Quote:
Originally Posted by Row
in "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology" , He commented on the origin of the eye, saying that "to suppose that the eye....... could have been formed by evolution, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree". <--- shows that he believes that the misguided element of chance being thought as the driving force of evolution could not have brought all these parts together at the right time to make such elaborate mechanisms of life (eyes, brain, so forth)
he didnt need a religious nutjob to say such a quote
---------- Post added at 12:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:58 AM ----------
furthermore Robert Jastrow, acknowledging the complexity of the eye said "The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done it better".
---------- Post added at 12:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 PM ----------
all complex shit in the earth was made my a designer
|
Surely you don't base your opinions on what someone said that something "appears" to be, Row..
The eye is a perfect example of the beaks in the finches mentioned withinin my OP, a beneficial complex part of the body created by the genes and DNA of our ancestors. Are you then saying that the Finch analogy is inherently inaccurate? If so, please share how so we can further discuss this.
"All complex shit in the earth was made by a designer"
That's a perfectly valid opinion for you to have, all you have to do now is demonstrate it or any logical thinking person will see you as uninformed. So far you've demonstrated your side of the argument with something a random dude said the eye "appeared" to be. I'm sure you see just how shaky that argument is..