"Golden Compass" is an anti-religion film?

[fossten]

"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.

Now you finally begin to debate actual science...

Here's an article that destroys your argument about the backwards retina being evidence of a bad design. I'm sure *cough* that you'll take the time to read it.

By the way, note in the inevitable and classic name calling of the author in your last sentence. The attacks continue as usual...

 

[Calabrio]

"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.

And that's one of the arguments I do remember hearing, and it still doesn't address the fundamental flaw. Since evolution is the result of minute changes, over the course of generations, that provide a biological advantage, what purpose is served by having an optic nerve, but no retina? If anyone one system fails to work, the entire system fails. This is hugely significant and baffling.

Whether evolutionary processes were involved in later development - or even mutations- of the eye (or ear or other systems) isn't the issue. For all we know, it may have originate in a different species, but that's besides the point. But the principles of evolution don't make sense when applied to an intricate system. If anyone system fails, the creature loses it's genetic advantage. Whether it's mutated since then, or recent applications of the design have been less than perfect is irrelevant.

No one has addressed that point. Saying "well, the design sucks" doesn't point out the complexity of the design and the ability of it to have individually.


And note, I don't think that evolution or even random evolution as a form of creationism negates the existance of God, so I don't even consider it a theological debate. However, I do not see a solution to the problem I presented.

Thanks for the video link, video three is precisely the video. And, in candor, his answer is double talk and not sufficient. He can not answer this and he's spinning. Frankly, it's intolerably boring, and I'm a guy who watches C-SPAN book TV. Enduring a five minute lecture on how fires spread by sparks was a bit much.

But to push this further, if through random mutation we can have entire systems like the ear and eye emerge, why haven't we seen any person do this in the past 5000 years? Why don't we suddenly see someone with a functioning set of wings or gills?

 

[Calabrio]

As mentioned, video three, 24 minute mark - Dawkins attempts to make his real argument, through examples, of eye evolution.

I stand corrected, it does eventually become a compelling argument to the challenge I made.

The entire debate, though, is horribly filled with holes and leaps of logic.
In contrast to the stated claims of objectionism and skepticism.

 

[MAC1]

"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! "

This is just another example of someone that thinks he knows better than the creator and what is the "perfect design." You would think evolutionists and atheists would celebrate differences in eye design as evidence of evolution. Instead, when it's convenient, they're willing to mock evolution as long as it's within the context of disputing creation. So it would appear that based upon the non-perfect human eye theory that the evolutionary process was flawed when it comes to formation of the human eye.

 

[Calabrio]

This is just another example of someone that thinks he knows better than the creator and what is the "perfect design." You would think evolutionists and atheists would celebrate differences in eye design as evidence of evolution. Instead, when it's convenient, they're willing to mock evolution as long as it's within the context of disputing creation. So it would appear that based upon the non-perfect human eye theory that the evolutionary process was flawed when it comes to formation of the human eye.

Again, I dismiss that argument as well.
But the video does provide an interesting argument to the contrary basically starting out with the eye being a light sensitive bunch of cells.
It's far from conclusive, but it is interesting.

And it is very difficult to conceptualize millions of years, or hundreds of thousands of generations.

 

[shagdrum]

As mentioned, video three, 24 minute mark - Dawkins attempts to make his real argument, through examples, of eye evolution.

I stand corrected, it does eventually become a compelling argument to the challenge I made.

The entire debate, though, is horribly filled with holes and leaps of logic.
In contrast to the stated claims of objectionism and skepticism.

Calabrio; I wouldn't put too much faith in Dawkins. As I showed in an earlier post, he flat out made up "facts" in one of his books to prove his claim....

Read post #96; You can't start with light sensative cells to explain the evolution of the eye. How did those light sensative cells come to pass? Also, is there something in Dawkins argument to make it more then just speculation and conjecture on a possible way for the eye to develop? If it is just "here is a basic eye", then "here is a more developed eye on this creature, therefore they are two steps in the evolutionary process." That whole last highlighted point is pure speculation, no proof given. While I'm sure Dawkins words it more eloquently then me, I would guess that his argument is probably not much more then that. I will admit I haven't seen the video yet (please provide the link), but Dawkins doesn't have much credibility.

 

[Calabrio]

Calabrio; I wouldn't put too much faith in Dawkins. As I showed in an earlier post, he flat out made up "facts" in one of his books to prove his claim....

If you do watch the video, you might also note that he's giving this presentation what looks to be a room full of young children.

