Depressed "eye cup" of the Planarium:
Pinhole-camera eye of the Nautilus:
"Eye tube" of a jumping spider:
The camera eye:
Posted on 07/01/2009 9:54:20 PM PDT by This Just In
Yes, just like the smell of napalm.
Depressed "eye cup" of the Planarium:
Pinhole-camera eye of the Nautilus:
"Eye tube" of a jumping spider:
The camera eye:
Very perceptive. Atheists are in denial of things that are so unbelievable.
If you wanted to write a story about creation and a planet such as earth it could not get stranger than the universe around us. And our little planet floating in a near vacuum, relatively stable for millions of years surrounded by an atmosphere which is not sucked off by the vacuum.
And some people go around like chicken little saying it is all an accident. Small minds, etc.
It doesn’t take much complexity to make light-seeking toys. Mechatronics students make projects like these in their first few lab assignments. Are these man-made toys “perceiving” light?
You may not think it that way, and may choose to believe in imaginary kingdoms, heavens full of materialistic pleasures for a soul bereft of physical form, talking snakes and an entire population arisen out of incest, but I would say that we should feel even more special, because of that lottery life has won. It makes it even more precious than some imaginary ego-maniac building it all up and then “testing” it, inspite of him, her, it or them, being “infallible”.
You mean creators?
Well, sort of. You need creators to make things with a *poof*.
Not so, if you have 3+ billion years of natural dynamics at hand.
That aside, what I actually implied was that the algorithm to make a simple light seeker is barely complex. Involves simple comparators and yes/no logic.
Additionally, you haven’t conveyed your thoughts regarding those eyes.
Who did the math, the slug?
There’s no major math involved. Proportional control is achieved through trial and error (much like a child would learn to control his or her arms through practice) to use the light-sensitive spots to locomote the body towards the direction of increasing light intensity gradient.
If math, as in digital logic, was involved in natural systems, your arms would have the accuracy, speed and repeatability of a CNC robot. You obviously don’t, however.
I didn't say anything about any of that and don't believe it. But it's far more plausible explanation than your lottery theory. As is the theory that Santa Clause created us all just so he would have a billion or so chimneys to climb down one night per year. Of all the ridiculous explanations of human existence, from Zeus to Heaven's Gate, random occurrences resulting from the explosion of something that didn't exist is the most absurd. Especially when it's expressed with arrogant certitude from human minds that obviously can't come close to knowing even a tiny portion of the facts; minds have to struggle mightily to ignore the statistical absurdity of their conclusion; minds that have to ignore simple questions like "So time did the math, how's that work?".
There's no math involved in the creation of receptors that receive and interpret electromagnetic waves based on their frequencies? Do you have any idea how absurd that assertion is?
Time doesn’t do the math by itself. You have trillions raised to millions worth of dynamic interactions of atoms and molecules, each of them taking fractions of nanoseconds to happen, and all of this, over a time-span spreading beyond 3+ billion years. It’s not time alone, so let’s get that part clear. The statistical absurdities begin to seep into the realms of possibility now, doesn’t it? On top of that, living things don’t pop up magically, inspite of what Stone Age literature might want to suggest. You have each stage reliant upon the millions of stages that preceded it, and the advancements add on.
Secondly, the real question is not the above. You could have come to the point by asking how the universe came into being, and what we are here for. That, I wouldn’t know. But if you tell me that a magical being in the sky did all this, then I wouldn’t be able to accept it. If you resign to the belief that this God-figure(singular / plural / who knows?) made everything, then I’d ask you who made this God. If you say God was / is eternal, then I’d ask you why did he/she/it/they choose this moment to make everything.
When I see heads blown off, sawn off, children raped and murdered, children born with grotesque deformities, dead in the womb, etc., I don’t see anyone ‘in charge’. If you do, it’s only because you want to see it that way, and you have no proof or evidence for supporting your stance.
When a stone is dropped from a height, and in doing so, seeks the ground, is any major math inherently involved, other than natural physics? Is there any inherent intelligence within the stone, to guide its mass to the ground?
Same way, with electromagnetic radiation falling on structures on the organism, that causes electrical signals to arise from the energy interactions. The "math" acceptable is determined by repeated testing of survivability and utility.
How much "math" and complex calculus did you study at age 4 when you learned to catch that ball you used to play with?
It was built in to me by the mathematician. The calculus came from somewhere, didn't it? And do you really believe that "trillions raised to millions worth of dynamic interactions of atoms and molecules" is sufficient to do derivatives and integrals, which are obviously getting done in some manner somewhere in that four year old noggin? Why is the notion of a entity engineering itself completely absurd, unless it happens over a few billion years. Time must be sort of a god, I guess.
And I'd respond by saying the fact that all of this is way beyond our little minds' ability to comprehend. And given that so much about the infinity of time and space coming together in this moment of life is beyond our comprehension, you look rather silly when you claim to know, by your observations with your five senses, that you have it figured out, and have concluded without a doubt that time and randomness explain all. Agnosticism is a respectable position. Atheism, especially the brand that likes to use mocking phrases like "magical being in the sky" is is the embodiment of human arrogance and folly.
Couple that won lottery twice wins again
Lucky Wisconsin pair claims four (yes, four) $350,000 jackpots
Aug. 22, 2008
A woman and her husband, who claims he's developed a formula for lottery picks, have each claimed $350,000 jackpots.
Twice.
Verlyn and Judith Adamson claimed two $350,000 jackpots on Monday because each held a winning ticket in the state SuperCash drawing last Saturday. They didn't mention at the time that they also held two more of the winning tickets.
SNIP
But Steven Post, a mathematics professor at Edgewood College in Madison, wasn't buying it. He said there is no way to devise a strategy for finding the winning numbers in a game that uses randomly generated numbers to determine the winning combination.
SNIP
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26350662/
No one claims to have known it all, other than people who put blind faith in the ramblings of other people thousands of years ago, and then derive an explanation for everything, purely out of those.
That would be arrogance, and not the intent of trying to explain the things around us using evidence available to us.
Agnosticism / Atheism are the same, more or less. My position is only absolute based on how much I know, right now. If a god appeared this instant and showed me something that I couldn’t explain, my views would change in an instant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.