Posting Shortly: State Sen. Says CSCOPE Will be Yanked in Texas

Live BlazeCast at 2pm ET: The curious John Kerry Picture — plus your comments

Science

These Stunning Eye Pictures Are Amazing! And the Photographer Talks to Us About Them

Dec. 24, 2012 8:09am Liz Klimas

Before Suren Manvelyan was a photographer, he worked as a physicist in quantum optics.

Perhaps it was his Ph.D level scientific background that gave him the ideas and interest he uses today as a photographer.

“When you do something new in physics — only few specialists can understand what you did,” Manvelyan said in an email to TheBlaze. “But when you do something interesting and beautiful in photography many can appreciate it. This encouraged me to push my work further.”

One of his most stunning series has been getting play on the Web of late. It’s called Your Beautiful Eyes.

Photographer Suren Manvelyan Captures Close ups of the Human Eye

(Photo: Suren Manvelyan)

It’s not a new concept to take pictures of the organ that is commonly called the window into someone’s soul. But at such a close level of detail where you can see the structure’s within the eye, now that’s something that will cause your eyes to pop when you look at it.

(Photo: Suren Manvelyan)

Even when Manvelyan saw his photos, he said he was stunned.

“When I saw my photos for the first time my jaw was open and my eyes were round! I did not expect to see such result,” he said. “I was amazed, going out of studio and asking everybody to come for eye shooting.”

(Photo: Suren Manvelyan)

If you can’t get enough of these photos, check out Manvelyan’s full series featuring close-ups of the human eye here.

As for how Manvelyan is able to capture such close-ups, he said he uses “a special technique.” It’s a secret he’s not willing to let us in on.

When asked why people seem so mesmerized by his photographs, he said it’s because they “show us something usual from an unusual point of view.”

“Everyday we see hundred of eyes, but never suspect that they had such a structure,” he continued.

Suren Manvelyan became a professional photographer in 2006. (Photo via SurenManvelyan.com

If you liked these photos, be sure to check out Manvelyan’s similar series using animal eyes one his website here.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (144)

SCARY
Posted on December 24, 2012 at 8:25pm
Thankyou LL Momma!
Thankyou for keeping concise the exact reason people are running from your god.
The Self righteous,know-it-all,smugness that Jesus taught you all to live your life with.
….Oh wait…..that’s not what he taught.But,you types know better than his written word,right?
yeah.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- kjfreeze
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:51pm
  Scary, does evolution describe how the 6th sense works? Just wondering. And while you’re at it, maybe you can help me with the ideal of morals. Did they just evolve into what we all reason as right and wrong and how we are all born with the notion to do wrong but have been ” taught” to do right? Why is that?
  
  Report this comment
- 4suchatymasthis
  Posted on December 25, 2012 at 10:46am
  “Signature In The Cell” by Meyer is a good place to start the inquiry of evolution vs intelligent design. In addition looking into the bible codes (equal letter sequencing) dovetails into the debate of veracity of both the Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures. However my impression, Scary, is that you believe you will be thrown into the lake of fire, meaning you do believe in existence of God but have wearied of the quest in following Him. Or do I misunderstand?
  
  Report this comment
SCARY
Posted on December 24, 2012 at 7:28pm
@50211bs
I actually spent years 16-23 going voluntarily going to church 2-3 times a week,accepted Jesus,spoke in tongues and did the whole nine yards.Im now 43 and over the course of time I apparently spent too much time at the tree of knowledge(now I know why it was off limits).There is absolutley nothing you can tell me about Jesus,god or the Holy spirit that I haven’t experienced myself.Unfortunatly ,for me I have too much of an inquisitive mind too take what people in authority have to say as gospel(pun intended).That experience got me through some tough times in my life ,but I now realize that the truth is we all have this ability to go through and create the life that we want without the big bearded guy in the sky casting judgement on every move we make.
I dearly want to believe in a god,as it makes the tough things in life easier to deal with because you can blame things on supernatural powers or divine providence.But, I cant try and fool myself any longer. it’s been a long road to get here,but I just need to move on through life and try and be happy knowing the truth.Its gonna suck to have my “Abbah “,who loves me so much,cast me into a burning lake of fire for all eternity,but….waddah ya gonna do?
I’m actually not angry,I’m just disappointed.I just had to comment after enough people insisted that “eyeballs aren’t possible”without a creator.As if,because they said it,it makes it true.Its just silliness.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Libertyluvnmomma
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 7:52pm
  you spoke in tongues???????
  
  What language did you speak?
  Gibberish is not “speaking in tongues”
  If you don’t know, maybe you were misled.
  
  There are lot’s of wolves in sheep’s clothing. Nothing you mentioned contained a changed countenance by the spirit, just your usual selfishness with the Christian label.
  just making note of what you said.
  
  Report this comment
- HowTruthHurts
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 8:59pm
  @SCARY
  
  So….basically you’re angry at Christ’s harsh judgment….and so we don’t need God to create eyes….alrighty then…
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:22pm
  Scary, I was a lot like that. I agree that there are some like myself that need more; need to intellectually understand it, or so we tend to think. But I have found that atheists do not really think very hard about these things and your post is a case in point in several ways, unfortunately.
  
  After spending around a decade honestly studying both sides on this I finally came to the conclusion that the Bible is true, and also realized that deep down I had known it all along. (Subconscious can use parallel processing so is actually more powerful than the conscious.)
  
  Some specific points:
  
  -Notice you “trimmed the tree” down to just the Tree of Knowledge, but it was really the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; in other words, knowledge of sin. We were ordered to take good care of the creation (a command which has never been rescinded; it’s basically our job), which requires knowledge and understanding.
  
  -The use of the “little g god” is a probably intentional common debate trick by atheist elites that you’ve likely decided to parrot, but it actually tells us something about the poor understanding by atheists of what the biblical God is. I used to think atheists understood it but had some reason to reject it, but I’ve found that instead, they simply do not know.
  
  [CONTINUED...]
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:23pm
  …A little g god is basically an alien as in atheistic panspermia, multiple-god religions, and other views that aliens with any number of possible powers may exist. But God the Creator is beyond time and infinite, all-powerful, all-present, and all-knowing; the ultimate scientist, basically. :) They are very different.
  
  -The Bible actually commands us to increase our knowledge and understanding, and to be discerning, so anyone who tells you differently is being unbiblical on that point, sadly.
  
  -Did you experience the transformation of your desires that living in the Spirit, granted by genuine faith in Jesus, gives? I have, and to me this is one of the most important things so it’s strange to see you not mention it but instead mention a fringe ritual of “speaking in tongues” (which biblically refers to a miraculous translation power). Read Galatians on this if you haven’t. And keep in mind if you never really believed, that’s a more basic problem, so you should apply your mind to figuring out why it’s true, plus listen to your “heart” or subconscious on this, which has already figured it out IMO.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:25pm
  -Also, don’t forget that the only alternative — essentially atheism as long as you have a proper understanding that Theo is meaningless unless it refers to the infinite God (we ourselves are like little g gods to animals for example, and atheists typically accept the possibility of aliens) — is clearly impossible. This alone doesn’t narrow it down to the Bible specifically but other considerations do. See my reply to AmericanStrega below for a beginning of my reasoning on that.
  
