|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWould you be kind enough to summarise? The big hill to climb is overcoming bias. For example, if I were to try to convince you that humans don't need air and water -- that proposition is so ludicrous to you, that you would instantly brand me an idiot - and refuse to spend time canvassing my arguments. That seems the right way to go ... Except that you realise the vast majority of people do that - insult and shut their eyes to evidence - for literally every area in their life. In the biggest health issue of our time, Covid vaccines, people just "insulted and shut their eyes" and gladly took an experimental MRNA substance that changes the way your body's cells behave. Then middle of this year in 2023, doctors from Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University are saying the Covid vaccines are dangerous, based on many peer-reviewed journal articles. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287The other side's doctors where never idiots. The other side's arguments were based on scientific data and principles. It's just that the majority have safely lived most of their life, with no consequences for "insulting and shutting their eyes". So they cannot change, when they are presented with evidence. What I'm saying is, in the Evolution-Creation debate, the other side's scientific data and scientific arguments are not ludicrous. Instead, our culture's assumption is that anything which points to the existence of God is automatically branded as ludicrous. And so it triggers people to act in their normal "insult and ignore" pattern of behaviour. The fact is, if the world was created in 6 days, then there must be a God. That is why atheist-scientists will always favour the scientific argument -- even the weaker argument - that goes away from a young earth. Because, to do otherwise, they would have to consider God. Do a search for - soft tissue dinosaur bones A good scientist considers all possibilities - whereas a biased-scientist (and the last 2 years have shown how scientist are just like all of us in their thinking) will limit their thinking to their biases. Thus, if you search for articles - soft tissue dinosaur bones - you'll note that not one atheist-scientist will consider that the preservation of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is because the world was created in 6 days, and hence dinosaurs lived within the last 6,000 years. To summarise some key objections: There is the argument that folk legends of dragons exist in all countries around the globe. e.g. St. George and the Dragon in the British Isles, and legends of dragons in China. It is postulated that these dragon legends point to a time when there was a remnant of dinosaurs still living. Regarding Noah's Ark, conceivably all that would have been necessary was to bring two juvenile animals which take up less space than adults. Every issue of the Evolution-Creation debate has genuine-plausible scientific evidence and reasoning on both sides. Like the vaccine issue, it is silly to dismiss the other side as being idiots with no evidence. e.g. the layers of rock seen around the world. The Evolutionist says that is due to millions of years of laying down sediment. But, on the other hand, we have seen the geophysics of how such layers can be created within a matter of hours - in the catastrophic mud slides of Mount St Helens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPzSebeH8LIAnd how these layers stretch across many continents. And there is no wearing down of the layers (which would have been, if each layers had been exposed to the atmosphere for millions of years). And that you see bends in the layers; whereas hard brittle rock would shatter if it is bent. In other words, the scientific arguments from the other side are not ludicrous. And, moreover, when you examine each point for point, it is the totality of the evidence that builds the case. Plus, the Evolution side has massive holes in their theory. It is the complexity of DNA, and the sheer impossibility of creating that complexity out of nothing, by sheer randomness, that caused hardened atheists to concede that God exists. But once a person takes the next step to consider the existence of God, they run into the next wall: which of the numerous spirits, claiming to be God, which is the true God? And for that, God has made a way to navigate the hundreds of thousands of religions and philosophies. Thank for the answer, but it moved a little away. Who do you think invented Dinosaurs and why does pretty much everybody believe in them? TBF, the argument (non-scientific) that the earth was conceived in a week 6000 years ago by one man on paper is ludicrous, but I am more than happy to have my mind changed if you stay on topic (drop the vaccine chat) and give some solid bullet points The difference is they believe they 'dinosaurs' existed alongside humans at the same time. ahhh ok, so the dinosaurs are only 6k years old? Ok, then maybe I should ask him why are scientists lying about them being from a couple of hundred million years ago? That's a pretty big gap. Actually dinosaurs were apparently taken on the ark. (Juveniles though so less room you see.) So they're only 4500 years old and then however long it took them to die out after they walked from Mt Ararat to wherever they were going. This is why I was asking him why aren't dinosaur fossils found with other fossils. But to your point, they just circle back to their starting position which is a belief in god and the literal belief in the bible as a historical document. They start from there and retrofit all their 'evidence' into proving the bible true. The mental gymnastics they perform is incredible. It doesn't matter if you throw up any evidence they just bat it away. There's literally recorded (as in written) history that goes back 7000 years. Cross checked and matched against astronomical events and wars, empires and dynasties. Literally older than the earth's age in the bible. No matter to them. Merely an inconvenience. You can literally go down to the Antarctic and drag out an ice core 10's of thousands of years old which they'll explain away. There's literally hundreds of explanations with twisted and distorted logic for everything. If you ever happen to corner them on anything they're fall back position is 'Well god made the earth in 6 days, 6000 years ago TO LOOK LIKE it was 4.6 billion years old'. For what purpose? Testing us I guess. I'd be interested if (lowercase) johnsmith is a believer in Intelligent Design. I'd say he was. I almost hope he is. The list of the flaws with the absolute shitshow that is the human body is extensive. Here's a fun article. Scroll down to the bit about eyes. They love to say stuff like 'the eye is too complicated to evolve.' https://partner.sciencenorway.no/evolution-genetics-natural-sciences/evolutionary-flaws-disprove-the-theory-of-intelligent-design/1670232 I was completely unaware there are people who believed in this. A whole new world has been opened up :ermm: Did you notice it was all crickets on why aren't dinosaur fossils found alongside humans and other animals. I'm also interested why the Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, Egyptians have no contemporary accounts of giant brachiosaurs, diplodocus', t-rex's or triceratops roaming the middle east during their day and age. Zero accounts. Dinosaurs are not the sort of thing you could easily ignore. Even the most hardened bible literalist would admit other cultures had recorded history predating Noah. It's absolutely clear why some people will never believe anything to do with common sense and science in other areas (health, climate etc) if they believe in this. TBH I am not even sure why we have hospitals (or anything really) if it's all in god's will and creation In terms of common sense, what is your common sense reaction to the information about the earth's magnetic field being calculated to be 6,000 years old. (See my post on page 10 where I discussed the video by astrophysicist Jason Lisle.) I await with interest the submission of his paper for peer review. Until then my 'common sense reaction' is he's full of shit with regards to the claim. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jason_LisleEarth’s magnetic field is decaying - This is a well known creationist argument. The dipole component of the Earth’s magnetic field is indeed decreasing, but other components are not necessarily decreasing. The magnetic field is due to a dynamo effect in the Earth interior, and has fluctuated and changed polarity many times in the geological past. It's been decreasing for millennia, in anticipation of a geomagnetic reversal[14] — which will bring the field back up to full strength again, albeit with different poles.The reversal of the earth's magnetic filed is a well known phenomenon. It's writ large in igneous rocks. The process by which rocks get magnetized occurs when they are formed, Coe explained. Scientists know much more about how volcanic rocks become magnetized than they do about sedimentary rocks. As igneous rocks cool, for example, they become magnetized in the direction of the field prevailing at the moment. This process may take a few days or a few years and provides a “snapshot” of the Earth’s magnetic field, he added. Consequently, by studying many different rocks formed during different geologic periods, researchers can create a record of the Earth’s history of magnetic wanderings.
https://news.ucsc.edu/2018/12/magnetic-reversals.htmlhttps://theconversation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-reverses-more-often-now-we-know-why-96957https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/it-true-earths-magnetic-field-occasionally-reverses-its-polarityhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earths-magnetic-field-reversal-took-three-times-longer-than-thought/ You're not going to get articles -- advocating Creation, 6 day creation, the existence of God
Correct. You won't. So let me understand you ... you're going to wait for atheist-scientists to prove that God exists ... in peer-reviewed journals ... before you take a step in your own life to search for God?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
'God works in mysterious ways'
Get out of every logical explanation free card
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWould you be kind enough to summarise? The big hill to climb is overcoming bias. For example, if I were to try to convince you that humans don't need air and water -- that proposition is so ludicrous to you, that you would instantly brand me an idiot - and refuse to spend time canvassing my arguments. That seems the right way to go ... Except that you realise the vast majority of people do that - insult and shut their eyes to evidence - for literally every area in their life. In the biggest health issue of our time, Covid vaccines, people just "insulted and shut their eyes" and gladly took an experimental MRNA substance that changes the way your body's cells behave. Then middle of this year in 2023, doctors from Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University are saying the Covid vaccines are dangerous, based on many peer-reviewed journal articles. https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287The other side's doctors where never idiots. The other side's arguments were based on scientific data and principles. It's just that the majority have safely lived most of their life, with no consequences for "insulting and shutting their eyes". So they cannot change, when they are presented with evidence. What I'm saying is, in the Evolution-Creation debate, the other side's scientific data and scientific arguments are not ludicrous. Instead, our culture's assumption is that anything which points to the existence of God is automatically branded as ludicrous. And so it triggers people to act in their normal "insult and ignore" pattern of behaviour. The fact is, if the world was created in 6 days, then there must be a God. That is why atheist-scientists will always favour the scientific argument -- even the weaker argument - that goes away from a young earth. Because, to do otherwise, they would have to consider God. Do a search for - soft tissue dinosaur bones A good scientist considers all possibilities - whereas a biased-scientist (and the last 2 years have shown how scientist are just like all of us in their thinking) will limit their thinking to their biases. Thus, if you search for articles - soft tissue dinosaur bones - you'll note that not one atheist-scientist will consider that the preservation of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is because the world was created in 6 days, and hence dinosaurs lived within the last 6,000 years. To summarise some key objections: There is the argument that folk legends of dragons exist in all countries around the globe. e.g. St. George and the Dragon in the British Isles, and legends of dragons in China. It is postulated that these dragon legends point to a time when there was a remnant of dinosaurs still living. Regarding Noah's Ark, conceivably all that would have been necessary was to bring two juvenile animals which take up less space than adults. Every issue of the Evolution-Creation debate has genuine-plausible scientific evidence and reasoning on both sides. Like the vaccine issue, it is silly to dismiss the other side as being idiots with no evidence. e.g. the layers of rock seen around the world. The Evolutionist says that is due to millions of years of laying down sediment. But, on the other hand, we have seen the geophysics of how such layers can be created within a matter of hours - in the catastrophic mud slides of Mount St Helens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPzSebeH8LIAnd how these layers stretch across many continents. And there is no wearing down of the layers (which would have been, if each layers had been exposed to the atmosphere for millions of years). And that you see bends in the layers; whereas hard brittle rock would shatter if it is bent. In other words, the scientific arguments from the other side are not ludicrous. And, moreover, when you examine each point for point, it is the totality of the evidence that builds the case. Plus, the Evolution side has massive holes in their theory. It is the complexity of DNA, and the sheer impossibility of creating that complexity out of nothing, by sheer randomness, that caused hardened atheists to concede that God exists. But once a person takes the next step to consider the existence of God, they run into the next wall: which of the numerous spirits, claiming to be God, which is the true God? And for that, God has made a way to navigate the hundreds of thousands of religions and philosophies. Thank for the answer, but it moved a little away. Who do you think invented Dinosaurs and why does pretty much everybody believe in them? TBF, the argument (non-scientific) that the earth was conceived in a week 6000 years ago by one man on paper is ludicrous, but I am more than happy to have my mind changed if you stay on topic (drop the vaccine chat) and give some solid bullet points The difference is they believe they 'dinosaurs' existed alongside humans at the same time. ahhh ok, so the dinosaurs are only 6k years old? Ok, then maybe I should ask him why are scientists lying about them being from a couple of hundred million years ago? That's a pretty big gap. Actually dinosaurs were apparently taken on the ark. (Juveniles though so less room you see.) So they're only 4500 years old and then however long it took them to die out after they walked from Mt Ararat to wherever they were going. This is why I was asking him why aren't dinosaur fossils found with other fossils. But to your point, they just circle back to their starting position which is a belief in god and the literal belief in the bible as a historical document. They start from there and retrofit all their 'evidence' into proving the bible true. The mental gymnastics they perform is incredible. It doesn't matter if you throw up any evidence they just bat it away. There's literally recorded (as in written) history that goes back 7000 years. Cross checked and matched against astronomical events and wars, empires and dynasties. Literally older than the earth's age in the bible. No matter to them. Merely an inconvenience. You can literally go down to the Antarctic and drag out an ice core 10's of thousands of years old which they'll explain away. There's literally hundreds of explanations with twisted and distorted logic for everything. If you ever happen to corner them on anything they're fall back position is 'Well god made the earth in 6 days, 6000 years ago TO LOOK LIKE it was 4.6 billion years old'. For what purpose? Testing us I guess. I'd be interested if (lowercase) johnsmith is a believer in Intelligent Design. I'd say he was. I almost hope he is. The list of the flaws with the absolute shitshow that is the human body is extensive. Here's a fun article. Scroll down to the bit about eyes. They love to say stuff like 'the eye is too complicated to evolve.' https://partner.sciencenorway.no/evolution-genetics-natural-sciences/evolutionary-flaws-disprove-the-theory-of-intelligent-design/1670232 I was completely unaware there are people who believed in this. A whole new world has been opened up :ermm: Did you notice it was all crickets on why aren't dinosaur fossils found alongside humans and other animals. I'm also interested why the Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, Egyptians have no contemporary accounts of giant brachiosaurs, diplodocus', t-rex's or triceratops roaming the middle east during their day and age. Zero accounts. Dinosaurs are not the sort of thing you could easily ignore. Even the most hardened bible literalist would admit other cultures had recorded history predating Noah. It's absolutely clear why some people will never believe anything to do with common sense and science in other areas (health, climate etc) if they believe in this. TBH I am not even sure why we have hospitals (or anything really) if it's all in god's will and creation In terms of common sense, what is your common sense reaction to the information about the earth's magnetic field being calculated to be 6,000 years old. (See my post on page 10 where I discussed the video by astrophysicist Jason Lisle.) I await with interest the submission of his paper for peer review. Until then my 'common sense reaction' is he's full of shit with regards to the claim. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jason_LisleEarth’s magnetic field is decaying - This is a well known creationist argument. The dipole component of the Earth’s magnetic field is indeed decreasing, but other components are not necessarily decreasing. The magnetic field is due to a dynamo effect in the Earth interior, and has fluctuated and changed polarity many times in the geological past. It's been decreasing for millennia, in anticipation of a geomagnetic reversal[14] — which will bring the field back up to full strength again, albeit with different poles.The reversal of the earth's magnetic filed is a well known phenomenon. It's writ large in igneous rocks. The process by which rocks get magnetized occurs when they are formed, Coe explained. Scientists know much more about how volcanic rocks become magnetized than they do about sedimentary rocks. As igneous rocks cool, for example, they become magnetized in the direction of the field prevailing at the moment. This process may take a few days or a few years and provides a “snapshot” of the Earth’s magnetic field, he added. Consequently, by studying many different rocks formed during different geologic periods, researchers can create a record of the Earth’s history of magnetic wanderings.
