Could Nothing Create A Book? [Spirituality & Religion]

@Pikachu It's not like humans have modified bananas for oh... seven thousand plus years or anything 😂😂😂

The original version looks nothing like it.

@QuixoticSoul

lol i know. It's what makes this so hilarious.
I believe he has since tried to make out that he was never serious about it and it was meant as a joke

@Pikachu Well, there ya go, bananas were created specifically for humans. Next it will be that carrots were created with an orange colour to appeal to humans.

What patronising, unsophisticated garbage. Creationists love talking about the human eye as if it's something special and continue to forget (or is that ignore?) the range of eyes that exist in nature. The other thing they ignore is that the eye is only a small part of how sight works.

Oh well, at least it didn't last long so I haven't missed the start of the Jimmy Hendrix doco on TV.

@Bushranger

lol how dare you! Ray comfort is a very smart man who doesn't publicly make a fool of himself!

@Bushranger [quote]What patronising, unsophisticated garbage. Creationists love talking about the human eye as if it's something special and continue to forget (or is that ignore?) the range of eyes that exist in nature. The other thing they ignore is that the eye is only a small part of how sight works. [/quote]

Then explain to us how the eye came to work on its own without design. Then explain how it was put into the proper position so that a person or animal can see perfectly.

@GodSpeed63 Except that we can't see perfectly, for example, I wear glasses to improve my eyesight. Also, I can only see in a limited range of the spectrum. No eyesight system could be called perfect, but they could all be said to be the best fit for that particular organism, big difference to perfection.

Now, how did it come to work? Look at the range of photo-receptors that are out there at the present time. Everything from nothing at all, to ability to discern light and dark all the way up to the eyesight of a raptor. But each one has its limits and restrictions, so is not perfect, but best for each.

How did they end up in the proper place? Really, you are asking this? If they don't work and the organism can't breed, then that particular position won't be passed on. Pretty simple really.

@Pikachu I'm sorry, man, but it looks like this thread might get hijacked. I'll stop responding to him if you want.

@Bushranger

Oh it's not my thread. Go nuts.
If he wants to put this facile nonsense forward as good evidence of creation then he must accept what he gets in return.

@GodSpeed63 [quote]Then explain to us how the eye came to work on its own without design. Then explain how it was put into the proper position so that a person or animal can see perfectly.[/quote]You know, creationists have mostly backed away from this argument - the eye has turned out to be not especially perfect, complex, or irreducible. Plus we have a much more complete evolutionary picture of how it developed than we used to - it even explains some of the blatant flaws in the "design" - like our blind spot.

@QuixoticSoul Yeah, always wondered why some of them keep going with that one. And like I said, it's only part of the whole sight thing. Our perception is much more interesting and involved.

@Bushranger [quote]Except that we can't see perfectly, for example, I wear glasses to improve my eyesight.[/quote]

Not buying it. You need to tell us how the eye came into existence in the first place. How did it come together the way it did in order for it to see?

@GodSpeed63 You are joking, aren't you? Have you questioned the creationist websites that have fed you the garbage about irreducible complexity? Because I looked at them as well as real science, do me the honour of at least looking at real information.

@Bushranger [quote]You are joking, aren't you?[/quote]

No. Can you answer my question or can't you?

@GodSpeed63

Dude. This has been abandoned as an argument by mainstream creationists for a reason.
They human eye used to be championed as an example of irreducible complexity.
This is no longer a tenable belief.

1) the human eye is FAR from perfect, belying the assertion that it was made by a designer.
2) there are [i]many[/i] examples of different eyes in nature. Some better than ours, some worse.
3) an "eye" is not only useful in its present stage of existence. A photo sensitive cell which can perceive the difference between light and shadow is useful. A concave photosensitive cell which can determine light and shadow AND direction is more useful still.



a)photosensitive cell
b)aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
c)an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
d)pigment cells forming a small depression
e)pigment cells forming a deeper depression
f)the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
muscles allowing the lens to adjust

All of these iterations of an eye are present it current organisms. We can see how each stage of development of an eye or eye like structure benefits the organism.

So what reason is there to posit a designer?

As if you weren't just going to ignore this inconvenient post....

@Pikachu You're more patient than I am. And that explanation doesn't even touch on perception. Without the visual cortex, our vision would be even worse. It's like wetware photoshop.

@Bushranger

lol maybe i've just got more practice than you.

@Pikachu [quote]1) the human eye is FAR from perfect, belying the assertion that it was made by a designer.[/quote]

Dude, the human eye was perfect until the fall of mankind.

[quote]2) there are many examples of different eyes in nature. Some better than ours, some worse.[/quote]

Dude, God love variety but not faultiness. Even though he made every eye different, not one was less than the other.

[quote]3) an "eye" is not only useful in its present stage of existence. A photo sensitive cell which can perceive the difference between light and shadow is useful. A concave photosensitive cell which can determine light and shadow AND direction is more useful still.[/quote]

Dude, further example of intelligent design.

@GodSpeed63 🤦‍♂️😂🙄🤷‍♂️

@GodSpeed63 Ah, original sin yet again. And to think that it all happened in 6,000 years.

@GodSpeed63

[quote]the human eye was perfect until the fall of mankind.
[/quote]

An unfalsifiable assertion. You cannot supply a single shred of evidence for this and it is impossible to disprove.
So explain why it should be considered a relevant argument in this discussion?

[quote] God love variety but not faultiness[/quote]

Can you back that claim up? Where does it say in the bible that god loves variety?
Why couldn't god give us no blind spot like an octopus? Why couldn't he give us muscles on the lens like a frog so that our vision doesn't fade as we age?
If an intelligent designer was designing the best eye for his beloved humans, why did he do such a bad job of it?

[quote]further example of intelligent design.[/quote]

Ok, that's your assertion. Now explain it or you must abandon it.

And dude, you failed to answer the question. There exist all these ways in which eyes developed or function, WHAT is the reason you want to posit that the eye should be considered evidence of a designer?

@Pikachu [quote]An unfalsifiable assertion.[/quote]

No, the truth.

[quote]Can you back that claim up?[/quote]

Already have, several times. Where've you been?

[quote]Now explain it or you must abandon it.[/quote]

You just did, why do you need to hear it gain?

@GodSpeed63 No you haven't. Your proof is that we exist, that is simply proof that we are here, not of our origins.

Now, to the wetware that makes our sight work. This is where it does get interesting. Do you know anything bout depth of field?

@GodSpeed63

[quote]No, the truth.[/quote]

You may believe it is the truth. But if you disagree that it is unfalsifiable then you may now give an example of how this claim can be falsified.

No? So then you concede that point.

[quote]Already have, several times. Where've you been?[/quote]

Fantastic. Then it will be no trouble to reiterate that evidence here and now.

If not then you concede that point.

[quote]why do you need to hear it gain?[/quote]

I need to hear your interpretation of why that should be considered evidence of design.

If you cannot then you concede the point.

@Pikachu [quote]You may believe it is the truth.[/quote]

Belief follows truth, you should know that. That is falsifiable. Then you explain how the human eye came together on it own with every working part to make it see and how it was able to form in the human head in the right place. The beginning is always a good start.

@GodSpeed63 Not interested in talking about how we really see then?

It doesn't take a long of thought to figure out the answer to your question.

As complicated as the eye is, it is no more than a biological method of converting photons into electro-chemical impulses. The important work is done at the back of the head.

As to why we have two and placed where they are, you might as well ask the same about any other body part. Billions of years of evolution has resulted in an overall body plan that works reasonably well.