Dylan #fundie

Dylan #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

ok, fact based on something right? says alot does it?
Darwin couldnt explain the human eye Brother! Darwins Theory is Racist, did you know that? Common descent from where? How, i prefer the Genesis 11 explanation. So with missing Links apparently, evolution is now true and has been tested and verified?

Not really, look at the meaning of those words, i used many words to show you, you dismiss the meaning, it does say alot quiet frankly.

Science has made tremendous marks over time, funny they established those other findings and this one they call a theory!

Please explain the human eye to me. Were we blind at one stage, or are you going to say that the eye was the first thing that evolved and everything else followed?

51 comments

old comment by Better than you are

ok, fact based on something right? says alot does it?
Darwin couldnt explain the human eye Brother!

- Liar. Oddly enough, he explained it in the same book he used to introduce the origin of species.

Darwins Theory is Racist, did you know that?

- No. Do different races have a different chance of survival, purely based on their ethnicity? One could argue yes to that, but that doesn't justify the Holocaust, which is obviously what you're referring to.

Common descent from where?

- The 'lowest' (as in most basic) forms of life.

How, i prefer the Genesis 11 explanation.

- So... ?

So with missing Links apparently, evolution is now true and has been tested and verified?

- Missing links are bound to happen, and with every missing link filled, two new missing links are created. Fossilization is a rare process; we shouldn't expect fossils of every stinking creature.

Not really, look at the meaning of those words, i used many words to show you, you dismiss the meaning, it does say alot quiet frankly.

- Um, no it doesn't. You can't use proper grammar: that says a lot.

Science has made tremendous marks over time, funny they established those other findings and this one they call a theory!

- You mean like the theory of gravitation?

Please explain the human eye to me. Were we blind at one stage, or are you going to say that the eye was the first thing that evolved and everything else followed?

- Please read a book on the topic. There are many out there.
- Check that: a book written by a respected scientist, and not Kent Hovind.

old comment by Ducksoup

Dylan,

The point about the human eye has been discussed, explained and further reading recommended; on this site at least once before, probably a lot more than once.

I can't imagine English is your first language so I won't knock your lack of grammar, sentence structure or spelling. If it is your first language however and you are over the age of five, then I suggest you place both hands in a running blender and God will cure you.

Explaining natural processes is not about 'choosing' which explaination you prefer, as soon as you said that you failed utterly. It doesn't matter what you prefer, it's what has the most convincing evidence.

Darwin's theory is not racist.

Darwin offered a pretty good hypothesis for the human eye using his TOE.

What have you offered the world except 'God did it'.

Research the topic before you post something attempting to debunk it, otherwise you provide entertainment for people who simply know better.

i.e. Us.

old comment by Vampirehummingbird

Sigh! One more time:

"On the 19th of August we finally left the shores of Brazil. I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave-country. To this day, if I hear a distant scream, it recalls with painful vividness my feelings, when passing a house near Pernambuco, I heard the most pitiable moans, and could not but suspect that some poor slave was being tortured, yet knew that I was as powerless as a child even to remonstrate. I suspected that these moans were from a tortured slave, for I was told that this was the case in another instance. Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have stayed in a house where a young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten, and persecuted enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal. I have seen a little boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice with a horse-whip (before I could interfere) on his naked head, for having handed me a glass of water not quite clean; I saw his father tremble at a mere glance from his master's eye. These latter cruelties were witnessed by me in a Spanish colony, in which it has always been said that slaves are better treated than by the Portuguese, English, or other European nations. I have seen at Rio de Janeiro a powerful negro afraid to ward off a blow directed, as he thought, at his face. I was present when a kind-hearted man was on the point of separating forever the men, women, and little children of a large number of families who had long lived together. I will not even allude to the many heart-sickening atrocities which I authentically heard of;nor would I have mentioned the above revolting details, had I not met with several people, so blinded by the constitutional gaiety of the negro as to speak of slavery as a tolerable evil. Such people have generally visited at the houses of the upper classes, where the domestic slaves are usually well treated, and they have not, like myself, lived amongst the lower classes. Such inquirers will ask slaves about their condition; they forget that the slave must indeed be dull who does not calculate on the chance of his answer reaching his master's ears.

