Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[The Irish Ram]

If you believe we started out as simple single celled life forms, and developed into complex beings, then how did that single celled organism start out with complex DNA?
Birds started out with hollow bones, so they'd be light enough for flight. They didn't end up that way, they began that way.
And explain the complexity of an eye. It started out complex, and has remained complex through out.

We have to stop thinking that God, and science oppose each other.
They oppose each other like a thumb opposes the fingers.
Together, they can grasp anything........

 

[orogenicman]

If you believe we started out as simple single celled life forms, and developed into complex beings, then how did that single celled organism start out with complex DNA?
Birds started out with hollow bones, so they'd be light enough for flight. They didn't end up that way, they began that way.
And explain the complexity of an eye. It started out complex, and has remained complex through out.

We have to stop thinking that God, and science oppose each other.
They oppose each other like a thumb opposes the fingers.
Together, they can grasp anything........

Are you certain you want to join the conversation with creationist arguments that have been refuted ad nausea for decades?

DNA came before single-celled organisms (and before that came RNA), and were very simple compared to what we see today.

Birds did not start out with hollow bones. Birds started out as therapod dinosaurs, which evolved into birds. And the therapods did not have hollow bones, though some had breast bones like birds, and most had bird-like pelvic girdles.

As for the complexity of the eye:

 

[eots]

many a truth has been refuted ad nausea for decades...

 

[eots]

If you believe we started out as simple single celled life forms, and developed into complex beings, then how did that single celled organism start out with complex DNA?
Birds started out with hollow bones, so they'd be light enough for flight. They didn't end up that way, they began that way.
And explain the complexity of an eye. It started out complex, and has remained complex through out.

We have to stop thinking that God, and science oppose each other.
They oppose each other like a thumb opposes the fingers.
Together, they can grasp anything........

Are you certain you want to join the conversation with creationist arguments that have been refuted ad nausea for decades?

DNA came before single-celled organisms (and before that came RNA), and were very simple compared to what we see today.

Birds did not start out with hollow bones. Birds started out as therapod dinosaurs, which evolved into birds. And the therapods did not have hollow bones, though some had breast bones like birds, and most had bird-like pelvic girdles.

As for the complexity of the eye:

For something that is supposed to a certainty these folk sure use the phrases could of and might have a lot

 

[orogenicman]

That's it? That's your response? Really?

 

[eots]

That's it? That's your response? Really?

it would seem that it might be..that is to say it could be

 

[daws101]

I went back and read how we got here and it seems I did not finish my sentence. here is what I said.

everything else you said is a dodge to keep from saying the most horrible thing you know...I was wrong...

Listen idiot ,because some other idiot say's that selective breeding and bioengineering is pretty much the same is just someone that don't have a clue of what he is talking about. Face it you're a dumbshit and probably always will be.

a dodge to keep from saying the most horrible thing you know...I was wrong...

 

[Hollie]

If you believe we started out as simple single celled life forms, and developed into complex beings, then how did that single celled organism start out with complex DNA?
Birds started out with hollow bones, so they'd be light enough for flight. They didn't end up that way, they began that way.
And explain the complexity of an eye. It started out complex, and has remained complex through out.

We have to stop thinking that God, and science oppose each other.
They oppose each other like a thumb opposes the fingers.
Together, they can grasp anything........

It truly is a shame that Christian creationists still seek to inflict these arguments from incredulity on anyone when they have been thoroughly trashed for decades.


CB301: Eye complexity

Claim CB301:
The eye is too complex to have evolved.

Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.


Response:
1. This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
• photosensitive cell
• aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
• an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
• pigment cells forming a small depression
• pigment cells forming a deeper depression
• the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
• muscles allowing the lens to adjust

All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.

Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.

 

[daws101]

are trying to set a record for the most inane comments in a single thread by breaking your old record ?

that would be you....constant repetition of that phrase is not evidence or in no way is persuasive it lost all that the first time you used it..

My daddy can beat your daddy up

speaking of inane..

