There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[SkepticThinker]

Guys, guys, Dawkins says the eye has been wired up "back to front", yet even though biologists have pointed out that we'd all be blind if it was wired up the way he suggests, he's letting his statement stand (as far as I know).
Isn't that being a teeny bit dishonest?

I gave you the full quote on this one already too. We do indeed have a blind spot in our vision which is filled in by our brains.

Again, you are painting an inaccurate picture of his position.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Try this source-
Mueller cells backwardly wired retina v Dawkins - creation.com

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Try this source-
Mueller cells backwardly wired retina v Dawkins - creation.com

Source is a creationist site that cites itself as its primary scientific source.

Unreliable. Next!

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Dawks and his fanboys forget that many scientists are Christians and are qualified to say many of his conclusions are pure fantasy..
I myself got College of Preceptors exam passes in General Science and Advanced Science (insert smug self-satisfied emoticon grin here)

 

[Ouroboros]

In my opinion, there's nothing admirable in not changing one's mind in the face of new information. Not doing so, imo, is ignorant and biased.

Agree.

Humility is to acknowledge that our knowledge is limited and possibly wrong, and being able to change it whenever we find evidence to convince us we were wrong.

I've been wrong many times in my life, and changed my worldview several times.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Dawks and his fanboys forget that many scientists are Christians and are qualified to say many of his conclusions are pure fantasy..

For example, Kenneth Miller, who agrees with him.

Also, could you please name some of these scientists? I'd like to know some of them and see their work.

I myself got College of Preceptors exam passes in General Science and Advanced Science (insert smug self-satisfied emoticon grin here)

I'm afraid that probably sounds a lot more impressive in your head than it does in other people's.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Agree.

Humility is to acknowledge that our knowledge is limited and possibly wrong, and being able to change it whenever we find evidence to convince us we were wrong.

I've been wrong many times in my life, and changed my worldview several times.

Exactly!

I too have been wrong many times in life, and strive to do my best to change my views according to whatever information is available, whether I happen to like it or not. (Not always an easy thing to do.)

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Guys guys, a simple look at the retina down a microsope shows it's NOT wired back to front, it's a solid indisputable FACT and not open to argument..
Perhaps my earlier link isn't working, so i'd better post this extract that demolishes Dawks-

"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"

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Guys guys, a simple look at the retina down a microsope shows it's NOT wired back to front, it's a solid indisputable FACT and not open to argument..
Perhaps my earlier link isn't working, so i'd better post this extract that demolishes Dawks-

"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"

Like I said, your source for this was a creationist website that cited itself as a scientific source.

Do you have an actual, credible scientific source? Not an article from a creationist website which is about as credible as a message smeared on a public toilet wall.

 

[adi2d]

So you're saying the fact that something is edited must mean it cannot contain contradictions? You realize those two things are not exclusive, right? The Bible can be heavily edited and altered over time and still be full of contradictions. BOTH are facts that are damning to the claim that the Bible is inerrant.

I don't think we have to go far to see edited comments that have contradictions

 

[Serenity7855]

You are factually wrong again.


it does so in many places.

Luke states baby jesus a no go to ah duh Egypt

Matthew say a he go to duh Egypt

There are no absolute facts in the bible because there is no absolute evidence. It is the spirit of God that testifies of its authenticity. You do not have that, so you wouldn't have a clue. It is not a history book. It is a book of Commandments, precepts and principles. You are speaking from ignorance and only answering what you choose to.

 

[Ouroboros]

Exactly!

I too have been wrong many times in life, and strive to do my best to change my views according to whatever information is available, whether I happen to like it or not. (Not always an easy thing to do.)

It's not easy to do.

It's sometimes the hardest thing in a discussion or debate to realize... oh, bummer, I misunderstood or got it wrong, and then to admit it and apologize. It hurts. But I've done it hundreds of times since I started debating online 15 years ago.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Guys guys, a simple look at the retina down a microsope shows it's NOT wired back to front, it's a solid indisputable FACT and not open to argument..
Perhaps my earlier link isn't working, so i'd better post this extract that demolishes Dawks-

"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"

How do you think this contradicts Dawkins' claim?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's not easy to do.

