It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution Of the EYE

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by orthisguyoverhere
I really like the way people talk about god as if he's a person, like an old man hunched over a potters wheel making things. For all we know god may be an as yet undiscovered force such as gravity or magnetism.


Say this undiscovered scientific force is finally discovered. For this force to be equated with the concept of God, then it would have to be without origin, and the sustainer of all existence. Do you feel this force would have a form of sentience?




posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite8
I agree that evolution is a fact. As a christian I also know that they Bible says that God created man. It does not say he didn't do this though evolution. It also says 7 days to create everything. Problem is that people take everything to literally.


Not only is literal meaning versus metaphorical meaning a big issue when reading religious doctrine, but also mistranslations. For instance, I have read other interpretations suggesting 7 days was meant to mean 7 aeons. Or, perhaps, 7 "God years".



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by promomag
I believe there is a god because something doesn't evolve from nothing.

Science should focus on that.



Science can't focus on that. That is, imho, the issue in the evolution vrs intelligent design argument. They are both sciences in a sense, but for two different worlds.

Science explains the nature of the material world. Or, post-Big Bang. Magic, spirituality, and all that mystical new age'ish stuff, is a means to understand the Other world. Or, pre-Big Bang. I am not going to pretend that I am a master of either, but I know they both exist.



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Evolution cannot explain how an organism even knew there was sight to be seen, vibrations to be heard, taste to be savored and smells to be, well, smelled. Plants have no sense organs yet they know what color bees prefer. I'm not saying evolution doesn't exist or that the world is only 6,000 years old, but evolution does not and will not explain the greatest mysteries of life, period.



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by AMANNAMEDQUEST
Evolution cannot explain how an organism even knew there was sight to be seen, vibrations to be heard, taste to be savored and smells to be, well, smelled. Plants have no sense organs yet they know what color bees prefer. I'm not saying evolution doesn't exist or that the world is only 6,000 years old, but evolution does not and will not explain the greatest mysteries of life, period.

That's simple. A poorly colored flower would be ignored by bees (at least, compared to more successful ones), and therefore would not reproduce and keep its genes in the gene pool.

That's natural selection 101.



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Ah yes, poor example the flower. Flowers can exist without bees and bees can live without flowers. But how does one explain how an organism knew there was senses to be sensed? A fluke or accident? Or intelligent design? Also why do people get so hostile towards those who believe in ID or belittle them because they believe in a god?



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by AMANNAMEDQUEST
Ah yes, poor example the flower. Flowers can exist without bees and bees can live without flowers. But how does one explain how an organism knew there was senses to be sensed? A fluke or accident? Or intelligent design? Also why do people get so hostile towards those who believe in ID or belittle them because they believe in a god?

If something developed some sort of sense, such as the ability to sense vibrations (precursor to hearing), it would have a massive advantage of things that didn't. Therefore, it would be more likely to survive and reproduce.

A lot of things would benefit from this, any sort of predator or prey.



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 11:33 PM
link   
I agree with Infinite 8, For everyone who has ever created anything, you should know you had to make a rough draft before your final project. Who's to say apes were God's rough draft and we are just a version before the finish product? How else would you explain the many species of the same familys?



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
If something developed some sort of sense, such as the ability to sense vibrations (precursor to hearing), it would have a massive advantage of things that didn't.


Hmm. It was my understanding that evolution wasn't suggesting things evolved to be more advantageous over other creatures, rather things evovled in ways to be more advantageous towards the environment's equilibrium? Lion King's circle of life kinda stuff.

But you're saying that at the point in time when no creatures on Earth had the capacities to see, some organism(s) developed the ability to see to have "a massive advantage of things that didn't". If my basic understanding of evolution is correct, then the first organism to develop sight would have indeed held an advantage over the things that couldn't see, but may not have been advantageous towards its equilibrium.

I'm entertaining the possibility that a 'higher power' instigated the development of the first sense organ as a means to throw off natures equilibrium. Perhaps as a result of that, evolution responded with further sensory developments to balance out the equilibrium? Food for thought, nothing more.



