-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Atheism
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
Djevv said:
Just off the top of my head, the vertebrate eye. Although you often argue that the complexity of the eye is evidence of design, the actual details of the vertebrate eye testify to an imperfect design and, thus, against ID.
Disco08 said:
Heres on re a carnivorous plant trap:http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/what-if-we-did-find-irreducibly-complex-biological-features/.
Actually not just irreducibly complex ones, any demonstrable genetic 'innovation' would do. Name some.
Djevv said:
Another stalwart of ID.
How did the Venus' flytrap avoid the argument that IC can't evolve? In two ways. First, rather than gaining a part, it lost a part - the glue that the sundews use. Even more interestingly, the trap was able to evolve because the parts evolved. The trap started out as a Drosera-like leaf, and the parts of the leaf were progressively changed. This makes a striking contrast with the mousetrap which Behe has repeatedly presented to illustrate why IC cannot evolve. As a manufactured item the mousetrap neatly illustrates his definition, but with its static parts it cannot model evolution. With evolving parts, nature can create a snap-trap after all. The mechanical and manufacturing analogies so influential in Behe's thinking miss the flexibility of living things.
Djevv said:
Is your argument that because we haven't observed feathers growing on fish or trunks sprouting from cats in the last thousand years that the evidence that we do have from the previous 4 billion years prior to that is somehow irrelevant?
To me the fact that the fossil record shows more basic organisms in the lowest stratum and increasing diversity and complexity appearing chronologically in younger stratum is a pretty good clue to the history of life on Earth.
Djevv said:
The photoreceptor cells require a large amount of energy; thus they are better positioned by being at the back of the retina, where the capillaries can provide oxygen and nutrients. This unique network of blood channels gives every impression of being specially adapted to provide the photoreceptor layer with copious quantities of blood. Moreover, the lining of the capillaries is attenuated on the side closest to the photoreceptor cells--another indication that their fundamental purpose is the rapid and efficient delivery of nutrients to the photoreceptor layer.
Michael Denton, University of Otago, NZ - The Inverted Retina: Maladaptation or Pre-adaptation? – from Access Research Network, http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/invertedretina192.htm)
Another point of ICR's (more quality science there) is that the blind spot caused by the reverse retina doesn't hamper the user because the other eye effectively covers the blind spot. This begs a pretty obvious question though - why didn't God design an eye without a blind spot for people who, for whatever reason, only have one functioning eye? In fact much of their argument revolves around certain components being better placed as they are because of sensitivities, need to regrow, blood flow etc but really, why didn't God just design these components with less restrictions to allow for an eye that doesn't have a blind spot?
Djevv said:
So I take it you didn't read the link that I posted? Not only does it outline the 'imperfect' design of the vertebrate eye, but it also provides a clear rebuttal of the link that you responded with, clearly showing the ridiculous nature of that counter-argument.
This is what I mean by 'twisting' the evidence. Just have a look at the evidence, it is plain. If you can think without the 'god' idea constantly intruding into the argument than it becomes even plainer. If you can't disregard your god, than you will just have to compartmentalise your brain even further to accept what we can plainly see with your preconceived, subjective notion of an ompipotent being.
