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 Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…8990929495…232

Comments

  • #2732
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Masteroid wrote: »
    You know, four-legs are better than two when it comes to running. Who's bright idea was it to make us stand up?

    And in the act of procreation too. By far the worst consequence of going bi-pedal is that the human pelvis is no longer properly shaped for the passage of the foetus through it during birth. This causes a lot of pain and suffering for women, and until very recently many deaths during childbirth (in third world countries the deaths still happen).

    Oh, J C would you use antibiotics if so prescribed by a doctor, and they were the only known cure for the disease or condition they were prescribed for?


  • #2733
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    I'm beginning to wonder what purpose this thread serves, aside from keeping this silliness from spreading to the rest of the forum.

    JC, I would advise you to read the forum charter, in particular what it says about soapboxing. You'll be expected to back up your assertions in the future with something other than smart remarks, acronyms known only to yourself, and smilies. If not, then your time here is coming to an end.

    As for everyone else, dial back the rudeness and insults. If you feel that someone os being a troll, report it, don't feed it.


  • #2734
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Sounds about right. Didn't your God spend pretty much the first half of the bible killing and maiming anything with a heartbeat? What a loving God! I really feel his love!
    You will feel His infinite love if you repent and ask for it ... and if you don't, you will feel His infinite justice.
    The choice is entirely yours.
    ... but calling good evil and evil good ... is just confusing yourself.


  • #2735
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    god breaks physics. You can either have reality or god, not both. Choose.
    God can break more than physics ... He is the sovereign Creator of everything, including the physical laws that govern our physical reality ... as well as the moral laws that govern our spiritual reality.

    Without God nobody has a full and adequate explanation of reality.

    Materialistic explanations are only partial explanations, when you are an eternal spirit in a mortal body ... with an eternal destiny ... and when there is an Omnipotent God to whom we must all give an account.

    The real choices are between light and darkness ... God and Satan ... Heaven and Hell.
    Reality is what God Created ... and what Man squandered at the Fall ... only to be given a second chance at the crucifixion and ressurrection.


  • #2736
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    Without God nobody has a full and adequate explanation of reality.
    And thus, the fallacy underpinning your thesis is revealed in its barest form.

    Without God, we cannot fully explain reality. But with God, we wouldn't even be trying to fill those gaps.


  • Advertisement
  • #2737
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,105 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    Take the debate about the existence / non-existence of God here or to A&A please.


  • #2738
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Masteroid wrote: »
    I think that what doctoremma actually 'confirmed' was that spontaneous events led to the evolution of the eye.

    And why is a hawk's eyesight better than yours?
    It may well be Natural Selection (NS) that accounts for this because the higher 'selection pressure' on acuity of sight for Hawks has preserved their perfectly created God-given sight ... but Natural Selection doesn't account for the origin of their perfectly created sight, or their vision, which is generated by their brain, in the first place.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    And please don't suggest that there are no advantages to humans in having 'hawk-eyes'. If that were the case, we wouldn't have needed Gallileo to popularise the telescope.
    There are advantages to good sight and some people have excellent sight ... but other features have greater natural and sexual selection advantages than very acute sight in Humans. Again, none of this accounts for the Creation of sight, in the first place.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    And why is our hearing second-rate when compared to a dog?
    Once again, the 'selection pressure' to maintain the perfect hearing endowed on both dogs and Man at Creation was obviously significantly more acute for dogs than men!!!
    Masteroid wrote: »
    You know, four-legs are better than two when it comes to running. Who's bright idea was it to make us stand up?
    Firstly, running isn't the 'be all and end all' of useful traits for Humans ... and secondly, being pi-pedal hasn't stopped Humans running a four minute mile - which is more than fast enough, as far as I'm concerned.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    Dogs are good at smelling too. And sharks have lateral sensors that would come in really useful to a violent animal with imperialistic tendencies - why did God not give them to us too?
    I think you may have answered your own question there.:)

    Masteroid wrote: »
    Did He favour sharks, dogs and hawks over humans when He settled on His architecture of anatomies?
    We have no need for eyesight sufficient to identify a mouse at a hundred paces, like a Hawk ... nor to smell out carrion at a thousand paces, like a Dog!!!

    Masteroid wrote: »
    Our blood is hundreds of times more receptive to CO2 than oxygen - was God having a laugh?
    It works fine for Healthy Humans.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    Nice one God, you designed us so that our own breath will kill us.
    Many things can kill us ... and death is a direct result of the Fall!!!
    Masteroid wrote: »
    And what is 'free-will' then but a limitation of potential? We are like goldfish in a bowl being allowed to do whatever we want.
    We are fearfully and wonderfully made in the image and likeness of our Creator ... and we bear no comparison to a goldfish ... or any other created creature.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    Why would a just, merciful and loving God create us that way?
    I'm very happy with the way God made me ... and I see little room for any meaningful improvement ... except the removal of disease and death ... but God has ruled that this isn't possible due to our current evil tendencies.

