@Irish_Farmer: You are stating a lot without backing it up properly. For example, where did this came from?:

Quote:

---

Evolutionists like to dumb things down to little preschooler diagrams whenever the evidence makes things look shady for them. Which I find hilarious. Their dumbed down version (a simple lense with a simple receptor in the background) already requires an almost unfathomable complexity that would have arisen by chance, without the ability for the animal to even use it yet. But we're the quack ones.

---

Maybe you've only looked into the highschool books about it, because I've got here about 4 books going deep into detail. You may not have read literature of the scientific level, but more 'popular' stuff, basically designed for people with not much background knowledge or just to make a book which is readable for a lot of people, not just very clever one's ..
To give you an example of an excellent book on the subject;

"The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution" Jones, Martin, Pilbeam, Dawkins (etc..).

Quote:

---

That you think its fact just goes to show how horribly misrepresented the guesswork of evolution is. But then again, to you, that I don't think its fact just goes to show how loony I am so I guess we're at a stalemate here.

---

That's not true. Although the idea is a theory, it's backed with lots of facts, wether you like it or not. It's far from guesswork, and by using these kind of words you don't make it less solid.

Oww and about the fact or not thing. Yes, I agree evolution is a theory, but as long as it's not falsified, then it may be considered valid. When something is valid, especially theory's, then it's considered highly likely, more or less a fact. I guess every scientist will tell you that there is no such thing as truth and perhaps facts don't exist either, especially when getting really filosophic about it .

Quote:

---

If the evolutionary timeline is true, then the exact relationships between organisms aren't as exact as you say they are. According to the timeline, the eye would have had to evolve on its own at least (according to evolutionists) 36 times. There was a theory that it was a shared gene in the primitive form of the eye, but that was just one zoologist, and now most evolutionists agree it would have had to have happened near to forty or more times.

The idea that this happened 40 times, or probably more is scoffable. But you can keep believing it, because you have old bones and we all know fossils can explain what observable science cannot.

---

The thing you forget is, the eye's purpose plays a major role here. I think it's not that odd that it has been 'invented by nature through evolution' over 40 times. Just think about the human inventions from the last 200 hundred years, plenty of things got invented more than 4 times. Considered the time difference between that and the 40 times of eye 'invention', I think it's not odd at all. I also have to remind you that some species are not linked to others, so if they indeed didn't have a common ancestor who developed eyes during a evolutionary process, then when eye's would give a clear advantage to the species they would need to develop those. Some species can't evolve very well and just die out, others are lucky to have beneficial mutations, after quite some time and a lot of mutations later the eye could have fully developed. Yes, you are right this whole process is far from simple, yet there are enough interesting species in this world from which we can learn a lot about this process. We've got small creatures with eyes only sensitive to light, but not really able to see, and we got the far evolved animal eye (like from humans or predator birds) and a lot in between too. Enough observable scientific material to study imho, and bones also say a lot. You speak of them as if it's wood, but all kinds of features will tell things. Really basic stuff can be derived from them instantly, like how big would the organs have been, but also a lot lot more, like details about the eyes can be derived from for example skulls with further study, as in comparisons with modern animals/humans. Again, it's far from guesswork, and it's pretty solid.

Cheers