Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Oolon Colluphid · 01-10-2002, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Archangel:
C'mon, Oolon... you should know that one by now... those guys have eyes so, just in case he drops by, they'll be able to tell the pope's hat apart from the hats of his parishioners, and know who's way to get out of and who to crawl on and gross out.

One must maintain an image, after all...

(Hey... it was a better excuse than you'd ever get from a fundy!

)

Not quite true actually

. I think it was Douglas who suggested that these things may not need eyes now, but they may need them in future, perhaps for the Second Coming. God’s forward planning, if you like. I remember asking him why, in that case, they don’t simply have fully functioning eyes. Still waiting...

Cheers, Oolon

Megatron · 01-10-2002, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid:

Not quite true actually

. I think it was Douglas who suggested that these things may not need eyes now, but they may need them in future, perhaps for the Second Coming.

ROTFLMGDAO!

Oh, man... >coughs, wipes eyes< Just when I was starting to forget how hilarious fundy logic can be...

Whew!

tgamble · 01-10-2002, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Archangel:

ROTFLMGDAO!

Oh, man... >coughs, wipes eyes< Just when I was starting to forget how hilarious fundy logic can be...

Whew!

I've seen it claimed that the eye isn't wired backwards because we designed cameras after it.

Quetzal · 01-10-2002, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oolon Colluphid:
Not quite true actually

. I think it was Douglas who suggested that these things may not need eyes now, but they may need them in future, perhaps for the Second Coming. God’s forward planning, if you like. I remember asking him why, in that case, they don’t simply have fully functioning eyes. Still waiting...

Cheers, Oolon

<cough..wheez>

Dammit, Oolon, now I've gotta go buy a new flippin' keyboard after spewing coffee on the old one.

Tell you what, to make up for it, next time somebody brings this particular chestnut up, ask 'em why - if that's the case - God saw fit to put eyes on butterfly genitals? The image that conjures is just too...

Quetzal · 01-10-2002, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:
I've seen it claimed that the eye isn't wired backwards because we designed cameras after it.

And Gould blames neo-Darwinians for using Panglossian arguments!!! "The human legs were obviously perfectly adapted for wearing trousers, hence we do." I wonder what he'd make of that argument?

LiveFreeOrDie · 01-10-2002, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Morpho:
Squid eyes are ALREADY designed that way - and work substantially better than human eyes (try chasing prey in the dark underwater if you don't think so)

Do you have any actual facts to back up this claim about squid eyes or is this just conjecture on your part?

Just because squid are good at catching prey underwater doesn't necessarily imply that this is due to excellent vision.

LiveFreeOrDie · 01-10-2002, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrowman:
"Suboptimality" is only used as an argument against intelligent design.

Exactly. But is this argument on sound footing? How many of us have really thought about what "suboptimal" means and what the factual basis for this claim is?

Quote:

And speaking of such - the mere fact that ARN publish this paper demonstrates that they are into debate and not science. They try to knock down one of the most common arguments against ID, (a) without succeeding and (b) without advancing their own "research" one iota. It's pure rhetoric, for all the footnotes.

I don't disagree, but you haven't given any argument in support of your claim (a). Why does the ARN paper fail to debunk the suboptimality claim? A few other posters have provided some tidbits, but as yet I haven't seen a complete argument.

- LFOD

Oolon Colluphid · 01-10-2002, 05:38 AM

LFOD, you might find this thread of interest.

<a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001519" target="_blank">A brief summary of evolution vs "intelligent design"</a>

Cheers, Oolon

Amen-Moses · 01-10-2002, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie:
Just because squid are good at catching prey underwater doesn't necessarily imply that this is due to excellent vision.

So what do you think they have big eyes for? Maybe they hunt by ESP?

Amen-Moses

Prometevsberg · 01-10-2002, 05:50 AM

If the human eye is so optimal that it MUST be the result of ID, does it not run inte the "Babelfish" argument of Douglas Admas for the inexistence of God, ie.:
The (BabelFish/eye) is so monumentally a useful creation that it must have been designed by God.
But that would imply God exists.
If we knew God exists, faith in God would be silly.
Without faith, God is nothing.
Therefore, God does not exist.?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-10-2002, 05:38 AM	#18
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	LFOD, you might find this thread of interest. <a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001519" target="_blank">A brief summary of evolution vs "intelligent design"</a> Cheers, Oolon

01-10-2002, 05:50 AM	#20
Prometevsberg Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Oslo, Norway Posts: 86	If the human eye is so optimal that it MUST be the result of ID, does it not run inte the "Babelfish" argument of Douglas Admas for the inexistence of God, ie.: The (BabelFish/eye) is so monumentally a useful creation that it must have been designed by God. But that would imply God exists. If we knew God exists, faith in God would be silly. Without faith, God is nothing. Therefore, God does not exist.?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.