"It is argued that self-interest will prevent excessive cruelty; as if self-interest protected our domestic animals, which are far less likely than degraded slaves to stir up the rage of their savage masters. It is an argument long since protested against with noble feeling, and strikingly exemplified, by the ever-illustrious Humboldt. It is often attempted to palliate slavery by comparing the state of slaves with our poorer countrymen: if the misery of our poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin; but how this bears on slavery, I cannot see; as well might the use of the thumb-screw be defended in one land, by showing that men in another land suffered from some dreadful disease. Those who look tenderly at the slave owner, and with a cold heart at the slave, never seem to put themselves into the position of the latter;what a cheerless prospect, with not even a hope of change! picture to yourself the chance, ever hanging over you, of your wife and your little childrenthose objects which nature urges even the slave to call his ownbeing torn from you and sold like beasts to the first bidder!

"And these deeds are done and palliated by men who profess to love their neighbours as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that His Will be done on earth! It makes one's blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty; but it is a consolation to reflect, that we at least have made a greater sacrifice than ever made by any nation, to expiate our sin."
- Charles Darwin, Voyage of the Beagle

old comment by Allegory for Jesus

Darwin could explain the eye, yes. Darwin's theory is not racist. Common descent is from a different species depending on what two species you are referring to (but all creatures most likely descended from primitive bacteria ultimately). You can feel free to personally prefer myth over science, but that does not mean that anyone else should be inclined to do the same. And you do not need comprehensive links between every species to see that the general trend is consistent with the predictions that evolution makes.

Theory in science does not mean a guess.

Humans descended from other species, so, since eyes are not exclusive to humans, the eyes that we have now evolved gradually with the rest of us, having, at one point in our lineage, been without eyes and blind (though most likely not mammal at that point in time).

In summation: FAIL.

old comment by Nobody

[Darwin couldnt explain the human eye Brother!]

He didn't have to.

[Darwins Theory is Racist, did you know that?]

It is not. You are either lying, or you're repeating a lie you've been told.

[i prefer the Genesis 11 explanation.]

Good for you.

[So with missing Links apparently, evolution is now true and has been tested and verified?]

NOW you're on to something.

[Not really, look at the meaning of those words, i used many words to show you, you dismiss the meaning, it does say alot quiet frankly.]

Show me what? Dismiss the meaning of what? You haven't said a damned thing!

[Science has made tremendous marks over time, funny they established those other findings and this one they call a theory!]

The old "It's just a theory!" argument...look, pick up a book about evolution and READ it. Stop making baseless falsehoods and educate yourself.

old comment by Horsefeathers

"Darwin couldnt explain the human eye Brother!"

Darwin gave quite a good explanation of how the eye may have formed within the constraints of his idea:

Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

- Darwin, 1872

He then goes on for a further three pages or so giving intermediate stages of eye development.

"Darwins Theory is Racist, did you know that?"

How so?

"Common descent from where?"

Prior organisms, of course.

"How, i prefer the Genesis 11 explanation."

That's because you're ignorant of reality. Intentionally so it seems.

"So with missing Links apparently, evolution is now true and has been tested and verified?"

There are no such things as "missing links" and yes, evolution is now true--and has always been true--and it has been tested, retested and tested yet again for the past 150 years and it's been verified each time.

"Science has made tremendous marks over time, funny they established those other findings and this one they call a theory!"

Another blithering fucking idiot who hasn't got a damned clue what "theory" actually means. Simply astounding.

"Please explain the human eye to me."

The human eye, like others in mammal species, is a small orb filled with a gelatinous material. One side of the eye has an opening, covered with a small lens, which allows light in and on the opposite side is the optic nerve. Light passes through the opening in the eye and stimulates the cells of the optic nerve which produces "sight."

I doubt that's what you were asking for though.

"Were we blind at one stage,"

Well, not "we" personally but our ancestors were. A very, very long time ago. You know, before eyes had actually developed.

"or are you going to say that the eye was the first thing that evolved and everything else followed?"

Evolution is not procedural. More than one thing can evolve at a time you nit.

old comment by John

Darwin explained the human eye. He began by saying that at first glance, "To suppose that the eye ... could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree" (emphasis added). But then he continues "When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science". He goes on to show how evolution explains it. Creationists just take the first statement out of context. Darwin understood, as creationists usually don't, that "arguments from personal incredulity" (I don't understand how this could be true; therefore, it's not) aren't valid.

Dylan #fundie christiandiscussionforums.org

51 comments

Confused?