"Golden Compass" is an anti-religion film?

[psungee]

Even here, there should be some room for humour

It's NOT science - it's just evolution v.s. creationist humour:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs&feature=related

 

[hrmwrm]

well now, that was good for a chuckle.

 

[shagdrum]

say what you will, link to what you will, i will continue to believe in reality, not what is fed to. i'm a free thinker, i don't need to find answers to come to my conclusions.

now THAT was good for a laugh!!! "I don't need to find answers to reach my own conclusions." Truth be damned!!! HA! I've heard all the arguements (most are pretty self-serving) and, no, evolution doesn't disprove God, or for that matter a form of creationism. If evolution were true, it doesn't mean that God couldn't have started the whole ball rolling, thus proving God created all creatures, through evolution. You must understand the burden of proof for a scientific theory like evolution is different then any burden of proof for God, because the burden of proof for God is practically non-existance; Faith (belief in the absence of proof, or evidence). What you and most athiests try to do is turn the debate into one between evolution and God. This debate is only in your mind, as you can't disprove God because Faith is beyond reason. If you try to say that evolution and God should be held to the same standard, then you are remaking evolution into a matter of Faith, also. Thus proving my point that athiesm is as effectively as much a religion to some as any religion believing in God. You are fighting so hard not to see this, I really wonder why. If evolution is a matter of Faith, then it isn't sound science. And you are a fool if you truely think for a second, that the scientific community is unbias. Psychological projection is a bitch! I am not twisting anything around here, I am trying to provide some clarity on this issue, as well as interject some common sense. You are the one refusing to accept that, and wanting to twist things around, and frustrated because you aren't clever enough to do it (not to offend, at this point in the arguement, most people wouldn't be clever enough to twist the truth, I know I wouldn't). My advise to you is to stop trying to be clever in disagreement , and look at this in an open-minded, intellectually honest way.

 

[hrmwrm]

you just re-iterated what i said. if you take out the textual based god, and just say that he started things, and that maybe evolution is his grand design, then you can't prove or disprove. no one knows the actual start of the universe. but then that would throw all religions out the door since their god is based on the ceremonies and scripture of thier beliefs. science understands down to a minute amount of time how the physics works, but they don't have all answers yet. the debate of "intelligent design" and evolution comes from creationists trying to throw a monkey wrench in the ideal of evolution. you stated about an eye can't be developed except by design, yet you now say that evolution is gods design? so the eye could very well develop as a process of evolution.

and i don't make the debate into a matter of faith. i simply make the point that if a belief in god is held to the same standard of a burden of proof, it totally falls apart. after all, you just said, faith is beyond reason. yet fossten stated earlier that any reasonable person can see there is a god. i fail to see any logic in either argument.

and as for science and bias, that's only there until a new way is set to the full burden of proof to over turn previous thinking. einstein himself still refused to believe or involve himself in quantum physics even after it was proven. wasn't his statement about it something like god doesn't roll dice? and to the end. i'm very opened minded. also very tolerant. i tell you why i don't believe. it was not to be a debate, but as soon as one starts about no god, inevitably someone comes around stating you must believe, and this is why. maybe we should just go back to the 15 century and still believe the earth is the center of the universe and any free thinking ideals will land you arrested and your ideas squashed. the idea of god as debated is to try and reverse progression of science so as to prove god exists.

as i said, science doesn't have all answers yet. but it took modern man 20,000 years to attain this point. and the greatest achievements have been in the last century or so. there is a particular order that is obeyed within our section of the universe, but it is just as easy to believe that it is from a natural law and not grand design.

 

[shagdrum]

If you take out the textual based god, and just say that he started things, and that maybe evolution is his grand design, then you can't prove or disprove.

Yes I was showing how, if evolution is fact, it doesn't disprove God, even on a logical basis. As I stated before; believers in God don't need evolution to be false, but atheists need evolution to be true. Athiests think that if evolution is true it disproves God, which it doesn't. I am unclear, are you agreeing with me here, or not?

the debate of "intelligent design" and evolution comes from creationists trying to throw a monkey wrench in the ideal of evolution.