 

[daws101]

In your view would we exist if it were not for random chance ? or do you believe everything exists because of an intelligent designer ?

By all means explain how we got here if neither of the two choices I supplied apply to your view.

It looks like we got here from the Big Bang. Whether that was designed by a god is not known at this time. To presume you know for a fact (even though you have none) that an invisible god exists and is punishing children by disfiguring them because of what some alleged people did way back when in some mythical garden is pure arrogance, if not outright lunacy. Or do you actually have any real proof?

So you can't prove how we got here nor can I. I take the belief in a creator on the basis of faith just as you take the view we came here through the big bang on faith. Neither view is science ok. You believe there is evidence to infer naturalism I see evidence that infers purposeful design. We see the same evidence and have different interpretations of the evidence.

Curious though, I see these kind of comments all the time by people who doubt creation ever happened but then come back with a similar comment to yours.

Why would a loving and just God allow what is currently going on in this world. Is it that you want to believe but can't imagine God allowing all the bad things going on in this world ? or is it because you can't answer the questions so you deliberately slap at a creationist ? because we have no doubt the creator exists, and will do everything he promises, and are content with waiting for him to take action.

 

[daws101]

In other words, you are saying that unless we can show you something that would REFUTE evolution, you aren't going to believe in evolution. Brilliant move, Einstein. As for the first part of your challenge, stay tuned.

You, so you actually believe that the only reason that there's life on earth is because a god put it there? And put humans intact like the bible says? FUCKING WOW!!! All along I was debating with an imbecile!!!
Unless of course, you have ANY proof of the story of creation as per the bible..

WTF? How you got that out of my posts is a big mystery. Care to explain?

I think Bumberclyde was referring to eots..

 

[The Irish Ram]

Are you certain you want to join the conversation with creationist arguments that have been refuted ad nausea for decades?

Sure, I'll play.
What Science tried to refute yesterday it confirms today. If that's not the case why do we keep having to change our minds? Doesn't 4 dimensions refute 3? And 10 refute 4? Infinite, maybe?


Einstein was convinced there were 3 dimensions, before someone told him about a forth.
Science and biology constantly break their old beliefs and understanding with new discoveries. You couldn't have convinced a biologist that single celled organisms were anything other than simple to the core, before they discovered DNA. So, for now we teach, simple/yet somehow complex.......

So explain flight. Did dinosaurs want to fly, so they decided to mutate over millions of years till one said, "I think we are capable of flight now? Where is the plethora of evolving bones in various stages? How long did it take before something flew?

As for, we used to be monkeys:
Did one Neanderthal give birth to a modern, or did some of them have smart babies and some weren't so randomly blessed? Why? Or did they all start evolving at once and mankind was born and Neanderthal was passe? How is it then that we have unearthed modern man's camps found to exist at the same time we thought Neanderthals were still just Neanderthals? Now what biology?

As for the amazing eye:
Let's see what the messiah of random evolution had to say after he wrote the Origin of Species, about his personal doubts that evolution could ever have been responsible for something as complex as the eye:
"The eye, to this day gives me a shudder because it is an organ of extreme perfection."

Here's what evolutionist Dr. Mayer said about the eye:
" It is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs, could be improved by random mutation."

For sight to occur, one million optic nerves with protective sheaths have to simultaneously begin growing out of the eye through flesh to the optic center in the brain where they have to identify and precisely align with one million separate optic nerves growing out of the brain. For each eye.

So how long was everything blind before evolution did it's thing? Did randomness finally fine tune the eye over millions of years, or is God a master biologist from the beginning.
We adapt to our environment, we don't change into something else. We are the Adamic race who has been able to see and think since Adam.

To believe that our Universe, including humanity accidentally evolved into life from dead inanimate matter by random chance over billions of years flies in the face of intelligence, literally.
It's either random and chaotic, or orderly, with Laws.
We are infants in understanding God's handiwork.
Who's Laws do you think physicists are discovering anyway??

