Evidence for the existence of God (Part 1)

by keenobserver1 Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:14 pm

First topic message reminder :

If there is a God, he definetly isn't English.

by Shirina Fri Mar 16, 2012 5:48 pm

Man would only have to live by the ten commandments for life to be full of joy, it would not need any further ammending and you could leave religion out of it.

The problem here is that half of the commandments are religious commandments. This is suggesting that everyone has to worship God, avoid taking God's name in vain, not make any graven images of God, keep the Sabbath holy, etc. etc. and everyone would be full of joy. Therefore, fail to see how one can leave religion out of it when so many of the commandments are religious.

Also, I think eliminating things like "thou shalt not covet" (which is impossible) and replacing it with something like, "thou shalt not torture" would be better.

just because we cannot understand the creators means does not mean that it is not so.

If the creator can create something from nothing without using magic, then a naturalistic explanation is possible. Thus it eliminates the need for a creator to begin with.

Please explain how the butterfly began to obtain it,s method of reproduction, you can have as long a period as you like and as many stages as you like.

You're asking the wrong person. There are libraries filled with books written by experts in the field. The failure of a layman like me to answer such a question certainly does not disprove the answer - or indicate that there is no answer. I'm simply not qualified enough to be the answerer.

As to the rest of what you said, I totally agree.

by polyglide Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:36 am

There is no possibility of creating something from nothing, as I have stated previously, so everything in the universe must have come from something and that is where we have a slight problem.

So we have to go back before we go forward. where did the earth and the universe originate ?.

If the earth was not here we would not be concerned about life or anything else.

So we can I believe rule out the evolutionists ideas that everything just gradualy grew from nothing by a sequence of unsupervised events the universe suggests differently.

So solid matter must have been produced by some means or other and distributed in a certain manner throughout the universe.

As I have said previously splitting the atom suggests that matter was created from energy.

If that is so then there must be someone, something, that is capable of producing matters from energy.

It follows that in that case anything is possible and is also the answer to all that has happened on earth including the creation of life.

We know for certain there is a universe, we know for certain there is an earth with living things and we should be intelligent enough to come to the conclusion that all things involved could not possibly have come about by chance.

by snowyflake Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:47 am

If that is so then there must be someone, something, that is capable of producing matters from energy.

I agree that something produced matter from energy. Not someone. What that something is has not been discovered yet and we make a huge error in reasoning by assuming that the something is therefore a Someone. The default answer to an unanswered question is not 'Therefore it must be God.'

Our best bet is that scientists will one day discover the answer. A complex world and universe is there for us to investigate with all of our technology and the finest minds and the scientific method. Science has already put to bed many biblical assertions which is enough to convince me that the infallible word of God is indeed fallible and therefore not God. And if that is true, then it is not worth our adoration, sycophancy (is that a word? Smile

) or irrational beliefs.

Best wishes , polyglide. Smile

by oftenwrong Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:56 am

There was a period not all that long ago when medical science applied the label of "Cancer" to almost every human ailment that Doctors could neither cure nor quantify.

That situation has improved, but there is still a human tendency to describe the inexplicable as "Acts of God". For what that may be worth.

We find it hard to admit ignorance of a topic.

by polyglide Tue Mar 20, 2012 3:42 pm

I am just looking out of the window and if I could count the number of wonderfull things I can see it would be beyond belief to even begin to suggest that they all a came about by chance.

I cannot understand how anyone could think for one moment that matter in all it's different forms came about without some kind of intelligence involved.

If anyone saw the most simple constuction they would not believe man or animal was not involved and yet with all the complexities involved in creation they believe it all came about by chance and a sequence of unsupervised events.
It just defies logic.

by Shirina Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:45 pm

It just defies logic.

So does an all-powerful supernatural being with magic spells ... but that doesn't seem to stop the majority from believing in one. I suppose that's why religious belief is faith-based, not logic-based.

by Talwar_Punjabi Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:57 pm

If you were to ask my fiance about the existence of God he would say the following:

Of course there is a God; He lives at Old Trafford and runs a very successful football team. flower

by snowyflake Fri Mar 23, 2012 9:25 pm

I cannot understand how anyone could think for one moment that matter in all it's different forms came about without some kind of intelligence involved.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it is assumption. There is no evidence that a supreme being waved his magic hookah and all came into being. Your every day life doesn't work like that. Why should anything else?

by polyglide Sat Mar 24, 2012 1:17 pm

There is no supposition or magic in the following example:-

A man builds a house with all the modern cons, along comes a man who has never seen anything like it, having lived in the forrest all his life.

