Who's the most prominent Christian on this forum?

[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.