[Tj3]

You didnt read the second post it continued on based from the first.

I did. But I did not see how it overcame the problems that I raised to your first post. It seems that you were essentially working on a possible design as to how the animal could accomplish this feat - but that in an of itself defeats your argument because that requires intelligence. You have not told us how this could come to be through natural evolution.

Before we move on to the source of the intelligence, we must fist review the evidence for this intelligence (which was the point of the original question), and then we can look at the attributes of this creative intelligence, and thus determine who He is rather than going by one persons person opinions.

[Viloen]

You go girl!
Here is wildandblue's contribution: you know how in Genesis Abraham is supposed to sacrifice his son Isaac, but then he finds a ram caught by it's horns in the brush and God directs him to use that instead? Events which happened I think 5000 years ago. OK now today wildandblue is still pulling rams out of bushes, he's given up deerhunting since ram pulling is so much easier but I digress...The POINT being how long is this evolution crap supposed to take? 5000 years and sheep are no smarter now than they were then? How does this show survival of the fittest for instance?
Cred, I also suggest the fact that the presence of the observer changes the very thing he intends to observe, and since this God is omniscient there is no way to avoid Him knowing you are observing.
Also my thought that objective is actually a lot of little subjectives, and doesn't really exist either independently of them
Anyway I have to go, a ram is arguing with one of the knots in the woodgrain on our telephone pole, I have to explain again that the pole is not picking a fight with him. SIGH
As well as my thought that objective is only a very large number of subjectives and so doesn't actually exist either.

Evolution typically takes far more time than 5000 years. However radical changes in species can happen faster. Look at the how corn was genetically engineered[selectively breeded] by the ancients They took the plants they thought were better and made sure thet mated over time we get corn. If you see the plant they started with, and what we have as corn today they are completely different you'd consider them to be two different plants... you might even say that god created two different species but that would be false it was created by man. Evolution works in the same way, it's selective breeding which stems from survival of the fittest over vasts amounts of time. Only instead of man being the changing factor, nature is, maybe God is.

Secondly the sheep haven't had the evolutionary pressure to get smarter over the last 5000 years. i.e. brains weren't pertinent to their survival.

Hopes this clear this up a bit.

[Tj3]

Evolution typically takes far more time than 5000 years. However radical changes in species can happen faster. Look at the how corn was genetically engineered[selectively breeded] by the ancients They took the plants they thought were better and made sure thet mated over time we get corn. If you see the plant they started out with, and what we have as corn today they are completely different you'd consider them to be two different plants...

It is still the same thing - it is still corn. But note, even for the changes that you are discussing, a intelligent intervention was required. And most importantly, where did the corn come from originally?

[Viloen]

It is still the same thing - it is still corn. But note, even for the changes that you are discussing, a intelligent intervention was required. And most importantly, where did the corn come from originally?

The original plant it came from is nothing like corn we have today. The point is, nature uses the same processes albeit much slower.

[Tj3]

The original plant it came from is nothing like corn we have today. The point is, nature uses the same processes albeit much slower.

Really? Please provide your evidence and the link to the DNA analysis showing that it is no longer corn.

Second, please get back on topic and show us how the corn evolved from non-living matter.

[Tj3]

Just a note to keep us on track. There are a number of examples which demonstrate evidence of an intelligent creator.

The challenge is for anyone to provide a feasible proposal as to how these may have evolved naturally.

[michealb]

If life is to complex to evolve on it's own isn't your god arguably more complex. So if you believe god can be on his own, then life from non life shouldn't be that hard since you already believe that nothingness created your god.

[Tj3]

If life is to complex to evolve on it's own isn't your god arguably more complex. So if you believe god can be on his own, then life from non life shouldn't be that hard since you already believe that nothingness created your god.

God wasn't created.

Please stay on topic. If you want to start a thread regarding your views on God, that okay, but this thread is examining whether any feaible proposal can be put forward on how any of these examples could possibly come into existence naturally. It sounds to me like you are saying that you do not have anything to offer in regards to the topic.

