Eye evolution - Misunderstood

Originally posted by KellyJay
You think I'm a liar?

I think you are playing evasive word games to prevent the topic ever progressing.

I think if you wish to claim that you disagree with any aspect of evolutionary biology, then your first responsibility is to understand what you are rejecting. The information is freely available and plentiful. Your inability to understand - of which you protest repeatedly - arises from your refusal to consider in the first place. When you decline to consider clear explanations and you persist in misrepresenting what scientists are even saying, then you are not entitled to respect.

You are not the honest simpleton you claim to be. You are a tedious obscurantist unable to hold together a coherent argument in debate.

I think RJH is a liar. I think Creation Scientists are lying. I think YouTube carries a substantial collection of dishonest, lying videos placed there at some expense by Creationists in order to confuse the uneducated and the home educated and the pious. I think the evidence to justify those statements has been supplied repeatedly on this forum.

So I have to answer your question in the positive. Yes - that is what I think.

Galileo pointed out long ago that Christianity should not have to defend itself by burning heretics, denying evidence and refusing to consider the findings of Science. It is insane to get so totally on the wrong side of the evidence because it simply brings you and your faith into disrepute.

Originally posted by finnegan
Creation is open to many different interpretations. Many Christians accept the findings of Science and see this as an exploration of God's creation. For example, evolution to them is an example of His wondrous qualities.

To argue that the Bible gives a better account of things flies in the face of the fact that, in virtually every respect, the Bible is ...[text shortened]... hors of stupidity. Most people - most Christians even - do not place such demands on the Bible.

Gravity - The mystery force

Gravity holds us firmly on the ground and keeps the earth circling the sun. This invisible force1 also draws down rain from the sky and causes the daily ocean tides. It keeps the earth in a spherical shape, and prevents our atmosphere from escaping into space. It would seem that this everyday gravity force should be one of the best understood concepts in science. However, just the opposite is true. In many ways, gravity remains a profound mystery. Gravity provides a stunning example of the limits of current scientific knowledge.

Starting with the great creationist physicist Michael Faraday in 1849, physicists have searched continually for a hidden relationship between gravity and the electromagnetic force. There is an ongoing effort to unify all four fundamental forces into a single equation or ‘theory of everything’, with no success thus far. Gravity remains the least understood force.

What really is gravity? How is this force able to act across the vastness of empty space? And why does it exist in the first place? Science has never been very successful in answering these most basic questions about nature. Gravity cannot somehow slowly arise by mutation or natural selection. It was present from the very beginning of the universe. Along with every other physical law, gravity is surely a testimony to a planned creation.

Attempts to explain gravity have included invisible particles, called gravitons, that travel between objects. Cosmic strings and gravity waves have also been suggested, but none have been confirmed. We simply do not know how objects physically interact with each other over vast distances.

Two Bible references are helpful in considering the nature of gravity and physical science in general. First, Colossians 1:17 explains that Christ is before all things, and by Him all things consist. The Greek verb for consist (sunistao) means to cohere, preserve, or hold together.

A second reference, Hebrews 1:3, declares that Christ upholds all things by the word of His power. Uphold (phero) again describes the sustaining or maintaining of all things, including gravity. The word uphold in this verse means much more than simply supporting a weight. It includes control of all the ongoing motions and changes within the universe. This infinite task is managed by the Lord’s almighty Word, whereby the universe itself was first called into being. Gravity, the ‘mystery force’, which is poorly understood after nearly four centuries of research, is one of the manifestations of this awesome divine upholding.

https://answersingenesis.org/physics/gravity/

Comments from science pioneers show their respect for gravity's origin:

Galileo: From the Divine Word, the Sacred Scripture and Nature did both alike proceed.

Newton: This most beautiful [gravitational] system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.

Newton: When I wrote my treatise [principia] about our [solar system], I had an eye on such principles as might work with considering men for the belief in a Deity; and nothing can rejoice me more than to find it useful for that purpose.

It is a fair question to ask natural science why basic laws such as gravity exist. Why is the universe filled with intriguing technical relationships, symmetry, and unity? Some experts are quick to reply that the task of science is only to find out the how of nature, not the why. But this excuse simply reveals the incompleteness of natural science alone. Ultimate truth about the universe must also deal with God's initial provision and his continuing care for us. The Creator is clearly an intimate part of every physical detail, including gravity.

http://www.icr.org/article/gravity/

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]Gravity - The mystery force

It would seem that this everyday gravity force should be one of the best
understood concepts in science. However, just the opposite is true. In
many ways, gravity remains a profound mystery.
....

Two Bible references are helpful in considering the
nature of gravity and physical science in general. [/b]

This is a joke right?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
This is a joke right?

This is not from my thinking. I gave the references to prove it. Check them out for yourself.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is not from my thinking. I gave the references to prove it. Check them out for yourself.

The quote states that "There is an ongoing effort to unify the four forces with no success so far." - that simply is not true, the weak and electro-magnetic force have been unified into a single theory - this is some success.

The person who wrote that hasn't the faintest idea of what they are talking. They argue that since gravity cannot mutate or change over time there must be a creator. First off this isn't true, the electro-weak force changes quite drastically as the average collision energy drops below the unification scale. We expect something like 11 dimensional Supergravity - a candidate Theory of Everything (more success, we have candidate theories) to be quite different at different energy scales. Secondly, whether gravity changes with Cosmological Era or not tells one nothing about whether there is a Creator. Finally, to attempt to use the immutability the laws of Physics to undermine Darwinism is to make a category error on a monumental scale. If that is the best creationists can do for an argument it's a wonder there are any of you.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The quote states that "There is an ongoing effort to unify the four forces with no success so far." - that simply is not true, the weak and electro-magnetic force have been unified into a single theory - this is some success.

