Richard Dawkins' (sorry sage) flawed explanation of the evolution of the eye

[Quasar44]

Prove it. You're lying and will end up in hell after you die.

You come across as a science illiterate , turd sandwich

 

[james bond]

You come across as a science illiterate , turd sandwich

I have the scientific truth as science backs up the Bible. In contrast, you are SAF and a POS. You will end up in hell forever where you will be able to see me in heaven. OTOH, I won't be able to see what happens to you in hell, but I'll take the Bible's word for it. No need to see you screaming your ass off forever.

 

[Quasar44]

Zero science in the Bible

 

[ChemEngineer]

The Fallacy of Science vs. Religion

The atheists' frequent claim that science and religion are mutually exclusive is demonstrably false. If atheists were as "rational" and "intelligent" as they are always claiming, they would not resort to mendacity. Science pursues truth.

The list of scientists as men and women faith is long and growing.


List of Christians in science and technology - Wikipedia​

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality, it is a profound source of spirituality. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.” ” - Demon Haunted World, page 29, by Carl Sagan

“I believe in God more because of science than in spite of it.” – William Phillips, Nobel Laureate in Physics

“I think as Psalm 19, ‘the heavens proclaim the glory of God,’ that is, God reveals himself in all there is. All reality, to a greater or lesser extent, reveals the purpose of God. There is some purpose and connection to the world in all aspects of human experience.” – Arno Penzias, Nobel Prize winner in physics for co-discovery of background cosmic radiation, confirming the Big Bang, or the moment of creation
_____________________________________

The Atheist Claim of Rationality and Intellectual Superiority

If atheists are, on average, intellectually superior to people of faith, then why do they abandon their religious belief in atheism at a rate higher than any other group? (The Supreme Court has adjudged atheism a religion. Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961))

​

Ivy League Colleges all have Christian charters. Is there a single college with an atheist charter? Of course not.

Atheists marry less, by far, than those of faith. Marriage confers enormous mental and physical health benefits, showing how rational and intelligent it is to marry the opposite sex.

Recently the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life has published its mammoth study on Religion in America based on 35,000 interviews... According to the Pew Forum a whopping 37% of atheists never marry as opposed to 19% of the American population, 17% of Protestants and 17% of Catholics.[3]

The religious have better mental health into adulthood.

The abstract for the journal article Health and Well-Being Among the Non-religious: Atheists, Agnostics, and No Preference Compared with Religious Group Members published in the Journal of Religion and Health indicates: "On dimensions related to psychological well-being, atheists and agnostics tended to have worse outcomes than either those with religious affiliation or those with no religious preference."[2]

Global News reported:

“

Children who are raised with religious or spiritual beliefs tend to have better mental health into their adulthood, a new study from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health found. According to the study’s findings, people who attended weekly religious services or prayed or meditated daily in their childhood reported greater life satisfaction in their 20s. People who grew up in a religious household also reported fewer symptoms of depression and lower rates of post-traumatic stress disorder.[3]

People of faith live longer than atheists.

For the study, a team of Ohio University academics, including associate professor of psychology Christian End, analysed more than 1,500 obituaries from across the US to piece together how the defining features of our lives affect our longevity.

These records include religious affiliations and marriage details as well as information on activities, hobbies and habits, which can help or hinder our health, not otherwise captured in census data.


The study, published in Social Psychological and Personality Science today, found that on average people whose obituary mentioned they were religious lived an extra 5.64 years.

Atheists commit suicide far more often than those of faith, which is clearly not "rational"


"Atheism: Contemporary Rates and Patterns" in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, ed. by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK (2005). In examining various indicators of societal health, Zuckerman concludes about suicide:

"Concerning suicide rates, this is the one indicator of societal health in which religious nations fare much better than secular nations. According to the 2003 World Health Organization's report on international male suicides rates (which compared 100 countries), of the top ten nations with the highest male suicide rates, all but one (Sri Lanka) are strongly irreligious nations with high levels of atheism. It is interesting to note, however, that of the top remaining nine nations leading the world in male suicide rates, all are former Soviet/Communist nations, such as Belarus, Ukraine, and Latvia. Of the bottom ten nations with the lowest male suicide rates, all are highly religious nations with statistically insignificant levels of organic atheism."[3]


The list of atheist shooters and serial killers does not correspond to claims of intellectual superiority and rationality.



