Who's the most prominent Christian on this forum?

[ib.me.ub]

oh, ok, sorry about that Rayaan, I should have paid more attention to the question.

[FallentoReason]

If I may...

Where is this 'simpler eye'? For a long time the trilobite eye was considered the earliest and simplest version of the eye. Even it is irreducibly complex: http://www.create.ab.ca/the-trilobite-ey...ex-design/
Has another been discovered? Or are Evolutionists simply imagining how a simpler eye might work?

The eye was perfectly capable of evolving over time to where it is now. A portion of flesh that was sensitive to light and therefore giving a sense of orientation is how the eye could have started evolving (in organisms in the ocean).

On the contrary, many Evolutionists today claim Evolution was bound more or less to one inevitable path. Carbon and H2O are the vital elements of life. Their bonding properties and states of matter make life trillions of times more likely to have chosen them as its ingredients--as indeed it has. Our earth is conveniently fine-tuned to Carbon and H2O forms of life.

I don't understand... you're saying that life prefers C and H2O and that is what our earth has. You're pointing out the obvious. It's like saying "we're here because we're here". I know, but what does it matter exactly that there happens to be C and H2O here?

In the debate he used an illustration of a man giving up his seat for an old lady he didn’t know. Or helping children in third-world countries. As survival-driven organisms, we should have the tendency to compete against our own species. If the person on the receiving end of altruism does not carry your genes or give you any kickback, there is no reason for you to help them. In fact, you are fighting the evolutionary process. Genes of weaker, pitiable humans are passed on. In the case of the old lady, not at all. Why would we retain a 'morality' mutation that drives our species backwards?

Has this morality actually driven us backwards? Would you say that looking after others has done damage to the species? Maybe we should abolish all jobs like doctors and surgeons because their duties are clearly against the species...

Sorry. By purpose I meant the reason we have human reason and a desire for truth. Without God in the picture we are animals geared for survival. We seek only wants and needs. A desire for truth does not aid our survival.

Is there a problem with being animals geared for survival? Someone's desire to be something more than that doesn't make it so that we are more than that. I.e. your desire(s) aren't a valid argument. Only proof of a deity will prove that there might be a deeper meaning, but we all know where that discussion leads us.

Desire for truth does aid our survival. Would you like to be stripped of all technological advances and be put on a deserted island? According to your argument, you should be able to cope the same as civilization.

A gorilla does not look beneath the surface for hidden truths, gauging other gorillas for lies. It sees and reacts. Everything it sees is true. And if it wanted any additional information it would lose sight of what's really important--propagation. This goes back to the depth of human evil. By constantly deceiving one another to get the upper hand, we are hurting our species. If we did not lie or cheat, Evolution would be better off. Neither would Evolution have to produce morality to fix its mistake.

I don't think evolution could care less how we go about passing off our genes. Whether we are respectful or take advantage, at the end of the day the job is getting done.

[greneknight]

-complexity of the cell

No big deal. It used to be that people say the human eye was irreducibly complex and so voila! God must have made it. It was subsequently found that the simpler eye which we thought could serve no purpose and couldn't have existed exists in some organisms and they're perfectly functioning. Irreducible complexity is bunkum - the language of my fellow believers who refuse to see the light.

Where is this 'simpler eye'? For a long time the trilobite eye was considered the earliest and simplest version of the eye. Even it is irreducibly complex: http://www.create.ab.ca/the-trilobite-ey...ex-design/
Has another been discovered? Or are Evolutionists simply imagining how a simpler eye might work?

-fine-tuning of the universe

This is laughable. We ask about fine-tuning because we happen to live in such a universe. If the universe had not formed in a manner to support life and collapsed and another big bang happened, what's the big deal. Just wait until finally a big bang happens in a manner where things appear fine-tuned and life can form and then someone is going to say fine tuning is caused by a creator. You see my point. I also read somewhere that the constants aren't so do-or-die. Apparently if you don't have the same constants, it may very well be that the universe would take a very different state from what we are used to and other forms could take shape and intelligent life forms that evolved in such a different universe will say theirs are the only constants that could support life and have a "stable" universe.

On the contrary, many Evolutionists today claim Evolution was bound more or less to one inevitable path. Carbon and H2O are the vital elements of life. Their bonding properties and states of matter make life trillions of times more likely to have chosen them as its ingredients--as indeed it has. Our earth is conveniently fine-tuned to Carbon and H2O forms of life.

-depth of human evil

What in God's name can that have any bearing on whether God exists? An evil T-Rex is proof that God exists? Oh, for crying out loud!

