God put a blind spot in the eye he's a terrible engineer.

​@@huntermcquilkin9978you've must been living under a rock! The "blind spot" issue was refuted even by atheists themselves years ago and they acknowledged they were ignorant about it 😃

Look up Dr. Douglas Axe, Dr. Stephen Meyers, Dr. Michael Behe, and Dr. James Tour. Their work has put an end to the mythology of naturalism. Once you understand what the UNASSUMED OBSERVATIONAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE shows, it becomes impossible to have faith in the MYTHOLOGY of naturalism. The God hatred of atheists can't overcome the FACTS of physical science. DNA CODE CAN'T SELF-CREATE and SELF-ASSEMBLE into cells ACCIDENTALLY... thus naturalism is destroyed.

From one theist to another, natural selection is irrefutable friend! Chemical evolution is another monstrosity altogether

Great and informative commentary ! Thank you.

We don’t know that at all. What are you talking about? The idea of evolution is harder to believe than it ever used to be BECAUSE of scientific discoveries.

They surely can!

You actually posted that? There seems to be no bottom to the silliness of responses to the design model. What you would be discussing is sudden temprature and atmospheric changes, not the existence of ovens.

It's almost like there's decay in the world. I wonder how that happened?

It's like blaming God's poor design of your liver because you drink, your lungs because you smoke, or your pancreas because you over eat etc etc. Human diet and lifestyle are responsible for 100% of crime and 90% of physical ailments. Eye muscle weakness idue to using phones or computers up close and watching too much television etc, is most often responsible for poor eyesight. Research Bates exercises, it could improve your eyesight!

Your eyes have been going downhill because you only have a limited lifespan.

Even beyond fine tuning where we prescribe higherachy of value on objects with a premium on carbon based life in our current theory Darwins evolution falls apart. Darwin random still needs a linear deterministic evolutionary mechanism that can't be supported based on to much randomness nature itself doesn't allow for. 3 degree of motion on classical scale or on the smallest scales that prohibits us to ask or predict such linear direction is not sufficient.

Quite the word salad there. Could you please use more sophisticated terms to express how amazing God's design is.

You’ll have to do a hell of a lot better than that😂😂

lol 😂 but to be fair he’s making decent points, but they are flawed. He acts as if these structures and functions just appeared fully formed. Then he appeals to irreducible complexity, which as already been debunked for flagella.

​@neilenglish7433 Seriously, bad design arguments are just ignorant.

Those are the result of a very peculiar car accident and fire. The crash dislodged some glass, wire and plastic from the car and the heat from the fire caused the object you are seeing on his face to fuse together over time. Matter, energy, time and chance are all the explanation that we need. No reason to invoke an optometrist of the gaps or to suggest that his spectacles require a designer. Everything is explained by physics and chemistry, as it should be done, because science.

it was for an open mouth insert foot moment for the rest of us...

as the presenter of this lecture did an amazing job disputing theistic evolution...

And then they deny the eye had a designer. Based logic.

Quote mining.

Darwin was just a storyteller. A good story teller (and a pretty good naturalist), but that's all.

Darwin assembled a notional progression of eye complexity, but did not show even a seriously proposed succession of ancestral eyes. He did not show examples of transitions from one eye version to another. Hand waving at maximum.

At no point did he describe the eye as an adapation. So what do you mean by "well adapted"? Adapted from what, for what?

This was likely aimed at the layman audience which is generally considered to be an 8th grade level. It would have been good for him to get into the details at the molecular level of what is needed to have light enter the eye, turn on a switch that sends the chemical signal, which is converted to an electrical signal, which is then converted back into a chemical signal at the synapse and then back into an electrical signal, which then becomes a chemical signal that activates the pathways of the brain to interpret the signals. If any of these fail then you don’t have some sight, you have blindness. Then he should have talked about the number of genes and regulatory genes that are required to manufacture each part of the chain. This could easily be an entire course of lectures explaining how each gene produces a specific part, that then relies upon another gene that makes the enzyme that folds the protein, that then relies on another gene that builds the machinery that transports the protein to where it is needed, which then has to have additional genes making the other parts of those molecular machinery, which then relies upon other regulatory genes for the timing of production and assembly. After all that, we don’t have an eye yet. We only have one tiny part that has to be able to seamlessly function with all of the other parts that themselves all have to be assembled together at the molecular level using numerous different genes, steps, processes and regulations. Oh I forgot about all of the genes required to get the raw materials to be at the right location for assembly but let’s ignore that for now. So Darwinian evolution relies on advances that are produced by random mutations in preexisting genetic information. It doesn’t tell us how the original information was produced but only that it needs the database in order to start monkeying with it, at random, without a purpose or goal in mind. It has to muck up the code, wait for the next generation to muck it up some more, another muck here and another muck up over there. Until finally all of that mucking, like stirring up a bowl of alphabet soup and randomly producing a poem, becomes more advanced information! Tah Duh! Ish fishxed meor gewder now ish pewfectar! Oh crappy crap. I forgot to mention all of the assembly and instructions for the parts that maintain and repair all of the parts we just built. Maybe random solar radiation making holes in my computer’s hard drive will do it for me. Oh, stupid me. All we have talked about so far is the information that produces the molecules that produce the machines. We haven’t even talked about what makes the machines that make those machines. But we also haven’t talked about how the cells become specialized and produce tissues that organize to make organs. That’s a whole other level of complexity and a whole other challenge. See we can’t just randomly make a super awesome molecular machine but then that machine has to function in the right context of the larger organ system which then has to function in the larger organism as a whole. It has to do this within a goal in mind and without any other intelligent guidance. What we know about biology makes Darwinian theory laughable. Unfortunately people are trying to make serious out of what is a joke of a theory.

