Notice the following facts comparing your eyes and camera
Fact 1: Eye 鈥?The lens and cornea light onto the back of the
retina
Camera 鈥?The lens focuses light onto a light sensitive
surface, the film
Fact 2: Eye- Muscle change the shape of the lens to focus the image
Camera- The lens of the camera can be moved back or forward to focus images
Fact 3: Eye- The muscle in the iris regulate the amount of light that reaches the retina
Camera 鈥?The aperture, like the iris, regulates the amount of light that reaches the retina
Fact 4: Eye - As light enters the eye and passes through the lens and cornea, it reflects, or bends. When the light refracts, it turns the image upside down and backward onto the retina.
Camera- Light that enters the camera refracts and turns images upside down and backward onto the film. Fact 5: Eyes 鈥?can gauge 3D visions
Camera- Most cameras are capable only of 鈥渟eeing鈥?1 dimensional
Images.
Fact 6: Eyes are living things; while cameras are non-living things.
Conclusion: Based on the above observable facts鈥攚hich are surprisingly similar鈥擨 conclude that the camera was designed, while the eyes came about by chance. Oh by the way, Darwin would agree with my observation. I have authority on my side, and therefore my conclusion is correct regardless of the facts above.
Do you agree or disagree with my logic? what!!
all u just said gives me proof, eyes were desined Fact 7: Eye - part of self replicating organism, subject to natural selection.
Camera - artifact. Does not reproduce, and is therefore not subject to natural selection.
Correction to Fact 5: eyes don't gauge 3D visions - this is a function of the visual cortex based on the input of two eyes.
And no, Darwin did not agree with you. Evolution by natural selection is not random chance.
The theory of evolution does not depend on Darwin's or anyone else's "authority".
I can neither agree nor disagree with your "logic". In fact I can't find a logical argument at all in what you've written. The best I can find is an analogy between artifact and nature, which ignores the effect of natural selection on the latter and is therefore spurious. I agree and disagree. I think both were created for the purpose that they are there for. :) The first very primitive eye could only see a flash of light or dark, the eye expanded and allowed the animal to see brighter flashes and darker flashes, it got more round and let the animal see blurs, then it got rounder and a lens developed and so on until the eye was formed. It isn't complex at all. I am an atheist, so I must recuse myself from the question. I do want to raise a minor point, though. "Fact 5: Eyes 鈥?can gauge 3D visions
Camera- Most cameras are capable only of 鈥渟eeing鈥?1 dimensional
Images."
eyes can only see in three d because they work as a pair; a person with monocular blindness cannot judge depth. Similarly by using several cameras a three d effect can be achieved I know you said for theist only, but I was tempted.
And sorry, but I think there is some logical leap somewhere. I dont see how you arrived with your conclusion.
Cheers! Eyes did not come about 'by chance', they evolved at least 40 seperate times in the animal kingdom. You confuse evolution with a theory of chance... as usual.
Oh and you fogot the part about how the eye is designed back to front with the nerve bundles having to go through the blind spot, pretty rubbish design, in fact no first year student would design it like that. While your facts are correct, the camera is a poor substitute for the eye.
The eye is capable of seeing and adjusting for, variations in light, contrast, color etc, the camera can not (don't believe me, take a photo in a room lit with an incandescent bulb - your image will be red - now use a florescent tube - your image will be blue).
Finally, the eye does all of this without any of us thinking about it - a camera MUST be told what to do.
The eye can focus on any object from just a few inches to infinity in a fraction of a second - a camera can not.
The eye can work remarkably well in a variety of light conditions without any changes - the camera can not (one needs to adjust film speed, aperture, etc.
Fact 5 I question - a camera reproduces a 2 dimensional image - not a 1 dimensional image. Your conclusion, as stated, weakens your own argument. Darwinian evolution does not rely on chance, but nature. It is not luck that selects features, but survival.
Anyhow, the camera was designed based on the eye, so the similarities are not coincidental. Your comparisons are right. But the camera was invented by man based on how our eyes work.
Please explain to me how our eyes 'evolved' from nothing. Because thru the evolution theory, humans came from apes that came from another mammals, that came from reptiles/birds, that came from fish, that came from sea cucumbers, that came from jellyfish, that came from sponges, that came from one-celled organisms, that came from ???. So how did our complex eyes come from a one-celled organism? Just from chance? Or from a specific Designer?
Keep working on it. Some day you will get to the Truth. Peace! | 