Let’s Stick to the Facts


Some matters I have raised in this blog have proved contentious. I am comfortable with this for when a degree of tension is introduced to debate the condition of people’s hearts is often shown. We have see this manifested in intolerant and discourteous language. So be it for this is the rough and tumble of living in a fallen world where the fool believes in his heart that there is no God. I care for and appreciate those who contribute, no matter how snarky, and really empathise with their situation having been there myself only a little over five short years ago.

From these conversations the reader can be determine whose motives are purer.  And remember as we have seen in the dialogue, though some suppress the truth to varying degrees, apart from God there is no reason, morality or knowledge. However, for this blog entry, in a way to calm stormy waters, I am simply presenting a few truths about the eye. To the open minded reader this will help see the claim that life somehow came from dead matter and then crawled out the primordial goo to become you, is a fairy story for grown ups. Let’s stick to facts:

Consider the human eye. Man has never developed a camera lens anywhere near the inconceivable intricacy of the human eye. The human eye is an amazing interrelated system of about forty individual subsystems, including the retina, pupil, iris, cornea, lens, and optic nerve. It has more to it than just the 137 million light-sensitive special cells that send messages to the unbelievably complex brain. About 130 million of these cells look like tiny rods, and they handle the black and white vision. The other 7 million are cone shaped and allow us to see in color. The retina cells receive light impressions, which are then translated into electric pulses and sent directly to the brain through the optic nerve.

A special section of the brain called the visual cortex interprets the pulses as colour, contrast, depth, etc., which then allows us to see “pictures” of our world. Incredibly, the eye, optic nerve, and visual cortex are totally separate and distinct subsystems. Yet together they capture, deliver, and interpret up to 1.5 million pulse messages per millisecond! Think about that for a moment. It would take dozens of computers programmed perfectly and operating together flawlessly to even get close to performing this task.

The eye is an example of what is referred to as “irreducible complexity.” It would be statistically impossible for random processes, operating through gradual mechanisms of genetic mutations and natural selection, to be able to create forty separate subsystems when they provide no advantage to the whole until the very last state of development. Ask yourself how the lens, the retina, the optic nerve, and all the other parts in vertebrates that play a role in seeing not only appeared from nothing, but evolved into interrelated and working parts. To say that the eye happened without a Designer is ridiculous. If you disagree, try making one yourself.

  1. Chris Woods said:

    You are absolutely right.
    There is no way I could ever explain to you how the human eye could have evolved in a way that you would understand.
    I have previously explained the mechanism by which a three toed horse could evolve into one toed horse… But this was too much for you to grasp.

    The evolution of the human eye is many, many times more complex than three toe bones, fusing to form one. But it is not ‘irreducibly complex’.

    The term ‘irreducible complexity’ was coined by the proponent of Intelligent Design Michael Behe.However during the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in 2005, whilst under oath, Behe himself had to retract many of his claims regarding irreducible complexity. His argument remains that if something looks to us as being designed then it must have been designed. However this argument has no basis in logic.

    If you are genuinely interested in how the human eye could have evolved there are a great many web pages devoted to it. There are a huge number of examples in the animal kingdom, showing developmental stages from simple photo reactive cells to eyes that are even better than our own.

  2. Chris Woods said:

    By the way with regard to your comment, “Man has never developed a camera lens anywhere near the inconceivable intricacy of the human eye.” – This is very true.
    However we have developed cameras that are better than the human eye in every aspect, without being as intricate. (This is because there are a number of design errors in the human eye.)

    The webpage, http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/eye-resolution.html is brilliant in describing all of the features of the human eye, from resolution to ISO equivalent to focal length. We have cameras today that beat the human eye in all respects.

  3. optimisticgladness said:

    Great argument. Way to prove your point. I would tend to agree with you. The lacrimal glands, cranial nerves II, III and !V all control the eye. The muscles that attach to the lens to create focus on the fovea centralis….nope-no man-made machine comes close.

  4. James Henry said:

    Yes its all about God as a former atheist I think creation v evolution ping pong will continue until the end. Question 1: Hasn’t the Darwinian theory of evolution shown us how it is possible for all the order in the universe to have arisen by chance?
    Reply: Not at all. If the Darwinian theory has shown anything, it has shown, in a general way, how species may have descended from others through random mutation; and how survival of these species can be accounted for by natural selection—by the fitness of some species to survive in their environment. In no way does it—can it—account for the ubiquitous order and intelligibility of nature. Rather, it presupposes order. To quote a famous phrase: “The survival of the fittest presupposes the arrival of the fit.” If Darwinians wish to extrapolate from their purely biological theory and maintain that all the vast order around us is the result of random changes, then they are saying something which no empirical evidence could ever confirm; which no empirical science could ever demonstrate; and which, on the face of it, is simply beyond belief by Peter Kreeft.

