BigDawg_03Busa
Registered
Like I told you in that respect, I can't explain everything bro and if I could would it actually change anything? You tell me where it came from along with the 1 million + cells in the human eye alone.
As an intelligent nation, do we pl
- Thread starter WWJD
- Start date
BigDawg_03Busa
You said that I "keep believing man's knowledge is absolute"
Where did you get that from?
Did I ever said that I 100% believe in Darwin theory?
It is called THEORY.
Please let me know if you want to know definition of word Theory.
I`m not biologist, I know a few tho who questioned Darwin theory.
God must be a scientist, I think.
You said that I "keep believing man's knowledge is absolute"
Where did you get that from?
Did I ever said that I 100% believe in Darwin theory?
It is called THEORY.
Please let me know if you want to know definition of word Theory.
I`m not biologist, I know a few tho who questioned Darwin theory.
God must be a scientist, I think.
if you cant explain something a simple as a watch and how it's components come together, then why should I believe you would understand something as complex as a human eye??
Now on the serious side, evan the simplest of things can be very difficult to explain, and more so very time consuming. I am sure if you really wanted to you could put your google powers to work and find all the information needed to explain how raw ore is transformed into the materials needed to build a watch. Now thinking of that it would still take a very long time and you would need to post pages of information to fully explain each step.
So when someone asks the question of explain how the eye works, I would not begin to presume they really wanted me to fully explain the answer. What your really looking for is my failed attempt to explain what you dont understand in order to back up what you believe vs. what the truth is.
However if you really want to know how an eye works prepare your self for a long journey and start by calling an optomitrist, then go to school for a long time. The answer is there if you really want to know.
As for your question does it change anything? Yes it does, you will know the truth instead of believe it.
Couldn`t say better.
here is a small explination of google results. This is the argument you were looking for I think. But still does not answer your question.
Does an objective look at the human eye show evidence of creation?
A frequently raised criticism of evolution in any evolution-creation debate is that of the human eye. The creationist will say something like, "How can something as marvelous as the human eye have come about by chance alone? Surely there must have been a divine creation." These types of statements show two things. First, the creationist doesn't understand how evolution's 'chance' works. (i.e., They have yet to grasp the concepts behind cumulative natural selection.) Second, they haven't bothered to really examine the human eye to look for characteristics such as design flaws. (Note that the quote from Ernst Mayr under the above "creationist will say" link has been taken completely out of context. Not only does Mayr's entire book provide evidence after evidence of "improved" random mutations, but the same paragraph as quoted also states that "the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence." This page looks at the substantial evidence against the 'intelligent' designer of creationism.)
As Frank Zindler (former professor of biology and geology) stated,
"As an organ developed via the opportunistic twists and turns of evolutionary processes, the human eye is explainable. As an organ designed and created by an infinitely wise deity, the human eye is inexcusable. For unlike the invertebrate eyes ..., the human eye is constructed upon the foundation of an almost incredible error: The retina has been put together backwards! Unlike the retinas of octopuses and squids, in which the light-gathering cells are aimed forward, toward the source of incoming light, the photoreceptor cells (the so called rods and cones) of the human retina are aimed backward, away from the light source. Worse yet, the nerve fibers which must carry signals from the retina to the brain must pass in front of the receptor cells, partially impeding the penetration of light to the receptors. Only a blasphemer would attribute such a situation to divine design!
Although the human eye would be a scandal if it were the result of divine deliberation, a plausible evolutionary explanation of its absurd construction can be obtained quite easily--even though we can make little use of paleontology (because eyes, like all soft tissues, rarely fossilize)."
Biologist George Williams wrote an entire book on the subject of design and purpose in nature. Near the beginning of The Pony Fish's Glow, Williams responds to Paley's watchmaker argument using various body parts as examples of why Paley's argument may look good on the surface, but it lacks credibility when closely examined using modern technology and biology. Here he discusses the human eye:
"not all features of the human eye make functional sense. Some are arbitrary. To begin at the grossest level, is there a good functional reason for having two eyes? Why not one or three or some other number? Yes, there is a reason: two is better than one because they permit stereoscopic vision and the gathering of three-dimensional information about the environment. But three would be better still. We could have our stereoscopic view of what lies ahead plus another eye to warn us of what might be sneaking up behind. (I have more suggestions for improving human vision in chapter 7.) When we examine each eye from behind, we find that there are six tiny muscles that move it so that it can point in different directions. Why six? Properly spaced and coordinated, three would suffice, just as three is an adequate number of legs for a photographer's tripod. The paucity of eyes and excess of their muscles seem to have no functional explanation.
