Creationists: Why The Eye?

[Learner]

Yes interesting video of Dawkin's explanation. Although it is really an explaination demonstrating 'the eye' taking considerable time to develop and the possible stages how this development may have taken place. I dare say when mentioning having enough time to develop through the eons. Creationists can counter with;the development process may seem seconds to a creator.

There are many other variables to the question, still concerning the explanation of the process. Incredibly,evolution has seemingly decided that all species must go through the same 'repeated process' as if having the same template,which is unlike any chance happening.

 

[zorq]

Yes interesting video of Dawkin's explanation. Although it is really an explaination demonstrating 'the eye' taking considerable time to develop and the possible stages how this development may have taken place. I dare say when mentioning having enough time to develop through the eons. Creationists can counter with;the development process may seem seconds to a creator.

I'm confused. Are you suggesting that creationists would argue that the biblical creation story is true because 1 day for God might the same as 10 million years for us? That may be justification for creationists to incorporate evolution into their creation myths, but it doesn't do anything to "counter" the validity of evolution. Or for that matter, the notion that a "fraction" of a modern eye is better than no eye at all.

There are many other variables to the question, still concerning the explanation of the process. Incredibly,evolution has seemingly decided that all species must go through the same 'repeated process' as if having the same template,which is unlike any chance happening.

I have no idea what you are saying here. Evolution is always the same so it is always repeating the same process. 1.Living things reproduce with small mutations. 2. Living things with unhelpful mutations die faster than the ones with helpful mutations. 3. More living things with the last generation's helpful mutations survive to reproduce in the next generation. 4. And we are back at 1.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm confused. Are you suggesting that creationists would argue that the biblical creation story is true because 1 day for God might the same as 10 million years for us? That may be justification for creationists to incorporate evolution into their creation myths, but it doesn't do anything to "counter" the validity of evolution. Or for that matter, the notion that a "fraction" of a modern eye is better than no eye at all.

There are many other variables to the question, still concerning the explanation of the process. Incredibly,evolution has seemingly decided that all species must go through the same 'repeated process' as if having the same template,which is unlike any chance happening.

I have no idea what you are saying here. Evolution is always the same so it is always repeating the same process. 1.Living things reproduce with small mutations. 2. Living things with unhelpful mutations die faster than the ones with helpful mutations. 3. More living things with the last generation's helpful mutations survive to reproduce in the next generation. 4. And we are back at 1.

Sounds like he's saying a magic space man invented evolution.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes interesting video of Dawkin's explanation. Although it is really an explaination demonstrating 'the eye' taking considerable time to develop and the possible stages how this development may have taken place.

Well, yeah. The whole evolutionary model takes considerable time. And the various stages are quite possible since they appear in many life forms.
The point was that the eye is not a big mysterious show-stopper for evolutionary theory.

I dare say when mentioning having enough time to develop through the eons. Creationists can counter with;the development process may seem seconds to a creator.

Why is it a 'dare' to say that once you add a god, you're able to add anything?
And what makes it a 'counter?' If it took millions of years, it took millions of years. Scientists don't need to write textbooks including the subjective time scales of possible observers/participants.

There are many other variables to the question, still concerning the explanation of the process. Incredibly,evolution has seemingly decided that all species must go through the same 'repeated process' as if having the same template,which is unlike any chance happening.

But if they all have the same template, why would the Nautilus be stuck where it is? Why is the octopus' eye so different than ours? Why do some animals see into the infra-red farther than we do? Why do some only see part of our visible spectrum?

Doesn't at all look like 'a template' is in use. Looks more like 'form follows function.' Any species developing a use for sight is going to be using the same general physics that affects light, so their solutions will generally be close, but not identical.

 

[Learner]

I'm confused. Are you suggesting that creationists would argue that the biblical creation story is true because 1 day for God might the same as 10 million years for us? That may be justification for creationists to incorporate evolution into their creation myths, but it doesn't do anything to "counter" the validity of evolution. Or for that matter, the notion that a "fraction" of a modern eye is better than no eye at all.

I'm saying evolution is still acceptable in creation. The idea that evolution is opposite to creation is where the creationist can suggest otherwise.
Evolution is not really the opposite of Creation as often stated.

I have no idea what you are saying here. Evolution is always the same so it is always repeating the same process. 1.Living things reproduce with small mutations. 2. Living things with unhelpful mutations die faster than the ones with helpful mutations. 3. More living things with the last generation's helpful mutations survive to reproduce in the next generation. 4. And we are back at 1.

Indeed ,species developing 'eyes and brains', learn things. We did and are doing so learning to grow.
(If only more sensibly). Square 1 is merely an 'ever continuation of life,on and on, despite the physical hashness of the universe. Existence for such delicate and fragile life, must be a miracle!

 

[Learner]

Sounds like he's saying a magic space man invented evolution.

Possibly something much bigger !

 

[Keith&Co.]

I'm saying evolution is still acceptable in creation.

I think that would depend on why you're a creationist. The model of evolution does not allow a literal reading of Genesis. If you object to evolutionary theory because you think creation took six days, then, no, evolutionary theory is not acceptable in creation.

 

[Learner]

I'm saying evolution is still acceptable in creation.

I think that would depend on why you're a creationist. The model of evolution does not allow a literal reading of Genesis. If you object to evolutionary theory because you think creation took six days, then, no, evolutionary theory is not acceptable in creation.

