[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Hopefully answered above, with reference to the hypothesis of Irreducible Complexity. Just because you can describe a process, it does not follow that that process occurred, or is even statistically likely to have occurred.

For a start, you said that it was an absurdity to suppose that an eye simply arose spontaneously. We have demonstrated that it didn't arise spontaneously, and the process by which that probably occurred. Also, it probably is statistically likely for it to occur since we have many examples of less functional eyes in the animal kingdom.....creatures with single celled light receptors, others with groups of cells recognising movement, inverted views, all the way up to us....
Of course this doesn't prove that the process occurred but it demonstrates how it might (and probably did) occur. Contrast that with the creationists argument of 'it just happened because god willed it and thats that' (you might as well say 'it's magic') and you might see why us atheists are a tad exasperated at creationists trying to rubbish our account of evolution by picking holes in it when creationists only have a big black hole where their explanation should be......

---------- Post added at 20:32 ---------- Previous post was at 20:30 ----------


I like the avatar AJ




---------- Post added at 20:36 ---------- Previous post was at 20:32 ----------

Originally Posted by Matt D

Also, if the eye was Created, rather than being a product of evolution, then it contains some glaring design flaws.

I already mentioned all this back here:

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/34277680-post207.html


And some links from that post:

http://www.2think.org/eye.shtml

http://www.2think.org/eye_response.shtml

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Paleontol...reationism.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part8.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury-rigged.html

You sir, are a dude!

Towny, would you like to reconsider your position on 'the eye' in light of the information above?

---------- Post added at 20:41 ---------- Previous post was at 20:36 ----------

Originally Posted by Action Jackson

And just because you can't explain something isn't conclusive proof that god exists.

....and that, I think, is the nub of the matter.
Why should the christian version of the creation be taught as science when there are so many other gods that have been and are worshipped, each also without a shred of evidence for their existence (other than wishful and circular) thinking?