Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   True science follows the evidence wherever it leads (The design of the eye)
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 49 (389508)
03-13-2007 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by ICdesign
03-12-2007 9:51 PM


It's story time agan...
Here is my beef with the theory of evolution in a simple nutshell. I don't see evolution (macro) taking place in the world in which I live right now today. What I see are species reproducing after their own kind only. Furthermore, if evolution took place in the past their would have to be thousands upon thousands of transitional forms among the millions of fossils we have uncovered in the past century and a half but their are none that the scientific community agrees are truly transitional. I just don't have the tremendous blind faith it takes to believe such a theory.
This statement so clearly shows your lack of understanding about the Theory of Evolution, that I cannot even know where to begin to start. Perhaps you should read a simple book on the subject. The children's section of your local library (if you even know how to find it) should have a descent amount of information to get you on your way.
Complexity requires forethought.
You have to prove this, and it will be difficult for you to do. You must show that there are NO cases of complexity without forethought. If there is even ONE case of complexity arising without forethought, then your claim that forethought is required for complexity goes out the window.
First of all how would a non-thinking source even know that we needed to see to begin with?
You should know, that the light our eyes detect are only a small span of the Electromagnetic spectrum. Also, there are many creatures who survive just find without sight, including blind humans, which I don't think you were considering when you wrote this.
(how would a non-thinking source know it needed blood?)
Well, the chances of any working parts of the body evolving without blood vessels is unlikely. Understanding what blood is will help you to understand why. The main functions of blood as they would pertain to an organ would be in oxygen and water/nutrients delivery and waste disposal for each of the cells. Nutrients is energy, and anything that does work requires energy. The eye does work, thus needs energy. So, if an eye had evolved without blood vessels, it would not have worked, and that creature would not have had the advantage that a creature with working eyes had. Those working eyes would only work with blood. So, a creature without blood in the eyes = no sight = no advantage. A creature WITH blood in the eyes = sight (even if just the detection of blurred light) = advantage. That advantage will pass on.
(how does a non-thinking source even know a focus is needed to see clear?)
This is an interesting statement. In fact, the method used by the human eye to focus is horrible in terms of its ability to sustain good sight. The focus method used employs a sort of rubber sphere which is stretched to make it thick or thin and change the focus. The problem, is that this sphere hardens as we grow old, and sooner or later it can only focus within a short range. So, old folk generally need some sort of optical assistance. A BETTER system (a system one would expect to see in an eye designed by an all-powerful Creator who put some forethought into His design) would use a moving lens--forward/backward--like a camera uses. This would limit the amount of parts susceptible to breaking down, and the only focus problems from sight then would be due to a lack of functionality in the moving parts, which would not have to be combined with that annoying rubbery sphere.
Then we have the iris that has muscles attached to change its shape to control how much light goes through the pupil.
But then we have northern European and Inuit folks who, if they had been put in their environment and created for it, should have different systems in place to better control light and prevent things like snow blindness. If there was a Creator, He put very little thought into what He was doing, and now people suffer from His slackly attitude toward His project.
It holds millions of cells that are sensitive to light.
Like I said before, light is only a small part of the many EM waves our eyes could be sensitive to. You think it is special because we sense it, but many animals could give a flying hoot about light and have no need for it at all, because they sense other EM radiation. Sensing light isn't special at all. In fact, it's almost restrictive because we see so little of the spectrum.
What about the simple aspect of the eyeball being perfectly round? That is design all by itself!
No, that's a false statement is what it is.
Their is much more that I could say about the genius design of the eye and sight but I feel like I have proven my point!
No, you have not. Have I proven mine?
__________
Jonicus "i DONT cdesign" Maximus
Edited by Jns, : Added to a quoted piece.

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by ICdesign, posted 03-12-2007 9:51 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ICdesign, posted 03-13-2007 10:47 PM Jon has replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 49 (389509)
03-13-2007 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by ICdesign
03-13-2007 10:22 PM


So you believe it is possible to have a design without any thought being involved then?
That was NOT your original argument. It was:
Complexity requires forethought.
Then it changed to:
DESIGN REQUIRES THOUGHT!!!
We have: complexity = thought = design, do we not? If so, then you need to actually show WHY complexity requires thought. IF you prove that complexity requires thought, then you must prove that the eye is complex. Then we would have: eye = complexity = thought = design Where your argument is lacking is in the area of support for your claim that the eye is complex and that complexity requires thought.
Jonicus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ICdesign, posted 03-13-2007 10:22 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by ICdesign, posted 03-13-2007 11:18 PM Jon has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 49 (389515)
03-13-2007 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ICdesign
03-13-2007 10:47 PM


Re: It's story time agan...
You said it well when you said their are no cases of complexity without forethought.
I don't think I ever said that. Please point out where I said that. In fact, I think I addressed that pretty clearly here:
quote:
Jonicus Message 6:
You must show that there are NO cases of complexity without forethought.
So, show me how my statement means what you think it means.
What are you so mad about Mr. blind man.
It's somewhat sad to see our newest Creationist member revert to the cheap-shot strategies so quick in the game. I can't imagine what you have for us next.
Jonicus
Edited by Jns, : removed reference to specific post 13, since it ended up being my own :-

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ICdesign, posted 03-13-2007 10:47 PM ICdesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 03-13-2007 10:58 PM Jon has not replied
 Message 17 by ICdesign, posted 03-13-2007 11:08 PM Jon has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 49 (389572)
03-14-2007 11:30 AM


PERSPECTIVE!
Why don't we try to get some things cleared up here, as it seems there is more 'talking at' than 'talking with' going on.
First:
quote:
OED design, n. 1. a. A plan or scheme conceived in the mind and intended for subsequent execution; the preliminary conception of an idea that is to be carried into effect by action; a project.
You cannot have design without a thinking designer, plain and simple. In fact, when IC says:"
DESIGN REQUIRES THOUGHT!!!
He/She is right on the money! So then, ultimately, where does the argument break down? We can all see there is something amiss, but if it is not in this part that has been argued so far, then where is it?
It's here:
ICDESIGN writes:
Complexity requires forethought.
quote:
OED complexity 1. Composite nature or structure.
___________
composite adj. 1. a. Made up of various parts or elements; compound; not simple in structure.
Nowhere in there does it say that complexity requires forethought. Design does, but complexity does not. Nevertheless, something which is designed can certainly be complex. Now, IC's primary argument hinges on the eye being complex and thus designed, but it's been shown that even if it is complex, it need not necessarily be designed in order to be such.
If IC is to keep to his/her claim that the eye is designed because it is complex, then he/she must either:
1) Prove that design is required for complexity to exist, or
2) Show that complexity requires thought in all instances of its occurance.
If IC cannot do either of the above, then his/her claim cannot stand.
Jonicus

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by ICdesign, posted 03-14-2007 6:14 PM Jon has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024