1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYea, everything I see around me if left alone wears down, gets old,
Not good enough. Your claim was that you personally observed that things tend to wear down more than the reverse. Are you now claiming that the average entropy of your surroundings is increasing noticeably over time? If so, I think you are wrong. You probably don't understand the concepts involved. I can guarantee that the entropy of your immediate surrou he last 1000 years, and if anything it is decreasing due to a phenomena called global warming.
can stop functioning, fade, die off, break, and the list goes on. You
have something that if it isn't acted upon does not wear down, and so
on that doesn't require preventive maintaince of sorts?
Kelly
Originally posted by EladarSo you concede that the 'designer' in its so-called 'intelligence' designed humans with an inferior
It's the opinion that you hold when it comes to ID. In other words, you don't think that your crap stinks. A pretty common point of view around here.
eye to an octopus?
Nemesio
Originally posted by KellyJayAre you not paying attention?
Yea, everything I see around me if left alone wears down, gets old,
can stop functioning, fade, die off, break, and the list goes on. You
have something that if it isn't acted upon does not wear down, and so
on that doesn't require preventive maintaince of sorts?
Kelly
The octopus' eye isn't more complicated than the human eye. They both have a nerve bundle,
they both have a retina, they both have nerve fibers.
Entropy doesn't drive nerve fibers from behind the retina to in front of it. Something had to drive
it.
So, now that that's settled, can you answer my question?
1) What explanation can you offer for why the eye underwent a physiological
change in which the retina moves behind the nerve fibers rather than remaining
in front of it and thus creating a blind spot?
2) What evidence can you offer for holding this position?
If you recant that the eye might have undergone a physiological change, then how do you explain
that the human eye was 'designed' with a blind spot when obviously the 'designer' could design
it without one?
Nemesio
Originally posted by EladarOf course you don't think it matters, because for it to matter would mean you would have to question your faith, since you cannot question your faith, you have to put the question as to why we have inferior eyes even to an octopus in fundamental ways and yet supposed to be the pinnacle of creation. This sets up a dichotomy that you cannot deal with and at the same time keep your faith. Such is the stress of religion.
No I don't because I have not studied the eye of an octopus. In any case, I don't believe it even matters.u
Originally posted by EladarYou said 'I don't think it really matters'.
[b]Of course you don't think it matters, because for it to matter would mean you would have to question your faith
Total BS. If you'd bother to read my earlier reponses to this guy you'd see why.[/b]
So tell me why a god would call us the pinnacle of creation and give us inferior eyes? Such a god could have given us the eyes of an eagle or octopus, both of which are far superior to human eyes. For one thing, for the retina to be behind the blood vessels means that a larger portion of the brain has to be devoted to processing and rejecting the blurring effect of stuff in front of the rods and cones. I don't suppose that means much to you but the brain takes the highest amount of energy per pound than any other organ of the body and every cell not needed by the brain means that much more energy available to the rest of the body. Another case of poor design. Of course it is easily explained by evolution. Not so easily poo-pooed by the religious.
Originally posted by EladarAllow me to educate you, since you seem disinclined to research it yourself.
No I don't because I have not studied the eye of an octopus. In any case, I don't believe it even matters.
In the human eye, the nerve fibers which conduct the signals received by
the retina sits in front of the retina, which, at the point where it bundles
and forms the optic nerve it creates a blind spot (because the fiber bundle
is too thick to for light to pass through it to get to the retina). In the
cephalopod eye, the fibers are behind the retina. Consequently, the bundle
of fibers sits behind the retina, not obscuring light to get to it, and accordingly
there is no blind spot.
Now, if you admit of an intelligent designer, this should raise your eyebrow.
Why would an intelligent designer give an inferior eye to any creature?
Obviously, the designer was capable of creating a superior eye -- this
designer gave it to octopodes, for example.
So the question, given that humans represent the culmination of 'creation,'
why would the designer give him an inferior eye?
Nemesio
Originally posted by EladarI'm pretty sure that being insulting is not the sort of testimony that the
I have the feeling you have a high IQ, but you really aren't too bright.
designer commands.
In any event, sticking your head in the sand and pretending that the
'intelligence' of a designer who gives a flawed eye to some creatures isn't
called into question isn't going to convince anyone of your great conviction
in your belief.
Nemesio
I'm pretty sure that being insulting is not the sort of testimony that the
designer commands.
You call it being insulting, I see it as calling a spade a spade. You need to get over yourself and try to understand what the other person is saying.
I've explained my position and what I believe already. When you keep telling me what I should believe I'm going to tell you to take a flying leap. In this case in the form of making the observation that although you have a high IQ you aren't too bright.
Originally posted by EladarSo, are you acknowledging the inferior eye or ignoring it?
You call it being insulting, I see it as calling a spade a spade. You need to get over yourself and try to understand what the other person is saying.
I've explained my position and what I believe already. When you keep telling me what I should believe I'm going to tell you to take a flying leap. In this case in the form of making the observation that although you have a high IQ you aren't too bright.
Nemesio
Originally posted by EladarWell, you're right it doesn't matter if there is no intelligent designer who
I'm doing neither. I'm saying that it doesn't matter. Humans can have inferior eyes and it means nothing. I believe you are holding onto faulty assumptions.
guided the direction of Creation.
I'm glad we agree.
However, for those who do believe in an intelligent designer, it's a little bit
more of a pickle, since it wouldn't be intelligent to give an inferior eye to a
creation.
Nemesio
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayLets suppose a world in which there are lots of useful electromagnetic waves bouncing around ... and there are some beings (us) living in that world who are very interested in the information contained in thaose waves.
As I understand the process of evolution there are changes through
mutations that get filtered by natural selection, the good changes and
bad ones will continue down the path they lead to until they run their
course whatever that may be. The only thing that is used to determine
what we call good or bad is how the progress of life gets affected by
those f this please speak up now and I'll
address your concerns if possible in my next post.
Kelly
Then either:
1/we will use those bouncing waves as sources of information .... or
2/some infintely powerful being who is evil will stop us from using that information ...
The fact that we have the ability to use these waves is proof that either
1/god exists and stopped the evil devil from stopping us from using the waves ... or
2/the devil does not exist (and perhaps also, god does not exist).