Does science actually admit "design"?

[OldWiseGuy]

Court denies the plea. Provide data and evidence that human eye sight was better in the past.

By that I take it that you believe eyesight is better now than in the past. What makes you believe that?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

-_- anyone that doesn't consider the blindspot to be a problem is fooling themselves. Have you considered that the blindspot legitimately causes you to entirely overlook items small enough to fit entirely within it in your field of vision? Which could include items such as a venomous spider. But no, overlooking that "is not really a problem", apparently.

Plus, the optical illusion effects can cause confusion and eye strain; how are those things "not really a problem"? Perspective can become confused, causing one to misjudge distances, say, between themselves and a deer, so they miss their opportunity to catch their prey and go hungry.

is this not annoying to look at?

Such "sophisticated, intelligently designed" eyes can't even tell that there aren't any black dots in between these squares, even when you are aware of it? You can try as hard as you want, but you'll never be able to perceive all of the white dots as their actual color.


Try unnecessarily complicated. Don't you find it the least bit ridiculous that your own eyes can't even process an image as being upright, so our brains have to flip it? Even the most basic of cameras can manage that, but this "sophisticated" eye can't?

What you present here is a brain issue, not an eye issue. But I will wholeheartedly agree that there is something wrong with our brains....our thinking. The farther we get from the knowledge of God the screwier we become.

 

[tas8831]

What you present here is a brain issue, not an eye issue. But I will wholeheartedly agree that there is something wrong with our brains....our thinking. The farther we get from the knowledge of God the screwier we become.

So screwy that some insist that the nervous system works in a totally different way than we know it does, like claiming that the aorta can send motor input directly to the larynx via the RLN. A person claiming something so screwy must be like a Satanist or something.

 

[VirOptimus]

It has no weight unless employed. Common sense tells me that removing invasive lake weed overgrowth would help clear up the water. The scientists employed here to make such recommendations don't think so. They think it's better to 'study' the lake some more (meaning there is more money for them if the lakes remain polluted).

Common sense eating doesn't add 'weight' either.

A lot of damage is done through lack of common sense.

Common sense is an asset, not a liability.

You really really dont understand science and the need for exact use of terms.

And you still havent adressed my point.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

By that I take it that you believe eyesight is better now than in the past. What makes you believe that?

No, don't turn this around on me. You said that people in the past had better eye sight, so you have to provide evidence for that claim. I don't have to provide evidence to invalidate your claim.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What you present here is a brain issue, not an eye issue.

-_- the blind spot is a product of the physiology of the eye, not the brain. Same goes for the fact that the image the eyes send the brain is upside down. If the information the eyes were sending the brain actually represented reality well, the brain would have to have so many measures to compensate for the flaws, and it is this need for compensation that results in our susceptibility to optical illusions and other problems. It would be extremely unreasonable to expect the brain to fill in the holes it can't even see accurately every time. The problem is, we know those holes don't have to exist because not all animals have them, so why do any animals have them?

But I will wholeheartedly agree that there is something wrong with our brains....our thinking. The farther we get from the knowledge of God the screwier we become.

-_- this is unrelated to our overall conversation, and I would rather you not bring philosophy into this.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, don't turn this around on me. You said that people in the past had better eye sight, so you have to provide evidence for that claim. I don't have to provide evidence to invalidate your claim.

I thought I qualified my remark satisfactorily.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Don't you find it the least bit ridiculous that your own eyes can't even process an image as being upright, so our brains have to flip it? Even the most basic of cameras can manage that, but this "sophisticated" eye can't?

I hope you realize that you have 'stepped in it' here. Of course the others on your side of the table will be silent (or maybe they will PM you).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I thought I qualified my remark satisfactorily.

You did absolutely nothing of the sort! All you did was say that you THINK human eyesight was historically better, then you tried to back that up by saying "common sense", which is absolutely worthless.
Present evidence for your claim or admit that you're just making stuff up and withdraw it.

 

[VirOptimus]

I hope you realize that you have 'stepped in it' here. Of course the others on your side of the table will be silent (or maybe they will PM you).

No, you are, as usual, wrong.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You did absolutely nothing of the sort! All you did was say that you THINK human eyesight was historically better, then you tried to back that up by saying "common sense", which is absolutely worthless.
Present evidence for your claim or admit that you're just making stuff up and withdraw it.

Here's what I said. Note the qualifier.

"Our eyes are the victims of generations of physical degeneration. We really don't know how good our eyes were at the beginning of creation, but in any case they were perfect for the vision that God intended them to provide. Heck, they're still pretty good."

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, you are, as usual, wrong.

I'm actually surprised that you don't get it.

Maybe someone will PM you about this as well.

Hint: Light travels in straight lines (for the purpose of this topic).

 

[VirOptimus]

I'm actually surprised that you don't get it.

Maybe someone will PM you about this as well.

Hint: Light travels in straight lines (for the purpose of this topic).

Enlighten me.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Enlighten me.

Sure.
Imagine looking at two squirrels through a knothole in a fence. One is on the ground, the other in a tree. Because light travels in straight lines you have to crouch down to look up and stretch up to look down through the knothole (aperature). Imagine holding a piece of paper a foot or so behind the knot hole. The image of the squirrel in the tree falls on the lower part of the paper, while the image of the one on the ground falls on the upper part, thus the image is upside down (it is also backwards left-to-right), it must be so in all such vision systems, as well as all round aperature cameras (sorry Sarah). The visual part of the brain turns the image right side up, as it was designed to do. It cannot be otherwise. I don't know how this could be explained by evolution.

Further, the lens needed to provide an upright image on the retina would be impossibly complex if even possible.

 

[VirOptimus]

Sure.
Imagine looking at two squirrels through a knothole in a fence. One is on the ground, the other in a tree. Because light travels in straight lines you have to crouch down to look up and stretch up to look down through the knothole (aperature). Imagine holding a piece of paper a foot or so behind the knot hole. The image of the squirrel in the tree falls on the lower part of the paper, while the image of the one on the ground falls on the upper part, thus the image is upside down (it is also backwards left-to-right), it must be so in all such vision systems, as well as all round aperature cameras (sorry Sarah). The visual part of the brain turns the image right side up, as it was designed to do. It cannot be otherwise. I don't know how this could be explained by evolution.

Further, the lens needed to provide an upright image on the retina would be impossibly complex if even possible.

Yes yes, but human eyes are still far from perfect and contain quite a few flaws (as it would be from something evolved). Your assertions are still baseless and wrong.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Intellectually lazy.
"god-dun-it, we will never understand!" and the questioning instantly stops.

That is the kind of mentality that makes all scientific progress come to a halt.



Shifting burden of proof fail.
It's not upto us to "disprove" fantastical claims that have no evidence.

You want to make claims about "designers" - you support them.



And again with the intellectually lazy mentality.

"we will never understand! just accept god-dun-it, and move on...."

Many people have said that about a great many subjects. Subjects, that we then understood after putting in the hard work of studying them.

Actually, because evolutionary research is actually the study of creation we want you to continue. We just add the proper conclusion to your studies.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes yes, but human eyes are still far from perfect and contain quite a few flaws (as it would be from something evolved). Your assertions are still baseless and wrong.

Define "perfect" in regard to human vision. We are designed to grow old and die at around 80, which includes declining visual health.

 

[VirOptimus]

Define "perfect" in regard to human vision.

A perfect vision would see the whole spectra of light.

 

[VirOptimus]

Actually, because evolutionary research is actually the study of creation we want you to continue. We just add the proper conclusion to your studies.

How arrogant.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A perfect vision would see the whole spectra of light.

At one time? Would that be blinding?