  5. Chris Woods said:

    Maths Lesson 1

    This is for Creditaction who believes that bad mutations disprove the theory of Evolution.
    It is also for James Henry who has spoken about, “The survival of the fittest presupposes the arrival of the fit.”

    Assume there is a population of 1000. It doesn’t matter what the species is but let’s say they are a species of gazelle.

    The life expectancy of this species is enough so that, on average, each mating pair will produce 2 children that will survive until they are old enough to breed.

    Now let’s say that just 1% have a certain genetic mutation. This mutation means they can run a little bit faster and so, on average, will evade lions for an extra year before being eaten. These gazelles will have 3 mating seasons instead of the average 2 and so they will have 3 offspring whereas most of the population has but 2.

    Now as we know, bad mutations outnumber good mutations, so let’s say that 10% of the population are a bit slow and will, on average, survive a year less. These gazelles will produce only 1 surviving offspring before the lions get them.

    So in Generation One there are 1000 gazelles. 10 Quick gazelles, 100 Slow gazelles and 890 Average gazelles.
    In Generation Two there will be 955 gazelles. 15 Quick, 50 Slow and 890 Average.
    In Generation Three there will be 937 gazelles. 22 Quick, 25 Slow and 890 Average.
    By Generation Ten there will be 1274 gazelles. 384 will be Quick, 890 will be Average and there are no Slow gazelles at all. Instead of being just 1% of the population, Quick Gazelles account for 43% of the population.

    Maths Lesson 2

    Assume there is the same population of 1000 gazelles.
    However, there has been a long term climate change. The Earth is become hotter and there is less grass for the gazelles to eat. This has meant that the life expectancy of every single gazelle has been reduced by one year. So Quick gazelles will have 2 offspring, Average gazelles will have 1 offspring and Slow gazelles will have none.

    So in Generation One there are 1000 gazelles. 10 Quick gazelles, 100 Slow gazelles and 890 Average gazelles.
    In Generation Two there will be 465 gazelles. 10 Quick, 455 Average and no Slow gazelles.
    In Generation Three there will be 232 gazelles. 10 Quick and 222 Average.
    In just eight generations, Quick gazelles will be outnumbering Average gazelles and in just a few generations more, the only gazelles left will be Quick.

    Therefore, a change in the environment has forced a faster evolutionary change. The theory of evolution demands that this is the case, so punctuated equilibria is not an excuse to account for gaps in the fossil record as Creditaction has alluded to before.

    In these two examples of gazelles there is just 1% that is a bit faster than the rest of the population. Does James Henry believe that all babies are born exactly as fit and strong as all other babies in a generation? This is clearly nonsense. Therefore, however small the percentage, there will always be some offspring better suited, or fitter, than the rest. To argue otherwise is ridiculous. So does the survival of the fittest presuppose the arrival of the fit? – Yes it does!

    Furthermore Mr. James, evolution does not presuppose order. Quite the reverse in fact. Evolution demands chaos and change; both, genetic and climatic. As for the comment, “In no way does it—can it—account for the ubiquitous order and intelligibility of nature.” What does this even mean? Evolution can’t account for the fact that nature can be understood? Yes it can. (At least as far as the development of life goes anyway. It cannot account for ‘non-life’ nature but then why should it?) But for life, the theory of evolution gives plenty reasons and understanding.

    Peter Kreeft is a philosopher and a theologian. He has nothing to add to a debate which is ostensibly science based.

    Finally, a last word for Creditaction…

    “To say that the eye happened without a Designer is ridiculous. If you disagree, try making one yourself.”

    Do you genuinely think that this is an intelligent argument for a Creator? That if you can’t make an eye at home in your kitchen then there must be a god?

    • If I told you a frog turned into a prince you’d call it a fairy tale, if I said it happened over millions of years you’d call it science.

  6. Chris Woods said:

    If I told you two rabbits turned into a hundred rabbits you’d call it a magic trick, if I said it happened over a year you’d call it biology.

    What is clearly impossible over a very short space of time becomes more than likely over a long period of time.

    And so it works with evolution.

    At no point, ever, in history, did a frog, or indeed any other creature become a man. Once again you display your ignorance of the theory that you are so dismissive about.

    What is the difference between, 1.0000000001 and 1.0000000002? The answer is literally so small that for virtually any calculation you need to do, the number is the same. ie. 1.0
    Likewise the difference between 1.0000000002 and 1.0000000003 is not worth considering as the percentage difference between the two numbers is negligible.
    It doesn’t matter how many times we add 0.0000000001 to the running total, the difference between it and the preceding number is not worth considering.
    Even when we add 0.0000000001 to 1.9999999999 to make 2.0000000000, the difference between the two numbers is so small as to be of no consequence.
    But 2.0000000000 is clearly a very different number to the original 1.0000000001
    How did this happen? The answer is quite literally, ‘incrementally’. The number 1 didn’t just ‘turn into’ number 2; it evolved, imperceptibly in increments so small that, each ‘generation’ of number in between, was, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same as both the number before and the one after.

