Reverse Pascals Wager

[Captain Scarlet]

So the general form of your arguments against evolution are Arguments from Incredulity and are an informal logical fallacy, either as:

I can't imagine how X could possibly be false
Therefore, X.

I cannot imagine how X could possibly be true
Therefore, not-X.

This is a fallacy because someone else with more imagination may find a way (bioligists). This fallacy is therefore a simple variation of argument from ignorance. In areas such as science and technology, where new discoveries and inventions are always being made, new findings may arise at any time.

Now I'm sorely tempted to leave it there because even if I couldn't respond to your arguments, your arguments would still not go through. Your questions however do not have simple responses, as there are complex processes at work. I totally agree that evolution is a blind bottom up process which is mindless. But to describe it as accidental is misleading in 2 ways. Firstly some genetic mutations (perhaps most) are random, but the process of natural selection means that variation within species with positive survival results are selected for (not by a mind) but by the fact the organisms survive for longer and have better reproductive chances (as will their offspring survive more often). Secondly there are changes to the gene phenotype which permits the organism to adapt to its environment as ity grows, these are not random (see epigenetics). These changes can get passed on to offspring effectively turning stuff on and off. Other similar mechanisms can be simulated in the lab eg we can turn on the reptilian genes dormant in birds by applying chemicals during the development stages "whilst in the egg", these chemicals activate the dormant genes (junk genes present in all living creatures) and the birds will develop teeth and reptilian tails.

Of the points you raise:

DNA gaining code. Not sure what you mean by this, I know you've tried to clarify it, but DNA and for that matter RNA mutates spontaneously (and this has been observed). Over time changes accumulate via flow through and other mutational mechanisms. Are you representing the ID claim that new 'information' cannot make its way onto DNA? If so it will help me, to help you with this argument?
Why and how did the eye evolve. Ah the poster child of ID along with the blood clotting cascade and the bacterial flagellum. All very well documented. Rather than me regurgitate it you can look it up; Richard Dawkins and Ken Miller (the latter a practising catholic) has summarised the research in these areas. But there is lots more detailed research out there that back up the findings.
Why was there colour before eyesight. Not sure why this is a problem at all, or in particular for evolutionary theory?
Fabulous cuttlefish skin Random mutation combined with natural selection. Cuttlefish that could camoflage had an evolutionary advantage.
Skeletal structures in the hand. I agree if I/you were the designer and if creationism is true, then I would re-use designs whether the eye or the foot. The major flaw in this argument is that there is only evidence of design by a blind causal process. Because equally if I/you were the designer I /you would not leave useless structures in place that would lead to more suffering than add value (the human breathing and eating holes pass through the same plumbing, meaning people choke to death every day), nor imperfect designs (eg flatfish such as the flounder), nor leave junk genes in place etc.