Posted on 10/03/2006 7:19:46 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Giving God a score in this case would be like giving the referees a score at a football game.
So the creation model predicts this and also predicts that there will be zero people that are born with 10x eagle vision, or owl darkness vision, or superman xray vision. This prediction has also come true.
To substantiate your prediction you need to show that in the past the average population member (at birth) had better sight than the current population. What evidence have you collected that backs this idea up? Absent such evidence your prediction isn't stacking up yet, (and I suspect that numerous historical references to people with sight defects can be found). You are presuming your conclusion, which is that Adam&Eve had perfect sight and things have been getting worse since then.
BTW Kudos for attempting to argue sensibly.
2nd: Does #58 help a bit?
Under lab circumstances, where more selective pressures can be applied, or in the case with selective breeding, quite radical changes can be observed. The evolution of single-celled organisms to multi-celled colonies has been directly observed, as has the evolution of the ability of microbes to digest latex(!). Look at the spectrum of domestic dogs - tell me, if you were to (hypothetically, of course) wipe out every type of dog except for Chihuahuas and St. Bernards, would these not be two species? (Good luck trying to get them to interbreed!)
When you talk about the devolution of man's vision, well, that happens to be happening because the ability to see well is no longer a selective pressure - we've found a way around having to see perfectly in order to survive. Before vision correction, when survival depended on hunting and warfare, this certainly wasn't the case.
You're right, that was my mistake. The 2nd law does nothing at all for me and I have dropped it in my second attempt to show what creation predicts.
Thanks for the ping!
LOLOL!
My proof comes from the my most trust worthy source of history.
First there are Adam and Eve. When God created them He said they were very good. This means that they were physically perfect or very very nearly perfect since the term perfect can't be quantified in such a complex system.
Since no one had corrected vision in bible times then all human activity, including a whole lot of warring was done without corrective vision. My vision started dropping off when I was 5 and it is terrible now that I'm 44. I know many people with much worse vision than mine and it's getting harder and harder to find people with 20 20 vision but very easy to find people with glasses and contacts today.
BTW Kudos for attempting to argue sensibly.
Thank you sir!
Not at all, it is a safety against devolution happening as fast in the animal kingdom as it does in man. Our gifts of intelligence and such prevent us from eliminating genetic defects.
Since the human race is far too diverse genetically to stem from 2 individuals around 6000 years ago and also far too diverse genetically to stem from 8 individuals (5 of whom were blood-relatives) around 4500 years ago your "proof" also collides with the observed reality of the human species genome.
Did you read #41 to see wher we are?
Wrong.
Yes, but we need to carefully distinguish between the misleaders and the misled. In the misled space we must further distinguish between those willingly misled and the teachable ones. I think we are obliged to revile the right ones. So far I don't think one can be certain about DM.
Triumph of Hope Over Experience placemark
I'm just cracking as well. There has been a tendency for threads started elsewhere to suddenly find themselves in the ghetto known as the Religion Forum, wherein a policy has been announced that science is an appropriate topic for such a forum because it has an underlying philosophical basis called "methodological naturalism." Any philosophical basis is a religion and all religions are moderated the same, etc. etc. etc.
There is a philosophical flavor of naturalism which is CALLED--wait for it--"philosophical naturalism." It is a hypothesis that matter and energy (or "mass-energy" as we say post Einstein) are all there is; the universe is a mechanistic operation of said matter and energy.
Methodological naturalism isn't philosophical naturalism. Rather, it is an approach to applying the scientific method. It says you're going to learn more assuming that some kind of lawful cause-and-effect phenomenon is going on and then checking to see if you're right than if you start by assuming that some kind of supernatural effect--say, the intervention of angels or demons--underlies visible reality.
"Well, WHY NOT TRY the other idea once in a while?" someone will protest. Because there's no getting off square one. If you try to produce an effect by propitiating Odin with the sacrifice of a plump calf and you get no results above the "chance" level, how do you know you did it right? Maybe you should have used a goat. Maybe you should have used a human virgin. Maybe you should have tried Cthulhu, Brahma, Baal Zevov, or Zeus. In theory, we could have found something workable along these lines by now, whether or not scientists were doing it. We have nothing.
We do investigate psychics, telekinesis, Uri Geller stunts, stuff like that. In theory, it should be possible to demonstrate something there. In practice, the yield to the knowledge content of mankind has been zero. Nada. Zilch.
Science does assume that methodological naturalism works, but it has good grounds. Rejecting the hypothesis actually gets tried all the time. You don't learn anything that way.
Yes. You haven't yet demonstrated that devolution is occurring. You cannot logically use your belief in the literal truth of Genesis to support that conclusion, because you are deriving the prediction from your faith-based beliefs in the first place. You need independent evidence that (for example) human eyesight at birth is worsening on average. "Scripture says Adam & Eve were close to perfect" doesn't cut it.
I always keep that in the back of my mind about everything. Doesn't usually pan out though.
Does relativity 'make sense'?
If you're referring to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, yes. It makes perfect sense..
Neither has evolution, we were just supposing.
I can see that you are obsessed with the topic while I am not. I will bow to your superior interest and allow you to believe as you wish. I was merely expressing my own view, not trying to convince anybody of anything. Opinions were once allowed here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.