Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: webber
The eye is a very complex organ, and it CANNOT function without ALL of its parts being in place, that is SIGHT.

Human eyes? Octopus eyes? Bumblebee eyes? Fish eyes? I suspect all eyes everywhere are "irreducibly complex," but there certainly are many kinds of eyes and all levels of functioning.

So why did an animal decided to begin "evolving" making some parts of an eye but could not use it for seeing for millions of years until the complete eye had eventually formed? Did it forsee itself as one day being able to see? How did it know that sight was possible? Oh yeh, it was an oops - accident that became beneficial through caring around unusable tissues for millions of years until VOILA! I CAN SEE! I CAN SEE!

Am I supposed to educate you on evolution now? You don't know how it works. I'd suggest you find out before you post anything else as dumb as 1544.

Oh how intelligent that sounds.

Whatever it is, you wrote it.

And we creationist are so gullible.......aren't we?

Yes.

1,547 posted on 12/30/2002 6:50:29 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1544 | View Replies ]


To: VadeRetro
Human eyes? Octopus eyes? Bumblebee eyes? Fish eyes? I suspect all eyes everywhere are "irreducibly complex," but there certainly are many kinds of eyes and all levels of functioning.

Interesting how many totally different kinds of eyes there are is it not? Yet clearly such a thing is totally against the principle on which evolution is based - that homologous functions, features, DNA are proof of descent. If there was descent related to these numerous eye forms then one would expect them not to be so varied and so unconnected with each other. What you are showing really is not proof, but proof against evolution.

1,576 posted on 12/30/2002 7:48:56 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1547 | View Replies ]

To: VadeRetro
"Oh how intelligent that sounds. Whatever it is, you wrote it. And we creationist are so gullible.......aren't we? Yes."

You evil-lutionist never answer the questions. You just come out with your "quicky" retorts, and think everbody will be on your side........WRONG!!!

Now try and answer the question. Why did any animal make all the parts of the eye before it could be used for seeing? If you evolve tissue that has no function until the other tissues that just accidently happen to compliment the previous tissue for millions of years? Is that evolution? I'd say it was carrying useless tissue for millions of years. The same goes for the "evolution" of feathers on wings. Since it didn't become feathers instantaneously, it could not function as a method of lifting an animal to fly. It was justing growing and hanging around for millions of years until it evolved into the feathers that made flight possible. In the mean time, the limbs that were supposedly changing from arms to wings became useless for grasping prey or food. So how did it survive for millions of years until it's beak and feathers evolved?.

Answer.....the......question!!!!!!

1,611 posted on 12/30/2002 9:57:48 PM PST by webber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1547 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson