Umm... you seem to have offered only part of the quote from Darwin.
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.
and now we see that you have tried to mislead everyone.
We see that you are being duplicitous and dishonest.
Why, then, should anyone believe anything you say?
@JimboSaturn So-called 'intelligent design' is merely creationism prancing around in an ill-fitting lab coat and pretending to have some sort of credibility.
Creationists used to market a nonsense they called 'scientific creationism', and 'intelligent design' is merely the same thing with a different label. They changed the name for marketing purposes after 'scientific creationism' failed and died when it was unable to come up with even a single example of 'irreducible complexity', which was the core of their claims.
'intelligent design', being the same product, is equally impotent and has therefore suffered the same fate.... dismissal and oblivion
@JimboSaturn However, Newton rejected the concept of the Trinity.
In addition to his scientific pursuits, Newton served as Warden of the Royal Mint, personally investigating suspected counterfeiters and obtaining convictions of 28 individuals, who were put to death by drawing and quartering.
@newjaninev2 Plus you were so indoctrinated even a genius like Newton could still rely on the supernatural now and again. Scary how this can happen to people. I leading creationist on this site claims to have a masters degree in science; such things scare me. However I doubt the masters degree is true.
@JimboSaturn Not to mention that Newton independently invented calculus (Leibniz was the other independent inventor). I once saw a list of the two greatest physicists: Newton & Einstein. Also, the three greatest mathematicians: Euclid, Newton & Gauss.
However, Newton's approach to publishing his science was more like the alchemists; keeping important results to himself in case they are valuable. He really had to be prodded into publishing.
@ElwoodBlues Yes I love the story about how Newton invented calculus so he can solve another problem. His colleagues came to his house to enlist his support and he basically said "ya I invented a solution for that years ago" and they were like " and you didn't publish it?!"
Why, then, should anyone believe anything you say?
Because it's the truth. Why, then, should anyone believe anything you say being that you're dishonest with yourself and with others, Newjaninev2? You have no evidence of what you believe is true.
What you did, @GodSpeed63, was an intentional attempt to mislead people by withholding part of the truth. That's a lie by omission. Would you want to stand in front of your maker and say "yeah, I intentionally misled people, but ..." But what? You've been caught in an intentional lie and you won't even apologize.