That is a bunch of ignorance rolled into one statement. You really have no idea what intelligent design is, do you...
I'll try to remember to post more on this tomorrow

you stated about an eye can't be developed except by design, yet you now say that evolution is gods design? so the eye could very well develop as a process of evolution.

You seem like a smart enough person to realize you are comparing apples to oranges here. In the first case I stated that evolution can't explain the development of an eye, or even a "proto-eye".

In the other case I was making a temporary concession to prove a further logical absurdity of your argument. Let me clarify; IF evolution were true, it in no way disproves God. A higher power could just as easily of set evolution in motion.

and i don't make the debate into a matter of faith. i simply make the point that if a belief in god is held to the same standard of a burden of proof, it totally falls apart. after all, you just said, faith is beyond reason.

If you are trying to frame the debate into one of evolution(a scientific theory that is subject to rules of logic and reason) vs. God (a matter purely of faith), then yes you are trying to make the argument about faith. You are trying to discredit faith in a God by proving evolution. What is effectively going on here is that you are trying to reverse the debate to evolution (being a matter of faith, that you refuse to question) vs. God ( where you are trying to take away the benifit of faith and subject this idea to a burden of proof). You are mischaracterizing this argument in order to confuse the issue. It isn't about evolution vs. God; it should be purely about evolution; is it a rational and accurate theory given what we know today? Can you handle that debate? Take God out of it?

i fail to see any logic in either argument.

I don't buy that for a minute. You seem much smarter then that.

and as for science and bias, that's only there until a new way is set to the full burden of proof to over turn previous thinking. einstein himself still refused to believe or involve himself in quantum physics even after it was proven.

I would suggest more accurately, that it has to do wih reigning paradigms in the scientific community, and the bias promoted by them. Also the fact that the government is basically the sole source of funding for research, so many "sky is falling" crackpot theories demand funding from politicians to make them seem responsible. Scientists also wanna get paid, so even when a theory has been firmly disproven, "More research [money] is always needed.

the idea of god as debated is to try and reverse progression of science so as to prove god exists.

As stated previous, I am interested in debating evolution, not evolution vs. God

 

[fossten]

If you are trying to frame the debate into one of evolution(a scientific theory that is subject to rules of logic and reason) vs. God (a matter purely of faith), then yes you are trying to make the argument about faith. You are trying to discredit faith in a God by proving evolution. What is effectively going on here is that you are trying to reverse the debate to evolution (being a matter of faith, that you refuse to question) vs. God ( where you are trying to take away the benifit of faith and subject this idea to a burden of proof). You are mischaracterizing this argument in order to confuse the issue. It isn't about evolution vs. God; it should be purely about evolution; is it a rational and accurate theory given what we know today? Can you handle that debate? Take God out of it?

Well said. That sums up his point of view exactly.

 

[hrmwrm]

if i don't understand intelligent design, then i will put forward to you this question. who is behind intelligent design and why the motivation to put it into the public school system? intelligent design is just a re-invention of the god myth. and i will not believe in supernatural causes. and without the supernatural aspect, there is no intelligent design.

 

[shagdrum]

Are you really that scared to debate evolution? I will pose the question again; can you take God out of this debate? Can you debate evolution? I really am not all that interested in debating intellegent design or the existance of God, and those aren't nessesary to have an honest debate about evolution. I think you don't wanna debate evolution because you know it is a flawed theory.

"Intelligent design (ID) maintains that it is possible to infer from empirical evidence that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause rather then unguided natural processes." ID relies on scientific evidence, not scripture or religious doctrine, and is therefore NOT biblical creationism. ID says nothing about biblical chronology. There doesn't even need to be a belief in God to infer ID; A prime example is prominent atheist Antony Flew. ID says nothing about who or what the is the "designer". ID can be summed up in one simple question: does the scientific evidence point to design in nature?
There is nothing supernatural about ID.

Who is behind ID?
ID originated with the publication of several books between 1984 and 1992 and a small meeting organized by Berkeley law professor Phillip E. Johnson near Monterey California in 1993. Many who believe in ID believe that the intellegence in question is God, but they will readily admit that their belief goes beyond the scientific evidence of ID. As pointed out, even some athiests believe in ID, like Antony Flew.

why the motivation to put ID into the public school system?
I can only guess on this one, but I would guess to present an alternate scientific view; as an opposite view to evolution, it puts both in the proper context as theories that haven't been scientifically proven, instead of indoctrination of kids that darwinian evolution is fact.

