There's nothing wrong with suicide. I give 0 shits about anyone and visa versa...

[Brody Murphy]

There's nothing wrong with suicide. I give 0 shits about anyone and visa versa. I'm almost 23 and all I can say is fuck the rat race. Schools are retarded. I had an easiee time passing 26 units at once than passing one fing ap tests (never passed an ap test).

Fuck highschool for wasting my youth with general eds.

Fuck bachelors for being half ge classes (aka highschool classes except they cost a shit ton now)

Also,WHY the fuck are CCs so much cheaper than universities?Why not make it cheap the whole way through?

Fuck this world for being based on luck (aka genes and resources) instead of will power.

I need 6 surgeries and just one costs basically 50k. This alone makes me want to commit suicide.

I used to do 17k pushups in a month with 45 lb,lifted a 20lb dumbbell around 1800 times per arm (once every 2 sec per arm without stopping),got mvp of track,etc. The list is fucking enormous but long story short, I stopped for factors out of my control.

LONG STORY SHORT, FUCK THIS LIFE.

I REFUSE TO LIVE WITHOUT MY 6 SURGERIES.

Also,suicide is easy. The reason i can't do it yet is ONLY because I fear hell. Justifying my views is a somewhat longish post initself and I don't have the energy (but trust me,I use logic and not bullshit DOGMA).

LONG story short, I want to fucking die because I was emasculated.

My question here is WHY the fuck should I not kill myself? I said I feared hell too much but let's pretend I didn't. WHY should I stay?

If my suicide causes pain somehow, I give 0 shits. I am not interested in drugs or some diseased filled sluts (99% of females? Idk but most seem like disgusting sluts). Either way,even if i found a girl perfect for me,I see reproduction as the worst thing a human could ever do.
I also can make uo scenarios in my head (in other words, telling me to try 'x' won't cut it).
Tell me.
WHY should I give a shit about this life? There's no factual reason to give a care. I lost 6 years ago. I was stripped of my pride and it ruined me

[Parker Murphy]

>LOGic
⢀⢤⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⣤⢀⡀⣀⣴⣮⣵⣿⣿⣿⡇
⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣟⣟⢶⡬⢿⣿⡋⣿⣿⣿⣿⠇
⣻⢿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣌⡓⠉⣿⣿⣯
⡴⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣭⣿⣿⣿⣿⠋⢿⣿⣿⣿⣧⣾⡋
⣷⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣟⣿⣿⣿⣧⢀⢀⢹⣿⣿⣿⣿⡋⠦
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠟⡻⠯⠁⢀⣀⠙⠹⡧⢀⢀⢿⣿⣿⣿⣷⠤⠆
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠛⠁⢀⣔⣥⣶⣶⣿⡿⢀⢀⠠⡂⢀⢸⣿⣿⣿⣿⣆
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠁⢀⢀⢀⢠⡿⠉⣋⣼⡿⠁⢀⢀⢀⡸⣆⢢⢽⣿⣿⣿⣿⡄
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⢹⣿⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⠈⠓⠋⠉⠁⢀⢀⢀⡠⠾⠓⠛⣿⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣾⣿⣿⣻⡇⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠟⠉⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⠃⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⠠⠔⢀⢀⢀⢸⣿⣿⣽⣿⣿⡿⡇
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⡎⢀⢀⢀⢀⠈⢁⣀⠤⠂⠁⢀⢀⢀⢀⢀⣿⣿⣿⣿⡟⢿⣿⡇
⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣦⣀⢀⢀⠛⢅⡀⢀⢀⣠⠊⢀⢀⢀⣼⣿⣿⣿⠿⡫⣼⣿⡇
⢻⡿⠛⣽⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄⡀⠉⠉⠉⢀⢀⢀⢀⣼⣿⣿⡿⢿⣶⣄⡙⢿⡇
⢞⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣷⣦⣤⣤⣤⣶⣿⣿⣿⣯⣥⠘⣿⣿⣿⣾⡇
⡨⢞⢿⣿⣿⣽⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡇⢿⣿⡿⢇⣹⣿⣿⣿⡇

[Isaiah Ward]

Im retard so i dont get it. Seriously though, I don't understand.

