The human eye: more evidence of intelligent design that computer scientists are learning from

gabriel

unread,

Jul 3, 2009, 9:52:34 AM7/3/09

to

More evidence of intelligent design that computer scientists are
trying to duplicate in their designs, after their own designs
fall far short from their attempts at designing their own version
of sight. More evidence of how little we know compared to our
amazing Creator, God.

www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/06/27/news-to-note-06272009#four

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618084258.htm

The human eye has sometimes been a target for accusations of "bad
design" (read more in Is our 'inverted' retina really 'bad
design'?). But Boston College computer scientists have created a
new computer technique that is inspired by the human eye's
behavior.

Calling it a solution to "one of the most vexing challenges to
advancing computer vision," the report states that scientists
developed a new set of algorithms to help streamline the
computer's work in recognizing elements of a live image (by
matching them to other images).

"When the human eye searches for an object it looks globally for
the rough location, size and orientation of the object. Then it
zeros in on the details. Our method behaves in a similar fashion,
using a linear approximation to explore the search space globally
and quickly; then it works to identify the moving object by
frequently updating trust search regions," explained one of the
researchers.

The technique has increased the speed of matching by 10 times
relative to previous methods, and tests show a 95 percent success
rate (compared to 50 percent for previous methods)-yet "at a
fraction of the complexity."

So much for "bad design"!

============================================================

Human Eye Inspires Advance In Computer Vision
ScienceDaily (June 22, 2009) - Inspired by the behavior of the
human eye, Boston College computer scientists have developed a
technique that lets computers see objects as fleeting as a
butterfly or tropical fish with nearly double the accuracy and 10
times the speed of earlier methods.

The linear solution to one of the most vexing challenges to
advancing computer vision has direct applications in the fields
of action and object recognition, surveillance, wide-base stereo
microscopy and three-dimensional shape reconstruction, according
to the researchers, who will report on their advance at the
upcoming annual IEEE meeting on computer vision.

BC computer scientists Hao Jiang and Stella X. Yu developed a
novel solution of linear algorithms to streamline the computer's
work. Previously, computer visualization relied on software that
captured the live image then hunted through millions of possible
object configurations to find a match. Further compounding the
challenge, even more images needed to be searched as objects
moved, altering scale and orientation.

Rather than combing through the image bank - a time- and
memory-consuming computing task - Jiang and Yu turned to the
mechanics of the human eye to give computers better vision.

"When the human eye searches for an object it looks globally for
the rough location, size and orientation of the object. Then it
zeros in on the details," said Jiang, an assistant professor of
computer science. "Our method behaves in a similar fashion, using
a linear approximation to explore the search space globally and
quickly; then it works to identify the moving object by
frequently updating trust search regions."

Trust search regions act as visual touchstones the computer
returns to again and again. Jiang and Yu's solution focuses on
the mathematically-generated template of an image, which looks
like a constellation when lines are drawn to connect the stars.
Using the researchers' new algorithms, computer software
identifies an object using the template of a trust search region.
The program then adjusts the trust search regions as the object
moves and finds its mathematical matches, relaying that shifting
image to a memory bank or a computer screen to record or display
the object.

Jiang says using linear approximation in a sequence of trust
regions enables the new program to maintain spatial consistency
as an object moves and reduces the number of variables that need
to be optimized from several million to just a few hundred. That
increased the speed of image matching 10 times over compared with
previous methods, he said.

The researchers tested the software on a variety of images and
videos - from a butterfly to a stuffed Teddy Bear - and report
achieving a 95 percent detection rate at a fraction of the
complexity. Previous so-called "greedy" methods of search and
match achieved a detection rate of approximately 50 percent,
Jiang said.

Jiang will present the team's findings at the IEEE Conference on
Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition 2009, which takes place
June 20-25 in Miami.

Andrew W

unread,

Jul 3, 2009, 8:04:15 PM7/3/09

to

The 'eye' started out as light sensitive skin and eventually evolved to what
it is now.
This is known for a fact because scientists have found creatures with light
sensitive skin, and other creatures with various degrees of eye like parts.

--
Andrew W.

When a brother acts insanely, he is offering you an
opportunity to bless him. His need is YOURS. You NEED the
blessing you can offer him. There is no way for you to have it
EXCEPT by giving it.
~ A Course in Miracles

Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
Links page -
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner/links.htm

Ken

unread,

Jul 3, 2009, 8:07:28 PM7/3/09

to

On Jul 3, 6:52 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:

More evidence of gabriel's infinite stupidity

You have GOT to be the dumbest motherfucker in an ocean of dumbassed
creatioNUT motherfuckers to believe the crap you put out!!!!

Tim DeLaney

unread,

Jul 3, 2009, 8:17:57 PM7/3/09

to

Mindless name calling

Tim

Dan Luke

unread,

Jul 3, 2009, 9:02:18 PM7/3/09

to

"Tim DeLaney" wrote:

> More evidence of gabriel's infinite stupidity
>
> You have GOT to be the dumbest motherfucker in an ocean of dumbassed
> creatioNUT motherfuckers to believe the crap you put out!!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mindless name calling
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But accurate.

--
Dan

"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
-Chief Inspector Dreyfus

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

unread,

Jul 3, 2009, 9:14:39 PM7/3/09

to

On Jul 3, 8:07 pm, Ken <flakey...@earthlink.net> wrote:

Dude, he's just brainlessly cutting-and-pasting crap from AIG that he
doesn't even understand. He's harmless. Everybody's heard it before
-- it's the same ole crap that YECers have been putting out for 40
years now. Nobody even listens to it anymore. (shrug)

This whole fight is over. The "serious" creationists have all fled
the field. All that remain are the hardcore nutters who, like the
Japanese holdouts on Guam, hide in their caves, emerging once in a
while to snipe some random potshots at everyone, utterly unaware that
the war is long over.

================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"

Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

Ken

unread,

Jul 3, 2009, 11:16:57 PM7/3/09

to

On Jul 3, 6:14 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> This whole fight is over. The "serious" creationists have all fled
> the field. All that remain are the hardcore nutters who, like the
> Japanese holdouts on Guam, hide in their caves, emerging once in a
> while to snipe some random potshots at everyone, utterly unaware that
> the war is long over.
>
> ================================================
> Lenny Flank

Great comparison.

Remember hearing something about hardcore/clueless Japs finally
emerging from jungle hideouts even into the mid 60's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_holdout
http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/list.html

Father Haskell

unread,

Jul 3, 2009, 11:30:25 PM7/3/09

to

Hey, if the foo shits.

Father Haskell

unread,

Jul 3, 2009, 11:32:50 PM7/3/09

to

On Jul 3, 9:52 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> More evidence of intelligent design that computer scientists are
> trying to duplicate in their designs, after their own designs
> fall far short from their attempts at designing their own version
> of sight. More evidence of how little we know compared to our
> amazing Creator, God.

If eyes really were designed by an intelligent creator, we'd have
another pair on the backs of our heads.

Klaus Hellnick

unread,

Jul 3, 2009, 11:38:58 PM7/3/09

to

I was stationed in Guam in the 80s (Apra Harbor)and people were talking
about a Jap that was caught in the mid 70s. There were rumors of old
Japanese men living in the jungle occasionally stealing food, clothing,
and tools.

Will in New Haven

unread,

Jul 3, 2009, 11:50:02 PM7/3/09

to

You don't??

--
Will, better designed, in New Haven

Garamond Lethe

unread,

Jul 3, 2009, 11:55:44 PM7/3/09

to

Way to go. Now everybody is going to want an extra set.

Keep quiet about the lasers, ok?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank

unread,

Jul 4, 2009, 12:05:25 AM7/4/09

to

On Jul 3, 11:32 pm, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:

With the retinas installed correctly, not backwards like the ones we
got now.

Father Haskell

unread,

Jul 4, 2009, 12:57:16 AM7/4/09

to

On Jul 4, 12:05 am, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 3, 11:32 pm, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 3, 9:52 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > More evidence of intelligent design that computer scientists are
> > > trying to duplicate in their designs, after their own designs
> > > fall far short from their attempts at designing their own version
> > > of sight. More evidence of how little we know compared to our
> > > amazing Creator, God.
>
> > If eyes really were designed by an intelligent creator, we'd have
> > another pair on the backs of our heads.
>
> With the retinas installed correctly, not backwards like the ones we
> got now.

Able to see *much* further into the EM spectrum. Trichromatism
is for mere primates.

John S. Wilkins

unread,

Jul 4, 2009, 1:04:08 AM7/4/09

to

Father Haskell <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Give me the retinae of stomatopods, with a rapid scanning mechanism so I
can see the whole field of vision immediately. 12 retinal cell types
equally spaced along the whole spectrum, extending into UV and IR. And
to detect polarisation as well (useful for navigating).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantis_shrimp#The_eyes

I also wouldn't mind a punching and spearing appendage as well, for when
I go visit NYC.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Mike Painter

unread,

Jul 4, 2009, 2:53:17 AM7/4/09

to

I visited a friend of mine who worked with special ed kids one day.
One of the kids had a hat taken from him for playing with it and Ted hung it
on a hook behind him, then started grading papers from another class.
I watched as the kid snuck behind him and got the hat then stood in front of
the desk, hat behind him, and started making comments.
Ted never looked up but figured out what was going on. He told the kid to
put the hat back and continued working. The shocked look on the kids face
was something to remember and I 'm sure he believed Ted had eyes in back of
his head.

Father Haskell

unread,

Jul 4, 2009, 5:05:02 AM7/4/09

to

On Jul 4, 1:04 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 4, 12:05 am, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 3, 11:32 pm, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 3, 9:52 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > More evidence of intelligent design that computer scientists are
> > > > > trying to duplicate in their designs, after their own designs
> > > > > fall far short from their attempts at designing their own version
> > > > > of sight. More evidence of how little we know compared to our
> > > > > amazing Creator, God.
>
> > > > If eyes really were designed by an intelligent creator, we'd have
> > > > another pair on the backs of our heads.
>
> > > With the retinas installed correctly, not backwards like the ones we
> > > got now.
>
> > Able to see *much* further into the EM spectrum. Trichromatism
> > is for mere primates.
>
> Give me the retinae of stomatopods, with a rapid scanning mechanism so I
> can see the whole field of vision immediately. 12 retinal cell types
> equally spaced along the whole spectrum, extending into UV and IR. And
> to detect polarisation as well (useful for navigating).

Extending into radio and gamma wouldn't be bad. Sure -- ordinarily,
your eyes would have to be several feet across to pick up the longer
radio wavelengths, but god should have no trouble bending the laws
of physics enough to make regular sized eyeballs work.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantis_shrimp#The_eyes

So that's what Spongebob's crustacean buddy is.

> I also wouldn't mind a punching and spearing appendage as well, for when
> I go visit NYC.

