Do you believe in God?

[Dotini]

I WILL FOREVER CLAIM THAT JEWS WERE SLAVES IN EGYPT!

Okay, but the exact conditions of servitude would need to be more intimately understood to permit the term "slaves" to be used without some sort of scholarly qualification. That Jews were occupied as stewards or servants and not as royalty does not automatically make them property to be bought and sold. Can it be proved that any Jews at all were bought and sold?

 

[dxld]

Really? Did you know that we have approximately 10x as many red/green receptors as blue receptors? That makes it awfully difficult to focus on and resolve items that are colored blue or lit with blue light. Try it tonight. NOT PERFECT.

Also, if our eyes were perfectly suited to our bodies, we'd have a useful cone of vision wider than 55-60 degrees.

We have necks that turn very fast, no need of wider cone vision. To BobK, Jews were still Slaves in Egypt.

 

[Touring Mars]

So having eyes all around our heads, or another pair of eyes on the reverse side of our heads wouldn't be better than only having eyes with a 60 degree forward-facing cone of vision? What about people who are paralysed or injured who cannot move their heads? I'm sure eyes on the back of their heads would be very useful indeed.

If animals were designed, then why did the designer limit themselves to a relatively small number of options, most (if not all) of which could easily be improved upon, if the original goal was 'perfect design'? In reality, mammals rarely (if ever?) have more than two eyes, and most are front-facing. Evolution produces features that are good enough, but by no means perfect. They are limited in many other ways too, e.g. the range of light that we can see with our eyes is extremely narrow... it would be very useful to be able to see infra-red light. Ask any kitchen porter who picked up a burning hot pan about that... (yes, that includes me...).

In other words, to quote @Duke, NOT PERFECT.

 

[Scaff]

Bobk, It's a core religious belief that Jews were slaves in Egypt.what I claim is that there were a large number of Jews in Egypt, not a Million necessarily, just a very large number. My claim is God specifically instructed the Jews to remember there time of tribulation in Egypt and they were set free through the Miracles of God. The Numbers of Jews, not exactly of high importance to me. For you to focus on the number over 1,000,0000 of Jews in Egypt is not really what I focus on.

700,000 Jews is still a large number, 500,000 Jews is still a large number. I definitely would not cry if there were only 999,999. The Biblical texts never flat out states the exact number of Jews in Egypt. The Bible does not dwell on the Number so I do not dwell on the Number. What the Bible does dwell on is instructing the Jews to remember there time in Egypt. So every year according to the Jewish Calendar the Jews Celebrate Passover. (Passover would also eventually become linked to Christ, but that becomes another discussion.)

I WILL FOREVER CLAIM THAT JEWS WERE SLAVES IN EGYPT!

The OT most certainly does dwell on the number and does so repeatedly.

Exodus 12:37, Numbers 11:21, Numbers 1:45-46 and Numbers 26:51 all put the number of men alone at over 600,000.

As such a claim that the texts don't dwell on number is clearly untrue.

Now that aside its not just the number involved that are an issue, but the whole thing.

We have necks that turn very fast, no need of wider cone vision.

Way to ignore all the other points raised and miss the overall point at the same time.

To BobK, Jews were still Slaves in Egypt.

When and it what numbers. You can try and make it an irrelevant point, but unfortunately your claim that the Bible doesn't dwell on the numbers is not true.

 

[Danoff]

We have necks that turn very fast, no need of wider cone vision.

We have blind spots because for some stupid reason we needed to poke a hole in our vision to route the optic nerve through the retina - despite the fact that it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever for the optic nerve to need to do that (see the octopus). On top of that, this also causes us to have to have a very strange function of our brain which tunes out static images in front of your eye. Your eyes move back and forth imperceptibly to keep refreshing the images so that your brain doesn't tune out stationary objects the way it does to keep you from seeing the blood vessels in front (which should be behind) of your retina. Your eyes dart around to keep refreshing the images in front of you so that you don't go blind, because your brain tunes out static images, because your eye is made stupidly. This summarizes it better than I did:

Less-than-perfect vision
Incredibly, this is exactly how the human retina is constructed. Visual quality is degraded because light scatters as it passes through several layers of cellular wiring before reaching the retina. Granted, this scattering has been minimized because the nerve cells are nearly transparent, but it cannot be eliminated because of the basic design flaw. Moreover, the effects are compounded because a network of vessels, which is needed to supply the nerve cells with a rich supply of blood, also sits directly in front of the light-sensitive layer, another feature that no engineer would propose.