He would have every right to think, as some issolated people have done, that magic was involved but as we know there is a simple answer.

The answer to the universe may be just as simple as that if we were aware of the power, powers, of the creator of the universe.

If we were certain of such a power then there would be no need for faith or religion.

by snowyflake Sat Mar 24, 2012 2:07 pm

There is no supposition or magic in the following example:-

A man builds a house with all the modern cons, along comes a man who has never seen anything like it, having lived in the forrest all his life.

He would have every right to think, as some issolated people have done, that magic was involved but as we know there is a simple answer.

That's exactly what it is, polyglide. Supposition based on the forest man's ignorance.

The universe is indeed a wonderous place but I sincerely doubt any Supreme Magician is behind it all. If there was and he has the power to make himself known and doesn't, then he's a Supreme Jerk, in my books. Which is why the very idea of an intelligence out there just playing with us defies all logic.

by astra Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:05 pm

Hello Snowy, Whereya been???

A Lady at a Saturday Market was drawing, from photos that people brought along with them.
The drawings were so stunningly accurate, like intaglio, I was transfixed watching her. (Of course n'all, she weren't half worth lookin' at!! Embarassed

)

This reminded me of the careless ease of the potter at work.

Now Question,

were these capabilities God Given

Or were they gained by trial and error, observance of what is around?

I think the latter, which to me is kinda like wot evolution/mother nature (the Pict in me arises!!) has been doing for all time.

by snowyflake Sun Mar 25, 2012 8:25 pm

Hi astra

I'm around, thank you for asking Smile

To answer your question...to my mind nothing in humans is 'God given'. It is down to biology, genetics, environment, education and the individuals own 'spirit' to achieve and be the best they can be whatever it is they are doing.

I love your dog pic btw. Dogs have the greatest expressions eh? Take care Smile

by trevorw2539 Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:14 pm

astra wrote:Hello Snowy, Whereya been???

A Lady at a Saturday Market was drawing, from photos that people brought along with them.
The drawings were so stunningly accurate, like intaglio, I was transfixed watching her. (Of course n'all, she weren't half worth lookin' at!! )

This reminded me of the careless ease of the potter at work.

Now Question,

were these capabilities God Given

Or were they gained by trial and error, observance of what is around?

I think the latter, which to me is kinda like wot evolution/mother nature (the Pict in me arises!!) has been doing for all time.

I wonder if there isn't a little more to it than that. There are people who seem to be born with a gift, others with a talent.

Beethoven, Shostakovich, Mozart to greater and lesser degrees were gifted. Mozart playing Violin, 'Piano' and composing at the age of 5. Also playing before royalty. Beethoven 7 1/2, Shostakovich's gift was obvious early but took time to channel.

On the other hand musicians like Berlioz, Bach, the Strausses were talented, their latent ability being brought out by teaching and coming to fruition later than the gifted.

It has to be admitted that in some cases those with ability were not encouraged by parents and were in their teens before 'blossoming' out.

I do not suggest that this is God given. Just an anomaly in nature, maybe in inherited genes or natural talent/gift.

I agree that with most artists/artistes it is a matter of learning by trial and error, and observation as you say.

Isn't 'life' strange. Some people are brilliant. Others, like me, just thick:oops:

No. I'm not an expert on Classical composers. I know something because I enjoy classical music.

by polyglide Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:45 pm

Snowflake has a lot to learn.

There are numerous instances of very young people with outstanding abilities, both musical and including nearly every subject, some as young as 4 years of age.

No doubt they learned all their skills from parents whilst in the womb, the trouble with that is the parents in many instances were as lacking in those subjects to the same extent as Snowflak is in understanding the real world.

by snowyflake Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:52 pm

Snowflake has a lot to learn.

