Creationism Disproved?

Submitted by: Overmann 9 years ago in Science

Evolution of the Invertebrate Eye. ""Irreducibly complex"" my ass.
There are 261 comments:
Male 136
"We do know that the first life would had to have been a replicating molecule"

One that would have died billions of years ago from all of the mutations it was bombarded with. How can you assume mutations will help a species when there is no given rule to it`s existence?

0
Reply
Male 2,605
"How then can something even more complex than a simple building, such as the creation of life on earth, have just occurred naturally?"

This is the infamous argument from incredulity and it comes about from not adequately understanding what scientists are saying. For one, get rid of this notion that life started out being complex. Primitive life was very, very basic, as it would have had to have been. Nothing starts out being complex. A building, for instance, starts out with a cement matrix for a foundation, into which the precursors of a steel skeleton are drilled, and it only goes up from there. Ventilation systems and electrical wiring, the finer details that make a building more complex, are added later.

We do know that the first life would had to have been a replicating molecule, one that could reproduce itself in the environment by virtue of its chemical structure. All the add-ons are just there to help it be a better replicator.

0
Reply
Male 2,605
"I believe that you can feel the creator with your senses, you just have to be open about it."

There is no "feeling" the creator that I can be open about without also being open to lying to myself. I can`t see a creator; I can`t hear a creator; I can`t touch a creator; I can`t taste a creator; and I can`t smell a creator. There is nothing that exists outside of our thoughts that suggest the presence of a deity.

"So then you must believe that ancient monuments, like Stonehenge, must have just evolved then."

Again you`re having a hard time distinguishing between evolution and origins. Evolution does not address the origin of of anything but rather how existing things evolved.

0
Reply
Male 335
I would say the reason you think abiogenesis is ridiculous is because you still don`t have an understanding of what it is. Despite it being explained numerous times, you have been saying that spontaneous generation is abiogenesis, which is not true at all. Besides, when you say it`s too ridiculous (for no reason other than your inability to understand it), it`s just a God of the Gaps argument. "I don`t see how this could`ve happened, so it must have been God."

Quite the contrary about Stonehenge. While its origins are a bit shady, we have a good idea of where it came from due to old excavation records and such.

0
Reply
Male 15
I believe that you can feel the creator with your senses, you just have to be open about it. I`ve listened and considered to all the arguments on abiogenesis and decided through reason that it`s too ridiculous for me to believe in. Also, what about ancient monuments with unknown origins? According to your logic, You can`t see the creator, talk to him (or them), or find blueprints for it. So then you must believe that ancient monuments, like Stonehenge, must have just evolved then.
0
Reply
Male 335
@ akabookoo - That`s a very old argument. I know the building had a builder because it is clear the builder existed. I can seek the builder out, see him, and physically talk to him, and he (hopefully) responds. If he`s dead, I can find information about him and read the building`s blueprints. I also know there was a builder because I have seen buildings being built.
I do not know, however, that there was a creator of life. I cannot perceive him with any of my senses,and I have never seen life being created.

Think of how life originally was. The first cells were very, very simple compared to the cells of today; the first self-replicating molecule even more so.
Also, biochemistry like this is not chance; it inevitably produces complex products. Complex molecules like amino acids are even known to form in space.

0
Reply
Male 15
davymid*
sorry about the typo.
0
Reply
Male 15
davymind: Yes I am a Christian and I do believe that it makes no sense to believe that life happened by accident. You don`t look at a building and think "That`s nice, it must have just happened..." You think that it had to have an intelligent designer. How then can something even more complex than a simple building, such as the creation of life on earth, have just occurred naturally?
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Sorry for your wasted post Overmann, you were trying to make a good point on evolution with your suggested link which fancylad sadly hijacked for the sake of controversy, increased hits and hence more advertising revenue. Thus it`s turned into a good ol` religious flame war, which I assume it wasn`t meant to be.

But seeing as we`re here, let`s dance.

@ akabookoo, religion is by very definition devisive, sectarian and destructive to a fair, inclusionary society. I`m assuming you`re Christian by your previous comments as to how science needs a god (your God, obviously) to kick-start life.

0
Reply
Male 2,605
"...which would have been a likely place to start life if you believe in evolution."

Not so. Evolution starts with any replicating entity (even a primitive form of a nucleotide) that can undergo change to make it a more efficient replicator. Life officially starts at the cell but evolution can still be applied to life`s precursors.

"...but when you get into the beginnings, that`s where evolution tests my faith and that`s where I can`t support it."

Evolutionary theory does not address how life started, so you can still accept it wholly to your heart`s content.

0
Reply
Male 2,605
"And the theory is very unstable at best."

What theory are you talking about? There is no accepted theory for how life started. Abiogenesis in the science community is a collection of plausible hypotheses, which is why you can`t dismiss the notion of abiogenesis outright without looking and debating the individual hypotheses on their own merit.

"I mean, if we haven`t been able to reproduce the same things in a laboratory that supposedly happened millions of years ago by natural processes, how could you think it could happen?"

Just as humans can make complex things which nature can`t, so can nature make complex things which humans can`t. I`d be very surprised if humans were capable of making a cell because we lack information on what stages the cell originally underwent. Introducing any part of the cell at the wrong time will end in failure.

0
Reply
Male 15
Of what he has said for what?
0
Reply
Female 4,225
His teachings already existed as ethics and morals

Give me sopme examples of what he has said, for...what`s the word?

0
Reply
Male 15
Turnshoud: So what if we didn`t have any understanding of science in the Biblical Era? The teachings of Jesus still apply today and that`s why I can`t support abiogensis and the idea of evolution from a single celled organism. Many of the other concepts of evolution do not contradict my faith such as speciation and natural selection, or in other words things that can be observed, but when you get into the beginnings, that`s where evolution tests my faith and that`s where I can`t support it.
Tetramino: I totally agree with everything you said. The events of our lives give us our outlook on life and make us bias towards one thing or the other. Well said.
0
Reply
Male 62
ty is subjective.
0
Reply
Male 62
Tiredofnicks has the right idea here.

People get so caught up in trying to strictly define objective "reality" that they forget what "reality" really is: subjective experiences. Why does one story (religion, god, etc.) have to be more or less "true" than another story (science, evolution, and so on.) Because that`s what they both are: stories. Science, religion, whatever you use to describe your own reality, give us context. They tell us, "This is how things are. This is where you fit in." That`s a really important thing, context is, but too often do people look outward to find context. They look to religious leaders, political leaders, scientists for some kind of grasp of what they should be spending their energy and brainpower on. My point is this: why look outward, when your true meaning, the best context you could possibly have, is inward? Use science to get a grasp on objective reality, yes. But also, don`t forget that true reali

0
Reply
Female 4,225
Because, we had no understanding of science. We thought there were creatures in the woods, the stars prophetical.

We set our beleifs in a book supposedly completely the word of god even when we know it has been revised time and time again

0
Reply
Male 15
Yes they were able to create the amino acids that are contained in DNA, but they have not been able to form any sort of protocell, which would have been a likely place to start life if you believe in evolution. And what does that fact that there were no scientific advances in the Biblical era have anything to do with this?
0
Reply
Female 4,225
Are you talking about the experiment where they produced amino acids? I assumed you were/wiki was refering to that said experiment

What must be understood is that evolution takes place over billions of billions of years, and in the biblical era there were no scientific advances; there was not even science for that matter, therefore the sciences were not understood or known.

0
Reply
Male 15
"Mayhaps! Mayhaps it hapened. Mayhaps there is a god. But in order for the it too evolve, it would take billions of years.

Furthurmore, this was a mere experiment, which was fairly short"

What?

0
Reply
Female 4,225
Mayhaps! Mayhaps it hapened. Mayhaps there is a god. But in order for the it too evolve, it would take billions of years.

Furthurmore, this was a mere experiment, which was fairly short

0
Reply
Male 15
I`ve looked up the information... sorry if this is too difficult a subject for you. And the theory is very unstable at best. I mean, if we haven`t been able to reproduce the same things in a laboratory that supposedly happened millions of years ago by natural processes, how could you think it could happen?
"As of 2008, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life"
Direct quote from Wikipedia. So how could it have happened by accident if we can`t reproduce it at all?
0
Reply
Male 2,605
Look it up on wikipedia, akabookoo. Do your own research. Don`t outright reject the notion because it sounds unlikely without looking at the chemical background.

The first question you should be asking yourself, by the way, is not how life arose from non-organic material, but rather how organic molecules arose from non-organic molecules and then go from there. Start small and simple and work your way up - that is how every form of life on this planet started.