 

[daws101]

Until you can create life from non living substances or show me a creature of one species giving birth naturally to a creature of another species all you have is a theory

In other words, you are saying that unless we can show you something that would REFUTE evolution, you aren't going to believe in evolution. Brilliant move, Einstein. As for the first part of your challenge, stay tuned.

You are forgetting one thing, even if scientists discover a way to create life all you did was show it could only be accomplished through intelligence.

Thank you !

really? most of the greatest scientific discoveries came about by accident or serendipity just the opposite of intelligence.
also you conveniently leave out that is no evidence god or the designer is intelligent...or even exists..

 

[daws101]

many a truth has been refuted ad nausea for decades...

that's a meaningless statement in this context as science is about facts not truth..
truth good & evil ,god are all philosophical concepts.. not facts..

 

[daws101]

Are you certain you want to join the conversation with creationist arguments that have been refuted ad nausea for decades?

Sure, I'll play.
What Science tried to refute yesterday it confirms today. If that's not the case why do we keep having to change our minds? Doesn't 4 dimensions refute 3? And 10 refute 4? Infinite, maybe?


Einstein was convinced there were 3 dimensions, before someone told him about a forth.
Science and biology constantly break their old beliefs and understanding with new discoveries. You couldn't have convinced a biologist that single celled organisms were anything other than simple to the core, before they discovered DNA. So, for now we teach, simple/yet somehow complex.......

So explain flight. Did dinosaurs want to fly, so they decided to mutate over millions of years till one said, "I think we are capable of flight now? Where is the plethora of evolving bones in various stages? How long did it take before something flew?

As for, we used to be monkeys:
Did one Neanderthal give birth to a modern, or did some of them have smart babies and some weren't so randomly blessed? Why? Or did they all start evolving at once and mankind was born and Neanderthal was passe? How is it then that we have unearthed modern man's camps found to exist at the same time we thought Neanderthals were still just Neanderthals? Now what biology?

As for the amazing eye:
Let's see what the messiah of random evolution had to say after he wrote the Origin of Species, about his personal doubts that evolution could ever have been responsible for something as complex as the eye:
"The eye, to this day gives me a shudder because it is an organ of extreme perfection."

Here's what evolutionist Dr. Mayer said about the eye:
" It is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs, could be improved by random mutation."

For sight to occur, one million optic nerves with a protective sheaths have to simultaneously begin growing out of the eye through flesh to the optic center in the brain where they have to identify and precisely align with one million separate optic nerves growing out of the brain. For each eye.

So how long was everything blind before evolution did it's thing? Did randomness do this over millions of years, or is God a master biologist from the beginning.
We adapt to our environment, we don't change into something else. We are the Adamic race who has been able to see and think since Adam.

To believe that our Universe, including humanity accidentally evolved into life from dead inanimate matter by random chance over billions of years flies in the face of intelligence, literally.
It's either random and chaotic, or orderly, with Laws.
We are infants in understanding God's handiwork.
Who's Laws do you think physicists are discovering anyway??

why do you believe the laws need to be the no evidence for or against deity's ?
the laws are in essence cause and effect.

 

[orogenicman]

Are you certain you want to join the conversation with creationist arguments that have been refuted ad nausea for decades?

Sure, I'll play.
What Science tried to refute yesterday it confirms today. If that's not the case why do we keep having to change our minds? Doesn't 4 dimensions refute 3? And 10 refute 4? Infinite, maybe?


Einstein was convinced there were 3 dimensions, before someone told him about a forth.
Science and biology constantly break their old laws with new discoveries. You couldn't have convinced a biologist that single celled organisms were anything other than simple to the core, before they discovered DNA. So, for now we teach, simple/yet somehow complex.......

So explain flight. Did dinosaurs want to fly, so they decided to mutate over millions of years till one said, "I think we are capable of flight now? Shouldn't there be a plethora of evolving bones in various stages? How long did it take before something flew?

As for, we used to be monkeys:
Did one Neanderthal give birth to a modern, or did some of them have smart babies and some weren't so randomly blessed? Why? Or did they all start evolving at once and mankind was born and Neanderthal was passe? How is it then that we have unearthed modern man's camps found to exist at the same time we thought Neanderthals were still just Neanderthals? Now what biology?

