Flat Earth Christians

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
So explain to me the “reasoning” behind putting the blood vessels in front of the human retina?

Or explain to me what is the “purpose” of the design of a species that we don’t naturally see nor naturally interact with? For example, what is the “purpose” of the numerous species of microscopic nematodes that thrive in the sediment on the ocean floor?

I think you are just ignoring the content of my posts.

I do not know the "reasoning" for the blood vessels in front of the
human retina, but what I do know is that we see and quite well too.
Each generation sees for the most part quite well, due to one of the
most complex and elegant pieces of biological engineering there is.

If you can do better, or anyone else let us see your handy work so
we can do a comparison, but until that time I’d say your opinion
about not seeing ‘reasoning’ while looking at all life is quite off
the mark.

You want me to tell you 'why' there are variety of species?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"I see evolution, not just because I want to see it, but because it is backed up by a plethora of evidence from independent resources."

I'm sure that is what you think, but how would you know if you are
not just seeing it, because that is what you being told is there not
because it is? There is a saying, if you look for demons you will
find them, if t ...[text shortened]... ng me that evolution had to be cause, it wasn't
that they could really tell me why.
Kelly

I'm a scientist, I base my opinions on credible evidence with objective thinking. I'm open to any suggestion, as long as it can be backed up.

I don't just decide to see something and blind myself to other possibilities........ people who think like that in any context are retarded in my opinion (its also bad science and you will soon get caught out by peer review processes in your field if you manipulate data).

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, soom reasons for the eye being designed.
There is no reason for me to accept that could have happened any
other way! The level of complexity is to great to just occur, finding
light when it was never before encounted to me would be a great
distraction not a advantage. The passing of information to make
sight possible doesn't seem to be realistic ...[text shortened]... ry tale has been put forward on how
the eye was formed and even it wasn't very strong.
Kelly

OK so you have no evidence for design and its just your opinion based on a lack and ignorance of the plethora of evidence that exists on this subject...... which is freely available for you to read.

Irreducible complexity is an old and tired argument which has been refuted many times.

If your argument comes down to "I can't see it so I'll assume it must be design, despite there being zero evidence", then it is you who are blinded and "wanting" to see design.

What stops you from wanting to see anything else but design.

I can't continue a debate with someone with a closed mind.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I do not know the "reasoning" for the blood vessels in front of the
human retina, but what I do know is that we see and quite well too.
Each generation sees for the most part quite well, due to one of the
most complex and elegant pieces of biological engineering there is.

If you can do better, or anyone else let us see your handy work so
we can do a ...[text shortened]... s quite off
the mark.

You want me to tell you 'why' there are variety of species?
Kelly

…I do not know the "reasoning" for the blood vessels in front of the
human retina, but what I do know is that we see and quite well too..…

-and we would see even better if the blood vessels for the retina were behind the retina instead of in front of the retina. -what does that tell you? -it should tell you that the process that created this design was no "intelligent”.

…If you can do better, or anyone else let us see your handy work so
we can do a comparison, ..…

I cannot beat hundreds of millions of years of evolution’s handy work to do a “comparison” but, unlike evolution, but like all human beings, I have an intelligence and, like most people, with my intelligence I can observe and point out just the few parts where evolution did a botched job due to evolution’s total absence of any intelligence and where I could have worked out on paper what a better design would be. Obviously I cannot produce it in physical reality -I am not even a geneticist -but that doesn’t change the fact that I can conceive of a better design and this mere fact is a clear conformation that the process that created the design has no “intelligence” or, at the very least, less “intelligence” than I as I can clearly beat it (on paper that is).

…You want me to tell you 'why' there are variety of species? ..…

No. Read my question again -I have already asked it twice. It is not ME that is saying the designs have “purpose”, it is YOU. My question was:

“explain to me what is the “purpose” of the design of a species that we don’t naturally see nor naturally interact with? For example, what is the “purpose” of the numerous species of microscopic nematodes that thrive in the sediment on the ocean floor? “

Originally posted by timebombted
I'm a scientist, I base my opinions on credible evidence with objective thinking. I'm open to any suggestion, as long as it can be backed up.

I don't just decide to see something and blind myself to other possibilities........ people who think like that in any context are retarded in my opinion (its also bad science and you will soon get caught out by peer review processes in your field if you manipulate data).