https://news.ucsc.edu/2018/12/magnetic-reversals.htmlhttps://theconversation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-reverses-more-often-now-we-know-why-96957https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/it-true-earths-magnetic-field-occasionally-reverses-its-polarityhttps://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earths-magnetic-field-reversal-took-three-times-longer-than-thought/ You're not going to get articles -- advocating Creation, 6 day creation, the existence of God
Correct. You won't. So let me understand you ... you're going to wait for atheist-scientists to prove that God exists ... in peer-reviewed journals ... before you take a step in your own life to search for God? Nope. I'm waiting for YEC scientists to prove the earth is 6000 years old via published papers submitted for peer review in established credible journals. It's good enough for the doctors you quote regards vaccine efficacy it should be fine for YEC scientists. @tsf now watch this. Every scientist is in on it and they won't allow any diversion from the 'narrative'.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
@tsf. Notice how quickly they move on from questions they don't want to answer. Like the earth's magnetic field old mate tried to say was only 6000 years old. Like human fossils (or any other animal) not found with dinosaur fossils etc etc etc. Like the carbon 14 stuff he linked above. Nevermind there are literally written transcripts that predate Noah. Merely an inconvenience for the YEC. Must be a surprise to scholars of ancient history that work in these fields their entire lives. It's laughable.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x@tsf. Notice how quickly they move on from questions they don't want to answer. ... Like human fossils (or any other animal) not found with dinosaur fossils etc etc etc. It's laughable. Let's take the questions one at a time. Regarding your idea of dinosaur bones not found side by side with humans. Think. Even if elephants and tigers are alive at the same time as humans, under what circumstances would a human body be buried next to the bones of an elephant or a tiger? Why are you insisting on them being buried side by side? This article addresses the issue, entitled, "Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?" https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/humans/why-dont-we-find-human-dinosaur-fossils-together/Muz, when you raise questions, there must be a goal. Are you saying that, if there is a plausible answer, then you will go the next step of investigate the message of Jesus Christ? Otherwise this can end up an exercise in mocking anything that points towards God. “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and to the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death, and deliver Him to the Gentiles to mock and to scourge and to crucify. And the third day He will rise again.” (Matthew 20:18-19) "When they had twisted a crown of thorns, they put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand. And they bowed the knee before Him and mocked Him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” (Matthew 27:29) "And when they had mocked Him, they took the robe off Him, put His own clothes on Him, and led Him away to be crucified." (Matthew 27:31) "Likewise the chief priests also, mocking with the scribes and elders, said, “He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him." (Matthew 27:41-42) "and they will mock Him, and scourge Him, and spit on Him, and kill Him. And the third day He will rise again.” (Mark 10:34) And when they had mocked Him, they took the purple off Him, put His own clothes on Him, and led Him out to crucify Him. (Mark 15:20)
|
|
|
|
|
tsf
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x@tsf. Notice how quickly they move on from questions they don't want to answer. Like the earth's magnetic field old mate tried to say was only 6000 years old. Like human fossils (or any other animal) not found with dinosaur fossils etc etc etc. Like the carbon 14 stuff he linked above. Nevermind there are literally written transcripts that predate Noah. Merely an inconvenience for the YEC. Must be a surprise to scholars of ancient history that work in these fields their entire lives. It's laughable. It’s worse than laughable. It’s actually frightening that people at the very least are collectively pretending to believe in it.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x@tsf. Notice how quickly they move on from questions they don't want to answer. Like the earth's magnetic field old mate tried to say was only 6000 years old. Like human fossils (or any other animal) not found with dinosaur fossils etc etc etc. Like the carbon 14 stuff he linked above. Nevermind there are literally written transcripts that predate Noah. Merely an inconvenience for the YEC. Must be a surprise to scholars of ancient history that work in these fields their entire lives. It's laughable. It’s worse than laughable. It’s actually frightening that people at the very least are collectively pretending to believe in it. And they vote. Imagine this bloke and a flat earther in a room. The flat earth blokes that believe the earth is flat use the bible to justify their position. (They point to bible verse that say it's so.) Actually that reminds me I wanted to ask JS does he accept the heliocentric model of the solar system because flat earthers don't. (JS said very explicitly at the beginning he accepts the scientific consensus it's round.) So lowercase johnsmith is a bible literalist with regards to the age of the earth and the stories contained within it but not that the earth is flat. Other bible literalists (christians also) believe the earth is flat because there are passages to suggest it is. I would pay money to see JS try and convince a flat earther (and devout christian) that the earth is round because the vast majority of scientists believe it to be so. You know what I mean though? He'd be trying to convince the flat earther by referring to the work of the very scientists that he doesn't believe when it comes to the age of the earth. What a scene that would be.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? They don't all but those that do have a common ancestor. But fine let's assume god made the eye. Then explain this. Take the human eye for example, a blind spot, blood vessels that cross in front of the retina, myopia, cataracts, hyperopia, astigmatism, floaters, an upside down image that the brain needs to sort, a limited range of wavelengths we can see and to top it off almost every other mammal on earth has more visual acuity. If god made the eye then god fucked up royally and needs to go back to eye designing school because, although it works, it's a mess and a shambles.
Because from one of your links this:
Eyes didn’t evolve. In his Word, God himself takes the credit for creating them—and those who refuse to recognize his obvious hand in what he’s made are without excuse Again the question is : How else would you improve it.? The point is it's not perfect and has flaws. Either god did a bodgey job which makes no sense or it's evolved to what we have now. Also seeing in the infrared would be very handy especially given god separated night from day making it a pain in the arse to get around at night. But its YOU who's defining them as "flaws and imperfections". And even then you're wrong about the eye being a mess and shambles and visual acuity being worse than nearly every other mammal. As I've pointed out with the eye, things are the way they are because that's the best way to do it. Humans sleep at night we don't need the complexity of extra photoreceptors that would be rarely used. As for vision lacking perfection, you could say that about us not having wings, not being able to breath under water, not being able to outrun a cheater, having heat sensors, x-ray vision. It sounds like you've watched top many Marvel movies and expects God to have given us superpowers. It's not 'ME' defining them. They ARE flaws. To drill down on just one flaw it begs the question why have a 'blind spot at all'. Cephalopods don't. Surely if god can route the blood vessels behind the retina in one animal he could do it for all? Either god is omnipotent or he's not? There's no 'good enough', that's evolution. It's either perfect or it's a mistake. And it can't be a mistake because god is OMNIPOTENT. And why wouldn't we have night vision? Humans don't sleep for 12 hours. It's only a 'superpower' because we don't have it. A bird never thinks it has a 'superpower' because it can fly. Why give it to a cat? Cats hunt during the day and the night. There's no need for them to have it. BTW what 'complexity'? The liver is a million times more complex than the eye. And again you are not giving god enough credit here. God is the all knowing, supreme being. Nothing would be 'complex' in the eyes of god. The term itself would be nonsensical to god. Why have a blind spot at all? The answer is in the detail. The blind spot is a necessary outcome of the multi-layered design of the human retina, where there are multiple layers of different cell types connected to one another in serial and parallel, processing visual information before connecting to the brain, with high metabolic demands and recycling, requiring close proximity to their metabolic support systems eg vascular and the RPE For comparison cephalopod retina has possibly two layers and no RPE ie photoreceptors whose axons connect directly to the brain. Its retinal architecture is far simpler and offers less functionality. You can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina esp the section: Inverted versus non-inverted retina
The eye is widely acknowledged as the most complex organ outside of the brain.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x@tsf. Notice how quickly they move on from questions they don't want to answer. ... Like human fossils (or any other animal) not found with dinosaur fossils etc etc etc. It's laughable. Let's take the questions one at a time. Regarding your idea of dinosaur bones not found side by side with humans. Think. Even if elephants and tigers are alive at the same time as humans, under what circumstances would a human body be buried next to the bones of an elephant or a tiger? Why are you insisting on them being buried side by side? Not buried side by side chump. In the same sedimentary layers. Giant global flood, big enough to carve the grand canyon etc etc massive amounts of silt, pyroclastic flows (you blokes love that one). You sure should expect all the worlds animals and humans (and dinosaurs) to be buried in the same layers. What's that? Oh, they're not. Your link doesn't address that. I also like your 'appeal to authority' by linking your astrophysicist above thinking that's a lay down misere. Dead ended a bit there didn't it? But but he's a scientist. Yeah a scientist who can't submit a paper. Just wondering. Can your answers in genesis answer why magnetic iron is found in different orientations in igneous rocks? You link carbon 14 as being unreliable even though there are literally dozens of methods of dating. Dating fossils and rocks: 3 main techniques used to date rocks and fossils (interestingengineering.com) All of these are garbage to you I'm guessing? No answer on why some humans are lactose intolerant. No answer on why humans can't synthesise vitamin C.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? They don't all but those that do have a common ancestor. But fine let's assume god made the eye. Then explain this. Take the human eye for example, a blind spot, blood vessels that cross in front of the retina, myopia, cataracts, hyperopia, astigmatism, floaters, an upside down image that the brain needs to sort, a limited range of wavelengths we can see and to top it off almost every other mammal on earth has more visual acuity. If god made the eye then god fucked up royally and needs to go back to eye designing school because, although it works, it's a mess and a shambles.
Because from one of your links this:
Eyes didn’t evolve. In his Word, God himself takes the credit for creating them—and those who refuse to recognize his obvious hand in what he’s made are without excuse Again the question is : How else would you improve it.? The point is it's not perfect and has flaws. Either god did a bodgey job which makes no sense or it's evolved to what we have now. Also seeing in the infrared would be very handy especially given god separated night from day making it a pain in the arse to get around at night. But its YOU who's defining them as "flaws and imperfections". And even then you're wrong about the eye being a mess and shambles and visual acuity being worse than nearly every other mammal. As I've pointed out with the eye, things are the way they are because that's the best way to do it. Humans sleep at night we don't need the complexity of extra photoreceptors that would be rarely used. As for vision lacking perfection, you could say that about us not having wings, not being able to breath under water, not being able to outrun a cheater, having heat sensors, x-ray vision. It sounds like you've watched top many Marvel movies and expects God to have given us superpowers. It's not 'ME' defining them. They ARE flaws. To drill down on just one flaw it begs the question why have a 'blind spot at all'. Cephalopods don't. Surely if god can route the blood vessels behind the retina in one animal he could do it for all? Either god is omnipotent or he's not? There's no 'good enough', that's evolution. It's either perfect or it's a mistake. And it can't be a mistake because god is OMNIPOTENT. And why wouldn't we have night vision? Humans don't sleep for 12 hours. It's only a 'superpower' because we don't have it. A bird never thinks it has a 'superpower' because it can fly. Why give it to a cat? Cats hunt during the day and the night. There's no need for them to have it. BTW what 'complexity'? The liver is a million times more complex than the eye. And again you are not giving god enough credit here. God is the all knowing, supreme being. Nothing would be 'complex' in the eyes of god. The term itself would be nonsensical to god. Why have a blind spot at all? The answer is in the detail. The blind spot is a necessary outcome of the multi-layered design of the human retina, where there are multiple layers of different cell types connected to one another in serial and parallel, processing visual information before connecting to the brain, with high metabolic demands and recycling, requiring close proximity to their metabolic support systems eg vascular and the RPE For comparison cephalopod retina has possibly two layers and no RPE ie photoreceptors whose axons connect directly to the brain. Its retinal architecture is far simpler and offers less functionality. You can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina esp the section: Inverted versus non-inverted retina
The eye is widely acknowledged as the most complex organ outside of the brain. But the complexity of detail the eye has just to make it work you just went into proves god didn't make the eye. Why go to so much trouble? He made us remember. Why not one giant NBN cable linking the retina with your brain without all the pfaffing about bypassing stuff, metabolic demands blah blah blah. If you could make anything, from scratch you'd make it without all the complications. It also begs the question of why make different eyes at all? Wouldn't you just bung one in everything and wire it up the same way in every creature? In evolution there are countless examples of animals with eyes from the light sensitive cells found in mussels to the beast of an eye in a falcon or eagle. And everything in between. I sort of had a grudging respect for you because you clearly know your stuff but it's being tested with, what's becoming clear, your non belief in evolution.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x@tsf. Notice how quickly they move on from questions they don't want to answer. ... Like human fossils (or any other animal) not found with dinosaur fossils etc etc etc. It's laughable. Let's take the questions one at a time. Regarding your idea of dinosaur bones not found side by side with humans. Think. Even if elephants and tigers are alive at the same time as humans, under what circumstances would a human body be buried next to the bones of an elephant or a tiger? Why are you insisting on them being buried side by side? Not buried side by side chump. In the same sedimentary layers. Giant global flood, big enough to carve the grand canyon etc etc massive amounts of silt, pyroclastic flows (you blokes love that one). You sure should expect all the worlds animals and humans (and dinosaurs) to be buried in the same layers. What's that? Oh, they're not. Your link doesn't address that. I also like your 'appeal to authority' by linking your astrophysicist above thinking that's a lay down misere. Dead ended a bit there didn't it? But but he's a scientist. Yeah a scientist who can't submit a paper. Just wondering. Can your answers in genesis answer why magnetic iron is found in different orientations in igneous rocks? You link carbon 14 as being unreliable even though there are literally dozens of methods of dating. Dating fossils and rocks: 3 main techniques used to date rocks and fossils (interestingengineering.com) All of these are garbage to you I'm guessing? No answer on why some humans are lactose intolerant.No answer on why humans can't synthesise vitamin C. That's back to front. My understanding is that adults were once lactose intolerant, but not as infants or children. Then some adults developed lactose tolerance.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? They don't all but those that do have a common ancestor. But fine let's assume god made the eye. Then explain this. Take the human eye for example, a blind spot, blood vessels that cross in front of the retina, myopia, cataracts, hyperopia, astigmatism, floaters, an upside down image that the brain needs to sort, a limited range of wavelengths we can see and to top it off almost every other mammal on earth has more visual acuity. If god made the eye then god fucked up royally and needs to go back to eye designing school because, although it works, it's a mess and a shambles.
Because from one of your links this:
Eyes didn’t evolve. In his Word, God himself takes the credit for creating them—and those who refuse to recognize his obvious hand in what he’s made are without excuse Again the question is : How else would you improve it.? The point is it's not perfect and has flaws. Either god did a bodgey job which makes no sense or it's evolved to what we have now. Also seeing in the infrared would be very handy especially given god separated night from day making it a pain in the arse to get around at night. But its YOU who's defining them as "flaws and imperfections". And even then you're wrong about the eye being a mess and shambles and visual acuity being worse than nearly every other mammal. As I've pointed out with the eye, things are the way they are because that's the best way to do it. Humans sleep at night we don't need the complexity of extra photoreceptors that would be rarely used. As for vision lacking perfection, you could say that about us not having wings, not being able to breath under water, not being able to outrun a cheater, having heat sensors, x-ray vision. It sounds like you've watched top many Marvel movies and expects God to have given us superpowers. It's not 'ME' defining them. They ARE flaws. To drill down on just one flaw it begs the question why have a 'blind spot at all'. Cephalopods don't. Surely if god can route the blood vessels behind the retina in one animal he could do it for all? Either god is omnipotent or he's not? There's no 'good enough', that's evolution. It's either perfect or it's a mistake. And it can't be a mistake because god is OMNIPOTENT. And why wouldn't we have night vision? Humans don't sleep for 12 hours. It's only a 'superpower' because we don't have it. A bird never thinks it has a 'superpower' because it can fly. Why give it to a cat? Cats hunt during the day and the night. There's no need for them to have it. BTW what 'complexity'? The liver is a million times more complex than the eye. And again you are not giving god enough credit here. God is the all knowing, supreme being. Nothing would be 'complex' in the eyes of god. The term itself would be nonsensical to god. Why have a blind spot at all? The answer is in the detail. The blind spot is a necessary outcome of the multi-layered design of the human retina, where there are multiple layers of different cell types connected to one another in serial and parallel, processing visual information before connecting to the brain, with high metabolic demands and recycling, requiring close proximity to their metabolic support systems eg vascular and the RPE For comparison cephalopod retina has possibly two layers and no RPE ie photoreceptors whose axons connect directly to the brain. Its retinal architecture is far simpler and offers less functionality. You can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina esp the section: Inverted versus non-inverted retina
The eye is widely acknowledged as the most complex organ outside of the brain. But the complexity of detail the eye has just to make it work you just went into proves god didn't make the eye. Why go to so much trouble? He made us remember. Why not one giant NBN cable linking the retina with your brain without all the pfaffing about bypassing stuff, metabolic demands blah blah blah. If you could make anything, from scratch you'd make it without all the complications. It also begs the question of why make different eyes at all? Wouldn't you just bung one in everything and wire it up the same way in every creature? In evolution there are countless examples of animals with eyes from the light sensitive cells found in mussels to the beast of an eye in a falcon or eagle. And everything in between. I sort of had a grudging respect for you because you clearly know your stuff but it's being tested with, what's becoming clear, your non belief in evolution. Structure is related to function-the human retina is a complex structure because its functions are complex. But iwhy bother with the complexity in the first place? Because it all has to work within the parameters of the Universe-it comes down to physics and chemistry. And who made that.. Even retinal *support* cells are now known to act like fibre optic channels and this was well before we even knew what fibre optics was! The problem I developed with evolution is the problem of biological complexity. When I learned just how complex life is at the fundamental biochemical level, the sheer number of processes and the interdependence of the different processes on one another I found it unconvincing that its the result of one long series of favourable flukes..
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x@tsf. Notice how quickly they move on from questions they don't want to answer. Like the earth's magnetic field old mate tried to say was only 6000 years old. Like human fossils (or any other animal) not found with dinosaur fossils etc etc etc. Like the carbon 14 stuff he linked above. Nevermind there are literally written transcripts that predate Noah. Merely an inconvenience for the YEC. Must be a surprise to scholars of ancient history that work in these fields their entire lives. It's laughable. It’s worse than laughable. It’s actually frightening that people at the very least are collectively pretending to believe in it. Colouring everything in your thought process is "there is no God" -- so even if the scientific arguments were plausible -- you do not even credit as plausible -- but you shift to off the scale as "laughable and frightening". Not because they are so -- but because your world-view is that anything that asserts God has to be laughable and frightening. A way to process this is to start at the other end, which is the proof that Jesus gave for his divinity, which is his death, burial and resurrection. "... that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me [Paul the apostle]..." (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)''' Then, after it is established that Jesus rose from the dead, in accordance with the substance of the Jewish prophecies -- that he is God. Then you work backwards, and see that every issue that has been discussed in this 6,000 year thread is actually not contradicting science. For example, the fossils -- if you accept that Jesus is God that created heaven and earth in 6 days -- you see that the geology can actually be explained from a 6 day time frame. The fossils, there are scientific explanations how those were formed due to a vast catastrophic water deluge that buried masses of living creates in the churning mud of the global food. That actual arguments, in themselves, are not laughable nor frightening. It turns on the single issue of whether there is, or is not, a Saviour God named Jesus Christ. And because you that THAT laughable, it automatically leads you to find it laughable that anyone would want to prove that through science. Let's take ONE example: - Is it laughable that, when a fish dies, it gets eaten very fast by other fish? No, it is not laughable. - Is it laughable that if a fish is not eaten swiftly by other fish, it drops to the sea bed or river bed, and is eat by other creatures such as crabs, shrimp, lobsters? No, it is not laughable. - Is it laughable that if a fish is not eaten, then it rots very fast? No, it is not laughable. - Therefore, it is not laughable to contest the atheist explanation that fossils found in masses across the world were created by fish dying, floating to the bottom, getting covered in mud, and NOT ROTTING, and after millions of years turning to fossils. That is laughable, in terms of the scientific logic. But because of your insistence there is no God -- you find it more laughable when someone explains the science to support the Bible being true. If you're read this far ... thank you ... and I suggest, find some time on a weekend to view this movie. It's the story by a Chicago Tribune investigative journalist who researched Christianity in order to disprove it, to save his wife from what he regarded as laughable and frightening. But, like so many, when he tested the evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, he found it irrefutable. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzespY6MyFA
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x@tsf. Notice how quickly they move on from questions they don't want to answer. ... Like human fossils (or any other animal) not found with dinosaur fossils etc etc etc. It's laughable. Let's take the questions one at a time. Regarding your idea of dinosaur bones not found side by side with humans. Think. Even if elephants and tigers are alive at the same time as humans, under what circumstances would a human body be buried next to the bones of an elephant or a tiger? Why are you insisting on them being buried side by side? Not buried side by side chump. In the same sedimentary layers. Giant global flood, big enough to carve the grand canyon etc etc massive amounts of silt, pyroclastic flows (you blokes love that one). You sure should expect all the worlds animals and humans (and dinosaurs) to be buried in the same layers. What's that? Oh, they're not. Your link doesn't address that. I also like your 'appeal to authority' by linking your astrophysicist above thinking that's a lay down misere. Dead ended a bit there didn't it? But but he's a scientist. Yeah a scientist who can't submit a paper. Just wondering. Can your answers in genesis answer why magnetic iron is found in different orientations in igneous rocks? You link carbon 14 as being unreliable even though there are literally dozens of methods of dating. Dating fossils and rocks: 3 main techniques used to date rocks and fossils (interestingengineering.com) All of these are garbage to you I'm guessing? No answer on why some humans are lactose intolerant.No answer on why humans can't synthesise vitamin C. That's back to front. My understanding is that adults were once lactose intolerant, but not as infants or children. Then some adults developed lactose tolerance. That's correct. A gene mutation 7500 to 9000 years ago in Northern Europeans made it so. The question is, given how handy it is to be lactose tolerant, why did god make people lactose intolerant to start with?