As for the amazing eye:
Let's see what the messiah of random evolution had to say after he wrote the Origin of Species, about his personal doubts that evolution could ever have been responsible for something as complex as the eye:
"The eye, to this day gives me a shudder because it is an organ of extreme perfection."

Here's what evolutionist Dr. Mayer said about the eye:
" It is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs, could be improved by random mutation."

For sight to occur, one million optic nerves with a protective sheaths have to simultaneously begin growing out of the eye through flesh to the optic center in the brain where they have to identify and precisely align with one million separate optic nerves growing out of the brain. For each eye.

So how long was everything blind before evolution did it's thing? Did randomness do this over millions of years, or is God a master biologist from the beginning.


We adapt to our environment, we don't change into something else. We are the Adamic race who has been able to see and think since Adam. And we are infants in understanding God's handiwork.

To believe that our Universe, including humanity accidentally evolved into life from dead inanimate matter by random chance over billions of years flies in the face of intelligence, literally.
It's either random and chaotic, or orderly, with Laws.

Who's Laws do you think physicists are discovering?

All you are saying here is that science is self-correcting. Welcome to the scientific method. Isn't it so much better than the non-self-correcting, non-falsifiable dogmatic statement that "God did it"?

By the way, nine times out of ten, the laws of physics, once determined, are not repealed. Einstein didn't replace Newton. He expanded on Newton's discoveries. There is an explanation for flight. It is called the theory of flight. That theory has enabled man to build airplanes, hang gliders, and rocket ships to the Moon and beyond. And just like the theory of flight explains the fact of flight, the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. And theory of evolution has advanced biology and medical science far beyond what would be possible without it. Modern medicine is a living testament to the fact of evolution.

Evolution happens to populations, not individuals. A Neanderthal woman did not magically give birth to a fully formed Homo sapiens sapiens. That just doesn't happen. Moreover, it is not clear at all that we are direct descendants of Neanderthals. It is highly probable that Neanderthals are a divergent species. Meaning that modern humans and Neanderthal likely descended from a common earlier species. DNA analysis indicates that some living human populations have Neanderthal genetic material while others do not. This would not be the case if all humans were descended from Neanderthal.

And your argument assumes that humans aren't evolving today. We certainly are. We are living longer, and growing larger than ever before.

And finally, I have a question for you. From what web site did you copy and paste your creationist response? Do you understand the rules here about plagiarism?

 

[The Irish Ram]

All you are saying here is that science is self-correcting. Welcome to the scientific method. Isn't it so much better than the non-self-correcting, non-falsifiable dogmatic statement that "God did it"?

By the way, nine times out of ten, the laws of physics, once determined, are not repealed. Einstein didn't replace Newton. He expanded on Newton's discoveries. There is an explanation for flight. It is called the theory of flight. That theory has enabled man to build airplanes, hang gliders, and rocket ships to the Moon and beyond. And just like the theory of flight explains the fact of flight, the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. And theory of evolution has advanced biology and medical science far beyond what would be possible without it. Modern medicine is a living testament to the fact of evolution.

Evolution happens to populations, not individuals. A Neanderthal woman did not magically give birth to a fully formed Homo sapiens sapiens. That just doesn't happen. Moreover, it is not clear at all that we are direct descendants of Neanderthals. It is highly probable that Neanderthals are a divergent species. Meaning that modern humans and Neanderthal likely descended from a common earlier species. DNA analysis indicates that some living human populations have Neanderthal genetic material while others do not. This would not be the case if all humans were descended from Neanderthal.

And your argument assumes that humans aren't evolving today. We certainly are. We are living longer, and growing larger than ever before.

And finally, I have a question for you. From what web site did you copy and paste your creationist response? Do you understand the rules here about plagiarism?

God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow. He doesn't have to rely on correction. The number of dimensions He created doesn't change. Our discovery of them does.

Man kept adapting his equations on flight till he found one that worked. They used physics. They didn't invent physics in order to fly. They discovered what was already in existence and worked with it.

Theories might explain facts. If they did explain the facts of flight or evolution they would be the Law of flight, the Law of evolution.
A theory is a belief that hasn't been proven or established as law. Law however has been established by science as immutable. Until now, we never questioned the 1st and 2nd LAW of thermodynamics. Turns out now they've decided something can possibly, come from nothing, maybe.

Newton knew who's law's he was discovering. Einstein bumbled along with help from the past and his present. And our present thinkers say maybe Einstein was wrong, not only about dimensions, but also the belief that nothing can be faster than the speed of light. < On that he was immutable. And we bought it because we had nothing better to oppose the idea. We've thought our way clear to seeing things differently in our age.

Adaption happens to populations to survive their habitat. They don't switch species. You proved my point by claiming it is not clear, at all, that we are direct descendants of Neanderthal. Because what I was taught in science class was that they were sure of it. Sure enough to replace Creationism with their monkeys.
That their monkey chart no longer applies shows how fragile our science is. In fact, if what they taught me was true, we should all have traces of Neanderthal DNA. The fact that they have found it in some individuals, but not all makes science think that a few modern women had sex with some Neanderthals in a camp nearby. In other words, she was slumming, not evolving.

Not only does my argument assume that we are no longer evolving, but some notables in the science field believe we are now, devolving. Where in the evolutionary ladder do we recognize a turning point in evolution? Darwin never mentioned one. The concept is contrary to the theory of evolution itself, and yet, here we are.

We live longer due to technological advancements. We haven't evolved into healthier human beings. We fix hearts now, control the pressure of our blood, take vitamins. And yes, we certainly have grown larger. Our utensils have evolved into shovels.

The Europeans thought for sure that the children of the people that migrated to America were being poisoned by the food and sea life they were consuming here and that they would evolve into savages like the ones that were here when the immigrants arrived. The immigrants offspring were much bigger and stronger than the Europeans. Turns out it was rich soil.

And finally, I study to show myself approved. If you think there is a web sight out there that I stole my response from, charge me before the powers that be and bring your proof. I'll give them a list of books that developed my beliefs and my response.

_______________________________________________

In the game of energy, and thermodynamics, you can't even break even.~ plagiarized from Isaac Asimov.

 

[Youwerecreated]

In other words, you are saying that unless we can show you something that would REFUTE evolution, you aren't going to believe in evolution. Brilliant move, Einstein. As for the first part of your challenge, stay tuned.

You are forgetting one thing, even if scientists discover a way to create life all you did was show it could only be accomplished through intelligence.

Thank you !

Recreating in the laboratory the natural conditions that existed when life first appeared does take intelligence, human intelligence. Since they were the natural conditions that exited 4 billion years ago, when there was no life on the planet, you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that a magic sky daddy waved his magic wand and sparked into existence the first life forms into existence. Particularly when we prove that it can be done naturally. And most particularly since you have no evidence that said magic sky daddy even exists.

Proving the point that it had to be directed. How do they know the conditions of this planet 2.7 billion years ago ?

Seriously ? randomness produced all we see that is more rational than a designer ?

 

[HUGGY]

All you are saying here is that science is self-correcting. Welcome to the scientific method. Isn't it so much better than the non-self-correcting, non-falsifiable dogmatic statement that "God did it"?

By the way, nine times out of ten, the laws of physics, once determined, are not repealed. Einstein didn't replace Newton. He expanded on Newton's discoveries. There is an explanation for flight. It is called the theory of flight. That theory has enabled man to build airplanes, hang gliders, and rocket ships to the Moon and beyond. And just like the theory of flight explains the fact of flight, the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. And theory of evolution has advanced biology and medical science far beyond what would be possible without it. Modern medicine is a living testament to the fact of evolution.

Evolution happens to populations, not individuals. A Neanderthal woman did not magically give birth to a fully formed Homo sapiens sapiens. That just doesn't happen. Moreover, it is not clear at all that we are direct descendants of Neanderthals. It is highly probable that Neanderthals are a divergent species. Meaning that modern humans and Neanderthal likely descended from a common earlier species. DNA analysis indicates that some living human populations have Neanderthal genetic material while others do not. This would not be the case if all humans were descended from Neanderthal.

And your argument assumes that humans aren't evolving today. We certainly are. We are living longer, and growing larger than ever before.

And finally, I have a question for you. From what web site did you copy and paste your creationist response? Do you understand the rules here about plagiarism?

God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow. He doesn't have to rely on correction. The number of dimensions He created doesn't change. Our discovery of them does.

Man kept adapting his equations on flight till he found one that worked. They used physics. They didn't invent physics in order to fly. They discovered what was already in existence and worked with it.

Theories might explain facts. If they did explain the facts of flight or evolution they would be the Law of flight, the Law of evolution.
A theory is a belief that hasn't been proven or established as law. Law however has been established by science as immutable. Until now, we never questioned the 1st and 2nd LAW of thermodynamics. Turns out now they've decided something can possibly, come from nothing, maybe.

Newton knew who's law's he was discovering. Einstein bumbled along with help from the past and his present. And our present thinkers say maybe Einstein was wrong, not only about dimensions, but also the belief that nothing can be faster than the speed of light. < On that he was immutable. And we bought it because we had nothing better to oppose the idea. We've thought our way clear to seeing things differently in our age.

Adaption happens to populations to survive their habitat. They don't switch species. You proved my point by claiming it is not clear, at all, that we are direct descendants of Neanderthal. Because what I was taught in science class was that they were sure of it. Sure enough to replace Creationism with their monkeys.
That their monkey chart no longer applies shows how fragile our science is. In fact, if what they taught me was true, we should all have traces of Neanderthal DNA. The fact that they have found it in some individuals, but not all makes science think that a few modern women had sex with some Neanderthals in a camp nearby. In other words, she was slumming, not evolving.

Not only does my argument assume that we are no longer evolving, but some notables in the science field believe we are now, devolving. Where in the evolutionary ladder do we recognize a turning point in evolution? Darwin never mentioned one. The concept is contrary to the theory of evolution itself, and yet, here we are.

We live longer due to technological advancements. We haven't evolved into healthier human beings. We fix hearts now, control the pressure of our blood, take vitamins. And yes, we certainly have grown larger. Our utensils have evolved into shovels.

The Europeans thought for sure that the children of the people that migrated to America were being poisoned by the food and sea life they were consuming here and that they would evolve into savages like the ones that were here when the immigrants arrived. The immigrants offspring were much bigger and stronger than the Europeans. Turns out it was rich soil.

And finally, I study to show myself approved. If you think there is a web sight out there that I stole my response from, charge me before the powers that be and bring your proof. I'll give them a list of books that developed my beliefs and my response.

_______________________________________________

In the game of energy, and thermodynamics, you can't even break even.~ plagiarized from Isaac Asimov.

"God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow"

Nonsense. If that were true Moses would have come down from the Mountain with something more credible than stone tablets that any stone cutter of the time could have fashioned. A God that existed now as then would have provided something proving he is a god of now as then. Maybe a titanium tablet with today's graphics and font in the language of that period..maybe ALL of the languages of that period. But no.. it was a hokey work of chiseled rock. You god is a loser....a no talent loser. Or maybe the real answer is that Moses was a fraud. Maybe the people of the period were just the stupid precursors to what is now the moder day Christian and Jew. AKA gulible morons.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Are you certain you want to join the conversation with creationist arguments that have been refuted ad nausea for decades?

Sure, I'll play.
What Science tried to refute yesterday it confirms today. If that's not the case why do we keep having to change our minds? Doesn't 4 dimensions refute 3? And 10 refute 4? Infinite, maybe?


Einstein was convinced there were 3 dimensions, before someone told him about a forth.
Science and biology constantly break their old laws with new discoveries. You couldn't have convinced a biologist that single celled organisms were anything other than simple to the core, before they discovered DNA. So, for now we teach, simple/yet somehow complex.......