I'll bet that mantis shrimp can also regenerate lost limbs.

spintronic

unread,

Jul 4, 2009, 8:41:09 AM7/4/09

to

On 4 July, 05:05, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 3, 11:32 pm, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > If eyes really were designed by an intelligent creator, we'd have
> > another pair on the backs of our heads.
>
> With the retinas installed correctly, not backwards like the ones we
> got now.
>
> ================================================

> Loony Flonk
> "There are loose stools in my pants"

How would you know what is the correct way to have your retina?

Perhaps allowing this curiosity to perpetuate through the entire
population of humans is gods way of telling you that Natural Selection
isn't working.

Eric Root

unread,

Jul 4, 2009, 9:45:06 AM7/4/09

to

On Jul 3, 8:17 pm, Tim DeLaney <delaney.timo...@comcast.net> wrote:

What, you don't consider it just constructive criticism?

Eric Root

unread,

Jul 4, 2009, 9:46:50 AM7/4/09

to

So, you are calling God a liar (in addition to not capitalizing His
name and not using one of His apostrophes to make Him possessive?)

Eric Root

unread,

Jul 4, 2009, 9:49:28 AM7/4/09

to

You could not only listen to the radio, but watch it also.

Eric Root

Ye Old One

unread,

Jul 4, 2009, 10:17:48 AM7/4/09

to

** SHUNNED for forging, stupidity and trolling. **

--
Bob.

Stuart

unread,

Jul 4, 2009, 10:37:55 AM7/4/09

to

On Jul 4, 2:41 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 July, 05:05, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 3, 11:32 pm, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > If eyes really were designed by an intelligent creator, we'd have
> > > another pair on the backs of our heads.
>
> > With the retinas installed correctly, not backwards like the ones we
> > got now.
>
> > ================================================
> > Loony Flonk
> > "There are loose stools in my pants"
>
> How would you know what is the correct way to have your retina?

The way where the nerve endings (axons) are not running across the
retina, but behind the retina like in mollusks.

>
> Perhaps allowing this curiosity to perpetuate through the entire
> population of humans is gods way of telling you that Natural Selection
> isn't working.

Um no. It means the eye wasn't rationally designed. Natural selection
only makes modifications that confer an increase reproductive
propensity. Perfection or even reasonableness not required.

Only a maroon posits an "intelligent designer" would make a camera
where the light passes through the camera circuitry before striking
film.

Silly creationist.

Stuart

unread,

Jul 4, 2009, 10:48:04 AM7/4/09

to

On Jul 4, 2:41 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Its not just humans that have this curiosity, but all vertebrates.

Isn't that special?

Stuart

Wombat

unread,

Argument from ignorance fallacy - because the only other
alternative you can think of is not true, in your opinion, that
makes their beliefs true. But you said it was "known for a fact"
- so either you're confused or you're being dishonest. Is it a
fact, or a belief? If it's a fact, where's your hard, empirical
evidence that the pathway to human sight followed through those
steps, as asked?

: Which one makes more sense? Which one is more meaningful?

The one where you believe God did what He said He did if you
claim to believe in God.

Andrew W

unread,

Jul 5, 2009, 5:52:21 AM7/5/09

to

gabriel wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 13:01:39 +1000, "Andrew W"
> <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Bob Dean wrote:
>>> Andrew W wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The 'eye' started out as light sensitive skin and eventually
>>>> evolved to what it is now.
>>>> This is known for a fact because scientists have found creatures
>>>> with light sensitive skin, and other creatures with various degrees
>>>> of eye like parts.
>>> Where is your hard, empirical evidence that the pathway to human
>>> sight followed through the same steps?
>>>
>>
>> The only alternative is that it was instantly conjured into
>> existence.
>
> Argument from ignorance fallacy - because the only other
> alternative you can think of is not true, in your opinion, that
> makes their beliefs true. But you said it was "known for a fact"
> - so either you're confused or you're being dishonest. Is it a
> fact, or a belief? If it's a fact, where's your hard, empirical
> evidence that the pathway to human sight followed through those
> steps, as asked?
>

You are the one arguing from ignorance.
What the scientists have found *is* a fact. They have the biological proof
for the process.
You are the one who has nothing. Where is your proof that the process was
completely different in the case of humans?
We are also animal like. Why would God use a natural process like evolution
for one biological life form and then conjure up two instant humans like a
magician which is completely unnatural?

>
>> Which one makes more sense? Which one is more meaningful?
>
> The one where you believe God did what He said He did if you
> claim to believe in God.
>

God didn't say he did anything. Your Bible is not God talking.
Inspired does not mean dictated.
See my other post.

Ron O

unread,

Jul 5, 2009, 10:44:12 PM7/5/09

to

I can't wait until they figure out how the tiny brain of a spider can
utilize the input from 8 eyes.

Ron Okimoto

John Smith

unread,

Jul 5, 2009, 11:25:58 PM7/5/09

to

On Jul 3, 10:32 pm, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 3, 9:52 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > More evidence of intelligent design that computer scientists are
> > trying to duplicate in their designs, after their own designs
> > fall far short from their attempts at designing their own version
> > of sight. More evidence of how little we know compared to our
> > amazing Creator, God.
>
> If eyes really were designed by an intelligent creator, we'd have
> another pair on the backs of our heads.

I'm waiting for:
"Evidence for intelligent design ...... god made assholes just large enough
for creationists to squeeze their heads in. "

Father Haskell

unread,

Jul 6, 2009, 12:56:33 AM7/6/09

to

Or a dragonfly, with 2 compound eyes of some 28,000
individual receptors each, plus 3 simple eyes.

Chris

unread,

Jul 6, 2009, 3:59:03 AM7/6/09

to

Or a horshoe crab, with at least a dozen photoreceptors on its head
and down the length of its telson.

Chris

Father Haskell

unread,

Jul 6, 2009, 4:26:18 AM7/6/09

to

Which is more closely related to spiders than
crabs. Quite ancient, from what I understand.

Father Haskell

unread,

Jul 6, 2009, 4:24:11 AM7/6/09

to

On Jul 4, 9:46 am, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:

> So, you are calling God a liar (in addition to not capitalizing His
> name and not using one of His apostrophes to make Him possessive?)

No. I called him an asshole.

Eric Root

unread,

Jul 6, 2009, 11:11:08 AM7/6/09

to

?? I was replying to SPinny.

Eric Root

Sla#s

unread,

Jul 6, 2009, 1:03:00 PM7/6/09

to

gabriel wrote:
> More evidence of intelligent design

<SNIP>>

> So much for "bad design"!
>

So the fact that humans cannot see anything in a spot about 10 degrees from
centre you consider to be good design!
If you were going to design an eye is that how you would connect it to the
brain?

Slatts

Bob Dean

unread,

Jul 6, 2009, 1:53:49 PM7/6/09

to

This is a strawman argument. No one is arguing for two different scenarios.

>
>
>>> Which one makes more sense? Which one is more meaningful?
>> The one where you believe God did what He said He did if you
>> claim to believe in God.
>>
>
> God didn't say he did anything. Your Bible is not God talking.
> Inspired does not mean dictated.
>

This is true.
>
> See my other post.
>
>

unread,

Jul 7, 2009, 1:08:11 AM7/7/09

to

Father Haskell <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:

You mean, apart from eagles?

I want the retina of a mantis shrimp, the lens of an eagle, and the
retinal wiring of an octopus. With green irises, please.
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

Father Haskell

unread,

Instead let's respond to Bob with a bit more. First off, we can look
at the evolution of the eye by comparing eyes in the world. We can see
that all mammals have a backwards set up optic nerve. This suggests
(and with the thousands of confirming supporting examples,
demonstrates) that all mammals evolve from a common ancestor. We could
do this, with both hard (fossils) and soft (existing morphology)
evidence to show that all, for example, vertebrates, share a common
ancestor.

What the wide range of existing eyes shows, as Darwin understood 150
years ago but creationists don't seem to grasp, is that each step
along the way is not only possible, but advantageous to some organism.
The existing examples refutes the claim (newly re-discovered by Behe,
but in existence when Darwin wrote) that there are uncrossable gaps in
the supposed evolution of something as "marvelous" as the
human/octopus eye.

Matt Silberstein

unread,

Jul 7, 2009, 10:18:24 AM7/7/09

to

Yes, there is a core set of regulatory genes. There is an extensive
body of work on ev/dev showing how this happens. All of this stuff was
discovered by people who look for evidence of evolution rather than by
those who say "it was designed" and stop their efforts. (The reason
they stop is that there is not one single experiment, not one single
prediction, you can make based on "it was designed". If there is,
suggest it.)

>The hox 6 is only one of many homeobox genes families and clusters of
>hox genes. These same homeobox genes express for the design
>(architecture) of all animals. But the important aspect is this: it's
>always the same inheritable homeobox genes expressing body form which
>are inherited from a common ancestor or the product of a farsighted
>intelligent designer.

Wow, are those designers farsighted. Not able to clear out the
mammalian optic nerve or fix the mutation that prevent primates from
producing vitamin C, but able to plan ahead for hundreds of millions
of years. Please, where is the hard, empirical evidence for any of the
steps taken by these designers? Do you have anything at all to show
they existed, that they acted, that they acted more than once? is
there a single prediction you can make based on the claim that some
aspect of some life somewhere was designed? Just one prediction? And,
if not, why do you pretend this is science and not religion?

>> : Which one makes more sense? Which one is more meaningful?
>>
>> The one where you believe God did what He said He did if you
>> claim to believe in God.

Matt Silberstein

unread,

Jul 7, 2009, 10:21:00 AM7/7/09

to

On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:16:43 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism , gabriel
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> in
<cb8555dssgdachphf...@4ax.com> wrote:

That you do not understand things does not make them nearly infinitely
complex.

> evolved from no sight whatsoever, the magic ingredient
>being millions of years,

Hundreds, actually. Hundreds of millions of years on millions of
branches and billions of individuals. But it is not magic, it is the
kind of stuff that we observe occurring today.

>while adhering to logic that a mere
>building wouldn't just happen no matter how many billions of
>years passed, even if you put all the materials in the same area
>that the building would need.

Yep, buildings are not reproducing organisms. OTOH buildings off form
after those hundreds of millions of years of evolution.

>Meanwhile their beliefs are impossible to observe, are not
>repeatable/testable/verifiable - one can only believe in it.

Really? You have a repeatable/testable/verifiable act of creation?
Let's see it.

[snip]

Bob Dean

unread,

Jul 7, 2009, 1:30:01 PM7/7/09

to

Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 22:13:12 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism , Bob Dean
> <rd...@attworldnet.com> in <4A500C38...@attworldnet.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Where is your hard, empirical evidence that the pathway to human sight
>> followed through the same steps?
>
> Excuse me? What did you ask for? Is this now the standard you want to
> use, "hard, empirical evidence" for each step? OK, I accept your
> position. Now please find me hard, empirical evidence for *any* act of
> design in the history of biology prior to 1,000,000 years ago. That is
> your standard, you should step up and meet it. And until you present
> this hard, empirical evidence for this design act, please refrain from
> suggesting that design is a valid possibility.
>

You and I have been through this several times. And I have pointed to
what I consider evidence of design. But you demand proof without
evidence. IE evidence of designer without appealing to evidence of design.
There are informational codes other than the genetic code, but none that
arose independent of intelligence. Consequently, there is no logical
reason to suppose that the genetic code arose independent of
intelligence. No other informational code ever did.