  -Throwing around labels like silly is fallacious as it can just as easily be applied to evolution (more so, once you’ve actually looked into both and seen that evolution actually deserves the label), so that is of no logical help in picking which one to accept.
  
  -Finally for now, it really is true that the eye can only be originated with a creator; just claiming it isn’t doesn’t help argue against this point. Technically this is possible with super-smart aliens, so that alone doesn’t prove the Biblical God either, though, to be fair. But again, there’s much more to it than just this. It’s one among every other evidence, and when it’s all considered honestly, only biblical belief remains. :)
  
  Report this comment
- roscoe569
  Posted on December 25, 2012 at 12:20am
  So to recap: you no longer believe in God, and you’re angry with him for not existing….ok……
  
  Report this comment
- Alternative_Thought
  Posted on December 25, 2012 at 7:44am
  Yes believing in nothing is not “silly” is it?
  
  Report this comment
- Wolf
  Posted on December 25, 2012 at 1:37pm
  Even with all the evidence indicating a Creator, there are still so many fulfilling the Scripture, ‘The fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God’.’
  
  Pity.
  
  Report this comment
AmericanStrega
Posted on December 24, 2012 at 6:32pm
My theory is this: We do not exist. How could we? Science says the universe came about by some random energy. Religion says the universe came about by God. Well, where did this random energy or God come from? Who or what made them? If something comes from nothing where then did the nothing come from?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:02pm
  My view about this is that there are only two options for existence — what you said, nothing existing at all, which is clearly false (we might not exist in the form we sometimes feel like we do, but in some form, we exist), or infinite existence. Atheism is essentially a denial that these are the only two options; that there can be merely finite existence, excluding the beyond-time, infinite, Living God of the Bible, but this violates the laws of causality.
  
  Basically you can only have either an infinite string of finite causes, or a single infinite cause that’s beyond time. If the first, that still begs the question of what caused that setup. Ultimately, God must exist, and once we realize that (plus some more about his nature), we can realize he would be able to and would want to create a perfect world instantaneously, not evolve via death & pain.
  
  Also, his beyond-time nature would enable him to prove it with unfakeable prophecies. This is one of the most important points where the Bible comes in and we see why that was done; to demonstrate that it alone is God’s Word, and it is not merely manmade in some atheistic universe. :)
  
  I could go on but that’s the start of it.
  
  Report this comment
- AmericanStrega
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:41pm
  But Bones, how do we really know we exist? Some believe in God or Gods and some believe it is all science. But how can we really be sure of our existance? Please understand, this is just a theory and it really isn’t what I truly believe. But one really has to ask that question: Do we really exist?
  
  Merry Christmas to you Bones (or Happy Holidays). I extend this to all Blazers and to all “Trolls” alike. May we all have a Happy New Year.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:59pm
  ‘Cuz in order to even contemplate the question of existence, we must exist. There must exist thought and minds and imagination, etc. at the very least. :) As the famous saying goes; I think, therefore I am.
  
  We can’t absolutely prove the “real” existence of much beyond that, though; the rest could all be some kind of dreamlike thing. :P
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 10:10pm
  By the way, to this:
  
  “Some believe in God or Gods and some believe it is all science.”
  Pet peeve kinda, but IMO it’s clearly both. The phrasing implies it’s either/or, but that makes no sense. If anything exists, whether God or whatever, then it has physics and science can eventually study it as long as it has the tools. Although “science” is technically the study of the physics and mechanics of existence, not those physics themselves. Anywho.
  
  Also the Bible does say that there are finite beings similar to some interpretations of aliens that God also created besides humans, animals, and other obvious life forms; angels (meaning messengers), and the evil version of that; fallen angels or demons. The godly angels would not masquerade as false gods but the demons have no particular reason not to, and their influence is behind much sinfulness including the making of idols, etc. Aaanywho, the point I’m taking forever to get to lol is that it is in a sense all three; God, gods, and science. :)
  
  IMO, anyways.
  
  Report this comment
- AmericanStrega
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 10:29pm
  Bones:
  Are you speaking of The Book Of Enoch? It’s a really interesting read. :)
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 10:43pm
  I was thinking of Jude mainly. Though that does reference Enoch. :)
  
  Report this comment
- AmericanStrega
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 11:29pm
  Bones:
  I have to admit I haven’t read Jude. I will look it up. I do love Enoch though. I’m going to go off on a tanget here: Enoch wrote of “Angels” coming down from “Heaven” and had carnal knowledge of human women thus creating “giants” and “blood drinkers”. Do you think this is where some of the vampire legends may have come from? I’ve been trying to outline a story on this. It could be interesting, hah, if I could pass myself off as an author (baa,ha,ha). :)
  Gotta say Good Night, Dear Bones. I hope you have a Merry Christmas/Happy Holiday with you and yours. Happy New Year also.
  Cheers,
  AmericanStrega
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 11:42pm
  It’s possible, yeah, though I think it’s a number of factors including vampire bat marks maybe being misinterpreted. I imagine in some places and times a bat would not be easy to keep common knowledge, as they tend to only come out at night and they’re hard to see, etc.
  
  And Merry Christmas to you too. ^_^
  
  Report this comment
detroitrockcity
Posted on December 24, 2012 at 3:27pm
These pictures are great! They made me think of one of my favorite scriptures.
” I will praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are your works, and my soul knows very well. ” -Psalm 139:14

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Gums
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 4:31pm
  Good one.
  
  Report this comment
SCARY
Posted on December 24, 2012 at 2:24pm
It’s hilarious when the religious mafia always oversimplifies evolution in order to make it sound stupid,but would NEVER take an objective step back and dare question their own “faith”,and the absolute silliness that their own religion consists of.Not everyone else’s religion ..your OWN.

If God made eyes,because he’s the only one who could,then why do men have nipples?I mean they’re absolutely useless on me.Is it too much work to just put them on females,where they belong.Not too “intelligent”of a design if you ask me..it’s actually kinda lazy.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- WhiteFang
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 2:42pm
  SCARY,
  
  Could you make the eye? Do you know how?
  
  Does anybody on this earth with all their scientific know-how and wisdom, can they do it?
  
  Report this comment
- OBAMANATIONOFDESOLATION
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 3:40pm
  Just because it’s useless to you does’t mean it doesn’t have a purpose. Consider the brain for example.
  
  Report this comment
- 50211bs
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 4:20pm
  Scary, have you stepped back and looked at why you have such animosity towards people of faith? maybe you should step back and look at why you have such a hatred. Were you molested as a child from clergy or a religious person? did your parents beat religion into you? If so, maybe you should meet the real Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Psalm 14: 1-7
  
  Report this comment
- DisgustedinUSA
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 4:26pm
  So glad my beliefs in God aren’t based on your ignorance. The bible says, “Mans wisdom is foolishness to God” Sounds about right after reading your comment
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 5:24pm
  @502 and DIsgusted, respectively: have you ever stepped back and considered why you are so hostile toward science? I’m so glad that the validity of science isn’t predicated on your ignorance.
  
