Guitar | Bass | Keyboard | Microphones | Mixers | Audio Interfaces | Sequencers & Software Plugins | Live Sound & PA | Drums | Club & DJ | Accessories | Blowouts
part of TweakHeadz
"A Community for Recording Studio Professionals and Apprentices"
Guide • |
will there be an Intelligent response to my argument concerning the evolution of the eye?
Meaning: an attitude that always favors one way of feeling or acting especially without considering any other possibilities
musikron wrote:Who created the creator? Creationism insists that everything was designed, therefor logic dictateds something must design the designer and so on to infinity.
musikron wrote:Experiments have been performed in which you can clearly measure lifeforms evolving.
UnderDrive wrote:What about the eye?
how did that evolve?
It would have to be fully functional for natural selection to realize it's advantage.
Not only that but the brain would have to evolve simultaneously in order to correctly
interpret the signal coming from the optic nerve
So unless natural selection knew what it was aiming for with the eye it would not realize ANY advantage to a half baked eyeball.
Spontaneous generation? So evolution just happend (accidentally) to place all the right dna in all the right places
and suddenly there was a fully functional eye? and then theres the question of why two eyes?
So sight wasn't enough? creatures that didn't even know about sight all of a sudden not only have one eye to see with but they have two for depth perception?
Yeah, evolution did this all by it's self?
what a crock....
UnderDrive wrote:[musikron wrote:Who created the creator? Creationism insists that everything was designed, therefor logic dictateds something must design the designer and so on to infinity.
And that's where your logic fails.
TakeFlight wrote:It doesn't take logic and reason to come up with the idea of a creator. It's a feeble explanation for everything and it requires almost no thought at all. It's the easy way out. It's the answer for those that don't want to be bothered by the details and little things like evidence, testing, peer review, etc. Science is the only thing we have to find the truth. And just because science can't provide all the answers at this moment in time does not mean defauting back to the idea of a creator is a better option. Why would it be a better option to go with the idea that has been passed down through the generations from people long ago that were way less educated and knew so much less about the world then we do now?
First off,The simple fact that we can contemplate our origin and existence sets us as humans WAY apart from the animal kingdom...How come we advanced (intellectually) SO much further in the same time span....
I mean it is no "little" difference here...humans are 100,000 times more "intellectually" capable than any other species
on the planet.
Logic (my logic that is) says that everything givin the billions of years to advance would suggest that another species
would also develope intellect at a similar complexity as ours....but what do we see in reality?
big gaping chasm between humans and animals (intellectually)
What's shortsighted is attributing other people's posts for mine!awe-de-ow,
I don't know all the answers either and I am sorry if I come off sounding like I do....
But to call creationists void of intellect, dismissing the obvious "facts" is pretty short sighted.
I do want to give the Evo "theory" a chance but it continues to leave serious gaps....
Creationism or "Intelligent Design" as it is now called seems to fit pretty well with the current state of life here on earth.
In debate you make your arguments and the opposing side makes theirs...hopefully...not always but hopefully
thoughout the process of debate BOTH sides can learn something that maybe their one sided approach didn't allow for.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest