Piltdown Superman

We know the basics of vision, how light is reflected off an object, it reaches our eyes and we see the object. The intricate design of the human eye testifies about the genius of the Master Engineer, but receiving light into our eyes is not the end of the story of sight. Credit: Good Free Photos Like facts and evidence, what has been received must be interpreted. Have you ever looked at the clouds and noticed shapes? Perhaps you were with a friend and each of you saw a different shape until you pointed out the features. Then it changed into something else because of air currents. Your brain was at work trying to make sense of something, often drawing from what you know and have seen in the past. The way the brain makes sense of actual images is quite amazing and is a complex process. We take in colors, patterns, shadows, and all sorts of things. Many parts of the eye and brain are involved, as well as electrical and chemical activities that evolutionists cannot adequately expl

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 diff

One of the stories that Darwin's Flying Monkeys© like to spread is that the human eye is wired incorrectly, or "backward". Their explanations can be summed up with, "Because evolution". Or mayhaps, "Because Clinton Richard Dawkins said so, and doggone it, Dawkins is an evolutionary scientist and misotheist, so he must be right!" However, claims by uninformed people about the backward wiring of the eye must send ophthalmologists into cachinnation. Credit: Freeimages /  melissa ricquier It has been explained that the human eye was designed by our Creator, and the layout is optimal for embryonic development and beyond. For more about this, see " Eye Design and Evolution " and " Like We Said, Human Eye Design Is Optimal ". Now we can add new research that the retina has the optimal design for sharpness of images, and for determining colors. Evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins have long claimed that our eyes are wired ‘backwar

More and more, we can see that molecules-to-meteorologist evolutionists have some serious problems with logic and prejudicial conjecture. Case in point: bad design. The human eye is badly designed, so God didn't intelligently design it, so it must have been evolution. I reckon such a claim is not the product of intelligence. Logic and science don't work that way, old son. First, the fallacy of bifurcation in the "either God is a bad designer (or doesn't exist), therefore, evolution did it" idea. No third possibility? Anyone? Bueller? Okay. There's the fact  that people talking about this are not ophthalmologists, no do they go beyond a superficial examination to support their anti-God tunnel vision. (When it comes to theistic evolutionists and other false teachers who corrupt the Bible, it's called "proof texting". Very similar to what's happening here.) Another possibility is that they simply do not want  to see that the eye is well-de

A weak argument that anti-creationists have is to claim that the human eye was obviously not designed by God because it's poorly done. Therefore, evolution's what done it. Such a statement is unscientific and theological in nature. Creationary scientists (including ophthalmologists) who understand the concepts far better than people who duckspeak this objection have taken the spokes out of that wagon wheel years ago; the human eye is indeed designed efficiently . However, since the science was presented by creationists, critics invoked the genetic fallacy and rejected it because of its source. Recent secular research is supporting what creationists have said all along. In addition, they discovered that the eye is more intricate than was previously though. But since they work from their assumptions, all praise, honor, and glory are given to evolution and not to the Creator who gave them their sight. You can’t get any better performance out of an eyeball than the way it

Human eyes are a marvel of the Designer's ingenuity, even if Richard Dawkins and other atheopaths (who know nothing about ophthalmology) claim that it is "bad design" — which has been thoroughly refuted . Darwin said that the evolution of the eye by natural selection was "absurd", but because of his worldview, he chose to believe that it evolved anyway . Not only the design of the eyes themselves, but the brain has to be able to process the images so we can function. "Jesus had compassion and touched their eyes. And immediately their eyes received sight, and they followed Him.” Just as quickly as He made the first human eyes out of dust, Jesus the Creator fixed two men’s broken vision systems as only a Master Biotechnician could. Today, new inner-eye wonders are regularly uncovered, exposing the eye’s miraculous origin.  One critical vitamin-like eye molecule bears the chemistry-friendly name “11-cis-retinal.” When this molecule is embedded in its

The vertebrate eye is very well-constructed. Its many critical parts work together so that individual light photons are captured and converted into data that the brain then translates into a coherent visual image. Considering the obvious genius and purpose in eye design, claims that mindless natural processes formed the eye can only be made by ignoring the laws of logic. Recently, Australian neuroscientist Trevor Lamb wrote a  Scientific American  article titled "Evolution of the Eye." He included a narrated history, as if he had witnessed an actual eyeball evolve. But instead of providing scientific evidence, his presentation relied on logical fallacies.   First, Lamb granted god-like intelligence to an inanimate force he termed "selective pressures." He wrote, "As body size increased, so, too, did the selective pressures favoring the evolution of another type of eye: the camera [vertebrate] variety." But only an intelligent agent—not passive, unth