Atheists have a long record of being mass shooters and militant atheism in general has a causal association with mass murder.

Due to this fact, peer reviewed research published in academic journals has found that society-at-large is likely to hold atheists responsible for capital criminal acts and that even atheists are likely to assume that serial killers are fellow atheists.[2][3][4]

_______________________________________


“The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advance of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble.” – Adolf Hitler


"...indoctrinating them (scholars) with materialism, atheism, and the theory of evolution - the Chinese Communist Party systematically brainwashed a new generation of students, instilling hatred toward traditional culture. ... the CCP promoted atheism and launched ideological attacks against the belief in god.... using methods of violence and high pressure to suppress, persecute and, eliminate religions including the murder of religious practitioners." - The Epoch Times, July 29, 2019


Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins became atheists after long and exhaustive rational inquiries into the existence of God, both at the age of nine. - The Irrational Atheist, by Vox Day, page 243​

The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined. – The Irrational Atheist, by Vox Day, page 240

Irrational Atheism​

Atheists always claim to be more rational and more intelligent than Christians. They do not provide evidence of their arrogant, pretentious claim, but even if they did, it does not begin to prove their claim that God does not exist. Implied but not stated is the presumption that BECAUSE atheists are much smarter than you are, THEY must be right, and YOU must be wrong. That does not logically follow, and is a clear Fallacy of the Argument From Authority. So the statement of intellectual superiority itself is irrational.

Atheists claim that "there is no proof" of God. They seem blissfully ignorant of the fact that proof only exists in mathematics. So says mathematics professor John Lennox, of Oxford University.

His remark is echoed by the late Carl Sagan, a militant agnostic and Leftist, who said, "Nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." Atheists seem to dispute even their beloved Carl Sagan as they insist that they know for certain that Darwin was indisputably right, though it is not known "for certain," according to Sagan, and therefore, what need for God? Atheists Stalin and Hitler agreed wholeheartedly.

_____________________________________​

"Nothing will prevent me from eradicating totally, root and branch, all Christianity in Germany." - Adolf Hitler, April 7, 1933

"Christianity is an invention of sick brains. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. We commence hostilities against the so-called Ten Commandments: the tablets from Sinai are no longer in force." - Adolf Hitler

“If you believe in evolution and naturalism then you have a reason not to think your faculties are reliable.” - Alvin Plantinga

"An atheist is a man who looks through a telescope and tries to explain what he can't see...." - Power to Influence People, by O.A. Battista

"The atheists are for the most part imprudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, who not being able to understand the Creation, the origin of evil and other difficulties have recourse to the hypothesis the eternity of things and of inevitability...." - Voltaire: Philosophical Dictionary

"Atheists put on false courage in the midst of their darkness and misapprehensions like children who when they fear to go in the dark will sing or whistle to keep their courage...." - Alexander Pope

“Still, even the most admirable of atheists is nothing more than a moral parasite, living his life based on borrowed ethics. - Vox Day

“I can see how it might be possible for a man to look down upon the earth and be an atheist, but I cannot conceive how he could look up into the heavens and say there is no God.” -Abraham Lincoln

To sustain the belief that there is no God, atheism has to demonstrate infinite knowledge, which is tantamount to saying, "I have infinite knowledge that there is no being in existence with infinite knowledge." - Ravi Zacharias

Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning. - C.S. Lewis, atheist turned Christian

“It is hard to see how a great man can be an atheist. Without the sustaining influence of faith in a divine power we could have little faith in ourselves. We need to feel that behind us is intelligence and love. Doubters do not achieve; skeptics do not contribute; cynics do not create. Faith is the great motive power, and no man realizes his full possibilities unless he has the deep conviction that life is eternally important, and that his work, well done, is a part of an unending plan. ” - Calvin Coolidge, speech, Jul. 25, 1924

La nature a des perfections pour montrer qu’elle est l’image de Dieu, et des défauts pour montrer qu’elle n’en est que l’image. Nature has some perfections to show that she is the image of God, and some defects to show that she is only His image. (Blaise Pascal, 1623–1662)


You cannot have rationality in a universe that is purely and solely material -matter. Matter is not rational, it doesn’t think, has, no consciousness and no will.

