So you are an expert on the Bible too? What a legend.....
If you say so, but I only claim a solid foundation in the bible, not expert status, in that I am unpublished in that field.
If that is all you know about vision and the eye I stand by my original assessment of your knowledge base.
You believe that this is just a fluke of nature, requiring no intelligent design at all? This level of complexity needed no designer and no intelligence to produce those cones and rods...or the brain that interprets the images? What level of intelligence does it require to see the design then I wonder? Is it only the humble and uneducated who are granted that 'vision'?
Perhaps it is the position of the nose?
The evolution of the eye is not a fluke and is well described in the scientific literature if you care to look it up.
Oh, so the Right Royal Banana is your closest ancestor then? Obviously in the Banana Hall of Fame?
Ancestor? No. Distant cousin, yes.
How sinister to believe in an intelligent and ingenious inventor!
But evolutionary science has no hidden agenda.....?
Evolutional Science has no hidden agenda, all is out in the open, science goes where the data leads. ID's real and intentionally hidden and disguised goals are contained in the Wedge Document, a political and social action plan authored by the Discovery Institute, the hub of the pseudoscientific intelligent design movement. The strategy was put forth in a Discovery Institute manifesto known as the Wedge Document,which describes a broad social, political, and academic agenda whose ultimate goal is to defeat materialism, naturalism, evolution, and "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." The strategy also aims to affirm what it calls "God's reality." Its goal is to change American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values. The wedge metaphor is attributed to Phillip E. Johnson and depicts a metal wedge splitting a log to represent an aggressive public relations program to create an opening for the supernatural in the public's understanding of science. (thanks wiki)
Its only obvious to those who believe in it.......or those who can be conned with nothing but suggestion and assumptions.....
You needn't be so hard on yourself, just admit your error and we can move on.
The bullying tactics are legendary. ....who wants to feel like an uneducated moron in the eyes of one's peers?
You said yourself that you don't mind doing so.
To whom? As far as I know,
(a distance that can likely be measured in microns)
we are each preaching to the converted.
Speak for yourself please.
Those undecided will probably not be impressed by an imagined air of superiority.
When are you going to start taking your own advice ?
Ah, the old falsifiabilty measure.....?
I found this interesting......
"Falsifiability, as defined by the philosopher, Karl Popper, defines the inherent testability of any scientific hypothesis.....
Science and philosophy have always worked together to try to uncover truths about the world and the universe around us. Both are a necessary element for the advancement of knowledge and the development of human society.
Scientists design experiments and try to obtain results verifying or disproving a hypothesis, but philosophers are the driving force in determining what factors determine the validity of scientific results.
Science and philosophy have always worked together to try to uncover truths about the world and the universe around us. Both are a necessary element for the advancement of knowledge and the development of human society......
The Raven Paradox shows the inherent danger of relying on falsifiability, because very few scientific experiments can measure all of the data, and rely upon generalization.
https://explorable.com/raven-paradox
The Raven Paradox falls apart when Hempel claims that, "ALL ravens are black." The best he could have said is, "Most ravens are black; or all observed ravens were black."
So ... there is no paradox, only bad science.
The fact is, it is not possible to say that an Intelligent Creator doesn't exist just because humans have never seen him. All science can say is that, to their way of evaluating things, there is a possibility that no Creator exists. That is a far cry from making statements that claim there cannot be a Creator. Or that powers can exist that science has not yet discovered. Egg on the face can happen any time in science.
Yes, but the raven egg is on your face, you can not have it both ways.
The whole issue as I see it, is that people who are full of their own importance are not in a position to tell others what to believe...
When are you going to start taking your own advice ?
especially when creation can be supported if one dispenses with the YEC approach. If in fact, the earth's inhabitants were specifically created in a deliberate fashion over a long period of time, then science cannot disprove any of it.
Occums razor and "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," the phrase made popular by Carl Sagan are against you. Also, Laplace wrote: "The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness." and David Hume wrote in 1748: "A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence", and "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." Marcello Truzzi aldo said "An extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof."
The evidence put forth by proponents of such things as gods, ghosts, the paranormal, and UFOs is highly questionable at best and offers little in the way of proof. Even if we accepted what evidence there is as valid (and it is highly debatable if we should), limited and weak evidence is not enough to overcome the extraordinary nature of these claims.
In any case, the concept is central to the scientific method and a key issue for critical thinking, rational thought and skepticism everywhere, even though you claim to know better and be wiser than all the great thinkers mentioned above and even in the face of your inability see the error in the Raven Paradox.
(thanks rationalwiki)
I believe in an old earth and a long and deliberate process of creation over many millenniums...can science categorically state that it couldn't have happened that way? Given that hypothesis, what part can you disprove?
At a minimum, common ancestry, and descent with modification, fly in face of your belief system.
All that those people with science degrees can say, is that they believe it is unlikely......beliefs are funny things...people can hold them no matter what others with large egos think. Academia is not a place that attracts me at all, possibly because of the people who make it their home and their temple.
I am attracted to the humbler pursuits and those who follow the road less traveled.
They have a Bible in their hand.
A bible in your hand, a blindfold over their eyes, and your fingers in your ears .... a prescription for failure!
)
