Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

"Bad design" eye ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Bad design" eye ...

    For the longest time we have had to suffer as Materialists/Humanists/Atheists and their dear compadres (Theistic Evolutionists) used the "bad design of the human eye" argument as supporting evidence that humans Evolved over eons of time and were NOT specially created as Biblical Creationists claimed.

    "Look at the bad design of the human eye", we would hear them proudly boasting.
    "It is an eye that only Evolution could have produced."
    "An all-knowing God would never had produced such a bad design."

    Blah ... blah ... blah ...

    It's easy to criticize that which is not understood and the eye was and remains way too complex for present understanding. But that didn't stop them with their argument.

    Over time a great deal had been discovered to put a sock in the mouth of the nay-sayers.
    Did they ever change their tune? No way!

    Now we have this:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0227131018.htm.


    "The retina is not just the simple detector and neural image processor, as believed until today," said Erez Ribak, a professor at the Technion -- Israel Institute of Technology. "Its optical structure is optimized for our vision purposes." Ribak and his co-authors will describe their work during the 2015 American Physical Society March Meeting, on Thursday, March 5 in San Antonio, Texas."

    BOTTOM LINE: "For the first time, we've explained why the retina is built backwards, with the neurons in front of the photoreceptors, rather than behind them," Ribak said.


    Oh, so NOW you get why God designed this the way He did. NOW you realize that it wasn't a "bad design" as you had boasted as a Pro-Evolutionary argument for all those decades. NOW you can make a public retraction!

    What do I expect from this? Nothing! They'll simple reword their argument, move the goalposts back ten or twenty yards, and then continue with their nay-saying. Hey, whatever it takes to defend The Holy Mother of Evolutionism, right?

    Jorge

  • #2
    Why do you start yet another thread when you have several hanging out there waiting for your answers?

    Question for ya: Can you explain the evolutionary reason for color vision? Hint: The conjecture is that it is partially tied to loss of the ability to synthesize vitamin C.

    Do you realize that color vision reduces the clarity of vision due to room on the retina taken up by cones instead of rods?

    Hey, that "blind spot" kinda interferes with the "perfection" argument as well.

    Heck I don't even know what physical perfection means.

    Anyway, didn't nature become imperfect after Da Fall???

    K54

    P.S. I'd be interested to hear suggestions for better eye design from the biologists here.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
      Why do you start yet another thread when you have several hanging out there waiting for your answers?
      His favourite dance move is the Gish Gallop?

      Heck I don't even know what physical perfection means.
      Physical perfection is perfection that is physical.
      "When the Western world accepted Christianity, Caesar conquered; and the received text of Western theology was edited by his lawyers…. The brief Galilean vision of humility flickered throughout the ages, uncertainly…. But the deeper idolatry, of the fashioning of God in the image of the Egyptian, Persian, and Roman imperial rulers, was retained. The Church gave unto God the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar."

      — Alfred North Whitehead

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Duragizer View Post
        ...

        Physical perfection is perfection that is physical.
        Sounds like a perfect definition.

        K54

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
          Why do you start yet another thread when you have several hanging out there waiting for your answers?
          Because he doesn't have answers and wants a diversion.

          Roy
          Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

          mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

          Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
          Mountain Man: … this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jorge View Post
            For the longest time we have had to suffer as Materialists/Humanists/Atheists and their dear compadres (Theistic Evolutionists) used the "bad design of the human eye" argument as supporting evidence that humans Evolved over eons of time and were NOT specially created as Biblical Creationists claimed.

            "Look at the bad design of the human eye", we would hear them proudly boasting.
            "It is an eye that only Evolution could have produced."
            "An all-knowing God would never had produced such a bad design."

            Blah ... blah ... blah ...

            It's easy to criticize that which is not understood and the eye was and remains way too complex for present understanding. But that didn't stop them with their argument.

            Over time a great deal had been discovered to put a sock in the mouth of the nay-sayers.
            Did they ever change their tune? No way!

            Now we have this:

            http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0227131018.htm.


            "The retina is not just the simple detector and neural image processor, as believed until today," said Erez Ribak, a professor at the Technion -- Israel Institute of Technology. "Its optical structure is optimized for our vision purposes." Ribak and his co-authors will describe their work during the 2015 American Physical Society March Meeting, on Thursday, March 5 in San Antonio, Texas."

            BOTTOM LINE: "For the first time, we've explained why the retina is built backwards, with the neurons in front of the photoreceptors, rather than behind them," Ribak said.


            Oh, so NOW you get why God designed this the way He did. NOW you realize that it wasn't a "bad design" as you had boasted as a Pro-Evolutionary argument for all those decades. NOW you can make a public retraction!

            What do I expect from this? Nothing! They'll simple reword their argument, move the goalposts back ten or twenty yards, and then continue with their nay-saying. Hey, whatever it takes to defend The Holy Mother of Evolutionism, right?

            Jorge
            Yup, I read the (few) replies to the above OP and may safely proclaim that the
            expectation has been totally fulfilled -- hey, what else should we have expected?

            "What do I expect from this (OP)? Nothing! They'll simply ignore the evidence, reword their argument, move the goalposts back ten or twenty yards, and then continue with their nay-saying. Hey, whatever it takes to defend their Holy Mother of Evolutionism, right?"

            These critters are soooooo predictable ... I love it when I'm right. Hehehe ...