Matt Silberstein

unread,

Jul 7, 2009, 5:41:32 PM7/7/09

to

On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:30:01 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism , Bob Dean
<rd...@attworldnet.com> in <4A538619...@attworldnet.com> wrote:

>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 22:13:12 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism , Bob Dean
>> <rd...@attworldnet.com> in <4A500C38...@attworldnet.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Where is your hard, empirical evidence that the pathway to human sight
>>> followed through the same steps?
>>
>> Excuse me? What did you ask for? Is this now the standard you want to
>> use, "hard, empirical evidence" for each step? OK, I accept your
>> position. Now please find me hard, empirical evidence for *any* act of
>> design in the history of biology prior to 1,000,000 years ago. That is
>> your standard, you should step up and meet it. And until you present
>> this hard, empirical evidence for this design act, please refrain from
>> suggesting that design is a valid possibility.
>>
>You and I have been through this several times. And I have pointed to
>what I consider evidence of design.

Please, explain to me how it works because I just don't get it. You
see a flower and say "it must have been designed". And even though I
can show you volumes of supporting evidence for the claim it evolved
you say "it must have been designed". You don't know if the design act
was yesterday, a year ago, 1,000 years ago, a million years ago, or a
billion. You don't know if it was guided evolution through the history
of all life or a one time act. But you know it was designed.

> But you demand proof without
>evidence.

I want what you said above: "hard, empirical evidence that the pathway
to X followed the same steps". That was *your* standard. So, again, do
you have any evidence for *any* step? You say you see a finished
product and assert design, I want you to show me one bit of evidence
for any of the trillions of necessary steps. I can show you a process
that occurs *in front of your eye*, you can't even being to suggest a
single things about the process.

>IE evidence of designer without appealing to evidence of design.

I want evidence of the designer other than the thing we are trying to
explain. That is the key part. We have some stuff (rock, car, stone)
of unknown origin (let's pretend we know nothing about evolution).
This stuff is what we want to explain. You assert that it was a
stuffer that did it. Since all you have is the thing to explain, you
"stuffer" is a meaningless term. It does not explain, it just gives a
name. To put this another way: there is nothing in your explanation
that prevents evolution from being the designer.

>There are informational codes other than the genetic code, but none that
>arose independent of intelligence. Consequently, there is no logical
>reason to suppose that the genetic code arose independent of
>intelligence. No other informational code ever did.

Again, you overlook the thousands of codes for which we have no
explanation (other than that pesky evolution thing). Your statement is
"no codes (other than biological ones) arose other than by humans,
therefore some non-humans made the biological codes". Is that really a
claim you accept?

Bob Dean

unread,

Jul 7, 2009, 6:03:53 PM7/7/09

to

Why should design stop research? There is no justifiable reason it should.
>
>> The pax 6 is only one of many homeobox genes families and clusters of

>> hox genes. These same homeobox genes express for the design
>> (architecture) of all animals. But the important aspect is this: it's
>> always the same inheritable homeobox genes expressing body form which
>> are inherited from a common ancestor or the product of a farsighted
>> intelligent designer.
>
> Wow, are those designers farsighted. Not able to clear out the
> mammalian optic nerve
>

If this is a design flaw, it is compensated for by the fact that the
blind spots do not overlap. That is, the right eye's blind spot is a few
degrees to the right of center, the lift eye, the blind spot is a few
degrees to the left of center. Therefore, while one eye is confronted
with it's blind spot: in the other eye, vision is not impaired at the
same time and same degree. With two eyes, concentrated on the same
object there is no blind spot. Only if one eye is closed does a blind
spot come into play. So, it's not a problem.

or fix the mutation that prevent primates from
> producing vitamin C,
>

Is it a problem, since we get vitamin C in the foods we eat?

>
but able to plan ahead for hundreds of millions
> of years. Please, where is the hard, empirical evidence for any of the
> steps taken by these designers? Do you have anything at all to show
> they existed, that they acted, that they acted more than once? is
> there a single prediction you can make based on the claim that some
> aspect of some life somewhere was designed? Just one prediction? And,
> if not, why do you pretend this is science and not religion?
>

Everything took place in the distant past, so all we can do is try to
understand from present day observations. We cannot observe, test
not repeat things which occurred hundreds of millions of years ago.
This is also true where evolution is concerned. We cannot observe
changes where a radical change in morphology occurred. So, small changes
are extrapolated into radical changes over vast span of time.

Stuart

unread,

Jul 7, 2009, 11:04:22 PM7/7/09

to

On Jul 7, 12:01 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 4 July, 15:37, Stuart <bigdak...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 4, 2:41 am, spintronic <spintro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > How would you know what is the correct way to have your retina?
>
> > The way where the nerve endings (axons) are not running across the
> > retina, but behind the retina like in mollusks.
>
> Mollusks, don't need the acute vision that we do. (Theres your first
> clue, Einstein).

How do octopus eyes compare with those of other vertebrates in terms
of visual acuity?

>
> > > Perhaps allowing this curiosity to perpetuate through the entire
> > > population of humans is gods way of telling you that Natural Selection
> > > isn't working.
>
> > Um no. It means the eye wasn't rationally designed.
>
> By which;
>
> you mean "you couldn't imagine *why*" it would be designed that way.
>
> > Natural selection only makes modifications that confer an increase reproductive
> > propensity. Perfection or even reasonableness not required.
>
> It seems that "Acute vision" is essential for species with inverted
> retinas.

Really? So its your claim in a public forum, that all vertebrate eyes
best the best mollusk eyes in terms of visual acuity?

>
> > Only a maroon posits an "intelligent designer" would make a camera
> > where the light passes through the camera circuitry before striking
> > film.
>
> Only a moron *wouldn't* realise that "extensive use" means "extensive
> repair & energy expendature".
> Requiring nutrition from both the blood vessels in front of & behind
> the chronoid layer behind the rods & cones.
>

So why then, don't cold blooded vertebrates like fish have right side
up
retinas?

Stuart

Matt Silberstein

unread,

Jul 7, 2009, 11:13:34 PM7/7/09

to

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 15:08:11 +1000, in talk.origins ,
jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) in
<1j2hong.17mpu8ylt72o1N%jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:

>Father Haskell <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 6, 9:16 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, they deny logic and believe the near infinite complexity of
>> > the eye evolved from no sight whatsoever, the magic ingredient
>> > being millions of years, while adhering to logic that a mere
>> > building wouldn't just happen no matter how many billions of
>> > years passed, even if you put all the materials in the same area
>> > that the building would need.
>>
>> Simple lens system. I have camera lenses of much
>> greater complexity, made by heathens in Asia and
>> disbelievers in Germany.
>>
>> Why wouldn't an infinitely intelligent creator bless
>> his creations with zoom lenses, so they could focus
>> anywhere between microscopic and telescopic?
>
>You mean, apart from eagles?
>
>I want the retina of a mantis shrimp, the lens of an eagle, and the
>retinal wiring of an octopus. With green irises, please.

I want the breasts of Scarlet Johanssen, the cheek bones of Scarlet
Johanssen, and the smile of Scarlet Johanssen. With blue irises,
please. Oh, and keep them on Scarlet Johanssen when you give them to
me.

Bob Dean

unread,

Jul 7, 2009, 11:26:04 PM7/7/09

to

For hundred of millions of years there were no flowering plants, then
about 130 million years ago, flowering plants burst forth in what has
been called a "big Bang". During this period the five linages of
flowering plants that exist today appeared in less than 5 millions
years.
But unfortunately, no one was there to observe exactly how this
occurred.

>
>> But you demand proof without
>> evidence.
>
> I want what you said above: "hard, empirical evidence that the pathway
> to X followed the same steps".
>

The difference is: proponents of evolution point to the organisms from
worms with light sensitive spots to a sequence of increasing complex
eyes in various organisms and imply that human eyes must have gone
through similar steps. I made no such claims. They make the claims, So,
all I'm doing is holding their feet to the fire.

That was *your* standard. So, again, do
> you have any evidence for *any* step? You say you see a finished
> product and assert design, I want you to show me one bit of evidence
> for any of the trillions of necessary steps. I can show you a process
> that occurs *in front of your eye*, you can't even being to suggest a
> single things about the process.
>

True, there are no observations. My dog has no idea as to how my car
came about, yet she recognizes it's existence.

>
>> IE evidence of designer without appealing to evidence of design.
>
> I want evidence of the designer other than the thing we are trying to
> explain. That is the key part. We have some stuff (rock, car, stone)
> of unknown origin (let's pretend we know nothing about evolution).
> This stuff is what we want to explain. You assert that it was a
> stuffer that did it. Since all you have is the thing to explain, you
> "stuffer" is a meaningless term. It does not explain, it just gives a
> name. To put this another way: there is nothing in your explanation
> that prevents evolution from being the designer.
>

This is true. As I've said on several occasions, I believe evolution is
an alternative explanation for the facts observed.

>
>> There are informational codes other than the genetic code, but none that
>> arose independent of intelligence. Consequently, there is no logical
>> reason to suppose that the genetic code arose independent of
>> intelligence. No other informational code ever did.
>
> Again, you overlook the thousands of codes for which we have no
> explanation (other than that pesky evolution thing).
>

Thousands of codes? Besides the genetic code what are these thousands
of other codes that evolution produced? The Phoenicians alphabet has 26
letters, yet countless millions of books have been written using these
26 letters. The genetic code has four for DNA (G, A, C, and T + one
extra for RNA (U). These four bases are grouped in groups of 3 called
codons which gives 64 possible codons. This is ubiquous for virtually
all living organisms. Consequently, life uses _one_ and only one genetic
code.

OH, Matt, nowhere and no time have I claimed design is science, I
believe it is true, but when modern science by defination maintains that
that in order to be scientific it must be materialistic, with a material
basis which can be detected through the five senses.

Your statement is
> "no codes (other than biological ones) arose other than by humans,
> therefore some non-humans made the biological codes". Is that really a
> claim you accept?
>

You've shown no reason to reject it.

John S. Wilkins

unread,

Jul 7, 2009, 11:37:57 PM7/7/09

to

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Does Cathy concur?

