Vision and Evolution (A Critique of Dawkins)

[Anomalocaris]

I don't have any hypothesis that evolution via natural selection cannot account for the human eye. Read the OP again ma'am.

Sure you don’t. *wink, nod*

So, are you saying theories are hypothesis that graduated to theories because of positive results? If we run the pixie experiment and the results support the hypothesis, it should be promoted to theory? Because if you're not saying that, then I don't see where I was corrected.

It’s weird; you’d think a cog sci student with a special interest in biology, who is here to discuss the nuances of the evolution of the human eye, would have this foundational terminology already under his belt. 🤨

Christards thinks god is the supreme truth.  Any sophistry good enough to lead them to god, must be more than good enough for evaluating much lesser things like facts and any field of science.   He doesn't need no stinking foundation to opine.   He only condescend to pretend to have the foundation so he can bland in with the natives, so to speak.

He thinks he is very cleverly science facing, sort of like black facing.