Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Judge Dread (judgedread@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 08:24:09 JST Judge Dread
   I never said your god or gods weren't real, I said evolution is true. Fighting facts is futile. Even the jew media must succumb to reality in the end.
   • Embed this notice
     Plotinus Enjoyer (plotinus_enjoyer@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 08:24:06 JST Plotinus Enjoyer

     in reply to

     • Semilexic
     • Jimmy
     @epictittus @patris @judgedread Change of groups of people/animals and/or advancement towards some goal/purpose is fine. Some conception of heredity is also fine
     
     What I don’t accept however is the popular conception of evolution where the creature is basically passively reacting to environmental changes, with all changes being effectively random and it is just sheer coincidence that complex lifeforms were created this way
     BowserNoodle ☦️ likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Semilexic (epictittus@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 08:24:07 JST Semilexic

     in reply to

     • Jimmy
     @patris @judgedread It is 1000% true.
     
     Science can be incorrect, evolution can be incorrect, it has been proven as such many times and was corrected (extended synthesis). But you cant reject observable reality and call yourself a Christian in good standing with God. Maybe a Christian doomed to hell.
     
     Species exist, similarity between them exists, there are ancestral forms in the fossil record (or in some case existing), DNA exists and shows these relationships.
     
     >engineers
     >doctors
     >scientists
     So what? There are engineers, doctors, scientists and Popes that say global warming is happening and socialism is beneficial, and theyre all fucking wrong.
   • Embed this notice
     Semilexic (epictittus@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 08:24:08 JST Semilexic

     in reply to
     @judgedread Real Christians dont deny evolution or space, this is mossad inspired scoffield mcchristian shit.
     
     Americans view of Christianity is warped because of these retards.
   • Embed this notice
     Jimmy (patris@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 08:24:08 JST Jimmy

     in reply to

     • Semilexic
     @epictittus @judgedread This is not 100% true. Among the most serious Christians (which can be read "right-wing"), many/most either don't care about evolution (these are mostly humanities guys) or soft-reject evolution (these trend to be engineers, doctors, scientists) for technical reasons. These people exist. They are patriarchal and reality-embracing and increasingly race-aware. They are having white babies in huge numbers and building communities.
     
     I know it's an unpopular take in these parts of the internet, but I personally have buckets of first hand evidence that using belief in evolution as a shill test is wrong. There are a bunch of very based white Christians who reject evolution in good faith, while not partaking of the blank-slate-related fantasies. I'm not saying that you are wrong--just that your experience in your post of the country is different from mine. People forget that Christianity is still regional and ethnic, even when moderns want to make it homogeneous.
     
     
     You are right about the Schofield people. They are as thick as kudzu. Personally, I believe most of them mean well--they are just proles. The "Christians" with bad intent are mostly urban and college-educated. They are constantly undermining, wherever they are found. Some accept evolution, some don't. Their true faith is progressivism.
   • Embed this notice
     BowserNoodle ☦️ (bowsacnoodle@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 08:31:40 JST BowserNoodle ☦️

     in reply to

     • Semilexic
     • Plotinus Enjoyer
     • Jimmy
     @plotinus_enjoyer @epictittus @patris @judgedread Calling evolution "random chance" or assuming is a purely from mutations are both common misconceptions. Fact is most people don't know 💩 about genetics and even less about the theory of evolution. Random chance is a mechanism, but it's usually passive behind the scenes. No creature suddenly was born with super strength and dominated all the others because its mom was nesting near a uranium ore deposit. Even if you take a micro evolution or simple adaptive natural selection approach, you should look at how traits are packaged. It is never "a la carte"— you get long feathers coupled with blue spots coupled with an extra long middle toe coupled with a malformed metabolic enzyme coupled with a fifteen other things. Winning situations come about when one of those things is advantageous to the organism's present environment. Most of the time it's just "educated guesses" to piece together things like fossil records and such. DNA doesn't survive long enough to prove or disprove this either.
   • Embed this notice
     AlyoCat (aly@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:16 JST AlyoCat

