If you're atheist..

[classthe_king]

I'm completely calm and I'm not shoving anything down anyone's throats. YOU posted in this thread first and have continued to reply to me, I'm not following you around trying to change your mind. This is a thread specifically about the subject that you joined, so get out of here with that bullshit.

And you can say anything you want about those sites but those are stats that can be found anywhere no matter where you look for it. It's a fact that well into the 90%'s of scientists believe in evolution, you can't deny that. You can't deny that there is a mountain of evidence for evolution and zero for intelligent design. I'm not changing your mind, frankly I couldn't give a shit if you want to stay ignorant. I'm just giving you the plain facts and watching you come up with any excuse you can to reject them and cling onto your already held belief like the typical creationist.

We do though and that's the problem. Evolution is on the same level as gravity and germ theory and atomic theory, it's true whether you'd like to believe it or not. And please give me all the evidence that's against evolution.


And that was one out of three sources

[Block]

There's a ton of evidence in the book I listed, which is why I listed it.

Explain natural symmetry to me.
Explain to me why all the math surrounding the evolution of the eyeball, in contrast to the xxx amount of years that scientists claim we've evolved from a single-cell amoeba, doesn't add up at all.
The same can be said with the human brain.

And that was from one source

I haven't read the book in over a year, or even delved into the subject in that amount of time. But I remember those sticking out to me. If you bother to read the book, you'd ask the same questions I did without holding to your 'already held belief like a typical evolutionist'.

See, the difference with each of our arguments is that you hold a belief in favor of evolutionism (which already puts you in to a position of emotional investment), whereas I don't hold a belief one way or another. I'm not a creationist. I'm not on either side. I simply ask "how?" or "why?" and learn to accept that which cannot yet be explained.

[Block]

As for shoving your beliefs down our throats? You are, lol. "YOU CHOOSE TO REMAIN IGNORANT!" etc.

As I said, condescension isn't getting you anywhere.

[classthe_king]

Dude did you really expect me to find the book tonight and read it? I actually am going to read the book but it's not going to occur in one day. And you did not stay out of it, you specifically stated that you believe in intelligent design and not evolution.

Why would I have to explain natural symmetry as if us being symmetrical proves a god created us? But, I think the primary value of the trait is controlled, forward motion. Generally, this controlled movement might provide advantages in avoiding predation, or finding food. Secondly, it offers a streamlined shape when moving in water or sediment, and later in air, meaning that less energy is used to achieve movement. One other eventual result of bilateral symmetry was a spinal chord, and ultimately the collection of brain cells where the sensory organs were most useful; in the forward end - the direction of travel.

And seriously? The eyeball? We know precisely how the eyeball developed and became so complex over that given period of time. Just do any research at all. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=evolution-of-the-eye
http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaneye.html

Also, the blind spot in our eye is even further proof of evolution because evolution explains how it came about. If god made us why would he give us a blind spot on purpose?

A simple google search could also take care of the brain.

[Emadyville]

^ funny how eyes were mentioned, i saw a show on idk what about a year ago where this chameleon eventually lived in a cave, and in a few thousand years that chameleon had no eyes, because the cave was always pitch dark and it didn't need eyes. just thought I'd add that bit of info

[classthe_king]

^ funny how eyes were mentioned, i saw a show on idk what about a year ago where this chameleon eventually lived in a cave, and in a few thousand years that chameleon had no eyes, because the cave was always pitch dark and it didn't need eyes. just thought I'd add that bit of info

Just another example. This has actually been shown in flies, bats, worms, all kinds of animals that don't need their eyes and end up losing them.

[Spyder]

emady i love you your so chill

[Eedee]

^ funny how eyes were mentioned, i saw a show on idk what about a year ago where this chameleon eventually lived in a cave, and in a few thousand years that chameleon had no eyes, because the cave was always pitch dark and it didn't need eyes. just thought I'd add that bit of info

Just another example. This has actually been shown in flies, bats, worms, all kinds of animals that don't need their eyes and end up losing them.

Yup. It's pretty cool, really.

[Emadyville]

emady i love you your so chill

just keepin it real. I mean I'm an athiest but I like hearing the other side as well, as people we need to understand each other and each others beliefs as well as why we believe what we do. One of my best friends not only believes in god but is gay, and he's as cool a friend as you could ask for. I mean life's weird like that and I don't believe in god and don't care if you're gay or not but we're fuckin good friends, it is what it is.

[Block]

Losing the use of eyes isn't as complex of a process such as the development of them. The math given doesn't add up. This isn't coming from me, this is coming from an Oxford Mathematician.

