Evolutionists Cannot Explain the Origin of Eyes
Many of Darwin's disciples are fond of ridiculing creation with prejudicial conjecture along the lines of, "That could not have been created, therefore, evolution". Ironically, they invoke evolution as an entity with the ability to make design choices. It is also contradictory, because they believe their mad gibbering false god does wonderful things, but eyes are poorly designed, so... That is not science, old son, that is blind faith in pantheism. It is also desperation.
Speaking of blind, fundamentalist evolutionists and atheists cannot see the Master Engineer's amazing design of eyes. Claims that the human eye are poorly designed have been thoroughly refuted, other critters such as trilobites had exceptional eye construction, and more. Here's an idea: instead of continuing to debunk the foolish assertions of Darwin's Flying Monkeys©, have them give plausible evolutionary mechanisms for the origin of eyes.
Keep going. Press them to explain why different organisms have similar eye structures, why there are several kinds of eyes, how an organism can evolve eyes a bit at a time without being burdened by the added baggage — and to explain vision itself. Even if something developed eyes, it would need the ability to process that information. Oh, and no just-so stories, either. Show us scientific evidence for the evolution of eyes, including in the fossil record. But they cannot do this, even Darwinists admit they have a serious problem with these things. Too many prefer to remain spiritually blind rather than admit the truth of the Creator.
Speaking of blind, fundamentalist evolutionists and atheists cannot see the Master Engineer's amazing design of eyes. Claims that the human eye are poorly designed have been thoroughly refuted, other critters such as trilobites had exceptional eye construction, and more. Here's an idea: instead of continuing to debunk the foolish assertions of Darwin's Flying Monkeys©, have them give plausible evolutionary mechanisms for the origin of eyes.
Keep going. Press them to explain why different organisms have similar eye structures, why there are several kinds of eyes, how an organism can evolve eyes a bit at a time without being burdened by the added baggage — and to explain vision itself. Even if something developed eyes, it would need the ability to process that information. Oh, and no just-so stories, either. Show us scientific evidence for the evolution of eyes, including in the fossil record. But they cannot do this, even Darwinists admit they have a serious problem with these things. Too many prefer to remain spiritually blind rather than admit the truth of the Creator.
The evolution of the eye has always been a dilemma for evolutionists from Darwin’s time to the present. Although Darwin, Richard Dawkins and other evolutionists have tried to explain how an eye could evolve, their solutions are clearly unsatisfactory. Many kinds of eyes exist, but no progression of eye designs from simple to complex can be produced in the natural or fossil world. Furthermore, the simplest ‘eye’, the eyespot, is not an eye but pigmented cells used for phototaxis; yet even it requires an enormously complex mechanism in order to function as a vision system.To read the rest of this rather long but extremely informative article, click on "Did eyes evolve by Darwinian mechanisms?"