The Eye Proves Creationism
- Thread starter rockytopva
- Start date
Generality - Evolution
Specifics...
1. The diameter of the eye
2. The filling of the eye, which must remain clear and cannot contain blood vessels
3. The rods and cones - The ability to see shades of grey and color
4. The lens - which must expand and contract to focus the image to the retina
5. The retina also receives the image upside down.
6. The brains ability to build imagination based upon the images sensed from the eye
7. The brains ability to retain memory of the images sensed from the eye.
8. Tears - Must contain chemistry to keep the eye lubricated.
9. The eyes - Which must work together to build the image in the imagination.
The advantage of the evolutionist is in the generalities...
Specifics...
1. The diameter of the eye
2. The filling of the eye, which must remain clear and cannot contain blood vessels
3. The rods and cones - The ability to see shades of grey and color
4. The lens - which must expand and contract to focus the image to the retina
5. The retina also receives the image upside down.
6. The brains ability to build imagination based upon the images sensed from the eye
7. The brains ability to retain memory of the images sensed from the eye.
8. Tears - Must contain chemistry to keep the eye lubricated.
9. The eyes - Which must work together to build the image in the imagination.
The advantage of the evolutionist is in the generalities...
Upvote
0
Wunderlust
Well-Known Member
Scientist don't call God a liar. God's word does not support creationism. Creationism was made up by men.
Which points to evolution.
Upvote
0
Wunderlust
Well-Known Member
What? Do you even understand evolution?
God didn't write the bible. God inspired the bible.
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,279
- 8,500
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
What was the temperature inside your mailbox 30 seconds ago?
Please show all your work: ________________________________________________________________
Complex eyes appear to have first evolved within a few million years, in the rapid burst of evolution known as the Cambrian explosion.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,279
- 8,500
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
If one is unable to scientifically determine what happened 30
seconds ago, I can't give credit for farther back than that.
Science can predict but it cannot “retrodict.”
One cannot reliably surmise past events from physical evidence
unless there is only one plausible explanation for that evidence.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Well, one can scientifically determine what happened 30 seconds ago, so whatever your point is, I think you need to try making it another way.
Upvote
0
- Jan 10, 2010
- 37,279
- 8,500
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
No. Science cannot predict or prove the past. The past is always conjecture.
Upvote
0
No, it's not. The past can be described within certain limits of accuracy using scientific analysis.
Note; no, science cannot "prove" the past, but science doesn't "prove" anything. It merely determines evidence that either supports or doesn't support a given hypothesis, which, in turn, determines the likelihood of said hypothesis being accurate.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Radrook
Well-Known Member
- Feb 25, 2016
- 11,536
- 2,723
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Excerpt:
A review of research on the vertebrate retina indicates that the existing inverted design in vertebrates is superior to the verted design, even the system used by the most advanced cephalopods. New research has discovered that the retina has a complex neurological feedback system that improves contrast and sharpens edges without sacrificing shadow detail. (Jackman et al. 2011). As a result, the human eye is superior to a camera at simultaneously capturing contrast while at the same time picking up faint details.
Its design has been maximized for life in our environment and would no doubt function poorly in another environment such as that experienced by undersea bottom dwellers. The blind spot does not, even to a minor degree, interfere with vision effectiveness. This review supports Hamilton’s conclusion thatinstead 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)
Rather than being fired, our camera designer would no doubt be promoted for utilizing a less obvious, but a far more functional retina design. Gratitude rather than impertinence seems a more appropriate response to its ingenious design.
The Human Retina Shows Evidence of Good Design
A review of research on the vertebrate retina indicates that the existing inverted design in vertebrates is superior to the verted design, even the system used by the most advanced cephalopods. New research has discovered that the retina has a complex neurological feedback system that improves contrast and sharpens edges without sacrificing shadow detail. (Jackman et al. 2011). As a result, the human eye is superior to a camera at simultaneously capturing contrast while at the same time picking up faint details.
Its design has been maximized for life in our environment and would no doubt function poorly in another environment such as that experienced by undersea bottom dwellers. The blind spot does not, even to a minor degree, interfere with vision effectiveness. This review supports Hamilton’s conclusion thatinstead 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)
Rather than being fired, our camera designer would no doubt be promoted for utilizing a less obvious, but a far more functional retina design. Gratitude rather than impertinence seems a more appropriate response to its ingenious design.
The Human Retina Shows Evidence of Good Design
Upvote
0
Sorry, I read your referenced work and saw nothing to justify the claim that the inverted design is "superior" in any way. All I saw were nice descriptions about how great our vision is and how it does a great job. And that was never in contention.
Upvote
0
pat34lee
Messianic
You are assuming again. What makes you think both designs were not created specifically for the species and environment where they live? Because that is exactly what happened.
Do squids or octopi have binocular vision? Is their vision designed for both near and far?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