     in reply to

     • milk
     • Semilexic
     @epictittus @milk @judgedread Are Christians not supposed to believe evolution is real?
   • Embed this notice
     BowserNoodle ☦️ (bowsacnoodle@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:16 JST BowserNoodle ☦️

     in reply to

     • milk
     • Semilexic
     • AlyoCat
     @Aly @epictittus @milk @judgedread A lot of Christians do not. Many creationists have incredibly bad understandings of what they're arguing against. I used to be fully in evolution by natural selection camp, but I'm in a micro evolution and natural selection view now. I'll likely be a full blown YEC within a decade at this rate. Point is evolution ≠ abiogenesis— life can exist because God created it and put the mechanisms in order vis a vis natural selection, or it can be entirely constructed in 6 days exactly as written in Genesis. It doesn't change my faith either way. I do find arguments for pure materialism tend to be weaker because they exploit "null hypothesis" and worry less about details and with lower quality than they'd accept from their opponents for their own presuppositions.
   • Embed this notice
     milk (milk@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:17 JST milk

     in reply to

     • Semilexic
     @epictittus @judgedread >Before I watch that, can you explain why "firmament" is the correct word?
     Yeah I can explain it. I'm not the guy to have a discussion with anything anymore though so I won't be
   • Embed this notice
     Semilexic (epictittus@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:17 JST Semilexic

     in reply to

     • milk
     @milk @judgedread Are you ok?
   • Embed this notice
     Semilexic (epictittus@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:18 JST Semilexic

     in reply to

     • milk
     @milk @judgedread >firmament
     Is a false translation* from an incorrect text** and it was used by jews to start the flat earth nonsense*** as a counter to awakening on the right wing in 2015. Im sorry for everyone who believes KJV is the original Bible, but it's just a regular human uninspired translation. Sadly there is no good english translation, only "good enough" when original referent is used.
     
     * greek word is "an expanse", aramaic word is "expanded thing"
     
     ** all english translations use the masoretic text, it was created by jews during the medieval age to prevent conversions and retcon themselves into authority, the masoretic text is a heresy
     
     *** see images
   • Embed this notice
     milk (milk@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:18 JST milk

     in reply to

     • Semilexic

     @epictittus @judgedread Wrong, there's a very good explanation to why the KJV is the one we should read and it has nothing to do with what you just said: https://poast.tv/w/1NUMAcBYvSGcqer8FMKQWR

   • Embed this notice
     Semilexic (epictittus@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:18 JST Semilexic

     in reply to

     • milk
     @milk @judgedread Before I watch that, can you explain why "firmament" is the correct word?
     
     To my knowledge this is a made up word, directly loaned from latin just for this passage of the Bible, used nowhere else in the English language. And the 13th century definition even defines it as an expanse between the heavens and the earth, where the stars are found.
     
     etymonline.com/word/firmament
   • Embed this notice
     milk (milk@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:19 JST milk

     in reply to

     • Semilexic
     @epictittus @judgedread >Real Christians dont deny evolution or space
     God made man and there's a firmament above us
   • Embed this notice
     Bixnood (doonxib@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:46 JST Bixnood

     in reply to

     • white_male
     @white_male @judgedread That would take effort, which is beneath my dignity. But, I do believe it is a commonly understood truth that incidental day to day labors bring about far more inventions and discoveries than deliberate activity to find such things, and rarely do such efforts follow observation, theory, and double testing to arrive at their final result. Rather, it ends up being incident, result, post deconstruction to ascertain the events in question.
   • Embed this notice
     Felix Krull (felix_krull@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:46 JST Felix Krull

     in reply to

     • Bixnood
     • white_male
     @doonxib @white_male @judgedread "But, I do believe it is a commonly understood truth that incidental day to day labors bring about far more inventions and discoveries than deliberate activity to find such things"
     
     That is not a commonly understood truth.
     
