A new religion?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….Life is so miraculous and near perfect that ….
..…

“near perfect”? I don’t know exactly how “near” it has to be to be “near perfect” but I would say that the fact that such flaws exist in life such as the blood vessels for the human retina being in front of the retina where it partly blocks incoming light etc means you would surely not c ...[text shortened]... new religion is a non-starter because this basic assumption can be apparently shown to be wrong.[/b]

How do you know that wasn't done intentionally because without some light blocked the sun would blind you?

Originally posted by znsho
I want to create a new religion based on the following:

1) Life is so miraculous and near perfect that it must have been created (invented and made).

2) Thus, there is indeed a God (Creator) or, indeed, Gods (Creators).

3) BUT!!!! The God /Gods have NEVER, after creation, communicated with humans or any other living things.

4) All who claim to be P ...[text shortened]... s) go to heavan. All those who claim to be a Prophet of God(s) get burned or something terrible.

is this guy even 10 yrs old?

Originally posted by dryhump
How do you know that wasn't done intentionally because without some light blocked the sun would blind you?

You obviously haven’t studied the basic anatomy of the human eye:
The blood vessels for the human eye don’t shade all the retina but rather ONLY those parts that they go directly over.
Thus the blood vessels give NO protection to the majority of the retina and thus would do extremely little if not nothing to stop sun blindness. Besides, we have irises that function to block most of the excess light in bright sunlight.

Also, it makes no sense to suggest that without some light blocked by these blood vessels the sun would blind us because there are some animals with eyes that do NOT have blood vessels in front of their retinas such as those of birds and yet they don’t generally go blind as a result of the sun -right?

This link may be of interest to you if you are interested in some known examples of evolution producing an imperfect design.

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:JOM0UI_KGesJ:chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/EvolGreatestMistakes-NewSci%2520081107.pdf+Evolution+blunder+retina&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&lr=lang_en

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
You obviously haven’t studied the basic anatomy of the human eye:
The blood vessels for the human eye don’t shade all the retina but rather ONLY those parts that they go directly over.
Thus the blood vessels give NO protection to the majority of the retina and thus would do extremely little if not nothing to stop sun blindness. Besides, we have ir ...[text shortened]... atestMistakes-NewSci%2520081107.pdf+Evolution+blunder+retina&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&lr=lang_en

what do you mean by perfect design? doesn't that depend on your point of view? the only reason the "design" exists is because in all probability it has more survival value than some other, competing "design."

that's how the system in nature appears to have been set up and made to work. as to whether that was by chance or not, no one can know that, so it really isn't much of a subject for rational discussion.

most of what passes for argument among ordinary folks, not counting academics and professionals who have a vested interest in complexity for its own sake, is comprised of oversimplification and unwarranted or unsupported assumptions. often we mistake belief as equivalent to knowlege. we often over generalize from an insufficient or unrepresentative sample. we commit logical fallacies in our reasoning.

but we all, almost universally, seem unable to comprehend the extent of the true complexity of the universe, the earth, of life forms and of ourselves. We'd prefer it otherwise, we'd like to think we know that oversimplified ideas and invalid analogies explain away the uncomfortable reality of how complex things really are.

being at ease with one's lack of control and one's lack of ability to comprehend the complexity of existence makes for better thoughts, better actions, and more interesting arguments.

we don't have to know the answers and probably do not or will not understand the complexity of life, the universe, and everything.

nor do we have to accept beliefs instead of knowledge -- we can speculate and be comfortable with trying on thoughts as we might be with trying on clothes. just not bathing suits, obviously, as that clearly leads only to arguments over whether that bathing suit makes one's wife's ass look fat. we don't want to go there.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]….Life is so miraculous and near perfect that ….
..…

“near perfect”? I don’t know exactly how “near” it has to be to be “near perfect” but I would say that the fact that such flaws exist in life such as the blood vessels for the human retina being in front of the retina where it partly blocks incoming light etc means you would surely not c ...[text shortened]... new religion is a non-starter because this basic assumption can be apparently shown to be wrong.[/b]

What you have described is what I meant , as well as accumulating mutations etc. So, not perfect but near.

Originally posted by Scriabin
is this guy even 10 yrs old?

Way past 10 years old.

there are too many religions already so stop wasting your time

Originally posted by Nadia1
there are too many religions already so stop wasting your time

What are you talking about, and to whom are you talking?

Originally posted by Scriabin
what do you mean by perfect design? doesn't that depend on your point of view? the only reason the "design" exists is because in all probability it has more survival value than some other, competing "design."

that's how the system in nature appears to have been set up and made to work. as to whether that was by chance or not, no one can know that, so it er that bathing suit makes one's wife's ass look fat. we don't want to go there.

….what do you mean by perfect design? doesn't that depend on your point of view?
..…

Yes- to some extent it does depend on your point of view.
But surely we would all agree that putting the blood vessels in front of the retina is a flaw which ever way you look at it.
If I was designing a camera, wouldn’t you agree that it would be a design flaw if I put the electric leads for the light sensors at the back of the camera in front of the light sensors thus blocking some of the view? -I mean, surely it would be OBVIOUS that it would be better to place the leads at the back of the light sensors?

….the only reason the "design" exists is because in all probability it has more survival value than some other, competing "design."
..…

Of course. I agree with that statement 🙂

….that's how the system in nature appears to have been set up and made to work. as to whether that was by CHANCE or not, no one can know that, so it really isn't much of a subject for rational discussion.
.… (my emphasis)

For starters, evolution is not all “CHANCE”. Mutations obviously occur by chance but then natural selection that then selects the most beneficial mutations is NOT a random process.

Secondly, why is impossible to rationally judge the chances of something being as a result of chance? -nor ‘rationally’ discuss it?

…We'd prefer it otherwise, we'd like to think we know that oversimplified ideas and invalid analogies explain away the uncomfortable reality of how complex things really ARE.
..… (my emphasis)

But the theory of evolution doesn’t explain nor is supposed to explain “how complex things (living in this case) really ARE” as such (assuming I don’t misunderstand what you mean by that statement? ) but rather ONE of the things evolution explains (indirectly) is “how the complexity of living things came about” which is a subtly different thing although actually evolution is not a theory that is supposed to explain that in particular since it is really a theory of the origin of the DIVERSITY of life rather than a theory of the origin of its ‘complexity’ in particular and living things don’t always inevitably evolve to become ’more complex’! (I can give some examples of that if you like).

….often we mistake belief as equivalent to knowledge.
.…

Yes -of course. It is called superstition.
But if true scientific method is applied to gain knowledge then belief in that knowledge is NOT an example of “mistaking belief as equivalent to knowledge”. The theory of evolution is derived from scientific method (i.e. reason and evidence).

….we don't have to know the answers
…

We already have SOME (not all) of the answers -science has given us that.
By the way, what do you mean by “we don't HAVE TO know the answers” ? -I am puzzled by your insertion of the words “HAVE TO” in that statement.

Originally posted by znsho
I want to create a new religion based on the following:

1) Life is so miraculous and near perfect that it must have been created (invented and made).

2) Thus, there is indeed a God (Creator) or, indeed, Gods (Creators).

3) BUT!!!! The God /Gods have NEVER, after creation, communicated with humans or any other living things.

4) All who claim to be P ...[text shortened]... s) go to heavan. All those who claim to be a Prophet of God(s) get burned or something terrible.

Mohammed was the final prophet. If you don't accept that, you're going to get burned anyway.

Originally posted by Nadia1
there are too many religions already so stop wasting your time

Wasting my time?!! Not of all the mugs that follow my religion start giving me money (see Scientology).

Originally posted by scherzo
Mohammed was the final prophet. If you don't accept that, you're going to get burned anyway.

See you in Hell.

PS; MoMo was not the final 'Prophet'. There have been a few since MoMo's day.

It's not a new religion at all!!! It's deism.

Originally posted by znsho
See you in Hell.

PS; MoMo was not the final 'Prophet'. There have been a few since MoMo's day.

You'll be in the twelfth circle. I'll only be in the -14th.

Originally posted by scherzo
Mohammed was the final prophet. If you don't accept that, you're going to get burned anyway.

really? what were his prophecies?