Block wrote:What you posted in those links doesn't explain what I just asked of you. Nobody has been able to explain it. Keep trying.
Actually, they did exactly that.
"The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.
Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.
In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch."
And that was from a brief article on PBS, an extremely credible website. Just look at the wikipedia page, it has an in-depth answer for all your questions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye"Still, biologists have recently made significant advances in tracing the origin of the eye—by studying how it forms in developing embryos and by comparing eye structure and genes across species to reconstruct when key traits arose. The results indicate that our kind of eye—the type common across vertebrates—took shape in less than 100 million years, evolving from a simple light sensor for circadian (daily) and seasonal rhythms around 600 million years ago to an optically and neurologically sophisticated organ by 500 million years ago.
More than 150 years after Darwin published his groundbreaking theory, these findings put the nail in the coffin of irreducible complexity and beautifully support Darwin’s idea. They also explain why the eye, far from being a perfectly engineered piece of machinery, exhibits a number of major flaws—these flaws are the scars of evolution. Natural selection does not, as some might think, result in perfection. It tinkers with the material available to it, sometimes to odd effect."
That was from the scientific american journal, hardly biased at all, except towards the truth.
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?"
No, you CAN'T. Scientists are not trying to find a reason why creationism is false because there is no need to, creationists can't even find a single reason why creationism is true, that's all that needs to be said. Scientists don't have an agenda, they draw conclusions based on their experiments. They don't already have their mind made up and then try and find evidence to support their already held beliefs.
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.
No, that is not wrong in the slightest. Creationists have already decided beforehand what they believe and simply look for the evidence that supports them and dismiss anything else. That is not science. There is a REASON why creationism isn't allowed near a classroom, it's not science. There's a reason 97% of all scientists believe in evolution and laugh at intelligent design, it's not science.
Intelligent Design
a) has produced no research or testable experiments, or peer reviewed published papers
b) has led to precisely zero new scientific discoveries.
c) has no practical applications or functional use
d) Cannot be used to make predictions and so therefore is untestable and unfalsifiable. This also means that it has no positive evidence to substantiate it.
e) All "evidence" essentially boils down to irreducible complexity and god of the gap arguments (negative evidence)- which has been continuously debunked and is not evidence at all.
f) Has produced no mathematical models of the universe, while the scientific models work quite well.
g) Offers no explanation for some basic scientific known truths
h) And even if you could prove evolution wrong, god does not win by default. What evidence do creationists still have that their model is correct? The primary support for intelligent design is the same for the evidence that god exists at all- arguments from ignorance and not positive evidence.
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."
Actually, I did.
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.
No, I've already dismissed those allegations. Irreducible Complexity is bullshit and have been proven time and time again to be wrong. None of those things are proof of a creator. This article gives extremely in depth analysis on why that's wrong:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/icdmyst/ICDmyst.html 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?
I refused to read the book? Are you retarded? I'm a college student in midterm week, like I'm going to go find this book and read it in two days. And every point you've made has been attributing things to god because we don't know it yet (or so you say). "We don't know how the eyeball exactly works, that's proof of a creator." "We don't know how the eyeball evolved so fast, that's proof of a creator." "We don't know how DNA is so complex, that's proof of a creator." The god of the gaps is exactly what you're doing.
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.
I refuse to open my mind? I have given weight to every piece of evidence you've presented and disproved it yet you completely ignore the evidence I'm giving you. Who isn't opening their mind?
