What is the greatest evidence against the theory of evolution...?

[ClothedInGrace]

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?

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

Well, that's your opinion. I believe the human eye is a beautifully crafted organ which allows us to behold the beauty of creation.

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

I see no fault in a healthy human eye,

Then your position requires a rejection of the facts, a characteristic common among creationists.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Does this cloud have the appearance of a duck?

Does that mean it IS a duck?

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.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

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.

Replication is quite a process, wouldn't you say? How is the complexity of replication not analogous to the complexity of a computer?

 

[ClothedInGrace]

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.

Again, I'm sorry you don't like your eyes.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Please present evidence that life is designed.

We know what a cloud is and how they form,

We also know how life evolves.

but we have yet to figure out where life comes from and how it got to be.

We may not know where the first life came from, but we do know that life evolved through natural processes after that point.

Scientists might think they have the answers, but the only answer they have so far is that we mutated from soup.

No scientist says that.

 

[Loudmouth]

Again, I'm sorry you don't like your eyes.

Again, you are rejecting facts.

 

[Loudmouth]

Replication is quite a process, wouldn't you say? How is the complexity of replication not analogous to the complexity of a computer?

It isn't comparable because computers don't replicate, so they can't evolve complexity as life does.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Then your position requires a rejection of the facts, a characteristic common among creationists.

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?

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Please present evidence that life is designed.

What evidence do you need? I think the genius of life is enough to see that it is designed.

We also know how life evolves.

Mutation, right?

We may not know where the first life came from, but we do know that life evolved through natural processes after that point.

How convenient.

No scientist says that.

What do they say?

 

[Chris B]

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'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?

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Again, you are rejecting facts.

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?

 

[Loudmouth]

The human eye was made for seeing; I can see, and quite well at that.

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.

There is no fault in my mind.

That is, again, a position that requires the rejection of facts, a trait common among creationists.

There is in your mind because the evolutionary biologists told you that you are the product of millions of years of mutations.

Can you please point to evolution in this explanation?

"You are still ignoring the fact that the tissue in front of the light sensing cells reduces both resolution

How should we go about mutating ourselves a better eye in your worldview?

The cephalopod eye (i.e. squid and octopus) would be a better eye.

 

[Loudmouth]

What facts?

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 the organization of the eye.

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 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 the organization of the eye.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

You still have a problem of getting that replicator to assemble first.

We have evidence of life on Earth, so that isn't a problem. The theory of evolution doesn't require abiogenesis. Just life.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

My belief is based on the knowledge that I was created.

That is a dogmatic religious belief, not knowledge.

Sure, there are many eyes which have problems, but a few problems don't diminish their magnificence.

That would be the dogma part.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

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.

Should we just cut it out then?

That is, again, a position that requires the rejection of facts, a trait common among creationists.

Yes, because I must believe everything you do, is that right?

The cephalopod eye (i.e. squid and octopus) would be a better eye.

In your mind. I'd like to see someone surgically place an octopus eye on a human being and see how that works out.