Lets build eyes

Face------->|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
placement-->|...............................|
X/Y/Z------>|...............................|
structure--->|...=+=.............=+=....|
BUILD-----> [|---------->..............|]
with-------->|..............................|
right------->|.........(_____)............|
material---->|...............................|
connected->|................................|
to ---------> ::::::::::::::::::::::::::
other systems all the while not robbing vital energy to existing systems within
the lifeform allowing it to stay alive and continue the species.


Building with a plan these types of things happen.
1. The end is in mind and all things will work toward the goal.
2. The proper material will be acquired.
3. The proper amount and length of each piece will be measured out.
4. The material will be connected correctly.
5. The proper length, width, weight, energy consumption, will be factored into
each part that is added to the system.
6. The design will have taken into account sensitivity tolerances.
7. All the various timing issues will be worked out.
8. If modifications are required during the build they will be planned out as to
not break any thing currently working that is needed.
9. The build will have to work when it’s done to do what it was designed to do in the
case of eyes proper wavelengths of light will have to be decoded.
10. If we are going to Rev and Step changes within a life form all changes will have to
properly happen and all the necessary data will have to be passed onto the next
generation.


Here is a good place to start.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Face------->|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
placement-->|...............................|
X/Y/Z------>|...............................|
structure--->|...=+=.............=+=....|
BUILD-----> [|---------->..............|]
with-------->|..............................|
right------->|.........(_____)............|
material---->|...............................|
connected ...[text shortened]... will have to be passed onto the next
generation.


Here is a good place to start.
Kelly

“…Building with a plan these types of things happen….”

One thing conspicuous by its absence on your list is a mention of flaws in the design.

If you want an explanation of all the steps in eye evolution than you have already seen these in many past posts along with references to living representations of each step in animals that are alive today i.e. living missing links.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“…Building with a plan these types of things happen….”

One thing conspicuous by its absence on your list is a mention of flaws in the design.

If you want an explanation of all the steps in eye evolution than you have already seen these in many past posts along with references to living representations of each step in animals that are alive today i.e. living missing links.

I'm willing to add flaws into the design of the eye if you'd like, that actually is a
good point. You bringing up living creatures today as examples of evolution
assumes that evolution is the cause for their eyes. I would beg to differ, that is
like using a word to define the same word, not much help other than stating your
beliefs about what the topic is all about.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Face------->|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
placement-->|...............................|
X/Y/Z------>|...............................|
structure--->|...=+=.............=+=....|
BUILD-----> [|---------->..............|]
with-------->|..............................|
right------->|.........(_____)............|
material---->|...............................|
connected ...[text shortened]... will have to be passed onto the next
generation.


Here is a good place to start.
Kelly

Just google it KellyJay, this argument has been forwarded and trashed a million times.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm willing to add flaws into the design of the eye if you'd like, that actually is a
good point. You bringing up living creatures today as examples of evolution
assumes that evolution is the cause for their eyes. I would beg to differ, that is
like using a word to define the same word, not much help other than stating your
beliefs about what the topic is all about.
Kelly

“…You bringing up living creatures today as examples of evolution
ASSUMES that evolution is the CAUSE for their eyes.,…”

No it doesn’t! You are trying to contrive an appearance on a circular argument within the reasoning here when none exists.

Pointing out “there exists living representations of missing links in eye evolution”
Does not “ASSUMES that evolution is the CAUSE for their eyes”

What it DOES do is give credence to the claim that the corresponding missing links once existed –that is all.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Here is a good place to start.
Kelly

So whats your basic argument? I'll try to summarize it - let me know if I get it wrong.
The current state of the human eye is such that it would not have evolved gradually as it contains a number of parts that are not useful individually.

Now here is my counter argument:
The life forms in existence today show eyes with a whole range of complexity from very simple (to the point of not even really being used for sight), to the complex organ that is the human eye.
There is no set of components that can be claimed to be interdependent as for any such set suggested we can point to an organism lacking one of the parts that is nevertheless successfully using the organ.