[Joseph Smith]

Log poster

[Juan Jones]

What surgeries do u need and how were u emasculated

[Colton Perez]

⢀⣄⡀⣀⣀⣀⣤⣄⣀⣀
⢸⣿⣿⣾⣿⣿⣿⣿⠿⠿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣄
⡾⢹⣿⣿⣿⠿⠿⢿⣧⣸⣿⡿⠛⠉
⠁⢸⣿⡟⠁⠈⣿⣿⣿⣷⣄
⢀⡀⢠⠉⣮⢰⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣆
⢀⢻⠖⠁⠴⢿⣿⣿⡿⠛⠛⠿⠆
⠈⠑⠄⡀⠂⣸⣿⣿⣷
⠔⡹⠑⠛⠛⠙⠙⢿⣿
⠘⣴⣾⣧⠙
⣠⢿⠷⡤⠈
⢀⡟⢰⠇
⢤⣼⣁⠾⠤
⠂
⢈⣠⣦⡉⠟⠁⣴⣿⡢⡄
⣀⣨⡏⣿⣿⣿⣦⣼⣿⣿⣿⣿⣶⣶⣶⠤
⠚⠛⠛⠛⠻⠿⣿⣿⣿⣿⣿⡿⠿⠟⠿⠿⠟⠓

What i dont even get it. Sonic unrelated, just felt like posting it.

[Thomas Wilson]

I can send u a link through junk email. That's the only way I'm going to explain it. With just ome link to a forum I've posted. 30ish posts total. Beginning few would be all you would need I suppose.

[Jeremiah White]

logofshit.com/

Plebbit: r/AndysLogs

Twitter: @andyslogofshit

docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfafJkjxQKr5S2U9q_vDKrC427PCIz6FJ0zC9jFhHE191CFRA/viewform

youtu.be/cQJNL9PZIVM
youtu.be/k-8y3pB0fqA
youtu.be/ybVg02fbAX8
youtu.be/gi-LS_7_vD4
youtu.be/atFaKgBWN4w
youtu.be/T9IRDoe2UzQ
youtu.be/srq8EQavQz8
youtu.be/3_gQtqFPkNw
youtu.be/FxvAQR8sm-Q
youtu.be/aQgGIvbreXM
youtu.be/xBXp2b3YEYU
youtu.be/kk3T29sqiuA
youtu.be/f-G7vXVGOt4
youtu.be/H6_CpwBjl9E
youtu.be/4zVJ55U9RtI
youtu.be/eH0xlZu-qAg
youtu.be/rg0gp8oCfYc
youtu.be/VATvB53L9pw
youtu.be/j68W7y4qvco
youtu.be/ZPFNB2oOM1U
youtu.be/3NAlu0UGBqQ
youtu.be/hk8ESKRXkUA
youtu.be/a5Yz3_HaStM
youtu.be/yKXMQEqerIg
youtu.be/WRS6nPu91yY
youtu.be/6d__Uq61XZo
youtu.be/DXu6Kd8rRTU
youtu.be/UptLe9y4_wg
youtu.be/xUAODdohl-8
youtu.be/SFnaZUAXopo
youtu.be/227i-_wXep4
youtu.be/EmbUqArXfuA

clyp.it/umfw1hzd
vocaroo.com/i/s16fUKJDfyjb
vocaroo.com/i/s0OJTzd0aWu8
vocaroo.com/i/s1Rb1E8gQTGs
vocaroo.com/i/s0theChY7198
vocaroo.com/i/s0849TjsO9LY
vocaroo.com/i/s1D51oVpGhPk
vocaroo.com/i/s1kuEmnswVkj
vocaroo.com/i/s1Y4TvM537Rn

[Nicholas Phillips]

Too complicated, post here

[Zachary Ross]

This has to be bait.

[Eli Jackson]

Sad thing it's not. Berserk pic was a joke but I'm dead serious.

[Christian Flores]

Too many links. I'm not about that life. I looked it up on memewiki or whatever it's called. I'm not doing a meme if that's what you're guessing.

[Thomas Powell]

Well, you're afraid of dogma because you're afraid of hell.

[Jace Morris]

That didn't even make sense.

[Lincoln Stewart]

There are only 2 options really.

