When will those interesting proponents of "Intelligent Design" give up on using the eye to support their case

Question

An answer to an earlier question used the "complexity" of the eye to suggest their must be a "designer"(gee........does that mean a god?), and that evolution is obviously wrong because of that. When will these guys get an education or learn how to research?

The box jellyfish is a marvelous example of the eyes evolution. It has well developed lenses which focus poorly. The reason for the poor focus is they don't have a brain to proccess the information, so the eyes (4 sets of six) have a single purpose that they have evolved for. As brains developed in other animals, their was more use for these eyes and their funcinality improved.

A quick search for an article to back up my arguement led me to this location: http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/jellyfish_eyes/

sonfai.........If you pay attention, you'll find each of those points gets addressed here regularly.

Did you bother going to the link and reading it?

Did you understand its signifigance?

clowns..........do you have any comprehension of how long a billion years is?

Yes, changes happen bit by bit over a long time, a billion years is a REALLY long time.

ddead............you need to read stuff other than what your church throws at you. Try reading the evidence for the plaintiff in the Dover trial. The judge found that kind of compelling. There are mountains of evidence supporting "macro" evolution as you like to call it.

Did you bother reading the linked article?

I bothered to read your cut & paste, which by the way, does nothing to support your case.

Of course changes can happen quickly. Biology textbooks are full of such examples.

How about you try opening your mind?

MartinS.....In a valley in Pakistan, 5 stages of the evolution from land dwelling mammal to wahale were found 15 years ago.

Get your facts straight buddy!

Answer 1

We'll give up on our side the day that you explain spontaneous generation, degenerative biological mutations, the cambrian explosion, the absence of missing links and the exposed hoaxes designed to mislead, the overcoming of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the kalam argument, the existence of the mind, the origin of DNA and information, why there has been not one single example of macroevolution ever recorded in all of history, the absence of evidence from the archeological record etc etc etc. The eye design argument was in reaction to evolutionists saying it was poorly designed. All the intelligent design camp did was explain that actually it serves it's purpose remarkably well.

Answer 2

You're fighting hard for evolution! What does it get you?

If those of us who believe things were designed and see this design easily and have faith, what does it get us?
First, we have happiness (in your opinion unwarranted -- but we still have it)
We have hope.
We have a conviction of being resurrected if we die!
We have a conviction that in a short time all of you guys will have gone the way of the dinosaurs -- forever.
We even have prayer -- and the funny thing, when we pray we are answered! These are not imaginary answers, these are palpable answers, real answer to real problems.

I wonder who does the answering! The primordial amoeba that first evolved and is looking over all you evolutionist? or God!

So enjoy your freedom while it last to evolve downward because that is what you're doing -- while we evolve upward toward God, toward salvation.

Answer 3

When you look at the comments by the individual sonfai81 you realise that some creationists are just destined to spend their lives rejecting the indisputable fact of biological evolution- you could never change the mind of anyone so gullible no matter what evidence you provided. His tirade all sounds very impressive with lots of big words- in reality it's total crap.

Answer 4

tell inform you the actuality i'm no longer sturdy with memorials. I recommend for sure you'll talk about how large he replaced into & did not deserve what got here about to him & each and each of the sturdy he would have carried out had this no longer got here about. he's one of those sturdy-searching dogs. It truly frustrates me how some risky human beings can enable their risky recommendations carry over into risky moves. human beings in this existence truly favor to start up training themselves, so such issues as this would nicely be prevented. human beings are continuously going to have their reviews about Pit's & "Pit varieties" yet truly, it truly is so VERY unnecessary to be afraid on your existence round those mind-blowing dogs. i desire this guy will pay for what he did & possibly have a psychological evaluation too. upload-i do no longer recognize ways all and sundry can say this officer took the most excellent moves...for a million the dogs replaced into shot contained in the rear..hi?! for yet another, the moves he took the position perfect for a flesh eating Zombie, no longer a treatment dogs.

Answer 5

Thyroid disease is one of the most common health problems we face today. From a practical standpoint, there are many ways to approach this issue. Learn here https://tr.im/2rUcg

Hypothyroidism, or underactive thyroid, is a very common problem, and there are many reasons for this, including drinking chlorinated and fluoridated water, and eating brominated flour.

Chlorine, fluoride, and bromine are all in the same family as iodine, and can displace iodine in your thyroid gland.