[wildandblue]

My sheep are also so dumb that they get their teeth stuck in their wool while using it for dental floss, and walk around with their heads at a funny angle until they are freed. It's like this I have wool business is totally a new experience for them. And, being this dumb, in an animal that typically lives 6 to 8 years, they would have statistically died out a lot quicker than any supposed evolution could have allowed them to survive and succeed, if say 5000 years is not sufficient time for us to have obtained a significant difference in their populations.

[michealb]

EYE : How about the eye. Can anyone give a plausible explanation as to how the eye came to be?

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To easy.

DNA : In every living or previously living cell, we find an operating system (O/S) program written which is more complex than any MAC or PC. In addition to the program, we find that every cell has the built in capability to read and interpret this programming language. And this goes back to the simplest, and, according to evolutionists, most ancient type of cell in existence.
If one found a PC with Windows O/S on it, or even a simple handheld with Windows CE O/S on it, it would automatically be taken to be proof positive of the existence of a capable and intelligent advanced designer. Do any atheists have a plausible explanation for how this advanced programming language, along with reader/interpreter came to be?

There are simpler forms of DNA. Did you know that there are things that are considered alive that have DNA even non living replicators that have DNA. Your missing minor infintessimal steps that build complexity over time to deal with environmental pressures.

SIMPLE SINGLE CELL :
How did the simple cells come to be created?

We are not exactly sure yet, but just because we don't know the exact way something came to be doesn't mean god did it but I'll concede that we don't know yet. Its okay though I'm a big enough of a person to say there are things that aren't know to man yet. Unlike the religions who when ever they don't know something claim god did it. Another thing to remember about this is that bacteria which is generally regarded as a simple cell isn't simple. The first cells are believed to be much simpler than anything is alive today because they wouldn't have had to compete with anyone for resources

POND SCUM : Pericles claimed that the answer to the question alive was that the single cells came from pond scum, which is in and itself a form of life - how did it come to be?

Pond scum can be life but it also refers to many non living items as well. But the chance that modern pond scum would create the simplest life form is unlikely because it does already contain life that would out compete any simple form of life out of resources.

AUSTRALIAN BRUSH TURKEY

What came first the turkey or the egg? The natural solution for this is that the turkey's nest building developed slowly as did the turkey's eggs need for exact temperatures. Turkey's that were better at building nests produced more offspring. The turkey doesn't need to understand anything it just knows that in order to survive it needs to build a better nest than the other guy. Natural solution makes perfect sense with a little education on how evolution works.

MACAWS : Macaws are birds that feed on poisonous seeds, and in order to live, after they eat, they must eat a certain type of mud which neutralizes the poison.
How did this evolve? What is the natural explanation for this? The existence of God explains it.

Why does a flawed design prove a perfect designer? If someone was designing it why add the extra step? If you want something to be a food source for a particular animal only make the one animal just naturally able to eat it.
The natural reason however is more than likely due to the birds ancestry. Ancient birds use to swallow rocks to break down the food they ate. If the rocks they were swallowing were covered in mud(like they would be in a river bed which is the best place to get rocks in a forest) they would have also been getting the ability to eat those seeds without knowing it. As they moved towards flight and no longer needed the stones they kept eating the mud that allowed them to exploit a resource other animals could not.

God wasn't created.

If you can handle the idea that the most complex thing ever dreamed of came to be without creation. Why is it so hard to believe that these relatively simple things came about without creation but through environmental pressures just as lakes and rivers have complex shapes due to the pressure of the water. Life formed and became more complex on the pressure the environment placed on simple replicating chains of chemicals.

[michealb]

My sheep are also so dumb that they get their teeth stuck in their wool while using it for dental floss, and walk around with their heads at a funny angle until they are freed. It's like this I have wool business is totally a new experience for them. And, being this dumb, in an animal that typically lives 6 to 8 years, they would have statistically died out a lot quicker than any supposed evolution could have allowed them to survive and succeed, if say 5000 years is not sufficient time for us to have obtained a significant difference in their populations.