A more serious flaw occurs because the neural wiring must poke directly through the wall of the retina to carry the nerve impulses produced by photoreceptor cells to the brain. The result is a blind spot in the retina -- a region where thousands of impulse-carrying cells have pushed the sensory cells aside. Each human retina has a blind spot roughly a millimeter in diameter -- one that would not exist if only the eye were designed with its sensory wiring behind rather than in front of the photoreceptors.

Do these design problems exist because it is impossible to construct an eye that is wired properly, so that the light-sensitive cells face the incoming image? Not at all. Many organisms have eyes in which the neural wiring is neatly tucked away behind the photoreceptor layer. The squid and the octopus, for example, have a lens-and-retina eye quite similar to our own, but their eyes are wired right-side out, with no light-scattering nerve cells or blood vessels in front of the photoreceptors, and no blind spot.

I searched for that after having started this post - not the other way around.

So... does god have a blind spot because his eyes are as badly made as ours? I wonder if his vision also starts to blur at age 40 because of fundamental design flaws.

 

[BobK]

Bobk, It's a core religious belief that Jews were slaves in Egypt.what I claim is that there were a large number of Jews in Egypt, not a Million necessarily, just a very large number. My claim is God specifically instructed the Jews to remember there time of tribulation in Egypt and they were set free through the Miracles of God. The Numbers of Jews, not exactly of high importance to me. For you to focus on the number over 1,000,0000 of Jews in Egypt is not really what I focus on.

700,000 Jews is still a large number, 500,000 Jews is still a large number. I definitely would not cry if there were only 999,999. The Biblical texts never flat out states the exact number of Jews in Egypt. The Bible does not dwell on the Number so I do not dwell on the Number. What the Bible does dwell on is instructing the Jews to remember there time in Egypt. So every year according to the Jewish Calendar the Jews Celebrate Passover. (Passover would also eventually become linked to Christ, but that becomes another discussion.)

I've never quibbled about an exact number, I've mostly always said "somewhere around a million" and would accept other numbers like, for instance, 603,550 as being close enough. But not two or three dozen.

Be that as it may, you are still failing to provide one iota of evidence for anywhere near this number of Jews having actually being slaves in Egypt.

I WILL FOREVER CLAIM THAT JEWS WERE SLAVES IN EGYPT!

And as long as you state this claim as fact, and fail to provide evidence when called on it, you are in violation of the AUP here. Now it's not my place to interpret the AUP, but this one seems pretty clear-cut to me, especially since it's also been mentioned by several moderators.

So again, where's your evidence?

 

[Scaff]

I've never quibbled about an exact number, I've mostly always said "somewhere around a million" and would accept other numbers like, for instance, 603,550 as being close enough. But not two or three dozen.

Don't forget that number (from four places in the OT) is just for men over 20, once you add in women and children you can easily more than double that.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I WILL FOREVER CLAIM THAT JEWS WERE SLAVES IN EGYPT!

And many scholars who've looked at the possibility of that having been physically true have found no proof to support such a conclusion. Their work is citable.

The path to heaven (or to whatever it is that you seek) isn't in a book, or a film, or in a word that someone says to you... it's already inside you. Holy books are like any other human work, a distillation of lessons, ideas and moral teachings that inform your own journey. Works like the Christian Bible(s), the Qu'uran, the Talmud, Dark Side of the Moon, Beowulf, The Canterbury Tales, War of the Worlds (Jeff Wayne edition), they all lead you into pathways in your own mind where you will pass through dark and light in equal measure.

You should take the work that means the most to you and find the message that is hidden within it.

 

[BobK]

Don't forget that number (from four places in the OT) is just for men over 20, once you add in women and children you can easily more than double that.

Oh, agreed, but let's be generous and cut @dxld as much slack as we reasonably can. If he were to produce solid evidence for 600,000 Jewish slaves in ancient Egypt I'd be happy. But no, he'd rather shout "I WILL FOREVER CLAIM THAT JEWS WERE SLAVES IN EGYPT!" hoping to establish by volume what he can't by evidence. Which still means he should withdraw the claim.

