The Human Eye: A Double Standard?

[Anomalocaris]

There have been a computer simulation - admittedly at this point computer model of actual evolution must be highly empirical and not based on the detailed genetic and biochemical foundations of biological function - which suggest that under strong selection pressure, it would take on the order of a million generations for descendants of a complex multicellular animal with existent light sensing cells to evolve complex focusing camera eyes. Rather less to evolve a compound eye.

If the average reproductive cycle of the descendants of such a creature is five years, then 5 million years is the ballpark length of time it might take for first human like eye to appear after environment begin to strongly favor creatures with acute vision.

Based on genetic and biochemical evidence, we know the first light sensitive cell that is the actual genetic and biochemical ancestor to all modern animal eyes is an very ancient algae. It is at least 2 billion years old and three times older that the oldest suggestive hint of a complex multicellular animal. So we know at the very beginning of complex animal evolution, way before Cambrian,the basic genetic and biochemical basis of the eye is already part of the shared foundations of the animal kingdom.

So all that remains is an environmental change which makes benefit of accurate vision greater than the cost of maintaining the specialized cells to facilitate it, and a million generations, however that long that might take, half million to five million years is not unreasonable, for one to become surprised not that the seemingly irreducibly complex eye climbed the ladder of complexity step by step to evolve, but rather if such a complex but beneficial eye had not evolved under the circumstances.

[Cato]

Atheist discount God with no evidence He doesn't exist. Nothing wrong with speculation but it's no more useful than, "I don't know"- and much less honest. God through scripture tells us He is complex and perfect to the point of perfection.

Ah yes, the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' defense. If you actually care to know why this is absurd when it comes to your god read the linked article.

That is the situation with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. Until recent times, absence of evidence for his existence has not been sufficient to rule him out. However, we now have enough knowledge that we can identify many places where there should be evidence, but there is not. The absence of that evidence allows us to rule out the existence of this God beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-ste...82169.html

[Rhondazvous]

Atheist discount God with no evidence He doesn't exist. Nothing wrong with speculation but it's no more useful than, "I don't know"- and much less honest. God through scripture tells us He is complex and perfect to the point of perfection.

Ah yes, the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' defense. If you actually care to know why this is absurd when it comes to your god read the linked article.

That is the situation with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. Until recent times, absence of evidence for his existence has not been sufficient to rule him out. However, we now have enough knowledge that we can identify many places where there should be evidence, but there is not. The absence of that evidence allows us to rule out the existence of this God beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-ste...82169.html

The writers of the Bible gave us evidence that their specific god does not exist. We may not have evidence that there is no supernatural being floating around in hyperspace, but once you codify a specific god and give him attributes and actions in the phenomenal world and human history, any evidence against what is written is also evidence against the deity being written about.

[Minimalist]

So, what designed your gawd GC?

Primitive goat herders.

[Anomalocaris]

I

Atheist discount God with no evidence He doesn't exist. Nothing wrong with speculation but it's no more useful than, "I don't know"- and much less honest. God through scripture tells us He is complex and perfect to the point of perfection.

Ah yes, the 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' defense. If you actually care to know why this is absurd when it comes to your god read the linked article.

That is the situation with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. Until recent times, absence of evidence for his existence has not been sufficient to rule him out. However, we now have enough knowledge that we can identify many places where there should be evidence, but there is not. The absence of that evidence allows us to rule out the existence of this God beyond a reasonable doubt.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victor-ste...82169.html

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is evidence of the stupendously subhuman stupidity in those would assert such an unevidenced presence as would contradict innumerable other things for which we have present evidence. 

[Minimalist]

Absence of evidence is not proof of absence.....it sure as fuck is evidence of absence.

[Iroscato]

You truly enjoy spitting out stupidity, you haven't a leg to stand on, prove my statement wrong and I expect nothing but solid evidence that leads to proof, you challenged me so put up or shut up. By the way your response is typical of those who have no real intelligent answers.

Oh, I have intelligent answers, I generally do not waste them on feckless twazzacks like yourself, however.
Out of respect for the new level of mastery in idiocy you have been reaching though, I will kindly point out the flaw in your endless rhetoric, in nice clear terms for you to easily digest. This is probably the one billionth time this has been pointed out though, so I hope I win a prize. A new kettle would be nice, my old girl's just about had it.

1) You claim the universe is so complex it could have ONLY been designed by an intelligent creator. The key element here is the complex nature of the cosmos, and upon that rests your entire argument.
2) Others point out that a being complex enough to design an entire universe must, by your own logic be so complex that it itself must also require an intelligent force to design it. Again, the issue of complexity requiring design is key.
3) You THEN assert, in your own words, "God is so complex and pefect nothing could have designed Him."

Your argument folds in on itself. I suspect that you secretly know the argument is flawed, so in desperation you break the emergency glass and say "God = I don't have to explain it". You have failed in the defense of your lord. Bad christian soldier. Once again, it is you that has been shown to have no leg to stand on. You cling to the relics of the ancient world, too afraid and too intellectually weak to accept the relative harshness of reality in favour of your fantasy. Your ultimate argument rests on the unseen, unheard deity fixing everything and overriding all arguments, all logical thought processes.
Your ilk is going away. It's going the way of the pagan religions of the old world, it's slipping away, bit by bit, drop by drop. Religion as a whole is on the decline, and that decline will continue. One day, your belief system will be nothing more than a subject of historical study, just as every faith before it. It will be abandoned, and no god will be there to cast out terrible judgement or apocalyptic destruction.
I find that amusing, as I find you amusing

[KevinM1]

I find arguments based on the universe's complexity hilarious.  It's basically code for "I don't science, but I'm going to try to throw something that sounds sciencey (to my ignorant ears) at the atheist so they go away.  Please don't make me think."

I mean, first they'd have to define what their version of complexity means, yet they never do.  They just pull it out of their ass as though it has a meaning everyone agrees on.

So, before they even try that weak ass argument, they should at least attempt to describe their metric for determining complexity and how the known universe matches up to it.  And if that passes rigor, then they can move on to the next flawed premise.

[Chas]

God is so complex and pefect nothing could have designed Him.

GC

Since you have provided absolutely nothing in support of that, we can simply dismiss it.

[robvalue]

Hitchen's Razor cuts away more dead wood like a chainsaw of logic.