Yeah ever since the fall of man my eyes have been growing optical nerves all around, by 2050 the average human will have 12 blind spots per eye!!

@Andrew

Glad youy called on his bullshit, its a scienchristianly proved fact that nobody has ever chuckled while eating, its an atheist myth like evolution and gravity.

The one presented here is ridiculous for several reasons:

1) People are not smarter than God, and therefore have no right whatever to question how they were designed. (See the previous post #19 for examples of people who at least partially understood this)

2) The example you gave of a human eye with blood cells in front of the retina is actually a VERY GOOD design. This is because people live in the AIR, which does NOT do a good job of BLOCKING ultra-violet rays, which would otherwise destroy the extremely delicate light sensitive cells in your retina.

3) The example you gave of the octopus is also a VERY GOOD design. This is because octopuses live in the WATER, which filters out much of the ultra-violet light and also the visible light. Because of this, it was brilliant of God to give them a completely different eye that had less UV shielding and also greater light absorbing capacity.

As a closing thought, most evolutionists have a hard time answering the questions that they ask others. Could you explain why the god of evolution gave them the characteristics you described if you hadn’t first read my post?

I happen to be the admin of http://FreeHovind.com
Check it out for tons more creationist material!

The materialistic heathen are without excuse.

-Aubrey

Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker states…
“Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away from the light, with their wires departing on the side nearest the light. Yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate eyes. Each photocell is, in effect, wired in backwards, with its wires sticking out on the side nearest to the light. This means that the light, instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires, presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion (actually probably not much but, still, it is the principle of the thing that would offend any tidy-minded engineer!)”

Are you an eye expert Dick? Or are you just voicing an opinion? I don’t doubt you’re an intelligent bloke, but does your intelligence spill over into every field? Is biology your specialty?

Hmm… well, that’s one opinion, let’s see who else there is…

What about what’s his name from that famous book “The Origin Of Species”, what does it say on page 170?

“To suppose the eye… could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest sense” (pg 170).

Is Chucky an eye expert? If not, how could he come to form such a scathing opinion on his own evolutionary belief?

What about another evolutionist, how about ol Doc Robert Jastrow in his book “The Enchanted Loom” – what does he say on pages 96 and 97 of his book?

“The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better. How could this marvellous instrument have evolved by chance, through a succession of random events?”

I wonder if Robbie is an eye expert? Why would he say such things if he weren’t – especially being an evolutionist!

Hmm, I wonder if there are any eye experts around?

What about Dr Michael Denton?

Who?

You don’t know Mikie?

Everybody who’s anybody knows Dr Mikie.

He’s a Senior Research Fellow in Human Molecular Genetics at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. His speciality is in the genetics of human retinal disease.

I wonder what he has to say about the eye? I mean, he looks through his own and at other’s every day so he must know how imperfect they are, right?

Hmm, what does he say in his piece titled “The Inverted Retina: Maladaption or Pre-adaption” in Origins & Design (pp. 14-17) Winter 1999?

“The more deeply the design of the vertebrate retina is considered the more it appears that virtually every feature is necessary and that in redesigning from first principles an eye capable of the highest possible resolution (within the constraints imposed by the wavelength of light) and of the highest possible sensitivity (capable of detecting an individual photon of light) we would end up recreating the vertebrate eye – complete with an inverted retina and a choriocapillaris separated from the photoreceptor layer by a supportive epithelium layer and so forth.”

My goodness! An eye expert extolling design of an inverted retina and the big long words for a blind spot!

No.

Maybe he’s delusional.