  Report this comment
- Blacktooth
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 5:42pm
  MAProg,
  
  It is not science that is the problem here, it is unprovable theory masquerading as science that cannot be accepted by logical people. The theory of evolution is not science in the strictest sense.
  If a scientist told his children Santa Clause will be here tonight, should the children believe him?
  
  We are not children. We know that everything, all things are of design and then created.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 5:54pm
  Religious mafia. I like it. I’m gonna go by that sometime. :P
  
  Anywho, recent scientific history is chock full of emotionalism like yours getting into even science itself and causing people like Dawkins and others to claim that things are poorly designed but whenever they really look into it, it always turns out that there’s some logical reason for the design that atheists weren’t thinking of. When you want to see everything as an accident, in the face of blatant and vast evidence of design, it makes you desperate and unwilling to objectively check everything. So anything that feels emotionally like it might be poor design is just accepted as so on blind faith.
  
  Until someone — whether evolutionist or creationist; often it’s evolutionists! — someone who has the common decency, the curiosity, the drive to learn, decides to look closer. :)
  
  As for nipples, that’s been brought up and answered on answersingenesis.org. I forget off the top of my head what the answer was but you should be able to find it with a search on their site. ^_^ One obvious solution is that it’s more efficient in terms of the genetic coding. And as for “lazy” — that would only be so if the cost of it outweighed the benefits and I’m not aware that nipples on men cause any serious problems? (Even if they did it might be an effect of the Fall only.)
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 5:55pm
  Actually, evolution by natural selection is one of the most well-substantiated scientific theories there is. You have a fundamental lack of understanding, as your Santa Claus analogy reveals.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 6:07pm
  “evolution by natural selection is one of the most well-substantiated scientific theories there is.”
  Common mistake here — evolution by natural selection is not the issue as selection only removes existing information; it is “downvolution”, really a damage-limiting adaptive system built into God’s creations as a contingency for the Fall. Atheistic and unguided theistic “upvolution” require mechanisms to add new genetic information, which has never been substantiated and in fact and no known mechanism exists. Evolutionists of today try to pin their hopes on a combination of mutation and natural selection, not just natural selection.
  
  However, that fails because observed mutations also destroy information. At this point, even if very rare upvolution could be observed, it would be entirely swallowed up by the rampant and rapid downvolution. The only option science leaves us now (not the opinions of scientists but the actual science itself) is at best a long ages special creation with time for natural selection to preserve mutations, but this is entirely unnecessary once it’s admitted that God had to create and could have done so quickly, plus the global Flood and other factors eliminate the need for long ages anyways.
  
  Hope this helps. ^_^ You can learn much more at sites like creation.com and answersingenesis.org.
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 6:31pm
  @Bones, the fallacy that genetic drift only causes a net reduction in information is a long-debunked argument. Examples of mutations adding to the genome have been demonstrated time and time again. Furthermore, any mutation where a nucleotide base is replaced with another during DNA synthesis, doesn’t subtract information. Here’s a few papers to look into:
  
  increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
  *increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
  *novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
  *novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
  
  If you need more, please let me know.
  
  I’ve visited answers in genesis, and the site is a joke, masquerading as science. The problem is that aig starts with an unsubstantiated premise and then bends, or cherry-picks the evidence to support it. Conversely, evolutionary biology has been bolstered by evidence, and is therefore, substantiated. Scientists follow the evidence, even if you may not like where that evidence leads.
  
  Report this comment
- LastDaysonEarth
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 7:06pm
  Actually, a man can breastfeed, as strange as it sounds. http://www.momlogic.com/2009/08/men_who_breastfeed.php Very rare for it to occur naturally, but with a man who has been given the hormone Prolactin, it is possible.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 7:16pm
  Let’s not forget, too, that science to begin with depends on the Bible’s truth in order to operate. If universes and life can just spontaneously pop into existence despite the laws of nature randomly, then we have no reason to expect those laws to hold true uniformly the rest of the time. This is why science started in the Christianized West and the early giants in science were generally Christians. Trying to use science to disprove the Bible is like trying to use understanding of the design of a car to disprove car manufacturers.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 7:18pm
  LastDaysonEarth, fascinating! Isn’t science awesome?
  
  That does remind me what I think AiG’s answer about nipples on men was, or part of it, that there may have been functions that were lost later due to the Fall. That may be evidence of just this. Interesting. (And weird lol.)
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 7:45pm
  That’s cute, Bones. So rather than actually address my point or look into the papers I’ve cited, just go onto the next absurd arguement. I believe that’s called a red herring. Lastly, the concept that science was unique to the Christanized West isn’t accurate either. Pre-Christian Greece, the ancient Chinese, and Islam were also repositories of scientific knowledge. None of this has any bearing on the original discussion tho.
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 7:48pm
  I also fail to see where male nipples comes into the discussion. Where is there a debate within the scientific community about male nipples? Furthermore, what does this have to do with the evolution of the eye. You guys are amazing with fishtailing the discussion.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 8:50pm
  Scary brought that up, MA, not us. :P
  
  Anyways, this is typically how these discussions go; when the evolutionist runs out of confidence it “devolves” into straw men and other fallacies, even while throwing around allegations of fallacies even of us. But it may help to clear up some of them.
  
  Creationists do not argue that science was not done in the past, to the contrary, we often point to this as evidence that humans of the past were much more intelligent than evolutionists pretend. Also, vestiges of knowledge of God were certainly present in ancient cultures, as seen with the Chinese symbols, etc. — nobody who has actually studied this issue would think that the Bible or the knowleldge it contains popped into existence at the time of Christ…
  
  The argument typically made is that science was “stillborn” to borrow a term from CMI in ungodly societies. That is, it didn’t take off to get anywhere near as close to understanding the fundamentals as we have. This is historical fact; there’s no real point in disputing it, but rather you would have to explain how it happened as a coincidence. Also, you dodged the major point that atheism would make nonsense of the laws of nature.
  
  As for the bearing on the original discussion; that is obvious; the eye shows remarkable design, so evolutionists feel the need to bring up alleged examples of bad design.
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:09pm
  I was responding to a point YOU made, “This is why science started in the Christianized West.” Now you backtrack from your own working and act as if I’m the one misrepresenting what you said?
  
  This is often how these conversations with creationists go. The creationist invokes some concept, like you did about selection exclusively removing genetic information. I provide a counter-argument that is not only substantiated, but I actually cite sources the creationist can look into theirself to better understand the topic. They then ifnore the interaction as if it didn’t happen and move to some other bogus point.
  
