The meaning of life ?
Read the article this discussion is about
- swinny
- bossel
- Franc28
- swinny
- MOFW
- swinny
- bossel
- swinny
- djrodman
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
» swinny - The Origin of Species(1859)
Concretely, Christianity seeks to eradicate meaning to replace it with a divine scheme.The Origin of Species(1859) Charles Darwin
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. 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 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"
can be shown to exist;
It has not.... Nor can it!
-- posted by swinny
» bossel - Re: The Origin of Species(1859)
In response to message posted by swinny:Evolutionary science has advanced a lot since Darwin's days.
Look here for some stages of eye evolution:
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/crea...
If you really want to learn something, look at some of these links (list taken from ebiomedia.com):
Notes on the structure and evolution of eyes.
http://soma.npa.uiuc.edu/courses/bio303/...
Evolution of the lens-equipped eye.
http://www.mbl.edu/animals/Limulus/visio...
Evolution of human eye: A look at the controversy that surrounds the evolution of eyes.
http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml
Evolution of eyes: a molecular and physiological background in eye evolution.
http://www.maayan.uk.com/evoeyes4.html
How could eyes evolve? The creationist/evolution argument explored.
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/crea...
The Evolution of Color Vision: a step-by-step guide to how color vision evolved in animals.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vision.h...
-- posted by bossel
» Franc28 - Re: Re: The Origin of Species(1859)
In response to message posted by bossel:Thank you bossel. The assertion by our religious friend here is absolutely anti-scientific and ridiculous. The evolution of the eye has not only been explained, but has also been proven to be very rapid on an evolutionary timescale.
-- posted by Franc28
» swinny - Re: Re: Re: The Origin of Species(1859)
In response to message posted by Franc28:The assertion by our anti-religious friends here is absolutely anti-scientific. The thought that the evolutionary theory of the eye has not been proven and is only a ridiculous concept of an evolutionary timescale. Absurd. Even Dawrin said so himself!
Anatomy, Physiology & Pathology of the Human Eye
http://www.tedmontgomery.com/the_eye/
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hba...
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultrane...
ESSAYS ON ORIGINS:
Can Evolution Produce an Eye? Not a Chance!
by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
This version copyright (c) 1994 by:
http://www.redbay.com/org/creation/eye.t...
-- posted by swinny
» MOFW - Re: Re: Re: Re: The Origin of Species(1859)
In response to message posted by swinny:.
Swinny,
I read your original quote from Darwin, and re-read. As far as I can see (pun intended)...Darwin is stating very clearly that, though hard to comprehend, the evolution of an eye is very possible.
I believe you have not read the quote correctly...you seem to have misunderstood what Darwin was implying.
-- posted by MOFW
» djrodman - You cannot abstract anything from nothing.
"[...]It seems incongruous, or so goes the argument, that the universe came into existence[...]
Their propositions suffer from major metaphysical mistakes. The first is that such questioning irrationally gives a higher status to non-existence. "
No it doesn't. It gives equal status to non-existence, which is quite bad enough.
"[...]But the most fundamental fallacy here is that non-existence is an abstraction. "
No, it's not. How can you abstract anything from nothing? Harmony is an abstraction, the square root of negative one is an abstraction, justice is an abstraction -- all concepts that have other than ostensive definitions are abstractions.
Non-existence is an anti-concept; it is specifically the instantiation of the logical error Ayn Rand termed "the reification of the nil".
Your convoluted first three paragraphs might be simplified: the universe cannot have come into existence because it would have had to come into existence from non-existence and by definition there cannot be any non-existence.
-- posted by djrodman
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.