Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The conviction of your Faith

2»

Comments

  • #32
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,031 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    santing wrote: »
    A possible reference to shifting plate tectonics is found in:
    The division of peoples is referenced in Gen 10:5.
    Plate tectonices don't necessiate people. Ever hear of a non-sequitur?
    I think the eye speaks definitely of design, and the blind spot has a vital function - why would that be a bad design?
    The retina is 'inside out'. The nerves and blood vessels lie on the surface of the retina instead of behind it as is the case in many invertebrate species. This arrangement forces a number of complex adaptations and gives mammals a blind spot.

    Mindless, slow gradual evolution is far better explaination, even without bringing the array of fossils and DNA evidence into it.

    Take your nutty creationism to the creationist thread.


  • #33
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    PDN wrote: »
    That makes no sense whatsoever.
    It makes quite a lot of sense, though you may have to read it through :)
    PDN wrote: »
    Those who hold each proposition should be open to discuss their reasons for doing so and, if faced with sufficient evidence to the contrary, to modify or even abandon their beliefs.
    So, what would constitute "evidence to the contrary" sufficient for you to abandon your current religious beliefs, or at even some of them?


  • #34
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    +1

    I'm amazing this point isn't brought up more often.

    Probably because it isn't a very good point.


  • #35
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Probably because it isn't a very good point.

    Touche :rolleyes:


  • #36
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    robindch wrote: »
    It makes quite a lot of sense, though you may have to read it through.
    I've read it through a number of times. It still makes no sense. It does, however, sound profound in a kind of 'Emperors New Clothes' way.
    So, what would constitute "evidence to the contrary" sufficient for you to abandon your current religious beliefs, or at even some of them?
    All I would need is evidence that outweighed, in my opinion, the evidence I see for my beliefs. I have abandoned, or changed, a number of my religious views over the years.

    I would see the following as the kinds of evidence that would be sufficient to severely challenge my assessment of the balance of evidence or even to tip the scales.

    a) If none of my prayers were ever answered - or even if the 'answered' prayers were simply consistent with the law of averages.
    b) If it was proven that all the testimonies I have heard from people I respect as to the changes God has wrought in their lives were all lies.
    c) If conclusive evidence was produced to demonstrate that Jesus did not in fact die on the Cross but actually lived to a good old age.
    d) If the Flying Spaghetti Monster appeared to me in person, took me on a ride to the moon, and then parted the Atlantic ocean for me.
    e) If conclusive evidence was produced that demonstrated a clear anachronism in the Gospel accounts (partiicularly in respect to the Resurrection accounts). this could be something similar to Shakespeare's chiming clock in Julius Caesar.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    santing wrote: »
    Have a look at On the Design of the Vertebrate Retina

    You should try reading outside of creationist material. Not being sarcastic but that stuff just doesn't pass muster for anyone with a vague knowledge of biology. I don't like playing the link war but there a loads of very readable sources on the evolution of the eye. Start with this Wikipedia page:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

    If you feel you've got the gist, try following up on some of the sources at the end. Obviously you should go in with a skeptical mind, but not a dismissive one. I think you'll be surprised as to just how straightforward and compelling the material is.

    There's no doubt that our eye design is far from optimal. In fact I'd say it has presented us with some minor disadvantages. So long as a disadvantage is not significant enough to outweigh, say, advanced intelligence, the selection against it will be weak. For as complex a problem as the reverted retina, the selection would need to be real strong to set it back. The eye seems to have evolved independently a few times. Invertebrate eyes spookily similar to our own can be seen in octopus species, but they never got the blind spot problem. Arthropod eyes are stranger still- a real example of the diversity of solutions that evolution can throw up to solve the same problem. Chaotic processes with selection are great for that.


  • #38
    santing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 671 ✭✭✭santing


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    You should try reading outside of creationist material. Not being sarcastic but that stuff just doesn't pass muster for anyone with a vague knowledge of biology. I don't like playing the link war but there a loads of very readable sources on the evolution of the eye. Start with this Wikipedia page:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

    If you feel you've got the gist, try following up on some of the sources at the end. Obviously you should go in with a skeptical mind, but not a dismissive one. I think you'll be surprised as to just how straightforward and compelling the material is.
    Thanks for the link.
    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    ... For as complex a problem as the reverted retina, the selection would need to be real strong to set it back. The eye seems to have evolved independently a few times.
    Wow - and I thought the odds of one evolved eye would already be extremely low. Imagine having to evolve several different eyes independently!


  • #39
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    santing wrote: »
    Imagine having to evolve several different eyes independently!
    That rather suggests that evolving a light-sensitive cells is actually relatively easy.

    Did you get time to read the Wikipedia article?


  • #40
    santing
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 671 ✭✭✭santing


    robindch wrote: »
    Did you get time to read the Wikipedia article?

    Yes I did, and googled for more articles on eye evolution. I am not convinced though.

    But that should be taken up in another lenghty thread!


  • #41
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    santing wrote: »
    But that should be taken up in another lenghty thread!

    You got it. To BC&P thread!


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    sorella
    Closed Accounts Posts: 923 ✭✭✭sorella


    "Sin" came and comes from disobedience to God. He did not create it; we do.

    Jesus speaks of seeing Lucifer falling to earth; that disobedient angel polluted all he touched.

    Pollution caused by greed, sin, has all but wrecked the earth; producing an imbalance.

    You put poison in your body; you get sick because you are disobeying the laws for your body'

    When the earth is polluted and poisoned, it creates imbalance. Simple and deadly.

    we make choices and often it is others who suffer from bad choices

    .
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    You really should read Genesis 3 you know. Without actually knowing Good&Evil, Adam and Eve sinned. Where did sin come from, if it wasn't put in the "original design"?


Advertisement