0
Reply
Male 15
But abiogenesis still says that the first life forms arose from non organic material. How can that be possible?
0
Reply
Male 2,605
"I don`t see a difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation."

Like I said, you don`t seem to have a well-defined idea of what spontaneous generation was. It referred to a *specific* hypothesis that has since been debunked. It`s not a general concept to be applied today. Ditch it, it`s meaningless.

"Are you saying that the quantity of life arising from life makes the difference between the two?"

I said nothing of quantity. Spontaneous generation held that new organisms are generated daily and in modern times while abiogenesis holds that life has only one origin dating billions of years ago. Besides that, the various hypotheses under abiogenesis have chemistry, biology and physics to support its arguments while spontaneous generation was just an observation lacking any scientific merit. The two are simply not equal.

0
Reply
Male 15
Overmann, I don`t see a difference between abiogenesis and spontaneous generation. In either, life arises from non-life, which we know is not true. Are you saying that the quantity of life arising from life makes the difference between the two? Either way, I don`t think it`s possible.
Cyanic: What do you think A.D. in our year means? It means Anno Domini, which means "The year of our Lord". Our years are based around the birth of Jesus, so it`s just as ignorant for you to say that he didn`t exist as it is for us to put our faith blindly in a book and God we don`t see. You can say he wasn`t the Son of God, which he is, or that he didn`t perform miracles, which he did, but to say that he didn`t exist is to ignore historical fact.
0
Reply
Male 388
I can be very intelligent on this subject; in fact, the vast majorty of you trying to seem clever are just making stuff up as you go along.

God isn`t real, Jesus isn`t real - get over it! Religeon acted as an explanation before we understood the world around us.

Heres one.. god may be omnipotent and omniscient, but who created him?
If your answer is "well he just is", then why can`t the universe "just be".

0
Reply
Male 2,605
akabookoo, you seem to not have a well-defined idea of what spontaneous generation was. It was the hypothesis that life continually spontaneously generated from non-life. This is different from abiogenesis because abiogenesis only claims one origin of life while spontaneous generation claims life continually originates, even now in modern times. Specifically, spontaneous generation would claim there are certain materials that give rise to certain organisms, like feces for flies and broth for bacteria. Pasteur debunked the latter quite ingeniously and showed that bacteria pre-exists in the air and isn`t generated by broth.

And for the record, there are several hypotheses of how life originated that fall under the general category of abiogenesis. Point is, spontaneous generation was a specific idea for how life was generated and is distinctly separate from claims of abiogenesis made by scientists.

0
Reply
Male 90
im for evolution but wat about people who are colour blind?
0
Reply
Male 90
how about we leave it at both sides have problems with there theory and that we should all just go home
0
Reply
Male 2,605
LKJSlain, the problem with your "argument" is that you are invariably dependent upon the same discredited sources. Besides that, you don`t bother elaborating on the information contained in your link and instead you scamper off and hope your proverbial fishing line reels in a few. You don`t seem to bother returning to hear what criticisms your links have garnered and if you do, you don`t seem to care. I am steadily getting sick and tired of your evasion tactics but experience says you must resort to these because you are incapable of any reasoned argument.

"It`s not the end of Intelligent Design."

What are you talking about? ID never had a "start".

0
Reply
Male 90
im for evolution but wat about people who are colour blind?
0
Reply
Female 81
This isn`t new, this theory has existed longer than creationism. idk why they even use that argument anymore, it`s like they don`t even know what evolution is or how it works. How are you supposed to have a discussion about this when one party has their hands over their ears and is screaming "Nya nya nya!"
</flamebait>
0
Reply
Male 5,094
Show me a man that says "I am absolutely certain of this" and I`ll show you a fool.
0
Reply
Male 335
@ Dudegirl - Then you obviously weren`t paying attention.

@ akabookoo - I don`t know of a time when species weren`t as defined as or were more defined than they are now. There can be a massive number of variations in a species. Look, for example, at Canis Lupus. Canis Lupus is a species known commonly as the wolf. There are hundreds of variations on the wolf, all of which fit into the species as a subspecies. This includes all the breeds of domestic dogs. There is also considerable variation in the species Homo Sapiens and even in the subspecies H.S. Sapiens which we belong to. Wiki it if you don`t believe me.

1) What`s wrong with the time span?

2) Spontaneous Generation is one theory that fits (along with many other theories) into the field of study known as abiogenesis. Look at my other post for a description of the differences between the two.

0
Reply
Male 15
Another question. If evolution is true, why are species today so well defined? Wouldn`t there be more differences among species themselves? Another thing, I have no problem with the idea that species adapt to their environment and that idea does not contradict creationism at all, I simply have a problem with:
1) The time span
and
2) I don`t think that abiogenesis was a good enough explanation for me. Isn`t that still spontaneous generation?

... I`ll go look it up.

0
Reply
Female 45
All I saw was a bunch of creatures with different eyes yet this video gave no hint of what they have to do with each other.
0
Reply
Male 452
Haha! Here is my version of creationist "quasi math" according to "www.godandscience.org/answers": (Knowledge=Evil)=Lies=Good | Quasi knowledge=Religious Science. They are feeding you lies on purpose

In my opinion it still amazes me that people in the 21 century believe in religion and gods.
Science is the only way!

0
Reply
Male 452
Mein got! 666 comments on this one when I pressed the comment button
0
Reply
Male 335
@LKJSlain - Been there, done that. That site uses so much false math it isn`t even worth my time. They don`t even know what a baryon is (although they claim to) and they use so much bad creationist math it`s not even funny.
0
Reply
Female 648
www.godandscience.org/answers
0
Reply
Male 335
@ 153Fish - I have never heard nor seen a viable argument supported by empirical evidence that suggests the universe (or anything at all) was created by a deity. Intelligent Design (a fancy word for creationism) as most people think of it (i.e. Strict Creationism and Young Earth Creationism) is a complete fallacy and is contradicted by decades of empirical evidence in many fields of natural science (any field that would contradict it), while Creationism in all of its forms has none.
0
Reply
Male 650
Now i hate the idea of god even more.
0
Reply
Male 335
@ gorgokid - Creationism is theory (not a scientific theory; just a regular ol` theory) which states that everything (time, space, and matter) was created by a deity or deities. It is a belief held by most (not all) religions in the world. The deity most often claimed to be that creator is the Abrahamic god of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
While plain Creationism isn`t so bad and can easily co-exist with Evolution, the more silly versions, namely strict creationism (the belief that a deity created everything, however long ago, and nothing has changed since) and young earth creationism (the belief that a deity created the world a short time ago (usually less than 10,000 years) and virtually nothing in nature has changed since then.
Most people don`t insult the notion of a deity, but rather the notions of strict and young earth creationism, because they have absolutely no evidence and are more outrageous claims to make than regular creationism, which is somewhat akin to Deism.
0
Reply
Male 335
@ akabookoo (continued) -
3) We do not base our entire theory on The Origin of Species. Think of that book as the "abiogenesis" of evolution, so to speak. It merely got the ball rolling, and all the new evidence that has surfaced since is the "evolution" of evolution.
4) We don`t assume that just that one thing proves evolution. We base our theory on much evidence such as the fossil record, the genome, selective breeding and direct observation of natural selection and microevolution (which is just a fancy word for a little bit of evolution over a short amount of time).
0
Reply
Male 335
@ akabookoo -
1) True, Spontaneous Generation was disproved long ago. However, it is one of the many theories of abiogenesis, the study of how life arises from non-life. Spontaneous Generation is the archaic theory that complex life forms can pop into existence under the right conditions, such as maggots appearing in rotting meat (which, if I`m not mistaken, is what gave birth to this theory). However, any viable abiogenesis theory will tell you that abiogenesis occurs much like evolution.
2) Every fossil is a transitional fossil, because every animal is one link in the evolutionary chain. However, if you want what is commonly thought of as "transitional," then go to Google or Wikipedia and search for "Archaeopteryx," "Tiktaalik," and "Ambulocetus." You can also look up "Human Evolution."
0
Reply
Male 227
why are people spending so much time and effort trying to disprove "creationism" wich is a fancy way of saying christianity, and no, there not trying to disprove judaism or islam, just christianity. at least thats the way it seems to me.
0
Reply
Male 8
akabookoo:
1)spontaneous generation was not disproven. Look up Stanley Miller
2)Fossils are extremely rare. The organisms has to die in conditions where it won`t decompose. Lot`s of species have existed that we don`t know about because none of them died in these conditions
3)The book of darwin has proof in it. He studied birds and other species in the galapagos islands, and has pretty much all been proven. Bible? Not to much proof there.
4)I can`t really debate this one. It`s another way of looking at it, but it doesn`t make it right.
0
Reply
Male 15
Okay, There`s a few things I need an evolutionist to clear up for me...
1) Spontaneous generation was disproven years ago, so how could life have arose from non organic matter in the first place?
2) If evolution is real, wouldn`t there be transitional fossils in the fossil record? And if there are any, then I would like a link to the proof please.
3) How is it ignorant for a creationist to believe in a book (The Bible by God), when evolutionists also believe in a book (On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin)?
4) And my last question, Why do you assume that similar structures among species proves evolution? Couldn`t it prove that all species have the same designer?
I`m not bashing anyone or any of that or calling anyone wrong... just providing a better Creationist viewpoint than anyone else has yet...
0
Reply
Male 162
If this is true (Something I doubt) there are still many other arguments for the existence of a creating Deity. Really, folks. It`s not the end of Intelligent Design.
0
Reply
Male 1,204
ok i`ll stop talking to myself and go watch the office. good night!
0
Reply
Male 1,204
I`M A CACTUAR AND I GO RWAR