Evolution believes were are survival-based organisms. As the man explained, animals do not desire to inflict pain apart from survival purposes. Why do humans?

-fact of morality

Same as above. What about morality that allows you to say, "Voila! God exists!!!!"

In the debate he used an illustration of a man giving up his seat for an old lady he didn’t know. Or helping children in third-world countries. As survival-driven organisms, we should have the tendency to compete against our own species. If the person on the receiving end of altruism does not carry your genes or give you any kickback, there is no reason for you to help them. In fact, you are fighting the evolutionary process. Genes of weaker, pitiable humans are passed on. In the case of the old lady, not at all. Why would we retain a 'morality' mutation that drives our species backwards?

-purpose of human reason and search for truth

Purpose of human reason? That's a cart-before-the-horse reasoning.

Sorry. By purpose I meant the reason we have human reason and a desire for truth. Without God in the picture we are animals geared for survival. We seek only wants and needs. A desire for truth does not aid our survival. A gorilla does not look beneath the surface for hidden truths, gauging other gorillas for lies. It sees and reacts. Everything it sees is true. And if it wanted any additional information it would lose sight of what's really important--propagation. This goes back to the depth of human evil. By constantly deceiving one another to get the upper hand, we are hurting our species. If we did not lie or cheat, Evolution would be better off. Neither would Evolution have to produce morality to fix its mistake.

Since FallentoReason has given such good answers, I'll just add something about morality and the example of acts of kindness that Undeceived posted. Dawkins gave a good explanation about this. Animals that live in communities tend to do acts of kindness because if you are kind, others may reciprocate and you survive better. I have newspaper cuttings of other primates showing acts of kindness even where there is no reciprocity. It's not just confined to us. It may be a misfiring but there's nothing judgmental or wrong about a misfiring.

[YahwehIsTheWay]

Just curious.

I know a few of you got the guts to sign up on here and challenge others to a debate.

Well I wanna know who's the best.

And if you wanna debate me, let's go!

We'll keep it short and sweet. No unnecessary profanity. Reason and logic, no insults.

As the Lord said, "I am!"

Let's go, Poe to Poe!

[Smartass]

Here we go again. An argument where the atheist is obviously going to win. Because it's an atheist website, with atheists. Good luck, because you're gonna need it.

Trust me it's like trying to kill millions of computer controlled enemies that are surrounding you in a realistic first person medieval sword combat game! You're not going to win, it's impossible!

Maybe with cheats but you're DEFINANTLY NOT GOING TO WIN.

[YahwehIsTheWay]

Here we go again. An argument where the atheist is obviously going to win. Because it's an atheist website, with atheists. Good luck, because you're gonna need it.

Trust me it's like trying to kill millions of computer controlled enemies that are surrounding you in a realistic first person medieval sword combat game! You're not going to win, it's impossible!

Maybe with cheats but you're DEFINANTLY NOT GOING TO WIN.

I'll just switch to God-mode.

[Smartass]

Here we go again. An argument where the atheist is obviously going to win. Because it's an atheist website, with atheists. Good luck, because you're gonna need it.

Trust me it's like trying to kill millions of computer controlled enemies that are surrounding you in a realistic first person medieval sword combat game! You're not going to win, it's impossible!

Maybe with cheats but you're DEFINANTLY NOT GOING TO WIN.

I'll just switch to God-mode.

THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE THAT OPTION!

[YahwehIsTheWay]

THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE THAT OPTION!

Of course I do! The power of the Holy Spirit fills me, making me impervious to any of their science and logic. These atheists always observe that I'm "full of it" and so they also understand the power of faith.

Many other True Christians ™ have this power too. That's why we can debate evil-ution with biologists or apologetic arguments with philosophers and always walk away feeling like we've won, no matter how many facts they tried to use.

Just ask Statler-Waldorf. He'll tell you he won every debate on this forum before he decided to stop throwing pearls before swine. Or Ryft, a man of great faith who seems to have shaken the dust off his sandals. Even after being exposed as a liar, he would proudly link back to the discussion as if he'd won.

That, my friends, is the power of faith!

Praise the sweet name of Jesus.

[Simon Moon]

I don't think it makes much sense to tell someone they should reject a true belief because the belief is unjustified.

Sure, he shouldn't believe that there are giant invisible penguins that crap stars--but that's because such a belief would be false.

If some religion happens on a belief that seems to coincide with some later, evidence based discovery, that does not justify their belief. They obviously had no way of knowing that black holes existed. Why should we, looking back on their belief, think that their belief had anything to do with actual black holes just because they had a vague description?