  As to he nipples: I don’t care who brought it up. It’s a stupid argument in either direction.
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:20pm
  @Bones: actually, science was actively oppressed under the Church for over a thousand years. They even imprisoned and executed scientists. It was a Muslims, during this period, who made advancements in mathematics and astronamy, and even medicine. It wasn’t until the Renaissance, and the gradual eroding of the Church’s authority and the slow trend toward secularization that science was allowed to flourish in the age of The Enlightenment, an age, by definition, defined as a movement away from religous superstition, and toward naturalism and non-theistic philosophy.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:36pm
  “Now you backtrack”
  You can go to creation.com and read the actual arguments in context if you wish to. Arguing semantics like that is a waste of time, and notice it isn’t part of logical truthseeking. Besides, you already moved a goalpost, so you have no moral ground to stand on there. ;) I’m sorry I didn’t word that clearly enough at the start. Although, had you done your homework on it you would be familiar with what I was alluding to. :P
  
  Let’s try to focus on actual intelligent discussion from here on instead of throwing around insults and other distractions, okay? :) If you persist in that it will only demonstrate that you feel the need to appeal to fallacies in the hopes that others will notice your lack of logic…
  
  -Selection does not exclusively remove genetic information, depending on how you define “remove” basically. In the wider context of a created kind, regional selection does not destroy all traces of that information variety on the planet, in other words. It can also make some varieties simply more common without actually removing the less advantageous variety completely. However sometimes in a region it can entirely remove the less advantageous information, and occasionally globally there will be no surviving carriers of that and it will be entirely removed.
  
  Anyways, this is mostly irrelevant here; mutation is really what evolutionists pin their hopes on, not selection, as I said.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:57pm
  -Those points have all been debunked in detail (as positive evidence of upvolution) on the creationist sites I mentioned. I’ve heard it all before. :) Please take the time to look into this more carefully. (And mainly I hope that those reading along will do so, as I’m aware the goal here is not necessarily to convince MA personally.) The basic error is that they are merely highlighting things that are part of the biblical worldview, rather than a difference between it and evolution, so it is actually one of those “red herrings” you mentioned. ;)
  
  -Ignoring points is actually what evolutionists tend to do. That said, the post I tried to send through that didn’t take is probably to blame for this, so I won’t hold that against you (of course I wouldn’t anyways :P).
  
  -Actually, while we’re on the subject of nipples, another thing I should have mentioned is that the argument would also fail for evolution, actually. The Bible predicts that due to the Fall, and the relatively short timeframe since then, we might find some “vestigial” features, but in millions of years, if something is actually bad design, then selection is supposed to remove it. So in other words, you’re right; it doesn’t really help either case. But it is interesting to hear the possible positive evidence of a lost feature there, so I’m glad it came up. :)
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 10:00pm
  @Science oppressed under church — science is oppressed under atheism too, but in any case, this is a common mistake of confusing sinful Christians for an argument against the truth of the Bible. It’s important to realize, a major point I often make, that the oppression of the medieval times was also antibiblical. The lesson here is that any deviation from biblical truth is wrong, including when it is done by compromising Christians.
  
  -Islam science — This does nothing to prove atheism as Muslims profess to believe in a single God much like the Almighty himself, if not Him; certainly not in atheism. Both share the belief in a logical reason for natural law to be reliable. And anyways, the point is that it is not a coincidence that science really took off in a reformed, more biblical Christian setting. :)
  
  -That’s a rewriting of history that the fostering of better science was due to secularization and you know it. The issue is not specifically secularization per se but any deviation from biblical knowledge and morality. The paganified midieval church failed because of that same cause. Secularizing science has hurt it in many ways too, as open inquiry has again been stifled by desperate and dogmatic evolutionists in the face of so much disproof, so it’s hypocritical to now use the same sin done by that church as evidence against religion.
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 10:04pm
  Bones, you are something. I knock holes in your points and you are unphased. I appeal to logical fallacies because you are comitting them. If you commit a logical fallacy, your argument, by definition, is moot. I have gone beyond simply appealing to fallacies, however. I have provided you with actual scientific literature regarding the topic which you yourself brought up, and that you continue to ignore.
  
  I also enjoy how you become indignant at my dismissive tone, when I was only reflecting your own; or how you say I’m arguing semantics when I quote exactly what you said to demonstrate how you constantly shift your position.
  
  Lastly, I’d recommend that you brush up on genetics, because DNA is a great repository for information. Symply because a span of DNA isn’t coded for, doesn’t mean it no longer exists. DNA has a lot of “junk,” or unread components that can reflect dormant, or no longer useful traits. It’s a simple fact that we, as humans, have much of the same DNA as our evolutionary ancestors. All extant life does. That DNA simply doesn’t get coded for, or it operates cellular functions that are shared in all modern organisms. Again, I recommend that you read some scientifici literature, such as the articles I posted. Furthermore, I’d recommend brushing up on some genetics.
  
  Report this comment
- walex
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 10:20pm
  Your post was really uninformed. Each person, when a fetus, begins as a female, and then if the Y chromosome if present, determines it to be male. Males cats and dogs also have them. Same design. There are nerve endings there for both genders. That serves a purpose. Species procreate and have like offspring. Cows have cows, dogs have dogs….etc. Two ears, eyes, nostrils, breasts etc. If you can’t see the design that screams designer, I am sad for you. More than a design, a CREATION. I hope you find Jesus before he comes back.
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 10:21pm
  Bones: furthermore, I can see that one of your debate tactics is to overwhelm your opponent with verbose responses. If they fail to respond to every topic you bring up in your winding pros, they are accused of willingly being evasive. The truth is, I don’t have the time to give each point you bring up a full response. That fact doesn’t mean I am evading, and it certainly doesn’t afford you victory by vitue of that fact. The reality is that you are intentionally writing long, winding responses to this end. I’m simply not going to go off on every tangent you bring into the discussion.
  
  Nipples are not a crux against evolution. In evolution, the only traits that matter are those that enhance reproductive fitness. If a trait, i.e. secondary sex characteristic like nipples, doesn’t impact reproductive fitness, then it won’t necessarily be bred out of the population. The only “negative” traits in evolution are those that reduce the ability of the individual to have offspring. Nipples on males have no bearing on that. Furthermore, any basic study into embryology will show you that all humans start out as the same gender. Both genders have many phenotypic analogues.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 10:30pm
  “I knock holes in your points and you are unphased.”
  Actually, you just constructed strawmen that were somewhat similar to what I said. That is one of the most basic fallacies that evolutionists often commit; Straw Man fallacy. Again, if you wish to understand the arguments more accurately than we can squeeze into this format and time, please do your own homework on it at creationist sites. Had you been informed on this you would have known what I really meant. But it’s forgiven.
  
  Like I said, reading the daily articles at creation.com and answersingenesis with an open mind for at least a year is the bare minimum IMO.
  
  “I appeal to logical fallacies because you are comitting them.”
  I’m a logician, MA, I don’t commit fallacies. ;) In any case, evolution is propped up through fallacies, such as Straw Man, Appeal to the Majority, Argument from Ignorance, etc. so there’s no real help there. Also keep in mind Fallacy of Fallacies, re this:
  
  “If you commit a logical fallacy, your argument, by definition, is moot.”
  Technically no; it could be correct by other means. But I didn’t commit any and (hopefully) you know it. But notice how off-topic this is taking us. Discuss the actual evidence, please.
  