yes, i really have given up debating. it`s a lost cause. i take no sides, OTHER THEN THE SIDE OF TEH GREAT CACTUAR. HE SHALL SMITE ALL ATHIESTS, THIESTS, AGNOSTICS, DIESTS, AND WHATEVER ELSE YOU CAN DISH OUT. HE ALSO LIKES JEWS OVEN ROASTED, CHRISTIANS ON A SHISHKABOB, AND ATHIESTS WITH ROCKS.

i hope i`ve offended everyone on the forums.

0
Reply
Male 230
that`s an oldlie but very true..
0
Reply
Female 4,225
ok then

But anyways:

When you assume, you make as ASS out of U to ME

0
Reply
Male 230
... im just sayin`....
0
Reply
Female 4,225
^Wow, nice tactic. I like you doug. You just proved that we asume and react differently by using a different link, which I assunmed was related to this argument because of my peviouse observation
0
Reply
Male 230
Look at the brain on davy! Well said; shows you`re thinking and not just reacting. I can`t stand extremists on either side of this argument, because they are all sure sure of what they "know." I`m not that smart. And if they were, they sure wouldn`t be hanging out at IAB like me. Who said anything about scientific or creationist? Or was it just assumed?
0
Reply
Male 12,138
^^ Or then again, it could be a Star Wars reference, and nothing to do with science or creationism at all.
0
Reply
Female 4,225
Haha! Know I get it. the guy who`s supposed to be scientific is thinking about people of on the moon in in a scientific way, where as the supposed creationist is about to say it`s a ball of cheese which is pure opinion and observatuion without fact or proof!

That`s funny, and true

0
Reply
Male 230
Ok, self made words and stick figure comics...
0
Reply
Female 4,225
^^That one`s just funny. Proves nothing. Could you maybe use words or self made stick figure comics instead?
0
Reply
Male 230

0
Reply
Female 4,225
^haha

I`d be no better than the common iab creationis if I said this link proves all

http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/81968...
I think there being almost zero links about disproving creationists is proof that almodt all americans are creationists...

0
Reply
Male 230

0
Reply
Female 4,225
Waitt, what about the experiment that produced amino acids?
0
Reply
Female 4,225
Prime, to what you said on page 8, the Crusades were fueled by religion, and so are many decriminating crimes

Some may even argue that war in the east is fueled by religion.

And Hitler atted Jews.

0
Reply
Male 4
First off let me address Primetimekin. Almost nobody in the scientific community will say that matter did not exist before the big bang in one form or another. In fact the big bang could never have happened without some sort of super dense object. There are several experiments that are trying to address these issues. In fact just do a search over the Large Hadron Collider and they are Starting experiments that mimic the universe less than a billionth of a second after the big bang.

The problem with trying to find a true beginning is that it is a paradox. if we exist because of a creator then who created our creator and so forth.

Also there is hard evidence that certain sub atomic particles don`t act in accordance to any known forces. They proven that they can appear in a total vacuum.
As far as the eye configuration goes. Our cone and rod cells align the way they do because a similar arrangement helped our ancestors survive and flourish better than those with other arrangeme

0
Reply
Female 4,225
prime is possibly one of the only creationists that is not a pidgen and can be respected.


But I need a counter

This provs nothing but..

If dino`s existed 6000 years ago, then I don`t think the chinnesse would think them dragons?

0
Reply
Male 2,605
"But you are still stuck with the assumption that flaws are bad."

Right, because we all know cancer is a good thing. Feel free to speculate on how a god could deliberately design flaws (susceptibility to horrendous disease, specifically) and still be considered loving or benevolent and willing to answer prayer. Go ahead, lay out your "reasoning" here for all to see.

"If God where to create a perfect being, then that being itself would be god."

I didn`t say God needed to create a perfect being, nor do I see how photoreceptors positioned towards the front of the eye constitute being perfect or godlike.

Perhaps you have forced yourself to believe flaws were intentional and are somehow beneficial because you cannot bear to accept the alternative: that there is nothing sacred about our existence in the universe, that we are all alone on a rock drifting aimlessly through an unspectacular region of space.

0
Reply
Male 335
primetimekin, you`re dumb as dirt. Don`t be so willfully ignorant.
0
Reply
Female 4,225
^^ That is the best quote on arguing with Christians I have ever heard
0
Reply
Male 30
I`m a strict athiest, and quite frankly i`m sick of the flame war inducing topics. I`m not gonna diss the christians etc because i`m sick of not being listened to. but i think this quote sums up this argument entirely:
"Arguing with a creationist is like play chess with a pigeon. Their goal is to knock over all the pieces, poop on the board, then return to their flock proclaiming a victory"
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"What are you doing on the forums at this hour, anyway - shouldn`t you be in church?"

Im a catholic, not a saint.

But you are still stuck with the assumption that flaws are bad. I say they are what make us humans. If God where to create a perfect being, then that being itself would be god.

0
Reply
Male 541
Creationism is retarded ! ! !

maybe this doesn`t prove that eyes were evolved, but where in teh name of the lord is the counter argument, that God just made it using dust!??? its not logical, and physically impossible .. just plain ridiculous, people need to wake the I am a pretty pretty little girl up!

0
Reply
Male 2,605
And rather than impress the human species with my wisdom and existence as supreme ruler by removing blindness altogether, let`s only *spottily* cure the eye malignants of those individuals least well equipped to spread the glorious tale of their miraculous healing in their time frame.

What are you doing on the forums at this hour, anyway - shouldn`t you be in church?

0
Reply
Male 2,605
yellowsquare, I`ve now mentioned several times that I did not originally name the link "Creationism Disproved?". I am disappointed fancylad felt a need to change it because it is not my intention to suggest this video somehow disproves anything. I suggested this link in hopes of debunking the creationist argument that the eye is too complex to have evolved, and that is what it does.

"But maybe the flawed eye is important to the creator. Like I said, who said flaws aren`t important."

Who said they are? It seems to me you`d like to believe anything in order to conserve your world view, beyond such beliefs making any sense. Only in a belief system as depraved, twisted and barbaric as Christianity (among other religions) does it make "sense" for a creator to deliberately design a susceptibility to disease and blindness and nurture intentional suffering in its creations.

0
Reply
Female 465
Aaahhh... religious debates are yummy ^-^
0
Reply
Male 322
A world without God....thats all we need
0
Reply
Male 60
Or if you find that one too simple then have a look at this more complex version
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/god...
0
Reply
Male 60
This game nicely sums up my position
http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/wha...
Select what characteristics you`re God must have, and it will tell you what the problem is with it.
The only way you can have no problems within the characteristics you select is by not selecting any.. i.e. by saying there is no God.

Note: The Game doesn`t say whether any belief is right or wrong, but points out instead, the problems with your view of God.

0
Reply
Male 7,933
" The eye *is* flawed, however, if one choses to claim it was intelligently designed by an omnipotent creator because in that context, the eye reflects an imperfect design"

But maybe the flawed eye is important to the creator. Like I said, who said flaws aren`t important.

0
Reply
Female 1,545
Damn it, fancylad. Get off your atheist high horse.
0
Reply
Female 1,545
IAB and it`s legendary agenda.

I`m an evolutionist, but this little video does not disprove Creationism and I wish the so-called "scientifically englightened" evolutionists on this site would act a little more scientifically and methodically.

Unfortunately, finding one little internet video that talks about mollusc eyes does not disprove Creationism.

