Thread: Short, not to be answered by atheists question.

Yeah, especially ones that are so deeply grounded in the person, like political views; it's probably why they often turn nasty, even amongst strong friends. Makes me wonder how The Five do it and remain so civil. Well, kinda civil. Somewhat. A bit

~SilverWolf~

Peace my brother!!

haha, that's what "matters" right

(K, bad pun, I'll be the first to admit it )

Posting this here because it's a great explanation:

What I find amusing is this: the evolution of the eye is one of the best explained examples out there, yet creationist websites consistently claim otherwise.

Don't you guys ever read that shit, realize just how wrong and ill informed they are when they say stuff like "the evolution of the eye can't be explained", and think "hey, these guys really don't know what they're talking about, I probably shouldn't trust what they say"?

I know, I'm probably giving your ability to think clearly too much credit, but surely anyone can realise that when you get stuff so badly wrong that you become less credible?

Is it a bit strange how it never occurs to these people to just Google "evolution of the eye".

I always thought they did, just that there was some magical process involved that allowed them to skip over all the genuine science and head straight to the bullshit with pinpoint accuracy.

Originally Posted by MrOMGWTF

Dear atheists, please explain this.

How, without God, EYES were created/evolved ?
How could we evolve into having eyes without first knowing that photons actually exist? The same goes with other senses.

The Quote: From the Origin of Species, CHAPTER VI - DIFFICULTIES OF THE THEORY

"Organs of extreme Perfection and Complication. To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility." -Charles Darwin

This should help with the people who state Darwin's book has all the answers