This is a very astute observation. One I happen to agree with. Smile

There are numerous instances of very young people with outstanding abilities, both musical and including nearly every subject, some as young as 4 years of age.

Yes, I agree with this as well.

No doubt they learned all their skills from parents whilst in the womb, the trouble with that is the parents in many instances were as lacking in those subjects to the same extent as Snowflak is in understanding the real world.

LOL. Ok polyglide.

http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/info.shtml

Please see the above website. My understanding of the real world is based on evidence. Hope you have a really nice day, polyglide. Smile

by oftenwrong Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:13 pm

Presumably a discussion concerning what is real about "The Real World" can continue into infinity.

by polyglide Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:12 pm

I am afraid a lot of what the scientists call facts are just conjecture and supposition, if they were fact and proved evolution, then the whole issue would be solved and there wouild be no need for further debate.

by polyglide Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:27 pm

Just as a little thought.

If we had an island with every facility for the welfare and well being of all the creatures on earth, including man, food shelter etc.but never having been inhabited previously by any living creature and we then put a number of all the living creatures onto the island including man, all just of a mature age, there being no history or books etc for man to learn from all starting from the same position, man having just been fed until mature, not learned to talk nor what food etc; was good or bad etc;.

Then there is no doubt all creatures other than man would survive they having been programmed to survive, man not.

by snowyflake Sun Apr 22, 2012 8:41 pm

If we had an island with every facility for the welfare and well being of all the creatures on earth, including man, food shelter etc.but never having been inhabited previously by any living creature and we then put a number of all the living creatures onto the island including man, all just of a mature age, there being no history or books etc for man to learn from all starting from the same position, man having just been fed until mature, not learned to talk nor what food etc; was good or bad etc;

Then there is no doubt all creatures other than man would survive they having been programmed to survive, man not.

Gosh, I missed this............and my first thought was 'Wow! what kind of convoluted thinking went into this and then I was fairly convinced that a great big doobie or a glass of wine was involved.... Smile

Polyglide's scenario is creationism without God's hand involved in it. In other words, man is an animal unless there is God to elevate him. Polyglide needs to read a science book and learn about evidence and the scientific method.

It always amuses me that people who slate science 9 ways til Sunday are doing it on their wifi laptops through their iPhones with a dongle while whizzing through London on the Underground on their way to an airport to take them to a sunny beach somewhere in about 2 hours.... go figure.

by Shirina Sun Apr 22, 2012 10:50 pm

Then there is no doubt all creatures other than man would survive they having been programmed to survive, man not.

In other words, God made a bunch of idiots ... ?

by polyglide Mon Apr 23, 2012 2:58 pm

You can always tell when a person has run out of logical answers to a logical quesion, they try to be funny but only prove their ignorance and stupidity.

The example I gave regarding the island etc; should prove to anyone with one iota of common sense that there is too far a difference between man and any other creature to make it even a remote possibility that evolution created man.

All the science in the world cannot explain this, all the nonsense spouted by the scientists has no foundation whatsoever, it is pure conjecture.

God did not create idiots, man turned himself into what he is, some idiots show themselves by not being able to tell stork from butter as some of the replies indicate.

Instead of making innane comments just explain why man would not survive as I expalined in my comments regarding the island.

by **Ivan** Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

BREAKING NEWS: Charles Darwin’s ‘Origin of Species’, first published in 1859, has been disproved by a member of ‘Cutting Edge’ in 2012.

Bertrand Russell once said that “the fundamental cause of trouble in the world is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”

by Shirina Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:30 pm

You can always tell when a person has run out of logical answers to a logical quesion, they try to be funny but only prove their ignorance and stupidity.

Are you kidding me? Do you honestly think I've run out of arguments simply because I chose to offer a facetious response? Wow, you don't know me very well. I was just trying to take it easy on you since I was hounding you enough on the issue of gays. But ... if you really want to dance, then let's dance!

The only thing "stupid" and "ignorant" around here is your assertion that human beings do not have instincts, which is essentially what you're saying. Without God, somehow we would all just plop our arses into the sand and starve to death. We would make no attempt at all to survive, and even if we did, we would ultimately and inevitably fail. Is that NOT what you're saying?

