Why I believe God Created Life.

[rusra02]

You are trying to use Micheal Behe to argue points he never made. So what if vestigial features have uses? There are still vestigial, there is nothing 'so called' about vestigial features, and then can still serve a useful function.

To define the term I am using, vestigial:BIOLOGY
(of an organ or part of the body) degenerate, rudimentary, or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution. (From google search of vestigial)

 

[rusra02]

Thats is the problem, his lips were moving.

He has no credibility what so ever. :slap:

He does with me, and judging by the popularity of his books, with countless others.

 

[rusra02]

And if they're supposedly so "important", why can we remove the appendix without any health risks? It can't be that important to the function of survival. Besides, it's strange that God would have to design a "pocket" to store beneficial microbes for our the purpose of our digestion. Why even have microbes/probiotics at all? Why did God create us that we have to have foreign bacteria/yeast/live-culture in us to break down food? It's a very twisted idea, when God just as well could have made our body produce the cells/proteins/whatever to do it. We do some of it ourselves, but we're dependent on foreign lifeforms too. Such a strange design. And then God had to put a safety pocket in our intestines just in case we get sick to save some of the bacteria. Why even get sick? Did God plan that we would get stomach bugsys when he designed us? What about sickness following the fall? Did God create us to handle sickness before the fall? What a twisted guy!

I am reminded of what the Bible says at Isaiah 29:16; "How you twist things! Should the potter be regarded the same as the clay? Should what is made say about its maker: “He did not make me”? And does what is formed say about its former: “He shows no understanding”?"

 

[rusra02]

It is day 5 and god has just created the octopus.

The design of the eyes is perfect: the nerve spreads out under the surface of the retina and then goes up through the retina, so that the light receptors end up pointing towards the incoming light. Simply flawless.

However, later on the same day a much sloppier design is used for Adam's eye: the nerve fibers spread over the very surface of the retina, burrowing down into it through layers of epithelial cells and end up with light receptors pointing away from the light. As a result, light has to go through the nerves and through multiple layers of tissue before reaching the receptors. This significantly reduces the efficiency of the eye and creates a blind spot on the retina.

So, why did humans end up with the flawed version of the original perfect eye design?

Evolution can answer this question. Can you?

The flawed vision is with the evolutionists, I think. As g 1/11 p.15 explains:"The human eye contains a retina—a membrane with approximately 120 million cells called photoreceptors, which absorb light rays and convert them into electric signals. Your brain interprets these signals as visual images. Evolutionists have contended that where the retina is placed in the eyes of vertebrates, creatures with a backbone, proves that the eye had no designer.

Consider: The retina of vertebrates is inverted, placing the photoreceptors at the back of the retina. To reach them, light must pass through several layers of cells. According to evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller, “this arrangement scatters the light, making our vision less detailed than it might be.”

Evolutionists thus claim that the inverted retina is evidence of poor design—really, no design. One scientist even described it as a “functionally stupid upside-down orientation.” However, further research reveals that the photoreceptors of the inverted retina are ideally placed next to the pigment epithelium—a cell layer that provides oxygen and nutrients vital to keen sight. “If the pigment epithelium tissue were placed in front of the retina, sight would be seriously compromised,” wrote biologist Jerry Bergman and ophthalmologist Joseph Calkins.

The inverted retina is especially advantageous for vertebrates with small eyes. Says professor Ronald Kröger, of the University of Lund, Sweden: “Between the lens of the eye and the photoreceptors, there must be a certain distance to get a sharp image. Having this space filled with nerve cells means an important saving of space for the vertebrates.”

Additionally, with the nerve cells of the retina tightly packed and close to the photoreceptors, analysis of visual information is fast and reliable."
More detailed explanations are available online, for those interested.

 

[metis]

The flawed vision is with the evolutionists, I think. As g 1/11 p.15 explains:"The human eye contains a retina—a membrane with approximately 120 million cells called photoreceptors, which absorb light rays and convert them into electric signals. Your brain interprets these signals as visual images. Evolutionists have contended that where the retina is placed in the eyes of vertebrates, creatures with a backbone, proves that the eye had no designer.

Consider: The retina of vertebrates is inverted, placing the photoreceptors at the back of the retina. To reach them, light must pass through several layers of cells. According to evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller, “this arrangement scatters the light, making our vision less detailed than it might be.”

Evolutionists thus claim that the inverted retina is evidence of poor design—really, no design. One scientist even described it as a “functionally stupid upside-down orientation.” However, further research reveals that the photoreceptors of the inverted retina are ideally placed next to the pigment epithelium—a cell layer that provides oxygen and nutrients vital to keen sight. “If the pigment epithelium tissue were placed in front of the retina, sight would be seriously compromised,” wrote biologist Jerry Bergman and ophthalmologist Joseph Calkins.