1. Evolution (designed by literally mistakes aka mutations)

2. Actually created by another agent

There is no 3rd option. It isn't POSSIBLE to have been created any other way. For example, if we were created by aliens, what created them, and them, etc.? The chain would have to end eventually. For example, assuming the big bang is how it all happened, it's not like some aliens would have popped out by it. It is indeed either abiogenesis+evolution or a creator outside of the universe.

My last post was basically an example of irreducible complexity. Easy to follow my logic too. Simply put, there is a point where a certain part [eye, any given molecular machine, etc.] can't be simplified more as it will lose it's function. For example, an engine for a car NEEDS a minimal amount of parts to even function. An inch of metal isn't enough. Long story short, no natural selection = no evolution and if a certain part has no function, natural selection can't fixate it. The neutral mutations may get fixated but that is irrelevant because natural selection is basically the main way of how evolution can even take place.

As a counter argument, evolutionists say "so and so had a previous function". I don't believe that. What ELSE could the Optic Nerve have been? It is basically just a bunch of conductors connecting A to B. It is basically just like a cord to a lamp. It couldn't have been something else.

^Evolutionists KNOW irreducible complexity is a problem which is why they argue "it wasn't ALWAYS an 'optic nerve', it had previous functions such as 'X', 'Y', and 'Z'". Thing is, I know the optic nerve couldn't have been something else. It really is just a cord. Just wires basically. Just conductors. That's basically it.

[Jose Cox]

Heaven and hell. Religion. Dogma. Belief. Your believe in the dogma that contains hell causes you to fear hell.

[Christian Mitchell]

For the record, I do not WANT a creator to be real because whoever they are, they are obviously tyranical. Atheists come across as biased people who simply can't cope with the idea of a maniacal creator and so they refuse to even consider the idea of a creator existing.

Another thing, comparing our time on earth to the universe's existance is like comparing the diameter of an atom to that of a beach. We are a dot. So atheists are telling me we poofed into existance randomly just to die and that's it? Sure, okay. It's not that I want a purpose (because this life is pointless to me either way), it just doesn't make sense. And like I said above, I GENUINELY don't believe in evolution. I am not simply regurgitating data, it actually makes sense and is easy to follow.

[Lucas Long]

Read the posts I just made.

Dogma =/= "religion"

dogma = believing in something

aka an atheist can be dogmatic.

I recommend you look uo the ACTUAL definition of the word "dogma"

[Leo Ortiz]

The word "blindly" got deleted.

Here: "dogma = believing in something blindly".

[Christian Diaz]

If an atheist can be dogmatic, so can a theist.

[Isaiah Lewis]

Just kill yourself faggot, post was boring af.

[Adam Morgan]

You didn't read it did you?

I would have killed myself already if not for my fear of hell.

[Alexander Brown]

Shit. I copied and pasted some parts but not the actual post with the real logic to back it up. Wtf...

One sec

[Sebastian Kelly]

Here:
How does evolution work?
Basically from "beneficial" mutations getting fixated into the population by natural selection.

No natural selection = no evolution.

Now let me tell you why I don't believe in it.
An eye consists of 3 main parts:
1) retina
2) optic nerve
3) visual cortex

Retina creates a chemical code-> code travels through the optic nerve-> from there it goes to the visual cortex where the code is decoded and an image is manufactured.

Long story short, even if I were to straight up give you 2/3 parts you wanted, the eye would still have 0 function which in turn means no natural selection which in turn means no evolution would take place.

Dead ends like those disprove evolution. No natural selection = dead end.

No evolution = we were designed.

Aliens are also disproven indirectly by this.
No evolution = abiogenesis didn't happen meaning life didn't just "get created somewhere else".

Long story short, we do in fact have a creator. Not a nice one either.

[Kevin Rivera]

Yes, your point????

BOTH a theist and atheist can be dogmatic.

The POINT I'm making is that *I* am NOT dogmatic.

[James Nelson]

If you fear hell you don't not care anymore retard, just go into your weird religion thingy, turn the other cheek to life and go to "heaven" just either kill yourself or quit whining. There're lots of people that have it worse.

[Eli Jones]

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma
Definition of dogma:
(plural: dogmas; also, dogmata)

1.
a) : something held as an established opinion; especially : a definite authoritative tenet.
b) : a code of such tenets (e.g. pedagogical dogma).
c) : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds.

