18 Jun 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadoh but i do believe he is the son of god. if you don't disprove this any explanation you come regarding his resurrection must take into account this statement. if you hold it to be false, then you are simply explaining how would an ordinary human come back from the dead(or stay dead). which won't make me change my position regarding jesus.
Young Earth Creationists believe that the old testament God was God
(unproven and also not dis proven) so normal rules that say that dating methods are accurate do not apply. So YECs believe that the earth is approx 6-10 thousand years old - as implied by the biblical narrative.
Yet you call them stupid for having the exact same reasoning as you and fee ...[text shortened]... d the idea that nothing can be proven, yet do not give the same leeway to creationists.
young earth creationists base their knowledge on the bible. scientifical methods explained, and tested that disprove them are ignored. so far the only thing young earth creationists might be right is that God created stuff. the how, the when in their vision is all wrong because it isn't based on reasonable arguments. they are attempting science so they cannot say "i have faith". in science you cannot say "i am sure" without data to back you up and even then you might be wrong. the big bang theorists have much more data to support them wheres the yec's twist the facts, ignore those that don't suit them and so on.
i don't call muslims stupid for saying that jesus was not the son of god but only another prophet(and not even that important at that). or jews. neither of muslims or christians or jews have proof either way.
The Bible says that the earth was made in Six days and that Adam and Even and even Noah are your ancestors. You don't believe that do you?
no, i do not. it was proven that adam and eve are not the original rabbits and they managed to reproduce without help from god who would constantly modify their dna so they don't produce retards. it was not proven that people seeing jesus after death lied. as most cases of miraculous medical recovery are not proven to have been or not caused by god.(if an explanation is found, it is no longer miraculous)
You said "the Bible says" not "the apostles said". Think about it for a moment.
yes, he said that she said that she heard them say that...
i understand about third(fifth or sixth) party rumors . can you prove they were lying? Occam's razor doesn't always apply.
You hide behind the idea that nothing can be proven,[...]
i don't actually say that. it is proven that if you take a donkey and put it next to 1 other donkey you would have two donkeys. or that the hidrogen atom has 1 proton. if i say that i have eaten chinese food at one time you either take my word for it or you don't. if you search in all the chinese restaurants in the world and don't find a receipt with my name on it, it still doesn't mean i am lying because i may have had a chinese lady cook chinese stuff for me. this is what i mean about unproven statements. now, if your scientific experiment is relying on me having or not chinese food, it is reasonable to assume i didn't. that is science. if it is just a matter of trivia, you can have faith that i had chinese.
18 Jun 08
Originally posted by scherzoYou know the difference. Evil is demonstrable--stupid is subjective (unless you have a way to know every brain function of your adversary). And even if it were true, you are civilized and every civilized person can tell that the former is rude and the latter is not.
Impolite in this scenario, in the same way that it is impolite to call Hitler evil.
18 Jun 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Zahlanzi“the retina issue, does it prevent you from seeing at all? …”
the retina issue, does it prevent you from seeing at all? or it simply prevents you to see better? do you need to see better? is your survival as a species endangered by the fact the retina is this way? the most obvious design flaw of our body isn't that the retina is back to front(never heard of it must research) the most obvious flaw is that we die. why w ...[text shortened]... esign flaw but not the retina thingie that you probably don't even notice. is he an idiot now?
Of cause not. Evolution just does its best of a bad job.
“…or it simply prevents you to see better? …”
Yes.
“…do you need to see better? is your survival as a species endangered by the fact the retina is this way?…”
The answer to both questions is no -but that is irrelevant because we would still benefit from seeing better thus this fails to explain why an all-knowing intelligence would deliberately design the retina with that design flaw that reduces our capacity to see.
“…the most obvious flaw is that we die. why would god make us die? you accept this design flaw but not the retina thing ie that you probably don't even notice. …“
No, -that is, assuming what you mean by that is “…the most obvious flaw is that we die of the aging process…” I think they are both design flaws.
"...is he an idiot now?"
If he exists, yes.
18 Jun 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonso god should have made us flawless. if he made us flawed you assume he is an idiot because he cannot possibly had a reason for making us immortal and impervious to diseases and unable to walk through walls. have you thought that the reason we progress is because the sense of urgency given by our impending deaths and the fact we are flawed and need helpful tools. we are not able to fly so we invented planes. we cannot lift tons of weight so we made cranes. we cannot see in the dark and we don't have thick furs so we made fire and electricity. is god still and idiot?
[b]“the retina issue, does it prevent you from seeing at all? …”
Of cause not. Evolution just does its best of a bad job.
“…or it simply prevents you to see better? …”
Yes.
“…do you need to see better? is your survival as a species endangered by the fact the retina is this way?…”
The answer to both questions is no -b ...[text shortened]... ing process…” I think they are both design flaws.
is he an idiot now?
If he exists, yes.[/b]
18 Jun 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhy would an all-knowing all-powerful god design flaws in us so that we can invent technology to compensate for our flaws when, given that he is all-knowing all-powerful, he could have either just told us how to make these machines or made us flawless so that he needn’t bother or made these machines himself or done both of these things? -And yes, if only he existed, he is still an idiot.
so god should have made us flawless. if he made us flawed you assume he is an idiot because he cannot possibly had a reason for making us immortal and impervious to diseases and unable to walk through walls. have you thought that the reason we progress is because the sense of urgency given by our impending deaths and the fact we are flawed and need helpful ...[text shortened]... the dark and we don't have thick furs so we made fire and electricity. is god still and idiot?
