Posted on 08/17/2009 1:26:14 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The evolution of the eye has always been a dilemma for evolutionists from Darwin’s time to the present. Although Darwin, Richard Dawkins and other evolutionists have tried to explain how an eye could evolve, their solutions are clearly unsatisfactory. Many kinds of eyes exist, but no progression of eye designs from simple to complex can be produced in the natural or fossil world. Furthermore, the simplest ‘eye’, the eyespot, is not an eye but pigmented cells used for phototaxis; yet even it requires an enormously complex mechanism in order to function as a vision system...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Yeah, you too.
I'm just watching a flick with faggots and Christina Ricci (back when she still had meat on her bones). Slow entertainment night for me.
NO sir!
MY questions come from ME and MY conversations on many EVOLUTIONISTS websites.
I am an amateur scientist and one of the best Electronic Techs in my fields of study.
I don’t agree with either the YEC nor the IDer’s.
MY questions come from YEARS of observation and scripture study.
regards
Yep,
She used to be cute.
Good night, Sir.
OMG.....an eye hasn't survived millions of years to be studied as a fossil????? OMG an eye hasn't survived tens of thousands of years to be studied as a fossil????? That means Man walked with dinosaurs!!!
Lots of false claims. WOW....an out of context quote.....that means Man walked with dinosaurs!!!! Hint: why would he say something is "completely absurd" and then describe a possible mechanism for it?
OMG....the eye is extremely complex (not really, once, you know, you've actually studied them)....that means Man walked with dinosaurs!!!
Gee, the eye goes back 540 million years? you mean Man didn't walk with dinosaurs in the last 4500 years?
LOVE this one:
The possibility of classifying eyes in living animals from simple to complex—simple types existing in simple animals and complex types in complex animals (which we will show cannot be done)—does not provide evidence for an evolutionary relationship.
Wow.....set up a system designed to fail and when the system fails, claim the negative is affirmative. AKA....making it up as you go.
Darwinists need to determine the eye designs from which existing eyes have actually descended, one from the other, over time.
Got a time machine? This is the classic tactic of determining something that someone needs to determine that can never be determined.....without a time machine. OMG....that means Man walked with dinosaurs!!!!!
Enough said.
I don’t agree with either the YEC nor the IDer’s.
What do you agree with?
Because ignorant questions often have no reasonable answers. They are trick questions designed to sway only the ignorant.
also an ordained minister and certified bio-med tech! What else?
If scientists work their tails off trying to prove a hypothesis and fail, then it was in vain and there is no reason to think they have advanced the cause of truth in any way. Such is the case with atheistic evolution.
Yes.
Certainly not to me, but I guess some are a little more rational and some tend to go to explaining everything by unseen supernatural forces.
I believe that the Intelligence behind Intelligent Design is God Just my feeling :-)
Yet, I've seen you further the number that 60% believe in a YOUNG EARTH Creation....which would put those that believe in a "creation of SOME sort" well over "half".....so which is it?
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the evolution itself is also an “unseen” force. That’s my point. Its no more rational to believe in it than to believe in a creator. “Rational” does not equal “without God”.
It’s not unseen. You cna see changes and adaptation to environments all around you.
Oh well, you’re not interested in expanding your views on this subject, and I already know what the creation side thinks, so this is done.
And more to the point, we were talking about someone that had access to the fossil record but no biblical knowledge. This is the opposite situation of what the world was like until the 1800’s or so.
In that situation, just looking at the evidence, there’s simply no WAY someone would say all the species were formed at the same time and have only died off with no new ones appearing. I’m sorry you don’t agree, but it’s true.
You can also see creation all around you. In fact, I created a note to a friend this very morning. The note did not just evolve into a note; I created it.
I see you are not interested in expanding your views on this subject, and I already know what the evolution side thinks, so I agree that this is done.
I don’t see any God creating things on a day to day basic. I do see natural processes however, including humans. Your comparison is completely wrong.
basis
I note that you lump “evolution” into the “natural processes” that you see around you. That is simply begging the question: IS natural selection a real, natural process like growth of a embryo into an adult, etc.? In order to make the connection between the two, you need to make the leap from the observable (embryo into adult) to the unobservable (evolution of species). My point is that this is no more “rational” than making the leap from the observable (my creation of the note to my friend, or a complex machine) to the unobservable (a creator’s creation of complex organisms).
If you’re presented with the fossil record, the only rational explanation of transition fossils is a transition between them. Otherwise, you’re into the ‘God set things up to trick us’ realm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.