Dear atheists, please explain this.
How, without God, EYES were created/evolved ?
How could we evolve into having eyes without first knowing that photons actually exist? The same goes with other senses.
Printable View
Dear atheists, please explain this.
How, without God, EYES were created/evolved ?
How could we evolve into having eyes without first knowing that photons actually exist? The same goes with other senses.
You find the evolution of the eye or visual senses quite detailed in nature. Quite primitive species as rainworms use their whole skin to "see", because the have photo-sensitive nervous cells there.
The lense-based eye evolved independently in different species, but you can see different levels of evolution.
If you want a better explanation, ask a biology teacher. That's all I remember from class 9 biology lesson.
Here's a wikipedai-article about the evolution of the eye:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb9_x1wgm7E
Explained by Richard Dawkins, a great free thinker if not a little bit arrogant.
P.S, I'm not an atheist. I am agnostic and open to any idea so long as there is proof for them :shadewink:
All i gotta say for the athiests (not being mean though) is - "The probablity of life originating from an accident is like an unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."
I think a better question to ask is how did any creature, including single-celled organisms, develop any senses to sense the environment without first having consciousness to know it was in an environment.
The answer of course that science gives us is that everything is random. At some point those organic compounds just randomly put themselves together and became living and then it just randomly mutated its DNA, which randomly gave it the capacity to sense the environment.
Honestly, its a bigger head trip than accepting that consciousness of some form must have been involved in the process from the start
...Did none of you ever take biology in school? This is painful to read.
The only thing I don't understand here is... are atheists supposed to answer this or not? :?
Quote:
Short, not to be answered by atheists question.
Dear atheists, please explain this.
Creationists - willfully trotting out the same tired old questions that have all been debunked thousands of times. But thanks for helping us spread the facts by bringing them up again and again so whole new groups of people can see. :cheeky:
So, here's my understanding of the atheists' point of view:
We are all just victims of random numerology. In short, the ONLY reason we exist at all, is because of some minute 1 in trillions or more chance of life actually evolving on it's own, with NO help whatsoever from any higher being, be you call Him God (my belief), or some sort of extra-terrestrial being (ancient astronaut theorists belief). You believe that life simply came into existence, due to random collisions of particles and planets and galaxies, to somehow, someway form the EXACT formula needed for life to survive (as we know it). You honestly, truly believe that our Earth is random, our existence is random, all life on planet earth and beyond, if there is life beyond, is simply random.
I say that's reaching, but that's just me.
~SilverWolf~
http://i.stack.imgur.com/jiFfM.jpg
So, in other words you really know nothing about science, and you think a magic guy is a better explanation?
Well, yes. I have to study the Bible in college because my major is Hebrew and, to be quite honest, I find it much easier to believe that everything just sorta happened than to believe in what's written there.Quote:
You honestly, truly believe that our Earth is random, our existence is random, all life on planet earth and beyond, if there is life beyond, is simply random.
I say that's reaching, but that's just me.
I do have a great respect for religions and their huge importance in our History, though, so please don't think I'm trying to offend you by saying that. All I can say is that we have different views on the matter and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Many creatures sense their enviroment through the light spectrum. They have eyes
Some have echo location, and can see as well without the aid of eyes.
Others "see" their enviroment through touch.
Some even "see" by detecting heat, or electric fields.
With every process a visual field of some sort is created in the mind.
So your question needs to be expanded to make any valid point.
Eyes do not have the exclusive rights to see. You can see with many different senses.
I am not an athiest, but I do not have a specific religion.
I like bits from some religions, and bits from others.
In fact I do not know what religion I am. Even if I am religious.
What does religion mean to you, as it confuses the hell out of me.
wow Darkmatters,kind of a bit...overkill, that post don't you think?
Who says magic? God doesn't have to be "some magic guy." If he is our creator, then he better understands (obviously) the nature of the universe and how things work, including physics. To quote John Locke from Lost "Why do you find it so hard to believe?"
Haven't you heard the analogy that advanced enough technology can appear to be magic? Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean there's no explanation for it, it just means WE don't know what that IS yet. And possibly never will until we meet our creator, and that's okay too, because the very nature of the universe is so profound and so baffling, that you can't really fault us for not fully understanding it.
So yes, I find the idea of a creator a heck of a lot more likely then every little thing we see simply being the act of "randomness."
~SilverWolf~
Seriously? A complex being that existed somehow before there was a universe, and he's not magic? How does that work? Are you saying he was some kind of alien astronaut, with technology capable of creating and populating an entire universe?
And it's not just that we don't know what he is yet - we have no idea yet if he actually ever existed, and of course all evidence strongly says its not in any way possible. If he does, then he utterly fails to conform to anything that could be called science in any way.
Which is where Faith comes in, Darkmatters. I have faith that there is a God, despite the fact that as you pointed out, very likely he would have to fail to conform to the laws of the universe as we know them. Do I think God used some kind of technology or is some kind of alien astronaut? No, I think he is a being with abilities that we do not understand. I wouldn't label it as "magic" though, simply because I don't know how God is capable of doing what he can do.
It really boils down to Faith, in the end. I doubt there will ever be enough proof in a Creator that will please the skeptics. To be honest, I think some people are so hard set in their non-belief that they would ignore it if God himself came down, slapped them in the face, and told them "I am real, this is proof." I think any proof that any religious scientist comes up with is going to be shunned by the mainstream science, and non-believers in general are probably going to do the same thing they do with any Christian scientist: claim he is biased simply because he is Christian, and therefore his studies/evidence/whatever cannot be trusted, and say they are invalid. Just like mainstream science has done to those who've had beliefs that clash with what science supposedly "knows" in the past.
I have Faith that there is a God, and I think I can safely say you don't, Darkmatters. There's really not much more I can say on that, since whatever I say you will disagree with and whatever you say, I will still believe in God. It's just like Lost, really; one of us is a person of faith, the other science (although I'd label myself somewhere in between, as I'm not on the fringes, thinking science has no place in our world, I just feel there's some things science cannot explain. Like God).
~SilverWolf~
What I don't understand is how you oscillate between suggesting that "religious scientists" and others have evidence for God, and saying that God is just a matter of faith and that evidence isn't applicable. Aren't these two in opposition? Which is it; God can be inferred from the universe, or God is solely a matter of faith?
^ Bingo!
"I think God and science are compatible." / "Oh, God is a matter of Faith"
Because it seems to me that mainstream science, no matter how much proof, will never accept that God exists. Also, we're talking about proving definitively that a creator exists. While I don't think we can prove God himself personally is real, I think we can prove that some biblical stories really did occur, thus lending validity to the Bible, and Christianity in general--hope that clears that up.
~SilverWolf~