I can see what you mean. The universe and Earth for that matter was already formed according to the scriptures before the inhabitable 'world' was created'.

 

[abaddon]

... The universe and Earth for that matter was already formed according to the scriptures before the inhabitable 'world' was created'.

That’s kind of a vacuous statement. Yeah, the story tells that the world was made and then the first humans were made and then the first humans had offspring, in that order. That’s vague enough to be accidentally “true” but when you leave the vague generality and go into the details you see how wrong the scriptures were. And by “wrong” I mean in the sense of taking them for a scientific account of anything. Ultimately that is the most destructive thing believers can do to their scriptures, because the stories can only possibly have any meaning if they are stories and not scientific descriptions. Why get stuck on the notion that God (if such a thing exists) communicates primarily with language, specifically through one particular old book, and communicates far less well through the phenomenal world itself that’s amenable to study by science?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

The brain is the most complex organ, just go with the brain, dudes.

 

[bilby]

The brain is the most complex organ, just go with the brain, dudes.

Oh yeah? Well if brains evolved, then how come there are still creationists?

 

[Learner]

... The universe and Earth for that matter was already formed according to the scriptures before the inhabitable 'world' was created'.

That’s kind of a vacuous statement. Yeah, the story tells that the world was made and then the first humans were made and then the first humans had offspring, in that order. That’s vague enough to be accidentally “true” but when you leave the vague generality and go into the details you see how wrong the scriptures were. And by “wrong” I mean in the sense of taking them for a scientific account of anything.

If there are no details it would just mean being 'unsure'. It does not mean those scriptures are wrong,especially when its not written by scribes with scientific vocabulary.

Ultimately that is the most destructive thing believers can do to their scriptures, because the stories can only possibly have any meaning if they are stories and not scientific descriptions. Why get stuck on the notion that God (if such a thing exists) communicates primarily with language, specifically through one particular old book, and communicates far less well through the phenomenal world itself that’s amenable to study by science?

Well here I would to some degree,agree with you here. Creationists are not good at explaining by scientific methods. This is where non believers challenge well because believers lack that explanitive language. Although I'm sure there are a few religious scientists out there who do so.

 

[Learner]

The brain is the most complex organ, just go with the brain, dudes.

Oh yeah? Well if brains evolved, then how come there are still creationists?

I can only say it is a miracle!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm saying evolution is still acceptable in creation.

Give me an example of a "creationally" unacceptable claim.

 

[Learner]

I'm saying evolution is still acceptable in creation.

Give me an example of a "creationally" unacceptable claim.

if I read your question right. I'm currently not sure whats out there and more inclined to include newageism.Although not including other religions that have the same core idea of creation as we are using in topic. The biblical account,even though it means only one version must be true overall. (If accepting the possibility) Having said that :This would fit a Christians point of view.

I will have to get back to you on that one after a bit of reading or few talks with others who are deep into this area.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Give me an example of a "creationally" unacceptable claim.

if I read your question right. I'm currently not sure whats out there and more inclined to include newageism.Although not including other religions that have the same core idea of creation as we are using in topic. The biblical account,even though it means only one version must be true overall. (If accepting the possibility) Having said that :This would fit a Christians point of view.

I will have to get back to you on that one after a bit of reading or few talks with others who are deep into this area.

The question is rhetorical. If I chose to believe the universe supernaturally emanates from a dust mite on my bed no one will be able to demonstrate otherwise. As for scientifically verifiable behavior I merely maintain it is the will and plan of the dust mite.

 

[Learner]

if I read your question right. I'm currently not sure whats out there and more inclined to include newageism.Although not including other religions that have the same core idea of creation as we are using in topic. The biblical account,even though it means only one version must be true overall. (If accepting the possibility) Having said that :This would fit a Christians point of view.

I will have to get back to you on that one after a bit of reading or few talks with others who are deep into this area.

The question is rhetorical. If I chose to believe the universe supernaturally emanates from a dust mite on my bed no one will be able to demonstrate otherwise. As for scientifically verifiable behavior I merely maintain it is the will and plan of the dust mite.

I get your point.

For argument sake of the dust mite we would at least have physical evidence. 1.We could then see if the dust mite could materialize itself out of a closed jar. If not ,test one of the theory has failed. or 2. Would it be possible to disect the subject ?. Perhaps not just incase it is some sort of 'almighty' and it gets offended. Mind you, there is the question of how your bed came into existence.

 

[Keith&Co.]

For argument sake of the dust mite we would at least have physical evidence. 1.We could then see if the dust mite could materialize itself out of a closed jar. If not ,test one of the theory has failed.

If the universe is the product of the dust mite, then the closed jar is the product of the dust mite. How would you determine that the dust mite has failed to materialize the universe through that part of the universe?

 

[Learner]

For argument sake of the dust mite we would at least have physical evidence. 1.We could then see if the dust mite could materialize itself out of a closed jar. If not ,test one of the theory has failed.

If the universe is the product of the dust mite, then the closed jar is the product of the dust mite. How would you determine that the dust mite has failed to materialize the universe through that part of the universe?

I would have no idea!

 

[Keith&Co.]

If the universe is the product of the dust mite, then the closed jar is the product of the dust mite. How would you determine that the dust mite has failed to materialize the universe through that part of the universe?

I would have no idea!

So, it's a little presumptuous to claim that the theory has failed if you can't imagine what a failure of the theory would look like...