All it does is incite a God/No God war and further creates chaos, heats up anger between opposing sides, and furthers the rift between the two.

0
Reply
Male 2,605
there.

"But equally we could state there is a creator who created the amazing diversity of life and also the similarities between species."

Not unless you concede that a creator is continually generating new species. Over 99% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct, and all of life that exists today is descended from the ancestors who survived. Who also can`t say the evidence points to a creator because there is nothing specific that suggests we were designed that cannot be explained by natural processes that work perfectly with the assumption there is no creator.

0
Reply
Male 2,605
Our eye is only capable of seeing a very limited range of the electromagnetic spectrum.

"Not really. Most atheist believe the world started with the big bang and that, that matter came from no where. Seems to have the same amount of faith as someone saying God created that matter."

Except that those are beliefs atheists hold separately from their atheism. In other words, atheism doesn`t inherently suggest what one must believe in addition to holding a lack of belief in a deity. That is why atheists are so varied, because they only have the one idea, necessarily, in common. By the way, matter did not not come from nowhere. I certainly don`t believe that.

"How does the eye know how to get all of the rods and cones aligned properly so that it can truly see?"

The eye doesn`t "know", per se, it`s just chance mutation that aided the organism in passing these mutations onto its young, who in turn experienced mutations that built upon what was already

0
Reply
Male 13
This thread just proves that religion causes conflict.
0
Reply
Male 2,605
"Why is it that athiests never seem to doubt their faith? wouldn`t it show that they are more open-minded if they considered the other side?"

Most atheists I know came about precisely by questioning their religious faith and realizing it holds no merit to them. And it`s not as if atheists have much to doubt - they hold, inherently and by the suggestion of the label alone, no faith to begin with. Atheism is the lack of a belief in god. That`s it.

"No, but there really isn`t any evidence for it."

I`m not saying the eye is inherently flawed. It functions and would not have been selected and built upon into a complex structure if it didn`t serve to enhance our chances of surviving and reproducing. The eye *is* flawed, however, if one choses to claim it was intelligently designed by an omnipotent creator because in that context, the eye reflects an imperfect design. We don`t see as well as we could, as well as perfect dictates.

0
Reply
Male 243
mmk. hey everyone. im here (by the way)
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"Religion is just a tool to control people, and just causes more death/wars."
Replace the word religion with government, and the sentence still holds true.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"Also, why did you call Atheism "faith?" Atheism is, by definition, a lack thereof."
Not really. Most atheist believe the world started with the big bang and that, that matter came from no where. Seems to have the same amount of faith as someone saying God created that matter.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"Can you provide some reason why *not* to hold that assumption?"
No, but there really isn`t any evidence for it. I guess you can say that flaws are the spice of life.

And many arguments for evolution, can be said for a creator.
the theory states evolution occurred from a common ancestor, and then study of fossils and homologies is used to indicate that indeed the theory is correct and evolution does occur. But equally we could state there is a creator who created the amazing diversity of life and also the similarities between species.

0
Reply
Male 51
To whoever answered my question about the light sensitive patch, thanks. I could see how a few freaky chemical imbalances could cause that to develop.

Now for my next question in ignorance. How does the eye know how to get all of the rods and cones aligned properly so that it can truly see?

And don`t worry about me asking "Why then is color blindness/true blindness recessive?" Because natural selection is the only good answer for that. But, if someone could enlighten me that`d be nice. Kthx.

0
Reply
Male 10,440
you creationists utterly UTTERLY disgust me.

looks like everyone`s turning into an atheist these days, I bet thats only because its suddenly become so `popular`...

0
Reply
Male 1,231
Google is god. End of story.
0
Reply
Male 42
Alright, creationists, keep your religion, the only problem with it is when they bring it into places no one wants it to be brought. there is only an issue when you bring your religion into a public place such as schools or any other place people such as me (atheist) tend to go continuously. As long as we keep the "church and state separate", these issues wont be considered because you do have your right to a religion, just don`t bring it to a place with apposers.
0
Reply
Male 14
You creationists are thick as f***. bible was written and edited by man not by god. Religion is just a tool to control people, and just causes more death/wars.
0
Reply
Male 108
"I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure -- that is all that agnosticism means."
- Clarence Darrow
0
Reply
Male 335
understanding*

Last word got cut off.

0
Reply
Male 335
@ dynapyre - Have you ever met an Atheist who did that? If so, did you present them with "facts" outside of holy texts?

Also, why did you call Atheism "faith?" Atheism is, by definition, a lack thereof.

Most of us have been believers at one point, and we deconverted after seeing mountains of evidence contradictiong holy scripture and absolutely no evidence for a divine creator. Most Christians, however, have never been Atheist, and a minority of them (mainly composed of creationist fundamentalists) are willingly ignorant and outright dismiss evidence as "inaccurate and false" while claiming that their scriptures are completely true.

And anyways, the majority of Atheists (including me) are Weak Atheists, meaning we lack a belief in dieties, without completely denying the possibility of their existence. I can say with certainty, however, that the Abrahamic God, as the Bible and Quran describe him, is 100% false. A true god would be beyong human underst

0
Reply
Male 650
Congratz i-a-b for making this page longer than the rejected t-shirt designs

I`m a just-now-ist, so where do I fit in?

0
Reply
Male 416
I mean c`mon I can`t believe people still doubt this stuff. The bible is diluted and about 2000 (!) years old, religion is nothing but a stack of fake rules and rituals to make it seem complicated enough to make it seem true. It`s time to go from religion to philosofy people, let`s take the next step in cultural human evolution.
0
Reply
Male 416
EVERY creatonist argument can be disproven if googled right.
0
Reply
Male 1,265
"just cause a book says so doesnt mean its true"

i take it everybody went out and studied evolutionary science and came to their own conclusions, right? oh, you just believe it because it`s in a science book?

really, it`s not really that different either way for the majority of people.

0
Reply
Male 4
Not to mention that if I`m not mistaken the whole idea of Faith is based on belief without knowing.

If a religion is to be based on faith their can never be any hard evidence.

I kind of like the agnostic route. To many dead ends in the work of man to make a belief system that is supposed to be "perfect"

besides the argument that we can only exist because god made us doesn`t explain how god came into being.

Back on topic. I know many Christians that believe in evolution. Creationism can never be disproved unless we can prove that their was no creator.

If you believe in a creator then the method of creation is more of a semantic argument and if you make a big unending argument out of it I think you are missing the entire point

0
Reply
Male 114
I haven`t watched this video yet, but I have one thing to add to this topic, since it seems on-topic. I was listening to Dennis Prager in the radio and he mentioned that he hadn`t met any athiest that has doubted their athiesm. Many Christians have doubted their faith but end up sticking to it because they find that it is the most factual in the end. Athiests call christians closed-minded and when facts are presented to them they just cover their ears and go "LALALALALALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU!!" Why is it that athiests never seem to doubt their faith? wouldn`t it show that they are more open-minded if they considered the other side?
0
Reply
Male 4
First off let me say that the human eye is not the most advanced eye. Many organisms have more complex and "sharper" eyes than us.

For those of you that keep saying a mollusk eye has nothing to do with a human eye have never heard of comparative anatomy. The eye functions the same and is comprised of the exact same structures in all organisms that have eyes. It`s the levels of complexity that change.

I think we can all agree that Evolution is as close to being proven as any theory can. I also think we can all agree that evolution doesn`t necessarily mean that creationism is disproved.

I for one think Creationism is laughable in the bang their is a full grown human man..take a rib and bam you have a woman...hell the old testament is more figurative than literal anyway.

Point being..an eye is an eye..same organ, same function. Even if it is on different organisms

0
Reply
Male 107
f*uck it im too late to argue haha all the good arguments have been used so now i`ll just sit and wait for the fireworks to continue
0
Reply
Female 1,984
(yay, next page!)
0
Reply
Female 1,984
^ I guess so.
0
Reply
Male 2,605
He`s just bitter, Bekll. When he said he was going to leave IAB he should have followed his own advice. I certainly wouldn`t miss him, and his boorish behavior only cements that sentiment.

"this didnt disprove anything!!!!!"

I guess you didn`t pay attention to my first post in this thread. I didn`t write the link title. Mine was originally "Evolution of the invertebrate eye" but I guess fancylad felt a need to make it controversial. I`m not satisfied with it because I think that`s why the link is receiving a lower rating than it otherwise would have. I am fully aware this video doesn`t disprove anything. I never intended for it to.

0
Reply
Female 993
ah, I`m just posting to get to the next page...why did you have to make it long?!

And I agree with touche...how did the eye evolve again? Maybe I missed something explained in this video...like...everything.