Now answer me this:
What is the motivation to keep the unproven scientific theory of darwinian evolution in schools taught as fact without alternatives presented?

 

[hrmwrm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

then i will refer you to this. especially the first section sums it up. it seeks science to "fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations." now if i remember, science has pretty high burdens of proof. allowing supernatural elements in would justify you in not seeking what the truth is. i don't know about you shagdrum, or fossten, but quite frankly, i don't believe in mythical things. no, i can't disprove god any more than i can disprove leprachauns or the lochness monster. but i don't believe they exist either. if you want to debate something about reality, i will. evolution is REAL. you wish to cling to a belief that has to keep restructuring itself to be believable, then do so. every time the myth is threatened, they pull some new miracle out of thier hats to prop it up. intelligent design is a masked attempt at putting god back in the schools. that's why i asked. as for atheists believing it, well all you really got was religion haters. a person who does not believe in supernatural would not fall for id either.

as for evolution, there is nothing to debate. it's there, it's proven. it's not a flawed theory. science would not have embraced it if it didn't stand up. and you can't debate something without an opposible side. if you take away god or id, there is no opposible side. and finally, about your question. as i said, it is a veiled attempt at re-introducing god into schools. our schools are to be biased free. evolution stands up to science scrutiny. if you wish to have supernatural beings creating things, then that should be taught where it already is. private schools. the catholic school system in canada still teaches thier god ideals, and they have every right to. that is their curriculum. and if you think it should be taght in the public schools, i suggest you get a hold of your government representative and ask them.

 

[fossten]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

then i will refer you to this. especially the first section sums it up. it seeks science to "fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations." now if i remember, science has pretty high burdens of proof. allowing supernatural elements in would justify you in not seeking what the truth is. i don't know about you shagdrum, or fossten, but quite frankly, i don't believe in mythical things. no, i can't disprove god any more than i can disprove leprachauns or the lochness monster. but i don't believe they exist either. if you want to debate something about reality, i will. evolution is REAL. you wish to cling to a belief that has to keep restructuring itself to be believable, then do so. every time the myth is threatened, they pull some new miracle out of thier hats to prop it up. intelligent design is a masked attempt at putting god back in the schools. that's why i asked. as for atheists believing it, well all you really got was religion haters. a person who does not believe in supernatural would not fall for id either.

as for evolution, there is nothing to debate. it's there, it's proven. it's not a flawed theory. science would not have embraced it if it didn't stand up. and you can't debate something without an opposible side. if you take away god or id, there is no opposible side. and finally, about your question. as i said, it is a veiled attempt at re-introducing god into schools. our schools are to be biased free. evolution stands up to science scrutiny. if you wish to have supernatural beings creating things, then that should be taught where it already is. private schools. the catholic school system in canada still teaches thier god ideals, and they have every right to. that is their curriculum. and if you think it should be taght in the public schools, i suggest you get a hold of your government representative and ask them.

"Evolution is proven blah blah blah." You haven't bothered to look up the links I provided, I can see. You simply assert without presenting evidence. Evolution is still a theory, therefore it has not be proven. By stating that it's proven you demonstrate a lack of knowledge of basic scientific definitions. If you are afraid to debate evolution, then stop posting. But quit saying "it's proven" without presenting any facts. You're doing the same thing GW believers are doing, claiming consensus proves your theory. That is amateurish. You clearly have not examined the actual science of both sides. There is no doubt in my mind about this. But you have now admitted that you don't want to debate evolution, so I guess this discussion is over, at least for me.

 

[hrmwrm]

i have looked at the evidence of both sides, but since one side is using a an entity that can't be disproven as opposed to scientific theory which stands up, i fail to see how this is debatable. you want a link of proof. heres a pretty good arguement for.http://richarddawkins.net/growingupintheuniverse

i actually have this dvd at home. even my daughter(11years old, honor student) enjoys this one, and most other shows i watch she finds boring. i believe this show provides a good enough argument for proof. if you really want others, i'll scare some up if i must. as for your links, they don't disprove evolution, they only state percieved flaws in evolution according to their doctrine of belief. that is the same reason id was thrown out of court. i don't begrudge anybody their beliefs, but if you try and tell me mine are wrong, i will reciprocate accordingly. quite frankly, i feel done too.