    Masteroid wrote: »
    If God was willing to go to the trouble of cleansing Mary's mother's womb of sin in preperation for the birth of Mary whom would be made pregnant by God Himself to atone for sin then why couldn't He have gone the whole hog and cleansed all mothers of sin?
    He did ... He died on a cross to do so ... and all women and men can be cleansed of sin if they repent and believe on Jesus Christ.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    Oh, and what can you categorically say about the heart of a triceratops?
    I understand that it was a four-chambered heart, like another endothermic Dinosur that has been found with a four-chambered heart.
    Equally, an animal of such great size and built for rapid movement would have required a four-chambered heart to achieve sufficient oxygenation of its body tissues.
    I would also point out that fossilisation of internal soft tissue, like a heart is very rare ... even under the rapid fossilisation conditions during The Flood ... and I'm not aware of any Triceratops heart fossils being discovered ... but a fossilised four-chambered heart is believed to have been found in a Thescelosaurus fossil.
    http://creation.com/fascinating-four-chambered-fossil-find


  • #2739
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    Why did God make so many different types of eyes, some of them completely nonsensical in design? Can you tell me what God was thinking when the design for flatfish and their wandering eyes was finalised?


  • #2740
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Why did God make so many different types of eyes, some of them completely nonsensical in design? Can you tell me what God was thinking when the design for flatfish and their wandering eyes was finalised?
    The flatfish eye repositioning is a result of mutagnesis ... and thus is a degeneration of the original perfect positioning. It offers them the advantage of being able to see while lying flat on the seabed ... but it is a loss of the original perfect design.


  • #2741
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    The flatfish eye repositioning is a result of mutagnesis ... and thus are a degeneration of the original perfect positioning. It offers them the advantage of being able to see while lying flat on the seabed ... but it is a loss of the original perfect design.
    So the mutation process happened first, before they took to lying flat on the sea bed? Do you have any feel for how many mutations this might require? You think 6000 years is enough?

    And my first question about imperfectly-designed symmetrical eyes?


  • Advertisement
  • #2742
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    So the mutation process happened first, before they took to lying flat on the sea bed?
    Possibly ... this is a 'chicken and egg' type of situation.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    Do you have any feel for how many mutations this might require?
    Not a lot ... flat fish have suffered the genetic/phenotypic equivalent of a serious whack with a sledge-hammer ... and this doesn't take a lot of time ... but it does involve a lot of damage / and Complex Functional Specified Design loss.


  • #2743
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,254 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    J C wrote: »
    Possibly ... this is a 'chicken and egg' type of situation.

    Not a lot ... flat fish have suffered the genetic/phenotypic equivalent of a serious whack with a sledge-hammer ... and this doesn't take a lot of time ... but it does involve a lot of damage / and Complex Functional Specified Design loss.

    :D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
    Comedy gold!


  • #2744
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    Not a lot ... flat fish have suffered the genetic/phenotypic equivalent of a serious whack with a sledge-hammer ... and this doesn't take a lot of time ... but it does involve a lot of damage / and Complex Functional Specified Design loss.
    Biologists have estimated the time required for this evolution to be approx 50 million years, based on fossil records.

    I'm guessing you think it happened a lot quicker. How quickly, and when have Creationists observed this happening?


  • #2745
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    J C wrote: »
    It may well be Natural Selection (NS) that accounts for this because the higher 'selection pressure' on acuity of sight for Hawks has preserved their perfectly created God-given sight ... but Natural Selection doesn't account for the origin of their perfectly created sight, or their vision, which is generated by their brain, in the first place.

    Er no, I think you'll find that the image is transduced by the eye and the quality of the eye affects the quality of vision. When we go blind it is almost always due to faulty components in the eye systems.

    Also, I understood that your position is that before the fall there were no meat-eaters so I'm just wondering, what were the environmental pressures that required perfect vision for a hawk? Why would a hawk need to be able to spot a mouse at a 1000 paces in the garden of Eden?

    And did God create moles to have poor vision? Why give them eyes at all?

    Did you consider that poor vision might have been what drove moles underground? That and the fact that hawks have perfect vision.
    J C wrote: »
    There are advantages to good sight and some people have excellent sight ... but other features have greater natural and sexual selection advantages than very acute sight in Humans. Again, none of this accounts for the Creation of sight, in the first place.

    Ther are only advantages to having good sight.

    You seem to suggest that human eyesight was created perfect like a hawk's but environmental pressure caused a reduction in eye efficiency to be naturally selected.