0
Reply
Female 1,984
Oh... and fattpill...

Why`d you make the page so darn long?! O__o

0
Reply
Female 1,984
jdotjdot89, "science demands proof."

No... science demands evidence. Only mathematics deals with proofs.

0
Reply
Female 1,984
fattpill, "you people are never going to know the truth and it is sad to me because when you do find out that the punisment is real it is going to be too late."

Uhh... punishment of/from what? Also, that`s a pretty bleak view considering all the accomplishments and intellect humans have done and gathered throughout time. And what `truth` are you referring to?

0
Reply
Male 58
i missed the part between the `Basin with light sensitive cells` and the `extremely complex eye`. So how was the eye evolved again?
0
Reply
Male 256
this didnt disprove anything!!!!! you people are never going to know the truth and it is sad to me because when you do find out that the punisment is real it is going to be too late. there is no going back people.
0
Reply
Male 106
ugh almost onto the next page
0
Reply
Male 106
anyway, the thing about this whole "you have to believe in god thing" is:

science demands proof. religion says proof is irrelevant.

Neither says the other is wrong per se, but science does have the upper hand in the argument. The proven parts of science do have proof and evidence for them, while religion, by its own account, will never have anything going for it.

0
Reply
Male 106
almost there i hope
0
Reply
Male 106
im going to keep replying until we get onto the next page already.
0
Reply
Male 106
this page is disgustingly long now.
0
Reply
Male 256
I stretch your aetheist page wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
0
Reply
Female 496
Oh shoot, did I miss the fireworks?
0
Reply
Male 33
I honestly can`t believe there are still people who argue black is white, and that creationism is real.

evolution has been proven in microbes and in medicine today treatments don`t work because superbugs (C.dif and XRSA) have EVOLVED to become immune.

The only reason we cannot see it in ourselves is due to the fact out rate of reproduction is so much lower. 25 years in comparison to 25 minutes!

Selective breeding in cattle anyone?!


I do believe in something out there that provided suitable living conditions (from fundimental unified forces to the proximity of earth to the sun)... but honestly, if one more person rams creationism down my throat i may well cry.

0
Reply
Male 2,605
Thanks, itsgalf, but I`m already well aware of the tenets of the irreducible complexity argument. Behe defines irreducible complexity as:

"...a system or device is irreducibly complex if it has a number of different components that all work together to accomplish the task of the system, and if you were to remove one of the components, the system would no longer function. An irreducibly complex system is highly unlikely to be built piece-by-piece through Darwinian processes, because the system has to be fully present in order for it to function.”

But the fallacy of this argument is Behe would have you believe that an eye without a lens is just as good (or bad) as having no eye at all. What? Since when? A lens helps only in the additional focusing of light. Light is still focused (via the pupil) onto photoreceptors and so a person doesn`t cease to see just because they lack a lens.

0
Reply
Male 169
God, we are all one. Energy = Everything. God = Everything. Energy = God. :)
0
Reply
Male 169
I don`t see why science and spirituality have to be mutually exclusive. I see it like this: Science believes that everything in the Universe is, essentially, composed of energy. As we all learned in High School, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only changed. My individual consciousness exists, therefore I am energy. If I am energy, then I have always existed and will never cease to exist. Which would render everything in our Universe immortal. Nearly every religion in the world professes a belief in the "soul." Maybe the soul is simply the fundamental energy out of which everything in the Universe is composed, but operating at different frequencies (ie Light vs a chair vs water vs colors vs souls vs etc.) Because this is so, we can explain the ideas of multiple dimensions/universes/heavens/afterlives, reincarnation, evolution etc. Also, if this were true, then it would mean that the real "God" is in everything (like religion says.) Therefore, we are all
0
Reply
Male 42
"Cold hard evidence to the existence of God won`t be found."

then why must some consistently believe in him if there is not any? to me, to not have proof means, must not exist... i don`t know go believe you pretty books. OMFG ITS IN A BOOK MUST BE THE ANSWER I HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR.

0
Reply
Male 93
0
Reply
Male 93
well that`s your problem. You`re looking too hard for evidence, evidence that you won`t find. Cold hard evidence to the existence of God won`t be found.
0
Reply
Male 33
all of u who say evolution of lower organisms to higher ain`t possible, i pity ur ignorance. Maybe u should start reading high school biology books. :-)
0
Reply
Male 1,013
Evolution is fact. It neither proves nor disproves whether a murderous deity exists or not. Having read the bible and seeing that god killed 99.99999998% of all of Adam and Eve`s progeny in a flood is proof enough that god DNE.
0
Reply
Male 2,605
"Your assuming that flaws dont make us perfect."

Can you provide some reason why *not* to hold that assumption?

0
Reply
Male 42
Alright, Let me just put in my info. I have never and will never believe in god. Based on the lack of evidence for it. If there is evidence for it, it is not any sufficient evidence that has not come from a book written by someone... let me go write a book on how earth was made by something... possibly bury it for a bit, and pull it out and tell everyone to believe in it. start this whole religion off a book i wrote. i think ill try that.

i know i have no basis for my argument, but just ponder what i have written.

0
Reply
Female 121
im assuming that im still amazed by the mushroom, seein as its 3 and a half miles in diameter.
0
Reply
Male 7,933
"If I were to design an eye, one would think that I would position the photoreceptors, the specialized cells that receive and process the actual light, *towards* the light input and not *away* from it. The only way to reconcile this fact with an intelligent creator is to say the creator is on all accounts incompetent or not as "intelligent" as some would like to believe."

Your assuming that flaws dont make us perfect.

0
Reply
Male 1,217
Scientists won`t believe in creationism because it has no evidence, and Religious peope won`t believe in science because... well I don`t know, maybe `cuz their already religious? I don`t blame them, but in the big picture, religion is the whiny one, and that`s not being helped any by the fact that lots of people join it for comfort that they won`t die and rot in the ground.
0
Reply
Female 121
i like how all the posts for creationisms sides are real long. also, for teh sake of random trivia, teh worlds largest organism is a mushroom. happy argument :D
0
Reply
Male 2,605
"Okay, how did they go from step 2 to 3?"

Any sort of membrane overlap growth at the edges of the "basin" would act to focus the light and provide a clearer image, and so we can extrapolate there were various degrees of growth until only a hole, much like that of a pinhole camera, remained.

If I were to design an eye, one would think that I would position the photoreceptors, the specialized cells that receive and process the actual light, *towards* the light input and not *away* from it. The only way to reconcile this fact with an intelligent creator is to say the creator is on all accounts incompetent or not as "intelligent" as some would like to believe.

0
Reply
Male 7,933
http://islamicsystem.blogspot.com/2008/0...

There are points for and against

0
Reply
Male 410
As is the sequel to the Bible.

I give the pope head, free ticket to paradise.

0
Reply
Female 1,984
--"Well theres only one way to disprove one of the theories... Build a time machine!"

"Been there, done that. You can only go forward."--

Actually, you`re both wrong. When a time machine is invented - Ronald Mallett is currently working on it - you can go into the past, but only as far back as when the machine was first turned on.

0
Reply
Male 12,138
^^ Primetimekin "Been there, done that. You can only go forward."

WOOT WOOT, IMMINENT "SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS USED COMPLETELY OUT OF SCIENTIFIC CONTEXT" QUOTE APPROACHING FROM PRIMETIME" WOOT WOOT...

0
Reply
Male 12,138
Ah, you`re back, Your Grace. I must apologise for my fellow atheists, some of which seemed to take offence at your adherence to the Good Book.

Shall I kiss the Bishop`s Ring?

0
Reply
Male 7,933
Okay, how did they go from step 2 to 3?

"Well theres only one way to disprove one of the theories... Build a time machine!"

Been there, done that. You can only go forward.

0
Reply
Male 12,138
Maddog my man,

No proof is available, but for the next best thing, check out The Life of Brian by the Monty Python crew, which is a pretty spot-on accreditation of how it probably all went down, and was many decades ahead of it`s time.

But then, you`re probably already familiar with the particular piece of satire I`m referring to, being a European and all...

0
Reply
Male 3,369
You know, I`m of the frame of mind that I need proof.

So far, only the science community has provided anything that I`d consider proof.

feel free to disprove me!