I gave you one already, the eye is part of a total package, you are
upset about one small piece of the whole, and you do not see the
reasoning in life at all, there is not wonder on the make up of man?
I'd say you have left objective thinking and instead use dogma to
sort out things you have no answer for. You are bound to evolution
and admit it that don't you?
Kelly

Originally posted by timebombted
OK so you have no evidence for design and its just your opinion based on a lack and ignorance of the plethora of evidence that exists on this subject...... which is freely available for you to read.

Irreducible complexity is an old and tired argument which has been refuted many times.

If your argument comes down to "I can't see it so I'll assume it ...[text shortened]... e anything else but design.

I can't continue a debate with someone with a closed mind.

I have the same evidence for design as you do for evolution, the only
difference is our conclusions. I say you do not get something so
functionally complex out of random chance with natural selection as
a filter. It is to interwoven to be anything other than design, but people
choose to not look at that, instead we hear this if it happens in very
small steps over a long period of time going on, and ignore what is
in front of them. How we view our starting position in this colors all
things afterward, making the forest hidden in the midst of all the trees.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…I do not know the "reasoning" for the blood vessels in front of the
human retina, but what I do know is that we see and quite well too..…

-and we would see even better if the blood vessels for the retina were behind the retina instead of in front of the retina. -what does that tell you? -it should tell you that the process that created ...[text shortened]... numerous species of microscopic nematodes that thrive in the sediment on the ocean floor? “[/b]

…I do not know the "reasoning" for the blood vessels in front of the
human retina, but what I do know is that we see and quite well too..…

-and we would see even better if the blood vessels for the retina were behind the retina instead of in front of the retina. -what does that tell you? -it should tell you that the process that created this design was no "intelligent”.

------
So you know all the ends and out over time where the way it is now
actually has helped out our abilities to see clearly?
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…I do not know the "reasoning" for the blood vessels in front of the
human retina, but what I do know is that we see and quite well too..…

-and we would see even better if the blood vessels for the retina were behind the retina instead of in front of the retina. -what does that tell you? -it should tell you that the process that created ...[text shortened]... numerous species of microscopic nematodes that thrive in the sediment on the ocean floor? “[/b]

No. Read my question again -I have already asked it twice. It is not ME that is saying the designs have “purpose”, it is YOU. My question was:

“explain to me what is the “purpose” of the design of a species that we don’t naturally see nor naturally interact with? For example, what is the “purpose” of the numerous species of microscopic nematodes that thrive in the sediment on the ocean floor? “

-------
Simplest reason, they are part of the food chain and I'm sure they
serve other functions that helps out rest of life as it is today.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…I do not know the "reasoning" for the blood vessels in front of the
human retina, but what I do know is that we see and quite well too..…

-and we would see even better if the blood vessels for the retina were behind the retina instead of in front of the retina. -what does that tell you? -it should tell you that the process that created numerous species of microscopic nematodes that thrive in the sediment on the ocean floor? “[/b]

"I cannot beat hundreds of millions of years of evolution’s handy work to do a “comparison” but, unlike evolution, but like all human beings, I have an intelligence and, like most people, with my intelligence I can observe and point out just the few parts where evolution did a botched job due to evolution’s total absence of any intelligence and where I could have worked out on paper what a better design would be. Obviously I cannot produce it in physical reality -I am not even a geneticist -but that doesn’t change the fact that I can conceive of a better design and this mere fact is a clear conformation that the process that created the design has no “intelligence” or, at the very least, less “intelligence” than I as I can clearly beat it (on paper that is). "

You automatically assume evolution's handy work, which as I pointed
out before is part of your belief system. You wouldn't or couldn't see
design if it was tagged and bagged right in front of you, I believe you
are so caught up in it as the truth it would be like a sin for you to even
think it may not be true. That is not an unbiased point of view with
which to view data.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"I cannot beat hundreds of millions of years of evolution’s handy work to do a “comparison” but, unlike evolution, but like all human beings, I have an intelligence and, like most people, with my intelligence I can observe and point out just the few parts where evolution did a botched job due to evolution’s total absence of any intelligence and where I coul it may not be true. That is not an unbiased point of view with
which to view data.
Kelly

…You automatically assume evolution's handy work, which as I pointed
out before is part of your belief system. You wouldn't or couldn't see
design if it was tagged and bagged right in front of you, I believe you
are so caught up in it as the truth it would be like a sin for you to even
think it may not be true...…

The reason I believe it is evolution's handy work is because the scientific evidence extremely clearly points that way. If one day, hypothetically, some amazingly new evidence turned up that proves evolution wrong in favour of some alternative theory, then I would, without hesitation, switch from believing evolution to believing that alternative theory simply because I just go by wherever the evidence takes me -and I would not regard it a “sin” (whatever exactly “sin” is supposed to mean) to change my belief in the light of new evidence.

