The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Four: The Genesis of Ire!

[Elrohir]

Without intending to get involved in this huge debate, I have one question: I was at a science museum yesterday (Imagine that! ) and there was a sign about dragonflies, saying they evolved 340 million years ago, and have kept changing ever since, and so forth.

My question is, how could they possibly get that figure? Dragonflies are insects, and so they don't have bones, so they couldn't even leave fossils. Anyone have any idea how they got that date?

 

[ironduck]

Look

Look 2

Look 3

 

[classical_hero]

classical_hero:

first, why do you bring up another proto-whale when you ran from discussing the last one?

Second, the human eye is OK, but it has been proven here about ten times that it could be much better. Why do you repeat posts proven to be wrong?


because you have no argument, just propaganda to fing out in another instance of drive-by posting?



I guess so........

Really, show me. Show me how the human eye can be better.

 

[classical_hero]

I am not quite sure what you are saying here. The structures look similar initially, and you can understand their eventual structure by understanding where they come from evolutionarly. For example the nerve supply of organs derived from the gill arches comes from the relative cranial nerves.

Why would they be designed this way, other than to decive people into beliveing that our organs are derived from the fish structures?

You can argue that common structures come with a common designer. But if you look at all the differences between the two structures, you will that there is very little in common. You basically are make a big issue out of something that is really not much of an issue.

 

[ironduck]

If we do, will you reflect upon it in a rational manner or just ignore it?

 

[ironduck]

This is pretty cool

 

[classical_hero]

And just one last thing, I'd really like you to answer TLC's question here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=4567590&postcount=364

There are plenty of creatures that have the ability to be both adept in water and land, so I do not see the point in this example.

 

[classical_hero]

This is pretty cool

All that proves is that the fall is in effect. This important fact goes with creation because it shows us why there are defects. Also all these are doing is improving on something that is already there. We are working with an already working device whereas when ever we start. Plus I am talking from a design POV. If anyone is able to build a device that works like the human eye, then that person will get a noble prize for his efforts. So those who say it is not a good design, then get me something better.

 

[ironduck]

it proves that 'the fall' is in effect?

Do you know what a proof is?

Btw, the lens on the eye is kinda sucky. It's a good place to start.

 

[El_Machinae]

The blind spot could go, it's the appendix of eye design.
Being able to see additional colours, like a turtle, would improve it.
Being able to see additional versions of light, like a bumblebee, would improve it.

Classical Hero: are you truely of the opinion that it would be impossible to build a superior eye that interfaces with the optic nerve? That it's fundamentally impossible for some gene therapy or cybernetic modification to improve what is already there?

I bet you've got a pre-packaged rebuttal of my 'blind spot' comment. Can you prove that the human eye can't be made such that it's not necessary? Of course you can't. You can't prove a negative. OTOH, as soon as there is gene therapy that improves vision in the eye, your entire line of reasoning is proven false. Are you willing to bet that?

 

[ironduck]

He can just say that 'it proves that the fall is in effect'. The kind of errors we fix today with glasses and now adaptive optics are compensating for flaws that originate due to a lack of quality control inherent in the design. In other words, I will argue that not having designed better quality control to ensure optimum performance is a design flaw.

 

[mdwh]

Our eyes are perfect? My glasses say otherwise.

As well as what El_Machinae says, being able to see in greater resolution would be good too.

 

[ironduck]

Anything could be improved on the eye. Wavelength scope, acuity, resolution, zoom, protection, you name it. But as you've seen above, arguing this is just going to get the 'it proves the fall is in effect' treatment.

 

[ironduck]

There are plenty of creatures that have the ability to be both adept in water and land, so I do not see the point in this example.

That wasn't the question. The question was why you claim that Remingtonocetus is obviously terrestrial. You are asked to pinpoint the anatomical features that back up your initial claim that this animal was so obviously not aquatic, but terrestrial.

 

[Elrohir]

Our eyes are perfect? My glasses say otherwise.

I believe his point was exactly that your eyes aren't perfect, and this lack of perfection shows the results of the Fall.

 

[Souron]

By that logic, all monkeys should have perfect eyesite.

 

[ironduck]

Elrohir, did you see my links to you?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

By that logic, all monkeys should have perfect eyesite.

Yeah, it's bad enough that all humans should be punished for what a couple people did, but the poor monkeys?

 

[ironduck]

By that logic, all monkeys should have perfect eyesite.

No, because all life on earth suffers after the fall according these guys' logic. That's why animals became predators, for instance. Before the fall the tyrannosaurus rex only ate fruit.

 

[Taliesin]

So, in other words, the human eye has a perfect, unimprovable design, so it can't have evolved; but there are numerous flaws and areas of improvement, because Adam ate a fruit and God both sabotaged His own design and made it possible for man to correct for His sabotage.

But then, of course, the eye's pre-lapsarian perfection of design both assumes not-evolution and serves as evidence against evolution. Makes perfect sense.


Genesis 3:7 And their eyes were opened;

As this quotation clearly proves, the Fall actually improved man's eyesight, thus the original design cannot have been perfect.