 

[dxld]

Oh, agreed, but let's be generous and cut @dxld as much slack as we reasonably can. If he were to produce solid evidence for 600,000 Jewish slaves in ancient Egypt I'd be happy. But no, he'd rather shout "I WILL FOREVER CLAIM THAT JEWS WERE SLAVES IN EGYPT!" hoping to establish by volume what he can't by evidence. Which still means he should withdraw the claim.

BobK, why don't you track down every Jew that also has membership in GTPlanet and tell them to stop celebrating Passover every single year? You will have as much difficulty doing that as requesting me to withdraw my claim of Jews were slaves in Egypt.

Try that or get a life.

 

[BobK]

BobK, why don't you track down every Jew that also has membership in GTPlanet and tell them to stop celebrating Passover every single year?

Why on Earth would I want to do that? They're not posting crap about non-existent Jewish slaves. You are.

You will have as much difficulty doing that as requesting me to withdraw my claim of Jews were slaves in Egypt.

What's your point? That suggestion is ridiculous.

Try that or get a life.

And now the personal attacks start.

Oh, and where's your evidence? You know, for the million Jewish slaves in Egypt? Or even 600,000.

 

[dxld]

The OT most certainly does dwell on the number and does so repeatedly.

Exodus 12:37, Numbers 11:21, Numbers 1:45-46 and Numbers 26:51 all put the number of men alone at over 600,000.

As such a claim that the texts don't dwell on number is clearly untrue.

Now that aside its not just the number involved that are an issue, but the whole thing.


Way to ignore all the other points raised and miss the overall point at the same time.


When and it what numbers. You can try and make it an irrelevant point, but unfortunately your claim that the Bible doesn't dwell on the numbers is not true.

it puts the number of men at over 600,000 yes, but it does not break down if these men are married or single, how many have kids and wives. The bible does not state there were 3 Million Jews in Egypt, It may well could be 1,200,000 Jews but that would mean each man would have to have been married, which I doubt every single man could be married. 1,800,000 Jewish Slaves possibly? 2 Million ???? The bible does not state 2 million, the Bible does not tell the jews to celebrate passover you also have to state there were over 2 million Jews.

The great number is of importance, the exact number is not important. What is most significant is for the Jews to remember there time as slave in Egypt.

 

[Imari]

BobK, why don't you track down every Jew that also has membership in GTPlanet and tell them to stop celebrating Passover every single year? You will have as much difficulty doing that as requesting me to withdraw my claim of Jews were slaves in Egypt.

Try that or get a life.

It's pretty easy to request you withdraw your claim of a large number of Jewish slaves in Egypt. Watch.

Please withdraw your claim of a large number of Jewish slaves in Egypt, unless you can provide evidence that they existed.

Clearly though, it's a bit of a vain hope that you'll actually respond though. Clearly it is more important to you that you impress us with the strength of your entirely baseless convictions than it is to have a rational discussion.

This is the problem with religion. There are things that you're not allowed to be wrong about. There is nothing that anyone could show you that would convince you that maybe there wasn't a large group of Jewish slaves in Egypt. Your opinion isn't a reasoned, rational opinion based on any principles, it just is because that's what's written in your favourite book.

If I'm wrong, please tell me what would convince you that there weren't a large number of Jewish slaves in Egypt.

And it means having a discussion with you is largely pointless. You're not interested in expanding your knowledge. You can't expand other people's knowledge, because what you "know" isn't based on any objective facts. You can't be debated with, because any contrary points will be met with "Nuh uh, my book says differently".

So why are you here? To impress people with your strength of faith? To convert the infidels with stories from a book they don't believe is different to any other? To troll? I mean, what?

 

[dxld]

Why on Earth would I want to do that? They're not posting crap about non-existent Jewish slaves. You are.


What's your point? That suggestion is ridiculous.

And now the personal attacks start.

Oh, and where's your evidence? You know, for the million Jewish slaves in Egypt? Or even 600,000.

Jews are not posting crap about Non-Existing Jewish Slaves in Egypt, they just walk about the earth every day and have a Homeland in Israel because they continue to remember there time as Slaves in Egypt.

So yes, I'm attacking you because you are attacking my "Judeo-Christian" Beliefs.

What are you going to do follow me every post I make on GTPlanet and tell me again and again to retract my Judeo-Christian belief in Jews were slaves in Egypt.

I was talking about God's creation of our eyes and here you come singling me out and attacking me directly. I was not looking for you, you came and attacked me first.