2.
a) : doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church.

Sounds like hell is part of the dogma belonging to religion.

If you gave something 2/3rds of an eye, it would not have a functional eye, and it would be subject to selection pressures that would treat an eyeless creature more poorly than an eyed creature; the create would die, natural selection would occur. Any creature that mutates to have the final 1/3rd component of the eye while retaining the 2/3rds of the initial presence of eye would survive better than it's parents, or any of it's peers. It would have evolved. Dead ends reinforce the theory of evolution where there are creatures that are not dead ends also present, both during and after the presence of the dead ends as living things.

You are dogmatic. You are adhering to a dogma consisting of elements of other dogmas right now.

[Christopher Fisher]

Yes I know EXACTLY what dogma is.

Actually, you are right about ONE thing,the idea of a hell existing IS dogmatic but based on my pists, I have shown the idea of a creator existing is NOT dogmatic.

"and it would be subject to selection pressures that would treat an eyeless creature more poorly than an eyed creature"

The fuck? Natural selection would treat them both the same.

Right there your logic died because natural selection STRICTLY only "picks" for traits that are FUNCTIONAL for survival. No exceptions.

[Grayson Sullivan]

An eye without those 3 parts might as well have no parts because it's the same difference.

It would have no function which means natural selection WOULDN'T fixate it.

[Jaxon Miller]

"If you fear hell you don't not care anymore"

Wtf is your iq? Lmao that made NO sense.

"Others have it worse" when you don't even know the full story... haha wow stupid af.

[Angel Cox]

You should kill yourself. Not because of boohoo muh surgeries, but for being so god damn dense.

[Jacob Robinson]

"turn the other cheek to life and go to 'heaven'"

Wut...? WHAT? I fear hell,not heaven. If I didn't think i would go to hell,I would have left by now. My goodness, rip brain cells.

[Adam Ortiz]

I'm the one winning the argument. You sure you aren't the dense one :)?

[Jordan Young]

Quote the parts that make me "dense" instead of saying generic bullshit.

[Nathan Baker]

You fucking swear I would say the full story here. I have like 2500 suicidal notes (more like double of that but they got erased).

Even if you read all of it,you STILL wouldn't get what these 6 years of hell have been like for me.

[John Nguyen]

By doing what you did in your posts you have created a definitive authoritative point of view, an opinion, which you are establishing with what logic you suggest you are using. Effectually, tenets. Tenets that suggest that there is a god, that we were created by that god, that life exists nowhere else but here as it was purposeful, and that evolution is false, at the very least.

Natural selection is as follows. Two creatures are placed in the desert. One that generates excess body heat through the burning of calories, and one that cannot. The selection pressure that would be most prominent would then be heat, and by extension the environment. The one that regularly generates body heat will have a harder time living in the desert without suffering from hyperthermia and dying, unless something about it changes, such as it obtaining an ability or behavior that helps regulate the internal temperatures of said creature. The other creature is also subject to the selection pressure of heat, but will fair easier as the environment is naturally hot, if not warm. Where the environment drops to cooler if not cold temperature levels, the inverse becomes true for the suffering regarding the endothermic creature and the ectothermic creature; the endothermic creature can now comfortably exist as it is capable of generating its own heat, while the latter creature can't, and might freeze to death.

Natural selection would not treat an eyeless creature and an eyed creature the same. An eyeless creature wouldn't be able to navigate its environment using the electromagnetic spectrum where perception of the environment can extend as far as a few hundred meters. An eyeless creature would not, and would have to rely on other sensory perception methods and peripherals to navigate its environment.

[Jaxon Jackson]

An eyeless creature would be more prone to an ambush from far away, or from an angle in which it could not immediately sense or perceive. An eyed creature might detect a shadow.

