queston for Atheist

[Esquilax]

No its not that's because you assume that the eye and brain were somehow developed by its self over billions of years and you assume that macro-evolution is real which is just an assertion because of what you see in micro-evolution which is just natural selection which does not prove evolution.

Assume that? No, I don't need to assume; the evolution of the eye, at least, is quite well mapped. As for this micro/macro crap, using that as a response to anything is just bullshit on your part: to say that "micro" evolution won't result in "macro" evolution is the same as saying that if you take one step in a given direction, and then just keep taking steps in a line, you'll never walk a mile.

It's just an assertion you're making, without any basis, any evidence, nor any mechanism for why those smaller changes wouldn't accumulate into big ones. And I don't take the fantasies of know-nothing creationists, whose only attempt at argument is to poke holes in the existing science by inventing nonsensical problems with it and expecting everyone else to act as though they're real, as seriously as I do the evidence-based claims of real scientists.

You want me to take your macro-crap argument seriously? Go and fucking provide some experimental data that shows a mechanism by which smaller changes are prevented from accumulating. Until then, kindly shut your mouth and let the people who actually know what they're talking about do their work.