Father Haskell

unread,

Jul 8, 2009, 12:57:06 AM7/8/09

to

On Jul 7, 3:08 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 1:08 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 6, 9:16 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Yes, they deny logic and believe the near infinite complexity of
> > > > > the eye evolved from no sight whatsoever, the magic ingredient
> > > > > being millions of years, while adhering to logic that a mere
> > > > > building wouldn't just happen no matter how many billions of
> > > > > years passed, even if you put all the materials in the same area
> > > > > that the building would need.
>
> > > > Simple lens system. I have camera lenses of much
> > > > greater complexity, made by heathens in Asia and
> > > > disbelievers in Germany.
>
> > > > Why wouldn't an infinitely intelligent creator bless
> > > > his creations with zoom lenses, so they could focus
> > > > anywhere between microscopic and telescopic?
>
> > > You mean, apart from eagles?
>
> > > I want the retina of a mantis shrimp, the lens of an eagle, and the
> > > retinal wiring of an octopus. With green irises, please.
>
> > How about the tapetum of the housecat?
>
> Nah. If I can see IR and UV, I won't need it.

Yes, but you'll catch more mice.

John S. Wilkins

unread,

Jul 8, 2009, 1:16:00 AM7/8/09

to

Father Haskell <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Oh yum.

gabriel

unread,

Jul 8, 2009, 6:37:33 AM7/8/09

to

On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 19:52:21 +1000, "Andrew W"
<removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:

: gabriel wrote:
: > On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 13:01:39 +1000, "Andrew W"
: > <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
: >
: >> Bob Dean wrote:
: >>> Andrew W wrote:
: >>>>
: >>>> The 'eye' started out as light sensitive skin and eventually
: >>>> evolved to what it is now.
: >>>> This is known for a fact because scientists have found creatures
: >>>> with light sensitive skin, and other creatures with various degrees
: >>>> of eye like parts.

: >>> Where is your hard, empirical evidence that the pathway to human

: >>> sight followed through the same steps?

: >>>
: >>
: >> The only alternative is that it was instantly conjured into
: >> existence.
: >
: > Argument from ignorance fallacy - because the only other
: > alternative you can think of is not true, in your opinion, that
: > makes their beliefs true. But you said it was "known for a fact"
: > - so either you're confused or you're being dishonest. Is it a

: > fact, or a belief? If it's a fact, where's your hard, empirical
: > evidence that the pathway to human sight followed through those

: > steps, as asked?
: >
:
: You are the one arguing from ignorance.
: What the scientists have found *is* a fact. They have the biological proof
: for the process.

No, they only have beliefs about the evidence.

But since you think it's fact, let alone scientific, please
provide a single observation, and/OR test/verification that shows
the fish to man version of evolution in action. Not why they
believe it happens, not apes adapting but remaining apes, not
bacteria adapting but remaining bacteria - an actual case of
populations of apes producing, over generations, animals that we
no longer call apes at all - let alone human beings. Or something
similar for any animal alive.

If you can't scientifically back up this claim, this shows it's
not only not fact, but not even science.

: You are the one who has nothing. Where is your proof that the process was

: completely different in the case of humans?
: We are also animal like. Why would God use a natural process like evolution
: for one biological life form and then conjure up two instant humans like a
: magician which is completely unnatural?

He didn't - The evolution people believe in, that populations of
fish evolved into human beings, is a belief, and doesn't even
qualify as science.

:
:
: >

: >> Which one makes more sense? Which one is more meaningful?
: >
: > The one where you believe God did what He said He did if you
: > claim to believe in God.

: >
:
: God didn't say he did anything. Your Bible is not God talking.

: Inspired does not mean dictated.

: See my other post.

You're free to believe this - but to pass it off as fact when you
can't even prove it is ignorance at best, outright dishonesty at
worst. Want to prove otherwise, then provide that observation
and/OR test/verification of it in action.

Matt Silberstein

unread,

Jul 8, 2009, 6:47:40 PM7/8/09

to

On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 13:37:57 +1000, in talk.origins ,

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) in

<1j2jf1t.1jjktr119him2lN%jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:

I am allowed to want. The (oh do I wish it were mutual) respect I have
for Ms. Johanssen and Ms. Portman is known and appreciated.

Father Haskell

unread,

Jul 8, 2009, 7:01:24 PM7/8/09

to

On Jul 6, 11:11 am, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 4:24 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 4, 9:46 am, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>
> > > So, you are calling God a liar (in addition to not capitalizing His
> > > name and not using one of His apostrophes to make Him possessive?)
>
> > No. I called him an asshole.
>
> ?? I was replying to SPinny.

He's still an asshole.

Matt Silberstein

unread,

Jul 8, 2009, 10:23:45 PM7/8/09

to

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 06:37:33 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism , gabriel
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> in
<6dt85555p9hm1j3ka...@4ax.com> wrote:

Wow, now that is one stupid request. You want a *single* observation
that shows hundreds of millions of years of evolution. How long do you
have to wait?

[snip]

Matt Silberstein

unread,

Jul 8, 2009, 11:04:52 PM7/8/09

to

By whom? How many millions of years is this "bang" thought to have
taken?

> During this period the five linages of
>flowering plants that exist today appeared in less than 5 millions
>years.
>But unfortunately, no one was there to observe exactly how this
>occurred.

And now you switch back to the other standard: *exactly* how it
occurred. You are unable to tell me *1* (one, uno, single) thing about
your claimed design, but you want us to tell you exactly what occurred
for millions of years of evolution. If I show 100 steps you will ask
for 1,00. If I show 1,00 you will ask for 1,000,000. But you don't see
any reason to describe, no less support, a single step or claim about
the design you claim. All you do is take all of the work by
scientists, look at it through creationist lenses, and change "god" to
"designer".

>>> But you demand proof without
>>> evidence.
>>
>> I want what you said above: "hard, empirical evidence that the pathway
>> to X followed the same steps".
> >
>The difference is: proponents of evolution point to the organisms from
>worms with light sensitive spots to a sequence of increasing complex
>eyes in various organisms and imply that human eyes must have gone
>through similar steps.

No, they don't. The current existence of such features show the
viability of the steps. The actual work regarding the evolution of the
eye involves comparing all of the features of organisms to produce the
nested hierarchy. It involves comparing this nested hierarchy of
comparative morphology to the nested hierarchy of comparative genetics
to show change over time. We use this to make predictions we test by
looking at the fossil record.

>I made no such claims.

Correct, you make no testable claims, not "hard, empirical" claims.
All you say is it looks designed to you.

>They make the claims,

And they make predictions. And test the predictions.

>So,
>all I'm doing is holding their feet to the fire.

So how come you won't show your feet? How come you are not willing to
test with hot water, no less fire? Seriously, how come you think that
science and Intelligent Design require entirely different standards?

>That was *your* standard. So, again, do
>> you have any evidence for *any* step? You say you see a finished
>> product and assert design, I want you to show me one bit of evidence
>> for any of the trillions of necessary steps. I can show you a process
>> that occurs *in front of your eye*, you can't even being to suggest a
>> single things about the process.
> >
>True, there are no observations. My dog has no idea as to how my car
>came about, yet she recognizes it's existence.

Really? You think your dog has some understanding of the origin of the
car? Not that I see how this is relevant, but it is an interesting
claim. How come somehow the science of biology is comprehensible to
mere humans, but Design requires an acceptance that it is all a
mystery? Why don't you just admit, to yourself and/or to us, that all
you have is religious belief and religious views.

>>> IE evidence of designer without appealing to evidence of design.
>>
>> I want evidence of the designer other than the thing we are trying to
>> explain. That is the key part. We have some stuff (rock, car, stone)
>> of unknown origin (let's pretend we know nothing about evolution).
>> This stuff is what we want to explain. You assert that it was a
>> stuffer that did it. Since all you have is the thing to explain, you
>> "stuffer" is a meaningless term. It does not explain, it just gives a
>> name. To put this another way: there is nothing in your explanation
>> that prevents evolution from being the designer.
> >
>This is true. As I've said on several occasions, I believe evolution is
>an alternative explanation for the facts observed.

You missed my point entirely. I say that evolution is the designer,
not an alternative for "it was designed". Evolution is the only idea
here that makes testable predictions, the only idea that has been
explored in detail, it is the only idea that actually says something.
Your "it was designed" can include evolution doing it, a race of
aliens doing it, multiple races of aliens at different times, various
teams of aliens working against each other at the same time, one god
doing it, many gods doing it, etc. All of those and more fit in with
"it was designed". So, seriously, how is design an explanation?

>>> There are informational codes other than the genetic code, but none that
>>> arose independent of intelligence. Consequently, there is no logical
>>> reason to suppose that the genetic code arose independent of
>>> intelligence. No other informational code ever did.
>>
>> Again, you overlook the thousands of codes for which we have no
>> explanation (other than that pesky evolution thing).
> >
>Thousands of codes? Besides the genetic code what are these thousands
>of other codes that evolution produced?

Well, chimps signal. Flowers signal. Ant and bees signal. Yes,
evolution has produced thousands of codes.

>The Phoenicians alphabet has 26
>letters, yet countless millions of books have been written using these
>26 letters. The genetic code has four for DNA (G, A, C, and T + one
>extra for RNA (U). These four bases are grouped in groups of 3 called
>codons which gives 64 possible codons. This is ubiquous for virtually
>all living organisms. Consequently, life uses _one_ and only one genetic
>code.

Well, several variations actually. You did know that, didn't you? Want
to guess what pattern we get? Yep, a nested hierarchy.

>OH, Matt, nowhere and no time have I claimed design is science,

Yet you deny it is religion. Which makes it an empty nothing.

>I
>believe it is true, but when modern science by defination maintains that
>that in order to be scientific it must be materialistic, with a material
>basis which can be detected through the five senses.

And now you try, as do all creationists, to reject the whole notion of
science. You demand "hard, empirical evidence" for evolution, you
demand we show you evidence of each step along the way. But somehow
you are able to present some vague hand waving non-material (whatever
that means) answer.

>
> Your statement is
>> "no codes (other than biological ones) arose other than by humans,
>> therefore some non-humans made the biological codes". Is that really a
>> claim you accept?
>>
>You've shown no reason to reject it.

Yes, actually, I have. I have provided an actual explanation, one that
has been tested multiple times, an explanation that actually explains
something, that actually says something. To the extent that your
explanation says something it is wrong, but it is really so empty that
there is no difference between accepting and rejecting it.

Matt Silberstein

unread,

Jul 8, 2009, 11:26:43 PM7/8/09

to

Design does not seem to engender any research. That is, there has not
been one experiment done by any Intelligent Design advocate. Design
does not *say* anything about anything. No matter what possible
observation anyone could make about anything "it was designed" is as
legitimate an answer. If we accepted the claim that things were
designed then there would be no point to doing research. No matter
what we observed during an experiment you would answer: it was
designed. Seriously, what other answer would you give?

>>> The pax 6 is only one of many homeobox genes families and clusters of
>>> hox genes. These same homeobox genes express for the design
>>> (architecture) of all animals. But the important aspect is this: it's
>>> always the same inheritable homeobox genes expressing body form which
>>> are inherited from a common ancestor or the product of a farsighted
>>> intelligent designer.
>>
>> Wow, are those designers farsighted. Not able to clear out the
>> mammalian optic nerve
> >
>If this is a design flaw, it is compensated for by the fact that the
>blind spots do not overlap.