The inverted retina is especially advantageous for vertebrates with small eyes. Says professor Ronald Kröger, of the University of Lund, Sweden: “Between the lens of the eye and the photoreceptors, there must be a certain distance to get a sharp image. Having this space filled with nerve cells means an important saving of space for the vertebrates.”

Additionally, with the nerve cells of the retina tightly packed and close to the photoreceptors, analysis of visual information is fast and reliable."
More detailed explanations are available online, for those interested.

I hate to say it, but the above is complete nonsense and undoubtedly written someone with a creationist agenda. I have read and heard numerous scientists categorically state that the human eye works but is hardly of the best design.

 

[rusra02]

So, before the fall, the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe was only a few inches long (as any rational engineer would have designed it) and after the fall it suddenly took a few extra feet (15) to follow the ludicrous path it takes today?

I also have a question that sort of troubled me when I was a creationist. Why did God create Adam with nipples?

Ciao

- viole

A scientific refutation of this false evolutionary idea of the giraffe's nerve can be read at this location; in brief, as stated at evolutionnews.org:"So the RLN's sole purpose, or as ID-critic Kelly Smith put it, its "intended function," is not simply to innervate the larynx, as it provides innervations for the heart and even for the esophagus. And for those organs it takes a direct, or as Coyne might put it, "rational" route from the brain."
Many Evolutionist's worldview prevents them from looking beyond the obvious and blinds them to even scientific truth and advancement.

 

[starless]

I hate to say it, but the above is complete nonsense and undoubtedly written someone with a creationist agenda. I have read and heard numerous scientists categorically state that the human eye works but is hardly of the best design.

You are correct.

The 'argument' above is copied almost ad verbatim from an article in the Jan 2011 issue of the Jehovah’s Witnesses magazine Awake! titled 'The inverted retina.'

 

[metis]

You are correct.

The 'argument' above is copied almost ad verbatim from an article in the Jan 2011 issue of the Jehovah’s Witnesses magazine Awake! titled 'The inverted retina.'

Thank you for this info.

 

[starless]

The flawed vision is with the evolutionists, I think. As g 1/11 p.15 explains:"The human eye contains a retina—a membrane with approximately 120 million cells called photoreceptors, which absorb light rays and convert them into electric signals. Your brain interprets these signals as visual images. Evolutionists have contended that where the retina is placed in the eyes of vertebrates, creatures with a backbone, proves that the eye had no designer.

Consider: The retina of vertebrates is inverted, placing the photoreceptors at the back of the retina. To reach them, light must pass through several layers of cells. According to evolutionary biologist Kenneth Miller, “this arrangement scatters the light, making our vision less detailed than it might be.”

Evolutionists thus claim that the inverted retina is evidence of poor design—really, no design. One scientist even described it as a “functionally stupid upside-down orientation.” However, further research reveals that the photoreceptors of the inverted retina are ideally placed next to the pigment epithelium—a cell layer that provides oxygen and nutrients vital to keen sight. “If the pigment epithelium tissue were placed in front of the retina, sight would be seriously compromised,” wrote biologist Jerry Bergman and ophthalmologist Joseph Calkins.

The inverted retina is especially advantageous for vertebrates with small eyes. Says professor Ronald Kröger, of the University of Lund, Sweden: “Between the lens of the eye and the photoreceptors, there must be a certain distance to get a sharp image. Having this space filled with nerve cells means an important saving of space for the vertebrates.”

Additionally, with the nerve cells of the retina tightly packed and close to the photoreceptors, analysis of visual information is fast and reliable."
More detailed explanations are available online, for those interested.

The article you copied for us here fails to address why is this "inverted retina" design even necessary if god was starting from scratch? Surely, a perfect solution wouldn't involve a blind spot on the surface of the retina, or a completely different arrangement vastly inferior to a mollusk's eye, or a retina prone to detachment?

Not to mention that quoting 'creation scientists' like Bergman and Calkins is a disservice to your argument. Let me pull a quote myself now:

"Jerry Bergman is a fairly typical creationist: he’s a loon, and he’s dishonest. He makes no sense, he splutters out nutty fragments of angry rhetoric, and he’s ultimately of no consequence whatsoever." - real biologist PZ Myers.

 

[Ouroboros]

If the eye is such a great and perfect design, then why do I have to use glasses when I read?

And if the human eye is the perfect design, why is there 20 or so different "designs" of eyes in nature? And if the inverted design is so amazingly great, then why do the octopus have the opposite?

 

[RabbiO]

If the eye is such a great and perfect design, then why do I have to use glasses when I read?

Just can't get quality help on the assembly line these days.

Might want to check the warranty on your eyes.

Or perhaps there's been a factory recall.

 

[Ouroboros]

Just can't get quality help on the assembly line these days.

Might want to check the warranty on your eyes.

Or perhaps there's been a factory recall.

Probably so. Maybe there's an upgrade I can get? Hey, designer, where's that service pack?