Secondly, many people simply aren't getting enough iodine in their diet to begin with. The amount you get from iodized salt is just barely enough to prevent you from getting a goiter.

Answer 6

I'll use this one instead. it takes billions of years for one small change. after a couple small changes that's several billion years look at thousands of small changes that's hundreds of million years and that still fish or less. so some scientist say aliens planted us here. If you want to believe in evolution I really don't care. its what you believe and that is fine by me. but do me a favor I'll try to stop the fundies with that argument is you just stop calling us deist illogical. I've thought my believes though and there for me. I will not push them on anybody else. do we have a deal.

Answer 7

Darwin’s finches
Evidence supporting rapid post-Flood adaptation
by Carl Wieland

Thirteen species of finches live on the Galápagos, the famous island group visited by Charles Darwin in the 1830s. The finches have a variety of bill shapes and sizes, all suited to their varying diets and lifestyles. The explanation given by Darwin was that they are all the offspring of an original pair of finches, and that natural selection is responsible for the differences.

Surprisingly to some, this is the explanation now held by most modern creationists. It would not need to be an ‘evolutionary’ change at all, in the sense of giving any evidence for amoeba-to-man transformation. No new genetic information would have been introduced. If the parent population has sufficient created variability (genetic potential) to account for these varied features in its descendants, natural selection could take care of the resulting adaptation, as a simplistic example will show.

Say some finches ended up on islands in which there was a shortage of seeds, but many grubs were living under tree bark. In a population with much variation, some will have longer, some shorter, beaks than average. Those birds carrying more of the ‘long-beak’ information could survive on those grubs, and thus would be more likely to pass the information on to their descendants, while the others would die out. In this way, with selection acting on other characters as well, a ‘woodpecker finch’ could arise.

The same thing is seen in artificial selection, with all the various modern breeds of dogs being more specialized than the parent (mongrel) population, but carrying less information—and thus less potential for further selection (you can’t breed Great Danes from Chihuahuas). In all these sorts of changes, finches are still finches and dogs are dogs. The limits to change are set by the amount of information originally present from which to select.

Creationists have long proposed such ‘splitting under selection’ from the original kinds, explaining for example wolves, coyotes, dingoes and other wild dogs from one pair on the Ark. The question of time has, however, been seized upon by anti-creationists. They insist that it would take a much longer time than Scripture allows. Artificial selection is quick, they admit, but that is because breeders are deliberately acting on each generation. The usual ‘guesstimate’ of how long it took for Darwin’s finches to radiate from their parent population ranges from one million to five million years.

However, Princeton zoology professor Peter Grant recently released some results of an intensive 18-year study of all the Galápagos finches during which natural selection was observed in action.1 For example, during drought years, as finches depleted the supply of small seeds, selection favoured those with larger, deeper beaks capable of getting at the remaining large seeds and thus surviving, which shifted the population in that direction.

While that is not very surprising, nor profound, the speed at which these changes took places was most interesting. At that observed rate, Grant estimates, it would take only 1,200 years to transform the medium ground finch into the cactus finch, for example. To convert it into the more similar large ground finch would take only some 200 years.

Notice that (although the article fails to mention it) such speedy changes can have nothing to do with the production of any new genes by mutation, but are based upon the process described, that is, choosing from what is already there. It therefore fails to qualify as evidence for real, uphill (macro) evolution — though many starry-eyed students will doubtless be taught it as ‘evolution in action’.

Instead, it is real, observed evidence that such (downhill) adaptive formation of several species from the one created kind can easily take place in a few centuries. It doesn't need millions of years. The argument is strengthened by the fact that, after the Flood, selection pressure would have been much more intense—with rapid migration into new, empty niches, residual catastrophism and changing climate as the Earth was settling down and drying out, and simultaneous adaptive radiation of differing food species.

Reference
P.R. Grant, ‘Natural Selection and Darwin’s Finches’, Scientific American, 265(4):60–65, October 1991.

Source(s):

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation...

Answer 8

Excellent reference, for which much thanks!

Yeah, it's incredible that Creationists are still banging on about eyes, as if they were a measure of anything besides their own ignorance.

CD

Answer 9

Just as the jellyfish used his eyes more than his brain.
So do some people.
We, all, have free will...to decide right or wrong. We, all, have freewill to decide if we are from what you call an "Intelligent Design" which we call the Heavenly Father.
Or, if we are like people like you...how is your eyesight...did you use it more than your brain?

Answer 10

God invented evolution -- to deny it is blasphemy.