Originally posted by NemesioWhat KJ means is - Man is created to His image, therefore the eye is also created to His image. The means that he Creator has also a blind spot in His eye...
It's not so much that it is imperfect, KellyJay. It's that it is avoidably more flawed. It's obvious
that there's no problem whatsoever in designing a camera eye without a blind spot, so why design
one with a blind spot?
How does designing something that is avoidably more flawed not reflect on the designer?
Nemesio
Like I believed in Him, what was I thinking...?
Originally posted by NemesioAn avoidable flaw? I gave you one reason why it could be there, and
It's not so much that it is imperfect, KellyJay. It's that it is avoidably more flawed. It's obvious
that there's no problem whatsoever in designing a camera eye without a blind spot, so why design
one with a blind spot?
How does designing something that is avoidably more flawed not reflect on the designer?
Nemesio
that is because of decay of systems over time, the other point that
neither I or you know the answer too, what would happen if it were
not there would it create greater problems than a blind spot?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy should anyone consider that 'reason?'
An avoidable flaw? I gave you one reason why it could be there, and
that is because of decay of systems over time, the other point that
neither I or you know the answer too, what would happen if it were
not there would it create greater problems than a blind spot?
Nemesio
Originally posted by sonhouseWhat we believe to be true is that creatures lived and found
Tell us your interpretations. What is your take on these fossils?
themselves in the right place, under the proper conditions to turn
into fossils over time. Had they not they would have just turned to
dust. Beyond that, we start moving into assumptions and those
assumptions are wide and varied.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd your assumption as to the age is that pathetic 10,000 years. You really have your head buried in the sand of the 2000 year old scam.
What we believe to be true is that creatures lived and found
themselves in the right place, under the proper conditions to turn
into fossils over time. Had they not they would have just turned to
dust. Beyond that, we start moving into assumptions and those
assumptions are wide and varied.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayBut I have pointed out that the idea that fossils came from creatures is just as much assumption as the ideas required to date them. Yet you take one of those ideas as 'fact' and the other as 'faith'.
What we believe to be true is that creatures lived and found
themselves in the right place, under the proper conditions to turn
into fossils over time. Had they not they would have just turned to
dust. Beyond that, we start moving into assumptions and those
assumptions are wide and varied.
Kelly
I think that we have more reasons to trust the dating method than we do to trust the conclusion that the fossils originated as creatures.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat would be your alternate representation of fossils if not creatures?
But I have pointed out that the idea that fossils came from creatures is just as much assumption as the ideas required to date them. Yet you take one of those ideas as 'fact' and the other as 'faith'.
I think that we have more reasons to trust the dating method than we do to trust the conclusion that the fossils originated as creatures.
Are you conjecturizing about some natural process other than lifeforms that would give fossils their shape? What natural process would you suggest that can do that and to show the changes over time that we clearly see. Also, what about fossilized footprints, recently found scratches found matching the size of the talons on certain dinosaurs?