0
Reply
Male 12,138
Understood.
0
Reply
Male 23
Well theres only one way to disprove one of the theories... Build a time machine!
0
Reply
Male 2,160
nope,just ammused at how both the religious and scientific people go about bashing each other without thinking ever that maybe theres other sides out there who dont give a damn on the topic but have found uses for playing them out against each other(aka: politics and how to gain political power and control)
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Viking man, what a downer, bad day in Germany today or what? I`m next door in Holland, maybe the crappy weather has got to you too...
0
Reply
Male 2,160
to be truely honest,i dont believe in any gods or any such bullpoo, and dont support evolution 100% either, if it exists now, i can mostly likely shoot it and it dies, and i´ve never seen god show up to stop bullets, and i´ve also never seen the offspring of a deer or boar turn bullet or arrow-proof, and none of this crap of it will happen eventually, theyve been about for who knows and who cares how long, there, that being said, little god fearing political tools carry on and little science fearing political tools carry on as well, enjoy your stay on the planet and dont forget to control the population by wiping each other out without thought.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Look, as various people have said, people aren`t going to change their beliefs. I don`t believe god exists, but many here do. I`m a professional scientist, I make my career out of the assumption that the world is 4.6 billion years old and that evolution can explain all life on the planet. Christians believe that it was divinely created by God. Fair enough. The problem comes when Christian Fundamentalists try to encroach on the realm of science by spouting bullwank like creationism.

Leave religious faith where it belongs, in the realm of personal belief and spiritualism. And leave science where it belongs, in the realm of reality, reason and logic, which I personally think is more appropriate for how I live my life in the year 2008. But, you know, whatever helps you sleep at night.

0
Reply
Male 12,138
^^ Superswan: "Yeah they have carbon dated a cloth that supposedly belonged to Jesus. It was found in his grave."

davymid: "Superswan, please cite your source for this holy cloth from 2000 years ago from Jesus` grave... I would have thought if they knew where Jesus`s grave was, it might be a bit of a tourist attraction by now..."

Superswan: "I said it supposedly belonged to Jesus. It could just be someone from that time. It was a while ago since I heard of this carbon dating process, so I lost track of where it was. I definately know it was seen as sacred ground."

Well, f*ck me. A cloth from a 2000 year old tomb (which may or may not have belonged to Jesus) was carbon dated to 2000 years ago? Stop the f*cking press.

Maybe you`re referring to the Turin shroud, which has been proven numerous times (most recently by the BBC a couple of months ago) to be a medieval forgery.

0
Reply
Male 227
none of us went to school to to study evolution...
0
Reply
Male 438
I thought the idiot that didn`t know about Jesus`s grave was hilarious.
0
Reply
Male 106
not much sympathy for 1:30am. I`ve spent the last five days up till 6am in a row.

I`ve actually gone nocturnal before.

it sucks; i don`t recommend it

0
Reply
Male 36
Oh, that`s ok then.

Sorry about that. It is 1:32 am here, so... You know lack of concentration and crap =D

0
Reply
Male 106
wasn`t even really referring to you
0
Reply
Male 106
then maybe you shouldn`t try to argue it lol
0
Reply
Male 36
^dougsimpson, I can go on all night, seriously. =D
0
Reply
Male 36
jdotjdot89, I don`t know whether you realise, but the reason I didn`t point that out is because I have never ever taken note of Jesus` life in the bible or w/e. Yeah, ok I made a mistake, maybe because I don`t really care about christianity/judaism?
0
Reply
Male 230
"I smell another IAB religious debate.
Everybody hide!!"

drating hilarious!

0
Reply
Male 36
I said it supposedly belonged to Jesus. It could just be someone from that time. It was a while ago since I heard of this carbon dating process, so I lost track of where it was. I definately know it was seen as sacred ground. Maybe that`s why there`s not tourists? Because none of the locals or wholely religious people want to ruin the site? Who knows.
0
Reply
Male 106
loincloth aside--whoever said earlier that the Romans killed Jesus to prevent a Christian uprising is outright wrong. First, killing a group`s leader is usually a great way to START an uprising.

That whole part is completely irrelevant anyway because Christians and Christianity did not exist until after Jesus`s death. Jesus was himself a Jew, as were all of his disciples. The real development of Christianity as believing in the divinity of Jesus came afterwards, especially promoted by Paul (who was himself originally a Jew named Saul).

BEFORE YOU MAKE AN ARGUMENT MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU`RE TALKING ABOUT.

When you argue something incorrectly, you make yourself look stupid and detract from the authenticity of not only your argument, but of the entire point of view you were originally trying to promote.

0
Reply
Male 12,138
Superswan, please cite your source for this holy cloth from 2000 years ago from Jesus` grave... I would have thought if they knew where Jesus`s grave was, it might be a bit of a tourist attraction by now...
0
Reply
Male 386
No way, my Dad isn`t THAT omniscient and all-powerful.

Y`know, he can cook but really has trouble getting the DVD player to work.

There`s no way he made you guys, I`m serious.

0
Reply
Male 36
Yeah they have carbon dated a cloth that supposedly belonged to Jesus. It was found in his grave. (desicration of holy ground, much) It actually almost matched the stories
0
Reply
Female 1,984
"Ah, actually we do know Jesus existed thanks to the Romans."
Nope - there is no historical evidence to suggest Jesus existed.
0
Reply
Female 1,984
"People are so desperate these days to hang on to evolutionary theory..."

Because...

* Evolution is every much a fact as the theory of gravity.
* Over 99.8% of scientists in relevant field accept evolution.
* There are no alternative scientific theories.
* There is a huge amount of evidence in support of evolution...
* And zero evidence against it.
* The `discussion` is actually educated people trying to educate others.
* The more intelligent a person is, the more likely they are to understand and accept evolution.
* The "discussion" only happens in backward places like Turkey and parts of the United States.

0
Reply
Male 36
I totally agree with you there Myst1278. I still don`t like religious ideas, though. =)
0
Reply
Female 416
*sniff, sniff*

I smell another IAB religious debate.

Everybody hide!!

0
Reply
Male 23
Religeon has always been used as a way to explain the unexplained. Just look at Greek mythology and the like. They honestly believed that stuff back then. Then technology and our understanding of the world around us grew to the point where we no longer needed to rely on those stories of gods and goddesses in order to explain the workings of the world.

It`s my firm belief that this will repeat itself, and the Bible will cease to be anything more than a great work of fiction, just as Greek mythology has become.

0
Reply
Male 230
Man of God means HOLY MAN; This means preists, bishops and THE POPE. Goddamn it...

:-)

0
Reply
Male 1,036
Poppycock!

Everyone knows that mollusk were Gods first try at making eyes.

0
Reply
Male 36
And monkeys became the way they are, because when the Earth had finally developed land, the sea animals rapidly grew to adapt to this change. They did this so amazingly fast because of the atmosphere and cells were still productively new. Lizard like creatures spent more time in the trees and as the temperature dropped, they started growing hairs. Their living conditions (up in trees) developed their ape-like stance from hanging around in trees. There arms long from reaching for food on branches etc. It`s so complex. As I said before this could have gone any way.
0
Reply
Male 36
Natural selection and `rogue` chromosomes. (I say rogue because they`re varied). The adpatation comes from environment. Man evolved because standing up right seemed essential for the survival of early ape-like people. It`s all very confusing and hard to explain
0
Reply
Male 27
This isn`t the reason I don`t believe in evolution but I`ve always wondered as to why we might have evolved? I mean usually when some type of evolution occurs in animals - there is usually a reason. I mean apparently monkeys are getting along just fine because they`re still here. Most species evolve to adapt but I wonder if someone could learn me why did monkeys evolve?
0
Reply
Female 4,225
It appears…that our dear Pope Benedict suffers from many…illnesses. Poor man.

It appears he is 10 and thinks he`s 70

Pho ny

No, I say he`s 13

0
Reply
Male 36
Why do I bother? You`re obviously some 10 year old or something. Man of God means HOLY MAN; This means preists, bishops and THE POPE. Goddamn it...
0
Reply
Female 4,225
Wow…I’m sorry sir. Pope Benedict. Am I forgiven your Holliness, holy of hollies?

Can you remind me- what was that quote you said- that wuote from the crusades?

0
Reply
Male 36
MAN OF GOD! Not GOD. Read
0
Reply
Female 4,225
Someone call the Institution, there’s a guy who thinks he’s the pope

Well popey, tell me, tell me about your past?

Your acting pretty ungodly for a man of god

Have you ever read Michael Crichton’s Next?

0
Reply
Female 4,225
ok o

And the thing is, Allah, God, and the Jewish God, are all one god, Abraham’s God!