So explain flight. Did dinosaurs want to fly, so they decided to mutate over millions of years till one said, "I think we are capable of flight now? Shouldn't there be a plethora of evolving bones in various stages? How long did it take before something flew?

As for, we used to be monkeys:
Did one Neanderthal give birth to a modern, or did some of them have smart babies and some weren't so randomly blessed? Why? Or did they all start evolving at once and mankind was born and Neanderthal was passe? How is it then that we have unearthed modern man's camps found to exist at the same time we thought Neanderthals were still just Neanderthals? Now what biology?

As for the amazing eye:
Let's see what the messiah of random evolution had to say after he wrote the Origin of Species, about his personal doubts that evolution could ever have been responsible for something as complex as the eye:
"The eye, to this day gives me a shudder because it is an organ of extreme perfection."

Here's what evolutionist Dr. Mayer said about the eye:
" It is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs, could be improved by random mutation."

For sight to occur, one million optic nerves with a protective sheaths have to simultaneously begin growing out of the eye through flesh to the optic center in the brain where they have to identify and precisely align with one million separate optic nerves growing out of the brain. For each eye.

So how long was everything blind before evolution did it's thing? Did randomness do this over millions of years, or is God a master biologist from the beginning.


We adapt to our environment, we don't change into something else. We are the Adamic race who has been able to see and think since Adam. And we are infants in understanding God's handiwork.

To believe that our Universe, including humanity accidentally evolved into life from dead inanimate matter by random chance over billions of years flies in the face of intelligence, literally.
It's either random and chaotic, or orderly, with Laws.

Who's Laws do you think physicists are discovering?

All you are saying here is that science is self-correcting. Welcome to the scientific method. Isn't it so much better than the non-self-correcting, non-falsifiable dogmatic statement that "God did it"?

By the way, nine times out of ten, the laws of physics, once determined, are not repealed. Einstein didn't replace Newton. He expanded on Newton's discoveries. There is an explanation for flight. It is called the theory of flight. That theory has enabled man to build airplanes, hang gliders, and rocket ships to the Moon and beyond. And just like the theory of flight explains the fact of flight, the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. And theory of evolution has advanced biology and medical science far beyond what would be possible without it. Modern medicine is a living testament to the fact of evolution.

Evolution happens to populations, not individuals. A Neanderthal woman did not magically give birth to a fully formed Homo sapiens sapiens. That just doesn't happen. Moreover, it is not clear at all that we are direct descendants of Neanderthals. It is highly probable that Neanderthals are a divergent species. Meaning that modern humans and Neanderthal likely descended from a common earlier species. DNA analysis indicates that some living human populations have Neanderthal genetic material while others do not. This would not be the case if all humans were descended from Neanderthal.

And your argument assumes that humans aren't evolving today. We certainly are. We are living longer, and growing larger than ever before.

And finally, I have a question for you. From what web site did you copy and paste your creationist response? Do you understand the rules here about plagiarism?

"the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. And theory of evolution has advanced biology and medical science far beyond what would be possible without it. Modern medicine is a living testament to the fact of evolution."


Really? What ?

What's Holding Back Cures? Our Collective Ignorance (And No, Not A Pharma Conspiracy) - Forbes

Conclusion

I’m sorry, but I just don’t “get it.” Am I missing something? Am I just a contrary curmudgeon? Evolution is already an essential part of all science. Medical scientists already understand evolution and apply its principles appropriately. I didn’t see a single example in their book of any significant practical development in medical care that would not have occurred in the general course of medical science as it is commonly practiced, without any need for a separate discipline of “Darwinian medicine.” Evolutionary explanations, whether true or speculative, may satisfy our wish to understand “why,” but I can’t see that they have much objective usefulness. Instead, they have produced at least one major annoyance: a movement that preaches to us how we ought to revert to the supposed diet of our ancestors (the Cave Man Diet, etc.).

Do We Need ?Evolutionary Medicine?? « Science-Based Medicine