TheLiteralist responds to me:
quote:
Hmmm...the photon loss, for me, has caused relatively few problems.
And how would you know? You are physically incapable of telling the difference.
quote:
And, if cephalopoids are octopi and such, then there is at least a slight difference in environmental variables that needs to be considered.
No, they don't. We build cameras that don't have this problem and they don't go nuts when taking pictures. You act as if the inside-out retina is somehow "protecting" the photopigment network. But why would it need protecting? There is no indication that it does.
quote:
Could it be that in the air, it is best to lose photons so as not to overload the vision system with light energy.
No.
Again, we build cameras that don't have this problem. Why would the eye be any different?
quote:
Could be any number of reasons why a designer might do something like that.
No, only two, really:
Stupid designer.
Cruel designer.
quote:
Something else to consider is that, if the Bible is true, then we are no longer living in the original, optimal edenic environment...the Flood, which I'm not assuming you believe, destroyed that.
The Flood is a physical impossibility. Besides, if we believe what you are saying about the Flood, there was
more water in the air than there is now. If we're going along with your claim that the cephalopoid eye is right side out because the environmental conditions allow for filtering, then humans should have also received a right side out retina due to the amazingly water-laden air they were living in (and, of course, gills to breathe it since there would be more water than any other gas.)
So by your logic, the designer should have given us right side out retinas. Why don't we have them?
Stupid designer.
Cruel designer.
quote:
You seem to be assuming He wouldn't want us to be needy.
Since other organisms in the same environment don't have the same structural flaws, one wonders why we, his most beloved and closest creation, got stuck with them.
As I directly said, we don't need to be the strongest or the fastest. I'm just wondering why there is so much stupid engineering of the morphology. We don't need to have the most densely packed retina that would be capable of letting us see vastly more detail. We don't need to have lenses that never harden and cloud over time leading to presbyopia and cataracts.
But why on earth is our retina inside out when there is no reason for it to be that way?
quote:
Now, I am not using these verses to convince you to believe in the God of the Bible as I do, I am only pointing out that the God of the Bible seems very aware of the imperfections and troubles in humanity.
So god is an evil, cruel bastard.
If that's the kind of deity you wish to worship, you go right ahead.
quote:
So, right after creation we lived in the optimal environment.
Which, by your logic, would have necessitated right side out retinas and gills, neither of which we have.
Stupid designer.
Cruel designer.
quote:
You seem to be assuming He would want it to be perfect for us right now.
Incorrect. I directly said the opposite. We don't have to be the strongest or the fastest. But a designer that does stupid things is, well, stupid.
Why do we have a
BROKEN GLO gene? If god meant for humans to be unable to synthesize their own vitamin C the way pretty much every other mammal can, why did he put a
BROKEN genetic sequence in our DNA? Why not just leave it out altogether?
There are literally
hundreds of these pseudogenes in our DNA. Stretches of code that are broken in us but functional in other species and completely absent in others. So why on earth do we have them? It isn't like the chromosome needs to have them in there. So if we weren't supposed to be able to synthesize vitamin C, why do we have all the structures to do it with a single part broken so that it doesn't work?
Do you remember the Intel 486 and 386 processors? They came out in two different versions: DX and SX. The difference between the two was whether or not it had a math co-processor. The DX had it and was more expensive while the SX didn't and was less expensive.
But here's the thing: The SX actually had the math co-processor. It was just non-functional. They disabled it. As a result, it consumed less power, but why on earth would Intel create such a beast and then sell it for less? After all, the process of making an SX chip is to first create a DX chip and then disable the co-processor. It actually takes
more labor to create the SX chip, and yet it costs less.
Note, Intel did not advertise this fact to the consumer. Instead, they simply told people that it didn't have a math co-processor (which, in some sense, is true.)
The 486SX system was designed to be upgradable, though. You could buy a 487SX chip to insert into the motherboard that would, as far as the consumer was concerned, give the 486 a math co-processor and the two chips together would be functionally equivalent to a 486DX.
But here's the thing: The 487SX was actually a fully functional 486DX chip. It turned off the 486SX and did all of the integer and floating point calculations itself. However, you could not run the 487 on its own. You had to have the 486 in the system.
Again, Intel did not advertise this fact to the consumer.
It is widely considered that Intel was nuts to do this. But when you have a defacto monopoly, you can do pretty much whatever you want. But don't you think if the consumer knew about this, they would have called Intel on its greed?
Do you not agree that it is stupid engineering to create a chip and then hit it with a hammer? Do you not agree that it is stupid engineering to then take this broken chip and add the full chip alongside it which cannot run unless it turns off the broken chip?
This is what we see inside the human genome. If it's stupid when we do it, why isn't it stupid when god does it?
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
™ Version 4.2