In the video I just watched, he's careful to avoid actually using "facts" but simply speculates. He presents what should be accepted as theories. What he thinks, what he imagines, what he assumes.

Which is the funny thing about so many of these crusading secular skeptics. They lack information, thus they put the faith into something they lack evidence for. Rather than using God to fill the void, they simply use their imagination.

But, I still must acknowledge, the eye argument is intriguing. Not complete, but intriguing. He goes from light detecting cells and equates that to the development of eye balls, optic nerves, cornea, retinas, rods and cones, the brain reversing the image, ect. ect.

The argument about the wing is presented dishonestly in the visual demonstration. (Christmas ball with skirt)

 

[shagdrum]

"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.

An imperfect design doesn't discredit ID. You are making an assumtion of the design being from a perfect supernatural being who is unable to make anything imperfect. You further assume that you can determine the perfection or inperfection of this being. And last, you assume the design was ment to be perfect. Three huge assumptions. We have seen intelligence design many imperfect vehicle, Just look at any Cadillac (jk). Seriously, anytime there is a recall on a car, is a demonstration of an imperfect design. by your logic, that would be proof that the car just evolved into being.

 

[shagdrum]

If you do watch the video, you might also note that he's giving this presentation what looks to be a room full of young children.

In the video I just watched, he's careful to avoid actually using "facts" but simply speculates. He presents what should be accepted as theories. What he thinks, what he imagines, what he assumes.

Which is the funny thing about so many of these crusading secular skeptics. They lack information, thus they put the faith into something they lack evidence for. Rather than using God to fill the void, they simply use their imagination.

But, I still must acknowledge, the eye argument is intriguing. Not complete, but intriguing. He goes from light detecting cells and equates that to the development of eye balls, optic nerves, cornea, retinas, rods and cones, the brain reversing the image, ect. ect.

The argument about the wing is presented dishonestly in the visual demonstration. (Christmas ball with skirt)

I would like to watch it. Did I miss it in a previous post? Could you repost it for me?

While I understand that he has to "dumb it down" quite a bit for kids, I still will point out, according to what you said about it, he skips the hard step in the eyes development; light sensing cells. As I pointed out, Darwin himself already gave that in The Origin of Species.

 

[daves2000ls]

Darwinism can't explain the development of the eye, or other complex organs, let alone a change in species. The discovery of DNA disproves darwin.

True, but there is substantial evidence that species do evolve. Take the hairless "Sphynx" breed of cats. A genetic mutation occurred, it caused the cats to have almost no hair. The hairs that the cats do have are very fine and the cats almost feel like suede. The owner of the first "mutant" cat bred that cat and got a litter of kittens, some with some without hair. Continue breeding in this manner until you have a new breed of cat.

Another example of this happened when a new freeway was built, don't remember when or where. But, a species of snake couldn't get across the road, some were lighter colored, some were dark, after a few generations on one side of the freeway you would find dark and on the other would be the light snakes.

Biology is proving that evolution is true and is still happening. The discovery of DNA did not disprove Darwin, if anything it enabled us to better understand genetics and heredity.

 

[shagdrum]

True, but there is substantial evidence that species do evolve. Take the hairless "Sphynx" breed of cats. A genetic mutation occurred, it caused the cats to have almost no hair. The hairs that the cats do have are very fine and the cats almost feel like suede. The owner of the first "mutant" cat bred that cat and got a litter of kittens, some with some without hair. Continue breeding in this manner until you have a new breed of cat.

Another example of this happened when a new freeway was built, don't remember when or where. But, a species of snake couldn't get across the road, some were lighter colored, some were dark, after a few generations on one side of the freeway you would find dark and on the other would be the light snakes.

Biology is proving that evolution is true and is still happening. The discovery of DNA did not disprove Darwin, if anything it enabled us to better understand genetics and heredity.

In both those instances you are talking about adapation (which some define as evolution). The evolution being talked about here is that of Darwinian evolution neither of your two examples is evolution in that sense. Read post #71 (page 3); I spell out what evolution is (and isn't) in the darwinian sense. In post #74 I show how evolution is distorted.

In fact DNA, and genetics are casting a harsh light on evolution.

 

[hrmwrm]

fossten, your link doesn't destroy anything. it merely states that the inverted retina has evolved itself to be best for what it is, not that it's the best design. either way, let the scientist's argue it out. the point still comes down to the fact that either type of eye has evolved into very fine tuned organ that is the best for it's design.

