I see no fault in a healthy human eye, as I can use it for everything God intended me to use it for. You have just been taught this lie that octopus eyes are somehow better than yours.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I see no fault in a healthy human eye, as I can use it for everything God intended me to use it for. You have just been taught this lie that octopus eyes are somehow better than yours.The same way that the octopus obtained it.
If you were designing a digital camera, would you have the wires cross in front of the light path before it got to the sensor? Obviously not. So why design the vertebrate eye that way, especially given the fact that you supposedly designed the octopus eye without those faults?
Well, that's your opinion. I believe the human eye is a beautifully crafted organ which allows us to behold the beauty of creation.
I see no fault in a healthy human eye,
One could make it out to be a duck, yes. But, is a cloud formation a good analogy to compare with the biology of life? One is clearly designed. We know what a cloud is and how they form, but we have yet to figure out where life comes from and how it got to be. Scientists might think they have the answers, but the only answer they have so far is that we mutated from soup.Does this cloud have the appearance of a duck?
Does that mean it IS a duck?
Replication is quite a process, wouldn't you say? How is the complexity of replication not analogous to the complexity of a computer?There is one massive problem with your analogy. Computers don't replicate. Life does. It is the ability to replicate which allows life to evolve without intelligence.
Again, I'm sorry you don't like your eyes.It isn't an opinion that the tissue in front of the light sensitive cells in our retina reduce both resolution and sensitivity. It is a fact.
One could make it out to be a duck, yes. But, is a cloud formation a good analogy to compare with the biology of life? One is clearly designed.
We know what a cloud is and how they form,
but we have yet to figure out where life comes from and how it got to be.
Scientists might think they have the answers, but the only answer they have so far is that we mutated from soup.
Replication is quite a process, wouldn't you say? How is the complexity of replication not analogous to the complexity of a computer?
The human eye was made for seeing; I can see, and quite well at that. There is no fault in my mind. There is in your mind because the evolutionary biologists told you that you are the product of millions of years of mutations. How should we go about mutating ourselves a better eye in your worldview?Then your position requires a rejection of the facts, a characteristic common among creationists.
What evidence do you need? I think the genius of life is enough to see that it is designed.Please present evidence that life is designed.
Mutation, right?We also know how life evolves.
How convenient.We may not know where the first life came from, but we do know that life evolved through natural processes after that point.
What do they say?No scientist says that.
Well, that's your opinion. I believe the human eye is a beautifully crafted organ which allows us to behold the beauty of creation.
What facts? The fact that our eyes are made differently than an octopus eye, and that evolutionary biologists look at them and deem one better than the other?Again, you are rejecting facts.
The human eye was made for seeing; I can see, and quite well at that.
There is no fault in my mind.
There is in your mind because the evolutionary biologists told you that you are the product of millions of years of mutations.
How should we go about mutating ourselves a better eye in your worldview?
What facts?
The fact that our eyes are made differently than an octopus eye, and that evolutionary biologists look at them and deem one better than the other?
You still have a problem of getting that replicator to assemble first.It isn't comparable because computers don't replicate, so they can't evolve complexity as life does.
You still have a problem of getting that replicator to assemble first.
My belief is based on the knowledge that I was created. Sure, there are many eyes which have problems, but a few problems don't diminish their magnificence.I've looked at a couple of hundred thousand eyeballs.
A distinct proportion of them with problems.
Trying to eke the best performance out of an eye affected with untreatable macular degeneration does not spark the thought "beautifully crafted" in my mind.
Your opinion is based upon what observations?
Or is it assembled on some other basis?
My belief is based on the knowledge that I was created.
Sure, there are many eyes which have problems, but a few problems don't diminish their magnificence.
Should we just cut it out then?You are still ignoring the fact that the tissue in front of the light sensing cells reduces both resolution and sensitivity. You could see better if it were not for the flaws in organization of the eye.
Yes, because I must believe everything you do, is that right?That is, again, a position that requires the rejection of facts, a trait common among creationists.
In your mind. I'd like to see someone surgically place an octopus eye on a human being and see how that works out.The cephalopod eye (i.e. squid and octopus) would be a better eye.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?