My response, as facetious as it was, still holds true. Did God create a species of idiots? Would that big brain that God supposedly blessed us with be incapable of learning, puzzling, reasoning, figuring, experimenting, and extrapolating how to provide for our own survival? Because if that's what you're saying, then why do we have it to begin with? Just because we live in a world where our instincts have no place does not mean they don't exist.

Our existence is like that of a well-pampered cat, at least here in the West. Almost all of our basic needs are relatively easy to obtain. If we want a steak, we don't have to sharpen a stick, hunt down a wild cow, kill it, and then butcher it. Nope, we just drive down to the store. Yet look at how popular hunting is as a sport. Again, like a cat, many people still have a powerful urge to hunt even though there is no reason to. Our maternal instincts are just as powerful as any animal's; woe be to anyone who tries to harm a child ... and our shock and disgust toward those who do does not exist because children are cute, but because we have a strong instinct to protect our progeny so that our species may continue. Why do women scream? Do women even know? It's a sound designed to scare off predators. It is the human equivalent of a cat's hiss, a dog's growl, or a snake's rattle. In the modern world, it is just annoying. Why does our body unload massive amounts of adrenalin into our system when we become frightened? For no reason? Or is it so we can push through incredibly difficult times, allowing us to ignore pain and fear?

Yet even in our modern world, we are often faced with problems that we have no idea how to fix. We want X to happen, so that big brain of ours tries to formulate a way to make it happen. Just as a minor but telling example: When I was around five years old, a bunch of us were sitting around a fire. I wanted something to sit on, but there were no chairs and no logs. Well, I made my own chair out of some loose wood lying around. How did I know how to do that? I didn't ... I had to figure it out. No one taught me how to do it, and I could have failed. If I had, I would have tried something different until I succeeded. I certainly didn't pray for the answer and suddenly the knowledge was given to me.

But instead of going on and on listing all of our instinctual knowledge and illustrating the power of our brains, I'll just offer up the most damning indictment against your notion of God:

We have to be TAUGHT how to worship. There is nothing instinctual about that. That same person on that island in your example would have NO IDEA that God even exists, and even if that person took to worshiping something, it wouldn't be your God. It would most likely be the sea, the sun, the elements, or some other force of nature that has absolutely nothing to do with the personification of a divine being. It took humans 96,000 years to move away from worshiping the sun and the spirits of animals before we even concocted the idea of an actual "god," and then it took another 5,000 years before we settled upon monotheism. Even our religion has evolved from something as simple as leaving animal bones as a tribute to the sun to something as complex as the Bible and Christianity. And, as that evolution was taking place, we went through gods like we go through socks, with one rising to prominence then fading into obscurity as a new, improved, more popular god took his place.

But here is where things get truly amusing. Are you even aware of the fact that most religions have God-given commandments designed to control our natural proclivities? The reason why religion has so many issues with sex is because, without rules placed by our society, the male would be running around planting his seed into as many women as possible ... because that is how the human species has evolved! The male preoccupation with sex served him well when human populations were low, life expectancy short, and the tribe (rather than family) was the basic social unit. But in the modern world, well, the urge to procreate had to be controlled. Religion offered a marvelous mechanism with which to do that. Are you really going to sit here and tell me that God created the human male to behave in such a fashion only to turn around and say, "Whoops!" and suddenly put on the brakes with a bunch of religious claptrap? Ridiculous.

Just like that chair I built out of kindling, our concept of God was a process of our big brains, the evolution of an idea. If this all came from God, then we would have zeroed in on the right answer immediately, not mucked about for nearly 100,000 years groping for a god-concept that always had human fingerprints all over it. And we certainly wouldn't need Jesus's disciples to "spread the Good News" or even Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on our door ... because we would already know about it all.

No, as I said, we have to be TAUGHT how to worship and WHAT to worship. We have to be taught about God, which is why so many religious fundamentalists indoctrinate their children into religion at a young age. I can guarantee you that a child would eventually learn to walk without any help from an adult, but it takes society and culture to teach a child to believe in a god.

Instead of making innane comments just explain why man would not survive as I expalined in my comments regarding the island.