    Your title for this post is “Let’s Stick to the Facts” and you have tagged the post with the word, “Logic”.
    Yet your argument against my scientific and mathematical example of gazelles is that frogs don’t turn into princes.

    I can only assume that you placed the “Logic” tag against this post as you knew I would be responding. Because you steadfastly refuse to show any yourself.

  7. Dr Gary Parker was a convinced evolutionist until he realized the arguments for evolution were so weak he could no longer believe them. Dr Parker who has advanced degrees in biology, chemistry, physiology and geology said fossils are a great embarrassment to evolutionary theory and offer strong support for the concept of creation.

  8. Chris Woods said:

    I hate quote-mining but I thought some quotes from the man himself would shed some light on Dr. Parker’s conversion.

    The following quotes are all direct quotes by Dr. Gary Parker and have all been taken, in the order written, from the Creationist website ‘The Evolution Crisis’. Specifically page, http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony5.php
    I strongly recommend that people read his full testimony.

    1) “Evolution was really my religion,” – This is simply not true. It is a creationist argument used to cloud the issue. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘religion’ as ‘the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.” Evolution has nothing at all to do religion, either for or against.

    2) “As a religion, evolution answered my questions about God, sin, and salvation. God was unnecessary, or at the very least had no more involvement than to originally create the particles and processes from which all else mechanistically followed.” – This is where Dr. Parker admits to being a theist, (in fact, he was a Christian), before his conversion to Creationism.

    3) “But through a Bible study group my wife and I joined (originally for purely social reasons) God slowly convinced me to lean not on my own opinions or those of other human authorities, but in all my ways to acknowledge Him and to let Him direct my paths.” – This is still before his conversion and Dr. Parker admits to acknowledging God in everything he does, (which implicitly means his scientific studies,) and also that he lets God direct his decisions. From this point onwards, Parker is no longer a real scientist. Instead of interpreting evidence using logic, he will now use the Bible.

    4) “Darwin explained that evolution, the “production of higher animals”, was caused by “the war of nature, from famine and death”. Does “the war of nature, from famine and death” sound like the means God would have used to create a world which He describes as “very good”?” – There is no science here. Parker is trying to fit evolution into a literal reading of Genesis and it doesn’t work. Because he is now letting God direct his decisions, he decides that it is Evolution and not Genesis that is wrong.

    5) “By ignoring this point, either intentionally or unintentionally, theistic evolutionists and progressive creationists come into conflict with the whole pattern of Scripture” – God is still directing his decisions and it’s all or nothing. You either believe the entire Bible word for word or you are denying God’s Word. (Still no science.)

    5) “In one graduate class, the professor told us we didn’t have to memorize the dates of the geologic systems since they were far from certain and riddled with contradictions.” – Thus is potential science. It refers to historical anomalies in radiometric dating. The Institute for Creation Research even has a project, called RATE, whose intent is to overturn radiometric absolute dating methods as evidence for an old age of the earth. Unfortunately for the ICR, their anomalous evidence has since been re-analysed and was found to be contaminated. Therefore their readings were false. (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm)

    6) “when paraconformities and unconformities came up in geology class…. … He presented paraconformities as a real mystery and something very difficult to explain in evolutionary or uniformitarian terms.” – Either Dr. Parker’s geology professor was an idiot or Parker is lying again. Firstly, there are a great many well understood reasons for geological paraconformities. Secondly how on earth could you ever explain geology in evolutionary terms?

    10) “All of us can recognize objects that man has created, whether paintings, sculptures or just a Coke bottle…
    … I began to see the same thing in a study of living things, especially in the area of my major interest, molecular biology.” – Once again, although at first glance this may seem scientific, it is devoid of science. To say that if I believe that I see design, there must be a designer is simply wrong.

    11) “if your faith permits belief in a Creator you can see the evidence of creation in the things that have been made (as Paul implies in Romans 1:18-20).” – This kinda sums it all up really. I see no science here.

    I found a couple more of Dr. Parker’s quotes, (again on a Creationist website.) I have reproduced each quote in full so that the true meaning is not lost. (Creditaction please take note of this method.)