 

[TheDude]

Evolution theory doesn't try to disprove (or prove) God. It is usually the knee-jerk religious crowd who implies that it does; simply because it doesn't fit with Biblical dogma.

ID is a reworked version of Creationism, nothing more. "Organs such as the eye are to complex to have developed (evolved) from simpler organs; therefore something (God) must have created them as is."

 

[Calabrio]

Evolution theory doesn't try to disprove (or prove) God. It is usually the knee-jerk religious crowd who implies that it does; simply because it doesn't fit with Biblical dogma.

ID is a reworked version of Creationism, nothing more. "Organs such as the eye are to complex to have developed (evolved) from simpler organs; therefore something (God) must have created them as is."

Actually the argument you referenced about ID is a very valid one, and one that has yet to be sufficiently explained. It's not just that they are complex, but the foundation of evolution states that very small changes are made that provide a distinct biological advantage. However, those complex systems, like the eye or the ear, can't have happened like that. They won't work until all the systems are inplace and functioning. And they'd have provided no advantage until that point.

That is a hugely important and baffling point that really does need to be understood and answered. You're casual dismissal of it underscore how little you understand the vastness of the question.

And most people don't argue that no evolution took place. But take issue with the claim that all life in the Universe happened completely at random.

 

[psungee]

we only have opinions

A fellow who I would like to be able to call "friend", a gentleman I am not ashamed to say (because I think him quite brilliant), I consider brighter than myself - a scientist/inventor/researcher/business man - once said to me, "You and I have opinions. Only God knows for sure."

This may be taken metaphorically (if you deny the existence of a higher power) ... but the sense of this comment, in my opinion, is pure reason.

 

[hrmwrm]

the eye is not so complex to have not been evolved. the old question of what good is half an eye has been argued believably by a few evolutionists. if the very fact life started, then anything is possible. in my previous posted link dawkins has a good arguement for the evolution of eyes, from something simple to a fully functioning complex eye. these are streamed lectures of dawkins if you have the time to view. i think their from christmas of 91. (a little dated, but still have compelling views.)

 

[Calabrio]

the eye is not so complex to have not been evolved. the old question of what good is half an eye has been argued believably by a few evolutionists. if the very fact life started, then anything is possible. in my previous posted link dawkins has a good arguement for the evolution of eyes, from something simple to a fully functioning complex eye. these are streamed lectures of dawkins if you have the time to view. i think their from christmas of 91. (a little dated, but still have compelling views.)

I've heard many attempts, but I've yet to hear/read a strong or honest answer for that.

A system like the eye or ear is so complex as to have no evolved. If any single component cease to work or develop, the system fails, then ceases to provided an evolutionary advantage to the user.

If you have a link or a little more specific direction to the essay or video you referenced, I'd appreciate the help finding it though. I'd like to hear/read it. I'm looking for it at the moment. I think I'm familiar with it, but in the event that I'm not, I'd like to be.

But again, this doesn't mean evolution doesn't take place. It doesn't mean that live on Earth didn't develop through evolution. But it does tend to lead one to believe that some direction existed, in whatever form that may be.

 

[shagdrum]

Evolution theory doesn't try to disprove (or prove) God. It is usually the knee-jerk religious crowd who implies that it does; simply because it doesn't fit with Biblical dogma.

ID is a reworked version of Creationism, nothing more. "Organs such as the eye are to complex to have developed (evolved) from simpler organs; therefore something (God) must have created them as is."

Ignorance is bliss, eh?

 

[shagdrum]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

then i will refer you to this. especially the first section sums it up. it seeks science to "fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations."