The person who wrote that hasn't the faintest idea of what they are talking. They argue that since gravity cannot mutate or ch ...[text shortened]... le. If that is the best creationists can do for an argument it's a wonder there are any of you.

Well, at least, two verses from the Holy Bible were quoted. 😏

HalleluYaHshua ! Praise the LORD!

Originally posted by KellyJay
You have also never observed the big bang either, yet you act like you have!

No, I'm saying it's the only logical conclusion from the evidence.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really every single evolutionary biologist in the world...is that almost like say every single
Christian believes in God?

Nope. The difference being that evolution isn't necessarily dependent on common ancestry for all life. Potentially, there could be several trees of life. Meaning evolutionary biologists could have argued about this. There's just not even a shred of evidence suggesting that there are several independant trees, and all the evidence points to common ancestry for all life, from genetics to the fossil record. The only people rejecting common ancestry are not evolutionary biologists, and that to me says something, since we all know that to make yourself a name in science is to successfully argue against established assumptions. So, if there was even a shred of evidence against common ancestry, the first evolutionary biologist to realise this would shout it from the roof tops. It would be quite sensational at this point.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Really every single evolutionary biologist in the world...is that almost like say every single
Christian believes in God? How I can accept evolution and not a common ancestor is that
I believe in small changes, I don't believe in them mutating from a single life form over a
very long period of time into the vast array of life we see today. I believe that ...[text shortened]... ant past not me.

You have also never observed the big bang either, yet you act like you have!

So, if I understand you correctly, your reason for not accepting common ancestry is not because the bible specifically states otherwise, but because you find it hard to believe that incremental changes could produce radically different results from the initial form? You don't believe that two cells can become a multibillion celled, grown, human being either? I mean considering everything that could potentially go wrong, and everything that so often does go wrong, it's highly unlikely that this actually happens. Maybe reality came into existence moments ago, just giving the appearance of having existed longer, and what we think are personal experiences are actually mind tricks by a trickster god. I use as evidence for this belief what I personally think is the improbability of any two cells ever producing a single, coherent multibillion celled organism. That is just unbelievable to me, so I now reject reason, and I think I have good reason for doing so. It's got nothing to do with this text I've got here that says reality started moments ago. 🙄

Originally posted by KellyJay
Mine is it was designed that way.
I argue that, because I don't believe the story put forward would or could happen the way
it has been presented. I believe it was created that way perfect, and as time and evolution
got a hold of it, defects started to appear.

You don't think that there are any beneficial mutations, like the mutations of the PSCK9 gene in some individuals, which is an observed beneficial mutation?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes I have the building blocks all around me, just as the both of us have the means to
type on keyboard and produce text each other can read. Why, because something was
put in place to give us this means, and with respect to life, it is supported right now due a
huge number of things that all have to be just the way they are or else.

I don't believe i ...[text shortened]... ty. I think if
you cannot get to where we are by small changes over time what do you have left?

Why do you think the process of evolution must have been so sensitive to disruptions in the past, but not now? I don't understand. Are you talking about abiogenesis again? Why do you think abiogenesis would have been such a delicate process?

Originally posted by finnegan
Creation is open to many different interpretations. Many Christians accept the findings of Science and see this as an exploration of God's creation. For example, evolution to them is an example of His wondrous qualities.

To argue that the Bible gives a better account of things flies in the face of the fact that, in virtually every respect, the Bible is ...[text shortened]... hors of stupidity. Most people - most Christians even - do not place such demands on the Bible.

If you accept the creation story of the Bible your views about primitive life have to be quite
different than what those who think they know in science too, since Adam from day one
was talking to God not running around the jungle as if he were a monkey. The whole of
mankind started off completely formed, not a few years removed form being ape like
creatures.

What most people do with scripture is all completely up to them, when I talk about such
things as the beginning I will always frame it as matters of faith. There are those here
including you that tend to take the views of others on the matter of what man must have
been doing thousands, millions, or however far back as if they were facts, I do not place
such demands on people's opinions.

Originally posted by finnegan
I think you are playing evasive word games to prevent the topic ever progressing.

I think if you wish to claim that you disagree with any aspect of evolutionary biology, then your first responsibility is to understand what you are rejecting. The information is freely available and plentiful. Your inability to understand - of which you protest repeated ...[text shortened]... ly on the wrong side of the evidence because it simply brings you and your faith into disrepute.

I think we are done, you have twisted my point of view into something it is not, just to go
into this name calling rant. I've made up my mind that people who cannot talk without
jumping into the gutter like this are not worth the effort. Do not look for another exchange
with me, it isn't going to happen we are done.

Originally posted by C Hess
Nope. The difference being that evolution isn't necessarily dependent on common ancestry for all life. Potentially, there could be several trees of life. Meaning evolutionary biologists could have argued about this. There's just not even a shred of evidence suggesting that there are several independant trees, and all the evidence points to common ancestry for ...[text shortened]... to realise this would shout it from the roof tops. It would be quite sensational at this point.

I agree evolution is not dependent on a common ancestry for all life! I agree there could
be several trees of life! I just don't think there is a single life form that was alive years ago
I have to call grandpa!

Originally posted by C Hess
No, I'm saying it's the only logical conclusion from the evidence.

I don't even think it is that with respect to where did everything come from. It makes for
good science fiction but it stops short of answering anything, people have no idea about
the details around it and cannot speak to much of the event without just saying we don't
know and therefore it doesn't matter.