“The mind of God we believe is cosmic music, the music of strings, resonating through eleven dimensions of hyperspace. That is the mind of God.” – Michio Kaku, www.scienceworldreport.com, June 13, 2016

“As to the first cause of the universe, in the context of expansion, that is left for the reader to insert, but our picture is incomplete without Him.” – British Theorist Edward Milne in his treatise on the theory of relativity

“If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million , the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.” - Physicist Stephen Hawking

“The universe and the laws of physics seem to have been designed specifically for us.” – Stephen Hawking

“It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way except as the result of a God who intended to create beings like us.” – Stephen Hawking

“When I began my career as a cosmologist… I was a convinced atheist. I never imagined that I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true …. straightforward deductions of the laws of physics… I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” – Frank Tipler, professor of mathematical physics

“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” – Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics, Stanford University, Nobel Laureate

“I believe I came from God and you believe you came from a monkey and you’ve convinced me you’re right.” – Dr. Ben Carson, neurosurgeon


“I believe in God because of a personal faith, a faith that is consistent with what I know about science.” – William Phillips

“Both religion and science need for their activities a belief in God, and moreover, God stands for the former in the beginning, and for the latter at the end of the whole thinking. For the former, God represents the basis, for the latter – the crown of any reasoning concerning the world-view.” – Max Planck


“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass, God is waiting for you.” – Werner Heisenberg


“The more thoroughly I conduct research, the more I believe that science excludes atheism.” – Lord Kelvin


“Science brings man closer to God.” “The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. Into his tiniest creatures, God has placed extraordinary properties….” – Louis Pasteur, pasteurization, immunology, confirmed the germ theory of disease

“I’m afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of hell, unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures and engraving them in the heart of youth.” – Martin Luther (1483 – 1546)

______________________________


“Four Big Bangs” That Kill Atheism



October 15, 2018 Daniel Currier


In a recent conversation with an atheist, I challenged him with four major topics his worldview can’t explain. I remembered them by using Frank Pastore's nice mental hook, the “four big bangs” that materialism can’t explain.


1. The “Cosmological Big Bang”


2. The “Biological Big Bang”


3. The “Psychological Big Bang”


4. The “Moral Big Bang”



When atheists try to explain these away, there seems to be much hand waving and “just so” stories. I love lines like, “sure, we don’t know, but at least we’re humble because we admit we don’t know” or “at least we don’t believe in the God of the gaps.”



But I digress, each of these four items are predicated upon something, almost magically, the popping into existence of things when the wheel of time is spun.


1) The “Cosmological Big Bang”

This is the most fundamental issue the materialists struggle to explain. I want to be clear, I’m not talking about when the universe started to exist, rather that it did start to exist. Things are much more likely not to exist than to exist. They can’t explain why.

This “just so story” sounds like this: the universe popped into existence, like “poof”, and then expanded through eons of time. Sometimes the claim is that there was nothing and that nothing turned into everything, as in “no thing” or “not anything” caused it all. Nothing is actually what rocks think about. That radical view takes much faith, more than I can muster. Really, are you afraid a pink elephant just appeared in your fridge and now is eating your salad?

Others say “nothing” means “something.” Don’t worry if this misnomer confuses you, the rest of us are confused too. If it’s “something,” please stop calling it “nothing,” right? They say this “nothing” was a singularity, or “all the matter in the universe smashed into an incredibly hot, infinitely dense speck of matter.” Or was this “nothing” some sort of quantum vacuum?

The problem becomes exponentially worse when we understand that the universe is finely tuned. To explain what I mean by fine tuning, think of the International Space Station, or even your car, mower, vacuum or microwave. Even the simplest of these are finely tuned. Many things need to be just right or else the machine does not work. There are many more ways for machines not to work than to work.

The universe is no different, except for it is exponentially more finely tuned, the most complex structure known. So many constants need to be just right. If not, the universe, all the elements, our solar system, our sun and our earth would not exist. In addition, life on earth would not exist if these constraints were not tuned to be just right.