You are citing wikipedia?! If we were talking about interesting facts about cats or something, ok, I could understand that. Maybe even the definition of a word, or some such. But to use it to define a theory?! Do you have any idea of how "fact checking" works on that cite. It's all about a consensus of vistors to the cite who bother to read and concure with the "fact" in question. Obviously thr radicals are gonna rule the roost on any highly contraversial issue like this, so you effectively get a "straw man" definition. That is like asking a radical anarchist to describe capitalism. They get to make a straw man argument that can be easily torn down. Specifically look at the link used on that page to justify the statement; "Advocates of intelligent design claim it is a scientific theory, and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations. Here is the link:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1685

Did you even look at the article. It's a book review!! I ran through the article and didn't once find mention of the term "Intellegent Design". All I found was talk about creationism and evolution, thiests and athiests, and scientific philosophy. Either the author of the book or the author or the article are too bias to make that distinction, or are avoiding talking about intelligent design all together. Any claim that "intellegent design advocate are trying to redefine science to accept supernatural explanation" is in fact a distortion of what the article says, which is this:

"An astonishing number of theists argue that science ought to be methodologically "naturalistic"... "You can't put God in a test tube," Ratzsch [author of the book being reviewed] quotes the philosophical naturalist Eugenie Scott as arguing, and therefore "science acts as if the supernatural did not exist. This methodological naturalism is the cornerstone of modern science." Scott is right, many theists affirm: God may be real but He is empirically inscrutable. It is thus best that we acted, as we reason about the workings of nature, as if God were away on other business....But that cannot be correct, argues Ratzsch. Methodological naturalism prejudges the shape of reality in a way that any "truth-seeking" science can ill afford:

If nature is not a closed, naturalistic system -- that is, if reality does not respect the naturalists' edict -- then the science built around that edict cannot be credited "a priori" [knowledge is independent of experience] with getting at truth, being self-corrective or anything of the sort. Now if we had some rational reason for accepting naturalism as in fact true, then stipulating that science had to be naturalistic...would make perfect sense. But that would involve making a case for naturalism -- not simply decreeing that science was by definition or for convenience naturalistic, which is the path taken by various evolutionists.
​

What the article does is describe Ratzsch's argument as being that naturalistic assumptions (that the supernatural doesn't exist) of evolutionists and athiests are unfounded. He is simple saying that there is no justification for ruling out the supernatural out of hand (which is what evolution does). That is a far cry from "trying to redefine science to accept supernatural explanation."

Allowing supernatural elements in would justify you in not seeking what the truth is.

As I just showed, the proof for you "supernatural" claim, in fact, supports the reverse of this; "If the historical sciences in particular have their wings clipped to keep them in the naturalist's yard, when the truth is elsewhere, those sciences can hardly claim our assent when they offer the 'best explanations available' for reality. Instead they will have only picked at the gravel of one philosophy: naturalism. That is not a 'search for the truth, no holds barred.'" To not keep the door to the idea of supernatural influence open, according to Ratzsch, limits the search for truth.

evolution is REAL.

You obviously can't prove it or you would have made the attempt. look past your faith...

intelligent design is a masked attempt at putting god back in the schools.

1:God in schools wouldn't be unconstitutional

2: You are blatantly mischaracterizing ID, as I have proven over and over...

as for atheists believing it, well all you really got was religion haters. a person who does not believe in supernatural would not fall for id either.

Google: Antony Flew

as for evolution...you can't debate something without an opposible side.

...And you are too insecure in your belief to defend it, thus providing an opposible side.

our schools are to be biased free.

According too....? If are schools are to be biased free, then we have a lot of work to go. Evolution and creationism is the least of our worries.

 

[hrmwrm]

calabrio, i'll look at my dvd and find which episode it is, although all of them are interesting.http://richarddawkins.net/growingupintheuniverse
although i do believe it's episode 3. i'll confirm tomorrow.

