the response I am going to get (i think). I do, however, want to know what your spin is on the subjectQuote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
spin on the subject? thanks for asking for my opinion, but its not really an opinion, its more of an accepted truth based on the evidence (note: there is evidence for these claims being tossed about). . . there are still primates even though humans are around because we split in the evolutionary tree far before monkees were monkees and people people. we shared a common ancestor that was neither monkey or human. so we share the same branch, but we are on different stems.Quote:
Originally Posted by watkinsguy
His argument was that you can "remove" certain components of the eye and have it still "function" as a sort of refutation to irreducible complexity; I simply noted that 1) there are other components he did not address and I wondered if they were affected (since many of the eye's structures are inter-relative) and 2) that wouldn't the centuries (at minimum) of imperfect vision have detracted from a creature's ability to survive - given that natural selection indicates that those ill-fit for survival would not. How is that Straw man?Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
Oh no, my friend - .001% is far too high. As I have quoted elsewhere, evolutionists (not creationists, mind you) have calculated the odds of evolution creating life at between 1 in 10 to the 250th power to 1 in 10 to the 100,000,000,000 power. I think that's a wee bit smaller than .001% - don't you? Second, your odds for God are skewed by your humanist presupposition - your bias won't allow for the existence of a Divine Being, so you decide the odds are 0. As well, since you don't have exhaustive knowledge of the entire galaxy and its contents, you cannot suggest 0% odds because to claim God doesn't exist is to claim that you know of all that does exist. Do you? As far as the "hasn't been proven in reality" bit - well, neither has the untestable, unprovable and unverifiable hypothesis that life evolved billions of years ago throught the action of random, blind force. Your argument eats itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
Your money is on a "reality" that is limited in scope and limited in its full understanding; the observable world is the tip of a very large iceberg that many people like to pretend doesn't exist. It does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
if we share common ancestors like you suggest, why havent we found hundreds if not thousands of missing links? i mean even if you do believe in Cro Magnon man and all that, that really doesnt seem to account for the "thousands of years" between apes and humans now does it? one would expect to find at least a whole race of missing links not just a couple.
1) it wouldnt be seen as imperfect vision. perfect vision is a human idea. back when the eye was coming about it would have been seen as a major improvement on what there was before. of course these animals with the eyes wouldn't be thinking this, but this is what we would think if we took a gander back in time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
2)ok, so .01 10 to the hundredth, whatever. still better odds than zero. why would i need consious knowledge of the entire universe to know that a divine being doesnt exist. human beings are microcosms of the universe. i look at people, i don't see some supernatural god, i see natural gods. from this, i risk overgeneralizing and say that all that is exist natural, is of the universe... nothing exist outside the universe. no being or all powerful somebody. i know this because we do fine without one, so why would we need one. it would be redundant to make a creator when "it" creates on its own, and the universe isnt redundant.
yes, but there is evidence. not written evidence like some tend to like so much, but fossil evidence...unquestionalbe evidence.
3) so where is the proof of the rest of this iceberg? at least with a real iceburg we know that more exist underwater from experience. where is the experience to prove this divine you speak of. why does there need to be a divine. what's so wrong with natural. why this disdain for experience? i call it lacking the will to life. you say no to life and yes to that which is not life. god is life you said. you say this, but then you seem to hold the natural world--the observed world--life-- in disdain. and instead you hold in regard that which is unnatural, unobservable...your argument seems to eat itself too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by billyjack
lol try a spell check sometime :) care to elaborate on this "unquestionable evidence"?