Evil Atheists

[Carnavon]

Firstly, biological evolution and abiogenesis are not the same thing. I don't have the answers there, and neither do you. The difference between us is that I can be honest about it. 2/3rds of your questions directly relate to this single point. If that's the gap you want to cram god into good luck to you. I would have picked something a little farther out of our reach. You run the risk of having your position absolutely and undeniably discredited in your own lifetime (something that peddlers in bullshit realized was bad practice long ago).

If micro evolution is true to you, then there should be no problem with evolution at all. There is no dividing line between the two. Differences add up over a long time-frame (and we're talking billions of years here). That being said, nothing "changes" into something else. You are still a bony fish. You just have a longer list of modifiers added. The rest of your post seems to be about "needs", which isn't the current understanding of evolution at all. Evolution by natural selection isn't a sentient process that responds to creatures needs. It's not about need, changes occur. Let's not attempt to bootleg your particular brand of idiocy into a place it doesn't belong. It's difficult to reproduce a perfect copy ad infinitum, and on top of that we're being bombarded by radiation constantly (not to mention some of the more novel theories). Sometimes those differences provide one creature with an advantage over another (other times they are deleterious). The effects of which are what we see in the fossil record. Life is a process of elimination, this rock is a killing machine, and the things we see alive and all around us are a tiny fraction of what has been. The "path" evolution took in our own species is no better. We are the only survivors (and that's a tentative position itself). So much for humans being the pinnacle of directed evolution. How are the other hominids doing? Apparently not so hot either (most are endangered http://www.earthsendangered.com/list.asp).

RE Eyes:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-8516-page-2.html
(posts #16 and #18 gg Chuck)

RE Lungs:
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/2/739.abstract
(I'll try to find you the full PDF if you're interested)

RE Sexual Reproduction
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/80624...t=Abstract
http://www.dorak.info/evolution/sreprod.html (a breif synopsis on the authors website in the event that you can't access pubmed)

I would be perverse to look at the ever increasing piles of data and conclude otherwise. Evolution isn't "my position" it is the position of demonstrable fact. The "how's" are the point where one must decide where they put their chips. Mine are in with natural selection, broadly, and a whole host of other mechanisms specifically. I'm going to repeat this because it's important. You can disagree on the "how" all you like, that's healthy. If your faith hinges on a demonstrable fact being completely and wholly incorrect, your faith is showing severe fatigue. I don't blame the authors for this, they had no idea what was going on around them. Short of divine intervention they could not have given an accurate description of the origins of the universe or life itself(and that's pretty damning when you realize that they did not possess such knowledge even though they claimed they did in fact receive just such an intervention). You, on the other hand, with a modern education and access to the internet, have no such excuse. You could educate yourself, you choose not to. You prefer to side with magic, and this sort of thinking is childish and ignorant. Get yourself a shovel, dig up a cambrian rabbit, and bring that to the table. Then you'll be taken seriously.

Dishonesty?. Dishonesty would be to know something is wrong and present it as the truth? Examples of dishonesty would be for instance where information is presented as truth although it is known to be false such as the case with “Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!”
and also for instance:
“The theory of embryonic recapitulation asserts that the human foetus goes through various stages of its evolutionary history as it develops. Ernst Haeckel proposed this theory in the late 1860’s, promoting Darwin’s theory of evolution in Germany. He made detailed drawings of the embryonic development of eight different embryos in three stages of development, to bolster his claim. His work was hailed as a great development in the understanding of human evolution. A few years later his drawings were shown to have been fabricated, and the data manufactured. He blamed the artist for the discrepancies, without admitting that he was the artist.”
Dishonesty would also be to present proven falsified information in textbooks to schools – as is the case with the Haeckel case above.

Having provided unquestionable proof of dishonesty in the effort to prove evolution, why would you not accept the Bible as true? Can you point to anything that is presented as fact that has been proven to be a lie? One certain test would be archaeology. Please indicate where facts stated in the Bible has been proven beyond any doubt to be falsified or dishonest? Not where differences of opinion exist. In all cases where this has happened in the past, the Bible was eventually proven to be correct.

Then you are also welcome to study prophecy. You may as a start look at Jesus' birth, his death on the cross, the price paid to Judas, what happened to Tyre and many more. Now this means that what has been prophesied, will come to pass. It seems that according to prophecy, we are in the last stages before Christ Comes (Jews back in their land and world powers – see book of Daniel , statue that Nebuchadnezzar saw, 70 prophetic weeks of which 69 have passed)

Now it has always been my motto to rather believe a person that has been proven honest and reliable over a person that has been proven dishonest.

Eye:
Explains what we observe and no indication that the specie developed different/improved optical capacities over time or that the specie at some time did not have sight. Just different eye-types etc and not even differences developing into more “efficient” eye-sight over time. Look behind the facade.

Lungs:
An interesting article. From what I can understand, it does not actually address the question why the change should have occurred and how it happened? The following was quite interesting to note:
“The design of the mammalian gas exchange cells is an ingenious solution to meet the functional demands of optimizing maintenance pathways from nucleus to the cytoplasm while simultaneously providing minimal barrier thickness
and also:
“evolutionary innovation” Hardly words to use for a random non-directional occurrence.

Reproduction.
It actually does not address the problem of why reproduction exists. It also do not address the problem why reproduction would have been part of the original supposed organism and it is also unlikely (impossible) then for million of hits and misses to occur for such a process to be developed that exactly fulfil the purpose of reproduction. Why reproduction at all? Hit and miss to create a situation where all the parts “fit” perfectly and contribute towards reproduction?

I accept that you cannot answer the question of original life (or matter) that is yet elusive despite the best efforts from the “scientific” community bent on proving it and making use of some of the best intelligence and best technology under controlled and directional processes.

There is a major difference between micro evolution and macro evolution. With Micro-evolution we see small adaptations within a specie and within certain parameters. With macro evolution you suggest that the specie turn into an altogether new specie.!!! There is no proof of macro evolution. To suggest that because micro-evolution is true, it follows that macro-evolution is true, is sloppy thinking. It is a different kettle of fish altogether.

If it is a case of demonstrable fact, I would be happy to receive this evidence. So far, nothing has been forthcoming and for very good reason - there is nothing that proves macro-evolution - because it is false.