 

[Imari]

I was talking about God's creation of our eyes...

So what do you think of Danoff's evidence that our eyes are actually pretty poorly designed?

 

[LeMansAid]

So yes, I'm attacking you because you are attacking my "Judeo-Christian" Beliefs.

Quite sure that BobK knows precisely how this works. If you were merely putting it forward as a belief, there would be no issue.

 

[dxld]

Jews are not posting crap about Non-Existing Jewish Slaves in Egypt, they just walk about the earth every day and have a Homeland in Israel because they continue to remember there time as Slaves in Egypt.

So yes, I'm attacking you because you are attacking my "Judeo-Christian" Beliefs.

What are you going to do follow me every post I make on GTPlanet and tell me again and again to retract my Judeo-Christian belief in Jews were slaves in Egypt.

I was talking about God's creation of our eyes and here you come singling me out and attacking me directly. I was not looking for you, you came and attacked me first.

My belief in the Jews were Slaves in Egypt can not be directly proven with evidence such as a video recording or records kept perfectly in tact for 3000 years. It is religion, it is faith. It's like Jumping off a Plane with a Parachute that may not work.

I've taken that leap with only a Parachute, no rope to Hold me back, and you can't change my mind....Jews were Slaves in Egypt.

 

[dxld]

So what do you think of Danoff's evidence that our eyes are actually pretty poorly designed?

Our eyes were designed like Milk that expires after an amount of time.

 

[Imari]

Our eyes were designed like Milk that expires after an amount of time.

Two things wrong with that:

1. That's not particularly good design in and of itself, to have an eye that wears out in a shorter time than the lifespan of the creature using it.

2. It doesn't address the fact that even in perfect condition, our eyes aren't terribly well designed for the application. There are numerous ways that they could be improved, and have been in other species.

 

[dxld]

Two things wrong with that:

1. That's not particularly good design in and of itself, to have an eye that wears out in a shorter time than the lifespan of the creature using it.

2. It doesn't address the fact that even in perfect condition, our eyes aren't terribly well designed for the application. There are numerous ways that they could be improved, and have been in other species.

With good care and diet our eyes can last longer than they normally would.

I would not want eyes like a fly, that would be too crazy, Imagine if we inflated the fly's head to the size of a human head, that would result in having two giant eyes the half the size of basketballs. Yes we would not have as much blind spots, but that would also leave our eyes very vulnerable to injury.

From a warrior and martial arts stand point, I think our eyes are at the optimal size in which they are big enough to see the battlefield but over big enough to be destroyed by one punch to the eye or become a large target to be cut with a sword.

- thanks by the way for the polite answers and responses.

 

[TenEightyOne]

a large target to be cut with a sword.

Ouch, a sword in the eye would hurt, wouldn't it?

It's a bit like taking a cannon round to the ear...

 

[Brett]

Our eyes were designed like Milk that expires after an amount of time.

And you just explained one reason why our eyes are not perfectly designed. Perfect design would imply that the eyes do not deteriorate and do not require maintenance to sustain performance. I could go on about many other reasons why human eyes, but there is little point in wasting the time to type that out, especially when I could just say that there is no such thing as perfect design and accomplish the same thing.

That goes for anything designed ever at any point in history and at any point in the future. There will always be a flaw or series of small flaws that could be improved upon. Some designs may come close to perfection, but there will always be improvements that can be made. Many of those improvements may only be marginal upgrades, but improvements, even marginal ones, are still a better design and yet still, not a perfect design.

Now, if you want to discuss design on a more realistic level and leave the impossible perfect design out, then that is a different discussion. Realistically, marginal improvements are typically not worth the expenditure, be it continued effort, more money, or whatever. In terms of good design, refining something to an acceptable level of performance is usually enough. That may be a so called "perfect" design for the application, but is not a perfect design in the sense of what perfect means.

 

[dxld]

And you just explained one reason why our eyes are not perfectly designed. Perfect design would imply that the eyes do not deteriorate and do not require maintenance to sustain performance. I could go on about many other reasons why human eyes, but there is little point in wasting the time to type that out, especially when I could just say that there is no such thing as perfect design and accomplish the same thing.