     And not wanting to offer one single example because muh precious time, is a bit weak. I can name half a dozen examples of the opposite off the top of my head, and dozens more if I had a few minutes to google. In no particular order:
     
     - Radar
     - Nuclear power
     - The jet engine
     - The solid-state semiconductor
     - Atomic clocks
     - Inertial navigation
     - Nylon
     - Solar panels
     - X-ray machines
     BowserNoodle ☦️ likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Bixnood (doonxib@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:47 JST Bixnood

     in reply to

     • white_male
     @white_male @judgedread Science didn't invent the modern world, it was the retarded, inbred janitor that wondered in after the world threw a party and began shitting on the furniture instead of cleaning up the house. Most "scientific discoveries" were not found using the scientific method.
   • Embed this notice
     white_male (white_male@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:47 JST white_male

     in reply to

     • Bixnood
     @doonxib @judgedread >Most "scientific discoveries" were not found using the scientific method.
     Ok, if there are so many, name some.
   • Embed this notice
     white_male (white_male@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:48 JST white_male

     in reply to

     • Bixnood
     @doonxib @judgedread Ah, cool, most informed people already know and acknowledge these and other short comings. We had retarded measurements of SI decades ago, most of which are translated into atomic derived units. That's the progression we're building into the future.
   • Embed this notice
     Bixnood (doonxib@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:48 JST Bixnood

     in reply to

     • white_male
     @white_male @judgedread Progression, which retroactively regards the past versions of itself as retarded and flawed as it makes the present assertion it is factual and gospel. Which, it then repeats again and again, while also taking credit for things that it isn't part of. "Science" is the proverbial conman of our times. A blanket appeal to authority, which it has none.
   • Embed this notice
     white_male (white_male@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:48 JST white_male

     in reply to

     • Bixnood
     @doonxib @judgedread You can have a global range telegraph in exchange for as low 2-3 hours of paid labor. I'm talking shit to you over millions of meters thanks to science. Some problems are harder than others and will take more time to mature in usefulness.
   • Embed this notice
     white_male (white_male@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:49 JST white_male

     in reply to

     • Bixnood
     @doonxib @judgedread That's a misdirection. You question the current best theory like you have a better one, spit it out.
   • Embed this notice
     Bixnood (doonxib@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:49 JST Bixnood

     in reply to

     • white_male
     @white_male @judgedread You're assuming I have an assertion to make. I only noted that intent is obvious in what are clearly working, mechanical designs. And, that there are no examples of such devices appearing randomly in any context outside of evolutionary theory. Much like with the Big Bang and other fantasies it ties itself to directly impossible statements and ideas. Something from nothing, form and logic from random chance, design and intent based upon a progression, which was not derived from a working mind.
   • Embed this notice
     Bixnood (doonxib@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:50 JST Bixnood

     in reply to

     • white_male
     @white_male @judgedread "Current best"
     
     LUL, no.
   • Embed this notice
     white_male (white_male@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:50 JST white_male

     in reply to

     • Bixnood
     @doonxib @judgedread Um, what have we missed? What's you best bet? Which one?
   • Embed this notice
     Bixnood (doonxib@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:50 JST Bixnood

     in reply to

     • white_male
     @white_male @judgedread >What have we missed?
     
     Substantiation and evidence. Misconstruction after the fact passed off as fact by a post revisionist authority spread to the neophytes as the new gospel.
   • Embed this notice
     Bixnood (doonxib@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:51 JST Bixnood

     in reply to
     @judgedread Another logical impossibility/absurdity. The logical paradoxes/lies inherent in these theories are obvious when you simply analyze them for a few seconds. Poorly defined elements with no substantiation described at an event, which isn't observed based upon misinterpreted circumstantial evidence.
   • Embed this notice
     white_male (white_male@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:51 JST white_male

     in reply to

     • Bixnood
     @doonxib @judgedread >Poorly defined elements...
     The whole world is waiting for your refinement on the current best, but still faulty theories.
   • Embed this notice
     Bixnood (doonxib@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:52 JST Bixnood

     in reply to
     @judgedread The Universe having a start point is another assumption. Like most modern scientific information considered fact, which is in fact speculative fiction.
   • Embed this notice
     Judge Dread (judgedread@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:52 JST Judge Dread

     in reply to

     • Bixnood
     @doonxib It's derived from the evidence of a Big Bang. What pre-existed that... no one knows.
   • Embed this notice
     Bixnood (doonxib@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:53 JST Bixnood

