666...the Devils Moving Average

ShoeshineBoy · Oct 28, 2003

Quote from Doubter:

Bad Design in the Human Eye?
The vertebrate eye is quite an exceptional organ in terms of its function. Light passes through the cornea, then through the lens where it is focused on the retina, which contains the photoreceptors (rods and cones) for detecting this light (see diagram to right). Each rod and cone that receives light fires a signal to the neural apparatus, which transmits the signal to the optic nerve, which goes to the brain for processing. The brain does some fancy processing, including inverting the image and interpreting what is seen (this is a whole other story that cannot be covered here).
...
...
Because of continuous damage caused by light, the discs (along with the photopigments) of the photoreceptor cells are continuously replaced by the RPE. If this were not the case, the photoreceptors would quickly accumulate fatal defects that would prohibit their function. In addition, the RPE cells contain the pigment melanin, which absorbs stray and scattered light to improve visual acuity. The RPE is in contact with the choroid layer, which contains a very large capillary bed, which has the largest blood flow per gram of any tissue in the body. Why is the blood flow so high in the choroid? Since the RPE and photoreceptor cells are in constant regeneration, they require a high rate of exchange of oxygen and nutrients. In addition, it appears that the high rate of blood flow is required to remove heat from the retina to prevent damage resulting from focused light (the old magnifying glass in the Sun phenomenon).

So why is Dawkins' "tidy-minded engineer" design such a bad idea? Dawkins thinks that the neural layer should be under the photoreceptors, putting them between the photoreceptors and the choroid. Where would the RPE (which is required to regenerate the photoreceptors) go? If it were between the neural layer and the choroid, it would be too far away from the photoreceptors to constantly regenerate them. In addition, this design would put another layer between the photoreceptors and their blood supply, reducing the exchange of oxygen and nutrients, and minimizing the effectiveness of the choroid in removing heat from the receptors. Dawkins' idea of "good" evolution would prevent the photoreceptors from being regenerated and would likely lead to heat damage. Such a design would certainly fail within the first year of use. It's a good thing that God does not design the way evolutionists would!
Rich Deem
_____________________________________________

You didn't say it so I will: as it turns out, this is a fantastic example of potential Design. Great article!

ShoeshineBoy · Oct 28, 2003

Quote from stu:

Anyone reading your stuff can see for themselves how you postulate then rely specifically on big numbers as an attempt to back up your non issue. Youâve demonstrated it yet again with your 10^30 at the top of this message. Axeman has already quite clearly repeatedly demonstrated to you that no one is saying everything has a complete scientific answer. but that does not alter the fact that science offers the most useful method of understanding things.

Found a great Hoyle quote. It says:

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 naughts after is... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence."

Here's the link:
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/physicalscience/story/0,9836,541468,00.html

Notice the huge # att'd to it. Was Hoyle saying it was literally 40,000 zeros? No! He was just saying it was a virtually infinitely small probability.

And that by the way is exactly why he turned to Panspermia. Crick had the same reason. At the end of his career Crick also began admitting the mathematical impossibility of the DNA he co-discovered ever being produced on earth and so he too turned to panspermia as a possibility.

So, Stu, I may have made a mistake and added 10,000 zeros accidently, but the problem is there are still 10,000 left.

So this time instead of cussing and swearing at me and telling me what genetic disorder I have, how 'bout some science instead? I'll ask again: let's see your models for the universe's origin and life's origin?

ShoeshineBoy · Oct 28, 2003

Quote from Doubter:

A 1st year, MERE HUMAN, mechanical engineer would know
NOT to wire an optic nerve IN FRONT of the light sensitive
receptor cells in the human eye.
Our eye's are wired BACKWARDS!
...
..
So why is Dawkins' "tidy-minded engineer" design such a bad idea? Dawkins thinks that the neural layer should be under the photoreceptors, putting them between the photoreceptors and the choroid. Where would the RPE (which is required to regenerate the photoreceptors) go?
Rich Deem

By the way, an ironic part of this is that Stephen Gould once presented the Panda's Thumb as an example of a bad design that could not be intelligent, i.e. God could not have played a direct role in the Panda, etc.

I'm almost positive it was Dawkins who criticized him for it and showed how poor his argument was. Now Dawkin's is shown to be guilty of the same crime...

ShoeshineBoy · Oct 28, 2003

Quote from Gordon Gekko:

are you sure you can make all those claims with 100% certainty (that the first "living" thing needed all those 7 requirements)? those 7 requirements are probably necessary to define what a human considers life to be (at this point, anyway).

are you telling me that something maybe millions of years less evolved than an amoeba requires all those things?

i still say the first "living" thing was way simpler than you think. i think this is the mistake most people make. it's not like we have something not "living" and then poof we have something that is what we call life. it was probably a gradual change of extremely simple things that we would not even call life--but eventually it turns into things we DO recognize as life.

You know what I'm going to ask: how can a cell survive that cannot reproduce? that cannot metabolize and convert into energy some type of fuel/food? that has no cell wall/membrane?