If you don't agree with my counter argument then I suggest the following:
List the parts of the eye that you think need to work together for the whole to work.
I will try and show that one of the parts is unnecessary (and could thus have evolved separately from the rest) by giving an example of a life form that demonstrates it.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Just google it KellyJay, this argument has been forwarded and trashed a million times.

He brought it up in another thread so I suggested he start this thread as I am willing to try and explain it to him.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm willing to add flaws into the design of the eye if you'd like, that actually is a
good point. You bringing up living creatures today as examples of evolution
assumes that evolution is the cause for their eyes. I would beg to differ, that is
like using a word to define the same word, not much help other than stating your
beliefs about what the topic is all about.
Kelly

If God created the eye, he did a poor job.

Why do we have a blind spot? Seems if there were a perfect God building the eye the eye would also be perfect.

Check this page out, it actually works. It will show you your blind spot.

http://home.earthlink.net/~daliblume/KnowThis/BlindSpot.html

If God created man to watch over the beasts of the Earth you'd think he'd do a better job of making eyes.

Also, why is it so important to say God designed everything by hand? Perhaps he mixed up some concoction to see what would come out? From that he added and subtracted things until Man evolved? Why is it so important to push a tragically flawed theory like intelligent design while bashing the theory of evolution that has tons of scientific evidence to back it up? Couldn't God have wanted things to evolve?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“…Building with a plan these types of things happen….”

One thing conspicuous by its absence on your list is a mention of flaws in the design.

If you want an explanation of all the steps in eye evolution than you have already seen these in many past posts along with references to living representations of each step in animals that are alive today i.e. living missing links.

A flawed design is still a design.

Stick a molecule that absorbs light in cells on the surface of tissue. That will do for starters. A simple light sensor.

Then, poke the surface so it's pitted instead of flat. Now we have a directional light sensor.

Etc.

Kellyjay's method won't work at all until the final step. The above method works at every step of construction.

http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/43/79543-050-D5AB1101.jpg

Former top philosophical atheist Anthony Flew follows the evidence to eventually leave atheism in favor of deistic or (non-revelatory) theistic Intelligent Design:

" I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. I’ve never been much impressed by the kalam cosmological argument, and I don’t think it has gotten any stronger recently. However, I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it. "

Read the whole interview:

http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Apl/FlewTheist.htm

Originally posted by jaywill
Former top philosophical atheist [b]Anthony Flew follows the evidence to eventually leave atheism in favor of deistic or (non-revelatory) theistic Intelligent Design:

" I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. I’ve never been much impressed by the ...[text shortened]... Read the whole interview:

http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Apl/FlewTheist.htm

You should read the NYTimes article on Flew and his conversion from atheism, it is illuminating.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So whats your basic argument? I'll try to summarize it - let me know if I get it wrong.
The current state of the human eye is such that it would not have evolved gradually as it contains a number of parts that are not useful individually.

Now here is my counter argument:
The life forms in existence today show eyes with a whole range of complexity fro ve evolved separately from the rest) by giving an example of a life form that demonstrates it.

I guess if you are going in for the mind reading instead of give an take we can just
end this now. This was your idea not mine.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I guess if you are going in for the mind reading instead of give an take we can just
end this now. This was your idea not mine.
Kelly

I am not going for the mind reading. I clearly asked you to correct me if I am misunderstanding your argument. I don't entirely follow your first post, so I am guessing at your argument and giving my counter arguments. At no point am I mind reading or attempting to sabotage you in any way.
Of course people will jump on you, because the topic has been discussed to death by those interested in the attempt by 'intelligent design' proponents to get it taught in schools in the US. The court case caused a lot of discussion of intelligent design and claims about the eye were fairly high up on the list and fairly well covered by the scientific community in response. But don't let all that discourage you, they can expect you to have read every bit of literature on the topic. If you genuinely want to know if there is a reasonable scientific explanation then there is nothing wrong with this forum helping you out. If at the end you are not convinced then it is our fault not yours.

Originally posted by jaywill
A flawed design is still a design.

Correct -and this case, an unintelligent one.