Originally posted by KellyJay…if true there should be a diminishing
The eye more than likely was from the time of creation better than
it is now, as all life was. The blind spot, I do not know when it first
occurred on the time line, it could have there from the beginning. I
do not know; however, if true there should be a diminishing
soundness in our visual systems that will more than likely continue
if I’m correct and ...[text shortened]... eally a path of entropy, verse
continually getting life to be more functionally complex.
Kelly
soundness in our visual systems that will more than likely continue
.. ..…
There is no evidence nor rational premise to believe that the soundness of our visual systems is diminishing with time.
…if I’m correct and evolution is really a path of entropy, verse
continually getting life to be more functionally complex.
....…
Firstly, although the evidence points to a general trend that most living things have been getting more complex with time, there is nothing in the theory of evolution that says that a “simpler” life form can evolve from a more “complex” life form (providing that change gives a survival advantage of course). An example of this is the evolution of a snake from a lizard with legs -the loss of the legs could be seen as a “simplification”.
Secondly, what on earth is the premise for your belief that there is some kind of mysterious “path of entropy” that evolution follows?
-exactly what is this “entropy” in this context and exactly what is supposed to cause it?
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are not answering the question I'm asking. You are answering a different question. Your
The eye more than likely was from the time of creation better than
it is now, as all life was. The blind spot, I do not know when it first
occurred on the time line, it could have there from the beginning. I
do not know; however, if true there should be a diminishing
soundness in our visual systems that will more than likely continue
if I’m correct and ...[text shortened]... eally a path of entropy, verse
continually getting life to be more functionally complex.
Kelly
continued doing so is very frustrating.
Even though I'm not asking it, the entropy question is a moot one. Both eyes are equally complex.
They have the same essential parts, just stacked in a different order.
So, I'll ask my question again:
Originally posted by Nemesio
What is the evidence for your skepticism that leads you to believe that it is credible to think
that a human eye without blind spots would deteriorate more rapidly than the eye we have?
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by Nemesio[/i]You are asking me a question I don't believe the premise to, eyes
You are not answering the question I'm asking. You are answering a different question. Your
continued doing so is very frustrating.
Even though I'm not asking it, the entropy question is a moot one. Both eyes are equally complex.
They have the same essential parts, just stacked in a different order.
So, I'll ask my question again:
[i]Originally ...[text shortened]... n eye without blind spots would deteriorate more rapidly than the eye we have?
Nemesio[/b]
no matter how they were created would over time would get worse
the rates would be a meaningless guess on which would deteriorate
faster.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayEr. You were the one who proposed it on page 28! When asked why an
[/i]You are asking me a question I don't believe the premise to, eyes
no matter how they were created would over time would get worse
the rates would be a meaningless guess on which would deteriorate
faster.
Kelly
intelligent designer would create an eye with a demonstrably avoidable
flaw (blind spot) given that such a creator can create an eye differently,
you responded:
Originally posted by KellyJay
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?
Here are your two proposed reasons.
1) Entropy. This is not a credible since both eyes are equally complicated.
There is no reason to believe that something would 'decay' into something
equally complex.
2) What reason do you have for believing that an eye with a blind spot
would decay faster than one without it?
What you're suggesting is that we should have faith in things that make
no sense; things decaying into equally complex things, or finding connections
in decay that we have no reasons to suspect.
So, can you give any reason why a scientist ought to admit of these
possibilities?
Nemesio
1 edit
Originally posted by Nemesio[/b]You are still reading into my posts things that are not there.
Er. You were the one who proposed it on page 28! When asked why an
intelligent designer would create an eye with a demonstrably avoidable
flaw (blind spot) given that such a creator can create an eye differently,
you responded:
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]An avoidable flaw? I gave you one reason why it could be there, and
that is becaus o, can you give any reason why a scientist ought to admit of these
possibilities?
Nemesio
They wouldn't decay into something equally complex, they would decay
into something with flaws, the longer the decay the greater the flaws.
The blind spot could simply be a manifestation of decay or a break
down of the system over time from a period where there was not
a blind spot, as I said to you when we were created we were better than
we are now. The reason a scientist ought to look into this as a possible
reason is because things do decay all around us, they break down all
around us, only a belief over time things improve and get more
functionally complex. Between the ears of man that is true, or you
could write the code to make it happen; however, I'd point out that
code that requires writing, requires ID.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay…The reason a scientist ought to look into this as a possible
You are still reading into my posts things that are not there.
