Existence of God

Well, actually it would be the point that you are trying to make/advance, not mine. I believe it was first articulated by you here:http://EvC Forum: Evolution of the eye? The myth goes on... -->EvC Forum: Evolution of the eye? The myth goes on...Here you pose two problems with the evolution of the eye. One problem ("The simplest eye known is not 'simple' at all") you consider solvable, but only by "squirming"; the other problem ("the simultaneous emergence of complementary features") you consider unsolvable.Both questions are worth debating. I believe the first can be countered without resorting to the evasion you describe, and the second one is not nearly "unsolvable", not by a long shot. I'd be happy to debate this.I would be able to start a formal debate after the 13th, as I'll be traveling between now and then. You could certainly start without me, and perhaps you should start, after all these are your claims to start with.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 11-05-2003]

The summary of my positions on the two points are:1. There are simpler systems. I'll save them for the "real" debate.2. Each component can be useful in its own right, and thus do not need to all arise at once to be useful. Thus, "simultaneous emergence" is not an issue.In a nutshell. Do you want to debate here (or rather, the Evolution of the Eye thread) or in a forum free from interference, to insure a focused debate? That seemed to be a concern of yours, and sometimes a structured format is helpful in discussion.[This message has been edited by Zhimbo, 11-06-2003]

It sounds like Joralex is signing on (starting after the 17th, if I remember correctly). So, is a Great Debate topic gonna happen?