Another issue that comes up with this nonsense is "knowing" things in the first place. There is no such thing as absolute certainty but science does require that, science only requires that you test and refine your theories and evolution is about as good as it gets. It's either hypocritical or just plain ignorant to accept things like gravity and reject evolution and in royal's case I don't think it's just ignorance.
Yes, it is indeed very frustrating when various definitions of the same word are conflated all the time. When a YEC says "you don't know what happened", then in this specific instance he's using "knowledge" as in "absolute, 100% knowledge", a standard that cannot be met by anything and is hence completely useless in a discussion like this. Fact of the matter is, to the degree that we can know anything, we know that Darwinian evolution is true.
I saw this a lot with Mormons, too. It takes a pretty brave soul to turn against everything they've been taught once they've been enlightened by real history. I can most certainly understand why they avoid exposing themselves to those contradictions.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYQjATp0-a8"]YouTube - Quad damage[/ame] I commend your effort, though.
White people are genetic mutants. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728.html Lance Armstrong has a rare genetic mutation that actually helps him be a better cyclist. http://www.edb.utexas.edu/coyle/armstrong.php
the reason that Dawkins' video is so far out of bounds as far as science is concerned is that he is only talking about the anatomy angle. i especially like that the eyeball had veins. nice touch. what he didn't address, and couldn't because there is no basis for such a position, is how the physiology developed. how did the nervous system develop such that the information gathered by the anatomical apparatus was translated into a meaningful something?
Can I just spare us all some time and cut the shit? You're not interested. You're not. So don't act like you're here looking for answers to your questions that don't lead to "God did it". You're embarrassing yourself and wasting our f**king time.
So at least we're making some progress. I take it then that you accept the reality that half an eye is indeed better than no eye and that the eye didn't have to pop into existence fully formed, but that a gradual process is possible. Now it's only about how that could have happened. And you have what background exactly to make such a claim? How do your academic studies on biology stack up against those of Dawkins? Or any other evolutionary biologist who spent his life researching this stuff and who apparently make claims that are unfounded? The thing is, there's plenty of evidence, it's just that you're unaware of it. Short answer: random mutation coupled with natural selection. Long answer: Go to a college and study this stuff. Seriously, the thing about science in general is that it's hard. If you want to go into that much detail, no 15 minute video can help you there. What you need then is a couple of years of intense course work. You can't just project your own ignorance on everybody else. But I'm still here to help. If you want a glimpse of what is known, you can start here: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5936/24.summary Of course a magazine like 'Science' charges money for access, but this article is actually rather easy to understand. Of course there are still a lot of open questions regarding the origin of the nervous system, but that's only too natural, given that we're talking about events that are 600 million years in the past. But what's also obvious is that the argument is merely about which exact path evolution has taken. The occurrence of the nervous system itself is no riddle at all, but instead easily explained by evolution. And here are some more (free) articles for you to start getting into it: http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2009/07/evolutionary_origins_of_the_nervous_system.php http://notexactlyrocketscience.word...es-provide-clues-to-origin-of-nervous-system/ And some scientific papers: http://www.imbb.forth.gr/people/poirazi/journal-club/2005-06/Coghlan12-10-05.pdf http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/web/contents.php?vol=47&issue=7-8&doi=14756331 Of course, should you want to learn about this in depth, you still need to go to a university...
The idea that explaining the anatomy ( how it might have developed ) does anything to debunk an intelligent design model is just wrong. The physiology of vision in humans is intensely complex. Even if the physical structure of the eye did evolve, and we don't know that it did, just that some people think it could, that is only one half of the problem. Then you have to connect the anatomical structure to the central nervous system. There has to be a process to transmit the image to the brain so that the brain can do something with the image, make sense of it in some fashion. There are several critical steps in the process. They have to occur in a sequence that is about 8 steps long. Most of the steps involve chemical changes. The chemicals involved aren't substances that occur throughout the body. They are specific to the vision system. The vertebrate transduction cascade is what allows creatures with spines to see. So when Dawkins spun his little yarn about the evolution of the eye, he was lying. He knew he was lying. He made people think that all vision requires is the anatomy. He left out the part about the physiology.
It was spot on. A kid wants to hold on to his belief in Santa because it makes him feel better. Xmas was way funner when we all thought Santa existed. But we accept that he doesn't, and deal with xmases that aren't as great as they were in our early childhood. Same with wrestling, kids get a lot more emotional payoff when they think Hulk Hogan is actually fighting the forces of evil. When they find out he isn't, they'll still watch, but it can't rile up emotions like before. Creationists want to feel good about themselves, they want to feel special. That's why they hold on to their little beliefs. It's pretty sad that they can't accept the truth of evolution. That shows how mentally weak they are.
Actually, it does, because the entire argument of the creationists is: "I don't know how else it could have happened." Well, now you do know. To the degree that we can know anything, we do know that the eye evolved. Evolution is just as certain as that the sun will rise again tomorrow. Great, one half solved then. Whatever steps are necessary, they're all on accordance with evolution. He wasn't lying at all, he was explaining the evolution of the physiology. The evolution of the neurology is a different matter, but nothing that can't be studied. So the only person who's lying is you and you know it. All your mistakes have been pointed out to you before, so you can't even defend yourself by claiming ignorance any more. Pathogen is right, you are making a fool of yourself.
How are these kids not indoctrinated? [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IguW9xHd2qo"]YouTube - Crazy Creationism in a High School Classroom[/ame]
Belief in a god doesn't make a person a creationist. All you have demonstrated is how mentally weak you are.
These kids and that teacher are real dumb bastards. "How could we have e-volved? That don't make no sense. Gu-haw."
When I see something like this, I really wonder what the prerequisite for becoming a (biology) teacher is in the US. This guy can't possibly have studied biology, otherwise he'd know better than that. You really have to feel sorry for the kids though. It's not their fault that they're being taught a bunch of horse sh*t...
http://www.economist.com/node/18111764 The first rule of natural selection is: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” This is going to end up in a creationist website to deny evolution, this is ken Hovens wet dream.
Hovens should just work on staying out of prison. But this is hardly a strong case for anti-evolutionists. And no knock on the Economists, but they're not exactly Nature or some other science publication. So I'll take their opinion on this development with a grain of salt.
Of course, there is also the alternative theory that Satan is confusing the minds of the unbelievers and blinding them to the truth.
Little girl in the red reminds me of the dumb churchies that would get trains run on them freshman year of college.
Actually, even if you make that assumption benztown's statement still holds true: to the degree that we can know anything we know that evolution is true. And I mean that in all seriousness, even if your post is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, because the idea that our sense are fooling us is an old one but one that has often been dealt with.