What do you mean "if"? You can't even assert that blind spots are
flaws. You don't simply advocate design, you advocate panglossian
design: it was designed and it is perfect.

>That is, the right eye's blind spot is a few
>degrees to the right of center, the lift eye, the blind spot is a few
>degrees to the left of center. Therefore, while one eye is confronted
>with it's blind spot: in the other eye, vision is not impaired at the
>same time and same degree. With two eyes, concentrated on the same
>object there is no blind spot. Only if one eye is closed does a blind
>spot come into play. So, it's not a problem.

So that is your explanation for the reason for the error: it is not
automatically lethal. Wow, such insight.

>or fix the mutation that prevent primates from
>> producing vitamin C,
> >
>Is it a problem, since we get vitamin C in the foods we eat?

For those who get it, fine. The rest, they die.

> >
>but able to plan ahead for hundreds of millions
>> of years. Please, where is the hard, empirical evidence for any of the
>> steps taken by these designers? Do you have anything at all to show
>> they existed, that they acted, that they acted more than once? is
>> there a single prediction you can make based on the claim that some
>> aspect of some life somewhere was designed? Just one prediction? And,
>> if not, why do you pretend this is science and not religion?
>>
>Everything took place in the distant past, so all we can do is try to
>understand from present day observations.

Yet evolution makes plenty of specific predictions.

>We cannot observe, test
>not repeat things which occurred hundreds of millions of years ago.

But we can, for example, predict the features of fossils we will find
at various layers. We can use the nested hierarchies to predict when
particular features appear and then look in the fossil record to see
if we can find the fossils.

>This is also true where evolution is concerned.

No, it is not. We can observe evolution, rather than alien design,
occurring today. We can use comparative morphology to make predictions
about genetics. (To make that clear: we can look at the pattern of
comparing *non-coding* DNA and see how that matches comparative
morphology.)

> We cannot observe
>changes where a radical change in morphology occurred.

Nor does evolution predict any such radical changes.

>So, small changes
>are extrapolated into radical changes over vast span of time.

And now a real use of the point about all the existent variations of
eyes. We have all of those examples, from light sensitive patches to
octopus eyes. Where do you think the "radical change" occurred if all
of those variations exist today?

>>>> : Which one makes more sense? Which one is more meaningful?
>>>>
>>>> The one where you believe God did what He said He did if you
>>>> claim to believe in God.

Father Haskell

unread,

Jul 9, 2009, 4:07:19 AM7/9/09

to

Tastes just like rat.

John S. Wilkins

unread,

Jul 9, 2009, 5:17:16 AM7/9/09

to

Father Haskell <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Onna stick?

Andrew W

unread,

Jul 9, 2009, 5:52:09 AM7/9/09

to

gabriel wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 19:52:21 +1000, "Andrew W"
> <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>
>> gabriel wrote:
>>> On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 13:01:39 +1000, "Andrew W"
>>> <removethi...@optushome.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> Argument from ignorance fallacy - because the only other
>>> alternative you can think of is not true, in your opinion, that
>>> makes their beliefs true. But you said it was "known for a fact"
>>> - so either you're confused or you're being dishonest. Is it a
>>> fact, or a belief? If it's a fact, where's your hard, empirical
>>> evidence that the pathway to human sight followed through those
>>> steps, as asked?
>>>
>>
>> You are the one arguing from ignorance.
>> What the scientists have found *is* a fact. They have the biological
>> proof for the process.
>
> No, they only have beliefs about the evidence.
>

Science is not about beliefs. That's your department.

> But since you think it's fact, let alone scientific, please
> provide a single observation, and/OR test/verification that shows
> the fish to man version of evolution in action.
>

I don't know what this 'fish to man' business is you keep hollering about.

> Not why they
> believe it happens, not apes adapting but remaining apes, not
> bacteria adapting but remaining bacteria - an actual case of
> populations of apes producing, over generations, animals that we
> no longer call apes at all - let alone human beings. Or something
> similar for any animal alive.
>
> If you can't scientifically back up this claim, this shows it's
> not only not fact, but not even science.
>

And your story about a god doing some magic tricks *is* science?

>> You are the one who has nothing. Where is your proof that the
>> process was completely different in the case of humans?
>> We are also animal like. Why would God use a natural process like
>> evolution for one biological life form and then conjure up two
>> instant humans like a magician which is completely unnatural?
>
> He didn't - The evolution people believe in, that populations of
> fish evolved into human beings, is a belief, and doesn't even
> qualify as science.
>

And what you have is not 'beliefs'?

>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Which one makes more sense? Which one is more meaningful?
>>>
>>> The one where you believe God did what He said He did if you
>>> claim to believe in God.
>>>
>>
>> God didn't say he did anything. Your Bible is not God talking.
>> Inspired does not mean dictated.
>> See my other post.
>
> You're free to believe this -
>

You are the one who has the beliefs. I have found out what's true.

> but to pass it off as fact when you
> can't even prove it is ignorance at best,
>

No amount of proof would get through your fanaticism.

> outright dishonesty at worst.
>

Lets not talk about the dishonesty in your religion.

> Want to prove otherwise, then provide that observation
> and/OR test/verification of it in action.
>

Show me the observability in your religious proposals. Zero.

--
Andrew W.

When a brother acts insanely, he is offering you an
opportunity to bless him. His need is YOURS. You NEED the
blessing you can offer him. There is no way for you to have it
EXCEPT by giving it.
~ A Course in Miracles

Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
Links page -
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner/links.htm

gabriel

unread,

Jul 9, 2009, 7:05:51 AM7/9/09

to

On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:21:00 -0400, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

: On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:16:43 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism , gabriel

Please show an observation and/or a test/verification of animals
without eyes evolving over generations to gain eyesight.

:
: >while adhering to logic that a mere

: >building wouldn't just happen no matter how many billions of
: >years passed, even if you put all the materials in the same area
: >that the building would need.
:
: Yep, buildings are not reproducing organisms. OTOH buildings off form
: after those hundreds of millions of years of evolution.
:
: >Meanwhile their beliefs are impossible to observe, are not
: >repeatable/testable/verifiable - one can only believe in it.
:
: Really? You have a repeatable/testable/verifiable act of creation?
: Let's see it.

I never said faith in God was *scientific* fact. Unlike
evolutionism which dishonestly claims their unobsrevable,
untestable, unverifiable beliefs are scientific facts, which it
fails the very definition of what science is, and is limited to.

However, we do have faith it's a fact, and the evidence at least
more logically points to God doing exactly what He said He did,
rather than that fish have evolved over generations into human
beings.

You have repeatable/testable/verifiable observations of
populations of apes producing over generations, animals that are
no longer apes at all (let alone human beings)? Let's see it.

The only thing they have are apes adapting but remaining apes,
and then dishonestly claiming this is their version of
evolutionism. Bacteria adapting but remaining bacteria but then
dishonestly claiming this is their version of evolutionism.

:
: [snip]

gabriel

unread,

Jul 9, 2009, 7:11:01 AM7/9/09

to

On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 21:57:06 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
<father...@yahoo.com> wrote:

: On Jul 6, 9:16 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
: > Yes, they deny logic and believe the near infinite complexity of

: > the eye evolved from no sight whatsoever, the magic ingredient
: > being millions of years, while adhering to logic that a mere

: > building wouldn't just happen no matter how many billions of
: > years passed, even if you put all the materials in the same area
: > that the building would need.
:

: Simple lens system. I have camera lenses of much

: greater complexity, made by heathens in Asia and
: disbelievers in Germany.

We're not talking about a man made lifeless lenses (which is
proof of intelligent design, mind you, to design something much
less complex than the human eye), but an organic system thousands
of times more complex, which is many times more proof of
intelligent design.

:
: Why wouldn't an infinitely intelligent creator bless

: his creations with zoom lenses, so they could focus
: anywhere between microscopic and telescopic?

When you meet Him on your day of judgment, which we all will, you
can ask Him. But Him not doing so is not in any way proof He
didn't design our eyes to begin with.

The real question is, why His creations curse and spit on the God
who created them by calling Him a liar, not repenting, and not
calling on His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to save them from
their sins, and instead continue to teach the very lie satan
loves most: that God's Word is a lie?

Ye Old One

unread,

Jul 9, 2009, 7:47:41 AM7/9/09

to

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:11:01 -0400, gabriel
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:

>On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 21:57:06 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
><father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>: On Jul 6, 9:16 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>:
>: > Yes, they deny logic and believe the near infinite complexity of
>: > the eye evolved from no sight whatsoever, the magic ingredient
>: > being millions of years, while adhering to logic that a mere
>: > building wouldn't just happen no matter how many billions of
>: > years passed, even if you put all the materials in the same area
>: > that the building would need.
>:
>: Simple lens system. I have camera lenses of much
>: greater complexity, made by heathens in Asia and
>: disbelievers in Germany.
>
>We're not talking about a man made lifeless lenses (which is
>proof of intelligent design, mind you, to design something much
>less complex than the human eye), but an organic system thousands
>of times more complex, which is many times more proof of
>intelligent design.

You can hardly call the human eye an "intelligent design".

>
>:
>: Why wouldn't an infinitely intelligent creator bless
>: his creations with zoom lenses, so they could focus
>: anywhere between microscopic and telescopic?
>
>When you meet Him on your day of judgment, which we all will, you
>can ask Him. But Him not doing so is not in any way proof He
>didn't design our eyes to begin with.

How do you honestly expect anyone to ask a question of a fictional
character?

>
>The real question is, why His creations curse and spit on the God
>who created them by calling Him a liar, not repenting, and not
>calling on His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to save them from
>their sins, and instead continue to teach the very lie satan
>loves most: that God's Word is a lie?

All three characters you mention are fictional, they have no basis in
reality.

--
Bob.

Matt Silberstein

unread,

Jul 9, 2009, 9:33:38 AM7/9/09

to

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:05:51 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism , gabriel
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> in
<hdjb55h1balmidroq...@4ax.com> wrote:

Please show me an observation that shows the orbit of the Moon.

>: >while adhering to logic that a mere
>: >building wouldn't just happen no matter how many billions of
>: >years passed, even if you put all the materials in the same area
>: >that the building would need.
>:
>: Yep, buildings are not reproducing organisms. OTOH buildings off form
>: after those hundreds of millions of years of evolution.
>:
>: >Meanwhile their beliefs are impossible to observe, are not
>: >repeatable/testable/verifiable - one can only believe in it.
>:
>: Really? You have a repeatable/testable/verifiable act of creation?
>: Let's see it.
>
>I never said faith in God was *scientific* fact. Unlike
>evolutionism which dishonestly claims their unobsrevable,
>untestable, unverifiable beliefs are scientific facts, which it
>fails the very definition of what science is, and is limited to.
>
>However, we do have faith it's a fact, and the evidence at least
>more logically points to God doing exactly what He said He did,
>rather than that fish have evolved over generations into human
>beings.

I see. So you have no evidence, but it is better evidence.