 

[hrmwrm]

shagdrum, you haven't proven anything at all. everything you talk about is trying to change the scientific norm. if you can't see it, hear it, taste it, feel it, measure it, weigh it, etc, then it has no part in science. it's about searching for tangible physical evicence. if you keep re-iterating the same thing of allowing the supernatural, then you don't understand science. look past YOUR faith. reality has nothing to do about unweighable evidence. if somebody dies, they don't die because god said it was your time. there is a physical cause. cancer, heart attack, murder, blunt force trauma, etc. i don't need a supernatural cause to be enlightened. you do. and as long as this belief is held, you will not understand why the supernatural cannot become part of scientific procedure. it is that simple.

the debate only rages on because the religious right refuse to let it die. with id, there seem to be 2 views of evolution. one scientific based, and one where we allow a "divine designer". so how exactly does this designer work. as the higher orders of species are started, he/she/it drops down and says i'm going to instill these complex features upon these creatures so they may attain greatness? or is it at the beginning of life, or was it all ready there just waiting for developement as you attain a higher order of species? or in other words, was it designed in from the beginning? is this your point? you're saying that life has a pre- ordained direction to attain?

 

[shagdrum]

the eye is not so complex to have not been evolved. the old question of what good is half an eye has been argued believably by a few evolutionists. if the very fact life started, then anything is possible. in my previous posted link dawkins has a good arguement for the evolution of eyes, from something simple to a fully functioning complex eye. these are streamed lectures of dawkins if you have the time to view. i think their from christmas of 91. (a little dated, but still have compelling views.)

Wrong answer!!!!
Here's why...
Darwin himself noted the difficulty of explaining the eye in The Origin of Species, admitting he couldn't do it. Darwin went on to hypothisize that the eye might have begun as a patch of light-sensative cells upon which natural selection "worked it's magic", slowly making gradual improvements, and adaptations to end up with what we know today as the eye.

There are two issues here; First, he just making up a story that goes along with his theory based on no proof. Second; he jumped over the hard part of the problem to be solved: the light sensative cells. Where did they come from? How did they develop? These cells have to be able to initiate an electrical signal, which has to be attached to a nerve capable of carrying the electrical signal (that just happened to "evolve" at just the right place and time, and connected to the eye and the brain), and the brain has to be evolved to a point where it can recieve and interpret these signals as well as emit electrical signals of its own. all these things must (1) occur, (2) be the "most fit", (3) survive long enough to exist at the same time and place in order to (4) assemble themselves into a working eye. Darwin just glosses over them.

While many Dawinists have claimed there is is a computer model of the evolution of the eye, it has never been produced. Dawkins book, River Out of Eden goes on and on about, "computer models of evolving eyes".

Professor David Berlinski got to the bottom of the simulation and found it didn't exist. He tracked down the scientists alleged to have created it and found the following:

"This notion that there is somewhere a computer model of the evolutionary developement of the eye is an urban myth. Such a model does not exist. There is no such model anywhere in any laboratory. No one has the faintest idea how to make one. The whole story was fabricated out of thin air by Richard Dawkins. the senior author of the study on which Dawkins based his claim- Dan E. Nilsson - has explicitly rejected the idea that his laboratory has ever produced a computer simulation of the eye's development"​

 

[shagdrum]

If you keep re-iterating the same thing of allowing the supernatural, then you don't understand science.

You are distorting again. I never said anything about allowing the supernatural. In fact, I don't think I argued anything about the supernatural. I was meerly reiterating the argument of Del Ratzsch as spellout in a review of his book that was later distorted to make a point it didn't make in the link you posted! Not conceeding the point doesn't mean it hasn't been made. You know I have made my points, you just don't wanna acknowledge them. You are refusing to see the forest through the trees here.

look past YOUR faith.

I have never said anything to suggest I have any faith. Intelligent design is simply a more rational explanation in my view. I never said what I think that intelligence was, and if I did I would freely admit to having no proof that what I believed was the intelligence behind said design. For all you know, I could be a Scientologist and buy into the idea that the galactic ruler Xenu brought billions to Earth millions of years ago, or that our planet was seeded with life from some superior race billions of years ago. I read lots of sci-fi and am quite imaginative. I simply think evolution is irresponsible from a logical standpoint in that it disqualifies certian possibilities without any evidence, because that might leave the door open to the idea that God created life.

I don't need a supernatural cause to be enlightened. you do.

again, an unfounded assumption you are making about me.
Hail Satan!

and as long as this belief is held, you will not understand why the supernatural cannot become part of scientific procedure. it is that simple.

It is quite simple, You are too scared to consider the possiblity of any supernatural influence.