     in reply to
     @judgedread Two concepts tied to agency. You cannot even define the premise of our own existence without finding mystical jargon of inexplicable elements of nature coming into it. Even when trying to keep it to a materialist position, it defies such definitions.
   • Embed this notice
     Judge Dread (judgedread@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:53 JST Judge Dread

     in reply to

     • Bixnood
     @doonxib It is on the face of it improbable that a universe that popped out of nothing with no rampup would just happen to be perfectly suited for life.
   • Embed this notice
     Judge Dread (judgedread@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:54 JST Judge Dread

     in reply to

     • Bixnood
     @doonxib The ordered universe imposes the logic of survival. The billions of experiments (Darwin got this insight from Malthus) differential survival rates navigate the path.
     
     The fine tuning argument is much more interesting, and it was the one that impressed me most in my leaning no creator days.
   • Embed this notice
     Bixnood (doonxib@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:54 JST Bixnood

     in reply to
     @judgedread Mathematically life shouldn't exist in the Universe. It's 99% radioactive vacuum under extremes of cold and heat that don't allow even rocks to exist in a solid form. There is unquestionably a God.
   • Embed this notice
     Judge Dread (judgedread@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:54 JST Judge Dread

     in reply to

     • Bixnood
     @doonxib Alternatively the universe is structured to allow life as the laws of physics enable the formation of solid matter and heavy elements. Life requires stars and planets, so we are either lucky or blessed to have them.
   • Embed this notice
     Judge Dread (judgedread@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:55 JST Judge Dread

     in reply to

     • Bixnood
     @doonxib Environment provides the pruning pressure keeping development on what seems like a track, but is a property of the sequence from A to Z. You don't evolve a lens then worry about the retina. Light sensitivity comes first, then a cup, then a pinhole lens, then a fixed lens, then a focusable lens.
   • Embed this notice
     Bixnood (doonxib@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:55 JST Bixnood

     in reply to
     @judgedread If you're designing it, yes. That implies intellect/intent. A logical progression of something that is supposedly random.
   • Embed this notice
     Felix Krull (felix_krull@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:56 JST Felix Krull

     in reply to

     • Bixnood
     @doonxib @judgedread They're only functional additions because all the 99.9% fatal mutations are weeded out by natural selection, leaving only (or mostly) the beneficial mutation in the gene pool. And looking back 500 million years, with all the harmful mutations long gone, one might therefore be tempted to say "hey, what a fucking coincidence that all these beneficial traits just happen to pop up in the gene pool in the right order and with the right timing to produce the human eye."
     
     The assumption of intent is left out because the theory of evolution by natural selection works fine without that assumption, same way as Newtonian mechanics does away with the necessity of having angels pushing the planets around.
   • Embed this notice
     Bixnood (doonxib@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:56 JST Bixnood

     in reply to

     • Felix Krull
     @Felix_Krull @judgedread What fatal mutation elimination? There are countless examples of harmful genetic remaining alive and well. The entire Nigger species, Retards, Blindness, etc. These things should have been "weeded" out thousands of years ago. Or, never developed in the first place. And, there is no assumption of intent. It's obvious, even a chain of development intrinsically implies it. Otherwise you'd simply have an "eye," and no between parts. Because it's by chance not "development," as that is an intellectual exercise. And, at some point these eye mutations would show up again or something even more radical, like a laser penis.
   • Embed this notice
     Felix Krull (felix_krull@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:56 JST Felix Krull

     in reply to

     • Bixnood
     @doonxib @judgedread Blindness is not inheritable, it's a pathological condition like Downs syndrome - congenital but not inheritable. Most of the detrimental mutations in the genome are on recessive alleles or (as in the case of niggers) were beneficial until the environment changed.
     