  Also, no indignance, MA. :) Sorry if it came across that way; gotta compress due to char. lim. and time. Again, this is why you really should look into it on your own time, not need us to type it all up again here.
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 10:40pm
  @Walex: not all species have an X or Y sex chromosone. Some will have an XX for a female and just an X for a male (i.e. grasshoppers). Some species are tetraploid and hexaploid. It’s not all the same.
  
  Yes, cows have cows, and dogs have dogs, but these are mostly domesticated animals and humans control their genetics to their own ends. In nature, lizard population X has offspring of the same species. Some traits will be favored over others if they enhance the individuals’ abilities to obtain food, attract a mate, raise young until they are viable in the wild. If a few individuals within a population have such a trait, and the others do not, they will have more offspring that survive until adulthood, carrying that advantageous allele for that trait. They will have that advantage and breed more offspring than others without the trait. Eventually, the trait becomes more widespread in the popuation as a whole. This is genetic drift and the basis for evolution by natural selection. Given enough genetic drift, especially if a population is split and seperated for long enough and no interbreeding between the two takes place, you will get speciation. Enough speciation eventually leads to distinct genera, etc.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 10:42pm
  “DNA is a great repository for information”
  I agree — but you’ve just provided yet more evidence of the “intellectual schizophrenia” of evolutionists as an apologist once put it in a CMI video; recently I had a bunch of evolutionists insisting to me that DNA has no information at all, lol. They can’t get their story straight out there…
  
  “Symply because a span of DNA isn’t coded for, doesn’t mean it no longer exists. DNA has a lot of “junk,” or unread components that can reflect dormant”
  This argument is outdated; again, please take the time to do your own homework on this. Noncoding DNA was treated by mere assumption as junk by past evolutionists in the hopes that it would prove to be so. However, like nearly all (if not all) other supposed evidence, it is an argument from ignorance (a fallacy); it was a lack of understanding of what that DNA is for being seen as opening the door for the possibility that it might later be proven to be positive evidence for evolution. But it never was that. And now we know in many cases that they are functional or that they serve as backup copies for repair functions and other non-protein functions.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 10:42pm
  Anyways, vestigial features are not foreign to the biblical worldview anyways due to the Fall; if anything they logically would be better evidence for it than for evolution over millions of years, which should have removed the inefficiencies by selection.
  
  -no longer useful traits — another point that is moot because it is not a difference between the two basic worldviews. An example is an adaptation to a regional environment which leaves certain features around that are not useful in that environment, but in previous environments where members of that baramin lived, the trait was useful. This is hard science and really basic logic, not evolution.
  
  “It’s a simple fact that we, as humans, have much of the same DNA as our evolutionary ancestors.”
  As our ancestors, obviously — I don’t see why you bring it up? But of course we don’t agree with the evolution part. :)
  
  -Can’t argue with the call to brush up on genetics, though. Review is always helpful. ^_^
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 10:54pm
  “overwhelm…”
  Take all the time you need; I’ll be watching this one for a while. Just answering the points you brought up in as much detail as I feel is needed to do them justice. But again, even this is just barely scratching the surface which is why I urge you to do your own homework on it much more. Origins is IMO the vastest subject of nearly all as it literally needs to incorporate every facet of known existence. So that takes space.
  
  Don’t forget you attacked me earlier for being too brief, though… so be careful what you wish for. ;)
  
  “This is genetic drift and the basis for evolution by natural selection.”
  The problem here is that your use of a word spelled “evolution” is defined specifically as natural selection, but is being used fallaciously to appear to be positive evidence for “upvolution” as in the normal sense of the word; the alternative to creation. Fallacy in question is equivocation.
  
  In other words, you’re pointing to evidence of downward change to argue for upward change. It simply doesn’t add up. At the very least, mutations MUST be added to this picture for “upvolution” to have any chance. Downward change (and outward in terms of eventual expression of information present from the start as in normal genetics) is fully biblical.
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 11:19pm
  Vestigal features: I’ll reiterate my point from my previous message. If a trait does not impede reproductive fitness of the individual, it won’t necessarily be bred out of the poplation. An example could be the appendix. While some people get appendicitis, it usually don’t occur until they are well into their reproductive years. Therefore, the presence of an appendix has no bearing on the reproductive fitness of the individual. This, of course, doesn’t even factor double recessive anomalies such as cystic fibrosis, where people can be carriers of a gene, or even those actually afflicted with the disease can still have children in many cases, since CF usually isn’t fatal until people are well beyond puberty. The same could be said about vestigal femurs in whales, which, unlike my two previous examples, isn’t even harmful to the individual to begin with, etc. If it doesn’t impede reproductive fitness, it won’t necessarily be gone from the phenotype.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 11:38pm
  “you will get speciation. Enough speciation eventually leads to distinct genera, etc.”
  Speciation is only known to happen with losses (like the other examples), and thus better fits baramin creation than unguided evolution. In this case, it’s the loss of the ability to interbreed between groups descended from the original created kinds (baramin).
  
  BTW, I remembered one point from that post that failed twice to go through — the response to the claim that “aig ignores contrary evidence” and the like. Basically the problem I have with this argument, even if it was true, is that it’s being used to defend intentional ignorance by the evolutionist to justify not bothering to do their own homework on what creationists actually believe, often by the same evolutionists who engage in debate online with creationists as if they knew what they were talking about. In other words, the evolution is accusing the opposition of ignoring, in order to justify ignoring — so it’s self-defeating.
  
  And everything in existence when studied closely enough proves to be evidence for the Bible. What we do have (or rather don’t have) comes in some categories of research where we don’t yet have definitive answers proving what view is correct, as was for a while true with evolution itself, and opponents of the Bible tend to take those lacks as positive evidence fallaciously. But eventually, science always catches up to the Bible. :)
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 11:47pm
  “Vestigal… appendix…”
  I’ve mostly covered this topic in subsequent posts, but might as well make sure you know this one too just for the record; it’s known now that the appendix is not vestigial after all and does have important function. Basically it is a probiotics storehouse. You might be aware of this; I couldn’t tell for sure from your wording but you did seem to imply you weren’t. (Making sure you don’t misunderstand like you did before. ;))
  
  Most of the rest of that post doesn’t seem to be relevant here, so not sure why you brought it up.
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on December 25, 2012 at 2:23am
  I’ve read the literature on the appendix. It’s part of my job to keep up on such things. While reseach into the appendix has yielded some potential functionality, it is still a vestigal organ, as reflected in comparative anatomy with other species.
  