18 Jun 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonso the point of life for you isn't progress, self perfection, but sleepin, eating and sleeping. perhaps photosynthesis because we would be like plants.
Why would an all-knowing all-powerful god design flaws in us so that we can invent technology to compensate for our flaws when, given that he is all-knowing all-powerful, he could have either just told us how to make these machines or made us flawless so that he needn’t bother or made these machines himself or done both of these things? -And yes, if only he existed, he is still an idiot.
do you still think god is an idiot?
18 Jun 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThat's probably because someone told you it was idiotic but you really have no idea yourself how an eye works.
I would have thought that the answer to that is self-evident.
If I designed and made toilet-roll out of sandpaper, wouldn’t you conclude that I was an idiot? I know I would!
A toilet roll out of sand paper would not work. That's obvious.
An upside down retina on the other hand works perfectly well - again obvious.
As far as the circuitry, image processing and translation are concerned it is quite irrelevant what orientation the retina has. However as far as the optics are concerned the current design is simpler.
I could be wrong, but I suspect most cameras work in essentially the same way. Are you calling all camera makers idiots too?
So, please explain what better design you would use and why it is better.
And please don't come up with something pathetic like 'it make more sense if the image is the right way up'. Its not as if you actually look at the back of your retinas and get disoriented.
18 Jun 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadi don't know much about the subject but i think he says the blood vessels are before the retina when if being after they might not disrupt the image. not that the image forms itself upside down on the retina. since i made no research on the subject i can simply suggest that maybe the blood irrigation of the retina might work better this way.
That's probably because someone told you it was idiotic but you really have no idea yourself how an eye works.
[b]If I designed and made toilet-roll out of sandpaper, wouldn’t you conclude that I was an idiot? I know I would!
A toilet roll out of sand paper would not work. That's obvious.
An upside down retina on the other hand works perfectly we ...[text shortened]... t way up'. Its not as if you actually look at the back of your retinas and get disoriented.[/b]
but the way evolution works i would say that pressing matters are upgraded more quickly than non important issues. so a massive change of climate(=> drier climate for example) might make plants adapt over the course of fewer generations to make better use of water(or become extinct) and the fact of the retina might take a huge amount of time because humans don't need their eyes much anyway. correct me if i am wrong.
18 Jun 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziIf what you mean by “point’ is ‘purpose', life does not have a ‘point’ other than the one you arbitrarily assign to it (and I am not implying here that it is in some sense ’wrong’ to arbitrarily assign a purpose to your life. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with doing that.)
so the point of life for you isn't progress, self perfection, but sleepin, eating and sleeping. perhaps photosynthesis because we would be like plants.
do you still think god is an idiot?
You imply that I am lazy. I want go into the list of my daily routines but they include a boring job moping floors for minimum wage.
18 Jun 08
1 edit
The blood vessels that nourish the human retina are in front of the retina where they partly block the incoming light from reaching the retina instead of behind the retina where they would not block any incoming light. I think I have already mentioned words of this effect a number of times before.
18 Jun 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonand you prefer that someone give you something for free instead of realizing you can get off your ass and do something for yourself. god isn't and idiot for not making you smarter or faster or better. you are to blame for not working harder with the hand you've been dealt. rich spoiled brats that inherit billions have no merit, the lucky bastards. it is the person with 6 grades that doesn't know calculus but had an idea that made him millions that is worthy of respect.
If what you mean by “point’ is ‘purpose', life does not have a ‘point’ other than the one you arbitrarily assign to it (and I am not implying here that it is in some sense ’wrong’ to arbitrarily assign a purpose to your life. I don’t believe there is anything wrong with doing that.)
You imply that I am lazy. I want go into the list of my daily routines but they include a boring job moping floors for minimum wage.
mopping floors would smack pessimism into anyone. you must realize that it is up to you to make a difference for yourself. i don't agree that the meek shall inherit the world. god gave us a gift and by not making anything of it we are not thanking god very much for it. and if youre an atheist then this life is REALLY all you've got. either way you must get off your ass.
18 Jun 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonyes, what if the oxigen irrigation is better this way. less vision but higher durability.
The blood vessels that nourish the human retina are in front of the retina where they partly block the incoming light from reaching the retina instead of behind the retina where they would not block any incoming light. I think I have already mentioned words of this effect a number of times before.
18 Jun 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonSorry, I misunderstood the issue. I still don't think that there is an 'obvious' design flaw. I rather doubt that you could prove that the opposite design is much better without actually building one. It certainly is not as simple as saying 'well I would do it this way'.
The blood vessels that nourish the human retina are in front of the retina where they partly block the incoming light from reaching the retina instead of behind the retina where they would not block any incoming light. I think I have already mentioned words of this effect a number of times before.
18 Jun 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou know nothing about me.
and you prefer that someone give you something for free instead of realizing you can get off your ass and do something for yourself. god isn't and idiot for not making you smarter or faster or better. you are to blame for not working harder with the hand you've been dealt. rich spoiled brats that inherit billions have no merit, the lucky bastards. it is the ...[text shortened]... e an atheist then this life is REALLY all you've got. either way you must get off your ass.
“…and you prefer that someone give you something for free…”
No. What led you to that conclusion? I don’t ask nor expect nor strive to ‘get something for free’.
“…instead of realizing you can get off your ass and do something for yourself…”
What led you to the conclusion that I am lazy and don’t do things for myself? (Both conclusions just happen to be generally false).