Replies

At least I try to check my spelling.

So do I. Aging eyes and small computer type faces make it difficult to catch misspellings sometimes. Spell check seems to be responding very slow for me today and is a pain to use for every post. Does it make it too difficult for you so that you can't understand what I'm saying?

First of all, evolutionary theory does not even attempt to explain the origins of life

Then why does everyone that is taught evolution in school end up with that idea? I don't think Origin of Species is used as a textbook anywhere.

Ever seen a mule? What is your definition of a species?

Ever seen a mule family? You know, Mama Mule, Daddy Mule and Baby Mule? A mule is a hybrid. A species is a naturally existing population of animals (plants) that interbreed with each other to reproduce offspring that have the ability to interbreed with other offspring of the same population and produce their own kind. A mule is sterile, there are no naturally occurring populations of mules, it doesn't qualify.

Templar wrote in post 16: "Aging eyes and small computer type faces make it difficult to catch misspellings sometimes..."

30 posts later, Qwinn wrote: " I mentioned vision. Eyesight. The cornea, the rod, the pupil, the iris... none of which serve any other function. And if any of them were missing, you couldn't see. Please, since it's so simple, explain to me how they all evolved.

Instead of describing the rather well understood evolutionary pathway of eyes, which has been posted on FR time and time again, I'd like to put the ball in your court(s), for once.

So, which is it? The human eye evolved over the ages which has given 21st century h. sapiens a multitude of eye ailments such as templar's, "aging eyes..." OR, were our eyes "intelligently designed," which has given 21st century h. sapiens a multitude of eye ailments such as templar's, "aging eyes?"

I guess a third choice is, "I want it both ways," which seems to be the creationist answer to everything in the end.