In fact, I would not even regard it a “sin” to start to disbelieve evolution despite the complete absence of any amazing evidence that may contradict it -rather I would just regard that as being “stupid” rather than being “sinful” because I would have to somehow simply ignore the mountain of evidence in favour of evolution.

Originally posted by KellyJay
No. Read my question again -I have already asked it twice. It is not ME that is saying the designs have “purpose”, it is YOU. My question was:

“explain to me what is the “purpose” of the design of a species that we don’t naturally see nor naturally interact with? For example, what is the “purpose” of the numerous species of microscopic nematodes that th ...[text shortened]... ain and I'm sure they
serve other functions that helps out rest of life as it is today.
Kelly

…Simplest REASON, they are part of the food chain and I'm sure they
serve other functions that helps out rest of life as it is today..… (my emphasis)

Do you know of either any evidence or logical reason to believe that they are part of OUR food chain?

Do you know of either any evidence or logical reason to believe that they serve other functions that helps out rest of life?

I assume the answer to both these questions is “no”.
So you assume they must be designed for a “purpose” and this assumption is NOT based on the evidence nor logical reason but based on pure “faith” -and NOT "REASON" as you stated.

Originally posted by KellyJay
…I do not know the "reasoning" for the blood vessels in front of the
human retina, but what I do know is that we see and quite well too..…

-and we would see even better if the blood vessels for the retina were behind the retina instead of in front of the retina. -what does that tell you? -it should tell you that the process that created this design wa er time where the way it is now
actually has helped out our abilities to see clearly?
Kelly

So you are suggesting that having the blood vessels in front of our retinas helps us to see? How could that work? -I mean, very basic logic should tell you that those blood vessels would block some of the light from reaching the retina and in a totally arbitrary way -it would only partly block light going through where a blood vessel is exactly in front of the retina but not elsewhere -and, to make it even more totally arbitrary, we all have the blood vessels branching out in a unique pattern of branching -no two people have exactly the same pattern of branching which is why a retina scans can be used to identify people by using these patterns like fingerprints.

Also, certain other animals with eyes don’t have the blood vessels in front of their retinas and they can see better that us -so if having the blood vessels in front of OUR retinas helps US to see better then why haven’t those other animals have eyes designed with blood vessels in front of THEIR retinas also so that they can see better?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…You automatically assume evolution's handy work, which as I pointed
out before is part of your belief system. You wouldn't or couldn't see
design if it was tagged and bagged right in front of you, I believe you
are so caught up in it as the truth it would be like a sin for you to even
think it may not be true...…

The reason I bel ...[text shortened]... cause I would have to somehow simply ignore the mountain of evidence in favour of evolution.[/b]

As I said, you have a bias, you assume out of the box evolution is
the answer to it all.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Simplest REASON, they are part of the food chain and I'm sure they
serve other functions that helps out rest of life as it is today..… (my emphasis)

Do you know of either any evidence or logical reason to believe that they are part of OUR food chain?

Do you know of either any evidence or logical reason to believe that they serve othe ...[text shortened]... on the evidence nor logical reason but based on pure “faith” -and NOT "REASON" as you stated.[/b]

I admit I have a bias, I don't deny it unlike others here.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
As I said, you have a bias, you assume out of the box evolution is
the answer to it all.
Kelly

How can it be “bias” when it is purely based on the evidence and the scientific facts?

I was at pains to explain in my 11 Sep '08 13:22 post that I go wherever the evidence takes me (I.e. I will generally believe whatever the evidence "apparently" shows to be true) and that, hypothetically, if there suddenly is new evidence that points in a totally different and new direction, then I will suddenly and immediately go in that totally different and new direction -so no bias there -unless you call believing whatever the evidence shows to be true as “bias“?

Let me put it this way; if one day some incredible new evidence came to light that evolution was wrong and everything was “designed by a “god” (lets say, among other things to show this, this “god” put writing in the sky among the stars in huge letters to clearly spell out the words “ hello to all. This is a message from god -I EXIST DAM IT! &rdquo😉 then as the evidence would now point toward the conclusion that there is a “god” and evolution is wrong, then I would, without hesitation, came to that conclusion (-and then theism would just come part of modern science! -because it would suddenly, for the first time, become evidence-based!) -no bias there -I just go wherever the evidence take me.