It's sometimes the hardest thing in a discussion or debate to realize... oh, bummer, I misunderstood or got it wrong, and then to admit it and apologize. It hurts. But I've done it hundreds of times since I started debating online 15 years ago.

It's definitely much harder to do in that context. Kudos to you for doing it!

I have a lot more respect for someone who can do that than for a person who knows they've misunderstood or got it wrong and continues to go with it anyway.

 

[Serenity7855]

Logical fallacies show an error in one's thought processes and arguments. There are many problems when one uses fallacies. Their arguments do not prove the conclusions. Premises are made in error or are errors to begin with. Primarily it shows a break down in logical arguments. Post hoc rationalization is taking "dust' and reinterpreting it to fit modern science. Its post hoc, after the fact. Rationalization, an excuse or defensive flow of thought. I have ponted out fallacies in KSA, your own arguments, conclusions and random comments. This seems to bug you. Perhaps instead of complaining about it you should fix your errors or learn how to spot your errors.

Post hoc rationalization does not work here. There are no time constraints. I have the ability to research the evidence that leads to the conclusion.Post hoc rationalization is taking "dust' and reinterpreting it to fit modern science. No one here reinterpreted it. You said "Man was created from the dust of the ground." That is an accurate statement to make as dust contains all that is required to create life. The evidence supports the conclusion. There is no post hoc rationalization there, just what is in your head.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's definitely much harder to do in that context. Kudos to you for doing it!

I have a lot more respect for someone who can do that than for a person who knows they've misunderstood or got it wrong and continues to go with it anyway.

Same here. I respect people who has a different view than mine, who still can admit errors. In discussions with them, I'm more willing to listen too.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

How do you think this contradicts Dawkins' claim?

Let's boil it down to two sentences-
This is what the scientists observe-"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"

See, Dawkins eye would block light from reaching the retina and we'd be blind as bats..

PS- just to repeat what I've said before in the hallowed halls of this forum, modern Christians FULLY ACCEPT that evolution occurs, BUT they believe it's got a Divine guiding hand behind it like Senator John McCain said-
"I believe in evolution, but when I hike the Grand Canyon at sunset, I see the hand of God there also"

"Sorry kiddo, you're on the way out"

 

[SkepticThinker]

Same here. I respect people who has a different view than mine, who still can admit errors. In discussions with them, I'm more willing to listen too.

Yep me too.

I also admire someone who can at least attempt to understand an argument, though they may not agree with it.

 

[Shad]

Post hoc rationalization does not work here. There are no time constraints. I have the ability to research the evidence that leads to the conclusion.Post hoc rationalization is taking "dust' and reinterpreting it to fit modern science. No one here reinterpreted it. You said "Man was created from the dust of the ground." That is an accurate statement to make as dust contains all that is required to create life. The evidence supports the conclusion. There is no post hoc rationalization there, just what is in your head.

This whole comment is an example of post hoc rationalization. You are taking an undefined generalization and interrupting specific scientific statements into preexisting answers. No I said "dust" contains material foreign and toxic to humans. I have repeatedly said this linking "dust" to science is fallacious and have at no time agreed with the verse put forward by you and dust. Are you reduced to quote mining me as a defense now?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Let's boil it down to two sentences-
This is what the scientists observe-"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"

See, Dawkins eye would block light from reaching the retina and we'd be blind as bats..

Dawkins is discussing the presence of the blind spot in the vertebrate eye, in the quote you provided. We know it is there. We know our brains fill in the missing information that is not passing through.

PS- just to repeat what I've said before in the hallowed halls of this forum, modern Christians FULLY ACCEPT that evolution occurs, BUT they believe it's got a Divine guiding hand behind it like Senator John McCain said-
"I believe in evolution, but when I hike the Grand Canyon at sunset, I see the hand of God there also"

I don't see evolution and religious belief to be incompatible either. Especially if you're coming from the point of view that some god designed evolution and put it into motion.

But you do seem to be denying evolution, at least, as far as I can tell from your quote mining activities.

So I guess I'm confused.