Now, I have to read my Necronomicon, pray to Joe Peshi, and sacrifice a virgin before I go to bed. Good night, and Praise Cthulhu!!

 

[hrmwrm]

you're right shagdrum, you haven't stated any belief. i think it's about time you stopped looking at darwin and come into the new age. it's been quite some time since his absence, and things have taken on a more knowledgeable light since. have a peruse through this then; http://www.atheists.org/evolution/halfawing.html

you asked about the eye. here is a good scenario for the creation. you just haven't looked in the right areas for proof. half the page down. also, i'm not scared of the supernatural. it just doesn't exist in any stretch of the inagination.

 

[shagdrum]

Here is what you cite:

"Probably no organ of the body has excited more wonder among scientists and laymen alike than has the eye. In its complexity and exquisiteness of function, the human eye almost begs to be described as a miracle. But like other "miracles" of nature, the vertebrate eye has yielded up its secrets to science. Unlike the case of bird evolution, however, we have no fossils to guide us in our study of the evolution of the vertebrate eye, partly because it evolved very early in geologic history, and partly because soft organs do not usually fossilize. Fortunately, we have evidence far better than fossils to show us how eyes may have developed[emphasis added]. Not only can we learn a lot about the stages of ocular evolution from the study of how eyes develop in the vertebrate embryo, organisms still living exhibit photoreceptor organs smoothly spanning the structural spectrum from the "eye-spots" of single-celled organisms to eyes even more complex than the human eye."​

First: May have developed? This is poorly worded and suggests that this is nothing more then mere speculation. Doesn't do anything to prove evolution...

Second: Embryo development hasn't been shown to demonstrate anything about evolution. The doctrine that vertebrate embryos are most similar in their earliest stages and, as Darwin put it "show us, more or less completely, the condition of the progenitor of the whole group in its adult state" (a docrine known as von Baer's law) is simply assumed to be true, even though it is factually false. Karl Ernt von Baer (the embroyologist for who this doctrine is ironically named after) criticized Darwinists for having "already accepted the Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis as true before they set to the task of observing embryos." Embryologist William Ballard wrote in 1976 that, "only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence," by "bending the facts of nature," can one subscribe to von Baer's Law. The fact is that vertebrate embryos start out looking very different (in the cleavage and gastrulation stages), then they converge somewhat in appearance midway through development, then they diverge again as they develop further. Embryologists call this the Developmental Hourglass. Darwinists simply assume von Baer's Law to be true, even though there is no evidence to support it. As such, you cannot "learn a lot about the stages of ocular evolution from the study of how eyes develop in the vertebrate embryo."

Third: The whole "organisms still living exhibit photoreceptor organs smoothly spanning the structural spectrum from the 'eye-spots' of single-celled organisms to eyes even more complex than the human eye" claim only proves that different organisms and creatures have different eyes, some more complex then others. We are to assume a connection without any proof.


Basically, no concrete facts are given, just speculation and assumptions based on disproven "doctrines".

I wonder about the credibility of the website/organization; it does have a blatant agenda.

Anyway, thanks for playing.

 

[hrmwrm]

"As an organ developed via the opportunistic twists and turns of evolutionary processes, the human eye is explainable. As an organ designed and created by an infinitely wise deity, the human eye is inexcusable. For unlike the invertebrate eyes just studied, the human eye is constructed upon the foundation of an almost incredible error: the retina has been put together back-wards! Unlike the retinas of octopuses and squids, in which the light-gathering cells are aimed forward, toward the source of incoming light, the photoreceptor cells (the so-called rods and cones) of the human retina are aimed backward, away from the light source. Worse yet, the nerve fibers which must carry signals from the retina to the brain must pass in front of the receptor cells, partially impeding the penetration of light to the receptors. Only a blasphemer would attribute such a situation to divine design! "

i believe the flaws within our own eyes attribute the fact of not coming from a perfect designer. so there are 2 sides to every coin. and yes, the site is from a particular bend. i only came across it in trying to scare up info. it wasn't from my list of favourites before, although it is now. thanks. i don't see this as going anywhere or being productive in anyway. i think this thread has been hi-jacked long enough.