Originally posted by PBE6He will deny this is because of his religious beliefs because he has denied that at least twice before.
Possibly, but I'd like to hear what he has to say.
But I had pointed out to him that, if it is not because of his religious beliefs then it is an amazing coincidence that all the things he disbelieves in science are selectively those things that conflict with his religious beliefs but he has no problem in believing those parts of science that do NOT conflict with his religious beliefs such as, for example, the Earth is not flat or water is denser than air etc.
Originally posted by KellyJay
I told you a couple of things I guess all went over your head.
I want you to read very, very carefully my responses.
1. I don't know if the blind spot is a bad thing since I don't know what
would occur if we didn't have it.
If you don't know what would happen -- if you give a justifiable reason that
something harm would come about because of the absence blind spots --
then why wouldn't you conclude that lacking them isn't a benefit?
That is, we know not being able to see something is a disadvantage, and
you can't think of a justifiable reasons for its causing harm. So what blocks
you from thinking it would be better?
2. I believe we were given better bodies than we have now by design,
those bodies have started to break down evolving into less than what
we were. This means errors could have evolved into our design over
time. Which means that the blind spot may not have been there at
the time of our orgin. Looking at the age of most people at our
creation should show you that we were better designed than we are
now.
Again you have given 'what.' Why do you think we had different eyes at
Creation? Or, more directly: What would cause the eye to shift the position
of the optic nerve to a different part of the retina?
3. Your comparing our eyes to a creature that lives in water is not
wise since we live out of the water and the Octopus lives in it. Even if
we started with equally good eyes over time due to the conditions we
are being put in could cause the degrading of our systems to break
down differently.
You've repeated the same thing you've already said. Why do you think that
having an octopus eye would degrade faster than our eye?
Do you see how you've not actually answered 'why' to a single question after
being asked repeatedly?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioVery carefully, read this!
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]I told you a couple of things I guess all went over your head.
I want you to read very, very carefully my responses.
1. I don't know if the blind spot is a bad thing since I don't know what
would occur if we didn't have it.
If you don't know what would happen -- if you give a justifiable re ...[text shortened]... ally answered 'why' to a single question after
being asked repeatedly?
Nemesio[/b]
I do not know if that blind spot is a good or bad thing, simply because
I have a lack of knowledge I am not willing to assume one over the
other, meaning is it a good thing or a bad. Like I said, not knowing
means I do not know! You may jump to the conclusion that having
that blind spot is bad, feel free. Having worked around design, from
time to time things are setup a specific way, and the meaning behind
them isn't always clear. If you want to call it a weakness therefore a
bad thing, go ahead it is a sound piece of reasoning, I would not fault
you for your opinion.
You really want me to answer you why the eye would recieve this shift?
Really, you believe in blind, directionless, guideless, without a care
process of change in evolution, can with time mold all the variety we
see today, and you cannot accept the thought an eye could become
worse over time, given time? Please, if you want to go down this road
ask me again I"ll give you reasons why. I think it laughable that you
think that is a hard thing to believe when you compare it to what you
assume is correct.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIf we are devolving, why are we not back at Neandertal levels then?
Very carefully, read this!
I do not know if that blind spot is a good or bad thing, simply because
I have a lack of knowledge I am not willing to assume one over the
other, meaning is it a good thing or a bad. Like I said, not knowing
means I do not know! You may jump to the conclusion that having
that blind spot is bad, feel free. Having worked arou ...[text shortened]... ink that is a hard thing to believe when you compare it to what you
assume is correct.
Kelly
I can't see why you would say you don't know if having a blind spot is bad or not. If you get zapped with a 10 milliwatt laser, it creates blind spots, and I can gaurunteeee that is a bad thing, so what's with the ambivalence here? If you are in a war with bows and arrows and an arrow comes at you into your blind spot, you would never even TRY to get out of the way, even if you could, because it is in your blind spot, your brain only paves over the blind spot with what is around it, you look at a blue sky, the brain paves in blue on the blind spot so you don't notice it as much but if something came at you aimed right at the blind spot and was small like an arrow you would not duck because you would not know it was coming at all. So you don't think maybe that would be a bad thing?
Originally posted by sonhouseIf are complaining that a blind spot that small can be thought of as
If we are devolving, why are we not back at Neandertal levels then?
I can't see why you would say you don't know if having a blind spot is bad or not. If you get zapped with a 10 milliwatt laser, it creates blind spots, and I can gaurunteeee that is a bad thing, so what's with the ambivalence here? If you are in a war with bows and arrows and an arrow com ...[text shortened]... ou would not know it was coming at all. So you don't think maybe that would be a bad thing?
a flaw, why not complain you don't have eyes in the back of your
head?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJay
Very carefully, read this!
Again, you did not answer a single question I asked. You responed to
an entirely different set of questions that don't address the 'why' in your
answers.
I do not know if that blind spot is a good or bad thing, simply because
I have a lack of knowledge I am not willing to assume one over the
other, meaning is it a good thing or a bad. Like I said, not knowing
means I do not know!
Kelly, you're just being silly now. If the blind spot took up 80% of our
vision, would it be a bad thing? If it took up 50% would it be bad? If
it took up 30% would it be bad? If it took up 10% would it be bad?
It takes up about 2%. If it took up 1%, would it be better? If it took up
.5% would it be better?
If you can't answer these questions -- if you still 'just don't know' then
you must not think that sight is really all that important.
You really want me to answer you why the eye would recieve this shift?
Really, you believe in blind, directionless, guideless, without a care
process of change in evolution, can with time mold all the variety we
see today, and you cannot accept the thought an eye could become
worse over time, given time?
I have no intrinsic problem with the idea that eyes get worse all the
time. There has to be a 'why' in order to compel me to believe it though.
For example, the fish in a cave model where eyes serve no particular
advantage, I can see how they get worse and worse. I can see the 'why.'
Where is your 'why?' You seem to want to claim that our eyes suddenly
grew a blind spot but offer no evidence or explanation for why that would
happen, or how.
Please, if you want to go down this road
ask me again I"ll give you reasons why. I think it laughable that you
think that is a hard thing to believe when you compare it to what you
assume is correct.
Let's go down the road again and let's hear your reasons 'why.'
Whereas you might find my position laughable, at least I can provide
answers to the questions you ask me. I'd appreicate it if you showed me
the same courtesy.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonOkay, it would look bad so a blind spot very small in your sight is worth
Because he (and I) don’t want eyeballs at the back of our heads because that would just look hideous.
complaining about because an arrow may kill you, but not seeing what
is coming up from behind is okay because that would look funny. 🙂
Kelly
Originally posted by Nemesio"It takes up about 2%. If it took up 1%, would it be better? If it took up
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]Very carefully, read this!
Again, you did not answer a single question I asked. You responed to
an entirely different set of questions that don't address the 'why' in your
answers.
I do not know if that blind spot is a good or bad thing, simply because
I have a lack of knowledge I am not willing to as u ask me. I'd appreicate it if you showed me
the same courtesy.
Nemesio
.5% would it be better?
[/b]If you can't answer these questions -- if you still 'just don't know' then
you must not think that sight is really all that important. "
Yes, a blind spot that takes up .5% is better than one that takes up
2%. A blind spot could stop your vision from being completely burned
up too, or it could stop something else nasty from happening and only
having a loss of 2% stops all of that from occuring would make that
2% acceptable. As I have told you, it depends on if there is a reason
for it being there or not, I don't know enough about it to say it has to
be bad.
Kelly
Originally posted by Nemesio"I have no intrinsic problem with the idea that eyes get worse all the
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]Very carefully, read this!
Again, you did not answer a single question I asked. You responed to
an entirely different set of questions that don't address the 'why' in your
answers.
I do not know if that blind spot is a good or bad thing, simply because
I have a lack of knowledge I am not willing to as u ask me. I'd appreicate it if you showed me
the same courtesy.
Nemesio
time. There has to be a 'why' in order to compel me to believe it though.
For example, the fish in a cave model where eyes serve no particular
advantage, I can see how they get worse and worse. I can see the 'why.' "
[/b]Well, can you point to things that improve over time that isn't doing
it due to some program playing out? If you sit something outside does
it wear down, rust? If a dead body is laying outside does it rot and
decay? If you don't do maintaince on your car over time will it not
break down? If things left outside, bodies, cars get worse over time,
why would you feel that life improves over time instead of gets worse?
Kelly
Originally posted by Nemesio"Let's go down the road again and let's hear your reasons 'why.' "
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]Very carefully, read this!
Again, you did not answer a single question I asked. You responed to
an entirely different set of questions that don't address the 'why' in your
answers.
I do not know if that blind spot is a good or bad thing, simply because
I have a lack of knowledge I am not willing to as u ask me. I'd appreicate it if you showed me
the same courtesy.
Nemesio
Courtesy would be a nice change of pace from you instead of cheap
shots.
[/b]You cannot have a complex program running on any computer system
that gets random keystrokes added in it, and have it improve over
time. Lets start there.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou said that life can never arise from non-life. Humans at a basic level are made of a large number of atoms of various elements, mostly: oxygen (61% by weight), carbon (23% ), hyrdorgen (10% ) and nitrogen (3% ), with a few other trace elements. Atoms are not alive, but humans are. What is the secret ingredient that's missing?
Imbued with life? What do you mean by that, not trying to be funny
or trick you, I honestly don't know what your asking.
Kelly