[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by smokemon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

hrmmmm thought the bible was authored by many people, didn't know it was just one guy, news to me.

This is the only statement where you are somewhat correct, in fact it goes beyond that, there are several conflicting accounts within the bible where the same story is told with a slightly different resolution each time. If anything it's comparable to two rival cities' newspaper clippings mashed together.

Originally Posted by smokemon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oh yeah this just in, the bible historically is the most accurate text of ancient literature to date.

Elaborate? If you can in any way, you'd be the first to do so. Please. I look forward to your response.

Originally Posted by smokemon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

P.S. Darwin disproved his own theory when he claimed that if single celled organisms turned out to be , go read his work. LONG before the reader has arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to him. Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to theory.

This statement does not make sense and seems to be pointing towards the origin of life which is not what the Darwinian theory of evolution attempts to show.

If you knew a single thing about Darwinian evolution and weren't blinded by the bigoted writings of slave owning, child raping, cow slaughtering primitives... you might understand.

Originally Posted by smokemon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:—First, why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?

This only shows your lack of understanding of survival of the fittest and the way that different species compete against one another.
Short explanation is two groups in the same part of the food chain competing for shelter/food, one has a slight advantage over the other, over a million years only one will be remaining either because the other migrated or because one became extinct.

Originally Posted by smokemon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?

Define "Well defined". I'm serious here, have you ever seen a seahorse?

Originally Posted by smokemon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some other animal with widely different habits and structure? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, an organ of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, an organ so wonderful as the eye?

My appendix would like to have a word with you. Also if we're God's ultimate creation and eyes are so amazing like you tote on about, why is it that a Squid, which doesn't even have a spine, has 10,000 times the visual acuity that I do?

Originally Posted by smokemon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection? What shall we say to the instinct which leads the bee to make cells, and which has practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians?

You already debunked your point, I need not.

Originally Posted by smokemon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Fourthly, how can we account for species, when crossed, being sterile and producing sterile offspring, whereas, when varieties are crossed, their fertility is unimpaired?
Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, Ch. 6, p133

How is this evidence of God? Lack of evidence is never evidence for anything. This again shows your lack of understanding of the Darwinian theory of evolution. What's your next argument going to be? That God exists because the path of evolution can't be predicted? If so the unpredictability of the lottery numbers is evidence too. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]