  The other things I brought up to illustrate the point that traits can remain in a species indefinitely, so long as it doesn’t hinder their reproductive fitness. This is referring to a claim you made that vestigal organs make no sense in an evolutionary paradigm because they would disappear from the phenotype altogether. Maybe that would make sense in a Lamarckian paradigm, but not in a Darwinian one, which is governed by natural selection, and which only cares about passing genes on to the next generation.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 25, 2012 at 2:41am
  “This is referring to a claim you made that vestigal organs make no sense in an evolutionary paradigm because they would disappear from the phenotype altogether.”
  I see. They would not necessarily disappear altogether, but to see massive amounts of them as was once alleged as positive evidence for evolution doesn’t really make sense. The problem with saying they would go away completely is that evolution is supposed to be an ongoing process; so some things would become useless or less useful more recently. Natural selection does operate on nonfatal things, though, or it should over the extrapolated millions to billions of years, so that the more efficient a system the better able to compete for resources its being will be, and apparently trivial downsides can indirectly be fatal due to this, and still go extinct.
  
  Regardless, vestigial features fit with both worldviews, so don’t logically help us choose one or the other. :)
  
  This does bring up the point that harmful mutations that are not immediately fatal do tend to build up over time and slowly degrade all multicellular life to an inescapable extinction point, another major point that has disproven origins by unguided evolution. Studies of the rate of this in humans have shown that unless we can technologically get past these issues, we will die out “soon” in evolutionary timeframes, and should have already died out long ago if evolutionary history was true.
  
  Report this comment
ProudInfidel
Posted on December 24, 2012 at 2:18pm
gross !

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- NOT A CRAZY
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 4:49pm
  That was my first thought. I prefer to see eyes the way I always have.
  
  Report this comment
Alina.D
Posted on December 24, 2012 at 1:37pm
God can surely make beautiful things out of the dust!
Genesis 2:7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- WhiteFang
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 2:36pm
  Alina.D,
  
  Yes, all things are created, all life has a designer. To think the eye came about by chance is truly insane. Even a simple paperclip was designed and then created by a creative mind. How much more, the eye and it’s connection to the brain, allowing us to see all the other things God has created for our marvelling gratitude.
  
  “You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they existed and were created.” (Revelation 4:11)
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 3:22pm
  A paperclip isn’t alive. It doesn’t reproduce. It doesn’t have alleles. It isn’t subject to selective forces.
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 3:24pm
  Except paperclips aren’t alive. That’s the fundamental difference.
  
  Report this comment
- Anonymous T. Irrelevant
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 4:18pm
  And around the world, optometrists, opthamologists, and the rest of the eye doctors yawn.
  
  Report this comment
- Blacktooth
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 5:03pm
  Whitefang,
  
  Now, don’t you feel foolish for using an illustration of a paperclip to teach an obvious truth?
  In response, Maprog felt the need to tell you that a paperclip is not alive! Isn’t he brilliant?
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 5:28pm
  @blacktooth: rather than resort to snarky remarks, why don’t you try to understand the implication of what I’m saying. When you use the analogy of an inamiate object to support an intelligent designer, you are forgetting that the inanimate object isn’t alive, and is; therefore, not subject to the processes of life, the most important of which is reproduction, and the genetic drift that occurs as a result.
  
  Report this comment
- Blacktooth
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 5:51pm
  MAProg,
  
  You are not as smart as you think you are, and we are not as dumb as you think we are.
  Your efforts to talk-down to me is not working.
  
  Report this comment
- Blacktooth
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 6:16pm
  MAProg,
  
  Lets keep this simple with some questions:
  
  Your hands – do we see design there or did they come about by chance mutations?
  
  We can ask the same questions about your eyes, your ears and the mechanism that sends sound waves to your brain to process those sounds?
  
  What about your brain itself, is there design there or did it come to be by chance mutations?
  
  What about a horse, was it designed? What about the atom, is there design there?
  
  Why do we have the ability to speak a language? How does that work considering the interaction of the mouth, teeth, tongue, lungs, brain? Can you explain all this and a million other examples we can consider?
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 6:40pm
  @Blacktooth: I see that your debate tactic is to attempt to overwhelm your opponent by expecting them to answer dozens of questions. The flaw with all of your examples is the assumption that each of these organs and systems have always existed in their current form. When you look into biology, you find many different variations of each of these mechamisms, and of varying coplexity. You reference the hand. The primate hand is very advanced, and reflects the use of tools and fine motor skills exhibited by them. In biology, form reflects function. The evolution of the primate hand is actually a fascinating topic. I suggest you research it.
  
  As to the other questions you broadsided me with: I suggest you look to experts in those respective topics. To damand that I have all of the answers, and then claim some sort of victory because I don’t is disingenuous. The thing about science is that scientists are specialists. One may study primate hand evolution, another might be a neuroscientist who focuses on the development of speech, or an area of the brain, such as Broca’s or Wernicki’s area. Another might be an expert on the preception of hearing. The idea is that they all pool their knowledge into a knowledge base.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 25, 2012 at 3:00am
  MAPROG, I really never get why people make this argument. The day we invent the paperclip that reproduces itself is the day our technology because VERY intelligently designed. Really bad argument. ;)
  
  And maybe the day the paperclip robots hook us all up to the Matrix… but that’s neither here nor there.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on December 25, 2012 at 4:48am
  Typocorrect: is the day our technology becomes
  
  Report this comment
hi
Posted on December 24, 2012 at 11:57am
Even Darwin admitted the eye could not have evolved.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- MAProg
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 1:36pm
  Except we’ve had 150 years to study the issue since Darwin. It’s not like evolutionary biology stopped with what Darwin wrote.
  
  Report this comment
- truthnstuff
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 2:50pm
  MAPROG, so do you now have scientific proof, after all this time, that the eye evolved???? Hmmmm?
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 3:20pm
  Yes, if you care to research it and not be willfully ignorant, there is plenty of proof that they eye has evolved. Photoreceptors are actually very primitive, and even many bacteria have the ability to discriminate between light and dark. Eyes are essentially advanced photoreceptors. If you want to get a good idea for the variability of the eye, simply look into nature today. There are a plethora of eyes of varying complexity from simple photoreceptors, to the eyes of raptors, and everything in between. This demonstrates that there are gradations in the complexity of such an organ, exactly what you would expect from an evolutionary model by way of natural selection.
  
  Report this comment
- HowTruthHurts
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:03pm
  @MAProg
  
  There are also variations in the complexity of various computers. That doesn’t mean that one computer physically evolved from another. It could indicated that a designer designed various computers to satisfy various needs.
  
  The religious can have tunnel vision, but so can atheists.
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:35pm
  @How, it demonstrates the nature of the false dilemma that creationists paint that the eye is so complex that it must be either a fully functional whole, or it could not exist at all. The driving force behind evolution isn’t a trend toward ever-increasing complexity, so it will essentialy cease when a phenotype trait is best suited to the environment of the individual. Basically, looking to the variability of the eye in nature is looking to a catalogue of the evolutionary process, the intermediate forms between the simple photoreceptor proteins in bacteria, to the complex eyes of primates and raptors.
  