And some eye features are not merely arbitrary but clearly dysfunctional. The nerve fibers from the retinal rods and cones extend not inward toward the brain but outward toward the chamber of the eye and source of light. They have to gather into a bundle, the optic nerve, inside the eye, and exit via a hole in the retina. Even though the obstructing layer is microscopically thin, some light is lost from having to pass through the layer of nerve fibers and ganglia and especially the blood vessels that serve them. The eye is blind where the optic nerve exits through its hole. The loose application of the retina to the underlying sclera makes the eye vulnerable to the serious medical problem of detached retina. It would not be if the nerve fibers passed through the sclera and formed the optic nerve behind the eye. This functionally sensible arrangement is in fact what is found in the eye of a squid and other mollusks (as shown in the figure below), but our eyes, and those of all other vertebrates, have the functionally stupid upside-down orientation of the retina.
Paley did not really confront this problem. Little was known about mollusks' eyes at the time, and Paley merely treated the blind spots as one of the problems the eye must solve. He correctly noted that the medial position of the optic nerve exits avoids having both eyes blind to the same part of the visual field. Everything in the field is seen by at least one eye. It might also be claimed that the obstructing tissues of the retina are made as thin and transparent as possible, so as to minimize the shading of the light-sensitive layer. Unfortunately there is no way to make red blood cells transparent, and the blood vessels cast demonstrable shadows.
What might Paley's reaction have been to the claim, which I will elaborate in the next chapter, that mundane processes taking place throughout living nature can produce contrivances without contrivers, and that these processes produce not only functionally elegant features but also, as a kind of cumulative historical burden, the arbitrary and dysfunctional features of organisms?" (page 9-10)
He continues on the eye later as follows:
"What would Paley's reaction have been to the suggestion that the creator's wisdom is as finite as ours, and that the engineering perfection of such instruments as the eye...depends...on much trial-and-error tinkering that supplemented the creator's limited understanding? And what about the suggestion that the creator had no understanding at all, but accomplished sophisticated engineering entirely on the basis of trial and error?" (page 11-12)
Williams concludes his section on trial-and-error and the eye argument with the following:
"This is no doubt true of all the implements we use: cameras, cars, computers, and even the watch that Paley reasoned must have had an intelligent designer. How far is it possible to go with trial and error alone? All the way to the human eye and hand and immune system and all the other well-engineered machinery by which we, and all other organisms, solve the problems of life...
Darwin was challenged repeatedly on this matter. Critics would point to the precision and design features of the eye and claim that an organ of this perfection could not possibly have been produced by an accumulation of small changes, each of which made the eye work slightly better. A grossly imperfect eye, which could be improved by this process, would supposedly never evolve in the first place. Slight improvements in one part, such as the retina, would be useless without an exactly matching improvement in another, such as an increased precision of the lens. This is an utterly fallacious kind of reasoning. An improved retina may be useless without an improved lens, but both retinas and lenses are subject to individual variation. Some of the better retinas would be found in individuals who also had better lenses, so that the improvements, on average, could be favored.
The criticisms were also factually erroneous, and their proponents were ignorant of biology. As Darwin pointed out, familiarity with the animal kingdom shows the existence today of just about every stage in a plausible sequence from primitive light-sensitive cells on the surfaces of tiny wormlike animals, through the rudimentary camera eyes of scallops, to the advanced optical instrumentation of squids and vertebrates. Every stage in this sequence is subject to variation, and every stage is clearly useful to its possessor." (page 13-14)
Another creature to consider is the mole rat. Which theory holds water when the eye of the mole rat is considered? The ancestor of the mole rat presumably used its eyes as it lived above ground and needed them for survival. However, the mole rat has adapted to living underground in complete darkness. Its eyes have become useless--indeed, they have been buried beneath skin and fur and couldn't be used even if the mole rat came into the light. The neurons that were used for sight have been put to better use in the mole rat's brain for other sensory functions. Evolution by natural selection perfectly explains the eyes of a mole rat. A creationist must resort to faith and/or a poor designer. (See Lucy's Legacy p. 25 and Jared Diamond's "Competition for brain space" in Nature 382: 756-757.)
Those interested in this subject should also see chapters four and five of Richard Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable, section 13.3 in Mark Ridley's Evolution, pages 110 to 114 in Cells, Embryos, and Evolution, the faulty deductive reasoning of Paley--especially as it relates to intelligent design inference for human eyes--from p. 140-3 of Science As a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology, Ted Gaten's research interests, the section entitled "Eyes and Evolution" on pages 161 - 165 of Songs, Roars, and Rituals, Evolution of the Eye and Visual System by J. R. Cronly-Dillon and R. L. Gregory, and How Could An Eye Evolve? On a related topic, see the inefficiencies created by natural selection (and lack of design) as illustrated on this page.