     And if you'd watched that 15-minute Dawkins video (in the 5 minutes it took you write a dismissive reply about it), you'd have understood why half an eye is perfectly serviceable in a world of the blind, ensuring that half-eyed creatures would quickly come to dominate a population.
   • Embed this notice
     Bixnood (doonxib@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:56 JST Bixnood

     in reply to

     • Felix Krull
     @Felix_Krull @judgedread I don't listen to unsound logic. There is nothing to be gained by entertaining biased, bad faith arguments. The guy busts out a goddamn cope mountain halfway through as he pulls up half a dozen examples of him being wrong. And, fails to answer the original premise he was trying to answer in the first place. Where did the trait come from. And, how could it ever follow a logical progression without intent. The entire premise nonsense. Equivalent to the idea of a refrigerator building itself from nothing. Or, a new car emerging from a pile of scrap metal.
   • Embed this notice
     Felix Krull (felix_krull@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:57 JST Felix Krull

     in reply to

     • Bixnood
     @doonxib @judgedread "I don't believe in beneficial, random development that clearly isn't random"
     
     What makes you say that mutations aren't random?
     
     "A superior state inherent in reality, or above it."
     
     Now, who's spewing jargon?
   • Embed this notice
     Bixnood (doonxib@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:57 JST Bixnood

     in reply to

     • Felix Krull
     @Felix_Krull @judgedread Because they're functional additions which suit the surroundings of the lifeforms. That isn't random, that is purpose, by anyone's definition. The assumption of that intent being missing because it can't be accounted for is simply that. The direction isn't obvious, so nonsense justification is provided that doesn't fit the otherwise observable facts of an animals becoming more complex based upon intent, not random chance.
   • Embed this notice
     Felix Krull (felix_krull@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:58 JST Felix Krull

     in reply to

     • Bixnood
     @doonxib @judgedread "Evolutionary pressure" is shorthand for "the individuals better suited for survival in their given environment have better chances of passing on their genes."
     
     It is perfectly logical, so there's nothing to "get around," and it explains why evolutionary development is anything but random.
   • Embed this notice
     Bixnood (doonxib@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:58 JST Bixnood

     in reply to

     • Felix Krull
     @Felix_Krull @judgedread That doesn't explain the origin of the traits nor account for their further development. It's jargon hand waving nonsense. Also, it spits in the face of actual breeding conditions where availability and access determine offspring, not adaption. It's not the best looking nor most talented guy that gets the girl. It's the guy that simply gets the girl, period. Somehow he'll develop a laser for a penis a billion years out according to "natural selection" theory.
   • Embed this notice
     Felix Krull (felix_krull@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:58 JST Felix Krull

     in reply to

     • Bixnood
     @doonxib @judgedread It's only meaningless jargon if you don't believe in the premises, namely that inheritable, beneficial mutations sometimes happen.
     
     "It's not the best looking nor most talented guy that gets the girl."
     
     Statistically aggregated over millions of individuals and thousands of generations, yes, the best looking or most talented (or most violent) guy gets the girl.
     
     And vice versa, of course. The hottest girl gets the chad; sexual selection is the main contender for an explanation for why blue eyes spread so rapidly.
   • Embed this notice
     Bixnood (doonxib@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:58 JST Bixnood

     in reply to

     • Felix Krull
     @Felix_Krull @judgedread I don't believe in beneficial, random development that clearly isn't random. No. It's obviously tied to a process that is intrinsic to life itself. Which is very cognizant and self aware, or perhaps even something which cognition is derived from. A superior state inherent in reality, or above it.
   • Embed this notice
     Felix Krull (felix_krull@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:59 JST Felix Krull

     in reply to

     • Bixnood
     @doonxib @judgedread He gives you a clear and logical explanation of how evolutionary pressure could effect such a change. You can call it "hypothetical" and "speculative" since we have no fossilized eyes, but give that lack of material evidence, we have little choice but to pick the most likely explanation. And that explanation is natural selection, which has proven its merit over and over and over again, both in the field and in the laboratory.
     