  Report this comment
- HowTruthHurts
  Posted on December 25, 2012 at 7:32am
  @MAProg
  
  Your point was not missed. I fully understood your point. My point however, is that you and other atheists (assuming you are by your posts) may be practicing the same tunnel vision you accuse the religious of.
  
  The religious see the complexity of the eye and conclude “the eye is too complicated to have evolved”. Atheists see the various complexities of eyes from different species and conclude “see, the eye has simply evolved to various complexities depending on the needs”. I say both sides could have tunnel vision. You already pointed-out the limited perspective of creationists. I say atheists are not considering that the numerous variations could indicate precise design. The mathematical probability of a complex eye (such as for humans) evolving to its virtually flawless state is improbable. Much more, the mathematical probability of the eye evolving virtually flawlessly to the needs of countless species is improbable. Again the various complexities of eyes for different species doesn’t necessarily conclude that the eve evolved. It could very well conclude that the eye was designed to fit the needs of various species. Just as tires are designed to fit the needs of different environments and terrains.
  
  In my years studying the dispute between creationists and darwinism, I’ve concluded (for myself) that most if not all arguments on both sides are based on perspective and world view rather than science.
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on December 25, 2012 at 3:33pm
  @How: since it came up, I have no problem saying that I’m an agnostic.
  
  As to the world view dilemma you highlight: I get what you’re saying. Each starts from a set of assumptions and sees evidence that conforms to their confirmation bias. I’d only contest that science has mechanisms to combat bias, that religion doesn’t. I’m sure you know about the scientific method, the concept of falsifiability, peer review, empirical evidence. I maintain that while the scientist may coform to a naturalistic worldview, they do it because that’s what the evidence has shown. Saying that both have the same merit, I would say, isn’t accurate. I understand your point, tho.
  
  Report this comment
Jude 4
Posted on December 24, 2012 at 11:44am
The uniqueness of every human eye, (no two are the same), is one of the unimpeacheable facts that destroys the presuppositions of the infidel. Eyes and eyesight, cannot, absolutely cannot happen by mere chance encounter. Atheists know this, but they choose to believe their own dellusion, with false hopes of avoiding the judgement.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- MAProg
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 1:36pm
  Except it can, and modern biology has a pretty good handle on how it happened.
  
  Report this comment
- ChildOfTheKing
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 2:03pm
  @MAProg:
  HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
  
  Anyone who actually believes in evolution is looney-tooney. They are delusional.
  Look around you, dufus. LOOK VERY CLOSELY.
  How could you NOT believe that someone greater than mankind created all things (MANKIND, NATURE, ETC.).
  
  Ah, delusion. Read what the dictionary says about this: IT IS ACTUALLY DECEIT (FRAUD):
  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deception
  
  You cannot make something OUT OF NOTHING – but GOD CAN and HE actually tells you how He did it in the book of Genesis. TRY READING SOMETHING USEFUL FOR A CHANGE.
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 2:31pm
  Child indeed. So you’re rebuttal is an argument from incredulity. Because you can’t possibly fathom it, it therefore must be impossible?
  
  Report this comment
- supertruckerdave
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 2:53pm
  @MAPROG
  You have to have more blind faith to believe in evolution that to believe everything was created by God. There is absolutely no evidence of evolution, it there is I’ll challenge you to give me and everyone here some. I’ll give you my evidence that God created everything; just look around and see everything that is perfect, if evolution were true there would be nothing more than chaos. The second law of thermodynamics paraphrased, everything winds down, comes to an end.
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsvZXS5Sxmc
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 3:15pm
  @Supertrucker: ah, the old ‘second law of thermodynamics’ argument. It’s always amusing to see people invoke science to disprove science, especially when they have a poor grasp on either of the scientific principals they invoke. The second law refers exclusively to closed systems. ‘Closed system’ means a system in which no energy is being introduced. See, introducing energy into a system actually reduces entropy. Organisms acquire energy by consuming glucose, which is converted to chemical energy, and counteracts entropy. That’s the whole reason why you eat. Neither life, nor the earth receiving energy from the sun are closed systems. Try again.
  
  Report this comment
- supertruckerdave
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 4:14pm
  @MARPROG
  You haven’t offered any evidence of evolution. Just told me something about energy. So my follow up question would be, Where did the so called Big Bang get it’s energy? Since through the evolutionist’s theory there wasn’t anything that existed before the big bang. Where did the energy for the bib bang come from? I propose God! I know you don’t like it but you can’t explain it, you along with all other evolutionist’s always paint yourself into a corner. I know because I used to believe in evolution, until I did some reading and realized that there is more evidence for God than there is for evolution.
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 5:35pm
  “Told [you] something about energy [?]” You mean I refuted your appeal to the second law of thermodyamics. It’s actually amusing because your dismissal actually further illustrated your ignorance. If you had any understanding of the scientific principles you appeal to, you’d know that energy is a big deal regarding life and entropy.
  
  Next, your appeal to the Big Bang is a red herring. We’re talking about evolutionary BIOLOGY. You creationists always confuse biology with cosmology. You start talking about the Big Bang and stellar evolution (equivocating). If you want to know about the big bang, please speak to a cosmologist. Simply appealing to God because an answer may not yet be answered is poor reasoning.
  
  As for proof of evolution: it exists everywhere. We have observed naturalistic adaptations of genotype and phenotype as well as speciation. In fact, any genetic drift, favoring one allele over another, as reflected through changes in proportionality of each respective allele, is by definition evolution. Just because you failed to understand what you were reading, doesn’t make it false.
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 5:36pm
  In fact, the field of genetics is the single greatest evidence of evolution wihin the field of biology.
  
  Report this comment
- Old Truckers
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 7:51pm
  I want to say something here;
  
  MAProg thinks he can intimidate those who hold to creation by making some condescending scientific proclamation as a being a fact. End of argument because MAProg says so!
  Well, it just does not work that way MAProg, common sense always rules the day.
  If you cannot see purpose built design in all the creation around you, then I suppose it would be a waste of time to point out the obvious to you.
  
  You have no bullets in your evolution gun.
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 8:36pm
  @Old, I have no “bullets” in my evolution gun? It seems you’re the one lacking “bullets” with that weak rebuttal. You can’t counter my points on your own so you appeal to attacking me.
  
  Secondly, these aren’t facts because because I say so. They’re facts because reality says so, as does empirical evidence.
  
  As for “common sense.” I hear that invoked a lot on this website. It seems that by “common sense” you actually mean “filtered through my confirmation bias.”
  
  Lastly, as to seeing the inherent design of the “creation”: it’s an argument from incredulity, and a logical fallacy. Simply because you can’t fathom or understand something doesn’t mean it’s not true.
  
  Report this comment
- Old Truckers
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:20pm
  MAProg,
  
  Well, I can agree with something you just said;
  
  Simply because YOU can’t fathom or understand something doesn’t mean it is not true.
  
  So we are in agreement on this at least, and can apply it beneficially. :-)
  
  Report this comment
- MAProg
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:45pm
  @Old: that’s all you’ve got, eh? I like how you act like you got me here, when you haven’t provided a single thing to the discussion, and certainly to evidence in favor of your persective.
  