And one final thought ...

Don't expect me to pit the complexities of evolution against the simplicity of religion. This post alone is longer and more detailed than any 10 of your posts combined. I'm not going to be baited into typing my fingers to the bone while you get away with offering up your simplistic, one paragraph posts that simply say, "God did it." My workload is considerably greater than yours, so if I decide to offer up an "inane" answer or if I want to "be funny," that's exactly what I'll do.

As far as I know, I have never insulted you, Polyglide. I will expect the same from you in return. We try to foster mutual respect on this board even when we disagree, and while I would love flexing my claws, no one would enjoy reading endless pages of nonsense where all we do is call each other stupid.

by True Blue Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:27 pm

Theories which explain the physical world cannot provide evidence either for or against the metaphysical world.

Theories which explain the physical world rely on mathematics which is a symbolic language reliant upon faith based axioms.

theories which explain the metaphysical world rely on religion which is a historical, anthropological and culturally evolving narrative reliant upon faith based axioms.

by **Phil Hornby** Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:57 pm

I read a book once... Very Happy

by oftenwrong Thu Apr 26, 2012 10:59 pm

Have you still got it, Phil?

by polyglide Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:07 pm

I need go no further than your first two paragraphs to prove your total inability to answer my quesion.

Man would not have the time to do the things you suggest, he would perish within a very short time from many different problems.

He would have to learn very fast how to make clothes or freeze to death, he would have no idea what to eat, how to protect himself from all the dangers he would encounter, be unable to communicate with others through speech and be at a total loss how to survive because he would not
be programmed as all the other creatures are for survival.

Man has to be taught everything in order to fit into society and to survive, no other creature has to do so and no other creature builds on past experiences as the human race does, this suggests strongly that mans
intended life span was not as short as it presently is and that it was intended that he should enjoy new experiences on a continual basis.

There are only two options regarding life, evolution or creation.

Evolution is the answer used by those with little or no concept of reality and who would believe in anything other than a being greater than themselves.

Those who believe in creation look at the actual facts, they consider the probability that a butterfly would evolve in a manner that it has to go through to become a butterfly.

They consider the fact that there were animals weighing over one ton and over, long before many other creatures were present.

They consider the fact that the last ice age was only 12,000 years ago and in terms of time only the blink of an eye away, and present matters should be considered on that basis and not from a little pond on the edge of a volcano struck by lightening and presto here comes all the creatures with numerous means of reproduction and living styles all come about by chance
with no possible explanation of how they could possibly have evolved.

The most important aspect of any debate is to first of all engage the brain that God was kind enough to bless us with, it is a pity it is so abused by some.

My comments are not meant to be in any way derogatory but statements of fact.

.

by oftenwrong Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:50 pm

The most important aspect of any debate is to first of all engage the brain that God was kind enough to bless us with .... after reaching an understanding of its limitations.

by **Ivan** Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:45 pm

Those who believe in creation look at the actual facts

LOL. If only they did! Creationists, by and large, read the first chapter of the Bible and simply accept it, hook, line and sinker. The only trouble is that it doesn't contain a single fact, just a collection of absurdities.

by Guest Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:24 pm

Big Bang:

Who: Immeasurable, incomprehensible power.
What: Creates everything from nothing.
When: At the inception of the existence of time.
Where: At the inception of the existence of space.
Why: Big Bang is silent.
How: The study continues.

Genesis 1:1:

Who: Immeasurable, incomprehensible power.
What: Creates everything from nothing.
When: At the inception of the existence of time.
Where: At the inception of the existence of space.
Why: The study continues.
How: Genesis 1:1 is silent.

I suppose that it’s possible that the Big Bang theory doesn't contain a single fact, and that Big Bang is just a collection of absurdities. However, given current data, that’s highly unlikely.

by Shirina Sat Apr 28, 2012 12:30 am

I need go no further than your first two paragraphs to prove your total inability to answer my quesion.

I answered your question just fine. Your not agreeing with it does not mean I have failed to provide an answer.

because he would not be programmed as all the other creatures are for survival.

You're merely reasserting your original contention without really answering any of my counterpoints. Again, you're using the infinitum ad nauseum fallacy. As I said, humanity's instincts for survival are largely buried and ignored through centuries of modern living. Would we know what to eat? Absolutely.