    You also seem to be saying that natural selection is not applied to hawks' eyes at all since they remained perfect.

    This adds up to a view that natural selection favours changes that are disadvantageous to survival and that's a new one for me.

    And if lions and tigers and bears existed on a fruit and veg diet before the fall then why didn't God put their eyes on the sides of their heads like He did with all the other herbivores?

    Or, if cows and goats and horses were herbivores like lions and tigers and bears were before the fall then why were they disadvantaged in their search for food when God decided not to place their eyes at the front of the head rendering them a less efficient way to spot food?

    In short, even pre-fall, lions had an eyesight advantage so what purpose was meant to be served by putting eyes on the sides of a herbivore's head if there is no threat of predation?
    J C wrote: »
    Once again, the 'selection pressure' to maintain the perfect hearing endowed on both dogs and Man at Creation was obviously significantly more acute for dogs than men!!!

    And again, you are suggesting that natural selection no longer operates on the canine olfactory system.

    But then of course you would have to explain why some dogs smell better than others.
    J C wrote: »
    Firstly, running isn't the 'be all and end all' of useful traits for Humans ... and secondly, being pi-pedal hasn't stopped Humans running a four minute mile - which is more than fast enough, as far as I'm concerned.

    Not if you are being chased by a lion that can do it in two.

    Also, if you look at the history of world records for running I think that you'll find that as a species we are getting better at running.

    And it is not being the fastest that is important to survival, it is being 'not the slowest'.
    J C wrote: »
    I think you may have answered your own question there.:)

    God didn't give us lateral sensors because we have imperialistic tendencies? But God gives us free-will and intelligence which we use to create nuclear bombs?

    Okay, let's say there is a law about humans and free-will that even God can't violate, why did He endow us with the intelligence to develop the machines of violence that we have today?

    I mean, lions have free-will but I can't imagine lions building particle accelerators etc.

    Genesis 8:20-21

    Then Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And the Lord smelled a soothing aroma. Then the Lord said in His heart, “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake, although the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again destroy every living thing as I have done.

    What 'man's heart' does God refer to here? All 'man's hearts'? The only men that exist here are Noah and his sons and God considers their hearts evil from their youth.

    What was the point of the flood again? Why did God baulk at the opportunity to cleanse the world of evil?

    Genesis 6:13

    And God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; and behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

    This makes it appear that God was tackling violence rather than evil. But even so, why not cause the human heart not to have inclinations towards evil? If God really feels the need to keep Satan around then why didn't He just remove the gene that makes us vulnerable to temptation which leads to corruption from the eight progenitors of all modern humans?

    It appears that God has more use for evil than He does for man. The text I quoted even indicates that we are incubators of evil by design.
    J C wrote: »
    We have no need for eyesight sufficient to identify a mouse at a hundred paces, like a Hawk ... nor to smell out carrion at a thousand paces, like a Dog!!!

    And what need of these to dogs and hawks pre-fall?

    And what did God do to the animals post-fall that made the predator/prey relationship come into existence?

    I wonder what the mouse did to tick God off, they have it much worse than we do. Or is it simply a case of God punishing the innocent more than He punished Adam's kind?
    J C wrote: »
    It works fine for Healthy Humans.

    If he is in an environment where the atmosphere is 5% CO2 then a healthy human will die because he is breathing poison in a quite literal sense.

    Why would God design haemoglobin in such a way as to be better at transporting CO2 than oxygen?

    How can you say that our survival is reliant on a substance that would rather kill us is the result of intelligent design?
    J C wrote: »
    Many things can kill us ... and death is a direct result of the Fall!!!

    Throwing in an evidetially unsupported hypothesis doesn't really help.

    Fact is, biology can account for death without recourse to a 'Fall'. Systemic failures are what cause death. Or are you saying that Adam could have survived accidental decapitation pre-fall?

    How death came about is not at issue. That's well covered, living causes death.

    It seems strange that God will not destroy Satan because he was created an eternal being and yet Adam was apparently created to be immortal but God found Himself able to destroy him.

    Actually, the primary cause of his death was the fact that he was created a living being like you and I were.

    And really, that's all the bible has to say on the subject. Somehow, water was mixed with dust and living matter was created. That's all. So however you look at it, IDism, and you, have to seriously warp the meaning of the text of the bible to make it support ID.

    The bible quite plainly says that mankind is made of dust and water just like every other living organism on the planet.

    God must have put the dust and water through a particular process in order to produce Adam. Scientists refer to this process as 'evolution'.

    And instead of 'God', they say 'a set of circumstances existed on earth that gave rise to a molecular process that performed rudimentary replication.

    Perhaps if you thought of 'cell-division' as being the result of instability, you might see just how possible it is for life to come about on earth.