Examples of some of these constants include things like the strength of the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, the electromagnetic force and the gravitational constant.

Scientist and agnostic Robert Jastrow, says this in “The Enchanted Loom”:

“Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the Biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and Biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.”

We may disagree with some of his thoughts, but his main point is true; the evidence points to the biblical God. Simply put, from our experience, nothing ever makes something. Everything that begins to exist had a prior cause. Also, the fine tuning of the universe, like carburetors, cars and chainsaws, points to a fine tuner. Finely tuned things ultimately have an intelligent cause.

2) The “Biological Big Bang


First dead matter, then alive matter, that’s the problem. Am I just to believe that a “poof,” composed of eons of time, created life? We could talk about the debunked “spontaneous generation” hypothesis from history to the modern “abiogenesis” version, but both have the same issue, lacking evidence.


Paul Davies, a well-known Astrobiologist, says this, “One of the great mysteries of life is how it began. What physical process transformed a nonliving mix of chemicals into something as complex as a living cell?” In a conversation on the Unbelievable radio show, he said we have no naturalistic theory for the origin of life. Anyone who has studied the origin of life will tell you the same. Life always comes from life. Life from non-life is a dead end, pardon the pun.


Also, you remember the fine tuning of the universe, right? Well, life too is finely tuned. From finely tuned cells, to finely tuned molecular machines, to finely tuned DNA code, to finely tuned molecules and all way to the finely tuned elements, life and its building blocks are finely tuned! Again, fine tuned things have an intelligent cause.


In addition, life’s microscopic machines are real machines, not metaphors. In biology, we find gears and motors, turbines and generators. These types of machines, from our experience, are always designed.


We must not forget the information contained in the cells. Again, from our universal experience, meaningful and functional information like this always comes from minds.

3) The “Psychological Big Bang”​

The question is simple, how did consciousness arise? From a bacteria like cell, to a blob brain, to a mind?


Somehow we acquired the capacity for creativity and consciousness, design and beauty, self-awareness and self-reflection. From proverbs to poems, to meaning and methods, to emotions and economics.

We have mental abilities, and complementary physical abilities that other organisms don’t have. We love beauty, love the arts and love music. In addition to beauty appreciation, we can make it too.

We can do complex mathematics, we have a complex language and we have the ability to create complex technology.

Our technology, as a whole, not only needs intelligent minds to dream and design, but also proper bodies to create. But there is another level too, that is the topic of fire. Most of our technology requires fire in manufacturing. Very few things, if any, were created without the help of fire.


Here is the interesting part, we are the only creatures on earth that can use fire. Not only do our minds have the ability, but we also have the proper body to make and interact with fire.


Greased with the ingredient of eons of time, this all seems so much like a fairy-tale for grownups!

4) The “Morality Big Bang”​

Let me get this straight, we were some type of amoral animals, and through another poof of evolutionary generations, we now possess moral sensibilities? Why is it wrong for one Bag-O-Chemicals to bump off another Bag-O-Chemicals? Why is it wrong to torture babies for the fun of it, and right to treat them kindly?


If our main purpose on earth is to just pass down our genes to the next generation, as many Darwinists say, why the “me too” movement and why is rape so wrong? Oh, am I not supposed to bring up that conundrum? Why do we know those things are bad, wrong and evil? Why is it more wrong for one to try to trip someone maliciously and fail than for one to accidentally trip another? Who cares?


In an atheistic universe, there is no ultimate morality, except for pragmatic reasons. The only reason we do what is “right” is because it helps us. But that does not make things good or evil! And the “it just helps me” line seems quite selfish, so why would that be good?

And why is it a good thing to pass on our genes to the next generation? First, who cares if our genetics are passed on or not passed on? Second, the point seems quite circular. It’s good because it’s good. We are reusing moral language to explain the existence of morality.

The Monstrous Mountain to Climb


Again, each of these four “big bangs” point to God. They are a monstrous mountain to climb, and when the atheist scientist scales them…well, let me quote Robert Jastrow again from his work God and the Astronomers.


“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

 

[james bond]

As usual, the un-believers, such as Fort Fun Indiana, Quasar44, Hollie, alang1216, etc., cannot prove the so-called evolution of the eye. It just isn't so as Dawkins liked to think.

