Evidence for Intelligent desighn, Darwin is a ***??

Question

"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 confess, absurd in the highest degree." - Charles Darwin

Did you see who said this, the *** himself (LOL)

Yip dude, this IS evidence for intelligent desighn.......

Creation win!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! End of argument.....

Ok, next topic, who must I proof wrong next........

*************ROFLMAO********************

Answer 1

Good job.

Answer 2

Guess what? Darwin lived 150 years ago, and even though he found the mechanism that drove the evolution of all life on this planet, he didn't have all the answers -- and admitted as much. Unlike you, who in your ignorance seems to think you do have all the answers.

And also, guess what? In the 150 years since Darwin, knowledge has continued to increase -- and now we can quite easily show a very clear and concise evolutionary path for the human eye. Darwin would have loved the proof.

If your "intelligent designer" is so intelligent, why did he put our light-sensitive cells on our eyes backwards, making them only half as efficient as they could be? Why did he come up with a way to attach the retina to the optic nerve that's very unstable, causing detached retinas to be very common among humans? Why did he give us blind spots in our eye, caused by the same inefficient method of optic nerve attachment? Evolution provides clear answers to those questions -- showing how the eye evolved from different forms and how it got to be the way it is. ID has no answers to them, other than to guess that their "intelligent designer" must not have been such a good desiger.

Enjoy rolling on the floor laughing -- you do know that laughter is an evolutionary behavior, don't you? :-0

Answer 3

You've taken the quote out of context. Here's the entire paragraph from "The Origin of Species"

"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 degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people = the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Clearly, although Darwin acknowledges how difficult it is to imagine the eye's evolution, that the theory does account for it.

In modern times, biologists have discovered the transitions that eyes would have to follow in order to emerge in its current form.

Time to get off the floor and do your research.

Answer 4

Evidence?
Ooooh....big shock, Darwin said the eye was pretty complex. What's that evidence of? It's evidence of one man's opinion. Yes, I know it's the man who's credited for starting off the whole evolution idea, so I daresay there will be people who'll say that's just one man's opinion too, but it isn't - it's now an established scientific theory, backed up by a fossil record.

Evolution's moved on a long way in the last hundred years. Creationism appears not to have moved on in the thousands of years since people decided they needed a god.

Answer 5

Problem with this whole argument is, Darwin was not trying to prove or disprove any God. Only people today are trying to use the information for one side or the other. And based on your sarcastic additions, I would say you don't know much about Darwin's ideas on it to begin with... so which website did you take the quote off of? Obviously, you didn't take it out of his own book, or else you would have read further than just that paragraph.

You didn't prove anyone wrong. You proved that you are only out to try to prove others wrong. Darwin, at best, was an agnostic. He didn't discard belief in a God... he discarded religion because it made bigots out of people. Which is obvious.

Answer 6

I was reading about a third grade classroom, the teacher said to the students that when the Red Sea was parted by Moses, it wasn't actually, parted, but the people walked on a higher part of the sea, where it was more dried up, so they actually walked in about four inches of water. Then a little boy raises his hand and goes, "You know teacher, that really is amazing, God can do such miracles, I mean...drowning all those Egyptians in only four inches of water, that's crazy!" There is much evidence for God, and intelligent design. They've found the remains of wheels from chariots in the red sea, of course the wood is rotted, but the creatures and agae that grew on it took it's shape. God is so real. Evolution has some evidence, but none of it is credible -only- to evolution, and ID has a -TON- of evidence, most people are just too arrogant and ignorant to see it.

Answer 7

What you are having a hard time understanding is that we do not worship Darwin.
People who think for themselves can take knowledge from where it comes. A guy makes observations 150 years ago, we don't stop learning, we don't learn only from that guy.
You want to believe in intelligent design, knock yourself out, it's very Frankenstein, it makes no sense when you look at gestation, where humans have tails and multiple nipples in the womb. It makes no sense with human natural history, where Inuits disperse fat all over their bodies to stay warm, and forest pygmy humans are short and have no ability to sweat to live successfully in the humid and dense rainforest. etc, etc, etc.

Answer 8

If you go on to read the rest of that statement, he was only setting up the knock out punch. He goes on quite well to explain how "half an eye" might actually be useful

Oh, Atheist Guy already put you in your place. NH looked it up too. Saves me the trouble.

Answer 9

YOU SHOULD ACTUALLY STUDY THIS SUBJECT AND THEN YOU COULD COME UP WITH SOME REAL ARGUMENTS

Like how do you make the first step from none-life to life. One the first step is made, evolution can easily account for all of the diversity and complexity in life. It's not the complexity that proves the existance of God but the simplicity at the beginning of time.

Darwin was right about almost everything except that he was an athiest. He didn't understand the need for God to trigger the first step in the process.

Answer 10

Science has evolved since then. It's not unlike that God doesn't play dice with the universe comment of Einsteins. We get attached sometimes to our view of things and can't see the forest of other significant scientific advancement through the trees of popular explanations.

Unless we've got those blinders of dogma on.

Why the namecalling?

Answer 11

Not just that, on his death bed Darwin recanted EVERYTHING he had discovered. But unfortunately for him, and I suppose you, just because he changed his mind doesn't change the fact that he was right about evolution. If Sir Isaac Newton had changed his mind about the theory of gravity, would gravity not be real? Sorry, it would still be here. Albert Einstein spent the last years of his life and went to his grave trying to disprove his own discoveries in physics because he realized he was essentially proving that God did not create the Universe, and he was a very religious man and could not accept what he had proven. Just because these people don't like what they discovered doesn't mean the discovery is moot when they try to take it back.
Thanks for making me laugh though.