Just watched the second one about the eye. Does not give any actual evidence of what did happen. As laid out in my previous post, a story about what could have happened is not actually evidence of what did happen.

And the above quote of mine is not a statement of what does not exist, but of what is not sufficient. I had said repeatedly ITT that the type of evidence that I feel is sufficient to show what did happen could very well exist out there, just that I had not seen it. This video was no different than anything else that I have seen. Just very poor evidence. shame on you.

Dude, you believe in a supernatural being that lives outside the universe and you're talking down to ANYONE ELSES standards of evidence?

Lose your ****ing ego and try to be self aware for a second.

Jib,

I think he's waiting for you to admit that there is evidence that the eye developed through a slow progression over many different organisms, and not just "hand wavy speculation".

Oops...too late. Jib has already dismissed the findings of biologists in this area as being insufficient evidence. I guess Jib has been conducting his own research in the evolution of the eye that makes him qualified to dismiss the findings of experts in this field.

lol, it's like talking to a child with you.

Can you point to said finding in that video? Did you watch it?

Laughter is human's most common way of dealing with being uncomfortable. Try to comprehend, for a single second, that you are talking down to someone else's standard of evidence - a scientist and biologist that does it for a living - while simultaneously holding a belief that an unseen, unheard, untouched, non-material being who cares about and loves you and lives floating around without form outside of the universe. You require tip top evidence for concepts you dislike, and no evidence required whatsoever for the concepts you like (god). You are biased, the totality of your posts on RGT are nothing more than confirmation biases. And since you're in the business of calling posters names today, I'm going to go ahead and call this spade a spade - you are incredibly weak minded individual who cannot emotionally bear to part with his cherished delusions. You also have an enormous unmitigated ego which prevents you from ever being able to admit error.

Yes, I'd seen the video in question in the past, and I re-watched when Rize posted it.

This is compelling massive evidence that eyes evolved. The fact that eyes are specialized to fit many different environments is MASSIVE evidence that they evolved in the similar fashions as other body parts.

What about the competing theory that God made millions of different kinds of eyes, one for each species of animal?

Your theory is just "hand wavy speculation".

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml

http://www.suite101.com/content/evol...man-eye-a40519

I'm waiting.

Wrong about what?

On science "not having actual evidence for the slow progression of the eye", referring to the idea that the eye evolved as "hand waving", and suggesting that "we don't know" if the eye evolved. If we know that evolution occurred then evolution of all body parts - including the eye - occurred de facto.

i find it so irritating that people like jib use the "we dont know" excuse as evidence for god. we dont know how the universe was created so therefore must be a god. we dont know how the eye evolved so therefore must be a god.

are u serious when you post things like this?

and then you decide to post,

that is really the last thing any theist could post without anyone calling them out on.

really??

I never made any of those claims.

And maybe you should read up as there still seems to be a lot you need to learn, but the claim that evolution happened and even the claim that the theory of common ancestry is true is NOT the same thing as claiming that the main mechanism of the grand sweep of evolution is that of a darwinian mechanism.

In other words Evolution != Darwinian evolution.

Man do even know what I said, or are you just assuming what I said?

I never once said that "we don't know" is evidence for God, nor did I say if "we don't know" how the eye evolved that God did it.

So why don't you stop crying in the corner and come out and have an adult conversation where you listen to what is being said instead of making things up.

Yes you did.

You are clearly exploring the end results of your (demonstrably incorrect) claim of TOE "not having actual evidence for the slow progression of the eye" in this quote.

Stop trying to backpedal. Seriously. Nobody is buying it. Admit you were wrong and move on.

i prefer your style of adult conversation where we start by name calling

lol, you even look at the surrounding sentences when someone says something? Or do you just pick out the parts that coincide with what you already want to believe? You know what, you don't even have to answer, we all know that it is the latter.

Stop trying to play games.

Does post #111 say or does it not say "not having actual evidence for the slow progression of the eye"

You are clearly CLEARLY saying here that there is no evidence for eye evolution and again to cement this fact as if there were any shadow of a doubt, you say the following: "Secondly, saying that the eye developed through a slow progression over many different organisms is something that requires evidence, not hand wavy speculation."

My god man, it is beyond obvious that you clearly thought that there was no evidence for eye evolution. Again here we see your petty, petty ego incapable of admitting it was wrong.

lol, no post #111 says this,

I am very clearly saying a couple things here, but none of them are what you are so poorly trying to attribute to me. Why do you continue to take out one sentence in a paragraph of mine and post it as if it were made in isolation? It is because you know you are wrong and showing to whole post makes that obvious.

Deleting posts is easier than educating yourself on topics u discuss often I guess. I bet wat I said is how many people here feel. Deleting that perception will take lot more work