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? They don't all but those that do have a common ancestor. But fine let's assume god made the eye. Then explain this. Take the human eye for example, a blind spot, blood vessels that cross in front of the retina, myopia, cataracts, hyperopia, astigmatism, floaters, an upside down image that the brain needs to sort, a limited range of wavelengths we can see and to top it off almost every other mammal on earth has more visual acuity. If god made the eye then god fucked up royally and needs to go back to eye designing school because, although it works, it's a mess and a shambles.
Because from one of your links this:
Eyes didn’t evolve. In his Word, God himself takes the credit for creating them—and those who refuse to recognize his obvious hand in what he’s made are without excuse Again the question is : How else would you improve it.? The point is it's not perfect and has flaws. Either god did a bodgey job which makes no sense or it's evolved to what we have now. Also seeing in the infrared would be very handy especially given god separated night from day making it a pain in the arse to get around at night. But its YOU who's defining them as "flaws and imperfections". And even then you're wrong about the eye being a mess and shambles and visual acuity being worse than nearly every other mammal. As I've pointed out with the eye, things are the way they are because that's the best way to do it. Humans sleep at night we don't need the complexity of extra photoreceptors that would be rarely used. As for vision lacking perfection, you could say that about us not having wings, not being able to breath under water, not being able to outrun a cheater, having heat sensors, x-ray vision. It sounds like you've watched top many Marvel movies and expects God to have given us superpowers. It's not 'ME' defining them. They ARE flaws. To drill down on just one flaw it begs the question why have a 'blind spot at all'. Cephalopods don't. Surely if god can route the blood vessels behind the retina in one animal he could do it for all? Either god is omnipotent or he's not? There's no 'good enough', that's evolution. It's either perfect or it's a mistake. And it can't be a mistake because god is OMNIPOTENT. And why wouldn't we have night vision? Humans don't sleep for 12 hours. It's only a 'superpower' because we don't have it. A bird never thinks it has a 'superpower' because it can fly. Why give it to a cat? Cats hunt during the day and the night. There's no need for them to have it. BTW what 'complexity'? The liver is a million times more complex than the eye. And again you are not giving god enough credit here. God is the all knowing, supreme being. Nothing would be 'complex' in the eyes of god. The term itself would be nonsensical to god. Why have a blind spot at all? The answer is in the detail. The blind spot is a necessary outcome of the multi-layered design of the human retina, where there are multiple layers of different cell types connected to one another in serial and parallel, processing visual information before connecting to the brain, with high metabolic demands and recycling, requiring close proximity to their metabolic support systems eg vascular and the RPE For comparison cephalopod retina has possibly two layers and no RPE ie photoreceptors whose axons connect directly to the brain. Its retinal architecture is far simpler and offers less functionality. You can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina esp the section: Inverted versus non-inverted retina
The eye is widely acknowledged as the most complex organ outside of the brain. But the complexity of detail the eye has just to make it work you just went into proves god didn't make the eye. Why go to so much trouble? He made us remember. Why not one giant NBN cable linking the retina with your brain without all the pfaffing about bypassing stuff, metabolic demands blah blah blah. If you could make anything, from scratch you'd make it without all the complications. It also begs the question of why make different eyes at all? Wouldn't you just bung one in everything and wire it up the same way in every creature? In evolution there are countless examples of animals with eyes from the light sensitive cells found in mussels to the beast of an eye in a falcon or eagle. And everything in between. I sort of had a grudging respect for you because you clearly know your stuff but it's being tested with, what's becoming clear, your non belief in evolution. Structure is related to function-the human retina is a complex structure because its functions are complex. But iwhy bother with the complexity in the first place? Because it all has to work within the parameters of the Universe-it comes down to physics and chemistry. And who made that.. Even retinal *support* cells are now known to act like fibre optic channels and this was well before we even knew what fibre optics was! The problem I developed with evolution is the problem of biological complexity. When I learned just how complex life is at the fundamental biochemical level, the sheer number of processes and the interdependence of the different processes on one another I found it unconvincing that its the result of one long series of favourable flukes.. That is exactly what it is not. It's the very opposite. You should read 'The Blind Watchmaker.'
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x@tsf. Notice how quickly they move on from questions they don't want to answer. Like the earth's magnetic field old mate tried to say was only 6000 years old. Like human fossils (or any other animal) not found with dinosaur fossils etc etc etc. Like the carbon 14 stuff he linked above. Nevermind there are literally written transcripts that predate Noah. Merely an inconvenience for the YEC. Must be a surprise to scholars of ancient history that work in these fields their entire lives. It's laughable. It’s worse than laughable. It’s actually frightening that people at the very least are collectively pretending to believe in it. For example, the fossils -- if you accept that Jesus is God that created heaven and earth in 6 days -- you see that the geology can actually be explained from a 6 day time frame. The fossils, there are scientific explanations how those were formed due to a vast catastrophic water deluge that buried masses of living creates in the churning mud of the global food. Keep ducking and weaving champ but where are the fossils of humans and dinosaurs in the same sedimentary layers? Because as you said 'vast catastrophic water deluge that buried masses of living creatures in the churning mud of the flood." They should all be together. If not nearby they should be in the same layers. Where are they?
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x@tsf. Notice how quickly they move on from questions they don't want to answer. Like the earth's magnetic field old mate tried to say was only 6000 years old. Like human fossils (or any other animal) not found with dinosaur fossils etc etc etc. Like the carbon 14 stuff he linked above. Nevermind there are literally written transcripts that predate Noah. Merely an inconvenience for the YEC. Must be a surprise to scholars of ancient history that work in these fields their entire lives. It's laughable. It’s worse than laughable. It’s actually frightening that people at the very least are collectively pretending to believe in it. For example, the fossils -- if you accept that Jesus is God that created heaven and earth in 6 days -- you see that the geology can actually be explained from a 6 day time frame. The fossils, there are scientific explanations how those were formed due to a vast catastrophic water deluge that buried masses of living creates in the churning mud of the global food. ... where are the fossils of humans and dinosaurs in the same sedimentary layers? Because as you said 'vast catastrophic water deluge that buried masses of living creatures in the churning mud of the flood." They should all be together. If not nearby they should be in the same layers. Where are they? https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/order-in-the-fossil-record/https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/doesnt-order-of-fossils-in-rock-favor-long-ages/https://answersingenesis.org/geology/grand-canyon-facts/fossil-evidence-grand-canyon/https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/flood-cataclysm-deposit-uniform-rock-layers/https://answersingenesis.org/search/?q=fossil+layers
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha nope. Link any source not from answersingenesis or a secular source and I MIGHT pay attention. Look at this tortured logic from the first link I clicked. On the other hand, if these organisms were buried by the Flood waters, the order of first appearance should be either random, due to the sorting effects of the Flood, or reflect the order of ecological burial. In other words, as the Flood waters rose, they would tend to bury organisms in the order that they were encountered, so the major groups should appear in the fossil record according to where they lived, and not when they lived. This is exactly what we find, including this fossil record within the Grand Canyon—Grand Staircase.
hahahaha. LMAO. In this great turbidity of the flood it just so happened that all the animals settled down in exactly the right order. Again no mention as to why humans and dinosaurs aren't in the same layers. @tsf. This is a great debunking resource. Have at it. It's great fun. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_evidences_for_a_young_age_of_the_Earth_and_the_universe
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xLink any source not from answersingenesis or a secular source and I MIGHT pay attention. https://www.youtube.com/@IsGenesisHistory/search?query=fossil%20layers
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Lol. A movie made by YEC 'scientists'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_Genesis_History%3FIs Genesis History? is a 2017 American Christian film by Thomas Purifoy Jr. that promotes the pseudoscientific notion of Young Earth creationism, a form of creation science built on beliefs that contradict established scientific facts regarding the origin of the Universe, the age of the Earth and universe, the origin of the Solar System, and the origin and evolution of life.[3] The film suggests the Earth was created in six days of 24-hours each in opposition to day-age creationism, and also advocates the Genesis biblical narratives of Adam and Eve, the fall, the global flood, and the tower of Babel. It grossed $2.6 million in theatres and $3.3 million in video sales.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+xLol. A movie made by YEC 'scientists'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_Genesis_History%3FIs Genesis History? is a 2017 American Christian film by Thomas Purifoy Jr. that promotes the pseudoscientific notion of Young Earth creationism, a form of creation science built on beliefs that contradict established scientific facts regarding the origin of the Universe, the age of the Earth and universe, the origin of the Solar System, and the origin and evolution of life.[3] The film suggests the Earth was created in six days of 24-hours each in opposition to day-age creationism, and also advocates the Genesis biblical narratives of Adam and Eve, the fall, the global flood, and the tower of Babel. It grossed $2.6 million in theatres and $3.3 million in video sales. Muz, you're a humorous fellow -- why? Because you live in a fantasy land where you think your heroes -- politicians, government doctors and, and scientists -- are not biased. You're putting your life on hold ... waiting for atheist-scientists to endorse evidence that proves God exists? It's like waiting for government politicians and doctors, who approved the Covid vaccines, to embark on research to show that the vaccines are dangerous, such that it would open themselves up to liability. My friend, you are going to have to test the evidence, and think through the data. You have a tendency of refusing to "think outside the box". You're a boxed-in thinker. You only accept data that the 'establishment' endorses with peer-reviewed papers. "The illusion of evidence based medicine" https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o702"How covid-19 bolstered an already perverse publishing system" https://www.bmj.com/content/380/bmj.p689"Corruption: medicine’s dirty open secret" https://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g4184"Medical journals are corrupted by dependence on drug companies" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC558045/"Former editor of British Medical Journal says we should “assume that the research is fraudulent until there is some evidence to support it having happened and been honestly reported”" https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/02/22/former-editor-of-british-medical-journal-says-we-should-assume-that-the-research-is-fraudulent-until-there-is-some-evidence-to-support-it-having-happened-and-been-honestly-reported/Meanwhile, people like Muz trust the system so much they will not step one foot outside the group-think until a peer-reviewed paper tells Muz it's ok to think outside the box. You took that approach same with the Covid vaccines -- you insulting those brave doctors who dared to sound alarms against the dangers of the Covid MRNA substances. And now, 2 years later, you do have your peer-reviewed papers telling you of the dangers. But it's too late for you, since you probably took them. In case you skipped over my previous writings, here's your peer-reviewed paper that is 2 years too late for you. Melbourne University, Queensland University and Flinders University researchers made a review of peer-reviewed data on the danger of Covid vaccines. (August 2023) https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/8/2287All these last 2 years, my main motive for giving all that information on the vaccines - was that the same thinking pattern on vaccines, is how people think through the biggest issues in their life, which is their eternal destiny. And here, we're seeing muz and tsf apply the same thinking-pattern, which they used with vaccines, now used to think about the God question.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? They don't all but those that do have a common ancestor. But fine let's assume god made the eye. Then explain this. Take the human eye for example, a blind spot, blood vessels that cross in front of the retina, myopia, cataracts, hyperopia, astigmatism, floaters, an upside down image that the brain needs to sort, a limited range of wavelengths we can see and to top it off almost every other mammal on earth has more visual acuity. If god made the eye then god fucked up royally and needs to go back to eye designing school because, although it works, it's a mess and a shambles.