    Would it be so difficult for you to imagine a naturally occurring spherical structure made of hydrophobic molecules? Imagine that as these structure form they 'capture' small molecules creating a miniature capsule.

    The captured molecules give certain properties to these capsule. Ions and magnetic moments would cause these capsules to exhibit certain varied types of behaviour.

    Now suppose that just one of these capsules acquired the property of only being able to form an efficient bond with a molecule that matches its internal one. So you have this capsule in a sea of water, hydrophobes and lots of other kinds of molecules forming weak bonds with random molecules but then one day it meets the right one, an exact match. The old molecule is knocked off and the new one bonds with the capsule with enough energy to pass through the hydrophobic wall.

    Pure fantasy I know but just imagine.

    Now suppose that once inside the capsule, the new molecule experiences a mutual repulsive force with the original occupant of the capsule and they push away from each other. Consider them as positive ions, let's say.

    Now, as the molecules push away from each other, they cause the hydrophobic membane to be stretched' and this causes 'gaps' to appear along the boundary and water threaten to flood in and break open the capsule.

    However, there are other hydrophobes available that 'perceive' these gaps as an opportunity to achieve a lower energy state and as the gaps open up, new hydrophobes rush in and seal them.

    And when the membrane becomes a certain shape, it experiences a 'pinching' force from the water which sort of 'snips' it at the middle, a couple more hydrophobes insert a cork and two capsules now exist that will go off in search of the same molecule.

    And there you have it, a theoretical possibility of a process that looks a lot like cell-division that could come about by chance.

    As far as I'm concerned, that's all you need.

    Oh, that, millions and millions of years and random changes and you have life.
    J C wrote: »
    We are fearfully and wonderfully made in the image and likeness of our Creator ... and we bear no comparison to a goldfish ... or any other created creature.

    More unsupported conjecture.
    J C wrote: »
    I'm very happy with the way God made me ... and I see little room for any meaningful improvement ... except the removal of disease and death ... but God has ruled that this isn't possible due to our current evil tendencies.

    Well then, you can't be happy about the way God created me then.
    J C wrote: »
    He did ... He died on a cross to do so ... and all women and men can be cleansed of sin if they repent and believe on Jesus Christ.

    But that's the same as giving out free tickets to everyone.

    If everyone can have a free ticket then what is the point in having tickets at all.

    Think of all the trees that would be saved.
    J C wrote: »
    I understand that it was a four-chambered heart, like another endothermic Dinosur that has been found with a four-chambered heart.
    Equally, an animal of such great size and built for rapid movement would have required a four-chambered heart to achieve sufficient oxygenation of its body tissues.
    I would also point out that fossilisation of internal soft tissue, like a heart is very rare ... even under the rapid fossilisation conditions during The Flood ... and I'm not aware of any Triceratops heart fossils being discovered ... but a fossilised four-chambered heart is believed to have been found in a Thescelosaurus fossil

    No, it isn't.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21279321

    And I ask you again - Which branch of science supports your hypotheses?

    The article you posted totally jumps the gun in a most unscientific way. And the credibility of the author is undermined by the use of terms like 'evolution believers'

    It seems to me that 'creationists' are happy to accept inconclusive data produced by modern science as evidence for ID but are completely opposed to conclusive data produced by the same technology where it conflicts with their preconceptions.

    It is quite funny how creationists denegrade science and scientists in order to promote their agenda whilst at the same time attempting to use the same science to prop up their hypotheses.


  • #2746
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Biologists have estimated the time required for this evolution (of Flatfish eyes) to be approx 50 million years, based on fossil records.
    ... so you think that it takes 50 million years to inflict the type of damage that can be inflicted instantly with a serious belt of a sledge-hammer ... everyone to their own ... I say!!!:)
    The point is that you don't need millions of years to damage something ... we regularly observe that damage, of the most profound type, can be produced instantly.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    I'm guessing you think it happened a lot quicker. How quickly, and when have Creationists observed this happening?
    We see this scale and type of damage occurring in accidents every day of the week ... my neighbours once had a dog that walked 'sideways' after being hit by a car ... and some dog breeds are permanently and genetically afflicted by noses and mouths that look like they have had a facial 'encounter' with a wall at 100 KPH and these breeds of dogs have been developed over hundreds and not millions of years!!!:)


  • #2747
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ... so you think that it takes 50 million years to inflict the type of damage that can be inflicted instantly with a serious belt of a sledge-hammer ... everyone to their own ... I say!!!:)
    JC, you appear to be suggesting that one could take a sledgehammer to a flatfish larva and 'smash' one of its eyes onto the other side of its head? Even you must see how ludicrous that is, no? Your understanding of the beautiful biology involved (OK, maybe not quite 'beautiful') appears to be sorely lacking. Or at least, lost in flippancy.