That goes for anything designed ever at any point in history and at any point in the future. There will always be a flaw or series of small flaws that could be improved upon. Some designs may come close to perfection, but there will always be improvements that can be made. Many of those improvements may only be marginal upgrades, but improvements, even marginal ones, are still a better design and yet still, not a perfect design, as those marginal improvements can continue to be improved upon.

Now, if you want to discuss design on a more realistic level and leave the impossible perfect design out, then that is a different discussion. Realistically, marginal improvements are typically not worth the effort or expenditure. In terms of good design, refining something to an acceptable level of performance is usually enough. That may be a so called "perfect" design for the application, but is not a perfect design in the sense of what perfect means.

My view of perfect design is like a Solid steel Barrier that surrounds an entire city but with one vulnerability, the entrance/exit.

If you had experience taking photos on a semi-advanced level, there is no one camera lens that can be perfect for all situations, one lens you rely on most is your real eyes, and your real eyes help you decide in your brain which lens is best.

Our eyes are not damage proof and they do deteriorate at an old age, but they are adaptable to a wide variety of situations.

 

[TenEightyOne]

My view of perfect design is like a Stone Barrier that surrounds an entire city but with one vulnerability, the entrance and exit.

That's a rubbish design, I wanted something to help open wine bottles

 

[Imari]

Our eyes are not damage proof and they do deteriorate at an old age, but they are adaptable to a wide variety of situations.

And yet it's been pointed out that even though these things are true, our eyes are not as good as they could be. This isn't even talking about a hypothetical perfect design, there are other animals out there with eyes that are better "designed" than ours. No blind spot, less refractive error, able to detect a wider range of radiations, etc.

Your argument is that God designed eyes that are perfect for our bodies. Look.

Our eyes are Perfectly designed for our bodies, far more advanced than the lense $10,000 SLR Camera. What focuses faster? The Eyes that God created or a Camera Lense that man created?

Our eyes may be better than a camera lens, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't be improved. There's demonstrable evidence that our eyes are not as good as they could be, and that they in fact have a number of flaws that anyone designing an eye from scratch would have avoided. If the bioscience existed to construct an light detecting device in any way the designer wished, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't end up with a human eye.

So yes, our eyes are good, but that's not enough to back up the statement you made that our eyes are perfectly designed for our bodies. They are not, unless you have more evidence to present.

 

[Brett]

Our eyes are not damage proof and they do deteriorate at an old age, but they are adaptable to a wide variety of situations.

Eyes deteriorate before old age. I have had to wear glasses or contacts since I was around seven or eight years old. Without either, I am not able to see much more than a blur beyond a few feet. Even things within those few "useful" feet can still be blurry. That is awful design. Anyone who thinks that kind of performance is acceptable has incredibly low expectations for what can actually be accomplished with good design.

It is however fortunate that man made tools, i.e. glasses or contacts, have been developed to help correct the poor design. It is also fortunate that I was born in a time period where having bad eyesight would not necessarily be a huge detriment for day to day survival.

 

[Imari]

Eyes deteriorate before old age. I have had to wear glasses or contacts since I was around seven or eight years old. Without either, I am not able to see much more than a blur beyond a few feet. Even things within those few "useful" feet can still be blurry. That is awful design. Anyone who thinks that kind of performance is acceptable has incredibly low expectations for what can actually be accomplished with good design.

Let's not confuse faulty eyes with badly designed eyes.

Many people require correction of some sort. I, like you, had correction from a young age. Possibly much worse, I couldn't see more than about six inches in front of my nose. I couldn't really function without lenses at all. When I was older, I got laser surgery. My eyes are better, but still not great.

But all that is a fault in the "manufacturing" if you will, not the design. The design of our eyes is the same as every other human, you and I just got lazy, drunk workmen when it came to putting our eyes together.

The best design in the world can't save you if the parts aren't put together properly.

 

[Brett]

I would argue that a faulty product can be a symptom of bad design. When the fault is such a common problem, the design needs to be further refined or scrapped and started anew.

 

[Imari]

I would argue that a good design would not require super precise effort from the workmen and be able to overcome most manufacturing issues.

Sure, there's such a thing as overly complicated designs making it unnecessarily difficult to manufacture. The best designs are also fault tolerant.

Still, there's little point blaming faulty workmanship when then basic design is lacking in the first place.

 

[Brett]

I went back and edited that post. I completely changed the wording up, as I was not happy with what you quoted. I have actually edited it again. Ugh. I could keep changing it.