 |
| |
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Here is some stuff on the blind spot in the human eye:
The nerves are transparent, so don’t detectably affect the image. More importantly, the ophthalmology researcher George Marshall pointed out:
The light-detecting structures within photoreceptor cells are located in the stack of discs. These discs are being continually replaced by the formation of new ones at the cell body end of the stack, thereby pushing older discs down the stack. Those discs at the other end of the stack are ‘swallowed’ by a single layer of retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells. RPE cells are highly active, and for this they need a very large blood supply — the choroid. Unlike the retina, which is virtually transparent, the choroid is virtually opaque, because of the vast numbers of red blood cells within it. For the retina to be wired the way that Professor Richard Dawkins suggested, would require the choroid to come between the photoreceptor cells and the light, for RPE cells must be kept in intimate contact with both the choroid and photoreceptor to perform their job. Anybody who has had the misfortune of a hemorrhage in front of the retina will testify as to how well red blood cells block out the light. ...
The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy...
If the photoreceptors were not in contact with the choroid, as per the ‘superior’ design of Dawkins et al., they could not be regenerated efficiently. Thus it would probably take months before we could drive if we were photographed with a flashbulb, as another ophthalmologist, Joseph Calkins, points out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
"Well if we're throwing science out the window, it's impossible to debate. You cannot ask for empirical evidence when you are adopting a tautological position. "
Right. That is why I seldom enter the debates in these threads. When we are dealing with a supernatural being (or a supposed one) then the debates become rather futile. Creation science is a misnomer in my opinion but people who are trying to put down the Bible really ought to read it sometime.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
I hope you always do the same. Of course the many conflicting modern theories of evolution, speciation, origin of information, and various abiogenesis stories are built upon speculation based upon limited evidence but for some reason you require a handicap on your opponents. |
Like depending on an ancient book written long ago by men that knew nothing of science. Is that the handicap. I am afraid you took that on yourself.
quote:
One would NOT think that God would have preserved his creation when he clearly said he had cursed the earth and repeatedly promised destruction throughout scripture. The only one who would think the opposite is one who is not familiar with the Bible that they presumptiously ridicule. |
Yet jehovah designed and created all those creature he found wanting. Including those that don't buy the bible as the word of god. Bad designer.
Or are you saying god cursed the world just because he felt like being a pain?
quote:
Genesis says; “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” There is no time line from that verse.” [QUOTE]
It also has a creation that takes six days. With morning and evenings. Hard to have those without the Sun but the Bible has that problem as well. There isn't even an Earth till the Bible starts counting days. Are you claiming the Bible is wrong about it being days with morning and evenings.
[QUOTE]And the Bible itself forbids a strictly literal interpretation. |
Then I choose to interprate it as a book written by men that didn't know what they were doing.
You evaded the question. Nice dodge.
Now about those sedimentary layers.
quote:
Eagle eyes are even better. |
True. Yet it doesn't answer the question.
Or deal with this:
So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
So then god has poor eyesight in comparison to an eagle then.
quote:
The New
Testament uses the type of the Ark as an example of the new life available to the believer because of the death and resurrection of Jesus on the cross. |
Your right you do intreprate a lot. To the point of invention and beyond. The Bible says you aren't supposed to add things. You just did.
quote:
The point is that there was a miraculous new creation so science really
doesn’t enter into the picture because it is in the realm of the supernatural and divine intervention.
|
Except that the world looks exactly like it 4.6 billion years old and live evolved on it. So that means god made it look different then it was. Deceptive.
quote:
Probably because they evolved that way in order to adapt to their environment. |
Nice answer but it doesn't fit the Bible.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Evolution is changing kind.
quote:
Do you really think that a God who claimed to make all of creation including the universe itself cannot make or remove water? |
Sure makes Jehovah look devious and deceptive. Still it appears you are changing back and forth.