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by x_rae
another way to look at this is through creation.
i dont think its jsut coincidence
examples:
--if the oxygen content on earth were any much higher,
fires would erupt all over the planet.
and if it were much lower we would suffocate.


Not true, at least how your portraying it. For the firestorm scenario, you'd be talking an O2 concentration of 30%+. For suffocation, you'd have to go lower than 6%.


Originally posted by x_rae
--if the gravatational force were altered by one part in 1040,
the sun would not exist and the moon would sheer off into space.


And in this universe, it is exactly that. In an alternate reality, that may not be the case. Just because something is, doesn't mean it is evidence of something else.


Originally posted by x_rae
--if, during the creation of the earth, a large astroid had not hit us at exactly the right speed and angle, then we would not have the moon or the tilt of our planet.


You make it sound like a mystical event. Billions of objects have pounded into the earth from day one, so the chances of an event like that happening utterly randomly are actually rather high.



Originally posted by x_rae
and with the whole creation deal,
scientists say the earth is billions of years old.
and the bible says that God created it in seven days.
who says Gods time is the same as ours?
one day to us could be like a minute to Him.


Then why not write that?

The Bible was written by man, not a god..

The evidence a God hand no hand in it is all the contradictions and falsehoods contained within. It's ironic, you either have to admit the bible was written by man or accept the idea of a fallible deity.



Originally posted by x_rae
seriosuly, i could talk for days on this.


As could I.



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by kallikak

Originally posted by Pavel
How a educated person living in our time, can posably belive in gods, spirituality.., thos were ways to explain thing that we could not thousands of years ago, andlater to control the masas. You think that the cristian popes in the midle ages belived in god? They had haremes..!
Personaly I think only a weak mind will have the need to think that there is someone more powerful.


Complete and total rubbish.

I'm educated, BS in Chemistry, Masters in Molecular Genetics, and PhD in Biochemistry. I also happen to be a devoted Christian. Finally I was an atheist long before I was a Christian. That is I became a Christian after I finished up my Ph.D.

I do believe it's funny that the person who proposes that "only a weak mind will have the need to think that there is someone more powerful," can make so many mistakes in grammar and spelling, then go on to call others weak minded.

For example it's not "how a educated person," it's how an educated person...

possibly, not posably
believe, not belive
Those, not thos
masses, not masas
Christian, not cristian
middle, not midle
believed, not belived
Harems, not haremes,
and
Personally, not personaly

If you're
about anything, it should be either the lousy spell checker on your computer, or perhaps the poor instruction you received in English.
PhD in chemistry






For a PhD in Biochemistry - you should do better than - using argumentum ad hominem on Pavel ( coz: , you try to make Pavel points about evolution/“god“, not valid - through fallacy of attacking character instead of trying to DISPROVE his argument)...this is sad.


[edit on 21-6-2007 by blue bird]



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   


Originally posted by promomag
I believe there is a god because something doesn't evolve from nothing.

Science should focus on that.




OK...who than “created“ your god figure...because as you said ex nihilo nihil!

[edit on 21-6-2007 by blue bird]



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pavel
How a educated person living in our time, can posably belive in gods, spirituality.., thos were ways to explain thing that we could not thousands of years ago, andlater to control the masses.


Do not confuse religion with spirituality, they are NOT the same thing. Religion is mass control of people yes, but spirituality can provide the truth to you from the inside, rather than looking to "holy texts" or observation of the physical world.

As Southpark so masterfully stated;

Stan - "Couldn't evolution be the answer to how and not the answer to why?"

Evolution explains the process of unfolding creation of physical organisms, but does not attempt to explain where DNA came from in the first place, and how DNA really works beyond a biochemical standpoint.

As far as im concerned, Darwinian Evolutionary Theory is not the answer to why we are here. DNA is an intelligence all of its own, and should be treated as such, rather than just a "code". Also, any code needs a creator to have made it..