>natural selection STRICTLY only "picks" for traits that are FUNCTIONAL for survival
Natural selection applies to every trait. There are various selection pressures and their affect on creatures isn't selective at all. We can't see ultraviolet radiation, but it still affects us. It can even harm us. And yet the only way we can know about it, is if we start seeing burns, cancers, or stop seeing at all. We we have no specifically tuned organs to detect ultraviolet radiation, except for the rare few of us who are Tetra-chromatic. The lack of an eye would only mean that, given the chance, something resembling an eye might just happen to form over iterations as positive stimulus from the environment prompted more development, as in, the presence of something that functions like an eye might allow these things with kind-of-eyes to give birth to things that have various mutations of kind-of-eyes, and of their progeny, only the most exaggerated mutations might breed. And so on and so forth, because this mutation just so happens to give them an advantage, this mutation just so happens to aid them, it just so happens to be positively rewarded in an environment where seeing might be helpful.

This is bait.

[Blake Sanchez]

I'm not even the user you were arguing with, fag.
I think you should kill yourself because you're the worst kind of stupid.

[Nicholas Richardson]

and I've lost 10 years to extreme anxiety and depression.

>27
>make just under 4k a year
>no degree
>no talents
>215lbs
>5'7"
>4 1/2 inch penis, erect
>never kissed, virgin

>Also,suicide is easy.

It's not. Trust me.
That being said though, good luck trying.

[Jaxson White]

user is right, the human body doesn't want to die easily. What suffering you think you experience now is nothing compared to being a vegetable and wanting to die.

[Jackson Davis]

That's actual hell right there.

[Colton Jones]

If you've concluded there's nothing wrong with suicide then why fear hell? Just kys already.

[Michael James]

Quote me for evidence of my "stupidity" or stfu

[Mason Bell]

Yes that is true... these body's themselves do not want to die. Point I'm making is that if it weren't for my fear of hell,I could easily overcome this body's instincts.

[Connor Stewart]

>visa versa

That's not.. oh, nevermind.

[Lucas Ortiz]

What do you mean "why fear hell"?

That is fucking stupid. Think for an hour about what you just said because that makes NO sense.

[Dylan Torres]

This.

Do it you whiny faggot.

[Jordan Reed]

Everyone thinks they can hold their breath forever, but once they pass out, the body laughs as it inhales.

[Leo Torres]

"adverb. 1. in reverse order from the way something has been stated; the other way around: She dislikes me, and vice versa. "

I used it right. Try again.

[Matthew Evans]

What do you mean "this". You guys are retards.

I care about suffering for an eternity hence why I don't want to go to hell hence why I am still here. Morons.

[Evan Hall]

>Natural selection would treat them both the same.
>I have shown the idea of a creator existing is NOT dogmatic
>natural selection STRICTLY only "picks" for traits that are FUNCTIONAL for survival. No exceptions
K Y S

[Mason King]

"An eyeless creature wouldn't be able to navigate its environment using the electromagnetic spectrum where perception of the environment can extend as far as a few hundred meters. An eyeless creature would not, and would have to rely on other sensory perception methods and peripherals to navigate its environment."

I fail to understand your logic. Bith would be blind as fuck.

A creature with an eye that is missing 1/3 part will see as well as i can from my toe. They would survive in the same way. They would both be blind.

[Sebastian Cook]

>You guys are retards.

You're the one who believes in something there's no evidence for. Though I suspect you don't really. Got me to reply to your troll ass though, so I guess you win.

[Nathaniel Cooper]

There you have it folks, this guy thinks bats are the same as slugs.

[Tyler Gutierrez]

No not even a shadow. They would both be literally blind. 100%blind. No not "blurry" vision. I mean straight uo blind.

Again.

1.retina makes chemical code
2. Optic nerve =basically just conductors (so a path)
3. Visual cortex decodes code created from the retina

1. Retina + optic nerve but no visual cortex =retina code isn't decoded =BLIND. Not "blurry" vision,just straight uo blind.

2. Retina + visual cortex but no optic nerve = chemical code retina created can't travel to the visual cortex =

3. Optic nerve +visual cortex but no retina =no chemical code to decode in the first place =BLIND

[Jace Morris]

Generic rebuttle. Typical.

[Joseph Wright]

Nothing in the OPs post suggests any kind of transgression against God except his desire to commit suicide. If this isn't wrong the why would he be condemned to hell.

[Brayden Jenkins]

When the fuck did I say that? Quote where you got that idea from.

[Jaxon Gonzalez]

Welp... i cant dumb it down more. Whatever.

[Eli Sanders]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
Killeth thyself, knave.