     You apparently do not accept that such a thing as a light-sensitive cell could be created by mutation, so that precludes you from believing in evolution, but IF you were to assume that such a thing might happen, his explanation is perfectly rational and in accordance with what we observe in nature today: eyes of different designs and in different stages of development.
   • Embed this notice
     Bixnood (doonxib@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:08:59 JST Bixnood

     in reply to

     • Felix Krull
     @Felix_Krull @judgedread "Evolutionary pressure," again, jargon repurposed to avoid the obvious problems. It's illogical. There is no deduction that substantiates evolution without intent. Those that promote random evolutionary development can't get around this and I don't know why they try.
   • Embed this notice
     Felix Krull (felix_krull@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:09:00 JST Felix Krull

     in reply to

     • Bixnood
     @judgedread @doonxib Before Dawkins jumped on the anti-Jesus gravy train, he had a career as one of the world's foremost science communicators.
     
     youtube.com/watch?v=2X1iwLqM2t0
   • Embed this notice
     Bixnood (doonxib@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:09:00 JST Bixnood

     in reply to

     • Felix Krull
     @Felix_Krull @judgedread He doesn't actually justify nor explain the change, he makes leaps in logic, backwards extrapolates to fill in queries that no one asked with speculative standards and conditions and hypothetical limits on a process he can't define. And, also suggests logical continuation where no initial logical formation exists as a foundation for it to be laid upon. "A cup naturally follow the light sensitive spot." By, intellectual progression of design, sure... Not by inherited traits/random process. The light sensitive spot developing from nothing is just as strange as any accompanying mechanical aid to it. As it all implies continued development with intent. Where is the intent coming from? Certainly not from the creature as it doesn't even have an intrinsic awareness of how its body functions. Not from "natural selection" either of breeding pairs, because how does a protrusion come about at all? Or, the spot for that matter?
   • Embed this notice
     Bixnood (doonxib@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:09:01 JST Bixnood

     in reply to
     @judgedread There's two issues I find with evolution. It's guided by an unknown physiological process removed from natural selection. And, there is no "start" to complex forms nears as I can tell. You have pieces of your anatomy using technological principals that you do not inherently know by default at birth. That logically is impossible.
   • Embed this notice
     Judge Dread (judgedread@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:09:01 JST Judge Dread

     in reply to

     • Bixnood
     @doonxib It's not guided. You should read a standard textbook about the evolution of the eye. There are surviving species with examples of every major stage of its development, starting with a light sensitive spot and ending with the paragon of visual perception, stereoscopic lensed color.
     
     Each step increases useful sensory data.
     
     As to not knowing how it works at birth, why would you? Evolution takes place on a timescale beyond a human lifespan, at least at the level where there's something we might respond to. The brain needs to dedicate ROM to language processing and pattern recognition. No room for a scientific encyclopedia.
   • Embed this notice
     Bixnood (doonxib@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:09:01 JST Bixnood

     in reply to
     @judgedread >Why would you?
     Because its part of your anatomy which your body is using as an understood mechanism that you don't know how it works. There's a logical paradox there. As for stages of eye development. Those are isolated organ/cell structures from different animals presumed to have developed towards but not actually substantiated. Implication>Substantiation. It also doesn't explain why the "older" model is still around. Nor where the drive to have "light sensitivity" for the cell structure came from in the first place.
   • Embed this notice
     Judge Dread (judgedread@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:09:01 JST Judge Dread

     in reply to

     • Bixnood
     @doonxib Photons were just radiating providing useful information, if a perception organ was possible and could develop in small enough steps that each one provides an incremental improvement in survival then it's not surprising that it happened.
     
     There is no paradox. You can have an ability and not know how it works. Niggers can play a synthesizer but they can't tell you how it's built.
   • Embed this notice
     WilhelmIII (wilhelmiii@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Wednesday, 08-May-2024 09:09:16 JST WilhelmIII

     in reply to

     • milk
     • Semilexic
     • AlyoCat
     Christians will differ over the impact of evolution.
     
     What they cannot sign on to is an "evolution" that is entirely random and "just happened."
     
     Even Darwin in "The Descent of Man" said the opposite.
     
     Whether God created each individual lifeform Himself, or whether He created the rules by which life comes forth ( Darwin's stance, as recorded in his letters to Charles Babbage), Christians will have some disagreement.
     
     But the idea that God had no hand in creation at all is not Christian.
     
     It's not Darwinian either, actually. But certain people want to silence the Christians by saying it is.
     BowserNoodle ☦️ likes this.