Id like to see someone show how DNA can just magically form its own code by using only elements in the atmosphere/earth, lightning and time. Its simply not possible for DNA to have been a "chance" or "accidental" creation. It really comes back to the "chicken and the egg" scenario. Evolution does nothing to explain WHY it is the way it is, or WHY we are here.

If you want evidence of a divine creator, you need not look any further than YOUR OWN BODY.

Sacred geometry is displayed throughout the entire physical universe, and your body (and DNA) is no exception. Not all of this geometry is easy to spot/decipher, but here are some excellent easy examples which show mathematical geometry in nature;











The final step is HARMONY between science and spirituality. The realisation that WE, you and I, are all God, experiencing our own creation. We are no accident, we decided to exist here, to learn and and progress as individual parts of the whole.

To say God is a seperate entity goes against the evidence which is right infront of you!



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Darwin:

“ There is grandeur in an evolutionary view of life, a grandeur that is there for all to see, regardless of their philosophical views on the meaning and purpose of life.“




shrunkensimon
...... or WHY we are here.


Implying some outside “purpose“ of life... you step in murky land of religion.
Mine is to live..learn...look at the stars...laugh...





Id like to see someone show how DNA can just magically form its own code by using only elements in the atmosphere/earth, lightning and time. Its simply not possible for DNA to have been a "chance" or "accidental" creation.


And there was a RNA world before ( RNA has abilities like DNA to store information - catalyze enzyme - react to protein.....)


Sidney Altman and Thomas Cech, discovered independently a kind of RNA that could edit out unnecessary parts of the message it carried before delivering it to the ribosome. Since RNA - ribonucleic acid - was acting like a type of protein known as an enzyme, Cech called his discovery a ribozyme. The two were awarded the Nobel Prize for Biochemistry in 1989.


“Never Underestimate the Power of ( Primodial) Soup“





[edit on 21-6-2007 by blue bird]



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by blue bird
Implying some outside “purpose“ of life... you step in murky land of religion.
Mine is to live..learn...look at the stars...laugh...


No no no, religion is merely the half truth of spirituality. Religion is spirituality minus the spirituality, but with added mind control. Infact, religion is the very opposite of spirituality. To put it another way, all religions are merely the perversion of the one truth, the truth of spirituality.

The only "purpose" is to live, learn and laugh, as you stated! You need not worship the creator, because ultimately YOU are the creator and the created. "God" is not a seperate entity, or an authority. God is you, me, the stars, and everything else you see.

Heres a quote i made up recently;

"Physical reality is both the playground and the classroom, where one can ascend his own understandings of, and also be at one with, his own creation."


Originally posted by blue bird
“Never Underestimate the Power of ( Primodial) Soup“


But where did this soup come from? The big bang? That in itself is NOT an answer. It is sidestepping from the obvious and most rational of observation. What came before the big bang? What caused the big bang?

The Big Bang is just science's way of sidestepping the very question of WHY we are here. It only creates more questions and "mystery" when there is no need for it!

And to think, all of what we see is just an "accident".. the big bang was chance, the conditions for the cosmos to survive was chance, the conditions for life was just chance.

To say reality and life is the result of chance/accident is ignoring the most rational of explanations, and that is it is NOT the result of chance, but there is indeed a purpose to existence. That we are here for a reason.



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I think it's perfectly possible that life arose through chance. Doesn't mean that I believe it, but theoretically it could happen.



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by blue bird

For a PhD in Biochemistry - you should do better than - using argumentum ad hominem on Pavel

I responded in kind to his ridiculous assertion. Pavel basically made an attack on anyone who believes in God, an ad hominem attack, not a well reasoned logical attack on any specific points. If he had made an specific points, I would have addressed them. Simply stating that people who believe in God are uneducated, ignorant fools, in a post laden with spelling and grammar errors doesn't leave much to be refuted.

I refuted the only argument Pavel made: The argument was, more-or-less, that only uneducated, ignorant people believe in God. I am neither uneducated, nor ignorant, and I do believe in God. If one wishes to call people uneducated and ignorant, they should make an effort to not appear uneducated and ignorant themselves.