Factors such as physical hunger, watching a television advertisement and being around the aroma of food can all trigger cravings. However, food cravings can also be triggered by the human body's lacking a certain vitamin or mineral. (LINK) Can the body be misled into eating a poisonous food that contains minerals the body needs? Certainly. Is that a death sentence for humanity? No. Thus it would seem that the brain and body knows intuitively what they need to stay alive.

As for making clothing, well, if humanity needed Armani suits to stay alive, then there might be a problem. However, it does not take an experienced tailor to skin an animal and wrap yourself inside of the fur. It might take awhile for humanity to develop the tanning process so the skins don't simply rot, but until that time, a human can wear the same hide/fur clothing until a new animal is slain.

You also have to remember that humans are quite adaptive. Would a MODERN human survive long in the wild? Probably not after millennia of relatively comfortable and soft living. When was the last time you had to fight off a mastodon or evade a sabre-toothed tiger? And then there is this little invention called "agriculture," which is what allowed civilization to occur and truly allowed humanity to thrive. It seems awfully bizarre that God refused to grant us this knowledge for roughly 94,000 years and then just up and decided one day, "Gee, I should give them agricultural knowledge!"

I would also point out that God says nothing of what happened to Adam and Eve once they were expelled from Eden. If we go by strict interpretation, they were kicked out of Eden with nothing more than a few fig leaves to maintain modesty. Where does it say in the Bible that God granted humanity all of the skills needed to survive? First, they are booted out of Eden and the next thing you know, Cain and Abel show up, and the rest is Biblical history.

There are only two options regarding life, evolution or creation.

LOL! Now you're using the False Dilemma fallacy. Claiming there are only two choices (A. Believe in evolution and be stupid or B. Believe in creation and be smart) is a textbook example of this form of fallacious thinking. Since your argument is self-defeating by nature of the fallacy, I don't even have to provide a counterpoint.

and present matters should be considered on that basis and not from a little pond on the edge of a volcano struck by lightening and presto here comes all the creatures with numerous means of reproduction and living styles all come about by chance with no possible explanation of how they could possibly have evolved.

You would have people base their belief on the age-old "God of the Gaps" argument. "Well, if we haven't figured it all out yet, it must be God!" I refuse to fill gaps in our knowledge with supernatural explanations. We've been doing that for tens of thousands of years and yet we've been wrong 100% of the time. That's right ... 100% wrong. When was the last time science found itself utterly stumped and conceded that the only rational explanation is magical forces wielded by an all-powerful creator? Our knowledge of the universe, as well as our own planet, has not plateaued. Claiming to *know* the answer before all of the data is in doesn't make a lot of sense.

it is a pity it is so abused by some.

Isn't it, though? Neutral

My comments are not meant to be in any way derogatory but statements of fact.

Making unnecessary aspersions against a person's intelligence is rude and insulting. Whether or not you *believe* they are statements of fact is wholly irrelevant.

by True Blue Sat Apr 28, 2012 5:19 am

Shirina wrote:
There are only two options regarding life, evolution or creation.
LOL! Now you're using the False Dilemma fallacy. Claiming there are only two choices (A. Believe in evolution and be stupid or B. Believe in creation and be smart) is a textbook example of this form of fallacious thinking. Since your argument is self-defeating by nature of the fallacy, I don't even have to provide a counterpoint.

When you accuse someone of a flaw in their logic, could you please provide evidence so they, and I, can see that flaw in all its glory? In this case, for example, you have claimed by evoking the False Dilemma fallacy, that there are more options, or at least one other option, than either creation or evolution... What are they?

by Guest Sat Apr 28, 2012 5:58 am

A person considered reliable by some of the finest scholars of the 20th and 21st Centuries has calculated that the probability of the universe being as it is by random chance is 10¹⁰¹²³ to 1. Darwinism presumes such random chance.

Darwinism also presumes that macro-evolution acts to provide organisms with survival advantages. What survival advantage is provided to Homo sapiens by engagement in and appreciation of visual art and music?