In summary, the eye not only lacks evidence of divine creation, it exemplifies the problems that natural evolution can create (along with the virtues) in organisms. Rather than being a chief argument for creationism, the human eye should be a topic that 'special creation' and/or 'intelligent design hypothesis' apologists avoid.
Responce By Warwgn
Now did anybody actually read all of that?? I think not, hence the proof of my statement you really dont want to know the answer!!!
Does an objective look at the human eye show evidence of creation?
A frequently raised criticism of evolution in any evolution-creation debate is that of the human eye. The creationist will say something like, "How can something as marvelous as the human eye have come about by chance alone? Surely there must have been a divine creation." These types of statements show two things. First, the creationist doesn't understand how evolution's 'chance' works. (i.e., They have yet to grasp the concepts behind cumulative natural selection.) Second, they haven't bothered to really examine the human eye to look for characteristics such as design flaws. (Note that the quote from Ernst Mayr under the above "creationist will say" link has been taken completely out of context. Not only does Mayr's entire book provide evidence after evidence of "improved" random mutations, but the same paragraph as quoted also states that "the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence." This page looks at the substantial evidence against the 'intelligent' designer of creationism.)
As Frank Zindler (former professor of biology and geology) stated,
"As an organ developed via the opportunistic twists and turns of evolutionary processes, the human eye is explainable. As an organ designed and created by an infinitely wise deity, the human eye is inexcusable. For unlike the invertebrate eyes ..., the human eye is constructed upon the foundation of an almost incredible error: The retina has been put together backwards! Unlike the retinas of octopuses and squids, in which the light-gathering cells are aimed forward, toward the source of incoming light, the photoreceptor cells (the so called rods and cones) of the human retina are aimed backward, away from the light source. Worse yet, the nerve fibers which must carry signals from the retina to the brain must pass in front of the receptor cells, partially impeding the penetration of light to the receptors. Only a blasphemer would attribute such a situation to divine design!
Although the human eye would be a scandal if it were the result of divine deliberation, a plausible evolutionary explanation of its absurd construction can be obtained quite easily--even though we can make little use of paleontology (because eyes, like all soft tissues, rarely fossilize)."
Biologist George Williams wrote an entire book on the subject of design and purpose in nature. Near the beginning of The Pony Fish's Glow, Williams responds to Paley's watchmaker argument using various body parts as examples of why Paley's argument may look good on the surface, but it lacks credibility when closely examined using modern technology and biology. Here he discusses the human eye:
"not all features of the human eye make functional sense. Some are arbitrary. To begin at the grossest level, is there a good functional reason for having two eyes? Why not one or three or some other number? Yes, there is a reason: two is better than one because they permit stereoscopic vision and the gathering of three-dimensional information about the environment. But three would be better still. We could have our stereoscopic view of what lies ahead plus another eye to warn us of what might be sneaking up behind. (I have more suggestions for improving human vision in chapter 7.) When we examine each eye from behind, we find that there are six tiny muscles that move it so that it can point in different directions. Why six? Properly spaced and coordinated, three would suffice, just as three is an adequate number of legs for a photographer's tripod. The paucity of eyes and excess of their muscles seem to have no functional explanation.
And some eye features are not merely arbitrary but clearly dysfunctional. The nerve fibers from the retinal rods and cones extend not inward toward the brain but outward toward the chamber of the eye and source of light. They have to gather into a bundle, the optic nerve, inside the eye, and exit via a hole in the retina. Even though the obstructing layer is microscopically thin, some light is lost from having to pass through the layer of nerve fibers and ganglia and especially the blood vessels that serve them. The eye is blind where the optic nerve exits through its hole. The loose application of the retina to the underlying sclera makes the eye vulnerable to the serious medical problem of detached retina. It would not be if the nerve fibers passed through the sclera and formed the optic nerve behind the eye. This functionally sensible arrangement is in fact what is found in the eye of a squid and other mollusks (as shown in the figure below), but our eyes, and those of all other vertebrates, have the functionally stupid upside-down orientation of the retina.
Paley did not really confront this problem. Little was known about mollusks' eyes at the time, and Paley merely treated the blind spots as one of the problems the eye must solve. He correctly noted that the medial position of the optic nerve exits avoids having both eyes blind to the same part of the visual field. Everything in the field is seen by at least one eye. It might also be claimed that the obstructing tissues of the retina are made as thin and transparent as possible, so as to minimize the shading of the light-sensitive layer. Unfortunately there is no way to make red blood cells transparent, and the blood vessels cast demonstrable shadows.