    The migration of the flatfish eye requires the coordinated action of many genes and proteins, involved in processes ranging from asymmetric cell proliferation to cranial bone remodelling.

    It is not a genetic sledgehammer. It is a multilevel process involving many genes.

    And you think this can be produced in 6000 years. Yet another example of the super-evolution that Creationists must be wedded to.


  • #2748
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    doctoremma wrote: »
    JC, you appear to be suggesting that one could take a sledgehammer to a flatfish larva and 'smash' one of its eyes onto the other side of its head? Even you must see how ludicrous that is, no? Your understanding of the beautiful biology involved (OK, maybe not quite 'beautiful') appears to be sorely lacking. Or at least, lost in flippancy.

    The migration of the flatfish eye requires the coordinated action of many genes and proteins, involved in processes ranging from asymmetric cell proliferation to cranial bone remodelling.

    It is not a genetic sledgehammer. It is a multilevel process involving many genes.

    And you think this can be produced in 6000 years. Yet another example of the super-evolution that Creationists must be wedded to.

    Actually Emma, some flatfish are really beautiful creatures. But JC's logic here is typical of his way of thinking about creation. He ignores facts, such as the minor issue of a fish being quite dead after being hit on the head with anything. Except maybe, if God was on the fish's side or gave the hammer to Moses and told him to do it during one of his meetings at that flaming bush. That, as any creationist scientist will tell you, could make JC's hammer a perfectly logical and acceptable way of achieving a flatfish with strange eyes.
    ANYTHING is possible with God on your side!!


  • #2749
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    JC, you appear to be suggesting that one could take a sledgehammer to a flatfish larva and 'smash' one of its eyes onto the other side of its head? Even you must see how ludicrous that is, no? Your understanding of the beautiful biology involved (OK, maybe not quite 'beautiful') appears to be sorely lacking. Or at least, lost in flippancy.

    The migration of the flatfish eye requires the coordinated action of many genes and proteins, involved in processes ranging from asymmetric cell proliferation to cranial bone remodelling.

    It is not a genetic sledgehammer. It is a multilevel process involving many genes.

    And you think this can be produced in 6000 years. Yet another example of the super-evolution that Creationists must be wedded to.
    I was using the sledgehammer to illustrate how rapidly serious damage can be caused.

    The example of dog breeds being produced with seriously squashed up muzzles over less than a few hundred years shows that the "coordinated action of many genes and proteins, involved in processes ranging from asymmetric cell proliferation to cranial bone remodelling", to borrow your phraseology, can be harnessed to produce dramatic damage in a very short time ... As with dogs and their 'remodelled' muzzles ... so with flatfish and their 'remodelled' eyes!!!:)


  • #2750
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    Actually Emma, some flatfish are really beautiful creatures. But JC's logic here is typical of his way of thinking about creation. He ignores facts, such as the minor issue of a fish being quite dead after being hit on the head with anything. Except maybe, if God was on the fish's side or gave the hammer to Moses and told him to do it during one of his meetings at that flaming bush. That, as any creationist scientist will tell you, could make JC's hammer a perfectly logical and acceptable way of achieving a flatfish with strange eyes.
    ANYTHING is possible with God on your side!!
    The sledgehammer analogy was used by me to illustrate how rapidly damage can be caused.

    The pug-faced dog breeds didn't die in the rapid process that producing their contorted visages ... just like the flatfish also didn't die in the rapid process that produced their distorted eyes.

    You've lost this one ... please stop digging a deeper hole for yourself ... and move on to the next item on your Evolution loss list!!!:)
    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    Actually Emma, some flatfish are really beautiful creatures.
    Whatever about their odd looks ... they certainly have a very beautiful taste!!:D
    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    ANYTHING is possible with God on your side!!
    Quite true ... with God on your side nobody can defeat you ... and I can personally vouch for that.


  • #2751
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    The example of dog breeds being produced with seriously squashed up muzzles over less than a few hundred years shows that the "coordinated action of many genes and proteins, involved in processes ranging from asymmetric cell proliferation to cranial bone remodelling", to borrow your phraseology, can be harnessed to produce dramatic damage in a very short time ... As with dogs and their 'remodelled' muzzles ... so with flatfish and their 'remodelled' eyes!!!:)
    Without the hand of humans, the myriad dog breeds we observe today would never have come into existence (whatever those breeds are is unimportant, I am referring to the level of phenotypic separation we observe). Forced breeding between selected parents, banned breeding between unfavourable parents and swift removal of undesirable offspring pushes artificial selection processes at a speed simply unachievable by natural selection.

    Given that you have stated that you believe the flatfish eye migration is a result of mutation then natural selection (albeit in a negative direction, from perfection to mash up), you simply cannot begin to compare the speed at which these changes must have occurred to those observed in artificial selection processes. It's a non-sequitur.

