I liked the videos, too, cantleave.
Ya, funny how they all disppear. I presume they are all searching the internet for info to cut and paste, or trying to come up with some kind of schoolyard insult.
FAO: Bane - You Mentioned the Eye
by cantleave 56 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
BANE
Cantleave, I am too dangerous around here. I can only post 10 times in 24 hours. That is why I cannot respond to you as I have made over 100 posts now and cannot get more posts. I think someone here is afraid I will...SPEAK my mind...I have belonged to many forums in my life and have NEVER had a post restriction like this one. What are they afraid of here? So now I am taking up one of my posts to discuss the eye here. I will have to see your videos later and edit these comments here.
-
tec
Bane, I was here for a month, and with around 130 posts before I got a higher posting limit. It has nothing to do with you. It is the rule for everyone.
Tammy
-
isaacaustin
Bane, you are defintely not danger on Jehovahs-Witness.net. You are comical to watch, if you are dangerous it is only in your own mind- one which is far removed from reality.
-
alice.in.wonderland
"Science and religion [are] no longer seen as incompatible."— The Daily Telegraph, London, May 26, 1999.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4550448/Charles-Darwin-zealots-have-made-science-a-substitute-religion.html
Charles Darwin zealots have made science a substitute religion
Christopher Booker is troubled by the fervor surrounding the 200-year anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth.
One great stumbling block to his argument is that evolution has repeatedly taken place in leaps forward so sudden and so complex that they could not possibly have been accounted for by the gradual process he suggested - “the Cambrian explosion" of new life forms, [the complexities of the eye], the post-Cretaceous explosion of mammals. Again and again some new development emerged which required a whole mass of interdependent changes to take place simultaneously, such as the transformation of reptiles into feathered, hollow-boned and warm-blooded birds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
Irreducible complexity (IC) is a nonscientific argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally-occurring, chance mutations.
The human eye is actually much more complex than any camera. Cameras of course do not materialize without an intelligent designer. Dawkins often uses superficial analysis as evidence for evolution, without charting an accurate path of development in "evolutionary species."
Focusing on the eye for example: In the animal kingdom, sight is accomplished by using either rods or cones on the retina of the eye. Animals that see black and white and shades of gray have only the rods in their retina. Animals that see color have both rods and cones; the cones are for color, but require a lot more light to stimulate. The bottom line is that animals that see color are diurnal [daylight] and black and white vision is for nocturnal [night] vision. If an animal does not see color, it is adapted to night vision. To my understanding, apes and monkeys can see colors. They are the only animals, other than man, that scientists can conclusively say have color vision. They can be trained to open a colored door which has food behind it. What do scientists know as to why apes and human beings see in vivid color? What forces were at work and how did this development take place?
Superficial assertions of the human eye as an irreducibly complex organ is not evidence for macroevolution nor is there an adequate demonstration of macroevolution: species deriving complexity from simpler lifeforms. Living organisms do not behave in such a manner. Without an adequate demonstration of macroevolution, the chain of events Darwin theorized that ultimately results in the latter stages in the hereditary line of succession fails (the human eye in this discussion) and is null and void to honest minded individuals. -
alice.in.wonderland
"Superficial assertions of the human eye as an irreducibly complex organ.'
Correction: Superficial assertions of the human eye as a reducibly complex organ is not evidence for macroevolution nor is there an adequate demonstration of macroevolution..
-
cantleave
Alice thank you for your reply, which when you read the articles you have quoted from in full context, show first of all that Darwin shouldn't be worshipped, an idea I completely agree with (I don't think anything or anyone deserve the worship of people)and I am sure Darwin himself would be mortified if people showed that degree of adulation. The article, however interesting, has nothing whatsoever to do with my question.
Your second article shows that irreducible complexity is is a non scientific idea which can be debunked quite quickly by the scientific community as my embedded videos show. So you too obviously disagree with Bane, since both your articles support my initial post 3656.
What for me is revealing, is you have done with the wikipedia article, is what the WTS often does, taken paragraphs from article that appear to support your argument when they don't. What they are actually doing is defining the terminology before the article delivers the killer blow to the concept.
Correction: Superficial assertions of the human eye as a reducibly complex organ is not evidence for macroevolution nor is there an adequate demonstration of macroevolution.
What you you should be saying, more accurately, is the irreducible complexity is not evidence for creation, and as it is a concept devised by creationist in order to demonstrate just that. Therefore, it fails on every count. The idea promoted by by evolution is clearly laid out in my post above.
The great thing is of course the structures for light detection in living organisms are so diverse they in effect give us a living fossil record of the various stages of eye development.
-
cantleave
Bane you are not dangerous. You would have to be a free thinker to be dangerous, not just someone spouting WT BS.
-
nugget
Alice,
I thought people would benefit from reading the whole wikki piece rather than the limited bit cut and paste previously. If you take the trouble to read the whole piece it is an argument against Intelligent design not for it.
The society uses the same philosophy in it's literature and is often guilty of misquotes in order to make it's arguments. Please do not use the same sloppy research they do you must set a higher standard for yourself.
Irreducible complexity (IC) is a nonscientific argument by proponents of intelligent design that certain biological systems are too complex to have evolved from simpler, or "less complete" predecessors, through natural selection acting upon a series of advantageous naturally-occurring, chance mutations. [1] The argument is central to intelligent design, and is rejected by the scientific community, [2] which overwhelmingly regards intelligent design as pseudoscience. [3] Irreducible complexity is one of two main arguments intended to support intelligent design, the other being specified complexity. [4]
Biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term irreducible complexity, defines an irreducibly complex system as one "composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning". [5] These examples are said to demonstrate that modern biological forms could not have evolved naturally. Evolutionary biologists have shown that such systems can in fact evolve, [6] and Behe's examples are considered to constitute an argument from ignorance. [7]
In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, Behe gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." [8] Nonetheless, irreducible complexity continues to be cited as an important argument by creationists, particularly intelligent design proponents.
-
steve2
I always suspected the Watchtower's simplistic illustration of the complexity of the eye as "evidence" of creation because it maintained such a complex organ needed an intelligent designer. Funny thing then that the intelligent designer who was/is presumable more complex than his creation didn't himself need a creator.