I just learned today about some odd things with some seeds. They have evolved to time winter, and some have adjusted (evolved) to the process of birds eating them and ... well... So to use them, they have to be scratched and stratisfied (I think it was called). Learn something new everyday.

 

[rusra02]

If the eye is such a great and perfect design, then why do I have to use glasses when I read?

And if the human eye is the perfect design, why is there 20 or so different "designs" of eyes in nature? And if the inverted design is so amazingly great, then why do the octopus have the opposite?

Why do you need glasses to read? Why are some people born blind or suffer blindness later in life? Why is there suffering? All these questions are related and I believe the Bible answers them all.

As to the design evident in eyes, I think each creature has vision suited for it's particular environment and lifestyle. Imagine a self-focusing, full-color, video camera that can film in three dimension in varying light without blurring while tracking fast moving objects...oh, wait, the human eye can do that and much more. Design, brilliant design, is evident all around us to those with eyes to see it. (Romans 1:20)

 

[rusra02]

The article you copied for us here fails to address why is this "inverted retina" design even necessary if god was starting from scratch? Surely, a perfect solution wouldn't involve a blind spot on the surface of the retina, or a completely different arrangement vastly inferior to a mollusk's eye, or a retina prone to detachment?

Not to mention that quoting 'creation scientists' like Bergman and Calkins is a disservice to your argument. Let me pull a quote myself now:

"Jerry Bergman is a fairly typical creationist: he’s a loon, and he’s dishonest. He makes no sense, he splutters out nutty fragments of angry rhetoric, and he’s ultimately of no consequence whatsoever." - real biologist PZ Myers.

Oh, well that settles it. Calling people names is proof positive you are right and they are wrong...or is it? Hmmmm

 

[starless]

Oh, well that settles it. Calling people names is proof positive you are right and they are wrong...or is it? Hmmmm

No, but questioning the credibility and the agenda of those "scientists" you quoted is quite pertinent to the validity of their claims.

Besides, the quotes you provided only indicated the adequacy of our vision. I know our vision is good enough, but still it is far from perfectly designed. Any competent designer starting from scratch would have taken clues from better designed eyes, like that of the octopus, would not have allowed a hole in the middle of the retina, an inverted optical formula; an easily detachable retina, or eye muscles that deteriorate with age (which is caused by the design of the eye itself.)

 

[rusra02]

No, but questioning the credibility and the agenda of those "scientists" you quoted is quite pertinent to the validity of their claims.

Besides, the quotes you provided only indicated the adequacy of our vision. I know our vision is good enough, but still it is far from perfectly designed. Any competent designer starting from scratch would have taken clues from better designed eyes, like that of the octopus, would not have allowed a hole in the middle of the retina, an inverted optical formula; an easily detachable retina, or eye muscles that deteriorate with age (which is caused by the design of the eye itself.)

I guess perfection is on the eye of the beholder. I think the human eye is just fine. Human imperfection is the cause of eye disease and weakness, not suboptimal design. (Romans 5:12) As Ecclesiastes 3:14 declares: "I have come to know that everything the true God makes will endure forever. There is nothing to add to it and nothing to subtract from it. The true God has made it this way, so that people will fear him."

 

[Ouroboros]

In other words, the eye is a perfect design, but because of sin the eye is not a perfect design anymore. Based on the assumption that it was once a perfect design, therefore it is a perfect design, even though it is not anymore.

 

[work in progress]

No, but questioning the credibility and the agenda of those "scientists" you quoted is quite pertinent to the validity of their claims.

Besides, the quotes you provided only indicated the adequacy of our vision. I know our vision is good enough, but still it is far from perfectly designed. Any competent designer starting from scratch would have taken clues from better designed eyes, like that of the octopus, would not have allowed a hole in the middle of the retina, an inverted optical formula; an easily detachable retina, or eye muscles that deteriorate with age (which is caused by the design of the eye itself.)

Yes, the eyes of sea creatures, like the octupus, are superior to all of the eye designs of creatures living on dry land. And, most birds...especially predatory birds like eagles, have far superior eyes than humans.

The best we can say about our eyes is that they may have the best mammalian eyes....but don't quote me on that! I haven't checked through them all. It's just that mammals begin with mole-like creatures living mostly underground, and most mammals have highly developed senses of smell and hearing to compensate for limited visual abilities.

And, with that, this will likely be my final post on this thread, since I haven't got a response to my last post, and I'm just going to assume that this is another pointless creationist thread...like all the others...pretending to be engaging in debate by ignoring counter-factual evidence, and endlessly recycling and repeating the same old slogans and talking points.

 

[outhouse]

All these questions are related and I believe the Bible answers them all.

Not correctly.


Only if you choose to turn your back to credible science and use a bad interpretation.

 

[outhouse]

so that people will fear him."

I find that as a terrible embarrassing excuse.