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

[warpus]

I just wanted to make you aware of the difficulties (especially given that many posters aren't native English speakers).

Exactly, so give Janitor_X a break, as he doesn't appear to be a native English speaker

 

[Perfection]

Exactly, so give Janitor_X a break, as he doesn't appear to be a native English speaker

He is, I know him from chat.

 

[tinabyte]

Evolution is just our scientific attempt to understand how life was created. Asking whether the creation is more scientifically valid than our attempt to understand it through science is silly. Is a sunset less scientifically valid than astronomy? No, astronomy is our attempt to understand the process. Is a flower in full bloom less scientifically valid than botany? No, again it's our attempt to understand the process. Living creatures don't need a science to be created any more than the creator needed it. If there is a natural evolution in the makeup of these creatures it's only natural to assume that the ability to change with their environments was built in. We need science to understand this.

- I am a friend of the janitor's and he asked me to translate his "yooper talk".

 

[The Last Conformist]

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.

Shall I take this as yet another evasion, or as admission that your original claim (viz. that Remingtonocetus was terrestrial and you could tell it from the bones) was wrong?

 

[The Last Conformist]

I only skimmed the last several pages, so maybe this was pointed out by someone, but the reason the blind spot is "necessary" is that the vertebrate eye has the nerves in front of the photoreceptors - they have to go thru the photoreceptor layer somewhere to reach the brain, and that somewhere is the blind spot, that thus forms a hole in the photoreceptor battery. Cephalopods do the sensible thing, having the nerves behind the photoreceptors, and thus escape the need for a blind spot, as well as make better use of faint light.

(FL2 tried to argue that this is because cephalopods are aquatic while vertebrates live on land. FL2 is apparently unaware of the existence of fish.)

 

[carlosMM]

oh how I miss FL2 He at least stuck to a thread and answered questions, even if he often got things wrong! but he was an honest debater!

 

[ironduck]

I've seen it argued that we need the nerves in front of the photoreceptors in order to shield them somewhat from light.. It seems a rather odd argument to me for a number of reasons.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I've seen it argued that we need the nerves in front of the photoreceptors in order to shield them somewhat from light.. It seems a rather odd argument to me for a number of reasons.

I suppose it would have exceeded God's meagre skills to, like, make the photoreceptors less light sensitive ...

 

[El_Machinae]

Really, the blind spot doesn't really matter. As C_H points out, we get by just fine because we've got two eyes.

That said, it's a bad design, given that the Designer would later tell humans to pluck out their eye if it offended them. At that point, the blind spot becomes important.

Finally, I will stand by my statement that any gene therapy that improves the design of the human eye will invalidate the statement that it's design is perfect. Is this a false test, or a fair test?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Finally, I will stand by my statement that any gene therapy that improves the design of the human eye will invalidate the statement that it's design is perfect. Is this a false test, or a fair test?

We can already improve the sight of someone with "perfect" sight by laser sculpting of the cornea. If that's not improvement, what is?

 

[Xanikk999]

I think you guys already KO'ed all the creationists who came on this thread.

 

[ironduck]

Really, the blind spot doesn't really matter. As C_H points out, we get by just fine because we've got two eyes.

That said, it's a bad design, given that the Designer would later tell humans to pluck out their eye if it offended them. At that point, the blind spot becomes important.

Umm... the blind spot is about the least important visual problem if you lose one of your eyes!

 

[El_Machinae]

Oh, don't be a sissy!

We can already improve the sight of someone with "perfect" sight by laser sculpting of the cornea. If that's not improvement, what is?

There are a range of vision capabilities among humans. I don't know of any surgery that allows the patient to transcend human visual capabilities. Am I missing something? I got the laser surgery, and would be sad to find out there was a superior technique.

The glasses you wear (because of your 'below average' vision) are a result of the Fall, if I'm following the myth correctly. But the design of the eye cannot be improved upon, again, according to the myth.

So, I'm thinking that any gene therapy that allows someone to transcend human vision capabilities would invalidate Classical Hero's statement.

 

[carlosMM]

I think you guys already KO'ed all the creationists who came on this thread.

they are somewhat zombie-like and come back form the dead occasionally

 

[Masquerouge]

Finally, I will stand by my statement that any gene therapy that improves the design of the human eye will invalidate the statement that it's design is perfect. Is this a false test, or a fair test?

Well, they have cured genetic blindness in dogs using a viral vector. That's one heck of a first step!

Link is in French, though...
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3244,36-820218@51-820342,0.html

 

[ironduck]

Yes, I remember reading that, it's so cool!

 

[Smidlee]

I got a huge blind spot from the back of my head. I remember The Outerlimits" years ago where a man inject nanomachines into his body which made great improvements. Finally those nanomachines figured the perfect man would have eyes out of the back of his head which of course covers that big blind spot. Thus those kind of arguments are flawed.

I wonder why some car designers put the battery on the bottom of the car. This makes it a real pain to change batteries. This example doesn't prove that the car wasn't created or really bad design even though I strongly disagree with them.

 

[carlosMM]

I got a huge blind spot from the back of my head. I remember The Outerlimits" years ago where a man inject nanomachines into his body which made great improvements. Finally those nanomachines figured the perfect man would have eyes out of the back of his head which of course covers that big blind spot. Thus those kind of arguments are flawed.

because MORE eyes would be better than the two we have, it doesn't matter how bad he eyes are that we have??????

btw, you just showed AGAIN how badly man is 'designed'. Seems you god is a pathetic engineer.

 

[The Last Conformist]

There are a range of vision capabilities among humans. I don't know of any surgery that allows the patient to transcend human visual capabilities. Am I missing something? I got the laser surgery, and would be sad to find out there was a superior technique.

Well, what's "transcend" mean? Laser sculpting of the cornea can improve the sight of someone whose (pre-surgery) eyesight would have been judged "perfect" in an optic exam.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, damnit, I should have gotten that done.

Let's make a Creationist prediction. Does Creationism predict asexual creatures?

Gen 7:7 ¶ And Noah went in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him, into the ark, because of the waters of the flood.


Gen 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that [are] not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,


Gen 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

There are other places in the history of the Flood that refer to the creatures in the Ark being 'male and female'. The fact that there are 'crawling things' on the Earth that are NOT 'male and female' proves this part of the Scripture false.