Do you think there was a world wide flood or not? Do you think the Ark story is a metaphor or a true history. If it is mere metaphor why is the Bible so clear about it. Why do others in the Bible act as if it was a factual representation of a real event?
quote:
If they did then it wouldn’t be the God described in the Bible because he said that he hides himself and that he is only know through supernatural revelation. The effects of his existence are clearly seen however. |
Not clear at all. He doesn't always hide himself in the Bible either. Oh I forgot you don't actually believe what the Bible says. You change it suit your needs.
See your version of the Ark. Yours not the Bible's.
quote:
The Bible does speak of a general decline however which partly answers the above questions and it also answers the question of why you are now ridiculing your creator when you claim to be so intelligent. |
In other words we are deficient. You do believe we were created by Jehovah don't you? He seems to bad at creation. Things keep going wrong.
quote:
Regardless of the number of days or ages it took you seem to have no grasp of the concept of God at all if you have to ask that question. |
Evasion of the worst sort.
quote:
Again you may have to actually read the Bible. It no where says that “all languages were created at the tower of Babel”. |
True. Hey a non-evasive answer. Still there are serious time problems with the Babel story. The Bible has very clear time constraints due the listing of births and deaths. Even the most flexible reading of them put the Flood around 4400 years ago. During the same time the Egyptians were building the Pyramids. Babel comes even later. The Egyptians failed to notice being anahilated. Their language doesn't seem to have changed either.
quote:
There certainly is enough capacity or are you suggesting that a miracle happened? |
There isn't enough capacity. At all. I am not suggesting a miracle and I don't think he was. Are you saying god was deceptive on this. Our genes show that we have been evolving for a long time. They show there was a lot more the eight people 4400 years ago.
Personally I am not a big fan of deceptive gods. Can't be trusted. Can't be sure the book that claims to be gods word can be trusted if the god is deceptive.
quote:
They may have evolved from an amphibious creature of some kind. |
See above for what Genesis says about kinds.
quote:
I’ll remember that requirement the next time I debate an atheist. |
How about trying this time when you debate an agnostic. You gave no evidence. You evade. You reinterpreted the Bible to the point were its unrecognizable.
By the way.
Has anyone seen the face of god?
For extra points what were the last words of Jesus on the cross?
The questions are open to all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
Here is some stuff on the blind spot in the human eye:
The nerves are transparent, so don’t detectably affect the image. More importantly, the ophthalmology researcher George Marshall pointed out: |
Its not transparent. You can easily detect your blind spot. It effects the image. Our brains mask the spot but it is there.
Its not called a blind spot for nothing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
"As (I believe) I previously stated, I think creationists are wrong only when they say that their creationism is scientific rather than faith-based."
Well buddy it seems like we are in agreement here. I used to be an agnostic. And I never found God. I'll pray that he finds you though like he did me. My life has never been the same since. The problem with discussing revelations though is they mean nothing to anyone except the one who receives them. So trying to prove it all by purely scientific means seems to be a contradiction. I respect people with different views than mine but I really do not see why some people have made a life's work out of ridiculing that which they do not understand.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
"Well if we're throwing science out the window, it's impossible to debate. You cannot ask for empirical evidence when you are adopting a tautological position. "
Right. That is why I seldom enter the debates in these threads. When we are dealing with a supernatural being (or a supposed one) then the debates become rather futile. Creation science is a misnomer in my opinion but people who are trying to put down the Bible really ought to read it sometime. |
I have read it. Not all of it but enough to see its not describing the world we live in. Genesis is just plain wrong.
So why should I accept the rest. I can't check the other parts as there is NO physical evidence one way or the other to support the non-mundane parts. I can check the fantastic stories in Genesis and they don't match reality.
I have read the stuff that masquerades as Creation Science. Its not science. Its often dishonest. It never tries to prove creation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
"Its not transparent."
I was quoting Richard Dawkins there (although I didn't make that very clear). He said that the NERVES were transparent. No one is disputing the actual blind spot.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
. I respect people with different views than mine but I really do not see why some people have made a life's work out of ridiculing that which they do not understand. |
I am not making my lifes work at this. Nor am I ridiculing something I don't understand. I understand the Bible. Its just wrong. Thats all. Its a collection of books written by many people. None of them knew how the Universe functions. None of them had contact with a god that told how it functioned. The claims made in the Bible about how things happened simply don't match the world around us.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
"I have read it. Not all of it..."
