subjective science

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
Toward the end of one evolution debate a proponent of evolution was telling me a refrigerator is more complex than the human body, and none of the other evolutionists here disagreed with him.

This is what you are up against.

I wasn't part of that debate because it is nonsense to
say a refrigerator is more complex than a human body.

Because it has evolved the human body is more complex
than necessary, whereas the refrigerator has been designed.

Originally posted by @fmf
Was it on the Science Forum? What was the thread called?

I think it was at this forum. It was too long ago for me to recall the thread title, perhaps a year or two has passed (probably longer ago than that). All I can remember is getting no answer to points made about the Cambrian explosion, and the lack of high concentration of nitrate deposits in pre Cambrian sediments.

And of course, I will never forget about how a refrigerator is more complex in design and function than our simple little human bodies...

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
I think it was at this forum. It was too long ago for me to recall the thread title, perhaps a year or two has passed (probably longer ago than that). All I can remember is getting no answer to points made about the Cambrian explosion, and the lack of high concentration of nitrate deposits in pre Cambrian sediments.

And of course, I will never forget ...[text shortened]... how a refrigerator is more complex in design and function than our simple little human bodies...

If, as you say, you "will never forget" it, why not say which poster it was who made the claim about refrigerators?

Originally posted by @fmf
If, as you say, you "will never forget" it, why not say which poster it was who made the claim about refrigerators?

Good idea! If I saw the name I'm pretty sure I'd recogize it... think it began with the capital letter 'C'. And I might have been the one who started the thread.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
Cameras can have hugely better resolution than the human eye.
Cameras can have larger depth of field.
Cameras can focus closer.
Cameras can have a wider field of vision.
Cameras can detect light beyond red and beyond violet.
Cameras do not have a blind spot in the middle.
Cameras can see YELLOW.

Apart from that the eye is superior?

Do some research. For gods sake!

1: The human eye can detect a luminance range of 1014, or one hundred trillion (100,000,000,000,000) (about 46.5 f-stops), from 10−6 cd/m2, or one millionth (0.000001) of a candela per square meter to 108 cd/m2 or one hundred million (100,000,000) candelas per square meter. This range does not include looking at the midday sun (109 cd/m2) or lightning discharge.
2:The human eye can distinguish about 10 million different colors.
3: If the human eye was a digital camera it would have 576 megapixels
4:The approximate field of view of an individual human eye is 95° away from the nose, 75° downward, 60° toward the nose, and 60° upward, allowing humans to have an almost 180-degree forward-facing horizontal field of view.
5. Try taking a picture with a camera in the dark without a flash, compare that with what the eye can see in the same light.

If you had a camera anywhere near as good as the eye no one in their right mind would believe that it wasn't designed.

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
Good idea! If I saw the name I'm pretty sure I'd recogize it... think it began with the capital letter 'C'. And I might have been the one who started the thread.

You can't remember where it happened. You can't remember when it happened. You can't remember who was involved. You can't remember the details of what was said. But you can remember that some people took no notice of you about something, and some unknown person supposedly said something that you found ridiculous.

And now you say, today, to some current poster, that all this stuff, of which you basically have no convincing memory, "is what you are up against", here, years later?

If none of the evolutionists, as you claim, disagreed with the person who talked about the refrigerator, why aren't these evolutionists confronting you with the 'refrigerator argument' today and causing you to be "up against it" all over again?

Originally posted by @fmf
You can't remember where it happened. You can't remember when it happened. You can't remember who was involved. You can't remember the details of what was said. But you can remember that some people took no notice of you about something, and some unknown person supposedly said something that you found ridiculous.

And now you say, today, to some poster, that ...[text shortened]... you with the 'refrigerator argument' today and causing you to be "up against it" all over again?

I think the name was Chess*** something...
Is 'ChessHess' a familiar name?

By the way, just exactly how much detail do you believe I should remember from a few years ago?

Originally posted by @lemon-lime
By the way, just exactly how much detail do you believe I should remember from a few years ago?