>You have repeatable/testable/verifiable observations of
>populations of apes producing over generations, animals that are
>no longer apes at all (let alone human beings)? Let's see it.

We have evidence that this occurred, yes.

>The only thing they have are apes adapting but remaining apes,
>and then dishonestly claiming this is their version of
>evolutionism. Bacteria adapting but remaining bacteria but then
>dishonestly claiming this is their version of evolutionism.

That you don't understand, or don't care to understand, the claims is
obvious. But since you reject claims that are not made by science I
don't much care.

Matt Silberstein

unread,

Jul 9, 2009, 9:47:15 AM7/9/09

to

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:11:01 -0400, in talk.origins , gabriel
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> in
<1pjb551tii0t4ndgt...@4ax.com> wrote:

[snip]

>We're not talking about a man made lifeless lenses (which is
>proof of intelligent design, mind you, to design something much
>less complex than the human eye), but an organic system thousands
>of times more complex, which is many times more proof of
>intelligent design.

So it is designed because it is thousands of times more complex than
the similar things we know are designed. Is that your claim? Perhaps
you give just a little too much credit to the ability of designers to
make things.

[snip]

Mark Isaak

unread,

Jul 9, 2009, 10:58:44 AM7/9/09

to

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:11:01 -0400, gabriel wrote:

> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 21:57:06 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
> <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> :

> : Simple lens system. [...]

>
> We're not talking about a man made lifeless lenses (which is
> proof of intelligent design, mind you, to design something much
> less complex than the human eye), but an organic system thousands
> of times more complex, which is many times more proof of
> intelligent design.

Complexity, especially extreme complexity, is evidence *against* design
and for evolution. Evolution creates complexity; designers avoid it as
much as they can.

> : Why wouldn't an infinitely intelligent creator bless
> : his creations with zoom lenses, so they could focus
> : anywhere between microscopic and telescopic?
>
> When you meet Him on your day of judgment, which we all will, you
> can ask Him.

I already asked him, and he told me to keep away from any religion that
has creationism as part of it.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume

TomS

unread,

Jul 9, 2009, 11:20:37 AM7/9/09

to

"On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:58:44 -0700, in article
<pan.2009.07.09....@earthlink.net>, Mark Isaak stated..."

>
>On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:11:01 -0400, gabriel wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 21:57:06 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
>> <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> :=20
>> : Simple lens system. [...]
>>=20

>> We're not talking about a man made lifeless lenses (which is
>> proof of intelligent design, mind you, to design something much
>> less complex than the human eye), but an organic system thousands
>> of times more complex, which is many times more proof of
>> intelligent design.
>
>Complexity, especially extreme complexity, is evidence *against* design
>and for evolution. Evolution creates complexity; designers avoid it as
>much as they can.

I'd suggest that complexity in design is therefore evidence that
the designer(s) found a complex problem. A problem that was so
complex for them that it drove them to the ugly necessity of a
complex solution.

Of course, elegance in design is found often in simplicity of the
solution. I think of an inelegant mathematical solution as being
one in which there are pages of calculations, or in which the
problem is broken down into many special cases in which each case
is treated in a different way. While an elegant mathematical
solution is one in which one applies a surprising, but obvious
principle (one of my favorites is the "Pigeonhole Principle") to
solve the problem almost at a glance.

>
>> : Why wouldn't an infinitely intelligent creator bless
>> : his creations with zoom lenses, so they could focus
>> : anywhere between microscopic and telescopic?

>>=20

>> When you meet Him on your day of judgment, which we all will, you
>> can ask Him.
>
>I already asked him, and he told me to keep away from any religion that
>has creationism as part of it.
>

>--=20

> Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
>"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
> honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
> pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
>

--
---Tom S.
"...ID is not science ... because we simply do not know what it is saying."
Sahotra Sarkar, "The science question in intelligent design", Synthese,
DOI:10,1007/s11229-009-9540-x

Stuart

unread,

Jul 9, 2009, 11:27:01 AM7/9/09

to

On Jul 9, 1:11 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 21:57:06 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
>

> <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : On Jul 6, 9:16 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :
> : > Yes, they deny logic and believe the near infinite complexity of
> : > the eye evolved from no sight whatsoever, the magic ingredient
> : > being millions of years, while adhering to logic that a mere
> : > building wouldn't just happen no matter how many billions of
> : > years passed, even if you put all the materials in the same area
> : > that the building would need.
> :
> : Simple lens system. I have camera lenses of much
> : greater complexity, made by heathens in Asia and
> : disbelievers in Germany.
>
> We're not talking about a man made lifeless lenses (which is
> proof of intelligent design, mind you, to design something much
> less complex than the human eye), but an organic system thousands
> of times more complex, which is many times more proof of
> intelligent design.

really? So how do you measure the complexity?

Stuart

wf3h

unread,

Jul 9, 2009, 11:51:01 AM7/9/09

to

On Jul 9, 7:11 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 21:57:06 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
>

> <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> : On Jul 6, 9:16 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :
> : > Yes, they deny logic and believe the near infinite complexity of
> : > the eye evolved from no sight whatsoever, the magic ingredient
> : > being millions of years, while adhering to logic that a mere
> : > building wouldn't just happen no matter how many billions of
> : > years passed, even if you put all the materials in the same area
> : > that the building would need.
> :
> : Simple lens system. I have camera lenses of much
> : greater complexity, made by heathens in Asia and
> : disbelievers in Germany.
>
> We're not talking about a man made lifeless lenses (which is
> proof of intelligent design, mind you, to design something much
> less complex than the human eye), but an organic system thousands
> of times more complex, which is many times more proof of
> intelligent design.

how is this possible? you creationists refuse to answer a very simple
question: HOW does the 'designer' implement design?

we have never seen an architect design a house and watch the
blueprints themselves build a house. ALL designs are ALWAYS
implemented using NATURAL processes and NATURAL forces of nature. you
craetionists say these forces don't exist. so if they don't exist,
then you are arguing something happens that has NEVER been seen.

>
> The real question is, why His creations curse and spit on the God
> who created them by calling Him a liar, not repenting, and not
> calling on His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to save them from
> their sins, and instead continue to teach the very lie satan
> loves most: that God's Word is a lie?

YOUR view of god's word is a lie. can't help you there, sport. you got
yourself into that situation. it's your problem.

Logan Rathbone

unread,

Jul 9, 2009, 12:02:08 PM7/9/09

to

In my view, this is no way to advocate creationism. We're talking about
a very different framework when we discuss creationism vs. evolution.
Namely, a process (in the case of evolution) vs. the existence of a
designer with the power to exercise it in whichever subjective way she
chooses.

In the case of evolution, a process, it makes sense to attempt to prove
that process by providing physical evidence for it. Complexity isn't
the *best* route to do this, but combined with other physical evidence,
interpreting complexity can play a role.

If you ask a creationism advoate to provide physical evidence that the
designer exists, they tend to say one of two things: (a) the designer
is supernatural and cannot possibly be proved with physical evidence,
or (b) start with (a), and then pass off something like complexity as an
argument for the existence of the creator.

Which is silly, because complexity of design doesn't say anything about
the creator unless you can say *why* the designer *decided* to go with a
complex design.

If I designed a complex machine today, the complexity of that machine
would not be proof that I designed it; physical evidence of (a) my
existence and (b) of the fact that I was the one who designed that
machine. (a) is clearly a prerequisite for this. You could dive deeper
into it, and ask (c) why I subjectively decided to go with a complex
design for a machine, but again, (a) is a prerequisite for this.

You might say, "But *wait*! Even if I can't prove *you* exist, I could
still *look* at it and *know* it was designed by *someone*." That's
right, you could. And in this case (based on what I've provided as a
given to be true) it was designed by someone (namely, me). But you
didn't just come to that conclusion out of thin air. You came to that
conclusion based on *assumptions* that are *grounded* in physical
evidence.

For instance, if it had a lot of moving parts that were made
of steel, you would know (or would at least be able to assume with some
degree of accuracy) that a human being designed it, because physical
evidence exists that steel is man-made. And we *don't* have any
physical evidence that, say, squirrels know how to make steel, so we
probably wouldn't jump to that conclusion.

In fact, saying a squirrel designed the machine is *better* than saying
God or the flying spaghetti monster did it. At least we have physical
evidence that squirrels exist.

But, for a reason that is baffling to me, creationists seem to think
that believing a designer--for whose existence we have *no* physical
evidence--created complex species is somehow a reasonable conclusion to
leap to.

Steven L.

unread,

Jul 9, 2009, 1:15:57 PM7/9/09

to

Father Haskell wrote:
> On Jul 3, 9:52 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> More evidence of intelligent design that computer scientists are
>> trying to duplicate in their designs, after their own designs
>> fall far short from their attempts at designing their own version
>> of sight. More evidence of how little we know compared to our
>> amazing Creator, God.
>
> If eyes really were designed by an intelligent creator, we'd have
> another pair on the backs of our heads.

I like to lean against the back of my easy chair when I sit down.

Try jamming your face against a chair to see how it would feel to have
eyes in the back of your head when you sit down.

--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

Steven L.

unread,

Jul 9, 2009, 1:14:45 PM7/9/09

to

Ken wrote:
> On Jul 3, 6:14 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> This whole fight is over. The "serious" creationists have all fled
>> the field. All that remain are the hardcore nutters who, like the
>> Japanese holdouts on Guam, hide in their caves, emerging once in a
>> while to snipe some random potshots at everyone, utterly unaware that
>> the war is long over.
>>
>> ================================================
>> Lenny Flank
>
> Great comparison.
>
> Remember hearing something about hardcore/clueless Japs finally
> emerging from jungle hideouts even into the mid 60's

Now, now, we don't call them "Japs" anymore.
We call them "Toyota."

Steven L.

unread,

Jul 9, 2009, 1:17:23 PM7/9/09

to

John S. Wilkins wrote:
> Father Haskell <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

>> On Jul 4, 12:05 am, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>> On Jul 3, 11:32 pm, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 3, 9:52 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> More evidence of intelligent design that computer scientists are
>>>>> trying to duplicate in their designs, after their own designs
>>>>> fall far short from their attempts at designing their own version
>>>>> of sight. More evidence of how little we know compared to our
>>>>> amazing Creator, God.
>>>> If eyes really were designed by an intelligent creator, we'd have
>>>> another pair on the backs of our heads.

>>> With the retinas installed correctly, not backwards like the ones we
>>> got now.
>> Able to see *much* further into the EM spectrum. Trichromatism
>> is for mere primates.
>
> Give me the retinae of stomatopods, with a rapid scanning mechanism so I
> can see the whole field of vision immediately. 12 retinal cell types
> equally spaced along the whole spectrum, extending into UV and IR. And
> to detect polarisation as well (useful for navigating).
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantis_shrimp#The_eyes

If Mantis Shrimps could talk, they would look at our human eyes and
exclaim, "What good is half an eye?"

