1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioEvidence for what I'm not trying to prove anything you are! I said
Which question does this answer? The 'Why' question?
Are you saying that terrestrial environments benefit from having blind spots while aquatic
environments benefit from not having them?
Or is this an answer to the 'How' question?
Are you saying that because we're terrestrial, our nerve fibers moved from behind the retina
to in front of it, crea ...[text shortened]... ll, anything that constitutes evidence, even
if it's controversially accepted?
Nemesio
that they are in different environments and each set of eyes serves
the one that has them well. Beyond that you are asking me why God
did something that does not suit your personal personal taste, you'd
prefer to have one set of eyes over the ones you have because of a
spot you think makes your eyes flawed and worthless than the ones
you want. Why not ask for gills, scales, eight arms, or fins too, to
make your transition into the aquatic world a little easier?
Kelly
Originally posted by PBE6I look at life and think it there are more than a few great feats
I can't understand your sentence fragments, stop smashing the keyboard with your fist.
The argument that Nemesio is making is that if an Intelligent Designer designed everything, the Designer would design things intelligently. This stems from the Christian claim that God is everywhere (omnipresent), all knowing (omniscient) and all loving (omnibenevolent). ...[text shortened]... l for determining the veracity of their own claim from discussion in a fit of obstinacy.
of design around us, so much so you do not even notice them.
Can you design all the variety of life you see today that lives
in the entire multitude of environments this planet has to offer?
You can design various living systems to repair themselves,
reproduce, talk to one another? You can design living systems
that can fly, swim, dig, craw, slither, see, hear, taste, reason,
plant themselves into the earth and still reproduce? If you think
God isn’t a good designer you are truly out to lunch.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay
Evidence for what I'm not trying to prove anything you are!
You've made the claim that ID takes place, and that this is just as legitimate a position as
people who believe in evolution. I say that this claim requires support. I cite, as my proof of
the contrary this issue surrounding the eyes of humans and octopodes.
I posit that it is less intelligent to design an eye with blind spots if one can design it without
blind spots. Taking as given that there is one, the designer is clearly capable of both tasks. So,
there remains an explanation for why humans have blind spots.
One explanation is that they are better for humans than eyes without blind spots. Is this your
contention?
Another that you posited was that we didn't have blind spots when we were first designed but
we developed them through entropy (or something like that). But that doesn't hold any water,
because our eyes are no less complicated than those of an octopus. It's just physiologically
different.
If there are other explanations for why a designer would give humans eyes with blind spots, I'd
love to hear them.
I said that they are in different environments and each set of eyes serves
the one that has them well.
Here are two important questions, KellyJay:
Are you saying that blind spots serve humans well? Why do you believe that if humans
had an eye like an octopus', we would be served less well?
I beg of you to answer them.
Beyond that you are asking me why God
did something that does not suit your personal personal taste, you'd
prefer to have one set of eyes over the ones you have because of a
spot you think makes your eyes flawed and worthless than the ones
you want.
I think blind spots make them less suited or more flawed than ones without blind
spots. Do you disagree?
Why not ask for gills, scales, eight arms, or fins too, to
make your transition into the aquatic world a little easier?
I'm not trying to transition into an aquatic world, KellyJay. That's a little bit of strawman you've
sneaked in there.
Nemesio
Originally posted by KellyJaySo it has degenerated to mere preaching.
I look at life and think it there are more than a few great feats
of design around us, so much so you do not even notice them.
Can you design all the variety of life you see today that lives
in the entire multitude of environments this planet has to offer?
You can design various living systems to repair themselves,
reproduce, talk to one another? You c ...[text shortened]... and still reproduce? If you think
God isn’t a good designer you are truly out to lunch.
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseOh please, I'm suppose to sit back when all someone brings to the
So it has degenerated to mere preaching.
table is, I don't like the design of the eye so God isn't a good
designer, and not point out what he is claiming is really great design
work?
Please, I get preached to by you and others here all the time on how
I'm supose to view things and think about them. You really need to
lighten up.
Kelly
Originally posted by NemesioYou have no proof, you only have an opinion one is better than the
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]Evidence for what I'm not trying to prove anything you are!
You've made the claim that ID takes place, and that this is just as legitimate a position as
people who believe in evolution. I say that this claim requires support. I cite, as my proof of
the contrary this issue surrounding the eyes of humans and ...[text shortened]... rld, KellyJay. That's a little bit of strawman you've
sneaked in there.
Nemesio[/b]
other! As I have pointed out to you, you are speaking about apples
and oranges, the two life forms in question live in comletely different
worlds. The only straw man here is your complaint.
Kelly
Originally posted by Nemesio"Another that you posited was that we didn't have blind spots when we were first designed but
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]Evidence for what I'm not trying to prove anything you are!
You've made the claim that ID takes place, and that this is just as legitimate a position as
people who believe in evolution. I say that this claim requires support. I cite, as my proof of
the contrary this issue surrounding the eyes of humans and ...[text shortened]... rld, KellyJay. That's a little bit of strawman you've
sneaked in there.
Nemesio[/b]
we developed them through entropy (or something like that). But that doesn't hold any water,
because our eyes are no less complicated than those of an octopus. It's just physiologically
different."