    12) “Believe it or not, when it comes to fossils, evolutionists and creationists now agree on what the facts are. The overwhelming pattern that emerges from fossils we have found is summarized in the word stasis. Stasis and static come from the same root word, a word that means ‘stay the same.’ Gould and Eldredge are simply saying that most kinds of fossilized life forms appear in the fossil sequence abruptly and distinctly as discrete kinds, then show relatively minor variation within kind, and finally abruptly disappear . . . The most direct and logical inference (to a heart and mind open to the possibility) appears to be, it seems to me, creation, and variation within the basic created kinds. Differences such as extinction and decline in size and variety seem to point to the corruption [the fall] and catastrophe [the flood] in the created order, not at all to ‘upward, onward’ evolution.” – Parker’s idea that, ‘The most direct and logical inference’ is creation, is simply that; an idea. To further extrapolate that extinction is due to the fall and the flood is no more than unsubstantiated supposition.
    Parker is simply trying to use shoehorn fossil evidence into the creation myth by saying that creationists and evolutionists agree on what the facts are. This is simply not true. The real truth is that the evidence shows clear evidence of transitional characteristics in thousands of fossils that were laid in the geological column millions of years apart.

    13) “And then we can talk about “living fossils” (animals and plants that supposedly lived millions and even hundreds of millions of years ago that forgot to evolve and look the same as they do today). There are hundreds of these, from coelacanths to ginkgo trees.” – This is, apparently, a real scientist that is talking about species that ‘forgot to evolve’. No evolutionist thinks that species forgets to evolve. Once again he is deliberately misrepresenting the facts.

    None of the above is quote- mining, I have tried to quote as fully as I can and directed readers to the original source. Furthermore, as previously stated all quotes are from creationist websites.

    Creditaction, you said that Dr. Parker was an evolutionist, “until he realized the arguments for evolution were so weak he could no longer believe them.” I hope I’ve shown you that Dr. Parker changed his mind purely for theistic reasons and has subsequently ignored any evidence scientific evidence to the contrary.

    Furthermore all Parker took his Phds forty years ago and he has not produced one paper since that has been recognised by the scientific community. What are these great fossil embarrassments that you speak of? Is it perhaps Mononykus? If so, please see my responses to your post from 14th June.

  9. Do you know Dr Parker has ignored contrary scientific evidence?

  10. Chris Woods said:

    No I don’t. That is just pure conjecture on my part. (However I personally strongly believe it to be the case.)
    The rest of my post regarding his reasons for his conversion to creationism stands. The proof is in black and white on creationist websites.

  11. Chris Woods said:

    Is that it? Your entire argument is that I can’t prove he has ignored evidence?
    I have shown you that cretinists are deliberately misrepresenting Parker’s reasons for his beliefs. Not only that, but they actually prove they are lying about his true feelings on their own websites!

    Lying for Jesus.

  12. Chris Woods said:

    As you refuse to comment on the deliberate lies spread by creationists, let’s go back to incremental changes within a species that leads to speciation.

    Google ‘Ring Species’
    There are a number of websites that explain this phenomenon. It is clear and undeniable proof that one species evolves into another.

    Please have a look and get back to me with your comments.

    As you say, ‘Let’s stick to the facts.’

  13. You are following the self confessed theories of scientists and calling them undeniable proof. That is simply an irrational position. Evolution cannot be observed, tested and verified, in fact it fails to meet the criteria of the scientific method. And whose standards would you be applying to reach your position of undeniable proof? Oh yes, that’s right, God’s laws of logic, science and morality. Mmm… As the BIble says, “the fool says in his heart there is no God.

    You Chris are several heart beats closer to death than when you started reading this post. Each breath you have is a gift from the God who knitted you together in your mother’s womb and in whose image you are created. Turn from you sin now while there is breath in your body, repent and put your faith and trust in the Saviour Jesus Christ, it is your only hope. You seem so well read, articulate and intelligent and I am sure you have come to your convictions about me and God by applying that fine intellect of your. However, you know that your mind does nothing apart from your heart. It is your love of sin that is keeping you from humbling yourself before God in repentance and glad submission. How else would you follow these ideas that suppose nothing+time+chance=everything.

    I am sure you have a quite brilliant mind but you are educated beyond your intelligence and unwilling to see those things all around you which is God’s amazing creation. I have a friend who was a mining engineer from many years. He would routinely blow things up. Never in the years he was doing this did he witness anything but chaos as a result of bangs. In fact, if he ever found so much as a pile of rocks at the coalface he knew that someone had been there before him. The heavens declare the glory of God and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. (Psalm 19:1). It is appointed once for a man to die and after that judgment. (Hebrews 9:27)

  14. Chris Woods said:

    Did you research Ring Species?… Or did you just quote creationist mantras and circular reasoning at me?

    The phenomenon of ring species, really is proof of speciation. But this shouldn’t be a problem for you as you accept speciation within Kinds.

    The fact that you didn’t comment on ring species makes me believe that either…
    a) You didn’t even do a cursory google of ‘ring species’ because you are too scared to see evidence against your worldview.
    b) You did google ring species but didn’t realise that creationists accept speciation because YOU DON’T REALLY KNOW WHAT YOU BELIEVE….except what Lord Ray Comfort puts on His Facebook page.

  15. Could you be wrong about everything you know Chris?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: