The 'Science' of Intelligent Design

429px-Diagram_of_eye_evolution.svg.png


Dixie's lucky he has no sense of shame.
 
Should we start numbering the moles we keep whacking? That would make it easier for the IDrs to restate their position without having to retype it by simply referencing a number, and we could reference the same number to explain what has already been explained.

I'll start:

1) Where did life come from then?!
2) The eye is irreducibly complex and couldn't have evolved gradually!
3) The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex and couldn't have evolved gradually!
4) K, so it's not really science but that's only cause you need to change the definition of science!
 
Southern Man said:
How does evolution explain the origin of life? I must have missed that discussion.
Click to expand...

Did he say that evolution explained the origin of life?

No, he did not.



But you also have not put forth any argument to the information in the video.

Do you think the eye is irreducibly complex after watching the video?
 
Solitary said:
The definition of life is not complicated or hard to find.

But the video did address the issue of the eye quite well. Don't you think?
Click to expand...
I thought it was a funny cartoon, actually. The lens is mucous that got lodged in a hole then hardened slightly? It seems to explain the formation of a zit quite well though. :cof1:
 
Solitary said:
Did he say that evolution explained the origin of life?

No, he did not.....
Click to expand...
I guess that answers my question then. So you're saying that ib1yysguy's claims are full of shit? That's not surprising (that he is, not that you acknowledge that he is).
 
Dixie explained one of the better theories for the origins of life call the clay theory. There's a great video explaining that as well:

 
I am going to just sit and stare at all of you right now. Pay it no mind, and continue on with your quarrelling as if you weren't being weirded out by the psycho in the corner with the paper bag over his head. K?
 
Southern Man said:
I guess that answers my question then. So you're saying that ib1yysguy's claims are full of shit? That's not surprising (that he is, not that you acknowledge that he is).
Click to expand...

Did I say that?

What Ib said was "Translation: I'm owned, so let me resort to diverting the argument from evolution to the origin of life, and ignore the fact that it's already been discussed."

Let me help you understand it better. He was accusing you of moving from a discussion of evolution to a discussion of the origin of life. And, in fact, that has been discussed rather thoroughly.

And when the topic was evolution, for you to counter with "Where did the first cell come from?" pretty much means he hit the nail on the head.

And I have not disagreed with Ib on this topic.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Dixie explained one of the better theories for the origins of life call the clay theory. There's a great video explaining that as well:
...
Click to expand...
Almost like a Monty Python short. :)

That may explain how complex molecules, perhaps even cell structured formed. But where did the "life" come from? All that crap just lays around and does nothing, not at all like a single celled organism. *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
Almost like a Monty Python short. :)

That may explain how complex molecules, perhaps even cell structured formed. But where did the "life" come from? All that crap just lays around and does nothing, not at all like a single celled organism. *shrug*
Click to expand...

Did you even watch the video? It explained a very good hypothesis for how replicating RNA came to be, and even how it came to get a formation of protective lipids surrounding it resembling a crude, replicating single cell.
 
ib1yysguy said:
There are a lot of very good scientific explanations for the evolution of the eye, which has happened independently at least a dozen times in different species. There's no miracle involved. It starts out simple, it grows more complex. Each piece of the eye has a function on the lower-order of eye, so your premise that "the retina is useless, it had to just magically appear!" is totally hogwash. I'm sure with about half a second of googling you could find a great explanation, but I'll save you the trouble:

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explains the evolution of the eye.
YouTube - Dawkins Makes an Eye
Click to expand...

Well, it says this video is no longer available.

The premise that the human eye has evolved through stages from a primitive eye-spot, is invalid. I understand the argument, but it is not rooted in valid science. You want to maintain the eye has grown more complex through thousands of generations of the eye, and that is not the case. The human eye has specific components which work together to perform the function of sight. Primitive eyes worked in a different manner, and would not have "evolved" the complex components required in the human eye, there is no fundamental "Darwinian" reason for the primitive eye to develop components not used in the primitive eye... Evolution doesn't know complex components for a different type of sight are needed.