Get back to me when ever you get time to read it. Here is a good place to start:
1Cor:2:12: Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Cor:2:13: Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Cor:2:14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
When you figure out spiritual discernment let me know and we can discuss God together. Until then you may want to read my coments to Goinonit. I do not debate with fools.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
"I have read it. Not all of it..."
Get back to me when ever you get time to read it. Here is a good place to start: |
When I see a reason to believe the stuff I am presently sure is wrong. Not till then.
You don't seem to have the knowledge or the will to show that evidence assuming it exists. I think it doesn't.
quote:
1Cor:2:12: Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Cor:2:13: Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Cor:2:14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
When you figure out spiritual discernment let me know and we can discuss God together. Until then you may want to read my coments to Goinonit. I do not debate with fools. |
When you figure out how to debate you will quite calling people fools when you are doing badly in the debate.
There is no spiritual discernment without a spirit. The is no wisdom in ignorance. Evasions and nonsense passed off as wisdom is not convincing.
Where is evidence to support the Bible? Where is evidence to support Genesis? Without evidence there is no reason to believe except wishfull thinking. I debate with those that are willing. Even fools. Even people foolish enough to call me a fool.
I do like them to apologize though. Bad manners is no way to get belief.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
but I'm also leaning toward a mad scientist who has encased my brain in a jar... |
Then it would be wise if you leaned away. You could wind up as a head on a plate in a bad Z grade movie in B and W. On saturday afternoon TV shows with used car salesmen paying the bills.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Ethelred,
You probably do deserve an apology so I offer mine. I have debated these subjects with non believers like you for the past few years. If Apolyton still had archives then you would see that.
If two people are on entirely different frequencies then there is no communication. We are talking about apples and oranges. I engaged in a scientific debate about a month ago here because it was strictly science and fact. I do not engage in combination faith/science/ debates because they are fruitless and endless and resolve nothing because they are matters of faith and belief and/or supernatural intervention etc.. It is foolish to pretend that there will be a resolution. If you want to debate then do it with someone who calls themselves a creation scientist or when you have a revelation and a spiritual understanding of the Bible then we can discuss that. You went right past what I said about the spiritual interpretation of scripture and expect me to debate you about what you perceive as contradictions. The contradiction is inherent before we begin. Anyway I do apologize for calling you a fool.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ethelred
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lincoln
Ethelred,
You probably do deserve an apology so I offer mine. |
Apology accepted.
quote:
I have debated these subjects with non believers like you for the past few years. |
Maximum PC has a lot of older discusions.
quote:
If two people are on entirely different frequencies then there is no communication. We are talking about apples and oranges. |
I am talking about things that are verifiable. You are right that there is no talking with you don't want to try that.
quote:
It is foolish to pretend that there will be a resolution. |
Since I have had success I don't need to pretend. Not much success but some.
quote:
If you want to debate then do it with someone who calls themselves a creation scientist or when you have a revelation and a spiritual understanding of the Bible then we can discuss that. |
When someone starts talking spiritual understanding that means they have had a REVELATION that they think is from god. There is discussing anything with such a person. I have done so anyway. It helps clarify thinking on at least one side anyway. The catch is the spiritual revalation type don't actually believe the Bible. As could be seen in your aproach to Noah's Ark. You believe your revelation and the Bible is method of trying to analyze you mystic thinking. Now I could be wrong on that but you have all the signs.
quote:
You went right past what I said about the spiritual interpretation of scripture and expect me to debate you about what you perceive as contradictions. |
Actually I didn't. You aren't the only person on the thread. As I said I have discussed the Bible before with people that think they have had a personal revelation. The discussions tend towards strangeness. Some are more grounded in facts than others. You apear to be one of the others.
Now if I could only get Gish to debate me. That would be fun. I don't think he would like online debates. There is too much time to think.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17.
Apolyton Time is 00:17. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-04-2002 07:55
|