Evolutions can occur fairly quickly if the original sample size is large and the selection is small. For example if I have a flock of sheep say 1000 and of those 1000 I only allow the 50 with the best wool to breed to make the next 1000. If I do this for say 10 generations. If I did it correctly on average my last generation of sheep will have better wool than the first generation I started with. The reason your sheep are dumb is because they don't need intellect to produce better wool so your forefathers didn't select the smart ones they picked the ones with the better wool. If you were to kill the ones that got their teeth stuck in there wool give it a few generations and you won't have that problem anymore however you might loose a more desirable trait.

[Tj3]

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To easy.

Really? Well, I won't try to expose all the problems with what they say, but let me just explain a simple matter of the eye for you. A photosensitive spot, which is how they suggest that it started is no more complex than a very sensitive nerve. Vision is far more complex. Here is a diagram of the chemical processes:

http://www.geocities.com/smithtj.geo/bio.gif

Since the person or animal is blind is ANY one of these processes does not exist - how did these processes evolve from that photosensitive spot?

There are simpler forms of DNA. Did you know that there are things that are considered alive that have DNA even non living replicators that have DNA. Your missing minor infintessimal steps that build complexity over time to deal with environmental pressures.

So you have no answer regarding DNA.

We are not exactly sure yet, but just because we don't know the exact way something came to be doesn't mean god did it but I'll concede that we don't know yet. Its okay though I'm a big enough of a person to say there are things that aren't know to man yet. Unlike the religions who when ever they don't know something claim god did it. Another thing to remember about this is that bacteria which is generally regarded as a simple cell isn't simple. The first cells are believed to be much simpler than anything is alive today because they wouldn't have had to compete with anyone for resources

Again you have no answer.

Pond scum can be life but it also refers to many non living items as well. But the chance that modern pond scum would create the simplest life form is unlikely because it does already contain life that would out compete any simple form of life out of resources.

Pond scum by definition is alive. But nonetheless since you admit that some forms of pond scum are alive, once again I note that you have no answer as to how it came to be.

What came first the turkey or the egg? The natural solution for this is that the turkey's nest building developed slowly as did the turkey's eggs need for exact temperatures. Turkey's that were better at building nests produced more offspring. The turkey doesn't need to understand anything it just knows that in order to survive it needs to build a better nest than the other guy. Natural solution makes perfect sense with a little education on how evolution works.

The eggs will dies unless incubated at the perfect temperature. The second generation of turkeys would never exist unless they got it right the first time. Some things you don't get a second chance to learn. And you appear to be suggesting that one generation of birds teaches the next.

Why does a flawed design prove a perfect designer?

Who said that it was a flawed design? I thought that you believed in survival of the fittest - how did the birds survive if it is not a good design?

As an engineer, I can tell you that some things that those who do not understand engineering may think is "flawed" proves to be a good design, and unless you perfectly understand every aspect of a design, you cannot make a judgment call such as that. So why not just address the question at hand - how would this evolve naturally?

The natural reason however is more than likely due to the birds ancestry. Ancient birds use to swallow rocks to break down the food they ate. If the rocks they were swallowing were covered in mud(like they would be in a river bed which is the best place to get rocks in a forest) they would have also been getting the ability to eat those seeds without knowing it.

A lot of "if's" there, but it does not answer the question, because these birds choose to eat the poisonous seeds. If your argument was right, then why would they not eat a mix of poisonous and non-poisonous plants, like goats do? Why would they simply eat two things - the poisonous seeds and the antidote for the poison?

As they moved towards flight and no longer needed the stones they kept eating the mud that allowed them to exploit a resource other animals could not.

You are assuming intelligence here - assuming that after they no longer needed stones, and thus exposure to the mud, they chose to keep eating mud in order to exploit a resource that others could not.

You defeated your own argument.

[inthebox]

Well, let's get the easy one out of the way first: the eye. A proposed explanation that is well backed up by plenty of evidence is given by Darwin in "On the Origin of Species". Tom should read it. The relevant text is given here. There are of course, many more papers on the eye and its evolution published in scientific journals. In fact, there is evidence that eyes have evolved as many as 65 different times, some working in different optical principles and some duplicated. This is because it's such a useful thing to have!

