The Human Eye: A Double Standard?

[Minimalist]

Does your god have a three-foot cock, G-C?

You've made him...I was wondering how much detail you put into it?

[Godscreated]

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

GC

Well that does solve the infinite regress thing very neatly. There's just one big problem: You pulled it out of your ass. Not you, specifically but theologians throughout the ages. It's pure speculation without the tiniest shred of evidence. Nothing wrong with speculation but it's no more useful than, "I don't know" - and much less honest.

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.

GC

---

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

GC

And yet, the typical christer claim about the eye is that it's too complex to not have a designer. You can't have it both ways GC. If the eye is too complex, then something even more complex has an even greater need for a designer.

You're not understanding what I said, try this, God is completely complex, beyond all else. So the eye is a simple thing for God to design, the eye is to complex for evolution to have designed. Unless you are a proponent of macro evolution, if you are you still have a real problem with the eye in that a non thinking anything could design a complete anything. 

GC

---

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

GC

Never speak or type another word in your life. No seriously. You have done such great service in straining the fabric of reality with stupidity that anything else that flops out of that excuse for a brain will most likely cause the extinction of the human race by spontaneous black hole.
For the good of humankind, I ask that you never again communicate with another person, and never share the contents of your mind. For the hearts of men cannot bear your level of inanity, and more than likely will never be able to.

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.

GC

---

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

GC

You know that with this statement, you whole world view folds in on itself, because if nature is so complex that it had to be designed, and that requires God, but God is too complex to be designed... we have run into an unsolvable inconsistency...

No not really, you mess the statement when you leave out the word perfect, meaning God is beyond all other complexity. So far beyond that all other things are simple for Him.

GC

[Minimalist]

Atheist discount God with no evidence He doesn't exist

Not our job to prove that your brain farts are not real.  They're your farts. 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The Universe is so complex and perfect nothing could have designed it.

GC

You can thank me privately.

[Ravenshire]

And yet, the typical christer claim about the eye is that it's too complex to not have a designer. You can't have it both ways GC. If the eye is too complex, then something even more complex has an even greater need for a designer.

You're not understanding what I said, try this, God is completely complex, beyond all else. So the eye is a simple thing for God to design, the eye is to complex for evolution to have designed. Unless you are a proponent of macro evolution, if you are you still have a real problem with the eye in that a non thinking anything could design a complete anything. 

GC

(emphasisis mine)

Nah. Unlike you, I'm more a proponent of understanding how evolution actually works.

And yes, I do understand your bullshit claim. Complexity requires a designer. The part you refuse to see (more willful ignorance) is that ultimate complexity would require the ultimate designer. You still don't get to have it both ways. So, what designed your gawd GC?

[Hatshepsut]

You'd have an easier time persuading cats to open a soup kitchen for mice...

Well, I have a program of training cats to make soup and...  I realize there is some ambiguity in the word "hope," but I want them to watch it, but do not expect it.  It is also good for people to see who wish to argue with creationists...

It looks like the video recaps explanations Stephen Jay Gould put in print a while back. An incremental thing, starting with Euglena's eyespot, moving up to the cuplike eyewell in flatworms, then with protective clear window over it, the window which will evolve to become a cornea/lens system.

We should realize, however, that flatworms did not evolve from Euglena. They had to use an all-modern creature lineup because most of the putative intermediate steps in eye evolution aren't represented in the fossil record. Another item of note is that camera eyes as complex as any modern examples may have appeared back in the Cambrian, right after the beginning of animal life itself. Of course that still accommodates five million years to evolve the eye, but it happened very fast compared to the five hundred million years of essentially no change in eyes since then.

Preferable to creation myths in terms of realism and supporting data, nonetheless popular accounting for evolution glosses over a lot of difficulties.

[Mudhammam]

You're not understanding what I said, try this, God is completely complex, beyond all else. So the eye is a simple thing for God to design, the eye is to complex for evolution to have designed. Unless you are a proponent of macro evolution, if you are you still have a real problem with the eye in that a non thinking anything could design a complete anything. 

It's really no more of a "real problem" than understanding how a human being with the potential for thought (note: potential, 'cause apparently some of us don't take advantage of it) can develop from this:
Embryology is a development process that is largely understood, like evolution, thanks to years of study by the brightest minds of those whom arose from a diversity of backgrounds (believe it or not, even some of your fellow Christians are not so fucking ignorant to deny that the eye was designed in stages that require nothing more than an understanding of natural events to be adequately explained). What would embryology have looked like had we followed GC's High Priests of Stupidity? Probably something like this:

"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb."

Wow. That's enlightening. Please tell us more about your creation "story." (On second thought, please don't).

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, I have a program of training cats to make soup and...  I realize there is some ambiguity in the word "hope," but I want them to watch it, but do not expect it.  It is also good for people to see who wish to argue with creationists...

It looks like the video recaps explanations Stephen Jay Gould put in print a while back. An incremental thing, starting with Euglena's eyespot, moving up to the cuplike eyewell in flatworms, then with protective clear window over it, the window which will evolve to become a cornea/lens system.

We should realize, however, that flatworms did not evolve from Euglena. They had to use an all-modern creature lineup because most of the putative intermediate steps in eye evolution aren't represented in the fossil record. Another item of note is that camera eyes as complex as any modern examples may have appeared back in the Cambrian, right after the beginning of animal life itself. Of course that still accommodates five million years to evolve the eye, but it happened very fast compared to the five hundred million years of essentially no change in eyes since then.

Preferable to creation myths in terms of realism and supporting data, nonetheless popular accounting for evolution glosses over a lot of difficulties.

Odd that you'd reference one of the authors of punctuated equilibrium without bringing his own explanation to bear on the issue at hand.

[downbeatplumb]

---

You know that with this statement, you whole world view folds in on itself, because if nature is so complex that it had to be designed, and that requires God, but God is too complex to be designed... we have run into an unsolvable inconsistency...

No not really, you mess the statement when you leave out the word perfect, meaning God is beyond all other complexity. So far beyond that all other things are simple for Him.

GC

You do realise of course that adding the word perfect makes not one jot of difference and your "argument" is devoid of any content.

Neither you nor anyone else has ever had an explanation for where god is supposed to come from, it is just supposed to exist, this vastly complex impossibly powerful being that thinks inscrutable thoughts and cares who we screw, just existed and was "necessary" for the universe to come into being for some reason and did it somehow.

And this is supposed to satisfy us!

[Chas]

Well, I have a program of training cats to make soup and...  I realize there is some ambiguity in the word "hope," but I want them to watch it, but do not expect it.  It is also good for people to see who wish to argue with creationists...

It looks like the video recaps explanations Stephen Jay Gould put in print a while back. An incremental thing, starting with Euglena's eyespot, moving up to the cuplike eyewell in flatworms, then with protective clear window over it, the window which will evolve to become a cornea/lens system.

We should realize, however, that flatworms did not evolve from Euglena. They had to use an all-modern creature lineup because most of the putative intermediate steps in eye evolution aren't represented in the fossil record.

It appears that you misunderstand the argument.  The modern examples are merely that: examples of different kinds of eyes.

And eyes in the fossil record?  Seriously? Do you have any understanding at all of fossilisation?

Another item of note is that camera eyes as complex as any modern examples may have appeared back in the Cambrian, right after the beginning of animal life itself. Of course that still accommodates five million years to evolve the eye, but it happened very fast compared to the five hundred million years of essentially no change in eyes since then.

And how is your speculation at all convincing?

Preferable to creation myths in terms of realism and supporting data, nonetheless popular accounting for evolution glosses over a lot of difficulties.

You haven't presented any glosses; pray tell, what are those?