    Except you have to, don't you? In order to explain how so many changes in so many genes have formed a pathway that causes the adult eye to switch sides? You are bound to super rates of evolutionary change (understanding that you believe it to be negative) because the changes you accept happen naturally could never naturally have occurred since your book was written.

    A conundrum indeed.


  • Advertisement
  • #2752
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Masteroid wrote: »
    Er no, I think you'll find that the image is transduced by the eye and the quality of the eye affects the quality of vision. When we go blind it is almost always due to faulty components in the eye systems.
    My point was that in order to see, you need a Complex Functional Specified eye ... and a Complex Functional Specified sight system ... in a Complex Functional Specified brain ... in a Complex Functional Specified body ... which is more Complex Functional Specificity than any intelligence but the intelligence of God could Create.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    Also, I understood that your position is that before the fall there were no meat-eaters so I'm just wondering, what were the environmental pressures that required perfect vision for a hawk? Why would a hawk need to be able to spot a mouse at a 1000 paces in the garden of Eden?
    The Hawk was created with perfect vision ... but you are correct that it didn't need it to spot a Mouse in Eden.
    However, after The Fall, the Hawk needed very acute vision for its survival by hunting small mammals ... and this selection pressure on vision acuity has maintained acute vision in the Hawk population ever since.

    Masteroid wrote: »
    And did God create moles to have poor vision? Why give them eyes at all?
    Moles were likely Created with perfect vision ... but the selection pressure for sight acuity in their underground ecological niche was so low (in comparison to other traits, like powerful digging ability) that they lost their vision. This has also happened with creatures that live in dark caves.

    Masteroid wrote: »
    Did you consider that poor vision might have been what drove moles underground? That and the fact that hawks have perfect vision.
    ... I don't think that this is what drove the Moles underground ... but it certainly keeps them there now!!!

    Masteroid wrote: »
    There are only advantages to having good sight.

    You seem to suggest that human eyesight was created perfect like a hawk's but environmental pressure caused a reduction in eye efficiency to be naturally selected.
    Yes ... acuity of vision has such a high selection pressure in Hawks that those specimens without it don't survive ... but acuity of vision is not as highly selected in Humans ... apparently having a perfect many body and a beautiful mind is much more important in Human sexual selection than having Hawks eyes ... or so my wife has told me!!!:)

    Masteroid wrote: »
    You also seem to be saying that natural selection is not applied to hawks' eyes at all since they remained perfect.
    I'm saying the exact opposite ... that acuity of vision is so important to Hawk survial that Hawks without it, don't survive to reproduce in the wild ... and Natural Selection is therefore the prime reason for the maintenance of Hawks originally created perfect sight.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    This adds up to a view that natural selection favours changes that are disadvantageous to survival and that's a new one for me.
    The very opposite, in fact ... NS, in the case of Hawks, favours acuity of sight to the point of elimiating all Hawks with anything less than perfect sight.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    And if lions and tigers and bears existed on a fruit and veg diet before the fall then why didn't God put their eyes on the sides of their heads like He did with all the other herbivores?
    Many fruit eaters, including Man, have front facing eyes ... the reason that eyes on the side of the heads of herbivores has been selected and maintained post-Fall is because this helps them see predators ... which weren't an issue pre-Fall.

    Masteroid wrote: »
    Or, if cows and goats and horses were herbivores like lions and tigers and bears were before the fall then why were they disadvantaged in their search for food when God decided not to place their eyes at the front of the head rendering them a less efficient way to spot food?
    Relative eye position only became of survival importance after the Fall ... when Herbivores with eyes on the side of their heads has a survival advantage in spotting predators before other creatures with eyes with less comprehensive all-round vision.

    Masteroid wrote: »
    In short, even pre-fall, lions had an eyesight advantage so what purpose was meant to be served by putting eyes on the sides of a herbivore's head if there is no threat of predation?
    After the Fall, the herbivores with front-facing eyes either ceased being herbivores and became carnivores, like Lions ... or they became extinct due to Lions eating more of them than their feellow herbivores with eyes on the sides of their heads.:)


  • #2753
    The Concrete Doctor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 184 ✭✭The Concrete Doctor


    Whatever about their odd looks ... they certainly have a very beautiful taste!!:D

    Quite true ... with God on your side nobody can defeat you ... and I can personally vouch for that.[/QUOTE]

    Wow, for once I agree with JC, flatfish do taste good.

