MATT:> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxNBiAV4UnM

The evolutionary jab comes during the discussion about the fallibility of the human eye... I have no idea who posts here anymore, but I still love my old school friends, dhw, and of course, the only ID proponent I have respect for, David Turell.

Delighted at your return, Matt. David and I are still fighting over almost every issue, but still love each other too!

I'll have to watch the video tomorrow as visitors are due any minute now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxNBiAV4UnM

The evolutionary jab comes during the discussion about the fallibility of the human eye... I have no idea who posts here anymore, but I still love my old school friends, dhw, and of course, the only ID proponent I have respect for, David Turell.

Welcome back, Matt. I'm not sure which 'evolutionary jab' you are referring to, unless you mean when the guy said our eyes were poorly designed. Yet, I can't help but think that there are likely very good reasons that our eyes are the way they are. If you watched the video all the way through, you'll notice what the guy said about the amount of data that comes with the high resolution. Without getting into the typical arguments of irreducible complexity, perhaps evolutionary biologists and creationists alike might try answering the question of 'what would be the impact if our eyes were designed differently?'

If our vision were sharper, more cones and rods, blood vessels in the back of the eye, etc. (basically all the things evolutionary biologists like to criticize the eye for), what would be the impact? Would our vision be better or worse? Would we have the same focal abilities? Would we have the same degree of low light vision? More importantly, would our brains be able to process the incoming information?

Personally, I always take issue with this debate because of the shear amount of hubris on both sides. Yes, having blood vessels in front of the eye can, when things go wrong, create problems, but what functional purpose does it solve, and could that purpose be solved in a better way? It's easy to criticize a design that you are incapable of reproducing. Movie critics do it all the time. It's far more difficult to actually do it better. So, for those that think the eye is poorly designed, I say, make a better one. If they can't.....

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxNBiAV4UnM

Matt: The evolutionary jab comes during the discussion about the fallibility of the human eye... I have no idea who posts here anymore, but I still love my old school friends, dhw, and of course, the only ID proponent I have respect for, David Turell.

Thank you. The strange anatomy of the eye has been researched to the point that it is recognized as ideal. Unfortunately the findings are it limited primarily to ID sites.