Because from one of your links this:
Eyes didn’t evolve. In his Word, God himself takes the credit for creating them—and those who refuse to recognize his obvious hand in what he’s made are without excuse Again the question is : How else would you improve it.? The point is it's not perfect and has flaws. Either god did a bodgey job which makes no sense or it's evolved to what we have now. Also seeing in the infrared would be very handy especially given god separated night from day making it a pain in the arse to get around at night. But its YOU who's defining them as "flaws and imperfections". And even then you're wrong about the eye being a mess and shambles and visual acuity being worse than nearly every other mammal. As I've pointed out with the eye, things are the way they are because that's the best way to do it. Humans sleep at night we don't need the complexity of extra photoreceptors that would be rarely used. As for vision lacking perfection, you could say that about us not having wings, not being able to breath under water, not being able to outrun a cheater, having heat sensors, x-ray vision. It sounds like you've watched top many Marvel movies and expects God to have given us superpowers. It's not 'ME' defining them. They ARE flaws. To drill down on just one flaw it begs the question why have a 'blind spot at all'. Cephalopods don't. Surely if god can route the blood vessels behind the retina in one animal he could do it for all? Either god is omnipotent or he's not? There's no 'good enough', that's evolution. It's either perfect or it's a mistake. And it can't be a mistake because god is OMNIPOTENT. And why wouldn't we have night vision? Humans don't sleep for 12 hours. It's only a 'superpower' because we don't have it. A bird never thinks it has a 'superpower' because it can fly. Why give it to a cat? Cats hunt during the day and the night. There's no need for them to have it. BTW what 'complexity'? The liver is a million times more complex than the eye. And again you are not giving god enough credit here. God is the all knowing, supreme being. Nothing would be 'complex' in the eyes of god. The term itself would be nonsensical to god. Why have a blind spot at all? The answer is in the detail. The blind spot is a necessary outcome of the multi-layered design of the human retina, where there are multiple layers of different cell types connected to one another in serial and parallel, processing visual information before connecting to the brain, with high metabolic demands and recycling, requiring close proximity to their metabolic support systems eg vascular and the RPE For comparison cephalopod retina has possibly two layers and no RPE ie photoreceptors whose axons connect directly to the brain. Its retinal architecture is far simpler and offers less functionality. You can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina esp the section: Inverted versus non-inverted retina
The eye is widely acknowledged as the most complex organ outside of the brain. But the complexity of detail the eye has just to make it work you just went into proves god didn't make the eye. Why go to so much trouble? He made us remember. Why not one giant NBN cable linking the retina with your brain without all the pfaffing about bypassing stuff, metabolic demands blah blah blah. If you could make anything, from scratch you'd make it without all the complications. It also begs the question of why make different eyes at all? Wouldn't you just bung one in everything and wire it up the same way in every creature? In evolution there are countless examples of animals with eyes from the light sensitive cells found in mussels to the beast of an eye in a falcon or eagle. And everything in between. I sort of had a grudging respect for you because you clearly know your stuff but it's being tested with, what's becoming clear, your non belief in evolution. Structure is related to function-the human retina is a complex structure because its functions are complex. But iwhy bother with the complexity in the first place? Because it all has to work within the parameters of the Universe-it comes down to physics and chemistry. And who made that.. Even retinal *support* cells are now known to act like fibre optic channels and this was well before we even knew what fibre optics was! The problem I developed with evolution is the problem of biological complexity. When I learned just how complex life is at the fundamental biochemical level, the sheer number of processes and the interdependence of the different processes on one another I found it unconvincing that its the result of one long series of favourable flukes.. That is exactly what it is not. It's the very opposite. You should read 'The Blind Watchmaker.' Since you've read it and I haven't, in a few sentences what do you think the fundemental mechanism of evolution is?
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? They don't all but those that do have a common ancestor. But fine let's assume god made the eye. Then explain this. Take the human eye for example, a blind spot, blood vessels that cross in front of the retina, myopia, cataracts, hyperopia, astigmatism, floaters, an upside down image that the brain needs to sort, a limited range of wavelengths we can see and to top it off almost every other mammal on earth has more visual acuity. If god made the eye then god fucked up royally and needs to go back to eye designing school because, although it works, it's a mess and a shambles.
Because from one of your links this:
Eyes didn’t evolve. In his Word, God himself takes the credit for creating them—and those who refuse to recognize his obvious hand in what he’s made are without excuse Again the question is : How else would you improve it.? The point is it's not perfect and has flaws. Either god did a bodgey job which makes no sense or it's evolved to what we have now. Also seeing in the infrared would be very handy especially given god separated night from day making it a pain in the arse to get around at night. But its YOU who's defining them as "flaws and imperfections". And even then you're wrong about the eye being a mess and shambles and visual acuity being worse than nearly every other mammal. As I've pointed out with the eye, things are the way they are because that's the best way to do it. Humans sleep at night we don't need the complexity of extra photoreceptors that would be rarely used. As for vision lacking perfection, you could say that about us not having wings, not being able to breath under water, not being able to outrun a cheater, having heat sensors, x-ray vision. It sounds like you've watched top many Marvel movies and expects God to have given us superpowers. It's not 'ME' defining them. They ARE flaws. To drill down on just one flaw it begs the question why have a 'blind spot at all'. Cephalopods don't. Surely if god can route the blood vessels behind the retina in one animal he could do it for all? Either god is omnipotent or he's not? There's no 'good enough', that's evolution. It's either perfect or it's a mistake. And it can't be a mistake because god is OMNIPOTENT. And why wouldn't we have night vision? Humans don't sleep for 12 hours. It's only a 'superpower' because we don't have it. A bird never thinks it has a 'superpower' because it can fly. Why give it to a cat? Cats hunt during the day and the night. There's no need for them to have it. BTW what 'complexity'? The liver is a million times more complex than the eye. And again you are not giving god enough credit here. God is the all knowing, supreme being. Nothing would be 'complex' in the eyes of god. The term itself would be nonsensical to god. Why have a blind spot at all? The answer is in the detail. The blind spot is a necessary outcome of the multi-layered design of the human retina, where there are multiple layers of different cell types connected to one another in serial and parallel, processing visual information before connecting to the brain, with high metabolic demands and recycling, requiring close proximity to their metabolic support systems eg vascular and the RPE For comparison cephalopod retina has possibly two layers and no RPE ie photoreceptors whose axons connect directly to the brain. Its retinal architecture is far simpler and offers less functionality. You can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina esp the section: Inverted versus non-inverted retina
The eye is widely acknowledged as the most complex organ outside of the brain. But the complexity of detail the eye has just to make it work you just went into proves god didn't make the eye. Why go to so much trouble? He made us remember. Why not one giant NBN cable linking the retina with your brain without all the pfaffing about bypassing stuff, metabolic demands blah blah blah. If you could make anything, from scratch you'd make it without all the complications. It also begs the question of why make different eyes at all? Wouldn't you just bung one in everything and wire it up the same way in every creature? In evolution there are countless examples of animals with eyes from the light sensitive cells found in mussels to the beast of an eye in a falcon or eagle. And everything in between. I sort of had a grudging respect for you because you clearly know your stuff but it's being tested with, what's becoming clear, your non belief in evolution. Structure is related to function-the human retina is a complex structure because its functions are complex. But iwhy bother with the complexity in the first place? Because it all has to work within the parameters of the Universe-it comes down to physics and chemistry. And who made that.. Even retinal *support* cells are now known to act like fibre optic channels and this was well before we even knew what fibre optics was! The problem I developed with evolution is the problem of biological complexity. When I learned just how complex life is at the fundamental biochemical level, the sheer number of processes and the interdependence of the different processes on one another I found it unconvincing that its the result of one long series of favourable flukes.. That is exactly what it is not. It's the very opposite. You should read 'The Blind Watchmaker.' Since you've read it and I haven't, in a few sentences what do you think the fundemental mechanism of evolution is? I see that "The Blind Watchmaker" is a book by Richard Dawkins, famous as an atheist. (Online summary): "Acclaimed as the most influential work on evolution written in the last hundred years, The Blind Watchmaker ... demonstrates that evolution by natural selection - the unconscious, automatic, blind yet essentially non-random process discovered by Darwin - is the only answer to the biggest question of all: why do we exist?" Although I haven't read the above book, I have his other book, "The God Delusion". From that, I concluded the pattern in atheist is, they take false-Christianity that they grew up with, and treat it as being true-Christianity. Then they attack the own misconceptions about Jesus Christ, as if their misconceptions are true-Christianity. In summary: I've never met an atheist, who could, on one hand, explain true-Christianity ... and then reject it. Hence, the atheists are rejecting false-Christianity, thinking they're attacking true-Christianity.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? They don't all but those that do have a common ancestor. But fine let's assume god made the eye. Then explain this. Take the human eye for example, a blind spot, blood vessels that cross in front of the retina, myopia, cataracts, hyperopia, astigmatism, floaters, an upside down image that the brain needs to sort, a limited range of wavelengths we can see and to top it off almost every other mammal on earth has more visual acuity. If god made the eye then god fucked up royally and needs to go back to eye designing school because, although it works, it's a mess and a shambles.
Because from one of your links this:
Eyes didn’t evolve. In his Word, God himself takes the credit for creating them—and those who refuse to recognize his obvious hand in what he’s made are without excuse Again the question is : How else would you improve it.? The point is it's not perfect and has flaws. Either god did a bodgey job which makes no sense or it's evolved to what we have now. Also seeing in the infrared would be very handy especially given god separated night from day making it a pain in the arse to get around at night. But its YOU who's defining them as "flaws and imperfections". And even then you're wrong about the eye being a mess and shambles and visual acuity being worse than nearly every other mammal. As I've pointed out with the eye, things are the way they are because that's the best way to do it. Humans sleep at night we don't need the complexity of extra photoreceptors that would be rarely used. As for vision lacking perfection, you could say that about us not having wings, not being able to breath under water, not being able to outrun a cheater, having heat sensors, x-ray vision. It sounds like you've watched top many Marvel movies and expects God to have given us superpowers. It's not 'ME' defining them. They ARE flaws. To drill down on just one flaw it begs the question why have a 'blind spot at all'. Cephalopods don't. Surely if god can route the blood vessels behind the retina in one animal he could do it for all? Either god is omnipotent or he's not? There's no 'good enough', that's evolution. It's either perfect or it's a mistake. And it can't be a mistake because god is OMNIPOTENT. And why wouldn't we have night vision? Humans don't sleep for 12 hours. It's only a 'superpower' because we don't have it. A bird never thinks it has a 'superpower' because it can fly. Why give it to a cat? Cats hunt during the day and the night. There's no need for them to have it. BTW what 'complexity'? The liver is a million times more complex than the eye. And again you are not giving god enough credit here. God is the all knowing, supreme being. Nothing would be 'complex' in the eyes of god. The term itself would be nonsensical to god. Why have a blind spot at all? The answer is in the detail. The blind spot is a necessary outcome of the multi-layered design of the human retina, where there are multiple layers of different cell types connected to one another in serial and parallel, processing visual information before connecting to the brain, with high metabolic demands and recycling, requiring close proximity to their metabolic support systems eg vascular and the RPE For comparison cephalopod retina has possibly two layers and no RPE ie photoreceptors whose axons connect directly to the brain. Its retinal architecture is far simpler and offers less functionality. You can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina esp the section: Inverted versus non-inverted retina
The eye is widely acknowledged as the most complex organ outside of the brain. But the complexity of detail the eye has just to make it work you just went into proves god didn't make the eye. Why go to so much trouble? He made us remember. Why not one giant NBN cable linking the retina with your brain without all the pfaffing about bypassing stuff, metabolic demands blah blah blah. If you could make anything, from scratch you'd make it without all the complications. It also begs the question of why make different eyes at all? Wouldn't you just bung one in everything and wire it up the same way in every creature? In evolution there are countless examples of animals with eyes from the light sensitive cells found in mussels to the beast of an eye in a falcon or eagle. And everything in between. I sort of had a grudging respect for you because you clearly know your stuff but it's being tested with, what's becoming clear, your non belief in evolution. Structure is related to function-the human retina is a complex structure because its functions are complex. But iwhy bother with the complexity in the first place? Because it all has to work within the parameters of the Universe-it comes down to physics and chemistry. And who made that.. Even retinal *support* cells are now known to act like fibre optic channels and this was well before we even knew what fibre optics was! The problem I developed with evolution is the problem of biological complexity. When I learned just how complex life is at the fundamental biochemical level, the sheer number of processes and the interdependence of the different processes on one another I found it unconvincing that its the result of one long series of favourable flukes.. Over an unfathomable period of time though Enzo.... Shit look at human intervention by selective trait breeding in the domestication of farm animals as a very simplified example... Or even in selective breeding of plants in farming. and thats only over the last 10,000 years.....
