The Eye Proves Creationism

[rockytopva]

Eyes...

1. We have two!
2. They work in sync with one another
3. The chemistry of the eye needs to be clear so the image can travel through to the eyeball.
4. They can produce lubricating chemistry
5. The eyeball needs to be of perfect dimension so the image can focus on the retina
6. You need a lens and muscles to focus the image on the retina
7. You need an iris to let in the desirable amount of light.

The brain uses these images to build imagination. Imagination is like multi-media and takes a lot of processing power.

 

[pgp_protector]

I think 'we' have over active imaginations and understand nothing about organic chemistry.

Are you talking about yourself?

 

[rockytopva]

Are you talking about yourself?

What I am saying is that it takes brains and intelligent design to create the organic chemistry needed for tasks such as eye functions.

 

[JackRT]

What I am saying is that it takes brains and intelligent design to create the organic chemistry needed for tasks such as eye functions.

Considering that every sort of transitional eye is present in the fossil record and even in creatures presently living, I do not consider that to be a persuasive argument.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

mmm.... there's no 'eye' record , between other 'eyes' .... no evidence of eyes evolving ever, at all (unless someone changes the definitions to fit).

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

There is no flaw in all of YHWH'S WORK and CREATION !
Y'SHUA'S REVELATION
to each and every ecclesia, echad, is shalom, perfect and wondrous and beautiful and perfectly completely whole and right and true.

Does that include mosquitoes?

 

[pgp_protector]

Does that include mosquitoes?

or the Loa loa?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

mmm.... there's no 'eye' record , between other 'eyes' .... no evidence of eyes evolving ever, at all (unless someone changes the definitions to fit).

Let me get this straight. You notice that in all the eyes we have there are no eyes above and beyond the eyes we have between the eyes we have.

And you think that's a logical objection.

Part of the creationist problem is . . . . they won't see. The evidence is there and they refuse to see it. Then they say the don't see it and they think that is a logical objection.

 

[rockytopva]

A hummingbird’s brain makes up a whopping 4.2 percent of its weight; proportionally, that’s the largest of any bird’s. Inside that big brain is a veritable encyclopedia of important information. Studies have shown that hummingbirds can remember every flower they’ve ever visited, including on migration routes. They can figure out how long to wait between visits so the flowers have time to generate more nectar. They can even recognize humans, and know which ones can be counted on to refill empty hummingbird feeders.

Hummingbirds have terrific vision: They can see every color we can, and their eyes can process ultraviolet light, which means they can also see some colors we can’t. On top of that, hummingbirds are among the many animals gifted with a third set of eyelids. These translucent flaps of skin known as nictitating membranes act like natural flight goggles, protecting the hummingbird’s eyes as the little bird zooms through the air.

 

[Radrook]

Nope. We understand eye evolution quite well. No intelligent design required. Sorry.

If you understand it then please explain the emergence of the eye step by step .
Sorry but just claiming to understand doesn't prove understanding.

 

[Radrook]

In that case, the bad design is, instead, present in squids and octopi who have no such blind spot and so they are stuck with the bad consequences of not having a blind spot.

Uh . . . what were those consequences, again?

I Christians don't claim that the present design is the original design for humans. Any flaws detected are attributed to the fall from perfection. So the objection constitutes straw man.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I Christians don't claim that the present design is the original design for humans. Any flaws detected are attributed to the fall from perfection. So the objection constitutes straw man.

The backwards design is not a degeneration from a forwards design of the retina. NO land dwelling vertabrate has anything but the backwards design, a flaw inherited from their common ancestral species. The seperately evolved invertebrate species with eyes, they have the design wired more logically . . . nerves and blood vessels behind the light sensing organs. A success inherited from THEIR common ancestral species.

 

[pat34lee]

Uh . . . what were those consequences, again?

That the eyes work perfectly as they were
intended to do. Any other type of eye may
be useful in certain circumstances, but ours
are the best for seeing not only optimally, but
being able to see beauty in all of nature.

"instead of being a great disadvantage, or a “curse” or being incorrectly constructed, the inverted retina is a tremendous advance in function and design compared with the simple and less complicated verted arrangement. One problem amongst many, for evolutionists, is to explain how this abrupt major retinal transformation from the verted type in invertebrates to the inverted vertebrate model came about as nothing in paleontology offers any support. (Hamilton 1985, p. 63)"
https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/eyes/the-human-retina-shows-evidence-of-good-design/

 

[pat34lee]

Does that include mosquitoes?

Before they degenerated into blood suckers, yes.

 

[Radrook]

The backwards design is not a degeneration from a forwards design of the retina. NO land dwelling vertabrate has anything but the backwards design, a flaw inherited from their common ancestral species. The seperately evolved invertebrate species with eyes, they have the design wired more logically . . . nerves and blood vessels behind the light sensing organs. A success inherited from THEIR common ancestral species.

What do you mean by backwards design and forwards design of the retina?
Design implies a designer or a planning mind. Perhaps you should use another word.

Definition of design


: to plan and make decisions about (something that is being built or created) : to create the plans, drawings, etc., that show how (something) will be made

: to plan and make (something) for a specific use or purpose

: to think of (something, such as a plan) : to plan (something) in your mind

Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design

 

[Armoured]

Before they degenerated into blood suckers, yes.

Can you explain how that "degeneration" occurred without an evolutionary mechanism?

 

[Armoured]

What do you mean by backwards design and forwards design of the retina?
Design implies a designer or a planning mind. Perhaps you should use another word.



Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/design

And here we see why one doesn't look for scientific definitions in a general literature dictionary.

 

[Armoured]

If you understand it then please explain the emergence of the eye step by step .
Sorry but just claiming to understand doesn't prove understanding.

Why? are you just gunna play the "but what about the step between those two steps?" game? Because I gotta tell ya, I've played it before and I didn't care for it.

 

[Radrook]

And here we see why one doesn't look for scientific definitions in a general literature dictionary.

Well, that is the common usage of the word.
Evolutionists have their own definition of it?
I would suggest that they discard the term completely in order not to give a counterproductive impression to the general public who does perceive it that way.

 

[Radrook]

Why? are you just gunna play the "but what about the step between those two steps?" game? Because I gotta tell ya, I've played it before and I didn't care for it.

Well, if it is that frustrating then I don't blame you.