Another analogy you might apply, is this... You can watch TV on a cathode ray tube, or you can watch TV on a liquid crystal diode screen. Both provide TV viewing, but both work in completely different ways, fundamentally unrelated to each other. You couldn't take the materials of a CRT and make an LCD with them, or visa versa. The same principle applies with regard to the primitive eye and the human eye, the way in which they function is totally different. IF the human eye were a more advanced version of the primitive eye, your theory would be valid, but that is not the case.
 
Solitary said:
I did not say the eyespot was like our eye. I said they are at different ends of a long line of "eyes" that show that they function, despite varying degrees of interdependence and complexity.
Click to expand...

They are not "different ends of a long line" and you have not demonstrated that. They are completely different in function, and work in a completely different manner. It's like comparing a cardboard box with a pinhole in it, with a Nikon D50 Digital SLR! Yeah, both are "cameras" but they do not function in anywhere near similar ways.

The process of evolution has not been disproved by the complexity of the eye. I am sure that there are plenty of people who are trying.
Click to expand...

Grrrrrr! I am not trying to disprove evolution! I'm sorry you feel compelled to get all defensive about your theory, but my arguments are not intended to refute or disprove them. In fact, I even used your theory as a basis for why the human eye can't be the result of natural selection and evolution, according to what Darwin himself stated. My argument actually stands on Evolution Theory! Why would I be trying to disprove it?

What I have disproved, is your idiotic idea that the complex components of the human eye, could have or would have evolved from a primitive eye spot. There is no supporting science to suggest this is the case, regardless of how many pinhead "scientists" you might find on YouTube to "prove" it!

And Dixie, just as an FYI, disproving evolution will still not make ID scientific.
Click to expand...

Again for the hard headed... I have NOT tried to disprove ET!

I have indeed presented evidence for ID, and I believe it is scientific. You haven't presented anything except your idiotic opinions to the contrary. Neither has Damo or IbIdiot! You just keep repeating the same nonsense and insisting ID has been "refuted" by science.
 
I don't suggest that ID was refuted by science. I suggest that it could not be refuted by science even if it were untrue, and therefore is not science. It is testability that would make it science, not just thinking about it.
 
Dixie, you're simply wrong about the evolution of the eye. You do not understand it at all. Click on the video, it'll bring you to the youtube page and you'll be able to watch it there.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Dixie, you're simply wrong about the evolution of the eye. You do not understand it at all. Click on the video, it'll bring you to the youtube page and you'll be able to watch it there.
Click to expand...

I am really not interested in watching some pinhead who calls himself a scientist, tell me about his theory of how a primitive eye spot "evolved" into a human eye. I am sure it is fun and entertaining to pinhead disbelievers of ID, but I am more knowledgeable on the subject. The human eye consists of a retina, cornea, iris and lens, which work together in a systematic way to project an image onto the optical nerve. A photo-cell simply detects light, it doesn't project images, it has no components to do this, and "evolution" would have no way of "knowing" it needed these components to do that. You make just as much sense claiming the human eye "evolved" from the human nose!

I am not wrong about this, I have studied it in detail, and according to your "god" Darwin, what would have needed to happen in evolution for the primitive eye to evolve into a human eye, is simply not possible. Now, you and Mr. YouTube Scientist can pretend, you can make up shit and spew it out there to try and make people believe nonsense, but you can't support this idiocy with science, because it contradicts the very theory you hold near and dear.... dear!

Evolution doesn't have wisdom to know what components a species needs to acquire more advanced function. Something with a photocell eyespot, is simply not going to evolve into something with a cornea, retina, iris and lens, and the optic nerve simply isn't going to change from receiving stimulation of lightness and darkness and start processing imagery. You are talking about two completely different "systems" of sight, and they are not related.

This idea you are spouting, is about 100 years old. A century ago, science indeed theorized this is what could have happened, the human eye "evolved" from a more primitive photocell-type planeria eye. Since that time, we have experienced enormous advancements in science, in our ability to examine the human eye, in our ability to understand how it works and why. From what is now known, and according to the very theories of Darwin, the "evolution" you believe happened, is just not possible. For it to be possible, it would have to completely contradict Darwinism.
 
Dixie said:
I am not wrong about this, I have studied it in detail, and according to your "god" Darwin, what would have needed to happen in evolution for the primitive eye to evolve into a human eye, is simply not possible.
Click to expand...

Dixie you've been told this before, Darwin never said that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top