Steven L.

unread,

Jul 9, 2009, 1:20:02 PM7/9/09

to

Father Haskell wrote:
> On Jul 4, 9:49 am, Eric Root <er...@swva.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 4, 5:05 am, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jul 4, 1:04 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>>>> Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 4, 12:05 am, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Jul 3, 11:32 pm, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jul 3, 9:52 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> More evidence of intelligent design that computer scientists are
>>>>>>>> trying to duplicate in their designs, after their own designs
>>>>>>>> fall far short from their attempts at designing their own version
>>>>>>>> of sight. More evidence of how little we know compared to our
>>>>>>>> amazing Creator, God.
>>>>>>> If eyes really were designed by an intelligent creator, we'd have
>>>>>>> another pair on the backs of our heads.
>>>>>> With the retinas installed correctly, not backwards like the ones we
>>>>>> got now.
>>>>> Able to see *much* further into the EM spectrum. Trichromatism
>>>>> is for mere primates.
>>>> Give me the retinae of stomatopods, with a rapid scanning mechanism so I
>>>> can see the whole field of vision immediately. 12 retinal cell types
>>>> equally spaced along the whole spectrum, extending into UV and IR. And
>>>> to detect polarisation as well (useful for navigating).

>>> Extending into radio and gamma wouldn't be bad. Sure -- ordinarily,
>>> your eyes would have to be several feet across to pick up the longer
>>> radio wavelengths, but god should have no trouble bending the laws
>>> of physics enough to make regular sized eyeballs work.
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantis_shrimp#The_eyes
>>> So that's what Spongebob's crustacean buddy is.
>>>> I also wouldn't mind a punching and spearing appendage as well, for when
>>>> I go visit NYC.
>>> I'll bet that mantis shrimp can also regenerate lost limbs.
>> You could not only listen to the radio, but watch it also.
>
> You could see through girls' clothing. And they, yours.

You wouldn't see much. The resolution of radio waves, with their long
wavelengths, is rather poor.

That's why traditional radar sets just show a "blip" of a moving
airplane on the radar screen. You don't get detailed TV-like images of
objects.

Now synthetic aperture radars can get detailed pictures--but they do
that by integrating the image over a long distance of travel. So yes,
if you kept circling the girl round and round, over time you could
gradually build up an image of her underneath her clothing.

Steven L.

unread,

Jul 9, 2009, 1:25:00 PM7/9/09

to

Matt Silberstein wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 15:08:11 +1000, in talk.origins ,
> jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) in

> <1j2hong.17mpu8ylt72o1N%jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
>> Father Haskell <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>

>>> On Jul 6, 9:16 pm, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, they deny logic and believe the near infinite complexity of
>>>> the eye evolved from no sight whatsoever, the magic ingredient
>>>> being millions of years, while adhering to logic that a mere
>>>> building wouldn't just happen no matter how many billions of
>>>> years passed, even if you put all the materials in the same area
>>>> that the building would need.
>>> Simple lens system. I have camera lenses of much
>>> greater complexity, made by heathens in Asia and
>>> disbelievers in Germany.
>>>

>>> Why wouldn't an infinitely intelligent creator bless
>>> his creations with zoom lenses, so they could focus
>>> anywhere between microscopic and telescopic?

>> You mean, apart from eagles?
>>
>> I want the retina of a mantis shrimp, the lens of an eagle, and the
>> retinal wiring of an octopus. With green irises, please.
>

> I want the breasts of Scarlet Johanssen, the cheek bones of Scarlet
> Johanssen, and the smile of Scarlet Johanssen. With blue irises,
> please. Oh, and keep them on Scarlet Johanssen when you give them to
> me.

My generation had Brigitte Bardot:

http://pregame.com/forums/blogs/rj-bell/039_25511~Brigitte-Bardot-Posters.jpg

You can keep that pretender Johannson.

Walter Bushell

unread,

Jul 9, 2009, 2:28:30 PM7/9/09

to

In article <zuKdnauWfqAZuMvX...@earthlink.com>,
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Ken wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 6:14 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> This whole fight is over. The "serious" creationists have all fled
> >> the field. All that remain are the hardcore nutters who, like the
> >> Japanese holdouts on Guam, hide in their caves, emerging once in a
> >> while to snipe some random potshots at everyone, utterly unaware that
> >> the war is long over.
> >>
> >> ================================================
> >> Lenny Flank
> >
> > Great comparison.
> >
> > Remember hearing something about hardcore/clueless Japs finally
> > emerging from jungle hideouts even into the mid 60's
>
> Now, now, we don't call them "Japs" anymore.
> We call them "Toyota."

Or many times, boss. But only after we have moved a lot up the ladder.

gabriel

unread,

Jul 9, 2009, 2:45:11 PM7/9/09

to

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 23:26:43 -0400, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

: Design does not seem to engender any research. That is, there has not

: been one experiment done by any Intelligent Design advocate.

There have always been and continues to be scientists who believe
God did what He said he did working in all fields of science.
Operational science is alive and well no matter what one believes
about origins. Those who believe in God just view operational
science as understanding how God's creation works and how all
these organized complexities we see around us work. Those who
believe they evolved from populations of fish, and the universe
got started by some miraculous big bang view science as
understanding how creation works and how all these organized
complexities we see around us work.

It's only when you get to the one question of "where did it all
come from," i.e., origins, that you start seeing science trying
to act like they have the factual answers there too, but only
after rejecting any truth they don't feel like dealing with, or
are unable to deal with as any claims about the past are not
repeatable, not observable, not testable, not verifiable - i.e.,
not science.

And in a world where some big bang just happened by natural
chance, and everything after that, there's no reason to believe
even our own minds are capable of being reliable, as they're just
the offspring of natural chance, let alone all the laws of
nature. All unaccountable in a world with no God - they borrow
from a Christian world view just to make any science and logical,
rational thought be possible at all.

: Design does not *say* anything about anything.

It doesn't need to "say" anything except the truth. Where did the
first life form come from? Whatever answer you give, it doesn't
"say" anything about anything - it's just a belief. "Came from
big bang" or "came from God". Whatever they say, they both say
the same thing - except the former removes accountability to any
God, and the latter points out how we are not free to be as
morally reckless as we'd love to be.

: No matter what possible

: observation anyone could make about anything "it was designed" is as
: legitimate an answer. If we accepted the claim that things were
: designed then there would be no point to doing research.

Sure there is - to see how the designs work. To see how
adaptation works. To see how everything in the universe that we
can currently observe and experiment with works. If evolutionism
were true, there'd be no point to do research to continue trying
to "prove" it to everyone else.

: No matter

: what we observed during an experiment you would answer: it was
: designed.

What a design does and how it works is a far cry from simply
saying "it was designed." When it comes to origins, where all
biological diversity of life came from, you can either say "it
evolved" or "it was designed". When it comes to origins, and
where the first life form came from, you can either say
"primordial soup" or "lightning" or "big bang" or "water" or
[insert belief here], or "God created life" - they are all
similar answers in that they are based on belief alone.

Operational science on the present world around us is the same
across the board whether you believe God created you or you
believe you evolved from populations of fish. We still learn that
bacteria were designed to adapt (but remain bacteria), whether
you believe men evolved from apes, or that God created man. But
origin science is an oxymoron as the past is unrepeatable,
untestable and unverifiable - one can only believe in these
origin claims and such claims do not qualify as science by its
own definition.

Father Haskell

unread,

Jul 9, 2009, 4:36:36 PM7/9/09

to

On Jul 9, 1:15 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Father Haskell wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 9:52 am, gabriel <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> More evidence of intelligent design that computer scientists are
> >> trying to duplicate in their designs, after their own designs
> >> fall far short from their attempts at designing their own version
> >> of sight. More evidence of how little we know compared to our
> >> amazing Creator, God.
>
> > If eyes really were designed by an intelligent creator, we'd have
> > another pair on the backs of our heads.
>
> I like to lean against the back of my easy chair when I sit down.
>
> Try jamming your face against a chair to see how it would feel to have
> eyes in the back of your head when you sit down.

That's if you're from the planet Ork. We do things
differently on Earth.

Mitchell Coffey

unread,

Jul 9, 2009, 6:13:21 PM7/9/09

to

On Jul 9, 1:14 pm, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Ken wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 6:14 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> This whole fight is over. The "serious" creationists have all fled
> >> the field. All that remain are the hardcore nutters who, like the
> >> Japanese holdouts on Guam, hide in their caves, emerging once in a
> >> while to snipe some random potshots at everyone, utterly unaware that
> >> the war is long over.
>
> >> ================================================
> >> Lenny Flank
>
> > Great comparison.
>
> > Remember hearing something about hardcore/clueless Japs finally
> > emerging from jungle hideouts even into the mid 60's
>
> Now, now, we don't call them "Japs" anymore.
> We call them "Toyota."

Or "Mitsubishi." Auto manufacture has become a Zero-sum game.

That's my Pearl of wisdom.

Mitchell Coffey

Matt Silberstein

unread,

Jul 9, 2009, 6:26:27 PM7/9/09

to

On 9 Jul 2009 08:20:37 -0700, in talk.origins , TomS
<TomS_...@newsguy.com> in
<257152837.000...@drn.newsguy.com> wrote:

>"On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:58:44 -0700, in article
><pan.2009.07.09....@earthlink.net>, Mark Isaak stated..."
>>
>>On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:11:01 -0400, gabriel wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 21:57:06 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
>>> <father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> :=20
>>> : Simple lens system. [...]
>>>=20
>>> We're not talking about a man made lifeless lenses (which is
>>> proof of intelligent design, mind you, to design something much
>>> less complex than the human eye), but an organic system thousands
>>> of times more complex, which is many times more proof of
>>> intelligent design.
>>
>>Complexity, especially extreme complexity, is evidence *against* design
>>and for evolution. Evolution creates complexity; designers avoid it as
>>much as they can.
>
>I'd suggest that complexity in design is therefore evidence that
>the designer(s) found a complex problem. A problem that was so
>complex for them that it drove them to the ugly necessity of a
>complex solution.

Complexity in design often comes from a problem that changes over
time. I like to use something like the NYC transportation system as an
example of a real complex solution. Was it designed? If so, it was
designed by multiple people over a long period of time. It has
vestigial systems, it has duplication, it has re-use and
re-conceptualization. It has all of the hallmarks of evolution as it
happens.

John S. Wilkins

unread,

Jul 9, 2009, 8:10:17 PM7/9/09

to

Mitchell Coffey <m.co...@starpower.net> wrote:

And yu graduate Magna cum Lada as a result.

Matt Silberstein

unread,

Jul 10, 2009, 1:22:32 AM7/10/09

to

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:45:11 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism , gabriel
<gabriel...@hotmail.com> in
<2hdc551acro7d4c41...@4ax.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 23:26:43 -0400, Matt Silberstein
><RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>: Design does not seem to engender any research. That is, there has not
>: been one experiment done by any Intelligent Design advocate.
>
>There have always been and continues to be scientists who believe
>God did what He said he did working in all fields of science.

