The human eye

[Phazzan]

The human eye may be of complex design, but sight itself can be created very easily. All you really need is light and a lens. I'd say the human eye is not proof God had a hand in evolution.

[Neal4Christ]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Feb 11 2005, 11:08 AM'] Pascal's wager. I say this to that. If you believe in god because it was the safe bet, than you are not trully a servent and worshipper of god. But simply a gambler who decides that he wants to play it safe. Id think god would know that. [/quote]
I never said that was why I believe in God.

And the wager stands, nonetheless. The important thing is that one believes in God. Men have come to a belief in God through a vast variety of ways. I don't believe it is so important as to how you get there, it is that you get there. God will take care of the rest.

[Neal4Christ]

[quote name='Phazzan' date='Feb 11 2005, 11:39 AM'] The human eye may be of complex design, but sight itself can be created very easily. All you really need is light and a lens. I'd say the human eye is not proof God had a hand in evolution. [/quote]
Really? And nothing needed to process and interpret the data? I would hardly call light and a lens sight. A blind person has light and lenses (sp?).

[Phazzan]

[quote name='Neal4Christ' date='Feb 11 2005, 11:45 AM'] Really? And nothing needed to process and interpret the data? I would hardly call light and a lens sight. A blind person has light and lenses (sp?). [/quote]
You can add a fiddler to that, and a few other ingredients, but to say sight is complex because the human eye is complex doesn't make sense.

[jasJis]

[quote name='Melchisedec' date='Feb 11 2005, 11:27 AM'] I appreciate your explanation, but forgive me if I do not see how that proves intelligent design. [/quote]
Intelligent design is the more likely choice of a number of unlikely events.

Given the quantity of 'instances of ordered DNA constructs' that are varied, yet work, and absence of instances of semi-disordered DNA constructs that are quite unrelated to others, yet work, no conceivable type of mathematical explanation exists to explain the number of ordered constructs occurring from complete randomness, (with no evidence of contiguous progressive development of the DNA constructs [ie: the missing links]).

[jasJis]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Feb 11 2005, 11:31 AM'] No, that is not at all what "chaos theory" refers to. You are confusing it with something else. I myself am not an expert on chaos theory, and do not really understand it, but I do know you are misusing this term. Perhaps some scientifically oriented person can straighten you out on this. Chaos theory is the mathematics concerning extremely complex and seemingly "chaotic" systems. [/quote]
That was helpful. I'm in error, but you don't know what the error is.

I did not claim to be an expert and am using lay-man's understanding, even if I can spell Chaos.

[Neal4Christ]

[quote name='Phazzan' date='Feb 11 2005, 11:54 AM'] You can add a fiddler to that, and a few other ingredients, but to say sight is complex because the human eye is complex doesn't make sense. [/quote]
See (no pun intended), I understand sight as a sense, not existing on its own. If you are saying that an image exists, then yes, I agree. But sight is a processing of data.

As I wrote that post, I realized that I have moved past the eye, into the realm of the brain. Oh well, time for sleep, to rest my weary brain.

[Socrates]

This is an old dictionary but: "chaos: the inherit unpredictablility in the behavior of a natural system (as the atmosphere, boiling water, or the beating heart)"

Chaos theory is a mathematical theory which seeks the mathematics regarding such systems.

It has nothing to do with the theory that creation came about through random chance (in fact, some creationists use chaos theory to support the idea that there is intelligent design behind the universe).

[Sojourner]

Here's a link to some info on chaos theory:

[url="http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.html"]Chaos Theory[/url]

Interesting.

[jasJis]

I did use the concept of the Chaos Theory correctly. In simplistic terms, if one graphs the seemingly random occurences (such as a faucet dripping in the article Sojourner provided) one can determine a pattern and predict the parameters that subsequent 'random' events will fall within. Applying this to the complete set of DNA mutations in a human and the fractal derivitives of the limited parts that creat and eye is how they concluded the odds or chances that a working eye occured. Compound that with all the other DNA constructs for species and organs that work and chart that without having the oddities that don't work or fall within environmentally sensitive evolutions, according to the Chaos Theory, a pattern of predictable random DNA constructs should appear. It doesn't, according to things I have read. There would be too many powerful 'sensitive factors' that limit the set of working DNA constructs that could not be missed. Don't forget, like in astronomy, things that can't be seen can be detected by it's obeservable effects on what can be seen. We can't see Gravity, but we can detect andmeasure it's effects and determine it's physical links to objects with Mass.

In much more simple terms, the logic of 'First Cause' and the Big Bang coincide and St. Thomas and Einstein both use logic and philosopy and are in agreement about evidence that God exists.

[Melchisedec]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Feb 11 2005, 01:12 PM'] In much more simple terms, the logic of 'First Cause' and the Big Bang coincide and St. Thomas and Einstein both use logic and philosopy and are in agreement about evidence that God exists. [/quote]
Einstein didn't believe in a personal god as you do. Here is what einstien had to say about god:

[i]I get hundreds and hundreds of letters but seldom one so interesting as yours. I believe that your opinions about our society are quite reasonable. It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.[/i]


[i]I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance-but for us, not for God.[/i]

[jasJis]

Einstein is not denying God (an infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in our limited comprehension of reality), but of the 'fundamentalist's' idea of God that controls every aspect of people. Einstein is not denying God, but debating about our interaction with Him.