How could an eye form from NOTHING?
Evolutionists have NEVER properly addressed this.
That's like saying a Coke can formed over billions of years from nothing.
I suppose the aluminum formed itself, and then red paint was added after a few million years, and a couple of million years after that, some white paint "just happened" to spell out the words "Coca-Cola".
Please.
Oh, by the way, atheism IS a religion too.
2007-01-21 23:39:26 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Atheism is not religion.
Sorry for the thorough beating.
Nothing came from nowhere.
None of the theories makes any sense.... your option is to choose what you think suits you.
2007-01-22 00:01:17 · answer #1 · answered by Elcie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Evolutionist and biologists have addressed the increasing complexity of the eye. You're just using a creationist argument that's a couple of decades old and inanimate objects, like Coke cans, don't evolve.
From the linked article,
The eye is a famous example of a supposedly "irreducibly complex" structure: due to its many elaborate and interlocking parts, seemingly all dependent upon one another for proper functioning, it is frequently claimed that the eye could not have evolved through gradual, step-by-step, evolutionary improvements guided only by natural selection.
The argument that the eye could not have evolved is most commonly invoked in questions such as "What good is half an eye?" The assumption is that an incomplete eye would be completely useless for sight, and therefore an eye could never have evolved through the gradual, step-by-step progression required by modern evolutionary theory. However, this claim has been heavily disputed based on the plentiful evidence of suboptimal eyes in nature. Such eyes, despite their shortcomings, tend to be dramatically more useful for organisms than no eyes at all would be: people with visual impairments are generally much more able to function normally than people who are completely blind, and there are millions of species of animals with significantly simpler eyes than humans that nonetheless thrive, and are in many cases much more successful than similar species with still poorer vision. Thus eyes with decreased functionality, in humans and in numerous other species, still tend to be more beneficial than having no eyes at all.
Although the eye remains a common and popular example of complexity in arguments against evolution, some intelligent design and creationism advocates have abandoned the eye as an example of "irreducible complexity". As the detail and history of eye evolution have become better understood, its role in these circles has declined and been replaced by molecular and microscopic structures such as the flagellum. However, much as with the eye, research into these smaller-scale structures has also uncovered details of their evolution.
2007-01-21 23:49:37 · answer #2 · answered by Doug 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No person who ever belives in evolution ever said anything was formed from nothing.
Everything was formed form material found on earth, liquid, gas, solids which previously was formed from the gases and dust of space as planets were formed.
YOu would be much happier with an education and leave out all of the religious rhetic guess work.
2007-01-21 23:45:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Oh my. No wonder you don't 'believe' in evolution. You have absolutely no concept of what it actually is or how it actually works.
For starters, it doesn't say anything about the origins of life. That's a separate field called abiogenesis.
But you don't even have a clue as to those models work either. It was never 'poof' here it is. Even the Bible didn't happen like that.
2007-01-21 23:53:34 · answer #4 · answered by The angels have the phone box. 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Natural selection is in living things, not ''Coke cans''.Biological entites can change over time due to climate and other natural factors.By the way,atheism is not a religion,it is the absense of religion.Atheism is a philosophy.Your question is that of a six year old.How old are you anyway.
2007-01-21 23:52:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are comparing something organic like an eye to something inorganic like a can of coke. You should learn a little, read something other than the bible, look for some answers before asking a question like this.
2007-01-21 23:43:54 · answer #6 · answered by Nemesis 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Why does the bible lie? The bible says the world was created approx. 6,000 years ago and there is scientific proof that the world was here billions of years ago. Please tell me how anyone could go against PROOF and EVIDENCE of evolution. That beats me!! I prefer to know for sure and I love evidence of things. If there is a God then why would his word be a lie? If that is a lie then what else in the bible is? It's fine to believe that there is a God, but please don't tell me he created everything!!
2007-01-21 23:50:20 · answer #7 · answered by Stacy 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I agree. before asking an uneducated question do a little research first. changes happen for a reason over millions of years not just conjured up
2007-01-21 23:47:37 · answer #8 · answered by jrtoyboy 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You know, people with their scientific criticism of Evolution are great, and there are I think valid scientific criticisms.
But most people they give you this scenario of the coke can creating itself out of red paint and aluminum, or equivalent, and it just sorta, well, education is as education does. I think the poster's parents need to go back to that school they sent him and get their money back.
2007-01-21 23:44:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
What about a counter to your silly argument?
I suppose Adam and Eve were the only people on Earth and we are all their direct descendants?
They had 2 SONS .. NO daughters, read your bible .. it says so. Where did the rest of us come from?????
Get real .. your argument is just plain stupid.
2007-01-21 23:45:16 · answer #10 · answered by Chris G 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