They wouldn't decay into something equally complex, they would decay
into something with flaws, the longer the decay the greater the flaws.
The blind spot could simply be a manifestation of decay or a break
down of the system over time from a period where there was not
a blind spot, a ...[text shortened]... o make it happen; however, I'd point out that
code that requires writing, requires ID.
Kelly[/b]
reason is because things do decay all around us,...…
Yes - “things” do decay all around us -but those “things” are dead things without the capacity to self-heal nor adapt so your analogy doesn’t work. -there is nothing there for a scientist to “look into”.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonLet me elaborate by putting it this way:
[b]…The reason a scientist ought to look into this as a possible
reason is because things do decay all around us,...…
Yes - “things” do decay all around us -but those “things” are dead things without the capacity to self-heal nor adapt so your analogy doesn’t work. -there is nothing there for a scientist to “look into”.[/b]
When you get a scratch on your hand it is not like a stretch on a rock - it heals. If a bad mutation enters a population it is not like a design flaw in a car that is spotted after mass-production too late to change it -natural selection continually selects out bad mutations as they occur.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYep, and you think that healing is no big deal, it just happens, life
Let me elaborate by putting it this way:
When you get a scratch on your hand it is not like a stretch on a rock - it heals. If a bad mutation enters a population it is not like a design flaw in a car that is spotted after mass-production too late to change it -natural selection continually selects out bad mutations as they occur.
was just doing its thing without that ability and an aimless, goalless,
process without intent programmed healing abilities into life without
any desire to see it happen one way or another. Our lives end even
with all the proper chemicals in place, we still die, you need to look
at the big picture here.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSo living things, live forever in your world?
[b]…The reason a scientist ought to look into this as a possible
reason is because things do decay all around us,...…
Yes - “things” do decay all around us -but those “things” are dead things without the capacity to self-heal nor adapt so your analogy doesn’t work. -there is nothing there for a scientist to “look into”.[/b]
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay
They wouldn't decay into something equally complex, they would decay
into something with flaws, the longer the decay the greater the flaws.
The blind spot could simply be a manifestation of decay or a break
down of the system over time from a period where there was not
a blind spot, as I said to you when we were created we were better than
we are now.
But, in this case, there hasn't been decay by any definition. There are
the same number of fibers, they are just located in a different spot (in
front of the retina, not behind it).
And, what reason would we have to believe that this took place in any
event? In order to believe something, we have to have reasons. What
reason would anyone have to accept your theory, as inexplicable as it
is?
Nemesio
Originally posted by KellyJay…Yep, and you think that healing is no big deal, it just happens, ...…
Yep, and you think that healing is no big deal, it just happens, life
was just doing its thing without that ability and an aimless, goalless,
process without intent programmed healing abilities into life without
any desire to see it happen one way or another. Our lives end even
with all the proper chemicals in place, we still die, you need to look
at the big picture here.
Kelly
don’t know what you mean.
…life was just doing its thing without that ability and an aimless, goalless,
process without intent programmed healing abilities into life without
any desire to see it happen one way or another. .….
Yes.
…Our lives end even
with all the proper chemicals in place, we still die, . ..…
So?
2 edits
Originally posted by Nemesio[/b]I was thinking about this conversation, decay was used to describe
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]They wouldn't decay into something equally complex, they would decay
into something with flaws, the longer the decay the greater the flaws.
The blind spot could simply be a manifestation of decay or a break
down of the system over time from a period where there was not
a blind spot, as I said to you when we were c . What
reason would anyone have to accept your theory, as inexplicable as it
is?
Nemesio
parts of the universe around us; however, it is poorly used to describe
the break down of systems, degrading is better word to describe a
system breaking down. I'll respond later to any point you want to
alter since I'm changing up words on you.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonBig leaps of faith you have placed in a aimless process.
[b]…Yep, and you think that healing is no big deal, it just happens, ...…
don’t know what you mean.
…life was just doing its thing without that ability and an aimless, goalless,
process without intent programmed healing abilities into life without
any desire to see it happen one way or another. .….
Yes.
…Our lives end even
with all the proper chemicals in place, we still die, . ..…
So?[/b]
Kelly