Now you're talking about a cell that lives indefinitely or is some kind of weird gel w/ no cell membranes or somehow mysteriously stores energy, etc., which is clearly in the "strange science" category.

But clearly Morowitz is thinking something along the lines of what you are since he is trying to find this in the Kreb's cycle.

Gordon Gekko · Oct 28, 2003

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

I think there's huge problems with panspermia, but if you're interested there's a web site called panspermia.org that has a lot on it. I have only very brief looked at this, so just letting you know...

http://panspermia.org/ is a great site, thanks for posting it. that idea is, without question, a better explanation than the bible. if that shocks anyone here, get with the program.

if you combine panspermia with what i said earlier, that the first real forms of life would probably not even be considered life to humans, this could very well be the answer.

Gordon Gekko · Oct 28, 2003

Quote from ShoeshineBoy:

You know what I'm going to ask: how can a cell survive that cannot reproduce? that cannot metabolize and convert into energy some type of fuel/food? that has no cell wall/membrane?

Now you're talking about a cell that lives indefinitely or is some kind of weird gel w/ no cell membranes or somehow mysteriously stores energy, etc., which is clearly in the "strange science" category.

But clearly Morowitz is thinking something along the lines of what you are since he is trying to find this in the Kreb's cycle.

look here (http://panspermia.org/bacteria.htm) and here (http://panspermia.org/oseti.htm). it talks about how some bacteria can live a long time without many requirements.

stu · Oct 28, 2003

ME:
1. For the sake of this argument, I have agreed to consider that God exists.

2. For the sake of this argument, I have agreed to consider that God is assumed as the central element of the universe ( ie: not anthropocentric). I am also required to accept a general assumption that he has morality.

3. You then posit that it must follow ,you say, because of 1 & 2, any questions regarding the morality of God therefore, cannot be anthropocentric.

IF God has already decided that everything will be considered in/ by an anthropocentric viewpoint, including his standards of morality, and moreover a notion of God itself, he may have resolved, will be considered from an anthropocentric viewpoint, then under your own ârules of Godâ (1&2) your proposition Fails.

Quote by darkhorse
How did the above ever get conceded? When did God decide that "everything will be considered in/by an anthropocentric viewpoint?"

This is not a concession.!! It is merely that you cannot know it is not that way

You asked me to concede to 2 big assumptions for the sake of argument (1&2). You should not then assume I must therefore also conceed to the third one you made..

In the same way you say (1)God exists and (2)he is not anthropocentric, then I am reasonably and logically able to posit, at least by the same standards of validity which exists in your 1&2, that God may have already decided that everything will be considered in or by an anthropocentric viewpoint

Do you now wish me to make 3 concessions for the sake of your argument ?? If so make it clear before you put your case forward

.....
But regard is another matter entirely. The key point of anthropocentrism is regard, not identity- relation of self to another being or concept outside of self. Do I regard myself as the central element of the universe, or do I not? Do I regard myself (or mankind) as the ultimate source of reason and logic, or do I not? Do I regard man's judgment the ultimate and highest source of judgment, or do I not? Do I regard man the highest being in existence- the key piece of the puzzle- or do I not? .....

I have read this carefully and it makes no sense to me.

We defined anthropocentrism, we both know what it means (at least I hoped you did since you defined its terms).

Whatever you say about regard it makes no difference whatsoever. IF God wanted man to view everything including himself from an anthropocentric regard or whatever, then end of story. You cannot know he has not and further, you cannot assume he has not made it so.

ME:
There is nothing in any proposition which makes it an inherent proposition

darkhorse
Propositions inherently propose other propositions on a regular basis through inclusion and exclusivity

No. Please read more carefully. I have emphasized for good reason !

There is nothing in any proposition which makes it an inherent proposition

I donât want to nit pick this. It was mentioned as an aside to the main discussion. I am simply saying any proposition does not as an essential constituent or characteristic of itself (inherently) need to, or make it necessary to, propose yet another proposition.

And when did God decide this? Again, defining anthropocentrism as an identity/experience loop cannot stand other than as tautology. If so, then God's relation to birds would be aviapocentrism, to dogs canipocentrism, to spiders arachnipocentrism and so forth.

Again darkhorse NO. This wonât do at all. This is basic logic and reasoning stuff here. You are adding confusion to a straight forward situation. Again IF 1 & 2 then you cannot say to me "And when did God decide this?".

You must either
(a) Have me agree as yet another concession (#3) that God did not decide this or (b) give âproofâ or substantial reasons over mine that he did not decide this.

All I have said is that he could well have decided this on the same grounds you use for saying he has not. You simply do not know. Therefore as I said before your statement to axeman and your assumption that God is not anthropocentric (I repeat he may have made himself purposely anthropocentric) FAILS. It is simple logical reasoning. I thought thatâs what you wanted ??