"By building a straw man of creationists (supposedly) misquoting Darwin and Lewontin, Professor Dawkins labels the lot as “ignorant” and skirts the big issue — there is no hard evidence for molecules-to-man evolution.

Dawkins has long touted stories on how the eye and other organs came into being by supposed slow evolutionary processes, but there is no experimental evidence, even if one did accept the fossils as a record of such changes. Any serious thinker knows that the fossils of the “Cambrian Explosion” period, near the base of the geological column, include some of the most sophisticated eyes ever known to have existed — the compound eyes of trilobites have double calcite lenses, which defeat any slow evolutionary explanation, and, what is more, they have no precursor in the rocks.

The non-evolutionist side of the argument is growing not because of ignorance, but because of the rise of knowledge about the real facts of science without the fairytale additions of evolutionism. A growing number of academics on both sides of the Atlantic are attracted to the straightforward logic of scientific reasoning.

The logical, coded machinery of DNA and the information system it carries shout design to an unprejudiced mind. Dawkins’s defence is based not on scientific facts, but on ideology. Evolutionary thinking is teetering as a way of looking at the evidence, not because of some isolated problems here and there, but because the whole structure is scientifically wrong."

Dawkins’ Eye-con of Evolution Unravels | Evolution News

Leading Darwin defender Richard Dawkins had a piece in The Times of London recently, reassuring readers, “The eye is today a showpiece of the gradual, cumulative evolution of an almost perfect…

evolutionnews.org

 

[ChemEngineer]

 

[Hollie]

View attachment 733952

Who are these, “many biologists”?

As usual, you spam threads with unsourced, unattributed cutting and pasting and have no ability to support such nonsense.

 

[ReinyDays]

Has it escaped your notice "that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material?" -- Watson/Crick 1953 ...

Why do you not believe in DNA? ... or do you not believe this is the mechanism of inherited traits? ... seems my fellow Christians have me on ignore, which let's God tell you who's speaking lies and who isn't ...

Christ is the Prince of Peace ... those who fling Him around as a weapon are sinners ... Charles Darwin had 11 children, 8 of which survived to adulthood, at a time when half of all children died ... "All God's judgements are righteous and true" ... I only have three children, that means I don't understand evolution very well, not like Darwin did ... I know math is hard, but we're just counting ... how many children do you have? ...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What a great video. Every school kid should watch it. Then maybe we wouldn't have painfully stupid threads like this one.

 

[Hollie]

As usual, the un-believers, such as Fort Fun Indiana, Quasar44, Hollie, alang1216, etc., cannot prove the so-called evolution of the eye. It just isn't so as Dawkins liked to think.

"By building a straw man of creationists (supposedly) misquoting Darwin and Lewontin, Professor Dawkins labels the lot as “ignorant” and skirts the big issue — there is no hard evidence for molecules-to-man evolution.

Dawkins has long touted stories on how the eye and other organs came into being by supposed slow evolutionary processes, but there is no experimental evidence, even if one did accept the fossils as a record of such changes. Any serious thinker knows that the fossils of the “Cambrian Explosion” period, near the base of the geological column, include some of the most sophisticated eyes ever known to have existed — the compound eyes of trilobites have double calcite lenses, which defeat any slow evolutionary explanation, and, what is more, they have no precursor in the rocks.

The non-evolutionist side of the argument is growing not because of ignorance, but because of the rise of knowledge about the real facts of science without the fairytale additions of evolutionism. A growing number of academics on both sides of the Atlantic are attracted to the straightforward logic of scientific reasoning.

The logical, coded machinery of DNA and the information system it carries shout design to an unprejudiced mind. Dawkins’s defence is based not on scientific facts, but on ideology. Evolutionary thinking is teetering as a way of looking at the evidence, not because of some isolated problems here and there, but because the whole structure is scientifically wrong."

Dawkins’ Eye-con of Evolution Unravels | Evolution News

Leading Darwin defender Richard Dawkins had a piece in The Times of London recently, reassuring readers, “The eye is today a showpiece of the gradual, cumulative evolution of an almost perfect…

evolutionnews.org

“Evolution News” is a dumping ground for creationer hacks.