The Puppetmaster wrote:What a weak argument. So we can't criticise something that is obviously flawed? How about whales? What kind of designer makes a marine lifeform that can drown? Either it was natural selection, or the creator'sa blithering idiot.
To say we haven't made something better than an eye is patently false. I assume you know what a camera is and UHDTV which achieves a resolution beyond that of the human eye. A pathetic argument which suspends disbelief to an amazing degree. And when we do create an eye, then what? Can we then laugh at the designer?
Take about pathetic sarcasm! I find the good doctors logic impeccable. Since both camers's and UHDTV are "designed" to be manipulated either manually or by a sensor your lack of an arguement against design lacks intelligence.
I also believe it was you, Aineo, that argued for simplicity being superior. Then why would we want to replicate a horribly complex organ like the eye when we can achieve better results with modern optical recorders?
I think I posted that nature seeks the simplist solution to any problem, not the most complicated. The complexity of the human eye is a good argument against natural selection.
Brilliant. Do you know what this argument is, ladies and gentlemen? Why, it's the unfalsifiability one, a.k.a. the "moving the goal posts" argument. So not finding a flaw means a designer, but when we do find a flaw, we can't rule out design either because we don't know the purpose of that flaw because the designer is so beyond human comprehension. Sounds like garbage to me. I'll ignore the fact that a verted retina would be superior because of lack of extra tissue to penetrate. Anyone that disputes that is just an idiot grasping at straws or someone that would argue a layer of Vaseline on a camera lens is somehow better suited to the thing.
I suppose I should expect a lame answer from an evolutionist. An interesting thing about b&w photography is the way you can change the intensity of light with a filter. Wonder where camera manufacturers got this idea?
My problem with teaching Darwinian evolution, macroevolution, or the origin of species by whatever name you choose to use is the lack of “testability” of what is taught as a scientific fact.
Guess what? You can't test for a designer either. Guess that makes us even then, oh wait, evolution is documented. Supernatural deities aren't.
EDIT: Additionally, this still doesn't explain why vertebrate fish have the same inverted eyes we have
yet live in the same conditions as the cephalopods. The designer must have a bad memory too.
This doctor was showing how the evolutionist argument used to show poor design is flawed the doctor was not arguing for a designer. And since we are not discussing fish eyes your attempt to refocus the discussion is begging the quesiton.