Decades ago, during a segment of his PBS Cosmos series, renowned Darwinist Carl Sagan said “and the eye appeared.” Not “evolved”; “appeared.” I asked Darwinists then, and I ask Darwinists now, why cannot even the renowned Carl Sagan state definitively that the eye evolved?

Insofar as options, I’ve heard but two; Darwinism and creationism. Both are ideologies; neither rises to the strict rigor of empiricism and testability required of theories such as Brother Al’s General and Special Theories of Relativity, the latte of which is undergoing real-world testing, and demonstrating that it is replicable, aboard several US cities and at least one US state that cruise underwater right now.

by Shirina Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:01 am

that there are more options, or at least one other option, than either creation or evolution...

The options, to paraphrase, were essentially: A. Believe in evolution and be dumb, and B. Believe in creationism and be smart.

I think you can see fairly quickly that there are more options than the ones provided.

by Shirina Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:08 am

Decades ago, during a segment of his PBS Cosmos series, renowned Darwinist Carl Sagan said “and the eye appeared.” Not “evolved”; “appeared.”

On the same show, the renowned Darwinist Carl Sagan also said, "Evolution. It really did happen." And he was pretty emphatic about it.

When he said the eye "appeared," I don't think he was avoiding evolution or suggesting it appeared by magic. Carl Sagan narrated Cosmos in a very eloquent, wistful, even romantic way, and I think he used the word "appeared" perhaps a bit too loosely. I think Dr. Sagan was trying to avoid sounding like a dry college textbook and was, instead, putting some mystery into his wording. After all, Dr. Sagan knew substantially less then than they do today.

by Guest Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:51 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
Decades ago, during a segment of his PBS Cosmos series, renowned Darwinist Carl Sagan said “and the eye appeared.” Not “evolved”; “appeared.”

Shirina wrote:
On the same show, the renowned Darwinist Carl Sagan also said, "Evolution. It really did happen." And he was pretty emphatic about it.

When he said the eye "appeared," I don't think he was avoiding evolution or suggesting it appeared by magic.

Bother Carl didn’t suggest anything at all. As he asserted evolution with visuals sliding smoothly along the evolutionary path, he said “and the rye appeared” (in the same voice intonation as “billion and billions of stars”) without missing a beat while in the smoothly-sliding visual am eye “appeared.”

Bother Carl, as every other Darwinist I’ve heard has one, simply slid by the eye. He didn’t address it; he mentioned it, and the chosen terminology was “appeared” rather than “evolved.”

In 2012, as far as I’ve heard, the dilemma remains as perplexing for today’s Darwinists as it did fro Brother Carl, bless his heart.

Shirina wrote:
Carl Sagan narrated Cosmos in a very eloquent, wistful, even romantic way, and I think he used the word "appeared" perhaps a bit too loosely.

I agree with your first observation. Carl Sagan was thoroughly likeable, which is why I refer to him quite fondly as Brother Carl.

Regarding your second thought, Brother Carl was far too thorough a narrator to slide by the eye if he could have directly addressed the eye. I mean, come on; along with that Scots professor whose name I can never recall that hosts Wonders of the Universe and Wonders of the Solar System, Brother Carl has among the most thorough while at the same time articulate and easily understandable scholars to ever bring cutting edge science to the masses via electronic media. I put both o them up with the physic professor that enabled a handful of knuckleheaded freshman physics students (maybe we were sophomores) to conceptually understand Brother Al’s General Theory, at least for a moment.

In other words, in the wise counsel of those who knew back then than “When better cars are built, Buick will build them”, I feel that when evolution of the eye can be explained, Carl Sagan will explain it.

Shirina wrote:
I think Dr. Sagan was trying to avoid sounding like a dry college textbook and was, instead, putting some mystery into his wording.

He did inject a bit of mystery, a legitimate mystery, unexplained and so far unexplainable by Darwinism, the mystery of the eye.

Shirina wrote:
After all, Dr. Sagan knew substantially less then than they do today.

And yet, despite the onslaught of “new” substantive knowledge, the unexplained, unexplainable mystery of the eye remains unexplained and unexplainable.

by **astradt1** Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:16 am

Oh Dear, Oh Dear, Oh Dear......