"But to push this further, if through random mutation we can have entire systems like the ear and eye emerge, why haven't we seen any person do this in the past 5000 years? Why don't we suddenly see someone with a functioning set of wings or gills?"

evolution becomes a little unfathomable in it's timeframe. we live in such short timespans that it takes many thousands of years and many generations to create small differences. and no- one knows the exact triggering process for large change. something like gills or wings wouldn't suit an animal basically adapted to running on dry land. although there have been some cases of wierd deformities that might have been triggered from dormant genes. but this is speculation.

i seen a national geographic special that is of great interest to something like this thread. it was called "the ultimate survivor, the mystery of us" i downloaded it from the ed2k network. it was fairly recently, so anybody with emule can find it. might even be on torrents. if anybody is interested and can supply me with a site for 2-700 mb files, i could upload them there for all.

i don't see this thread going anywhere. it's still an us against them type of thing, although it has been enlightening. back to the topic of the thread. i didn't see it myself on the news, but my wife was saying that they pulled the golden compass from school libraries here. i guess it's going into the courts to be rectified. if i here any actual info, i'll post. it's funny she brought that up, because she wasn't aware of the topic of me posting here.


http://richarddawkins.net/growingupintheuniverse shagdrum, here is the link calabrio refers to. as said, episode 3.

 

[shagdrum]

i seen a national geographic special that is of great interest to something like this thread. it was called "the ultimate survivor, the mystery of us" i downloaded it from the ed2k network. it was fairly recently, so anybody with emule can find it. might even be on torrents. if anybody is interested and can supply me with a site for 2-700 mb files, i could upload them there for all.


http://richarddawkins.net/growingupintheuniverse shagdrum, here is the link calabrio refers to. as said, episode 3.

Thanks for the link. I would be interested in the National Geographic thing too, but have no site that could do 700 mb files. If you do get it on a site, let me know via private message or such.

Too bad you are droppin out of this debate (I assume), though I gotta admit it has been getting a little tiring, after a time (keep in mind, I am sayin this and debatin this kinda stuff is like crack to me). It's been fun...

 

[hrmwrm]

i'll keep track and forward info if i have some, but i'm done arguing. if somebody does have a site, i'll upload the videos. they are about hominid descent and all the different types, some that co-existed, although not neccesarily co-mingled. there is some speculation, but the fact of existence is there. even neanderthal, who existed not that long ago at the same time as homo sapiens. but it has been interesting.

 

[fossten]

True, but there is substantial evidence that species do evolve. Take the hairless "Sphynx" breed of cats. A genetic mutation occurred, it caused the cats to have almost no hair. The hairs that the cats do have are very fine and the cats almost feel like suede. The owner of the first "mutant" cat bred that cat and got a litter of kittens, some with some without hair. Continue breeding in this manner until you have a new breed of cat.

Another example of this happened when a new freeway was built, don't remember when or where. But, a species of snake couldn't get across the road, some were lighter colored, some were dark, after a few generations on one side of the freeway you would find dark and on the other would be the light snakes.

Biology is proving that evolution is true and is still happening. The discovery of DNA did not disprove Darwin, if anything it enabled us to better understand genetics and heredity.

Dave, the problem with your argument is that it isn't Darwinian evolution you're describing. In your cat example, the "mutated" breed of cat is still...a cat. It's not a dog or a bird. The light snakes vs. dark snakes...still snakes, not amphibians or bats. Darwin supposes that a bird evolved from a reptile. In other words, an entirely NEW SPECIES evolved from an older one. That is completely outside the scope of your argument and there is exactly ZERO evidence supporting any such development in history.

By the way, your example shows selective breeding, something that must have been guided by a higher intelligence - namely, the breeder. Proves my point even more fully.

 

[fossten]

fossten, your link doesn't destroy anything. it merely states that the inverted retina has evolved itself to be best for what it is, not that it's the best design. either way, let the scientist's argue it out.

See, that's the problem. The scientists won't allow anyone to argue it out in schools. They teach falsehoods in their textbooks (see Haeckel's drawings). They refuse to allow any alternative viewpoints despite the fact that even we laypeople have (barely) started actually debating the science and it is determined that nothing is a fait accompli for the evolutionists. Both sides have a story to tell but the secularists won't allow the ID's to tell their side. What are they afraid of?