    Thinking one has God on their side involves faith and having a true faith can be a wonderful thing. In fact, trying to destroy that faith in someone who genuinely believes, in an inoffensive, quiet way, is a very nasty, destructive thing to do. (JC, I'm afraid you do not fall into that quiet category, enjoying arguments, as you do)
    I imagine it must be very comforting to be on your death bed having a belief in an afterlife with all its expectations. I suppose religious beliefs can and do save people, especially if they are plagued with demons from their past.
    I understand that. Unfortunately I am not blessed with such a blind faith.

    This is why it is really wonderful to be able to argue with people on this forum, (or should that be a person), who believes that the world was created in 7 days and that Genises is the way it all happened. I would love to hear if anybody out there, other than JC, believes as he does.
    I think you're alone JC.


  • #2754
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Masteroid wrote:
    And again, you are suggesting that natural selection no longer operates on the canine olfactory system.

    But then of course you would have to explain why some dogs smell better than others.
    Different selection pressures on different breeds for differnt functions, explains different olifactory acuity in dogs.
    Blood Hounds are selected for excellent olifactory acuity ... while Poodles are selected for curly hair!!!

    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    Firstly, running isn't the 'be all and end all' of useful traits for Humans ... and secondly, being pi-pedal hasn't stopped Humans running a four minute mile - which is more than fast enough, as far as I'm concerned.

    Masteroid
    Not if you are being chased by a lion that can do it in two.
    Not if you have a big brain and the manual dexterity to design and shoot a gun!!!:D
    Masteroid wrote:
    Also, if you look at the history of world records for running I think that you'll find that as a species we are getting better at running.

    And it is not being the fastest that is important to survival, it is being 'not the slowest'.
    ... or something else ... like having a gun ... if you are being chased by a faster predator ... like a Lion,:D
    Masteroid wrote:
    God didn't give us lateral sensors because we have imperialistic tendencies? But God gives us free-will and intelligence which we use to create nuclear bombs?
    He didn't create us complete with lateral sensors to be used for killing ... and He didn't create us complete with Nuclear Bombs either ... we did that ourselves.
    Masteroid wrote:
    Okay, let's say there is a law about humans and free-will that even God can't violate, why did He endow us with the intelligence to develop the machines of violence that we have today?
    He wants us not to build these killing machines because we freely love Him and our fellow man ... He wants us to freely use our intelligence to benefit ourselves and our fellow man ... and if He didn't give us free will we would only be deterministic robots incapable of love and great works of goodness.


  • #2755
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    J C wrote: »
    ... so you think that it takes 50 million years to inflict the type of damage that can be inflicted instantly with a serious belt of a sledge-hammer ... everyone to their own ... I say!!!:)
    Sorry, what?

    You are claiming that hitting a fish in the face with a sledge hammer causes the eye to move around to the other side of its head in its children?
    J C wrote: »
    The point is that you don't need millions of years to damage something ... we regularly observe that damage, of the most profound type, can be produced instantly.

    How long do you need for this, according to Creationists. Be as precise as Creationist "research" allows.

    And surely by now Creationists have observed this transformation, given that it can happen as you claim so quickly due to "damage", please detail these Creationist experiments that produced flat fish, and the number of generations of "damage" that this required.
    J C wrote: »
    We see this scale and type of damage occurring in accidents every day of the week ... my neighbours once had a dog that walked 'sideways' after being hit by a car ... and some dog breeds are permanently and genetically afflicted by noses and mouths that look like they have had a facial 'encounter' with a wall at 100 KPH and these breeds of dogs have been developed over hundreds and not millions of years!!!:)

    So it should be very easy to view this happening and producing flat fish.

    Please detail the Creationist experiments that have observed this.


  • #2756
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    Whatever about their odd looks ... they certainly have a very beautiful taste!!:D

    Quite true ... with God on your side nobody can defeat you ... and I can personally vouch for that.

    Wow, for once I agree with JC, flatfish do taste good.

    Thinking one has God on their side involves faith and having a true faith can be a wonderful thing. In fact, trying to destroy that faith in someone who genuinely believes, in an inoffensive, quiet way, is a very nasty, destructive thing to do. (JC, I'm afraid you do not fall into that quiet category, enjoying arguments, as you do)
    I imagine it must be very comforting to be on your death bed having a belief in an afterlife with all its expectations. I suppose religious beliefs can and do save people, especially if they are plagued with demons from their past.
    I understand that. Unfortunately I am not blessed with such a blind faith.

    This is why it is really wonderful to be able to argue with people on this forum, (or should that be a person), who believes that the world was created in 7 days and that Genises is the way it all happened. I would love to hear if anybody out there, other than JC, believes as he does.
    I think you're alone JC.
    All very true.
    I appreciate your honest and frank opinions ... and as somebody who was an Evolutionist, I can empathise with everything you have said in this post.
    I have one tiny disagreement ... on whether I have a blind faith or not .... but this is not the post to push that point.:)
    You're a good guy ... and I would like to see you Saved ... but I fully respect your right to freely reject Salvation ... if that is your wish.