I need to get a Holda my history book, or go to wikipedia, that’s pretty much what happened though. a

0
Reply
Male 2,605
I`d like to point out that the name of my link wasn`t originally "Creationism Disproved?". The objective of my suggesting this link wasn`t to try and disprove anything but rather dismiss creationist claims that the eye is irreducibly complex. If the eye can be broken up into several stages, each of which providing some benefit for the possessing organism, then irreducible complexity flies out the window. Accept evolution or don`t, I don`t care, but don`t try and make an argument from incredulity when the accepted scientific theory perfectly explains complex structures such as the eye.
0
Reply
Female 4,225
Pope, you have just proven my point! If you must obey the rules, obey all!
0
Reply
Male 36
Does it seem sad that I`m sitting here, pressing refresh just to rant some more about a new post? =D
0
Reply
Male 36
"Ah, actually we do know Jesus existed thanks to the Romans. I agree with everything us.
They killed Jesus because they feared a Christian uprising, end of story."

Yeah but he wouldn`t have been some miracle performing madman. He could`ve been a preacher for all we know. That may explain why they wanted him dead. THEN he`d bring a Christian uprising

0
Reply
Female 49
I chose to cheer on the side of Buddhism. Much more interesting metaphysics.
0
Reply
Male 504
And pope, reread your holy book, it says to kill non beleivers. Now who`s the bad christian?

WHATeverrr!

0
Reply
Female 4,225
Ah, actually we do know Jesus existed thanks to the Romans. I agree with everything us.

They killed Jesus because they feared a Christian uprising, end of story.

0
Reply
Male 36
Ffs. People like PopeBendict need to open there freakin` eyes! There is NO proof God or Jesus EVER existed. For all we know, the Bible could`ve been some child`s book taken WAY too seriously. Or it could have been some drattards worshipping there friends a exaggerating to the point he`s been touched by a divine being. WTF!?!

Jesus and God are lies. The Bible is a lie. Evolution could`ve taken ANY turn. It`s only a coincidence we`ve become THE most intelligent animal living on this planet thanks to EVOLUTION...

Stuff like this angers me to new extents... Religion is just some bullpoo to stop people from going crazy, I swear (yet it has backfired somewhat).
Rant over. Evolution IS what made us

0
Reply
Female 4,225
Contre- really?

Nice I`m thinking of entering the archeology/anthropology field. With a side or writting books(Fiction, many some non-f`s about the field)

Retro-virus

0
Reply
Female 379
they convert because they think theirs is the only right one, and everyone else will go to hell...also, it`s always had something to do with the church wanting more power, so yeah...
0
Reply
Male 32
Evolution exists, as someone already pointed out it has already been seen (and proven undeniably) in simpler organisms such as bacteria.

Even Michael Behe, the poster child for creationism (and coiner of the term irreducible complexity) was schooled when he tried to say that the immune system didn`t evolve, which it clearly does as viruses and bacteria continually change to try and colonize your body.

Pure and simple- evolution is real. Also, someone mentioned the 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution? How is this possible? I`m a biochemist (a real one unlike Behe), and I know biological thermodynamics is accepted as fact.

God I hate Behe...gives biochemists such a bad name...anyone who writes a book claiming `fact` and just happens to market it to the general public and refuses peer review...Pfft, most of his `discoveries` are disproven in the next edition of whatever sorry journal publishes him...

Sorry for the rant...uhh, cookies for all!

0
Reply
Female 379
Hey Turnshroud, don`t encourage them to kill us, I`d really rather dislike being stoned to death.
0
Reply
Female 4,225
Besides, why can`t I just beleive in some supreme being? Why do you christians always have to be coverting freaks?
0
Reply
Female 4,225
They don`t get- nI think- that evolution is a series of mutations.

And pope, reread your holy book, it says to kill non beleivers. Now who`s the bad christian?

There`s a differnce between ignorance and changing the words and saying "This does not apply" and doing everything

0
Reply
Female 379
Oooh, can I bring marshmallows to the fire??? And chocolate and gramcrackers???
0
Reply
Female 4,225
Serpent, that`s the point! They always act like immature children with their fingers stuck in their ears going, "Lalala! I cant hear you!"

They are not observent.

If you went back in time and put in the bible that they have to die their hair blue, and scream "The power of christ capels you!" at every `non beleiver` and shoot/kill nons and hack off the genitals of homos," the extreamists would pobably do it

0
Reply
Female 379
twist, it came from a mutation. A small random gene change. That`s really the back bone of evolution, that and natural selection.
0
Reply
Male 51
I know this is probably going to seem ignorant for all of you debaters going hardcore and what not...

but, where did the light sensitive patch come from?

0
Reply
Female 4,225
Hey pope, you might wanna call the police or somthing....we needs to get killed, we don`t go to church.
0
Reply
Female 379
Of course it doesn`t completely disprove creationism. It was just shooting down one of their big arguments. Disproving creationism is like disproving the existence of any God, it`s completely impossible. There`s always the argument that "God did it".
0
Reply
Male 36
The reason they use the eye of a mollusc to exeplify evolution is because from what we were (bacteria), there is a veeeeery high chance we went through a mollusc stage. Thus why they used this because evolution has to take steps; in this sense, vision in colour, motion, perception, etc.

End of arguement

0
Reply
Male 8
*Sigh*
*Start rant*
This whole discussion is all most pointless. People believe what they want and its hard to change that. It`s not going to do any good to say one is right, or the other. Like someone already said we won`t know what`s right until after we die. And people who write stuff like "GOD DOES NOT EXIST.GROW UP." are the ones who truly need to grow up. A creationist could just as easily say "Evolution is wrong. Grow up."
It doesn`t change anything. Heck, it probablly makes the other side less likely to see things your way. Now, personally I`m a creationist, and I don`t think anything is really going to change how I feel, and most people probablly feel the same. Just because someone on the internet says your beliefs are wrong doesn`t mean they are and especially doesn`t mean they will suddenly believe you. I usually don`t watch these videos not even the ones `proving` creationism and I especially don`t read the comments. Why. Why did I have to read
0
Reply
Male 66
Obviously that`s the real pope. Look at his profile, it`s all true. And he`s painting the Sistine Chapel. Gosh.
0
Reply
Female 4,225
Hey Pope, are just pretending to be a pope or are to 10? Jkjk...

As an agnostic born Muslim, Canadian Liberal,I say this vid does NOT disprove creationism

0
Reply
Male 10
"There is still no proof of a leap from molluscs --> anything --> humans."

A lot of you guys are missing the point here, they wernt saying it happened in big steps like this, it would have happened in tiny steps, 1 small mutation at a time. The example they gave was just to explain and introduce the consept to you, we all came from the sea orginally anyway so why is it that unbelievible that our eyes started to evolve in sea creatures?

Dave

0
Reply
Male 504
Profile of a failtroll:

Interests:
Homepage: (None)
Birthday:
IM Type: (Decline to State) IM Name:
Occupation:
City:
State/Province:
Marital Status: (Decline to State)
Sexual Preference: (Decline to State)
Religion: (Decline to State)
Politics: (Decline to State)
Favorite Movie:
Favorite TV Show:
Favorite Book:
Favorite Song:
Favorite Food:
Favorite Car:

0
Reply
Female 1,142
Boy oh boy, am I glad I`m not a mollusk...
0
Reply
Female 33
Thank you, AlfishKK, for not being a closed-minded fool.

I don`t understand WHY most Christians think that God and evolution can`t go together. The bible isn`t meant to be taken literally: the moral of the story is, God created life. This doesn`t mean that evolution doesn`t ALSO exist. When the bible was written, Darwin wasn`t around to tell them about natural selection and what not so they just didn`t know any better way to explain it(in my opinion, at least).

We have EVIDENCE for evolution. It`s THERE. Creationism doesn`t have evidence to solidify it.

0
Reply
Female 379
Hey, don`t forget the other religions on here, I`m neither Christian NOR Atheist (I know, who woulda thought there were OTHER options -_-)
0
Reply
Female 95
pope benidict is failtroll
0
Reply
Male 2,372
Hey...a YouTube clip is all I need to make a decision on this issue on way or the other.
0
Reply
Male 3,255
IN BEFORE 700 PAGES OF GODFAGS AND BORED ATHEISTS.
0
Reply
Female 221
I think it is silly when people choose to ignore what science proves to be correct. A healthy dose of skepticism is good though, as long as it does not go to far. Sometimes science disproves itself when we find that something we previously thought was correct was wrong. Anyway, that`s not really my point...
Why wouldn`t God create a world in which things can be scientifically proven? If God provides concrete scientific evidence that things didn`t go down *exactly* as the Bible says, then God meant for us to know that. The stuff in the Bible (even on creationism) is still valuable, it just means that we must receive the information there a little differently. Learning about how the living beings of the world develop, in my opinion, just adds to the wonder of what God has created and how He continues to renew creation constantly.
0
Reply
Male 12,138
Nice post Overmann.