What if instead of an entire religion, it was just a single paranoid schizophrenic that happened to record his rantings of light and mass swallowing objects, and everyone else at the time thought he was a raving lunatic? Was he just lucky that his rantings happen to seem like a close match to black holes, or did he have some kind of 'special knowledge'?

From the point of view of the religion, they have no way of knowing that the existence of object s that fit their description are any more real than star crapping galactic penguins.

Suppose that the overwhelming majority of evidence available to X indicates that some claim C is true--but that, in fact, C is false. Doesn't it seem contrary to reason to urge X to believe C?

If all we had to go by was the overwhelming majority of the evidence available, yes, it makes sense to urge X to believe C. That's the way knowledge works. Believe that which is best supported by evidence. If it turns out to be wrong, change views, once the evidence warrants it.

[Undeceived]

The eye was perfectly capable of evolving over time to where it is now. A portion of flesh that was sensitive to light and therefore giving a sense of orientation is how the eye could have started evolving (in organisms in the ocean).

What's between a light-sensitive portion of flesh and a cornea, iris, pupil, lens, viterous humor, sclera, optic nerve and retina all working together? Give me an example of one of those parts functioning alone. If you change just one to a more primitive state, you must change them all. The slightest difference makes the organism blind. I'll put it this way: we have cornea 10.0, pupil 10.0, lens 10.0, sclera 10.0 and retina 10.0. Make just one of those 9.0 and all have to randomly mutate into 9.0 sometime before the organism dies--else the gene never passes on. The same goes for the dozens of parts I didn't mention. Don't reach into the far evolutionary past in an attempt to confuse your audience. Describe to me an eye one stage away.

I don't understand... you're saying that life prefers C and H2O and that is what our earth has. You're pointing out the obvious. It's like saying "we're here because we're here". I know, but what does it matter exactly that there happens to be C and H2O here?

Life in the whole universe is better suited to reproduce using a low-atomic element with 4 valence electrons, like Carbon. It bonds better. Water is the perfect solvent for a body because it turns from solid to liquid to gas in the shortest range of temperatures. Ignoring the existence of earth, C and H2O are our best chance. Now bring earth into the equation. It matches the already ideal life form to perfection.

You might be tempted to invoke another universe. But we're discussing fine-tuning within our universe, not in the imaginary billions of hypothetical universes. Our materials fitting with our scientific laws in the most efficient reproductive way.

Desire for truth does aid our survival. Would you like to be stripped of all technological advances and be put on a deserted island? According to your argument, you should be able to cope the same as civilization.

What does innovation have to do with truth? The question is whether seeking the truth of our existence helps our existence.

I don't think evolution could care less how we go about passing off our genes. Whether we are respectful or take advantage, at the end of the day the job is getting done.

At the end of the day, the job should get done better. Every retained mutation (such as altruism) has to improve our species’ chance of survival or it would be extinct by now.

Dawkins gave a good explanation about this. Animals that live in communities tend to do acts of kindness because if you are kind, others may reciprocate and you survive better. I have newspaper cuttings of other primates showing acts of kindness even where there is no reciprocity. It's not just confined to us. It may be a misfiring but there's nothing judgmental or wrong about a misfiring.

Richard Dawkins came up with two reasons for apparently altruistic actions. One is the gene theory. If you have my genes (a family member), I will look after you. The other is reciprocal. If I think you'll respond in kind, I will do something nice. But neither explains the two examples I gave. The old lady on the bus neither has my genes nor is likely to do anything nice back. The children in 3rd-world countries couldn't be farther from my genes, and I will probably never see them again. Even if I did, they could never fully repay me. Or how about C.S. Lewis' famous example. A man is drowning in a river. You jump in and save him OR feel tremendously guilty for not jumping in. But if you're a man you probably will. You risk your life to save his. It doesn't matter if you believe he'll give you a hundred dollars for your efforts. Nothing can account for your total ignorance of the point of your life--survival. If you think we gauge moral actions on survival alone, the evidence suggests otherwise. Our conscious is with us all the time. Murdering anybody will stay in our mind for years, even if it ends up helping our survival. Adultery produces guilt, even when a child comes out of it. Guilt makes no distinctions in favor of survival. A moral misfire would imply that morality is faulted at its root, in the guilt area. Examine your thoughts, not your actions. You consider it more decent to be like Mother Teresa than Charlie Sheen, am I correct? That is your conscience talking. Your conscience (morality) respects altruism and despises selfishness. If you acted on it more, you would be 'misfiring' all the time.