And yet scientists can still produce much better lens than the human eye. Most cameras have much better lens than the human eye. Simply denying it does not change that fact.
Well you weren't, whatever Intelligent Design website you cut and pasted from did. But that is simply wrong - it is not comparing like with like. The eye is a very different object to a TV screen or an LCD. And it is also wrong in the factual sense - TVs can be made with great resolution than the human eye. There is just not a lot of need for it as we can't see the difference anyway given the limitations on the human eye.
I am having trouble working out how this relates to anything I have said. Remind me please.
It is not impossible. It is, in fact, highly possible. I have also seen images taken of distant objects which the human eye could not possibly hope to see. The problem with clarity as a measure is that I can only see objects with my eyes which are, as I have pointed out, not very good. So if the picture was even better than what the human eye can see, how would anyone know?
Evidently the two are linked.
You have only been dealing with low-definition TV. High-definition is expensive and takes up bandwidth so TV companies do not broadcast it. That says nothing about what humans can do, just what is economic. Again it is not hard to produce TV screens with high-definition than the human eye. There just is not a lot of call for it considering the audience cannot tell.
Well yes it does actually. It proves the superiority of lens makers.
Because the eye is such a bad piece of design - it could not, or at least in unlikely to be, the work of a designer.
There is a lot of debate about how creatures first came to see. Plants manage to orient themselves towards the Sun so they must have some sort of detector. The first organisms would have wanted to know where the sun was too - to bask in its warmth for instance. To hide when night came. It might also help to know which way was up. So those organisms which could detect the sunlight would do better than those which did not.
Mr Pot meet Mr Kettle.
If it were true you might have a case. It is not and you do not.
Your ignorance is not my fault. Nor is the inability of the Muslim world to produce real scientists.
Really? Who?
You mean this (entirely non-biologist) Patrick Glynn?
Patrick Glynn is Associate Director of the George Washington University Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies in Washington, DC. He has written widely on politics, culture, religion, and international affairs for such publications as The New Republic, Commentary, The Washington Post, The National Interest, the Times Literary Supplement, First Things, and National Review. He has appeared frequently on network news and public affairs shows, including "ABC World News Tonight," "NBC Nightly News," "CBS Evening News," "This Week," and CNN. He has been an Advisor to the World Economic Forum and a Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. In the 1980s, he served in the Reagan Administration as Special Assistant to the Director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. He is the author of Closing Pandora’s Box: Arms Races, Arms Control, and the History of the Cold War and, more recently, God: The Evidence: The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World. A summa cum laude graduate of Harvard College, he studied at Cambridge University on a Henry Fellowship and also holds A.M. and Ph.D. degrees from Harvard University.
You mean this (entirely non-biologist) Bryce Christensen?
Dr. Bryce Christensen
Contributing Editor, The Family in America
Dr. Christensen served as editor of The Family in America from 1987 through 1995, and a regular contributor to the New Research supplement during the following two years. From 1982 through 1986, he also served as an editor of Chronicles magazine. He is the author of Utopia Against the Family: The Problems and Politics of the American Family, and editor of four other volumes: When Families Fail: The Social Costs, The Retreat From Marriage, Daycare: Child Psychology and Adult Economics, and The Family Wage.
At present, he is director of the English Language Study Center at Southern Utah University. He is a contributing editor to Modern Age and has written for the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Chicago Tribune, New York Newsday, and the Baltimore Sun.
He received his B.A. from Brigham Young University and his M.A. and Ph.D. from Marquette University.
Contributing Editor, The Family in America
Dr. Christensen served as editor of The Family in America from 1987 through 1995, and a regular contributor to the New Research supplement during the following two years. From 1982 through 1986, he also served as an editor of Chronicles magazine. He is the author of Utopia Against the Family: The Problems and Politics of the American Family, and editor of four other volumes: When Families Fail: The Social Costs, The Retreat From Marriage, Daycare: Child Psychology and Adult Economics, and The Family Wage.
At present, he is director of the English Language Study Center at Southern Utah University. He is a contributing editor to Modern Age and has written for the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the Chicago Tribune, New York Newsday, and the Baltimore Sun.
He received his B.A. from Brigham Young University and his M.A. and Ph.D. from Marquette University.
You mean the (entirely non-biologist) French philosopher of the same name or the Hollywood actor?
You mean the Quantum mechanics-rejecting Yale Professor of Physics? He would be a non-biologist wouldn't he?
You mean this John Maddox?
Sir John Royden Maddox (born November 27, 1925 in Penllergaer, Swansea, Wales), a trained chemist and physicist, is a prominent science writer. He was an editor of Nature for 22 years: from 1966-73 and from 1980-95.
He wouldn't be another physicist would he? Care to look up the article your HY article claims he wrote?
Another physicist? Who does not, as it happens, reject Evolution.
Got any more information on this guy? Like a first name?
Who, still, no matter what Mr Yayha says, did not reject evolution.
So not one biologist among them - Darwin apart - and several of them not saying you claim they said. Neat.
How about starting with one biologist and moving on from there?
[quopte] Oh My! There we have it again. Another self assumption, backed up with NO FACT at all. [/quote]
Mr Pot meet Mr Kettle.
For someone who does not care what I think (not believe by the way) you are getting awfully het up. Why are you here peddling these half-truths if you do not care?
Irony?
The first microscope was invented by Hans and Zacharias Jansen, a father and son who operated a Dutch lens grinding business, around 1595. Their first microscopes were more of a novelty than a scientific tool since maximum magnification was only around 9X and the images were somewhat blurry. You expect them to prove SG wrong with this:
?!? Are you awake?!?
Umm, no because that microscope, was not built by the Jansens, but by Leeuwenhoek. As I said. As I said, as soon as the microscope was invented, and by your own admission the Jansens only invented a toy, not a scientific tool, it proved SG wrong. So your full of bluster, or something else, but you are simply proving my point. You were wrong about Pastuer. Accept it.
So you are agreeing with me. Fine. Why are you wasting my time with this?
Sorry? Two hundred years before Darwin? Yes there was - you have a picture of it above.
Because Pasteur was not researching SG, which had been proven wrong 200 years earlier, but bacteria. Ask a dumb question, get a dumb answer.
eace: