19 Nov '14 19:17>
Originally posted by C HessFrigging brilliant! Intelligent design. What a laugh.
😲
http://youtu.be/4_G9awnDCmg
Originally posted by sonhouseI take it when you say "your god", you really mean "their god". 🙂
Frigging brilliant! Intelligent design. What a laugh.
For instance, why did humans get retinal blood vessels in FRONT of the rods and cones that gives us vision? Other animals don't have that. So your god designed us in such a way as to insure vision less than optimal? It must have been the wish of your god that we have such poor vision compared with some other animals.
Originally posted by C HessMy bad. Yes, THEIR god.
I take it when you say "your god", you really mean "their god". 🙂
I just weeks ago discovered nonstampcollector. He seems to have a bunch of funny vids like this. I like his style. There's actually one where a human complains to god about how horribly designed the human eye is. It's hilarious.
Originally posted by sonhouseAs far back as 2007, evidence emerged that showed there was something wrong with the evolutionists’ argument. Franze and his colleagues discovered that certain cells in the retina (Muller cells) act as optical fibers, funneling light right to the rods and cones. Now Labin and Ribak have modeled the dynamics of this system, and they conclude:
Frigging brilliant! Intelligent design. What a laugh.
For instance, why did humans get retinal blood vessels in FRONT of the rods and cones that gives us vision? Other animals don't have that. So your god designed us in such a way as to insure vision less than optimal? It must have been the wish of your god that we have such poor vision compared with some other animals.
The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images.
IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, “backwards” structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision.
Originally posted by RJHindsSo they act as a metamaterial. That is new. That mediates the presence of the blood cells in front of the rods and cones. But they are still not as good, human eyes vs other animals, like Eagle's have eyes with about 10 times the resolution of human eyes and their blood vessels are behind the cones and rods. One wonders if bears, whose vision is much poorer than even humans, have blood vessels in front of cones and rods but not as many muller cells.
As far back as 2007, evidence emerged that showed there was something wrong with the evolutionists’ argument. Franze and his colleagues discovered that certain cells in the retina (Muller cells) act as optical fibers, funneling light right to the rods and cones. Now Labin and Ribak have modeled the dynamics of this system, and they conclude:
[quote] The ...[text shortened]... s first), we would not see things as sharply as we do now.
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=1060[/b]
Originally posted by sonhouseHumans do not need to see like an eagle. Anyway we were given the ability to make binoculars and such to improve our vision when we want.
So they act as a metamaterial. That is new. That mediates the presence of the blood cells in front of the rods and cones. But they are still not as good, human eyes vs other animals, like Eagle's have eyes with about 10 times the resolution of human eyes and their blood vessels are behind the cones and rods. One wonders if bears, whose vision is much poorer ...[text shortened]... t if you expect to gain street cred. That was probably your first real science search. Good one.
Originally posted by RJHindsIt would be useful to see like an eagle, and you have to ask yourself why a designer failed to give the crown-jewel of his design the best possible eye.
Humans do not need to see like an eagle. Anyway we were given the ability to make binoculars and such to improve our vision when we want.