davien:
Then you have no basis for your belief...and you have no basis for spreading something that is not true...

Do you have a basis for your belief?

Its sad none could answer my questions.

Emmalot121:
Do you have a basis for your belief?

which is?

Emmalot121:
Its sad none could answer my questions.

You strike me as someone who doesn't understand the arguments against her position.

Those questions could only be asked by someone who doesn't understand the argument.

davien:
which is?

To believe something doesn't exist, you have to have your proof. Solidifying your proof, using the inability of the other person to sufficiently proof his belief is invalid and lazy. To believe God doesn't exist, you have to have sufficient proof for. Basing your knowledge on the knowledge of another is foôlish. Do you have sufficient proof against or you therefore believe through faith. Tell me the reasons why you believe in the nonexistence of God and I'll critique you and test your belief.

Weah96:




You strike me as someone who doesn't understand the arguments against her position.

Those questions could only be asked by someone who doesn't understand the argument.

Do you have my answers?

Kay17:


I don't remember giving away my credentials as a biologist or that kind, hence I wonder why i am roped into a thread about biology?

Exactly my thought.

Emmalot121. can you give us a detailed explanation of how God created the human eyes? The processes, mechanism and materials he used. Why did God create the human eyes in such a way that images are formed at the back of the retina which automatically leads to people being born with natural eye defect (long and shortsightedness )?

dalaman:
Emmalot121. can you give us a detailed explanation of how God created the human eyes? The processes, mechanism and materials he used. Why did God create the human eyes in such a way that images are formed at the back of the retina which automatically leads to people being born with natural eye defect (long and shortsightedness )?

Jesus healed blind men with ease, doesn't this attest to the power of God?

Emmalot121:
Jesus healed blind men with ease, doesn't this attest to the power of God?

According to a story Jesus healed blind men with ease, the same Jesus also promised those of you that believe in him the ability to do greater works than him. Do you believe in Jesus? Can you heal a blind man? You still have't told us how God created the human eyes and made images to be formed at the back of the retina.

dalaman:


According to a story Jesus healed blind men with ease, the same Jesus also promised those of you that believe in him the ability to do greater works than him. Do you believe in Jesus? Can you heal a blind man? You still have't told us how God created the human eyes and made images to be formed at the back of the retina.

Not every man will be given power to heal "And it shall come to pass in the last days,
saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all
flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall
prophesy, and your young men shall see
visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:" Different gifts my dear. How am I to know how he did it? That is why he is God. He shewd unto us his power when he healed blind men as an ensample unto us.

Emmalot121:
Did he say he is God or you made him God?

He revealed he is God through his Holy Son, The Flying Pig.

Emmalot121:
Do you have my answers?

The answers don't prove that angel Gabriel talked to Mohammed and recited the words of the Quran in his right ear. Or that the anonymous authors of the Bible were in communication with the person who made the universe. That is the WHOLE point of atheism. Atheism says that no personal deities exist and if they do, then they haven't yet made contact with us based on the evidence. If you wanna say that the eye is too complex to have evolved and that a potentially intelligent designer did it, then fine. But understand that those are the logical parameters of your argument. The minute you point to a book, like the Koran or the bible, or the Torah, it means that you immediately assume an even bigger responsibility. You swallow your head, so to speak, because you then have to show that this intelligent thing talks to people. Good luck with that.

As far as the human eye, you and the rest of the creationists aren't the first ones to notice that the nature of its complexity, at first glance, confounds evolutionary thought. This is what Charles Darwin said in The Origin of Species about the human eye:

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Scientists know that the human eye evolved by the step-wise addition of features primarily because of two observations, first there are organisms with "intermediate eyes," or eyes that work without one or more of these components right now. Even the simplest of all eyes, just the one cell to detect light and another to judge the angle of incidence exists today in the the marine ragworm.
Secondly, recent discovery has emerged which shows that the SAME gene controls the development of eye structures across a wide range of organisms including flies, mice, and human beings. In fact, basically all bilateral animals use the same Pax6 gene which codes for successful eye development. Without this gene, the eyes of both humans and flies won't develop properly, if they even develop AT ALL.

The current consensus is this, that the eye began as a simple structure to detect sunlight and use that information to confer an advantage. In order for this to be true, there had to be an organism, which means that there were already genes coding for things before there was ever an eye. Through the combined effects of normal gene duplication processes, mutation, and natural selection, components were added to that simple eye structure from other components that ALREADY existed in the organism. In human beings, for example, almost 50% our cornea is made up of a protein which also breaks down toxins in our stomach. The same protein forms the cornea, and does something completely different in our stomach. So you see, the degree of difficulty is not that extraordinary, when you consider that the additional components came from parts that already existed.

Btw, after Darwin wrote that, he also wrote this:

Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.


http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/96/3/171.full

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/variation/toolkit/