            Jorge

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
              Yup, I read the (few) replies to the above OP and may safely proclaim that the
              expectation has been totally fulfilled -- hey, what else should we have expected?

              "What do I expect from this (OP)? Nothing! They'll simply ignore the evidence, reword their argument, move the goalposts back ten or twenty yards, and then continue with their nay-saying. Hey, whatever it takes to defend their Holy Mother of Evolutionism, right?"

              These critters are soooooo predictable ... I love it when I'm right. Hehehe ...

              Jorge
              Just curious --- Do think there could be any improvements to the human eye?

              What about the curse of sin at the Fall? Doesn't that mean things aren't "perfect" today?

              Awaiting your response to these simple questions.

              Assigning probabilities to a sample space of cardinality 2:

              P(serious, cogent, response) = 0.0000001

              P(yet another Jerry Stiller-like comedy skit) = 0.9999999

              K54

              P.S. I'll enjoy either response.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                ...
                "What do I expect from this (OP)? Nothing! They'll simply ignore the evidence, reword their argument, move the goalposts back ten or twenty yards, and then continue with their nay-saying. Hey, whatever it takes to defend their Holy Mother of Evolutionism, right?"

                These critters are soooooo predictable ... I love it when I'm WRONG. Hehehe ...

                Jorge
                Hmm... One thing about your posts is that I learn more and more the proper techniques of projection.

                So let's see you deal with and not ignore some evidence.

                For a start how about the Appalachian cyclothems?

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclothems

                K54

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0227131018.htm.


                  "The retina is not just the simple detector and neural image processor, as believed until today," said Erez Ribak, a professor at the Technion -- Israel Institute of Technology. "Its optical structure is optimized for our vision purposes." Ribak and his co-authors will describe their work during the 2015 American Physical Society March Meeting, on Thursday, March 5 in San Antonio, Texas."

                  BOTTOM LINE: "For the first time, we've explained why the retina is built backwards, with the neurons in front of the photoreceptors, rather than behind them," Ribak said.


                  Oh, so NOW you get why God designed this the way He did. NOW you realize that it wasn't a "bad design" as you had boasted as a Pro-Evolutionary argument for all those decades. NOW you can make a public retraction!

                  What do I expect from this? Nothing! They'll simple reword their argument, move the goalposts back ten or twenty yards, and then continue with their nay-saying. Hey, whatever it takes to defend The Holy Mother of Evolutionism, right?

                  Jorge
                  Hey guys, Jorge has a point. I too have been hearing this for years - that the backwards retina pointed to bad design. So can the evolutionists here admit that the argument concerning the retina no longer holds water?
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Hey guys, Jorge has a point. I too have been hearing this for years - that the backwards retina pointed to bad design. So can the evolutionists here admit that the argument concerning the retina no longer holds water?
                    Of course YOU would think Jorge has a "point".

                    Do YOU think the human eye has a "perfect" design?

                    Is there anything you would change?

                    How about the "breaking" of "perfection" as a result of the Fall?

                    K54

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      This press release (and that's what it is, just PR from the group hosting this guy's talk) is short on details. The background is that certain neural support cells within the layer of nerves can act as lenses for the photoreceptors below them. This can help make up for the fact that there are nerves in between the photoreceptors and any light source.

                      Is this more efficient than simply putting the photoreceptors directly in the path of the light source? Or is it simply a partial compensation for the fact that the vertebrate eye is developmentally constrained in a way that forces the nerves to be in front? The PR doesn't say which is the case. Until that's looked into (assuming it hasn't been), then this doesn't really provide any information, regardless of whether you have an evolutionary or design perspective on the eye.
                      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Hey guys, Jorge has a point. I too have been hearing this for years - that the backwards retina pointed to bad design. So can the evolutionists here admit that the argument concerning the retina no longer holds water?
                        They'd rather disembowel themselves with a rusty machete that "admit" such a thing.

                        Never forget, "science" is just a ruse, it's actually about promoting their religious position.

                        Jorge

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                          They'd rather disembowel themselves with a rusty machete that "admit" such a thing.

                          Never forget, "science" is just a ruse, it's actually about promoting their religious position.

                          Jorge
                          Is the design of the human eye "perfect" or less than perfect?

                          Did the Fall affect the perfection of the eye?

                          K54

                          P.S. I know you're a clown, but please try to be serious for once?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Any eye that can't see infrared light, ultraviolet light, or x-rays can't be all that perfect, can it?
                            "When the Western world accepted Christianity, Caesar conquered; and the received text of Western theology was edited by his lawyers…. The brief Galilean vision of humility flickered throughout the ages, uncertainly…. But the deeper idolatry, of the fashioning of God in the image of the Egyptian, Persian, and Roman imperial rulers, was retained. The Church gave unto God the attributes which belonged exclusively to Caesar."

                            — Alfred North Whitehead

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Too tempting not to post: Perfection is in the eye of the beholder.
                              The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                              [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by Seeker, Yesterday, 08:58 AM
                              7 responses
                              52 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-27-2020, 03:18 PM
                              1 response
                              24 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post lee_merrill  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-17-2020, 05:11 PM
                              7 responses
                              39 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 10-09-2020, 09:25 PM
                              0 responses
                              22 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 10-09-2020, 03:29 PM
                              6 responses
                              52 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X