(November 17, 2008 at 3:40 pm)CoxRox Wrote: In order to have an image right side up on our retina we would need another lens to flip it around, requiring another part, needless and inefficient when you consider that the brain can quite easily work within this image that is upside down.Not true. It could either be done by another lens or by flipping the retina the other way up. The whole argument about "oh, but the brain has to interpret it anyway" is not a good argument at all. In terms of operations the brain has to execute, there are many many more.
Consider a program had to read in data and then write it to a file. There are two elements to the "design" of the program, the reader and the writer. If the reader is programmed upside-down, the information given to the writer is also upside-down, and needs extra code to reverse the data. A much better solution would be to simply program the reader the correct way up.
In both instances the writer has to process the data, but only in the first instance does the writer have to do extra operations in order to process it.
(November 17, 2008 at 4:28 pm)CoxRox Wrote: So, here is what the evolutionists are proposing for a superior breathing apparatus. Our trachea would continue up to our nose, requiring our necks to be at least 1 inch wider. We would have huge noses with nose lips and a tongue protruding out. Of course, our faces would have to be much longer to accommodate the additional structures. Now, we would really be ugly! On second thought, it might be interesting trying to kiss with two sets of lips - nah, constantly expelling liquid out our nose would make it kind of gross. Aren't you glad you weren't designed by an evolutionist!'I also found this quote, and like all quotes from these creationist websites, it greatly exaggerates the idea. Why would the neck need to be 1 inch wider? We currently breath very well through our nose, and the tubes that take that air to the trachea are very small indeed. In fact, the trachea is only the size it is to process food. Thus we could simply have a small breathing tube. Why we would need larger noses, lips, and a tongue that protrudes bewilders me. Like I said, our nose already enables us to breathe perfectly fine with our mouths closed, and in the new system our lips / tongue would have nothing to do with our respiratory system, so no changes are needed. As for the longer faces, two lips (where did we get them from), and the constantly expelling liquid from our noses...WTF??? This entire scenario is the creationist equivalent of claiming a politician is a communist because he used the words "share the wealth around" and they were taken entirely out of context.
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/d...nebad.html
I think we've found the source of our problem, and I'm going to attempt a way to rectify it.
Catherine,
You seem to be reading a load of creationist websites and then using their articles, whilst we seem to be reading a load of scientific websites and using their articles. My proposal:
You list a few articles (say 3-4) that you think are convincing, and we will read them. At the same time, we will list 3-4 articles from a website like talkorigins.org and you will read them. This way we each get to see the other viewpoint and ask questions about it, rather than defending our views.
What do you think?