his main point is not about the complexity of the eye but the irreducible complex of each system within the eye. for example he argues that there is so many parts to the lens from its specific proteins to many other parts . so if one part of the lens is not fully developed it won't be functional at all and it doesn't have any use at all . this means that a non functional system or organ in our body is not 'beneficial' for evolution so it won't be selected by the natural selection to be passed to the next generation.. so evolution has to get the whole system within the lens at the first try . The probability of that happening it astronomical . if the system has irreducible complexity with so every part essential to its function it very likely designed than it is happening by chance.

Wow, I'm impressed ! Somebody who really does get both some of the details and the bigger picture. I don't come across that very often. I love your little essay or commentary here. It's excellent ! And I especially admire the way you recognize the hierarchical LEVELS of order embedded in living systems, and how completely inconceivable it is that such things could 'arise' as the result of random mutations. It is, as you rightly say, a laughable theory. ....Thanks for your comments. I thoroughly enjoyed reading them ! @@boxelder9167

These are arguments from evidence, not ignorance. Why fill in gaps with Darwinism when the evidence points another way?

Even that disingenuous caricature of what is being said provides sound argument: "I come to the only conclusion possible for me". What conclusion would you have him come to?

The ACCIDENT OF THE GAPS fallacy and TIME OF THE GAPS fallacy have both played out! DNA CODE CAN'T SELF-CREATE and SELF-ASSEMBLE into cells ACCIDENTALLY. This above TESTABLY TRUE AND FACTUAL STATEMENT could be disproven by naturalists if their MYTHOLOGY were true. But...they CAN'T. Naturalism = MYTHOLOGY We now KNOW that THOUSANDS of novel proteins CAN'T ACCIDENTALLY "emerge" in the BILLIONS of potential offspring of humans and any chimp-like creatures. The SILLINESS of BELIEVERS in the MYTHOLOGY of naturalism is that their OWN EVOLUTIONARY STUDY...the largest and longest on earth... has already DISPROVEN that ANY NOVEL PROTEINS "emerge" in TRILLIONS of testable offspring in THEIR OWN STUDIES!🤣🤣🤣😉 Even more hilarious is the MYTHOLOGY that Chromosomes "can" and "did" combine AUTOMAGICALLY to form new species...despite the FACT that this has NEVER EVER EVER been observed to be able to occur... let alone to have occurred as they FAITHFULLY BELIEVE!🤣🤣🤣 Any naturalists feel free to try to disprove anything I've said here! But let's try UNASSUMED OBSERVATIONAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE...instead of more of the usual vitriolic banter... proving that you CAN'T support your MYTHOLOGY!😉

More like, "I hate God, so I refuse any evidence because I hate the conclusion."

It's not a matter of imagination, it's a matter of logic. Nature itself has no mind, therefore it can't design complex functional systems, period.

Its a mile wide and an inch deep.

When you put it like that, it’s actually even more ingenious

Both eyes evolved the same sh*t design simultaneously. What were the chances of that?

You haven't brought any argument to the table that convinces anyone. People fall away from because of our sinful nature. By the way, his aim was to speak of the amazing design of the eye and to tell you the assumptions behind evolution that from an engineers perspective don't make sense. By the way Jesus loves you, even if you hate him. God Bless

It's too complicated therefore it had to evolve is as Darwin said 'equally absurd'. The eye evolving by mutation, chance or progressive change, is as stated, mathematically and statistically impossible. And that's just the eye, what about the heart, liver, lungs and the other 75 organs (and 200 specialist cell types) in the human body! Without scientific evidence, saying it must have 'evolved' over time, requires more faith than saying it was intelligently designed.

It's too complicated for my mind to grasp therefore because I see no one, random coincidences did it even if it makes no sense.

You have a serious case of dunning Kruger if you believe you actually know what happened that long ago.. fairy tales for you idiots, yet you can't even see the pink elephant in the room = God!!