Religion dooms you atheism saves you

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes, it does.

It's actually proof of Gandalf! Moreover, you know this is true, why do you deny it?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
....Only if this “God” is strangely acting unintelligently when it comes to design.

All of the evidence is in favour of evolution.

If species didn't evolve but were created by an 'intelligent' designer instead (note that evolution doesn't require any divine intervention/intelligence to operate) then that 'intelligent' designer must have limite ...[text shortened]... akes or simply hasn't got the power to design things exactly how he wishes (or both ) .

So you think it is impossible that animals were created according to their kind and each animal has 'evolved' over time to adapt to its environment?

What scientific observation disproves this assumption?

Originally posted by dj2becker
So you think it is impossible that animals were created according to their kind and each animal has 'evolved' over time to adapt to its environment?

What scientific observation disproves this assumption?

The fossil evidence indicates otherwise, as does genetic evidence. There are patterns in DNA that are not known to have a purpose, but are found in multiple species indicating common ancestry.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The fossil evidence indicates otherwise, as does genetic evidence. There are patterns in DNA that are not known to have a purpose, but are found in multiple species indicating common ancestry.

Could you be specific about how the fossil record indicates otherwise and which genetic evidence you are alluding to?

Also why would the similarity in DNA not indicate common design? Surely animals could have been created using a similar DNA blueprint. Similarity in DNA need not necessarily prove common ancestry if animals were created with a similar DNA blueprint.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...Sounds more like wishful thinking than scientific observation. ...”

its neither. It is a reasonable hypothesis. Actually, some animals that live today can be observed to have eyes consisting little more than just a light-sensitive spot on the skin so that is at least ONE observation to give credence to that hypothesis.

But there is there evidence of an animal that used to have ‘eyes’ consisting little more than just a light-sensitive spot on the skin in the past and now has fully functional eyes?

If not, why would the following hypothesis be incorrect?

1. Some animals were created with ‘eyes’ consisting little more than just a light-sensitive spot on the skin.
2. Other animals were created with fully functional eyes.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...That means there was no mistakes. ...”

I just pointed out a huge" mistake" ; didn't you read my post?
Tell us how putting the blood vessels for the retina in front of the retina where they partially block the light and reduce vision is NOT a design flaw?

“...And He certainly was not
stupid to have created these things. Can you create a ...[text shortened]... kes or are stupid.

“....I think I know who is really stupid. ...”

I know too, its you.

Can I think that putting the blood vessels for the retina in front of the retina is a sensible design feature? -obviously not.

This argument is commonly brought up by evolutionists against creation. Many such arguments forget the Fall, and others are based on ignorance of the need for a particular arrangement. In the latter category is the allegation that the eye is imperfectly designed because the ‘wires’ (nerves) run between the photoreceptors and the light. Many anti-creationists have argued thus — the roll of dishonour also includes Jared Diamond, (Diamond, J., 1985. Voyage of the Overloaded Ark. Discover, June, pp. 82-92. Kenneth Miller),( Miller, K., 1994. Life’s Grand Design. Technology Review, February/March. Cited in Zacharias, R, 1994. Can Man Live Without God? Word Publishing, Dallas, p. 81), and George Williams and John Bonner.( Williams, G, 1997. The Pony Fish Glow. Reviewed by Bonner J., 1997. One in the eye for creationists. New Scientist 154(2081):52)

However, Dawkins admits that the nerves are transparent, so don’t detectably affect the image. More importantly, the ophthalmology researcher George Marshall pointed out:

“The light-detecting structures within photoreceptor cells are located in the stack of discs. These discs are being continually replaced by the formation of new ones at the cell body end of the stack, thereby pushing older discs down the stack. Those discs at the other end of the stack are ‘swallowed’ by a single layer of retinal pigment epithelial (RPE) cells. RPE cells are highly active, and for this they need a very large blood supply-the choroid. Unlike the retina, which is virtually transparent, the choroid is virtually opaque, because of the vast numbers of red blood cells within it. For the retina to be wired the way that Professor Richard Dawkins suggested, would require the choroid to come between the photoreceptor cells and the light, for RPE cells must be kept in intimate contact with both the choroid and photoreceptor to perform their job. Anybody who has had the misfortune of a hemorrhage in front of the retina will testify as to how well red blood cells block out the light. ...

The idea that the eye is wired backward comes from a lack of knowledge of eye function and anatomy.” (An eye for creation: An interview with eye-disease researcher Dr George Marshall, University of Glasgow, Scotland. Creation Ex Nihilo 18(4):19-21, 1996)

If the photoreceptors were not in contact with the choroid, as per the ‘superior’ design of Dawkins et al., they could not be regenerated efficiently. Thus it would probably take months before we could drive if we were photographed with a flashbulb, as another ophthalmologist, Joseph Calkins, points out.
(Calkins, J.L., 1992. Design in the Human Eye. Bible-Science News, January, pp. 6-8.)
(See also Ayoub, G., 1996. On the Design of the Vertebrate Retina. Origins and Design 17(1):19-22)

Originally posted by dj2becker
Could you be specific about how the fossil record indicates otherwise...

The fossil record shows the family tree of life. We find only single celled life in the early parts of earths history and later on more and more complex creatures/plants. We also find various creatures showing characteristics in between current groups,

and which genetic evidence you are alluding to?
There is a lot of genetic evidence, but I specifically singled out cases where specific patterns indicate common ancestry.

Also why would the similarity in DNA not indicate common design? Surely animals could have been created using a similar DNA blueprint. Similarity in DNA need not necessarily prove common ancestry if animals were created with a similar DNA blueprint.
It doesn't prove common ancestry, but it does strongly indicate it. I pointed out the existence of sequences that have no known purpose and are subject to random changes over time. When these are analyzed we find that two animals that we believe are closely related (based on their physical characteristics), they also have similarities in these sequences. I cant think of a reason why an intelligent designer would do this other than to deliberately mislead scientists.

Whats more, findings from genetic studies tend to match findings from archeological studies. For example the history of the movement of humans around the world as determined by genetics matches the findings of fossils and other archeological evidence.
Those same genetic studies can be applied further back in the family tree to Humans and other great apes.

Another related strong indicator for evolution is the distribution of species by land mass. Continents and islands that are separated from other land masses for long periods (such as Australia, New Zealand, Madagascar etc) show markedly different ranges of species - which ties in strongly with evolution, but not common design.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...A light sensitive spot on a (patch of skin) appears caused by some UNKNOWN
NUMBER of mutations that deal directly with the skin, ...” (my emphases)

no, just ONE mutation. That's because that's how evolution works; one credible step at a time generally means one mutation at a time.

“...Okay wait there was more, not
only was the skin goin ...[text shortened]... d I give an acturate description of what you think occured? ...”

NO; read my above points.

If something requires a series of mutations to be built than getting there becomes
much harder not easier.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If something requires a series of mutations to be built than getting there becomes
much harder not easier.
Kelly

Harder than what? Harder than one mutation certainly, but easier than the same number of mutations simultaneously.
You have based your argument on the claim that certain organs or systems require a number of simultaneous mutations - and you made that argument because you know fully well that if the mutations happen in a series it is easier.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Harder than what? Harder than one mutation certainly, but easier than the same number of mutations simultaneously.
You have based your argument on the claim that certain organs or systems require a number of simultaneous mutations - and you made that argument because you know fully well that if the mutations happen in a series it is easier.

Going back to building a system and life has several all interconnected, if what you
are telling me is that your beliefs about evolution suggest that all of this was done
one tiny mutation at a time. So with unrelated mutations you have a real issue with
reality as far as I'm concern, you have stacked the deck with a completely
unrealistic belief in such a way nothing is impossible, not that it happened that way,
but that nothing no matter far fetched is out of the question.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Going back to building a system and life has several all interconnected, if what you
are telling me is that your beliefs about evolution suggest that all of this was done
one tiny mutation at a time. So with unrelated mutations you have a real issue with
reality as far as I'm concern, you have stacked the deck with a completely
unrealistic belief in suc ...[text shortened]... at it happened that way,
but that nothing no matter far fetched is out of the question.
Kelly

Its easy to call me irrational and say 'thats impossible' but so far you have not shown that. You have only expressed skepticism. And that skepticism is not based on facts, probability or any logical argument, it is based on ignorance ie you don't know how it was done so you remain skeptical. I on the other hand know how it was done and am not skeptical. Your deduction that I can therefore believe anything is unwarranted.

If you can show that the series of mutations required is impossible or even improbable, then you could have a point, but merely using phrases like 'stacked the deck' and 'far fetched' doesn't achieve that. Instead it indicates that you feel by intuition that it is unlikely but are unable to show that it is so by logic or mathematics.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Its easy to call me irrational and say 'thats impossible' but so far you have not shown that. You have only expressed skepticism. And that skepticism is not based on facts, probability or any logical argument, it is based on ignorance ie you don't know how it was done so you remain skeptical. I on the other hand know how it was done and am not skeptical. ...[text shortened]... uition that it is unlikely but are unable to show that it is so by logic or mathematics.

When are you going to use logic and mathematics.
I have the ancient source called "The Holy Bible" as
proof that the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob
started it all with His creations and then He rested.

Originally posted by RJHinds
When are you going to use logic and mathematics.
I have the ancient source called "The Holy Bible" as
proof that the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob
started it all with His creations and then He rested.

But that does not even hint that evolution is improbable, so if you claim that something happening by evolution is improbable (as is Kellys claim) then you need to support that claim with mathematics, not the Bible.
Similarly, many of the claims you have made about evolution in the past are not supported by the Bible, so you must support them by other arguments.

Originally posted by dj2becker
But there is there evidence of an animal that used to have ‘eyes’ consisting little more than just a light-sensitive spot on the skin in the past and now has fully functional eyes?

If not, why would the following hypothesis be incorrect?

1. Some animals were created with ‘eyes’ consisting little more than just a light-sensitive spot on the skin.
2. Other animals were created with fully functional eyes.

“...But there is there evidence of an animal that used to have ‘eyes’ consisting little more than just a light-sensitive spot on the skin in the past and now has fully functional eyes? ...”

yes; it is the evidence for evolution.

"...1. Some animals were created with ‘eyes’ consisting little more than just a light-sensitive spot on the skin...."

"created" via evolution, that is correct. THEN some of those species with such a simple eye evolved to have more complex eyes.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“...But there is there evidence of an animal that used to have ‘eyes’ consisting little more than just a light-sensitive spot on the skin in the past and now has fully functional eyes? ...”

yes; it is the evidence for evolution.

"...1. Some animals were created with ‘eyes’ consisting little more than just a light-sensitive spot on the skin...." orrect. THEN some of those species with such a simple eye evolved to have more complex eyes.

yes; it is the evidence for evolution.

Which animal used to have ‘eyes’ consisting of little more than just a light-sensitive spot on the skin in the past and now has fully functional eyes? Has the transition been observed?

"created" via evolution, that is correct. THEN some of those species with such a simple eye evolved to have more complex eyes.

And you KNOW this how?