You're missing the point. In what sense is dj2becker currently "up against" the argument that a fridge is more complex than a human body? The only person who has mentioned it is you.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
1: The human eye can detect a luminance range of 1014, or one hundred trillion (100,000,000,000,000) (about 46.5 f-stops), from 10−6 cd/m2, or one millionth (0.000001) of a candela per square meter to 108 cd/m2 or one hundred million (100,000,000) candelas per square meter. This range does not include looking at the midday sun (109 cd/m2) or lightning dis ...[text shortened]... ywhere near as good as the eye no one in their right mind would believe that it wasn't designed.

This is tedious dealing with such ignorance but here goes;
1. Cameras take pictures of stars undetectable by the human eye and of the sun.

2. The human eye is sensitive to 3 colours (red, green, blue) you can google for
the exact wavelengths if you wish. Also the visual spectrum is quite small. We
can take IR and UV images with cameras.

3. High Street cameras are up to 50 megapixels those used in astronomy far exceed that.
(Hubble is about 1,000 megapixels)

4. Ever heard of a fish-eye lens?

5. High Street cameras are capable of 3200 ISO ... and have you heard of infra-red?

BUT
even if the human eye was unbeatable in performance
that would still not explain why it is so poorly designed.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
This is tedious dealing with such ignorance but here goes;
1. Cameras take pictures of stars undetectable by the human eye and of the sun.

2. The human eye is sensitive to 3 colours (red, green, blue) you can google for
the exact wavelengths if you wish. Also the visual spectrum is quite small. We
can take IR and UV images with cameras.

3. Hig ...[text shortened]... n eye was unbeatable in performance
that would still not explain why it is so poorly designed.

So you agree the eye was designed even if according to your subjective opinion it was 'poorly designed'?

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
I take your point.
You are correct.
But one could make a camera incorporating the hubble telescope and call it a camera.
Any camera must have some focussing mechanism.

Of course, but mirrors and lenses have almost infinite "resolution" as it's not really "resolution" it's reflection and focus.

Anyway, this is just a side topic on resolution capture itself and the other half of the argument would be better served by the avian eye which has enormous performance over the human eye.

And the argument itself, if I was bothered to have one, would be better served overall by the human brain rather than the human eye as comparisons with processing capabilities are astonishingly in favour of the brain. But then someone like Fetchmybecker will probably argue that the eye is actually part of the brain, and he'd be right. 🙂

Originally posted by @divegeester
Of course, but mirrors and lenses have almost infinite "resolution" as it's not really "resolution" it's reflection and focus.

Anyway, this is just a side topic on resolution capture itself and the other half of the argument would be better served by the avian eye which has enormous performance over the human eye.

And the argument itself, if I w ...[text shortened]... chmybecker will probably argue that the eye is actually part of the brain, and he'd be right. 🙂

🙂

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So you agree the eye was designed even if according to your subjective opinion it was 'poorly designed'?

'Designed' was your word, not his.

If I say to you, "So why is the eye so poorly designed," this does not mean I agree with you that the eye was designed. I would merely be using your own language back at you.

Originally posted by @divegeester
Of course, but mirrors and lenses have almost infinite "resolution" as it's not really "resolution" it's reflection and focus.

Anyway, this is just a side topic on resolution capture itself and the other half of the argument would be better served by the avian eye which has enormous performance over the human eye.

And the argument itself, if I w ...[text shortened]... chmybecker will probably argue that the eye is actually part of the brain, and he'd be right. 🙂

Yes - the brain would be a better example to argue "Design".
I'm not aware of any design short-comings (the corpus callosum perhaps?)
but I'm sure experts could point out some anomalies.

Originally posted by @wolfgang59
Yes - the brain would be a better example to argue "Design".
I'm not aware of any design short-comings (the corpus callosum perhaps?)
but I'm sure experts could point out some anomalies.

"If the human brain were a computer, it could perform 38 thousand trillion operations per second. The world’s most powerful supercomputer, BlueGene, can manage only .002% of that." This was in 2015.