FAO: Bane - You Mentioned the Eye

by cantleave 56 Replies latest jw friends

  • cantleave

    I don't want to Hijack the other thread.

    You mention the eye being better than any camera so lets discuss this. I used to give a Talk where I would use the complexity of the eye as evidence of creation, but I have since changed my mind and below is the reasoning that helped me do so.

    I would welcome you comments and reasoning against this.

    If you had a choice between being totally blind and being able to see things out of focus, which would you pick.

    I'm sure you would, like me prefer to have out of focus vision, than no vision at all.

    Would you rather have vision that was out of focus and devoid of color, or be totally blind. I'm sure you prefer the colour option.

    How about if you could only see vague shapes around you or blindness? Once again any type of vision would be better than being blind.

    And finally, if the only thing you could detect was if they were in the light or the dark, would that be better than blindness?

    The truth is no matter how limited, any form of light detection and the ability to respond to it has great advantages over being completely blind, eyes at any stage of development are useful.

    The thing is we are surrounded by examples of eyes at all stages of development, from the highly developed (but still flawed) human eye to simple light sensitive cells on some creatures, and everything in between. If they were created, why would God limit some creatures to poor sight and give good sight to others?

    This short from an old documentary by Richard Dawkins is very easy to understand, and still current.


    Next, in wikipedias article on the subject you’ll find examples of animals whose eyes hasn’t evolved to quite the same standard as ours. They’re just pinhole cameras on the nautilus, or simply a light-sensitive pit on a planarium. The links at the bottom contain more examples.


    Finally, the irreducible complexity argument related to the eye relies on the idea that if it lost any component or were slightly simpler, it would be useless. Here’s Richard Dawkins again during Growing up in the universe, adding components to a model eye one by one (fast forward a bit if you like, and then go to part 2), and getting plenty of use out of it long before it’s finished.



  • cantleave

    Just found this very interesting little video - says the same sort of thing.


  • cantleave

    Double Post

  • cantleave

    BTTT for Bane to answer me and convince that the eye was created and not evolved.

  • cantleave

    C'mon Bane - convince me that the eye could only have been created.

  • Mickey mouse
    Mickey mouse

    Thanks Cantleave, I read this and appreciated it.

  • ambersun

    Sorry I'm not Bane, but I would also like to express my appreciation for posting these videos, cantleave.

    As you say, Richard Dawkins is very easy to understand. I found them fascinating.

    Thank you!!

  • cantleave

    MM and ambersun, as I say the logic demonstrated on these videos really helped me to open my mind and dispel the cognitive dissonance that kept me from thinking properly my whole life.

  • cantleave

    Not one of our resident apologists has helped me to see how the eye proves creation.

    Debater, Alice whoever - please help me - I'm searching for truth here.

  • cantleave

    Bttt -for the last time today- Bane, please help me to reconcile the existence of god with the eye, as you said you could do in answer to me on another thread. I am open minded to a good logical debate on this issue.

Share this