God's relation to man has no bearing on whether He is anthropocentric or not- perhaps you are getting mixed up with another term... ... anthropomorphism, a whole other kettle of fish, deals with human characteristics being assigned to a non-human being or thing, and may indeed come up in a discussion of how God chooses to relate to man and ways in which God communicates with man. Perhaps you were on that trail by mistake?

"God's relation to man has no bearing on whether He is anthropocentric or not"

Nothing to do with this. That is another separate assumption/proposition you are adding in

Stop trying to be evasive. If you donât want to remain serious about this then donât waste my time. There were 2 clear and distinct definitions agreed right at the beginning of this.

"I agree with your definitions of anthropocentric and an "anthropocentric view: " Regarding humans as the central element of the universe. Thatâs a good start !! Now letâs both stay focused in the logic reservation ...."

I have not used the word anthropomorphism, neither have any of my replies referred to the word itself, meanings or connotations. All my reasoning stands on the word anthropocentric and context already defined. Instead of trying to add one assumption onto the next, perhaps it would benefit you to read and try and understand what is actually being said.

The rest of what you wrote is the same old flashy darkhorse prose but has no bearing, substance or connection with the subject. You should stop always trying to bluster your way through.

You are way off base, well outside your âlogic reservationâ either get back in and face the issue at hand, or give it up.

It is simple and straightforward, the argument is that your following statement is False

"i respect axeman's general line of argument, however i think the flaw in the argument is that ;it is unintentionally anthropocentric and thus rests on flawed presuppositions

I have given good reason why..... and that is because it is based on an assumption that God has not made himself anthropocentric.
I offered good explanation to back my statement up..... if you should care to read it properly and carefully.

stu · Oct 28, 2003

Point conceded with this one. Just talked to a guy that's pretty knowledgeable and he said that he thought that this number was an oversimplification. The source that I read made this sound straighforward, so I can only say I got what I deserved...

Sometime I would like to hear more detail as to the relationship between Coppedge and Morowitz as I didn't follow what you're thread was saying.

I am so glad shoeshineboy,. But thank goodness you spoke to someone who is knowledgeable !!

Just imagine if you had spoken to someone who took pleasure and joy in putting misinformation about the place. Someone who didnât ask somebody knowledgeable before he posted up incorrect and misinformed conclusion sheeesh. Someone like doubâ¦ nooo I wonât say it

Btw. It wasnât an oversimplification by Coppedge. It is plain to see the added qualification Coppedge used to make Morowitzâs phrase say something it was not saying. Coppedge then used that to âproveâ his âpointâ. What is so ridiculous is that when you actually look at Coppedges âpointâ, it is a completely meaningless one anyway and has nothing to do with anything of any interest.

Now l@@kâ¦. I thank you very much for being so honorable in recognizing the reality on the Morowitz issue. I take no pleasure in âproving that I was rightâ as it were, because all I really want is to understand these big questions better than I think I do anyway. Itâs the muddying of the water with incorrect assertion which doesnât assist at all.

Discussing issues and trying to confirm what is and what isnât â¦.but accepting willynilly anything anybody says without thinking things throughâ¦ is crap !

Being constructively sceptical from all viewpoints is required.

However, I am still not conceding my major points. My case was not built on one number.

Oh well, grateful for small mercies.

I donât think you should build any of your major points on any number where all the conditions are not yet known. Your number and your major point are immediately made invalid because ALL the conditions cannot be taken into account. To be blunt I can't see where you have come up with just one major point so far. Certainly not one which is based upon anything but incorrect or misinformed assertions (no offense intended)

ShoeshineBoy · Oct 28, 2003

Quote from stu:

I am so glad shoeshineboy,. But thank goodness you spoke to someone who is knowledgeable !!

Hey, I hate the trash-talking, but I do appreciate that you do your homework. Believe it or not, I do not want to believe a number that is false or a point where I do not understand the underlying assumptions. The source that I got this from is generally very reliable, so I was shocked to find that the point was oversimplified. But, anyway, live and learn...

ShoeshineBoy · Oct 28, 2003

Quote from stu:

I donât think you should build any of your major points on any number where all the conditions are not yet known. Your number and your major point are immediately made invalid because ALL the conditions cannot be taken into account. To be blunt I can't see where you have come up with just one major point so far. Certainly not one which is based upon anything but incorrect or misinformed assertions (no offense intended)

Again, I agree that you cannot prove anything until you have all probabilites and conditions as you have stated. But by the same token, I don't think one can ignore the data that has come in.

Example:
Say you walk into a casino and see someone win 122 blackjacks in a row. You could deal with this situation in 3 ways:

1. "Wow, that guy was lucky. I bet he'll have a good time tonight."
2. "No big deal. I don't know how many shoes are on the table and I can't calculate the odds exactly."
3. "I don't think this was all luck. He must have cheated."

I think that you are dealing with scientific findings that aren't fitting your model of the universe with #2. (No offense intended - that's how I really see it.) But at the least I am trying to push you to at least admit that there is merit to the argument posed in #3. The person in #3 sees that the probability of this event is so low that they ask if this is guided by some sort of intelligent oversight (i.e. cheating)?