Be Grateful for the Intelligent Design of Your Eyes

Miscellaneous question for @stephen_33, @varelse1, or @TruthMuse (or anyone who knows)  I just resized the picture in my post #16 above.  The picture didn't look that big when I posted it via my phone, but on my computer it looks huge and unnecessarily takes up a ton of space, so I just reduced the size (clicked the pic, dragged the tiny square on the lower right to desired size).  However, for some reason I'm unable to resize any posted pics from my phone.  No resize "square" shows up.  Anyone know the trick for this or a work-around?

On my laptop that image of the structure of the eye is so reduced I can't read any of the text on it. I have to open it in a new tab before I can read it.

Hmm, interesting.  Not sure what to do then, because on my end it takes up the whole screen.  Here's the original picture I posted without any resizing.  It's not unusually large when viewed on my phone, but is so oversized when I try to view on computer that it doesn't fit on a single screen (have to scroll to see the whole picture).  Just to confirm, you're saying the pic below is fine (not too big/oversized)?

At 100% zoom it fits perfectly on my page & although the text is slightly fuzzy, I can make sense of it.

alright, cool, thanks for the feedback 

Yeah. Be grateful to God for the design of your eyes. They are so well designed that it points to a designer.

Then you seem to be creating a problem for yourself that the evolutionist simply doesn't have: Millions of people are born every year requiring corrective lenses, so how does this come about if your 'God' is such a good designer?

We are a fallen race, living in a fallen world where decay is the norm. 

I'm sorry I don't know, I hate doing anything on my phone. My work on the SOC chips on phones was strickly functional hardware not software related. I'm in the middle of a busy time I will attempt to look this up for you.

That may be an answer to a different question but it really doesn't address my question!

If sight imperfections are your 'God's retribution for the fall, why do some people suffer from impaired vision most of their lives, while others have excellent vision into old age?

And why do some people who have lived blameless lives suffer all manner of sight problems, even becoming blind while those who have committed the worst atrocities enjoy much better vision?

If you plan to present an argument for the way anything in this Universe is ordered, it needs to make some logical sense!

You cannot have a flawless system in a state of decay; everything is winding down in this universe; it is a way of things. The fact that life has been going on well with most systems says a lot about life's design standing up while in a state of decline.

People suffer due to the wrongs they do, the wrongs done to them by other people, and various reasons.

Let's go back a bit? I responded to the above by pointing out that in the real world people's eyes don't work so well and sight can be impaired by a host of problems, some hereditary & others the result of disease etc.

Then you (TruthMuse) replied "We are a fallen race, living in a fallen world where decay is the norm"

So just for the record, are you contradicting Gabriel1326? Would you say there's nothing about our eyes that suggests they were designed by a perfect designer?

There are different questions here.

Is the design bad? Does it work? Yes, I say it's good.

Have things gone wrong since the initial startup of life degrading the eyes and all else in life?

I'd say yes.

This makes much more sense than suggest a mindless process to overcome all obstacles of forming life without a plan, purpose, and design to create a life that sees with eyes.

"degrading the eyes and all else in life" - but that is not the case. Many people enjoy excellent vision, even into later life. I've been severely myopic since about 6 years of age.

The proposition that this situation has come about as a deliberate degradation of the faculty of sight makes absolutely no sense! The best that can be said of it is it's completely arbitrary.

I credit good design for the high number of good eyesight out there. Nonetheless, change in systems isn't good more times than not, and degrading produces weaknesses and at some point issues that we don't bounce back from. I'm not sure why you'd think a degradation of faculty of sight makes no sense when if you believe for no good reason things can improve over time, why would degrading over time be a mystery by making no sense?

Because you claim that 'God' at first created vision perfectly but then decided it should be allowed to degrade as a result of 'the fall', is that about it?

So isn't it somewhat curious that human vision should have degraded in such a haphazard & arbitrary way, with some people retaining excellent vision into later life while others are born with all kinds of sight defects?

If something strongly resembles a system that has evolved by a very long process of chance events, it most probably is a sytem that has evolved by a very long process of chance events.

I'd say yes; He created it; the process wouldn't be degrading until the fall, and after that, the degradation would have started. Even though from that point on, even with the defects that do occur through mutation, life manages to continue as designed. The thing that you are doing is supposing a very long process of getting more specified functionally complex could occur without a plan or goal in mind! Which is more reasonable having a highly functionally complex system degrade over time makes more sense in my opinion. Frankly, I don't think it is even a defendable argument to suggest that natural selection which has no mind, has no target to reach, has no desire to see life arise, has no desire in it to build error checking into the process do what we see in life I don't care how much time you think it has to do it in.

Do you think that sin has the power to change the structure of physical reality?

So, you have this hypothesis: H(Design and Fall): The universe works well (reflecting its design) but imperfectly (reflecting the Fall). Now, I'm sure you see that that's not a very detailed hypothesis. If it were false, what could we conceivably (I didn't say "possibly"; I said "conceivably") observe to show that it was false?