If it were as simple as a 'google search', as you claim, then why are scientists still baffled by it? All you're referencing is people's theories. Nobody can explain definitely how these things came about.

Adaptation is not evolution.

[classthe_king]

Losing the use of eyes isn't as complex of a process such as the development of them. The math given doesn't add up. This isn't coming from me, this is coming from an Oxford Mathematician.

If it were as simple as a 'google search', as you claim, then why are scientists still baffled by it? All you're referencing is people's theories. Nobody can explain definitely how these things came about.

Adaptation is not evolution.

Nobody is baffled by it, the eye is figured out. This isn't coming from me it's coming from every single biologist in the western world

[Block]

Really? Explain to me how the eye converts what we see in to electricity and sends those signals to our brain as images. How is anything physical around us turned in to electricity inside of our heads? If you can explain in depth what scientists have only been theorizing for ever now, you'd be the smartest person on the planet. It's not figured out. At all. And your smilies aren't going to help you here, because you're wrong.

How do we create mental images? Where are memories stored, and how? Why can we 'see' things that we've created in out head?

Also, explain why the math behind the intricacies and evolution of the eyeball don't even come close to adding up to the amount of time scientists say (few billion years) in comparison to the amount of time actually needed for that to evolve to what it has? It would take much longer if evolution were actually feasible in this situation.

Perhaps you should actually research before speaking?

[classthe_king]

Really? Explain to me how the eye converts what we see in to electricity and sends those signals to our brain as images. How is anything physical around us turned in to electricity inside of our heads? If you can explain in depth what scientists have only been theorizing for ever now, you'd be the smartest person on the planet. It's not figured out. At all. And your smilies aren't going to help you here, because you're wrong.

How do we create mental images? Where are memories stored, and how? Why can we 'see' things that we've created in out head?

Also, explain why the math behind the intricacies and evolution of the eyeball don't even come close to adding up to the amount of time scientists say (few billion years) in comparison to the amount of time actually needed for that to evolve to what it has? It would take much longer if evolution were actually feasible in this situation.

Perhaps you should actually research before speaking?

Are you being serious? I'm not going to give you an entire lesson on the biology of the eye. We know exactly how the eye works, that's not even debatable. And who is saying that it would take a few billion years for it to develop? Creationists who are trying to find a reason why evolution is false? I wouldn't trust them, they're not real scientists. I've already given you like 3 links for the eye, just read those.

And even if you were right, which you're not, just because we don't know something doesn't mean god did it. You're just using the god of the gaps argument. We are constantly learning new things.

[CrashBand]

Block, does this book bring any substantial evidence for a creator or is it sort of just breaking down evolution etc?

Because I'd somewhat understand if you were saying "I'm agnostic" as opposed to believing in a creator.

[Block]

We know exactly how the eye works, that's not even debatable.

What you posted in those links doesn't explain what I just asked of you. Nobody has been able to explain it. Keep trying.

And who is saying that it would take a few billion years for it to develop? Creationists who are trying to find a reason why evolution is false?

Can't I say the same thing about your argument? "And who is saying that it wouldn't take a few billion years for it to develop? Evolutionists who are trying to find a reason why creationism is false?"

^^^ See how that works? You're running in circles and saying nothing worth reading.

I wouldn't trust them, they're not real scientists.

Apart from being the most absurd and ignorant statement I've quoted from you so far, this is laughable. Your ignorance in dismissing a scientist due to their conclusions after years of research and study is amazing. You've left the emotional-ignorance zone and entered full-on irrelevance. Nothing you say even matters now, simply because of your dismissal of someone's work based on their beliefs.

I've already given you like 3 links for the eye, just read those.

As I said above, your links don't answer my specific questions. Nobody can. Saying this is a cop-out and you know it. You just don't want to say, "I can't answer that."

And even if you were right,

Right about what? I haven't even argued a point that I'd consider being right or wrong. What are you even talking about?

just because we don't know something doesn't mean god did it.

Nobody in this conversation has attributed anything to God, simply because we can't explain it. What gives evidence of a creator is the Complexity of DNA, the complexity of the eye / math behind its complexity and many other evidences in the ONE book that I referenced in my first post.

You're just using the god of the gaps argument.

Really? Where is this? Where did I attribute anything to God without referencing mathematics and extensive theory-crafting? I believe that I've referenced John Lennox every time I made a point. Is it my fault you refuse to read the book?

We are constantly learning new things.

I'm glad you understand that. Nobody ever argued against that fact, so proclaiming that is totally irrelevant to this conversation. Although it's funny that you say that and yet refuse to open your mind even the slightest bit to the chance that you could be wrong. Then again, I've stated multiple times that I'm not trying to convert anyone; you obviously are.