 

[hrmwrm]

no ones afraid. it comes down to proveable evidence. other than some nit picking factors, evolution stands up to scientific standards in general. id, creationism, religion, all put their own flavor of the who or what is behind the start. public school is to be religiously neutral.there are too many cultures to pick something that doesn't offend at least a minority. in canada, teaching in the private catholic schools is fine. just not in the public schools. and even id sits with the unproveable factor. and because nobody wishes to submit id to any scientific publications and testing bodies with the proof needed, it won't be taken as a science. otherwise it leaves an unknowable without the ability to ever know what that is. until things change, and i doubt they will, it will stay like this.

 

[TheDude]

Ignorance is bliss, eh?

Oh yes, what a powerful response. Care to actually counter/comment on the points I made, or will you just continue to do what you do best; act the clown?

 

[fossten]

Oh yes, what a powerful response. Care to actually counter/comment on the points I made, or will you just continue to do what you do best; act the clown?

Oh - look - it's Rip Van Winkle! Jeez, which points are you referring to, the ones you made back BEFORE THANKSGIVING? What'd you do, fall asleep on the toilet or something?

Your points were unscientific; merely assertions. Ho hum. Hey, I have an idea, why don't you copy/paste an article from Talkorigins.com so I can refute it with a copy/paste from Trueorigins.com! Yeah, that'll be fun!

 

[shagdrum]

Oh yes, what a powerful response. Care to actually counter/comment on the points I made, or will you just continue to do what you do best; act the clown?

You made no points, just claims, no proof cited. I have made points (actual proof cited) in earlier posts that already countered you claims. look at posts #71, 74, 83, 93, 96 and 99. Know what has already been discussed before you start rambling...

 

[TheDude]

You made no points, just claims, no proof cited. I have made points (actual proof cited) in earlier posts that already countered you claims. look at posts #71, 74, 83, 93, 96 and 99. Know what has already been discussed before you start rambling...

...and you call me "ignorant".

Evolution theory in of itself does not try to disprove or prove the existance of God, that is a fact.

I.D. Is nothing more then Creationism with a scientific spin, it relies on a "creator" (aka God) to make it work, another fact.

 

[MAC1]

...and you call me "ignorant".

Evolution theory in of itself does not try to disprove or prove the existance of God, that is a fact.

I.D. Is nothing more then Creationism with a scientific spin, it relies on a "creator" (aka God) to make it work, another fact.

If the creationists use science to argue against the plausibility of evolution, then what’s the problem?

 

[Calabrio]

...and you call me "ignorant".

Evolution theory in of itself does not try to disprove or prove the existance of God, that is a fact.

I.D. Is nothing more then Creationism with a scientific spin, it relies on a "creator" (aka God) to make it work, another fact.

Actually. No.

I.D. recognizes that there were evolutionary processes and that life developed over an extended period of time. It simple maintains that it wasn't 100% random. You could even believe that life on Earth was the result of an alien six grade science project and still believe ID, or be very spiritual, or have no idea-

Evolution (as an origin of all life) says that life was completely by chance.

And Creationism says most things were created and have existed in a similar form to what they exist in today. That the world was created whole.

Huge differences between the three.

 

[shagdrum]

...and you call me "ignorant".

Evolution theory in of itself does not try to disprove or prove the existance of God, that is a fact.

I.D. Is nothing more then Creationism with a scientific spin, it relies on a "creator" (aka God) to make it work, another fact.

This is why I don't bother arguing with you. I already offered proof against your claims in the posts I cited. You don't offer any proof for your claims (or against mine), just arogantly assume your claims are true. Everyone on this board sees you for what you are: willfully ignorant and intellectually dishonest. Your ignorance is dogma that cannot be challenged. Who is acting more on faith here? The answer is rather obvious. Your "debating" is a joke, and thus worthy of nothing more then mockary. Now, you will excuse me while I go protest a gay marriage with Fred Phelps.

 

[hrmwrm]

things as i've understood them. there are 2 lines of creationists. 1 is the genesis only crowd. right by the bible only. and before id there were a crowd who allowed for evolution, but on a more limited scale, and a creator was behind everything. even pope john paul believed evolution was not an obstacle to faith. (even though evolution never sat easy with the church)

then there's the creationism of philip johnson(original idea, born again christian), promoted by stephen meyer( head of discover institute), michael behe(irreducible complexity), and william dembske(mathematician). they created and promoted id. with philip johnson being a christian, it leaves no doubt as to the intention of a creator. and they and their institute have gone on over the course of about 15 years trying to promote id and debunk evolution( not that it didn't happen, just on a more limited scale.) pretty close?