( coz: , you try to make Pavel points about evolution/“god“, not valid - through fallacy of attacking character instead of trying to DISPROVE his argument)...this is sad.

Rubbish.

Pavel made no points about evolution/God. Pavel's post is reproduced in its entirety below

How a educated person living in our time, can posably belive in gods, spirituality.., thos were ways to explain thing that we could not thousands of years ago, andlater to control the masas. You think that the cristian popes in the midle ages belived in god? They had haremes..!
Personaly I think only a weak mind will have the need to think that there is someone more powerful.


So please point out the logical points re: evolution and God that I failed to address. Pavel simply opines his opinion about people who believe in God, then makes a series of unsupported statements regarding the societal purpose he believe religion occupies, again completely unsupported.

IOW, there's no argument there to disprove. If you'd care to take up the issue personally, I'd be more than happy to discuss it here with you.



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   


Originally posted by shrunkensimon
No no no, religion is merely the half truth of spirituality. Religion is spirituality minus the spirituality, but with added mind control. Infact, religion is the very opposite of spirituality. To put it another way, all religions are merely the perversion of the one truth, the truth of spirituality.

The only "purpose" is to live, learn and laugh, as you stated! You need not worship the creator, because ultimately YOU are the creator and the created. "God" is not a seperate entity, or an authority. God is you, me, the stars, and everything else you see.

Heres a quote i made up recently;

"Physical reality is both the playground and the classroom, where one can ascend his own understandings of, and also be at one with, his own creation."





But where did this soup come from? The big bang? That in itself is NOT an answer. It is sidestepping from the obvious and most rational of observation. What came before the big bang? What caused the big bang?

The Big Bang is just science's way of sidestepping the very question of WHY we are here. It only creates more questions and "mystery" when there is no need for it!

And to think, all of what we see is just an "accident".. the big bang was chance, the conditions for the cosmos to survive was chance, the conditions for life was just chance.

To say reality and life is the result of chance/accident is ignoring the most rational of explanations, and that is it is NOT the result of chance, but there is indeed a purpose to existence. That we are here for a reason.



No, my friend - I know that “esoteric“ discipline aka spirituality want to think about themselves something different than religion - but, see - your main word is “creation“ and “ that life is not created by chance - but by some “reason“.

I do not need to feel like “god“ - coz human is the REAL word, it bits “god“ word every time. We humans invented the word - “god“ - we were afraid and ignorant. It was cruel an hard life...of our ancestors.

And you bet is mind control.

What was before BB? Science does not pretend to answer that question...for now.

But “spirituality“ and “religion“ - like to PRETEND that they know what was before.


Back to evolution -Why would human eye be “created“? It is even, far from the best in nature. Our blood vessels run on the surface of retina instead - beneath it. Birds can see in ultra violet spectrum.



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by blue bird
No, my friend - I know that “esoteric“ discipline aka spirituality want to think about themselves something different than religion - but, see - your main word is “creation“ and “ that life is not created by chance - but by some “reason“.

we were afraid and ignorant. It was cruel an hard life...of our ancestors.
But “spirituality“ and “religion“ - like to PRETEND that they know what was before.


Alot of assumptions there. How do you know we were "afraid and ignorant". Your basing your own conclusions on what you've been taught by society and in school. How can you be so sure it is correct, or even half correct?!

Religion likes to pretend yes. But spirituality does not, because the information you gain comes from WITHIN, and not from written texts.



posted on Jun, 21 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by blue bird
Back to evolution -Why would human eye be “created“? It is even, far from the best in nature.

So? Nothing implies that everything created must be perfect. Are you going to deny that the Plymouth Reliant K was created? It's a frickin' piece of junk, and pretty far from being the best car, but none of this means that it wasn't created. Lots of created things either don't work or are next to worthless, but it doesn't preclude them from having been created.


Our blood vessels run on the surface of retina instead - beneath it.

And this negatively impacts your vision how?


Birds can see in ultra violet spectrum.

What would the selective benefit for humans of extending the range of optically detectable wavelengths to the UV portion of the spectrum?




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join