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 any 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. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but

A bunch of ifs offered up as an explanation?


First paragraph - then goes on to list examples of different "eyes"

But never actually explains how an eye came to be.

[michealb]

Your right we are willing to write down a lot more if and admit we don't know everything as of yet. If you were truly honest with yourselves though would would to admit to more and larger ifs than us.

If god has always been.
If god is perfect.
IF god exists
If god inspired the bible
If god is all powerful
If god doesn't have an end
If god is beyond our reasoning
If god is not responsible for evil
If god created the earth 6000 years ago
If god created the macaw
If god created fossils
If god created the eye
If god created thumbs
If god created poisons
If god...
I could go on but I think you get my point well actually I know you don't get my point but I've reached the point at which others will get my point and I know no matter how many ifs I give you for your theory it doesn't matter because you will always fall back on god did it and never pursue real knowledge instead resting on the false knowledge of god did it and the reason I say it's false knowledge is because god did it has never been the correct answer we have never found a question that has been proven that the answer is god did it and I even think you will agree with me that we will never find scientific prove of god. There for if it is a scientific question the answer can't be god did it.

[wildandblue]

But your reply assumes sheep which somehow evolved naturally lived long enough for people to domesticate them and then start selecting for certain traits. And I can select for fleece characteristics in one generation since it is a highly heritable trait. How exactly does an animal that is dumb as a brick, gets its head stuck while arguing with a bush that reached out and scratched him as he walked by, or gets its teeth stuck while scratching its back, both of them would starve to death if someone didn't realize their predicament and rescue them. Isn't survival of the fittest supposed to mean they get basically smarter or hardier as the population evolves? The only way these could make it, or any newborn animal makes it, is that Somebody loves them and cares about them all. God is love, after all

[Tj3]

Your right we are willing to write down a lot more if and admit we don't know everything as of yet. If you were truly honest with yourselves though would would to admit to more and larger ifs than us.

I am not asking what you know - I am simply asking if there is any feasible way that these could have occurred, other than by creation.

If you wish to start a thread to discuss the truth and reality of God, then do so. This is examining the feasibility of the claims regarding evolution with respect to these specific examples.

[michealb]

I am not asking what you know - I am simply asking if there is any feasible way that these could have occurred, other than by creation.

And I said there is and gave examples of how they feasibly could have happened although I admit that we don't have all of the answers yet.

Isn't survival of the fittest supposed to mean they get basically smarter or hardier as the population evolves?

This is a common misconception. Survival of the fittest really means breeding of the fittest. What makes the animal more or less likely to breed depends on the environment. In the case of sheep since humans(humans are part of the environment) are there to assist them and make sure the dumb ones survive and breed. Intellect doesn't make them more fit for the current environment. Better wool, better meat makes them more likely to breed than intellect. Which is why they are dumb but have good meat and wool. Evolution (survival of the fittest) doesn't account for things that would make the animal species survive long term it only looks at what is giving the animal an advantage right now. This lack of long term planning is why 98% of species are currently extinct and the miserable fail rate of species points to a natural process instead of a designed one.

[Tj3]

And I said there is and gave examples of how they feasibly could have happened although I admit that we don't have all of the answers yet.

I disagree that they were feasible and provided reasons.

And no one is saying that you need to have all the answers - the point is that if there is no feasible way in which something might have happened, then it could not have happened that way. That is the point. You do not need to have all, or any of the answers to show that something is feasible.

[michealb]

Your standards for feasiblity are too high when it comes to natural solutions and too low when it comes to supernatural solutions.

[Tj3]

Your standards for feasiblity are too high when it comes to natural solutions and too low when it comes to supernatural solutions.

Too high? If you saw a Lambourghini in a field, would you accept the argument that it came about naturally even though no one could come up with any feasible way that it could? Would you argue that we set our standards too high?

The reality is that the complexity of a Lambourghini pales in comparison to the complexity of the simplest single cell.