Aineo wrote:First I would like your definition of a "creationist" since the books I have read were not from CRI. If your definition of "creationist" is any scientist who is a Christian then Galileo and Newton are in that group.
Dictionary.com wrote:cre·a·tion·ism Pronunciation Key (kr-sh-nzm)
n.
Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.
Specifically Young Earth Creationists (sometimes called Young Universe too) who believe in a 6,000 year old Earth and universe. A Creationist is assuredly not a Christian scientist. Hope that helps.
BTW, if you are going to discount a book without at least reading it then you are demonstrating your prejudices outweigh your search for truth and knowledge.
Pechenik indicates that although cephalopods can perceive shape, light intensity, and texture, they lack many of the advantages of an inverted retina, such as the ability to perceive small details.21 The visual system of the cephalopods is designed very differently than the inverted eye in other ways to enable them to function in their dark, water world. They can see only in black and white and have a narrow range of vision compared to humans. Their photoreceptor cell population is composed of only rods, and they contain a mere twenty million retina receptor cells compared to 126 million in humans.22 The rod’s outer segments contain rhodopsin pigment that has a maximum absorption in the blue-green part of the spectrum (475 nm), which is the predominant color in their environment. Photons change the rhodopsin to metarhodopsin and no further breakdown nor bleaching occurs.23
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF3-00Bergman.html
What you seem to want to ignore is the
why cephelopod and human eyes differ.
That still doesn't address the blind spot (and isn't Bergman a psychology major and also one who tried to discount Galileo's persecution as being concoted by secular conspiracy theorists? Also, the ASA is far from scientific last I checked).
Bergman's point amounts to nothing because he is simply trying to side-step the issue that mammalian eyes could
also have no blindspot given the squid eye hasn't got one. The argument for the difference being valid because the squid lives in a different environment means nothing. Does man need this blindspot because he lives on land? Why? At least justify what this man has written.
I also notice he failed to address the fact that vertebrate fish have inverted eyes and not the simpler and more efficient eye of the cephalopods. Tell me, does he feel they don't work in the same environment as the loveable squid?
Until someone points out why the human eye hasn't got this blindspot removed like the squid, regardless of spin-off function, he hasn't got a case.