[Xavier Torres]

Yeseth iva seneth that. My logic is good though.

The other guy at least attempted to attack my points by trying to show that "natural selection could still work" as that's basically the only way to win that.

You other guys though... you seriously lack the ability to understand basic shit.

Don't just straight up post links. Explain instead of regurgitating.

[Jaxson Howard]

Kek. Sure thing champ.

[Brayden Edwards]

Yes, an eyeless creature would be blind as fuck. It wouldn't, would not, be able to navigate its environment using the electromagnetic spectrum where perception of the environment can extend as far as a few hundred meters. An eyeless creature would not, and would have to rely on other sensory perception methods to navigate its environment.

A creature with 1/3rd of all eye components developed would not have an eye and thus would not see. But any creature that ever had something resembling a kind-of-eye developed that organ and its functions in progressive stages, meaning that at no point did any one creature have exactly a fully developed optic nerve but also exactly no retina. There most likely would've been a proto-retina that didn't quite do anything in particular, until one of them did.

An eyed creature would not be blind as fuck, however.

If you can see shadows with your eyes, then a creature with an incredibly simplistic eye can detect the presence of a light level or the absence of that light level. A mere dot of light on a super primitive membrane (retina) attached to a super primitive bundle of nerves attached to a super primitive nervous system, hopefully a primitive kind-of-brain, would react to the sudden change in its biology when you put it in shade. Chemicals wouldn't react, or would react differently. Different signals would be sent or received. The creature, being wholly basic and instinctual, might flinch away or attempt to defend itself as something in its environment has changed, and it can detect this. With its special eyes.

No one has said that a creature without an eye can see. That is what having 2/3rds of an eye translates to.

[Gavin Hall]

>There’s nothing wrong with suicide
Agreed.

[Liam Anderson]

"But any creature that ever had something resembling a kind-of-eye developed that organ and its functions in progressive stages"

I already addressed that (the x,y,z thing I mentioned above).

"If you can see shadows with your eyes, then a creature with an incredibly simplistic eye can detect the presence of a light level or the absence of that light level"
NO. Where are you even getting this from? You would be BLIND with those 3 parts. Those "light sensitive cells in the retina" would be insufficient for seeing ANYTHING. THAT'S what you keep failing to understand.

NO they wouldn't be capable of seeing light even with the "photoreceptors".

When I said retina,I meant as it is today AS IN EVEN IF I GAVE YOU EVERY PART OF THE RETINA it STILL wouldn't be enough to see even light. I alreadybexplained abive why the retina on its own is INSUFFICIENT to see ANYTHING including light.

[Lincoln Clark]

" A mere dot of light on a super primitive membrane (retina) attached to a super primitive bundle of nerves attached to a super primitive nervous system, hopefully a primitive kind-of-brain, would react to the sudden change in its biology when you put it in shade."
1. Okay. You are basically saying retina->attached to "bundle of nerves" (?) -> attached to brain -> can now somehow sense light.

Maybe if I could just see some sort of evidence of an organism beung able to function like that or SOME sort of evidence instead of just hypothetical opinions, then I could at LEAST rethink my eye example.

[Jose Butler]

Better make it fast if someone is going to post because I'm going to sleep soon and this will definitely be deleted by morning.

[Justin Walker]

>Those "light sensitive cells in the retina" would be insufficient for seeing ANYTHING
Light sensitive cells in the retina would be insufficient. Light sensitive cells in the retina would not react to light. Light sensitive cells, would not react to light. Light sensitive cells in the retina would not produce a signal upon reacting to light, as they are sensitive to light. Light sensitive cells in the retina would not produce a signal if connected to a bundle of nervous tissue capable of relaying signals. An eye would not be able to see if it had light sensitive cells in the retina. Photoreceptors are insufficient for receiving photons.

Hmm.

>When I said retina,I meant as it is today
>I already addressed that (the x,y,z thing I mentioned above)
If you already addressed the kind-of-eye topic, then you can't mean the retina as it is today. That is the issue in the kind-of-eye topic.

