The Seeing Eye

www.answersingenesis.com

Dr David Menton
Creationist Anatomist

Biography
Professional Affiliation: * Biomedical research technician at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota in the Department of Dermatology (1960-62) * Associate Professor of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri (1966-2000) * Associate Professor Emeritus of Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine (July 2000)

Professional Activities: * Guest lecturer in gross anatomy * Former coursemaster of Microscopic Anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine * Consulting editor in Histology for 'Stedman's Medical Dictionary', a standard medical reference work

Extraprofessional activities: * Vice-president of Congregation of Faith Lutheran Church of Ballwin, Missouri * Sunday school teacher for high school students * President of the Missouri Association for Creation, St. Louis, Missouri * Technical Advisor for the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, California * Lectured throughout the United States and Canada on the Creation-Evolution controversy

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• eye
• vision
• evolution
• science
• creation
• bible
• creationscience
• anatomy
• madscience
• jesus
• truth
• genesis
• biblical
• believe

[fellowservant34]

Excellent video! One must be willingly ignorant to believe the eye was not designed and somehow evolved by itself.

[MadScience]

I couldn't agree with you more. Evolutionist will never admit it takes more faith to believe in evolution than God. I just cant buy the idea that the eye, ear, etc... all developed on their own. It's ridiculous, especially when they claim everything we have now came from something the size of a period on a page exploded into what we have today. Can you imagine a period exploding and creating the Library of Congress?

[Bobalithmiss1]

how do "Evolutionists" need more faith to believe in evolution than God?

#1: People who believe in evolution can also believe in God.

#2: It is & has been witnessed, observed, and recorded. (The development of the eye throuh natural means..(1 example includes the mollusk).

#3: there are 2 meanings of evolution, 1 broad and 1 biological. The broad is "change over time". Biological is "an organism changing to better suit it's enviornment" -- both not only easy to believe, but logical as well.

[MadScience]

As I said you'll never admit that you believe evolution on faith. No-one denies that Microevolution happens. Even the Bible says " after their kind" Wolves and Dogs are still Canines. Macro evolution has never been observed only speculated and called evidence. You think becuase Micro is true that Macro must be true , well thats taking a leap of faith, it has not been observed and cannot be observed therefore takes faith to believe in it.

[kingcrimson234]

uh... comparing something with the processing power of a cray supercomputer does not make it look impressive. a pentium 4 chip is hundreds of times faster/more powerful than the fastest computer cray made.

[MadScience]

Since the eye seems to be worthless to you why dont you poke out yours and let a Pentium 4 chip do your seeing for you.

[85Aheadstix]

@MadScience Im sorry, but even with that in mind Macro is still umprovable and we see no evidence of it in the fossil record, biology has proven random generation impoissible, over 100 scientists have failed to also prove it so i think its safe to say its not gonna happen.

You need more faith to believe in evolution then ID im afraid.

[85Aheadstix]

hhahaha, the person that thinks that something sooooo complex happened by random accident is delusional!

Lets see them clear a space and wait 10 million years for a camera to form, thats what evolution is saying.

[85Aheadstix]

@MadScience What evidence is there that one creature can change into something completely different over time and by pure chance?!?!?, NONE!.

No creature can do it today, so why did it even happen??.

[85Aheadstix]

@Bobalithmiss1 Yes, but no body has ever proved it, it remains speculative assumption!, and thats not science, thats simply human opinion, nothing more, FAITH!.

[85Aheadstix]

@MadScience Its ludicris!, no one can prove any of that!, Dawkins himself has admitted it!, no body knows, he said, he then went on to claim that maybe aliens bought life here to evolve after creating it, he went on, i could just see Steins face as he was imagining doing a shovelling action(your digging a hole dawkins) , and dawkins was making less logical sense then he'd ever made!.

[ventura433]

@MadScience hey tard why dont u let people rate ur videos lol scared to see how shitty ur videos are rated?

[ventura433]

@MadScience a are clearly a dumbass

[SentientSapient]

@loqutor Try it again. Sofar every argument you've given me against evolution is easy enough to disprove (like the allels not fusing, which happens all the time), nonsense (random mutations having to take cues from natural selection rather than natural selection acting as a filter).. or not an argument against evolution at all (why would nonexpression of a trait affect evolution?).

[SentientSapient]

@loqutor The chance that a positive mutation is expressed in one of a successful breeding pair's offspring is dramatically higher if one of the parents has that positive mutation than if neither have it, no? Especially if it's a genetically-dominant mutation. So your point that it doesn't neccesarily manifest is no argument against evolution. In fact, the argument you give here is more an argument for evolution than against it, since a dormant trait can spread too.

[loqutor]

@SentientSapient Yes, I know that. I have run out of ways to spell out what I'm saying for you, and it's obvious that you're not grasping it.