What might Paley's reaction have been to the claim, which I will elaborate in the next chapter, that mundane processes taking place throughout living nature can produce contrivances without contrivers, and that these processes produce not only functionally elegant features but also, as a kind of cumulative historical burden, the arbitrary and dysfunctional features of organisms?" (page 9-10)
He continues on the eye later as follows:
"What would Paley's reaction have been to the suggestion that the creator's wisdom is as finite as ours, and that the engineering perfection of such instruments as the eye...depends...on much trial-and-error tinkering that supplemented the creator's limited understanding? And what about the suggestion that the creator had no understanding at all, but accomplished sophisticated engineering entirely on the basis of trial and error?" (page 11-12)
Williams concludes his section on trial-and-error and the eye argument with the following:
"This is no doubt true of all the implements we use: cameras, cars, computers, and even the watch that Paley reasoned must have had an intelligent designer. How far is it possible to go with trial and error alone? All the way to the human eye and hand and immune system and all the other well-engineered machinery by which we, and all other organisms, solve the problems of life...
Darwin was challenged repeatedly on this matter. Critics would point to the precision and design features of the eye and claim that an organ of this perfection could not possibly have been produced by an accumulation of small changes, each of which made the eye work slightly better. A grossly imperfect eye, which could be improved by this process, would supposedly never evolve in the first place. Slight improvements in one part, such as the retina, would be useless without an exactly matching improvement in another, such as an increased precision of the lens. This is an utterly fallacious kind of reasoning. An improved retina may be useless without an improved lens, but both retinas and lenses are subject to individual variation. Some of the better retinas would be found in individuals who also had better lenses, so that the improvements, on average, could be favored.
The criticisms were also factually erroneous, and their proponents were ignorant of biology. As Darwin pointed out, familiarity with the animal kingdom shows the existence today of just about every stage in a plausible sequence from primitive light-sensitive cells on the surfaces of tiny wormlike animals, through the rudimentary camera eyes of scallops, to the advanced optical instrumentation of squids and vertebrates. Every stage in this sequence is subject to variation, and every stage is clearly useful to its possessor." (page 13-14)
Another creature to consider is the mole rat. Which theory holds water when the eye of the mole rat is considered? The ancestor of the mole rat presumably used its eyes as it lived above ground and needed them for survival. However, the mole rat has adapted to living underground in complete darkness. Its eyes have become useless--indeed, they have been buried beneath skin and fur and couldn't be used even if the mole rat came into the light. The neurons that were used for sight have been put to better use in the mole rat's brain for other sensory functions. Evolution by natural selection perfectly explains the eyes of a mole rat. A creationist must resort to faith and/or a poor designer. (See Lucy's Legacy p. 25 and Jared Diamond's "Competition for brain space" in Nature 382: 756-757.)
Those interested in this subject should also see chapters four and five of Richard Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable, section 13.3 in Mark Ridley's Evolution, pages 110 to 114 in Cells, Embryos, and Evolution, the faulty deductive reasoning of Paley--especially as it relates to intelligent design inference for human eyes--from p. 140-3 of Science As a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology, Ted Gaten's research interests, the section entitled "Eyes and Evolution" on pages 161 - 165 of Songs, Roars, and Rituals, Evolution of the Eye and Visual System by J. R. Cronly-Dillon and R. L. Gregory, and How Could An Eye Evolve? On a related topic, see the inefficiencies created by natural selection (and lack of design) as illustrated on this page.
In summary, the eye not only lacks evidence of divine creation, it exemplifies the problems that natural evolution can create (along with the virtues) in organisms. Rather than being a chief argument for creationism, the human eye should be a topic that 'special creation' and/or 'intelligent design hypothesis' apologists avoid.
Responce By Warwgn
Now did anybody actually read all of that?? I think not, hence the proof of my statement you really dont want to know the answer!!!
BigDawg_03Busa
Registered
First of all your question was how the components were created. I said I didn't know how those components (metal & plastic) were forged, but I know your and my individual components were created by God and put together by God so there is the answer to your second question.
My point for bringing up the eye man was the fact that how could an organ that doesn't grow as we age & has 1 million cells be something that evolved, it had to be designed. I apologize for not being more clear on that respect and I'm in the health profession and know all about rods/cones/lens/cornea, etc so knowing that further backs up my faith and knowledge that it didn't evolve from a "no-eyed" ameoba.