  Report this comment
- HowTruthHurts
  Posted on December 25, 2012 at 7:42am
  @MAProg
  
  Respectfully you are practicing the same tactics most darwinists practice. I have read through numerous posts of yours and noted you have not at all proven your argument. You have simply attacked the arguments of others or the others themselves. You also just claim “the science is out there in various different fields” yet you still haven’t proven your argument. That is not science.
  
  In fact (in danger of making a ridiculously bold claim) I’ve never read an atheist actually prove their views scientifically on any forum. They simply claim the science is there somewhere, and attack the religious. Again that is not science. Loyalty, yes, but not science.
  
  Report this comment
banjarmon
Posted on December 24, 2012 at 11:08am
Take a look at your pet’s eyes, or the eyes of frogs. They are Golden. Big brown eyes of cows or horses. The beauty of the eyes are beyond comparison. Enjoy them when you have a chance.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Honest_E
Posted on December 24, 2012 at 11:08am
If I didn’t know they were eyes, I think I would have enjoyed them as art. A lot of them look like beautiful sunflowers, or celestial constellations. Knowing that they are eyes, it’s a little creepy because I know it’s all tissue and nerves and blood vessels. That stuff, while still beautiful and amazing as a creation of God, makes it a little harder for me to look at.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
South Philly Boy
Posted on December 24, 2012 at 11:02am
GOD surely creates some Beautiful things

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Daemonpreyer
Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:57am
Hiss eyess arr number one.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
nocommie
Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:55am
Only a God could have created the eye,vision and the ability to see.What a concept.Amazing

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Boomchucker
Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:53am
Yes, isn’t it amazing what can occur with random chance via evolution. (sarcasm intended)

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- TheePolitinator
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 10:05am
  You do realize by persecuting religion/God your only submitting to an agenda of evil right? Kinda reminds me of, hey, get on this bus, we will take you to safety.
  
  Wake up. You don’t have to believe in God to live a life of righteousness, however, those that are trying to destroy religion are not living a life of righteousness or morals.
  
  Study the Roman Empire. See what happens to a Republic when religion is removed, orgies in the streets and a complete breakdown of a moralistic society. Sounding familiar yet?
  
  You don’t see me out pushing my beliefs on you don’t do it to me.
  
  Report this comment
- Favored93
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 10:27am
  @TheePolitinator
  This person was not attacking God. In the post he/she said that he/she was being sarcastic. Relax a bit there bud.
  You are right in what you said but this person was and is not attacking God or those of us who believe in Him.
  
  Report this comment
- Advection
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 10:35am
  It has recently been admitted that Evolution isn’t actually random after all.
  
  Theists have been pointing out for decades the absurd improbability of certain “coincidences” in nature. For example, many similar species supposidly evolved the same features in different environments and on opposite sides of the planet.
  
  Also, the same microstructures in different species that are built from the same genes are often coded from completely different DNA sequences. They should have been built from the same DNA, assuming the species inherited the structures from a common ancestor.
  
  In other words, the data doesn’t support the theory.
  
  Report this comment
listeninginVT
Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:25am
These types of eye photos are used in iridology(study of eye to determine health issues, old science and very accurate), and while seeing an eye close up is neat( in a fear inspiring way I am wonderfully made), most of those ‘eye’s’ shown are seriously diseased, which is very sad.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- John1-1-5
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:35am
  Your quoting Psalms:139 Everyone should read the whole chapter, it’s fantastic!
  
  Report this comment
- CATSUEY
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:59am
  I worked at an optometrist office and the doctor I worked for was a Christian. He said that when you study the eye and you see the miracle of it, it proves there is a God. No way this could just happen…..
  
  Report this comment
- ctinzer
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 11:49am
  You are absolutely right, ListeninginVt, these photos are of all people who show signs of being very sick and probably need quite a bit of help. Iridology is the SCIENCE of looking at the eyes and predicting what health concerns that a particular person has or will have in their lives.
  
  Report this comment
- hi
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 11:55am
  Actually the eyes in photographs are not diseased. That is the way they look close up.
  
  Report this comment
TROONORTH
Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:04am
Eye found them fascinating!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:01am
Mega creepout.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
KingCanon
Posted on December 24, 2012 at 8:57am
That miraculous orb formed from the dust of the earth, then
rolled around until it found a brain, which by the way, had been
out there forming on its own as well. They sidled each other for
billions of years until one day an optic nerve had the audacity
to come between them. After the dust settled the three of them
realized they could produce something amazing simply by working
as a team. It was an eye opening experience to say the least!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- AnotherExDem
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:51am
  Great post!
  
  Report this comment
- kjfreeze
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:54pm
  kingcanon, your post can be taken either way. Which do you perceive as truth? Do you side with a godless evolution or God?
  
  Report this comment
- KingCanon
  Posted on December 25, 2012 at 12:00am
  I am a Creationist. Thanks of asking!
  
  Report this comment
Minnaloushe
Posted on December 24, 2012 at 8:46am
Gross

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- willbedone
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:18am
  NO! gross is 144.
  
  Report this comment
starman70
Posted on December 24, 2012 at 8:43am
All just a part of GOD’s masterful creation.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
QC Ghost
Posted on December 24, 2012 at 8:38am
The eyes have it!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
piper60
Posted on December 24, 2012 at 8:26am
cool. literally.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- XaviorOnassis
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:14am
  literally? Someone turned off the heat in your home? What?
  
  Report this comment
- READRIGHTHERE
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 11:11am
  xavior,
  
  I could care less about your comment, it makes me nauseous. Literally. You know. Like, incredibly so.
  
  Report this comment
- cantstandlibs
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 1:37pm
  One thing worse than people mentioning grammatical errors is over-reactionary thin-skinned posters who have to comment back as if they are Nazis. Language means something, and those who point it out are swimming against the current, the current being a completely dumbed-down society that thinks they get to redefine every word to a special “today” meaning. Readrightthere, I seriously doubt you are nauseous, but if you are, go take a pill. Maybe put a dictionary in your bathroom for a little informative reading.
  
  I enjoyed Xsviar’s post.
  
  Report this comment
- XaviorOnassis
  Posted on January 17, 2013 at 1:30pm
  @cantstandlibs I don’t mind his response at all. When he told me he was nauseous (offensive and causing nausea) I took him literally. If he meant to suggest he felt nauseated by me, it backfired.
  
  Report this comment
Eastinfection
Posted on December 24, 2012 at 8:21am
https://www.google.com/search?q=cyclops&hl=en&tbo=d&rlz=1C1SFXN_enUS499US499&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=2FbYUNbBFIfS9AT7u4HoCQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAA&biw=1173&bih=635

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Eastinfection
Posted on December 24, 2012 at 8:17am
JZS returns just in time for the holidays!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- CHROME_PLATED_HEART
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 10:10am
  Don’t even go there.
  
  Report this comment
- Pogue
  Posted on December 24, 2012 at 9:18pm
  Thanks guys I needed a laugh!!!
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.