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? They don't all but those that do have a common ancestor. But fine let's assume god made the eye. Then explain this. Take the human eye for example, a blind spot, blood vessels that cross in front of the retina, myopia, cataracts, hyperopia, astigmatism, floaters, an upside down image that the brain needs to sort, a limited range of wavelengths we can see and to top it off almost every other mammal on earth has more visual acuity. If god made the eye then god fucked up royally and needs to go back to eye designing school because, although it works, it's a mess and a shambles.
Because from one of your links this:
Eyes didn’t evolve. In his Word, God himself takes the credit for creating them—and those who refuse to recognize his obvious hand in what he’s made are without excuse Again the question is : How else would you improve it.? The point is it's not perfect and has flaws. Either god did a bodgey job which makes no sense or it's evolved to what we have now. Also seeing in the infrared would be very handy especially given god separated night from day making it a pain in the arse to get around at night. But its YOU who's defining them as "flaws and imperfections". And even then you're wrong about the eye being a mess and shambles and visual acuity being worse than nearly every other mammal. As I've pointed out with the eye, things are the way they are because that's the best way to do it. Humans sleep at night we don't need the complexity of extra photoreceptors that would be rarely used. As for vision lacking perfection, you could say that about us not having wings, not being able to breath under water, not being able to outrun a cheater, having heat sensors, x-ray vision. It sounds like you've watched top many Marvel movies and expects God to have given us superpowers. It's not 'ME' defining them. They ARE flaws. To drill down on just one flaw it begs the question why have a 'blind spot at all'. Cephalopods don't. Surely if god can route the blood vessels behind the retina in one animal he could do it for all? Either god is omnipotent or he's not? There's no 'good enough', that's evolution. It's either perfect or it's a mistake. And it can't be a mistake because god is OMNIPOTENT. And why wouldn't we have night vision? Humans don't sleep for 12 hours. It's only a 'superpower' because we don't have it. A bird never thinks it has a 'superpower' because it can fly. Why give it to a cat? Cats hunt during the day and the night. There's no need for them to have it. BTW what 'complexity'? The liver is a million times more complex than the eye. And again you are not giving god enough credit here. God is the all knowing, supreme being. Nothing would be 'complex' in the eyes of god. The term itself would be nonsensical to god. Why have a blind spot at all? The answer is in the detail. The blind spot is a necessary outcome of the multi-layered design of the human retina, where there are multiple layers of different cell types connected to one another in serial and parallel, processing visual information before connecting to the brain, with high metabolic demands and recycling, requiring close proximity to their metabolic support systems eg vascular and the RPE For comparison cephalopod retina has possibly two layers and no RPE ie photoreceptors whose axons connect directly to the brain. Its retinal architecture is far simpler and offers less functionality. You can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina esp the section: Inverted versus non-inverted retina
The eye is widely acknowledged as the most complex organ outside of the brain. But the complexity of detail the eye has just to make it work you just went into proves god didn't make the eye. Why go to so much trouble? He made us remember. Why not one giant NBN cable linking the retina with your brain without all the pfaffing about bypassing stuff, metabolic demands blah blah blah. If you could make anything, from scratch you'd make it without all the complications. It also begs the question of why make different eyes at all? Wouldn't you just bung one in everything and wire it up the same way in every creature? In evolution there are countless examples of animals with eyes from the light sensitive cells found in mussels to the beast of an eye in a falcon or eagle. And everything in between. I sort of had a grudging respect for you because you clearly know your stuff but it's being tested with, what's becoming clear, your non belief in evolution. Structure is related to function-the human retina is a complex structure because its functions are complex. But iwhy bother with the complexity in the first place? Because it all has to work within the parameters of the Universe-it comes down to physics and chemistry. And who made that.. Even retinal *support* cells are now known to act like fibre optic channels and this was well before we even knew what fibre optics was! The problem I developed with evolution is the problem of biological complexity. When I learned just how complex life is at the fundamental biochemical level, the sheer number of processes and the interdependence of the different processes on one another I found it unconvincing that its the result of one long series of favourable flukes.. That is exactly what it is not. It's the very opposite. You should read 'The Blind Watchmaker.' Since you've read it and I haven't, in a few sentences what do you think the fundemental mechanism of evolution is? I see that "The Blind Watchmaker" is a book by Richard Dawkins, famous as an atheist. (Online summary): "Acclaimed as the most influential work on evolution written in the last hundred years, The Blind Watchmaker ... demonstrates that evolution by natural selection - the unconscious, automatic, blind yet essentially non-random process discovered by Darwin - is the only answer to the biggest question of all: why do we exist?" Although I haven't read the above book, I have his other book, "The God Delusion". From that, I concluded the pattern in atheist is, they take false-Christianity that they grew up with, and treat it as being true-Christianity. Then they attack the own misconceptions about Jesus Christ, as if their misconceptions are true-Christianity.In summary: I've never met an atheist, who could, on one hand, explain true-Christianity ... and then reject it. Hence, the atheists are rejecting false-Christianity, thinking they're attacking true-Christianity. AHA.... Finally the crux of the matter ... "True Christianity" eh? My condolences.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? They don't all but those that do have a common ancestor. But fine let's assume god made the eye. Then explain this. Take the human eye for example, a blind spot, blood vessels that cross in front of the retina, myopia, cataracts, hyperopia, astigmatism, floaters, an upside down image that the brain needs to sort, a limited range of wavelengths we can see and to top it off almost every other mammal on earth has more visual acuity. If god made the eye then god fucked up royally and needs to go back to eye designing school because, although it works, it's a mess and a shambles.
Because from one of your links this:
Eyes didn’t evolve. In his Word, God himself takes the credit for creating them—and those who refuse to recognize his obvious hand in what he’s made are without excuse Again the question is : How else would you improve it.? The point is it's not perfect and has flaws. Either god did a bodgey job which makes no sense or it's evolved to what we have now. Also seeing in the infrared would be very handy especially given god separated night from day making it a pain in the arse to get around at night. But its YOU who's defining them as "flaws and imperfections". And even then you're wrong about the eye being a mess and shambles and visual acuity being worse than nearly every other mammal. As I've pointed out with the eye, things are the way they are because that's the best way to do it. Humans sleep at night we don't need the complexity of extra photoreceptors that would be rarely used. As for vision lacking perfection, you could say that about us not having wings, not being able to breath under water, not being able to outrun a cheater, having heat sensors, x-ray vision. It sounds like you've watched top many Marvel movies and expects God to have given us superpowers. It's not 'ME' defining them. They ARE flaws. To drill down on just one flaw it begs the question why have a 'blind spot at all'. Cephalopods don't. Surely if god can route the blood vessels behind the retina in one animal he could do it for all? Either god is omnipotent or he's not? There's no 'good enough', that's evolution. It's either perfect or it's a mistake. And it can't be a mistake because god is OMNIPOTENT. And why wouldn't we have night vision? Humans don't sleep for 12 hours. It's only a 'superpower' because we don't have it. A bird never thinks it has a 'superpower' because it can fly. Why give it to a cat? Cats hunt during the day and the night. There's no need for them to have it. BTW what 'complexity'? The liver is a million times more complex than the eye. And again you are not giving god enough credit here. God is the all knowing, supreme being. Nothing would be 'complex' in the eyes of god. The term itself would be nonsensical to god. Why have a blind spot at all? The answer is in the detail. The blind spot is a necessary outcome of the multi-layered design of the human retina, where there are multiple layers of different cell types connected to one another in serial and parallel, processing visual information before connecting to the brain, with high metabolic demands and recycling, requiring close proximity to their metabolic support systems eg vascular and the RPE For comparison cephalopod retina has possibly two layers and no RPE ie photoreceptors whose axons connect directly to the brain. Its retinal architecture is far simpler and offers less functionality. You can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina esp the section: Inverted versus non-inverted retina
The eye is widely acknowledged as the most complex organ outside of the brain. But the complexity of detail the eye has just to make it work you just went into proves god didn't make the eye. Why go to so much trouble? He made us remember. Why not one giant NBN cable linking the retina with your brain without all the pfaffing about bypassing stuff, metabolic demands blah blah blah. If you could make anything, from scratch you'd make it without all the complications. It also begs the question of why make different eyes at all? Wouldn't you just bung one in everything and wire it up the same way in every creature? In evolution there are countless examples of animals with eyes from the light sensitive cells found in mussels to the beast of an eye in a falcon or eagle. And everything in between. I sort of had a grudging respect for you because you clearly know your stuff but it's being tested with, what's becoming clear, your non belief in evolution. Structure is related to function-the human retina is a complex structure because its functions are complex. But iwhy bother with the complexity in the first place? Because it all has to work within the parameters of the Universe-it comes down to physics and chemistry. And who made that.. Even retinal *support* cells are now known to act like fibre optic channels and this was well before we even knew what fibre optics was! The problem I developed with evolution is the problem of biological complexity. When I learned just how complex life is at the fundamental biochemical level, the sheer number of processes and the interdependence of the different processes on one another I found it unconvincing that its the result of one long series of favourable flukes.. Over an unfathomable period of time though Enzo.... Shit look at human intervention by selective trait breeding in the domestication of farm animals as a very simplified example... Or even in selective breeding of plants in farming. and thats only over the last 10,000 years..... The comment you made highlights a major flaw in the theory of evolution. In the example you gave, no matter how much selective breeding occurs, there is no change of kind. i.e. a pig, bred over hundreds and thousands of years, does not become a bird. It becomes thousands of different breeds of pigs. e.g. over thousands of years of breeding of dogs, it's resulted in innumerable varieties of dog-breeds and mutts - but the dogs don't become fish. The flaw in Darwininan theory is that there is no evidence of one kind evolving into a different kind. The example given in this video is that Darwin's theory based on finches and stickleback fish ... the birds remain as birds, and the fish remain as different types of fish. Cainines remain as canines. This is known as adaptation, not evolutionary change of kind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeSxIqAYP4MEvolution vs. God Uncensored — Expanded and Updated | Full Movie Watch this movie to show university professors getting stumped on this point. In the above video, people that have BLIND FAITH in evolution, they really shown up to look silly. The above video is simple enough for Muz to understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? They don't all but those that do have a common ancestor. But fine let's assume god made the eye. Then explain this. Take the human eye for example, a blind spot, blood vessels that cross in front of the retina, myopia, cataracts, hyperopia, astigmatism, floaters, an upside down image that the brain needs to sort, a limited range of wavelengths we can see and to top it off almost every other mammal on earth has more visual acuity. If god made the eye then god fucked up royally and needs to go back to eye designing school because, although it works, it's a mess and a shambles.
Because from one of your links this:
Eyes didn’t evolve. In his Word, God himself takes the credit for creating them—and those who refuse to recognize his obvious hand in what he’s made are without excuse Again the question is : How else would you improve it.? The point is it's not perfect and has flaws. Either god did a bodgey job which makes no sense or it's evolved to what we have now. Also seeing in the infrared would be very handy especially given god separated night from day making it a pain in the arse to get around at night. But its YOU who's defining them as "flaws and imperfections". And even then you're wrong about the eye being a mess and shambles and visual acuity being worse than nearly every other mammal. As I've pointed out with the eye, things are the way they are because that's the best way to do it. Humans sleep at night we don't need the complexity of extra photoreceptors that would be rarely used. As for vision lacking perfection, you could say that about us not having wings, not being able to breath under water, not being able to outrun a cheater, having heat sensors, x-ray vision. It sounds like you've watched top many Marvel movies and expects God to have given us superpowers. It's not 'ME' defining them. They ARE flaws. To drill down on just one flaw it begs the question why have a 'blind spot at all'. Cephalopods don't. Surely if god can route the blood vessels behind the retina in one animal he could do it for all? Either god is omnipotent or he's not? There's no 'good enough', that's evolution. It's either perfect or it's a mistake. And it can't be a mistake because god is OMNIPOTENT. And why wouldn't we have night vision? Humans don't sleep for 12 hours. It's only a 'superpower' because we don't have it. A bird never thinks it has a 'superpower' because it can fly. Why give it to a cat? Cats hunt during the day and the night. There's no need for them to have it. BTW what 'complexity'? The liver is a million times more complex than the eye. And again you are not giving god enough credit here. God is the all knowing, supreme being. Nothing would be 'complex' in the eyes of god. The term itself would be nonsensical to god. Why have a blind spot at all? The answer is in the detail. The blind spot is a necessary outcome of the multi-layered design of the human retina, where there are multiple layers of different cell types connected to one another in serial and parallel, processing visual information before connecting to the brain, with high metabolic demands and recycling, requiring close proximity to their metabolic support systems eg vascular and the RPE For comparison cephalopod retina has possibly two layers and no RPE ie photoreceptors whose axons connect directly to the brain. Its retinal architecture is far simpler and offers less functionality. You can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina esp the section: Inverted versus non-inverted retina
The eye is widely acknowledged as the most complex organ outside of the brain. But the complexity of detail the eye has just to make it work you just went into proves god didn't make the eye. Why go to so much trouble? He made us remember. Why not one giant NBN cable linking the retina with your brain without all the pfaffing about bypassing stuff, metabolic demands blah blah blah. If you could make anything, from scratch you'd make it without all the complications. It also begs the question of why make different eyes at all? Wouldn't you just bung one in everything and wire it up the same way in every creature? In evolution there are countless examples of animals with eyes from the light sensitive cells found in mussels to the beast of an eye in a falcon or eagle. And everything in between. I sort of had a grudging respect for you because you clearly know your stuff but it's being tested with, what's becoming clear, your non belief in evolution. Structure is related to function-the human retina is a complex structure because its functions are complex. But iwhy bother with the complexity in the first place? Because it all has to work within the parameters of the Universe-it comes down to physics and chemistry. And who made that.. Even retinal *support* cells are now known to act like fibre optic channels and this was well before we even knew what fibre optics was! The problem I developed with evolution is the problem of biological complexity. When I learned just how complex life is at the fundamental biochemical level, the sheer number of processes and the interdependence of the different processes on one another I found it unconvincing that its the result of one long series of favourable flukes.. Over an unfathomable period of time though Enzo.... Shit look at human intervention by selective trait breeding in the domestication of farm animals as a very simplified example... Or even in selective breeding of plants in farming. and thats only over the last 10,000 years..... The comment you made highlights a major flaw in the theory of evolution. In the example you gave, no matter how much selective breeding occurs, there is no change of kind. i.e. a pig, bred over hundreds and thousands of years, does not become a bird. It becomes thousands of different breeds of pigs. e.g. over thousands of years of breeding of dogs, it's resulted in innumerable varieties of dog-breeds and mutts - but the dogs don't become fish. The flaw in Darwininan theory is that there is no evidence of one kind evolving into a different kind. The example given in this video is that Darwin's theory based on finches and stickleback fish ... the birds remain as birds, and the fish remain as different types of fish. Cainines remain as canines. This is known as adaptation, not evolutionary change of kind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeSxIqAYP4MEvolution vs. God Uncensored — Expanded and Updated | Full Movie Watch this movie to show university professors getting stumped on this point. The above video is simple enough for Muz to understand. 10,000 years is a laughably minute fraction of time in the historical timeline of "life" on Earth. Im not sure if any of your Youtube "research" can define the Taxonomic classification of biological life, however to recap: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. Evolution throuhg mutation or selective breeding creates a sub species from a species, not the other way around .... Nice try though....
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? They don't all but those that do have a common ancestor. But fine let's assume god made the eye. Then explain this. Take the human eye for example, a blind spot, blood vessels that cross in front of the retina, myopia, cataracts, hyperopia, astigmatism, floaters, an upside down image that the brain needs to sort, a limited range of wavelengths we can see and to top it off almost every other mammal on earth has more visual acuity. If god made the eye then god fucked up royally and needs to go back to eye designing school because, although it works, it's a mess and a shambles.
Because from one of your links this:
Eyes didn’t evolve. In his Word, God himself takes the credit for creating them—and those who refuse to recognize his obvious hand in what he’s made are without excuse Again the question is : How else would you improve it.? The point is it's not perfect and has flaws. Either god did a bodgey job which makes no sense or it's evolved to what we have now. Also seeing in the infrared would be very handy especially given god separated night from day making it a pain in the arse to get around at night. But its YOU who's defining them as "flaws and imperfections". And even then you're wrong about the eye being a mess and shambles and visual acuity being worse than nearly every other mammal. As I've pointed out with the eye, things are the way they are because that's the best way to do it. Humans sleep at night we don't need the complexity of extra photoreceptors that would be rarely used. As for vision lacking perfection, you could say that about us not having wings, not being able to breath under water, not being able to outrun a cheater, having heat sensors, x-ray vision. It sounds like you've watched top many Marvel movies and expects God to have given us superpowers. It's not 'ME' defining them. They ARE flaws. To drill down on just one flaw it begs the question why have a 'blind spot at all'. Cephalopods don't. Surely if god can route the blood vessels behind the retina in one animal he could do it for all? Either god is omnipotent or he's not? There's no 'good enough', that's evolution. It's either perfect or it's a mistake. And it can't be a mistake because god is OMNIPOTENT. And why wouldn't we have night vision? Humans don't sleep for 12 hours. It's only a 'superpower' because we don't have it. A bird never thinks it has a 'superpower' because it can fly. Why give it to a cat? Cats hunt during the day and the night. There's no need for them to have it. BTW what 'complexity'? The liver is a million times more complex than the eye. And again you are not giving god enough credit here. God is the all knowing, supreme being. Nothing would be 'complex' in the eyes of god. The term itself would be nonsensical to god. Why have a blind spot at all? The answer is in the detail. The blind spot is a necessary outcome of the multi-layered design of the human retina, where there are multiple layers of different cell types connected to one another in serial and parallel, processing visual information before connecting to the brain, with high metabolic demands and recycling, requiring close proximity to their metabolic support systems eg vascular and the RPE For comparison cephalopod retina has possibly two layers and no RPE ie photoreceptors whose axons connect directly to the brain. Its retinal architecture is far simpler and offers less functionality. You can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina esp the section: Inverted versus non-inverted retina
The eye is widely acknowledged as the most complex organ outside of the brain. But the complexity of detail the eye has just to make it work you just went into proves god didn't make the eye. Why go to so much trouble? He made us remember. Why not one giant NBN cable linking the retina with your brain without all the pfaffing about bypassing stuff, metabolic demands blah blah blah. If you could make anything, from scratch you'd make it without all the complications. It also begs the question of why make different eyes at all? Wouldn't you just bung one in everything and wire it up the same way in every creature? In evolution there are countless examples of animals with eyes from the light sensitive cells found in mussels to the beast of an eye in a falcon or eagle. And everything in between. I sort of had a grudging respect for you because you clearly know your stuff but it's being tested with, what's becoming clear, your non belief in evolution. Structure is related to function-the human retina is a complex structure because its functions are complex. But iwhy bother with the complexity in the first place? Because it all has to work within the parameters of the Universe-it comes down to physics and chemistry. And who made that.. Even retinal *support* cells are now known to act like fibre optic channels and this was well before we even knew what fibre optics was! The problem I developed with evolution is the problem of biological complexity. When I learned just how complex life is at the fundamental biochemical level, the sheer number of processes and the interdependence of the different processes on one another I found it unconvincing that its the result of one long series of favourable flukes.. Over an unfathomable period of time though Enzo.... Shit look at human intervention by selective trait breeding in the domestication of farm animals as a very simplified example... Or even in selective breeding of plants in farming. and thats only over the last 10,000 years..... The comment you made highlights a major flaw in the theory of evolution. In the example you gave, no matter how much selective breeding occurs, there is no change of kind. i.e. a pig, bred over hundreds and thousands of years, does not become a bird. It becomes thousands of different breeds of pigs. e.g. over thousands of years of breeding of dogs, it's resulted in innumerable varieties of dog-breeds and mutts - but the dogs don't become fish. The flaw in Darwininan theory is that there is no evidence of one kind evolving into a different kind. The example given in this video is that Darwin's theory based on finches and stickleback fish ... the birds remain as birds, and the fish remain as different types of fish. Cainines remain as canines. This is known as adaptation, not evolutionary change of kind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeSxIqAYP4MEvolution vs. God Uncensored — Expanded and Updated | Full Movie Watch this movie to show university professors getting stumped on this point. In the above video, people that have BLIND FAITH in evolution, they really shown up to look silly. The above video is simple enough for Muz to understand. Oh and BTW, professing to abhor "Blind Faith" in others while claiming to be a "True-Christian" is the most facile, laughable, downright disingenuous shit possible... I know you somehow get godly frequent flyer points or whatever from your cult for preaching the word of Jesus but I don;t think you are having much luck converting the eternally damned on here... Keep trying if it brings you happiness though, I personally find it interesting watching the gymnastics.
|
|
|
|
|
johnsmith
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? They don't all but those that do have a common ancestor. But fine let's assume god made the eye. Then explain this. Take the human eye for example, a blind spot, blood vessels that cross in front of the retina, myopia, cataracts, hyperopia, astigmatism, floaters, an upside down image that the brain needs to sort, a limited range of wavelengths we can see and to top it off almost every other mammal on earth has more visual acuity. If god made the eye then god fucked up royally and needs to go back to eye designing school because, although it works, it's a mess and a shambles.
Because from one of your links this:
Eyes didn’t evolve. In his Word, God himself takes the credit for creating them—and those who refuse to recognize his obvious hand in what he’s made are without excuse Again the question is : How else would you improve it.? The point is it's not perfect and has flaws. Either god did a bodgey job which makes no sense or it's evolved to what we have now. Also seeing in the infrared would be very handy especially given god separated night from day making it a pain in the arse to get around at night. But its YOU who's defining them as "flaws and imperfections". And even then you're wrong about the eye being a mess and shambles and visual acuity being worse than nearly every other mammal. As I've pointed out with the eye, things are the way they are because that's the best way to do it. Humans sleep at night we don't need the complexity of extra photoreceptors that would be rarely used. As for vision lacking perfection, you could say that about us not having wings, not being able to breath under water, not being able to outrun a cheater, having heat sensors, x-ray vision. It sounds like you've watched top many Marvel movies and expects God to have given us superpowers. It's not 'ME' defining them. They ARE flaws. To drill down on just one flaw it begs the question why have a 'blind spot at all'. Cephalopods don't. Surely if god can route the blood vessels behind the retina in one animal he could do it for all? Either god is omnipotent or he's not? There's no 'good enough', that's evolution. It's either perfect or it's a mistake. And it can't be a mistake because god is OMNIPOTENT. And why wouldn't we have night vision? Humans don't sleep for 12 hours. It's only a 'superpower' because we don't have it. A bird never thinks it has a 'superpower' because it can fly. Why give it to a cat? Cats hunt during the day and the night. There's no need for them to have it. BTW what 'complexity'? The liver is a million times more complex than the eye. And again you are not giving god enough credit here. God is the all knowing, supreme being. Nothing would be 'complex' in the eyes of god. The term itself would be nonsensical to god. Why have a blind spot at all? The answer is in the detail. The blind spot is a necessary outcome of the multi-layered design of the human retina, where there are multiple layers of different cell types connected to one another in serial and parallel, processing visual information before connecting to the brain, with high metabolic demands and recycling, requiring close proximity to their metabolic support systems eg vascular and the RPE For comparison cephalopod retina has possibly two layers and no RPE ie photoreceptors whose axons connect directly to the brain. Its retinal architecture is far simpler and offers less functionality. You can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina esp the section: Inverted versus non-inverted retina
The eye is widely acknowledged as the most complex organ outside of the brain. But the complexity of detail the eye has just to make it work you just went into proves god didn't make the eye. Why go to so much trouble? He made us remember. Why not one giant NBN cable linking the retina with your brain without all the pfaffing about bypassing stuff, metabolic demands blah blah blah. If you could make anything, from scratch you'd make it without all the complications. It also begs the question of why make different eyes at all? Wouldn't you just bung one in everything and wire it up the same way in every creature? In evolution there are countless examples of animals with eyes from the light sensitive cells found in mussels to the beast of an eye in a falcon or eagle. And everything in between. I sort of had a grudging respect for you because you clearly know your stuff but it's being tested with, what's becoming clear, your non belief in evolution. Structure is related to function-the human retina is a complex structure because its functions are complex. But iwhy bother with the complexity in the first place? Because it all has to work within the parameters of the Universe-it comes down to physics and chemistry. And who made that.. Even retinal *support* cells are now known to act like fibre optic channels and this was well before we even knew what fibre optics was! The problem I developed with evolution is the problem of biological complexity. When I learned just how complex life is at the fundamental biochemical level, the sheer number of processes and the interdependence of the different processes on one another I found it unconvincing that its the result of one long series of favourable flukes.. Over an unfathomable period of time though Enzo.... Shit look at human intervention by selective trait breeding in the domestication of farm animals as a very simplified example... Or even in selective breeding of plants in farming. and thats only over the last 10,000 years..... The comment you made highlights a major flaw in the theory of evolution. In the example you gave, no matter how much selective breeding occurs, there is no change of kind. i.e. a pig, bred over hundreds and thousands of years, does not become a bird. It becomes thousands of different breeds of pigs. e.g. over thousands of years of breeding of dogs, it's resulted in innumerable varieties of dog-breeds and mutts - but the dogs don't become fish. The flaw in Darwininan theory is that there is no evidence of one kind evolving into a different kind. The example given in this video is that Darwin's theory based on finches and stickleback fish ... the birds remain as birds, and the fish remain as different types of fish. Cainines remain as canines. This is known as adaptation, not evolutionary change of kind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeSxIqAYP4MEvolution vs. God Uncensored — Expanded and Updated | Full Movie Watch this movie to show university professors getting stumped on this point. In the above video, people that have BLIND FAITH in evolution, they really shown up to look silly. The above video is simple enough for Muz to understand. Oh and BTW, professing to abhor "Blind Faith" in others while claiming to be a "True-Christian" is the most facile, laughable, downright disingenuous shit possible... I know you somehow get godly frequent flyer points or whatever from your cult for preaching the word of Jesus but I don;t think you are having much luck converting the eternally damned on here... Keep trying if it brings you happiness though, I personally find it interesting watching the gymnastics. It comes down to the person's heart -- whether they are a mocker -- or a truth-seeker. When I say I've made by choice of life-direction based on evidence of Jesus Christ, - a mocker will just insult, jeer, and then walk away, - a truth seeker will ask, "tell me what evidence you have". MSC, you did the same over at the Covid Megathread. I gave a link of a NZ whistleblower being interviewed by his lawyer on staggering data on Covid vaccine death rates ... and you mocked his nickname (not his real name) ... and THAT was sufficient for you to dismiss and walk away from the whistleblower evidence. I am grieved at your hardness of heart. I am staggered that you can ignore the whistleblower's claims SOLELY because of his nickname!!!!!!!!!!!
What I'm saying is, that mocking attitude, when used concerned the God question, will see you mock and reject the most important issue in your lifetime - namely, your eternal destiny.
|
|
|
|
|
Monoethnic Social Club
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xSomething to ponder next time you'd like to insult the intelligent design of the Creator God. @tsf. See. Even when faced with a list of how pathetically hopeless and broken the human body is they still find a way to say this is what God wanted. C'mon man, That gizmodo article is shit. I stopped reading after the first half dozen examples as the pattern of the article is the same ie "this feature of the human body is wrong because of x ". The author fails to comprehend that you can't analyze individual features of the body in isolation to the whole, there are numerous interactions between body parts that require things to be done that way. Also why don't they say how it *should* be done, and after that change, how it interacts with everything else, and what the final outcome is. Even if they did that, they would be assuming we know everything about those individual features, which we don't. I'm in the process of designing a house. A house is infinitely less complex than the human body. I wanted to move an ensuite location. Obviously the plumbing changed, but then the pipes went through a slab rib, but this build is on reactive soil, which then required re-engineering of the slab design..fark that, I'll keep the ensuite where it is, its not perfect but its the simplest and safest way. No do that to all the things the gizmodo artilce lists as flaws. and tell me how it goes. Take the human eye for example, What is the probability that all these creatures would evolve to have a common eye structure? They don't all but those that do have a common ancestor. But fine let's assume god made the eye. Then explain this. Take the human eye for example, a blind spot, blood vessels that cross in front of the retina, myopia, cataracts, hyperopia, astigmatism, floaters, an upside down image that the brain needs to sort, a limited range of wavelengths we can see and to top it off almost every other mammal on earth has more visual acuity. If god made the eye then god fucked up royally and needs to go back to eye designing school because, although it works, it's a mess and a shambles.
Because from one of your links this:
Eyes didn’t evolve. In his Word, God himself takes the credit for creating them—and those who refuse to recognize his obvious hand in what he’s made are without excuse Again the question is : How else would you improve it.? The point is it's not perfect and has flaws. Either god did a bodgey job which makes no sense or it's evolved to what we have now. Also seeing in the infrared would be very handy especially given god separated night from day making it a pain in the arse to get around at night. But its YOU who's defining them as "flaws and imperfections". And even then you're wrong about the eye being a mess and shambles and visual acuity being worse than nearly every other mammal. As I've pointed out with the eye, things are the way they are because that's the best way to do it. Humans sleep at night we don't need the complexity of extra photoreceptors that would be rarely used. As for vision lacking perfection, you could say that about us not having wings, not being able to breath under water, not being able to outrun a cheater, having heat sensors, x-ray vision. It sounds like you've watched top many Marvel movies and expects God to have given us superpowers. It's not 'ME' defining them. They ARE flaws. To drill down on just one flaw it begs the question why have a 'blind spot at all'. Cephalopods don't. Surely if god can route the blood vessels behind the retina in one animal he could do it for all? Either god is omnipotent or he's not? There's no 'good enough', that's evolution. It's either perfect or it's a mistake. And it can't be a mistake because god is OMNIPOTENT. And why wouldn't we have night vision? Humans don't sleep for 12 hours. It's only a 'superpower' because we don't have it. A bird never thinks it has a 'superpower' because it can fly. Why give it to a cat? Cats hunt during the day and the night. There's no need for them to have it. BTW what 'complexity'? The liver is a million times more complex than the eye. And again you are not giving god enough credit here. God is the all knowing, supreme being. Nothing would be 'complex' in the eyes of god. The term itself would be nonsensical to god. Why have a blind spot at all? The answer is in the detail. The blind spot is a necessary outcome of the multi-layered design of the human retina, where there are multiple layers of different cell types connected to one another in serial and parallel, processing visual information before connecting to the brain, with high metabolic demands and recycling, requiring close proximity to their metabolic support systems eg vascular and the RPE For comparison cephalopod retina has possibly two layers and no RPE ie photoreceptors whose axons connect directly to the brain. Its retinal architecture is far simpler and offers less functionality. You can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina esp the section: Inverted versus non-inverted retina
The eye is widely acknowledged as the most complex organ outside of the brain. But the complexity of detail the eye has just to make it work you just went into proves god didn't make the eye. Why go to so much trouble? He made us remember. Why not one giant NBN cable linking the retina with your brain without all the pfaffing about bypassing stuff, metabolic demands blah blah blah. If you could make anything, from scratch you'd make it without all the complications. It also begs the question of why make different eyes at all? Wouldn't you just bung one in everything and wire it up the same way in every creature? In evolution there are countless examples of animals with eyes from the light sensitive cells found in mussels to the beast of an eye in a falcon or eagle. And everything in between. I sort of had a grudging respect for you because you clearly know your stuff but it's being tested with, what's becoming clear, your non belief in evolution. Structure is related to function-the human retina is a complex structure because its functions are complex. But iwhy bother with the complexity in the first place? Because it all has to work within the parameters of the Universe-it comes down to physics and chemistry. And who made that.. Even retinal *support* cells are now known to act like fibre optic channels and this was well before we even knew what fibre optics was! The problem I developed with evolution is the problem of biological complexity. When I learned just how complex life is at the fundamental biochemical level, the sheer number of processes and the interdependence of the different processes on one another I found it unconvincing that its the result of one long series of favourable flukes.. Over an unfathomable period of time though Enzo.... Shit look at human intervention by selective trait breeding in the domestication of farm animals as a very simplified example... Or even in selective breeding of plants in farming. and thats only over the last 10,000 years..... The comment you made highlights a major flaw in the theory of evolution. In the example you gave, no matter how much selective breeding occurs, there is no change of kind. i.e. a pig, bred over hundreds and thousands of years, does not become a bird. It becomes thousands of different breeds of pigs. e.g. over thousands of years of breeding of dogs, it's resulted in innumerable varieties of dog-breeds and mutts - but the dogs don't become fish. The flaw in Darwininan theory is that there is no evidence of one kind evolving into a different kind. The example given in this video is that Darwin's theory based on finches and stickleback fish ... the birds remain as birds, and the fish remain as different types of fish. Cainines remain as canines. This is known as adaptation, not evolutionary change of kind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeSxIqAYP4MEvolution vs. God Uncensored — Expanded and Updated | Full Movie Watch this movie to show university professors getting stumped on this point. In the above video, people that have BLIND FAITH in evolution, they really shown up to look silly. The above video is simple enough for Muz to understand. Oh and BTW, professing to abhor "Blind Faith" in others while claiming to be a "True-Christian" is the most facile, laughable, downright disingenuous shit possible... I know you somehow get godly frequent flyer points or whatever from your cult for preaching the word of Jesus but I don;t think you are having much luck converting the eternally damned on here... Keep trying if it brings you happiness though, I personally find it interesting watching the gymnastics. It comes down to the person's heart -- whether they are a mocker -- or a truth-seeker. When I say I've made by choice of life-direction based on evidence of Jesus Christ, - a mocker will just insult, jeer, and then walk away, - a truth seeker will ask, "tell me what evidence you have". MSC, you did the same over at the Covid Megathread. I gave a link of a NZ whistleblower being interviewed by his lawyer on staggering data on Covid vaccine death rates ... and you mocked his nickname (not his real name) ... and THAT was sufficient for you to dismiss and walk away from the whistleblower evidence. I am grieved at your hardness of heart. I am staggered that you can ignore the whistleblower's claims SOLELY because of his nickname!!!!!!!!!!!
What I'm saying is, that mocking attitude, when used concerned the God question, will see you mock and reject the most important issue in your lifetime - namely, your eternal destiny. I appreciate your concern on the condition my heart and my soul... It is neither your responsibility nor your right to concern yourself.... Keep your truth to yourself please..... If basic common decency doesnt prevent you from being so rude then I dont know how much more I can say to you.... Once again condolences.
|
|
|
|