Who's the most prominent Christian on this forum?

[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.