Where`s Primetimekin with his horsewank story about how the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics disproves evolution and therefore proves the existence of God? I`m guessing he`ll show up in 3...2...1...

0
Reply
Male 66
^^ Well said, comrade.
FSM FTW. acronyms ftw, as well.
0
Reply
Female 379
No no no, ONLY the FSM is invisible, spaghetti is simply delicious and nutritious, but completely visible.
0
Reply
Male 292
Evolution ftw.
0
Reply
Female 379
Do not deny the noodly god, Accept and be rewarded with a beer volcano and a stripper factory, and the carbohydrate goodness of HIS preferred meal.
0
Reply
Male 375
The bible gives us a vague description of how we came to be, has anyone considered that god designed things to evolve? I believe in god but I understand that over the history of the book it has been translated and retranslated and some of it cannot be taken literally. I believe that the message is devinely inspired but has been somewhat clouded by man.
0
Reply
Female 379
and I refuse to grow up :P
0
Reply
Male 1,228
HI, HAVE YOU ACCEPTED JESUS AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOR?
0
Reply
Female 379
Hey paddyboom, the flying spaghetti monster does too exist!
0
Reply
Male 203
GOD DOES NOT EXIST. GROW UP.
0
Reply
Female 54
This is literally the neverending debate, you wont really know until you die, the end
0
Reply
Female 379
I`m sorry, but I couldn`t write "to pope benedict" without laughing so hard I fall over, so I figured I`d take the safe route.
0
Reply
Female 379
And to the guy who thinks the bible is the answer to everything, here`s a hint: there`s a LOT of people who DON`T agree with that. And hell, a lot of the people who DO follow the bible don`t take it literally. Hope you have some undeniable scientific proof to back up your claim.
0
Reply
Female 188
boring,nuff said
0
Reply
Male 2,576
In responce to "PopeBenedict"

0
Reply
Female 379
For people arguing that this doesn`t make any sense, either because mollusks aren`t related to humans, or because first man had fully developed eyes, you might want to learn a bit more about what the theory of evolution means. We evolved from neolithic humans, but THEY evolved from something too, and in the beginning things were more simple like mollusks. Neolithic man wasn`t all that long ago in the grand scheme of things, so for VERY complex things you need to look a lot farther down the chain. And as it said in the video, each step up in the complexity of the eye was something that would have made the animal MORE likely to survive, because it could understand it`s surroundings more, unless it lived in a completely dark environment. And THAT`s why the "complex eye" argument doesn`t work to throw out evolution for creationism (even if it did, scientists would MODIFY the theory,not get rid of it completely, for anyone who doesn`t know the scientific process.)
0
Reply
Male 486
w/e i dont honestly care my eyes suck ne ways 20/550 and 20/750 guess my eyes are just highly evolved rocks huh? or badly created complex balls
0
Reply
Male 2,372
[quote]On Saturday 5/17/08 - 2:13:56 PM kennt_f wrote: manorrd, you can believe in god and evolution. you just have to learn to think outside of the church, and that scares people and pushes them to extremes. [/quote]

You miss my point. I don`t really care what anyone here thinks about the issue one way or the other.

There are plenty of web sites that thrive on these stupid "flame" topics. This web site *used* to stand above that crap.

Now, every frickin day there`s a God debate and stupid religious posting on this web site.

0
Reply
Male 340
AMAZING! As much as I hate Christians in general, I actually agree on your thoughts AlfishKK.
0
Reply
Female 781
This seemed like a very logical and well-put-together video about the development of eyes.

All eyes are is a group of cells that is very good at analyzing reflected light in great detail. It makes a lot of sense to me that this organ, just like anything else in someone`s body, can evolve in a way much like the process shown among mollusks. Note that the mollusks shown are in increasing stages of complexity--from mussels to the octopus. Also note that creatures living in a place where there is an absence of light don`t have eyes; evolution says that because light-sensitive cells wouldn`t help them there, they simply never developed them.

I do believe in God, but I don`t think that you need to throw out evolution because you`re religious. I do not find it impossible that God began the process of life, or perhaps directed it. I do find it impossible, in light of evidence, that evolution is flatly untrue.

0
Reply
Male 1,266
lol it`s funny that the people who argue for creation theory have basically said we`re too stupid to know how this works... thus GOD DID IT! Imagine trying to use that in court, "How do you explain your knife being in the back of the body?" "...err.. well you see.. the eye is a complex thing and erm GOD DID IT!"
0
Reply
Male 340
http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm...

What do the monkeys do? They worship imaginary gods that live in the sky for no apparent reason. I don`t get it either.

There is no god.

0
Reply
Male 1,148
Firstly, how can that disprove creationism, secondly, how do moluscs possibly relate to us and thirdy, what is people obsessions with being "frist" to post?
0
Reply
Male 75
also, evolution in microorganisms is proven. it is fact, no longer theory, it has been witness, get a microscope and you can watch it happen, its a logical step to assume that it happens in macro organisms like us, in fact, lets face it, its more or less proven as it is, look at the fossil records, unless of course your one of those carzys who think god planted them there as a trick - the bastard
0
Reply
Male 292
he would use an apple computer
0
Reply
Male 75
creationism sucks balls! eyeballs that is
0
Reply
Male 1,825
phoenix, lots of animals could consider humans rubbish
0
Reply
Male 1,825
manorrd, you can believe in god and evolution. you just have to learn to think outside of the church, and that scares people and pushes them to extremes
0
Reply
Male 2,616
WELL, AMERICAN FOOTBALL IS FOR PANSIES!
0
Reply
Male 1,825
you cant say just because there isnt every single organism that ever existed cant be found that there is disproof of evolution. There are a significant amount of fossil evidence that shows an evolutionary path, but the chances of fossils being created are pretty slim, and we haven`t found everyone.
it shows that the ones with the better survived, and the ones that needed the better eyes survived too. its which ones lived best for their enviorment
and squids have pretty complex eyes, and they are mollusks
0
Reply
Male 2,372
Can`t this stupid web site go one day without trying to get a Pro God/Anti God posting?

Blah blah Jesus, blah blah Creationism, blah blah Christians suck, etc. etc.

This site never used to suck like this back when Buddy was running it.

0
Reply
Male 19
The problem here is that you`re comparing the eyes of very different creatures. So, the evolution in the eyes of molluscs compares to an evolution in humans? There is still no proof of a leap from molluscs --> anything --> humans.
Even `neanderthal man` had fully developed eyes, so theres is no proof of evolution from his eyes to ours. And no proof of any evolution before him. (Not that I believe neanderthal man evolved to us anyway... even if there is a neanderthal man...)

Seriously though, why would you rather believe that you evolved from something rubbish rather than have been created by an omnipotent, omnipresent being?

Sorry that that whole thing was a little convoluted. Please though, understand that if you do feel like slagging me off for this comment, make sure you`re educated about what you`re talking about first.

0
Reply
Female 427
::drum roll please::
Please welcome the religious debates on IAB!!
0
Reply
Male 59
Eh...nothing amazing.
0
Reply
Male 10
People are so desperate these days to hang on to evolutionary theory...

There is no evidence in mollusks showing any sort of "evolution" of the eye. Secondly, the human eye is much more complex.

Stages in between, according to evolutionary theory, would not have been beneficial and passed down to further generates.

These "stages" according to the natural observable laws of the universe are never observed anywhere anyways...so...yeah...

...we really did come from a rock didn`t we? ^_^

0
Reply
Male 1,825
and no, it doesnt have any argument my noodle-worshiping friend.
0
Reply
Male 66
And please kill Theelgeth. Please.
0
Reply
Male 66
^^^Let me rephrase that last bit. This can be argued against using the same arguments that Creationists have be using against everything else.
0
Reply
Male 1,825
duh
there really shouldn`t be any discussion about creationism.
just cause a book says so doesnt mean its true
0
Reply
Female 322
...Ergh and that made my eye way itchy x__x.
0
Reply
Male 66
I don`t think this really disproves creationism.
Mind you, I`m for science, but I really don`t think this the the be all and end all for creationism. Creationism`s got the same counter-arguments to this as all the other arguments against it.
0
Reply
Female 274
I still believe in God.
0
Reply
Female 322
...Well if it helps my mother always told me I came from a rock.
0
Reply
Male 2,605
Link: Creationism Disproved? [Rate Link] - Evolution of the Invertebrate Eye. ``Irreducibly complex`` my ass.
0
Reply