21 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerWhy not go back to the 1970's?
"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.
or the 1870's?
What is your point?
nb
One day a computer will be beat the World Chess Champion. ... LOL
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
21 Sep 17
Originally posted by @wolfgang59The point that you are so desperately trying to mis is that you would never doubt that a computer is a product of design but you aren't even willing to consider that the human brain was designed even if the brain outperforms any computer. That dear wolfie is intellectual dishonesty.
Why not go back to the 1970's?
or the 1870's?
What is your point?
nb
One day a computer will be beat the World Chess Champion. ... LOL
21 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerActually, we DO consider the idea the human brain was designed, presumably by this magical intelligent designer. We just reject the idea out of hand. And that would be because we actualy study the situation and not just slavishly cling to ancient writings that knew nothing about genetics or evolution. You reject evolution out of hand in your gut reaction due to your brainwashing inherent in your religion.
The point that you are so desperately trying to mis is that you would never doubt that a computer is a product of design but you aren't even willing to consider that the human brain was designed even if the brain outperforms any computer. That dear wolfie is intellectual dishonesty.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
21 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @sonhouseYou reject the idea of a designer out of hand because it is not compatible with your atheistic beliefs. Whatever gave you the idea that I reject evolution? Species adapting to their environments is an observable fact.
Actually, we DO consider the idea the human brain was designed, presumably by this magical intelligent designer. We just reject the idea out of hand. And that would be because we actualy study the situation and not just slavishly cling to ancient writings that knew nothing about genetics or evolution. You reject evolution out of hand in your gut reaction due to your brainwashing inherent in your religion.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
21 Sep 17
Originally posted by @wolfgang59
1. Cameras take pictures of stars undetectable by the human eye and of the sun.
How necessary has it been over the last 6K to 10K years for the average man or women to detect undetectable starlight ? This is out of the realm necessary human living.
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.
How important has that been to the majority of human beings in recorded human history?
I didn't say it was not important. But on a relative scale of time, we survived quite well without that ability.
I hope you are not arguing that the existence of every tool invented by man exposes the poorness of the design of his natural abilities.
In some ways a wheel is a more efficient form of movement. Are you going to argue that because we were not born with wheels instead of legs we are poorly designed ?
3. High Street cameras are up to 50 megapixels those used in astronomy far exceed that.
(Hubble is about 1,000 megapixels)
Human beings got along fine for thousands of years noticing that the Andromeda galaxy just seemed to be a vague smear in the night sky. Latter invention of tools to aid human ability don't prove humans were poorly designed.
If you were to go back in time 1,000 years and rant and rave to the local people most would wonder what that had to do with their daily practical struggles.
If you went on " You don't understand. That little smudge you see is a whole island universe. It is an whole another system of billions of stars. We can't detect it with our poor eyes."
I wager that some more informed people would likely say that that had at least been thought of by somebody. We were not the first generation to gaze p at the stars and wonder. They probably did more of it then the average city dwelling youth armed with computer games and TV.
Modern man is so arrogant.
4. Ever heard of a fish-eye lens?
It sounds like something very useful to the fish.
5. High Street cameras are capable of 3200 ISO ... and have you heard of infra-red?
Are you saying a better designed eye would have been able to see infra-red ?
Detecting infra-red may be important to this age's technology for various reasons.
You can't take the last 300 years of technology as a measure of how poorly the human body was designed for the larger amount of human history.
BUT
even if the human eye was unbeatable in performance
that would still not explain why it is so poorly designed.
Would you rather look as you are or look like Darth Vader with all kinds of implanted "better" scientific inventions surgically connected to your body ?
As for me, I'm thankful for my eyes, ears, nose, tongue as they came out of the womb of the human who gave birth to me. And I wear glasses.
You, wolfgang59, are just unthankful.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerHow long have humans been around?
You reject the idea of a designer out of hand because it is not compatible with your atheistic beliefs. Whatever gave you the idea that I reject evolution? Species adapting to their environments is an observable fact.
I don't think a design is very good given 2 year old children with cancer, dying before they are 3. Not a good design at all. Chimps are almost twice as strong as humans pound for pound and can bite right through your hand if they so chose. Humans have to rely on stealth and cunning and if they are caught out by some animals, 1 human is history. You can't outclimb a bear trying to escape up a tree. The only thing I can outrun is my 9 year old 20 pound pooch. Not very good design if you ask me. Putting our balls outside our bodies seems a bit odd where most animals have them safely tucked inside where they are not so subject to whacking with a knee or foot or karate chop. Then there is the prostate wrapped around the urinary tract, what kind of design is that? Females don't have that kind of problem.
21 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerWhy would you think ANYONE would know 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' how long humans have been here? No scientist would say 'modern humans have been around 189,344 years'
Tell me how you know without a shadow of a doubt how long they have been here.
They say, with in some window of time, say plus or minus 5000 years (just a guess) modern humans have been around for about 175,000 years. ish. Could be 200,000. Do you disagree?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 30605
21 Sep 17
Originally posted by @sonshipPsst, 'modern arrogant man' gave you those glasses (to compensate for your God given imperfect vision).1. Cameras take pictures of stars undetectable by the human eye and of the sun.
How necessary has it been over the last 6K to 10K years for the average man or women to detect undetectable starlight ? This is out of the realm necessary human living.
[quote]
2. The human eye is sensitive to 3 colours (red, green, blue) you can google ...[text shortened]... of the human who gave birth to me. And I wear glasses.
You, wolfgang59, are just unthankful.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
21 Sep 17
Originally posted by @sonhouseI agree no one really knows, there are many unprovable assumptions that have to be made.
Why would you think ANYONE would know 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' how long humans have been here? No scientist would say 'modern humans have been around 189,344 years'
They say, with in some window of time, say plus or minus 5000 years (just a guess) modern humans have been around for about 175,000 years. ish. Could be 200,000. Do you disagree?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerWell tell me your best estimate then of how long humans, modern humans, have been around.
I agree no one really knows, there are many unprovable assumptions that have to be made.
I notice BTW, you didn't have an answer about the prostate or babies dying of cancer.
21 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYou are confusing performance with design.
The point that you are so desperately trying to mis is that you would never doubt that a computer is a product of design but you aren't even willing to consider that the human brain was designed even if the brain outperforms any computer. That dear wolfie is intellectual dishonesty.
As I said before a simple pencil has to be designed and any fool can tell by looking at it that it has been designed.
Whereas who could say a penguin has been designed to hunt underwater?
(Even though it is fantastic at it?)
And who can say a giraffe has been designed?
21 Sep 17
Originally posted by @sonshipWe were not debating necessity.
How necessary has it been over the last 6K to 10K years for the average man or women to detect undetectable starlight ? This is out of the realm necessary human living.
.
I was arguing against the position that our eyes are better than cameras.
21 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerShow mw how I am being "intellectually dishonest".
The point that you are so desperately trying to mis is that you would never doubt that a computer is a product of design but you aren't even willing to consider that the human brain was designed even if the brain outperforms any computer. That dear wolfie is intellectual dishonesty.
(Though I doubt you know what the phrase means and are using it to sound intellectual)
21 Sep 17
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeMy comment on the arrogance of modern man is based on some modern people's attitude about by-gone generations. They often underestimate how much old wisdom and knowledge has been lost.
Psst, 'modern arrogant man' gave you those glasses (to compensate for your God given imperfect vision).
- sonship