Has anyone who posts on here thought that early life may not have needed to have "eyes" as we know them?

Think about what eyes are used for.

Early life being of a low form was unlikely to have been very mobile so would not have the need to see where it was going, it being not very mobile it is not likely to have been hunted, by other similar low life forms, so would not need to see an attacker, so it only function was likely to be able sense light from dark....so it would not have to have the complexity of the "Modern" eye.......

Even today there are simple life forms which can only tell light from dark because that's all they need. Remember evolution is about changing to meet a need not just because it feels like it.........

The thing about evolution is that no one has said that this happened on a certain date or certain year just that it took place over a period of time and that time is measured in hundreds of thousands or millions of years...It is only those who believe in Creation who set dates for events.....Who old is the Earth according to creationist?

An explanation of the evolution of the eye CAN be found in that famous source of knowledge often quoted ad nauseam by some posters.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

by tlttf Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:25 am

polyglide wrote:I need go no further than your first two paragraphs to prove your total inability to answer my quesion.

Man would not have the time to do the things you suggest, he would perish within a very short time from many different problems.

He would have to learn very fast how to make clothes or freeze to death, he would have no idea what to eat, how to protect himself from all the dangers he would encounter, be unable to communicate with others through speech and be at a total loss how to survive because he would not
be programmed as all the other creatures are for survival.

Man has to be taught everything in order to fit into society and to survive, no other creature has to do so and no other creature builds on past experiences as the human race does, this suggests strongly that mans
intended life span was not as short as it presently is and that it was intended that he should enjoy new experiences on a continual basis.

There are only two options regarding life, evolution or creation.

Evolution is the answer used by those with little or no concept of reality and who would believe in anything other than a being greater than themselves.

Those who believe in creation look at the actual facts, they consider the probability that a butterfly would evolve in a manner that it has to go through to become a butterfly.

They consider the fact that there were animals weighing over one ton and over, long before many other creatures were present.

They consider the fact that the last ice age was only 12,000 years ago and in terms of time only the blink of an eye away, and present matters should be considered on that basis and not from a little pond on the edge of a volcano struck by lightening and presto here comes all the creatures with numerous means of reproduction and living styles all come about by chance
with no possible explanation of how they could possibly have evolved.

The most important aspect of any debate is to first of all engage the brain that God was kind enough to bless us with, it is a pity it is so abused by some.

My comments are not meant to be in any way derogatory but statements of fact.

Is this real, what a lovely simplistic state of mind the writer has. Not sure but I'm betting they vote for the Green party?

.

by polyglide Sat Apr 28, 2012 1:22 pm

And that is about the most intelligent answer you are capable of.

by True Blue Sat Apr 28, 2012 9:06 pm

Shirina wrote:The options, to paraphrase, were essentially: A. Believe in evolution and be dumb, and B. Believe in creationism and be smart.

I think you can see fairly quickly that there are more options than the ones provided.

They were not the options that polyglide proffered to which your appeal to the False Dilemma applies. Those options paraphrased are your creation alone, based on a rather derogatory interpretation of what polyglide actually said.

He wrote:There are only two options regarding life, evolution or creation.

So you wrote:Now you're using the False Dilemma fallacy.

Which is why I wrote: you have claimed, by evoking the False Dilemma fallacy, that there are more options, or at least one other option, than either creation or evolution... What are they?

by Shirina Sat Apr 28, 2012 9:51 pm

Those options paraphrased are your creation alone, based on a rather derogatory interpretation of what polyglide actually said.

You're simply dead-bang wrong on this issue. In your quotes, you failed to also quote what Polyglide actually said.

Evolution is the answer used by those with little or no concept of reality and who would believe in anything other than a being greater than themselves.

Those who believe in creation look at the actual facts, they consider the probability that a butterfly would evolve in a manner that it has to go through to become a butterfly.

Yes, I paraphrased to avoid quote spamming, but there you have it. The above quotes are the two choices Polyglide offered. Either you have no concept of reality or you believe in Creationism, blah blah. I'm sure you get the point. It fits the fallacy. This certainly isn't my creation unlike your assertion to the contrary.

by Sponsored content