    P.S. I'm not alone in my beliefs ... although on this forum ... I may well be.

    P.P.S. ... the best (from many points of view) and the most challenging converstions I have had on 'big picture' stuff, like God, Salvation, The Bible, Evolution, etc has been with Atheists ... they really do get to the core issues ... and they have a knowledge of Christianity and an interest in it, that exceeds that of many Christians.
    Exactly why this should be the case, I have yet to work out ... but I have found it to be so.


  • #2757
    maguffin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 282 ✭✭maguffin


    For what it's worth..... the story of Flatfish...and their eyes...

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120625160358.htm


  • #2758
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    maguffin wrote: »
    For what it's worth..... the story of Flatfish...and their eyes...

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120625160358.htm
    Quote:-
    Those delicious flatfishes, like halibut and sole, are also evolutionary puzzles. Their profoundly asymmetrical heads have one of the most unusual body plans among all backboned animals (vertebrates) but the evolution of their bizarre anatomy has long been a mystery. How did flatfishes, with both of their eyes on one side of their head, evolve? So puzzling was the anatomy of flounders and their kin that they were used in early arguments against Darwin and his theory of natural selection. Skeptics wondered how such unusual features could have slowly evolved whilst remaining advantageous for the fishes' survival.

    The answer is that they didn't slowly evolve ... they did so rapidly ... which is possible ... because it was via damage to existing perfect structures ...
    ... this nonetheless gave the fish the survival advantage of lying flat on the sea bottom whilst being able to see possible predators approaching ... and thus it has been preserved by NS.


    Quote:-
    A new fossil discovery described in the latest issue of the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology by Oxford University researcher Dr Matt Friedman finally solves the mystery.
    There is no mystery to be solved ... they rapidly 'remodelled' their eye location in the same way that certain dog breeds rapidly 'remodelled' their muzzles !!!:pac:


  • #2759
    maguffin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 282 ✭✭maguffin


    J C wrote: »
    Quote:-
    Skeptics wondered how such unusual features could have slowly evolved whilst remaining advantageous for the fishes' survival.

    The answer is that they didn't slowly evolve ... they did so rapidly ... which is possible ... because it was via damage to existing perfect structures ...
    ... this nonetheless gave the fish the survival advantage of lying flat on the sea bottom whilst being able to see possible predators approaching ... and thus it has been preserved by NS.
    Quote:-
    A new fossil discovery described in the latest issue of the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology by Oxford University researcher Dr Matt Friedman finally solves the mystery.
    There is no mystery to be solved ... they rapidly 'remodelled' their eye location in the same way that certain dog breeds rapidly 'remodelled' their muzzles !!!:pac:

    It is true after all...JC 'cherry picks' sentences to (unsuccessfully) support his (un-supportable) viewpoint in this overly long argument, and completely ignores the science that has been carried out that clearly shows, by empirical evidence, the true nature of how the world about us has arrived at where it is today.

    Your answer above ignores what comes a little further down the text in the article mentioned....

    "This is a profound discovery which clearly shows that intermediate fossil forms, which according to certain creationist theories shouldn't exist, are regularly turning up as scientists keep looking for them," says Dr. John Long of the Natural History Museum of LA County, an expert in fossil fishes"

    The only thing being 'rapidly remodeled' around here is our ever changing opinnion of your very poor grasp of reality in matters scientific.

    And please, don't come back at me with the 'jesus loves you' stuff.....I'm not interested.


  • #2760
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    The Concrete Doctor wrote: »
    having a true faith...
    I would love to hear if anybody out there, other than JC, believes as he does.
    I think you're alone JC.

    The first part is an oxymoron. You cannot have faith in something you know to be true. Faith is a position you hold when there is insufficient evidence to conclusively take a position.

    On the second part, there are a lot of people out there either stupid enough or mentally conditioned to accept biblical creation as true. That is a scary thought.

    Oh, and I noticed that JC still hasn't answered my serious question about using anti-biotics when so instructed by his doctor? Is that, I wonder, because he knows that an admission that he does will show him as a hypocrite? It is common knowledge that anti-biotics work based on an evolutionary understanding of germ theory, and biology in general, and that if evolutionary theory were wrong, either anti-biotics would be useless, or disease would have been permanently eradicated long ago.


  • Advertisement
  • #2761
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Oh, and I noticed that JC still hasn't answered my serious question about using anti-biotics when so instructed by his doctor?

    Nor has he explained how hitting a fish in the face with a hammer causes evolution, nor has he detailed Creationist experiments that have witnessed this rapid evolution of flat fish.

    I suspect we will be waiting for a while as he retreats under his bridge ...


Advertisement