As for the truth how can I "know" something without first "believing" it? I've already said I know God exists because of evidence I'VE seen. I can't speak for any other believer/knower, nor will I try. I'm speaking for His move in my life. I believe my car will crank, but I know it when I turn the key (I'm not talking about some of my past cars because it would ruin my point). I believe my legs will carry me, but I know it when I put them on the floor and the support my body weight. I believe God will heal my sicknesses, but I know it when I see in me instant healings take place (science can't explain that).
So again like I can only vouch for what I've seen, felt & experienced, if you want the same you have to make the step.
BigDawg_03Busa
Registered
Too much to read bro I have a job, send a link and I'll read it when I get home.
BigDawg_03Busa
Registered
"I`m in fact rocket scientist and I belive that absolute knowledge does not exist"
If absolute knowlegde doesn't exist, coming from a higher source, then what else is there.....man's. I'm not saying you said man's knowledge is absolute, but because you don't believe there is are you saying the buck stops why man and our intellect. I don't mind apologizing if I was miss understood, I do want your view point.
here is a better link for you.
eye evolution
but you may be moreintrested in the last part of the above post, and the last part in that link
Although the eye remains a common and popular example of complexity in arguments against evolution, some intelligent design and creationism advocates have abandoned the eye as an example of "irreducible complexity". As the detail and history of eye evolution have become better understood, its role in these circles has declined and been replaced by molecular and microscopic structures such as the flagellum. However, much as with the eye, research into these smaller-scale structures has also uncovered details of their evolution[22].
The eye argument might be said to stem from a "God of the gaps" strategy, or more broadly, the "argument from incredulity" fallacy.
eye evolution
but you may be moreintrested in the last part of the above post, and the last part in that link
Although the eye remains a common and popular example of complexity in arguments against evolution, some intelligent design and creationism advocates have abandoned the eye as an example of "irreducible complexity". As the detail and history of eye evolution have become better understood, its role in these circles has declined and been replaced by molecular and microscopic structures such as the flagellum. However, much as with the eye, research into these smaller-scale structures has also uncovered details of their evolution[22].
The eye argument might be said to stem from a "God of the gaps" strategy, or more broadly, the "argument from incredulity" fallacy.
BigDawg_03Busa
Registered
So much to disprove, but have any of you truely sought God's face and not his hand? I've been in the world so I've lived both lives which makes my point more valid. It has been hard for me to surrender my will for His, I have to do it day-by-day. So my point is I've been where you guys are and now I'm in the light knowing nothing I used to do is worth going back. Be blessed gentlemen & ladies.
If you know it then you must have the process and the data of how he did it and where the parts came from and the method of assembly in detail
I think not
However I have no doubt you believe God did all that, which is fine if you choose that as an acceptable explination. Nothing wrong with that at all, I just choose to want to know the details of how.
BigDawg_03Busa
Registered
Genesis 2:7(warwgn @ May 18 2007,10:55)If you know it then you must have the process and the data of how he did it and where the parts came from and the method of assembly in detail
I think not
However I have no doubt you believe God did all that, which is fine if you choose that as an acceptable explination. Nothing wrong with that at all, I just choose to want to know the details of how.
the LORD God formed the man [a] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
BigDawg_03Busa
Registered
Why would I be so involved with how God created every individual organ in my body, when He has already shown Himself present in my life and those close to me. Again, He will reveal Himself to you if you diligently seek Him (no other religion can make that statement). Seek Him and He will reveal Himself to you in such a way you could care less about the innermost details of His creations.
Thanks for the dialogue bro.
God bless
Thanks for the dialogue bro.
God bless
Why would I be so involved with how Suzuki created every individual part in my Busa, when it is already present in my life and those close to me.
So you can make it better, faster, and last longer......everything can be improved upon
BigDawg_03Busa
Registered
Good, find out in the Word of God what it says about you, (temple, food, patience, anger, honor of parents) and seek God for His will in your life and you'll be like me better, faster and built for more longevity. Good example, it has definitely worked for me.(warwgn @ May 18 2007,11:42)Why would I be so involved with how Suzuki created every individual part in my Busa, when it is already present in my life and those close to me.
So you can make it better, faster, and last longer......everything can be improved upon
CrashTestDanny
Registered
Exellent. Please send your tribute to my papal account.
No issues for me until they start trying to teach my children that it is normal to behave that way.
Also, I would not appreciate a woman walking into the mens room simply because she felt like she was really a man trapped in a woman's body. I suspect there are a few guys who would not be bothered by that, but I doubt you would find as many women who would accept the converse situation.
BigDawg_03Busa
Registered
LOL, good point maybe we should have new restrooms/dressing rooms for all:
We already have.
KCI aiport for example. I was shocked.
Unisex restrooms. They call it family restrooms I think.
What was the subject of this thread again
Similar threads