Pull you head out of the ground! The octopus and human eyes are
in different enviroments, the conditions they operate are completely
different. You are crying about apples and oranges again, if we
lived in the water you may of had a point, but we don't. You may
was well complain we have arms and hands and not wings so we
cannot fly, it is basically the same thing.
Kelly
Originally posted by Nemesio"I think blind spots make them less suited or more flawed than ones without blind spots. Do you disagree? "
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]Evidence for what I'm not trying to prove anything you are!
You've made the claim that ID takes place, and that this is just as legitimate a position as
people who believe in evolution. I say that this claim requires support. I cite, as my proof of
the contrary this issue surrounding the eyes of humans and ...[text shortened]... rld, KellyJay. That's a little bit of strawman you've
sneaked in there.
Nemesio[/b]
I think we get along just fine with the way they are, much better than
we would if we didn't have them.
Kelly
Originally posted by Nemesio"I'm not trying to transition into an aquatic world, KellyJay. That's a little bit of strawman you've sneaked in there. "
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]Evidence for what I'm not trying to prove anything you are!
You've made the claim that ID takes place, and that this is just as legitimate a position as
people who believe in evolution. I say that this claim requires support. I cite, as my proof of
the contrary this issue surrounding the eyes of humans and ...[text shortened]... rld, KellyJay. That's a little bit of strawman you've
sneaked in there.
Nemesio[/b]
Not hardly, I'm pointing out to you that the eyes you seem to want
are that of an aquatic creature, so why stop with it's eyes?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThe thing he is talking about is the fact that it is an inferior design, on land or in the sea or in the air, to put the blood vessels in front of the retina. Are you so blind you cannot see that as a disadvantage?
"Another that you posited was that we didn't have blind spots when we were first designed but
we developed them through entropy (or something like that). But that doesn't hold any water,
because our eyes are no less complicated than those of an octopus. It's just physiologically
different."
Pull you head out of the ground! The octopus and human eyes ...[text shortened]... ave arms and hands and not wings so we
cannot fly, it is basically the same thing.
Kelly
When I look through a microscope, which I have to do a lot as a lab rat here in the photonics field, half the time, the blood vessels keep me from seeing the object I am looking at. If I had octopus eyes, that would never be a problem. That is a here and now problem that bugs anyone who has to use a microscope. It's not like it would be a big deal for your designer to have fixed that for the first human, but it looks like that designer screwed up. We could have been given more rods and cones and wider wavelength range which would have helped early man find food better but I guess your designer just was pissed off the day it did humans.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThe fact that we currently cannot deign and make living things is irrelevant to
I look at life and think it there are more than a few great feats
of design around us, so much so you do not even notice them.
Can you design all the variety of life you see today that lives
in the entire multitude of environments this planet has to offer?
You can design various living systems to repair themselves,
reproduce, talk to one another? You c ...[text shortened]... and still reproduce? If you think
God isn’t a good designer you are truly out to lunch.
Kelly
the issue because, the fact remains, if we COULD deign and make living things, we would at
Least do so intelligently and we certainly wouldn’t put in obvious and stupid design flaws in things.
Your claim is that a “god” designed living things and this “god” has a huge amount of
intelligence such that he doesn’t make mistakes and does everything “intelligently“ -yes?
-if so, then the logical problem with that which we are all trying to make you understand is
that IF there is such a “god” and IF he CAN and DID design and make living things, why on earth
would he make designs with obvious and stupid design flaws? that wouldn’t be logically consistent
with the hypotheses that he does everything “intelligently” and makes no mistakes -yes?
Originally posted by KellyJaySo, you won't concede that an eye without blind spots is better than an eye with blind spots?
You have no proof, you only have an opinion one is better than the
other! As I have pointed out to you, you are speaking about apples
and oranges, the two life forms in question live in comletely different
worlds. The only straw man here is your complaint.
Kelly
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThey operate in different environments, but for all intents and purposes, they are physiologically
The octopus and human eyes are
in different enviroments, the conditions they operate are completely
different.
the same. They have an iris, pupil, lens, retina and transmit that information via an optic nerve.
One has blind spots, one doesn't, because of the placement of the nerve fibers which collect
information from the retina before bundling to the optic nerve.
I see no physiological reason why our eye couldn't have been 'designed' that way. Do you see
one?
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…I think we get along just fine with the way they are, much BETTER than
"I think blind spots make them less suited or more flawed than ones without blind spots. Do you disagree? "
I think we get along just fine with the way they are, much better than
we would if we didn't have them.
Kelly
we would if we didn't have them. .…. (my emphasis)
How could having a blind spot be much “BETTER” than not having a blind spot?
-surely it is the other way around -yes?
Explain to us how it is that we are much better off having blind spots in our eyes
-exactly what is the advantage in having blind stops?
Originally posted by KellyJayYou didn't answer my question, KellyJay.
"I think blind spots make them less suited or more flawed than ones without blind spots. Do you disagree? "
I think we get along just fine with the way they are, much better than
we would if we didn't have them.
Kelly
"I think blind spots make them less suited or more flawed than ones without blind spots. Do you disagree? "
It's really very simple.
1) You agree: blind spots make eyes less suitable than eyes without them;
2) You disagree: blind spots make eyes more suitable than eyes without them; or
3) You think that blind spots don't affect vision.
We're not talking about not having eyes, or whether we get along okay the way we are. We're
talking about better and worse.
Nemesio