So? That there are scientists who are believing Christians or Hindus
or Muslims or Jews is not relevant to whether or not it makes sense in
science to assert that biota are designed. The Discovery Institute,
the people who originated and promoted the ID scam, keep claiming that
Intelligent Design has nothing to do with belief in God. Otherwise,
how could they get it into the public schools?

>Operational science

Operational science? Why the made up term?

>is alive and well no matter what one believes
>about origins.

Origins of what? Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of
evolution.

>Those who believe in God just view operational
>science as understanding how God's creation works and how all
>these organized complexities we see around us work.

By "those" do you mean biologists? Because those are the ones who have
relevant opinions on biological issues.

>Those who
>believe they evolved from populations of fish, and the universe
>got started by some miraculous big bang view science as
>understanding how creation works and how all these organized
>complexities we see around us work.
>
>It's only when you get to the one question of "where did it all
>come from," i.e., origins,

But evolution is not about where is "all" came from, it is about where
the diversity of life came from.

[snip]

>: Design does not *say* anything about anything.
>
>It doesn't need to "say" anything except the truth.

But saying nothing is not saying truth.

> Where did the
>first life form come from?

An irrelevant question to what happened after, but you knew that.

> Whatever answer you give, it doesn't
>"say" anything about anything - it's just a belief.

Funny, you like the idea of saying nothing when it comes to your
ideas, but you use it as a put down now.

> "Came from
>big bang" or "came from God".

If all science said was "Came from the Big Bang" it would be as empty
as "God did it".

>Whatever they say, they both say
>the same thing - except the former removes accountability to any
>God, and the latter points out how we are not free to be as
>morally reckless as we'd love to be.

How does saying "God did it" make anyone accountable. I'll give you
for the argument that some god made the Universe, I'll give you that
this god made the solar system. Now show me how this god would care
about my actions.

>: No matter what possible
>: observation anyone could make about anything "it was designed" is as
>: legitimate an answer. If we accepted the claim that things were
>: designed then there would be no point to doing research.
>
>Sure there is - to see how the designs work.

OK, so tell us some experiments done on to see how design works. Or
tell us some experiments you would suggest to find this out.

>To see how
>adaptation works. To see how everything in the universe that we
>can currently observe and experiment with works. If evolutionism
>were true, there'd be no point to do research to continue trying
>to "prove" it to everyone else.

I don't get that at all. I mean, I get that your pretend argument is
"no, you are", but this does not make any sense. Biologists do
research, they do try to learn more and say more. When your ideas
conflict with observation, you should abandon the ideas.

>: No matter
>: what we observed during an experiment you would answer: it was
>: designed.
>
>What a design does and how it works is a far cry from simply
>saying "it was designed."

OK, say more. Tell us something else about the design.

>When it comes to origins, where all
>biological diversity of life came from, you can either say "it
>evolved" or "it was designed".

But I would not say "it was evolved" and stop there. There are books
written on the evolution of whales, for example. Thousands of pages
detailing the evidence and the steps, not simply "they evolved".
Again, your "no, you are" circuit it working too hard.

>When it comes to origins, and
>where the first life form came from, you can either say
>"primordial soup" or "lightning" or "big bang" or "water" or
>[insert belief here], or "God created life" - they are all
>similar answers in that they are based on belief alone.

Again, nope. There are books and books and books about research done
in this field. You know that, why do you pretend otherwise?

>Operational science on the present world around us is the same
>across the board whether you believe God created you or you
>believe you evolved from populations of fish.

Yes. That is, one can be a scientist and still believe in God. But
none of those scientists use "God did it" as an answer in science.

>We still learn that
>bacteria were designed to adapt (but remain bacteria),

Are all bacteria the same "kind"? If so, how do you know?

>whether
>you believe men evolved from apes, or that God created man.

Could god have created man by having H. sapiens evolve from a common
ancestor of chimps?

>But
>origin science is an oxymoron as the past is unrepeatable,
>untestable and unverifiable - one can only believe in these
>origin claims and such claims do not qualify as science by its
>own definition.

Of course it is testable.

Matt Silberstein

unread,

Jul 10, 2009, 1:59:29 AM7/10/09

to

On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 15:13:21 -0700 (PDT), in talk.origins , Mitchell
Coffey <m.co...@starpower.net> in
<24e3d7f5-0c1e-4294...@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
wrote:

I would be Midway between your views. I am tired, but when I Wake
I'll think of something else.

Andrew W

unread,

Jul 10, 2009, 4:21:10 AM7/10/09

to

"gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hdjb55h1balmidroq...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 10:21:00 -0400, Matt Silberstein
> <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> : On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:16:43 -0400, in alt.talk.creationism , gabriel
> : <gabriel...@hotmail.com> in
> : <cb8555dssgdachphf...@4ax.com> wrote:
> :
> : >On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:21:00 -0400, Bob Dean
> : ><rd...@attworldnet.com> wrote:
> : >

> : >Yes, they deny logic and believe the near infinite complexity of
> : >the eye
> :
> : That you do not understand things does not make them nearly infinitely
> : complex.
> :
> : > evolved from no sight whatsoever, the magic ingredient
> : >being millions of years,
> :
> : Hundreds, actually. Hundreds of millions of years on millions of
> : branches and billions of individuals. But it is not magic, it is the
> : kind of stuff that we observe occurring today.
>
> Please show an observation and/or a test/verification of animals
> without eyes evolving over generations to gain eyesight.
>

Lol. What a silly request.

> :

> : >while adhering to logic that a mere
> : >building wouldn't just happen no matter how many billions of
> : >years passed, even if you put all the materials in the same area
> : >that the building would need.
> :
> : Yep, buildings are not reproducing organisms. OTOH buildings off form
> : after those hundreds of millions of years of evolution.
> :
> : >Meanwhile their beliefs are impossible to observe, are not
> : >repeatable/testable/verifiable - one can only believe in it.
> :
> : Really? You have a repeatable/testable/verifiable act of creation?
> : Let's see it.
>
> I never said faith in God was *scientific* fact. Unlike
> evolutionism which dishonestly claims their unobsrevable,
> untestable, unverifiable beliefs are scientific facts, which it
> fails the very definition of what science is, and is limited to.
>

Science still has a heck of a lot more than you have. You only have a bunch
of old misunderstood religious stories and traditions.

> However, we do have faith it's a fact, and the evidence at least
> more logically points to God doing exactly what He said He did,
> rather than that fish have evolved over generations into human
> beings.
>

Faith can go wrong, in fact horribly wrong. I'm guessing you didn't know
that.

> You have repeatable/testable/verifiable observations of
> populations of apes producing over generations, animals that are
> no longer apes at all (let alone human beings)? Let's see it.
>
> The only thing they have are apes adapting but remaining apes,
> and then dishonestly claiming this is their version of
> evolutionism. Bacteria adapting but remaining bacteria but then
> dishonestly claiming this is their version of evolutionism.
>

Your war campaign in these groups is all about just getting more people to
worship your angry version of God. That's what it is.
You're a worship freak, and a scared one.
You are shite scared of your angry version of God and you want to impress
him as much as possible to lessen your chances of being tossed into the
punishing hole that your religion used to tell people about.

Andrew W

unread,

Jul 10, 2009, 6:01:15 AM7/10/09

to

"gabriel" <gabriel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:2hdc551acro7d4c41...@4ax.com...

Life did not come about by chance. Its only you creationists that say that.
Scientists don't.
Everything came about by interacting energetic forces.

> All unaccountable in a world with no God - they borrow
> from a Christian world view just to make any science and logical,
> rational thought be possible at all.
>
> : Design does not *say* anything about anything.
>
> It doesn't need to "say" anything except the truth.
>

What would you know about truth? You only have old beliefs.

> Where did the first life form come from?
>

We don't know that and neither do you.

> Whatever answer you give, it doesn't
> "say" anything about anything - it's just a belief. "Came from
> big bang" or "came from God".
>

What is a God? You don't even know that.

> Whatever they say, they both say
> the same thing - except the former removes accountability to any
> God, and the latter points out how we are not free to be as
> morally reckless as we'd love to be.
>
> : No matter what possible
> : observation anyone could make about anything "it was designed" is as
> : legitimate an answer. If we accepted the claim that things were
> : designed then there would be no point to doing research.
>
> Sure there is - to see how the designs work. To see how
> adaptation works. To see how everything in the universe that we
> can currently observe and experiment with works. If evolutionism
> were true, there'd be no point to do research to continue trying
> to "prove" it to everyone else.
>

Creationists / religionists are not interested in how things work, they're
just interested in believing, obeying, and worshipping.

> : No matter
> : what we observed during an experiment you would answer: it was
> : designed.
>
> What a design does and how it works is a far cry from simply
> saying "it was designed." When it comes to origins, where all
> biological diversity of life came from, you can either say "it
> evolved" or "it was designed". When it comes to origins, and
> where the first life form came from, you can either say
> "primordial soup" or "lightning" or "big bang" or "water" or
> [insert belief here], or "God created life" - they are all
> similar answers in that they are based on belief alone.
>

No. Only saying that God created life is a belief. It requires no thinking
process at all.

> Operational science on the present world around us is the same
> across the board whether you believe God created you or you
> believe you evolved from populations of fish. We still learn that
> bacteria were designed to adapt (but remain bacteria), whether
> you believe men evolved from apes, or that God created man. But
> origin science is an oxymoron as the past is unrepeatable,
> untestable and unverifiable - one can only believe in these
> origin claims and such claims do not qualify as science by its
> own definition.
>

You study science with one eye covered with a Bible and the other half
covered.
That's why your results are so one sided and make no sense.
Your fear of your angry version of God makes you have to dismiss all the
data that explains everything, for fear of punishment for not having done
enough worship and repentance.

TomS

unread,

Jul 10, 2009, 6:20:25 AM7/10/09

to

"On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 18:26:27 -0400, in article
<ffrc55ds91o190fs6...@4ax.com>, Matt Silberstein stated..."

Yes.

I recall someone proposing the pattern of streets being an "evolved"
system. Paths for foot traffic and horses gradually became major
traffic routes, which then led to connections between those routes,
and became paved when motor vehicles no longer could easily negotiate
unpaved roads. Except that the "superhighway" systems tended to take
completely new paths - for example, US Route 66 was mostly just
abandoned when the interstate highways connected Chicago to Los
Angeles, rather than being upgraded.

Andrew Cunningham

unread,

Jul 10, 2009, 6:36:50 AM7/10/09

to

> Email: sdlit...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net

> Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.

You're saying that, in a society of people with eyes in the back of
their heads, chairs would be designed like those in a society of
people who don't have eyes in the back of their heads?

TomS

unread,

Jul 10, 2009, 6:49:17 AM7/10/09

to

"On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 16:02:08 +0000 (UTC), in article
<slrnh5c4r4...@localhost.localdomain>, Logan Rathbone stated..."

[...snip...]

Sorry that I didn't make my intent clear.

I intended to support Mark's comments, and to argue against
creationism.