>AS IN EVEN IF I GAVE YOU EVERY PART OF THE RETINA it STILL wouldn't be enough to see even light
If you give a creature 1/3rd of an eye it is blind. There is no argument.
>I alreadybexplained abive why the retina on its own is INSUFFICIENT to see ANYTHING including light
And I explained why you were right, and then went on to explain that no creature has a retina as it is today in, say, Humans. Because some creatures today still have retinas that are incredibly simplistic.

>You are basically saying retina->attached to "bundle of nerves" (?) -> attached to brain -> can now somehow sense light
>Retina creates a chemical code-> code travels through the optic nerve-> from there it goes to the visual cortex where the code is decoded and an image is manufactured

>Maybe if I could just see some sort of evidence of an organism beung able to function like that
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautilus

[Luke Young]

>no creature has a retina as it is today in
Change that to
>no creature has a retina on its own as it is today in

[Colton Wood]

1. You are basically saying the opposite of what you wrote as you were being sarcastic right? For this,look at number 3 as it will basically address the issue if you provide evidence. I know how they work,I was arguing by themselves I don't see how they would be sufficient enough to be functional even if "bundle of nerves" -> attached to brain"

2. "If you already addressed the kind-of-eye topic, then you can't mean the retina as it is today. That is the issue in the kind-of-eye topic."
You missed my point. I am saying that even if it were as sophisticated as it is today,it wouldn't be sufficient.

3. I'm not going to read the whole wiki so just copy and paste the specific text.

[Ethan Lewis]

Even if they were*

[Levi Hill]

Point im making when I say "as it is today" = doesn't matter how well built the retina is,it wouldn't be enoug. Again,look at #3. Address my point with a quote from the wiki. I am sleeping soon but well see

[Kevin Stewart]

>I was arguing by themselves I don't see how they would be sufficient enough to be functional even if "bundle of nerves" -> attached to brain"
By noting the
> ->
it should have been obvious that the ability of sight was not achieved by one component, but by all components working together as one. Like an eye.

>I am saying that even if it were as sophisticated as it is today,it wouldn't be sufficient
No one has argued otherwise. There have been several agreements on this very fact. A retina like the one in your eye attached to the dermis on your elbow will not give you sight. Yes.

>I'm not going to read the whole wiki
How about we go even further and talk about Planarians, who have eye-spots which are called Ocelli. Simplistic eyes. No lenses, no corneas. Planarians in particular have curved "pits", the inside of which is covered with a layer of light sensitive cells, a retina, which is heavily pigmented. That's it.

[Tyler Stewart]

wtf is this shit , stop whoring for attention and do it

[Landon Kelly]

"it should have been obvious that the ability of sight was not achieved by one component, but by all components working together as one. Like an eye."

Yes i know that. I GET THAT. That wasnt the issue here. What i was arguing was that it didn't seem like it would be sufficient.

">I am saying that even if it were as sophisticated as it is today,it wouldn't be sufficient
No one has argued otherwise. There have been several agreements on this very fact. A retina like the one in your eye attached to the dermis on your elbow will not give you sight. Yes."

You misunderstood me a bit but whatever. Look above.

"How about we go even further and talk about Planarians, who have eye-spots which are called Ocelli. Simplistic eyes. No lenses, no corneas. Planarians in particular have curved "pits", the inside of which is covered with a layer of light sensitive cells, a retina, which is heavily pigmented. That's it."

This is the only real data I see here. I am dead serious when I say I look more into it. For now,goodbye. 2am and i have work. Really, maybe this could convince me. Just maybe but i will dissect the info i find as much as i can.

[Bentley King]

>The reason i can't do it yet is ONLY because I fear hell.
No need. There is no hell. It's just that your fate is unfortunate in that your spirit is not allowed to soar free yet. Everybody has a certain date that they will actually die on and your date is in the future. It's "up to you" (while it really isn't) how far in the future it is. Personally I've been waiting on a gun even though I could've hanged myself while telling myself that hanging might go awry. But so many people hang themselves that it probably wouldn't. In other words, it's been my destiny to not die yet and be here shitposting instead on this January day in 2018. God knows I will die soon though, heh.

[Christopher Torres]

I will do as I noted above and research more about the eye and its minimum requirements to function and see for myself what makes the most sense.

Goodnight. I am going to bed now.

[Dylan Cruz]

A fine example of slave morality, senpai. Sweet dreams.