Psalm 14
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,
there is none who does good.
2 The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man,
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after God.
3 They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,
not even one.
4 Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers
who eat up my people as they eat bread
and do not call upon the Lord?
When I consider the science produced by those who call themselves atheists, all I see are endless attempts to disprove the existence of God. But when the evidence they present is considered, their theories fall very short of that goal. Always sidestepping the glaringly obvious conclusion which must be drawn.
What you see, and what actually is, aren't necessarily the same things. In this case, I would argue that they aren't. I think scientists try to use the scientific method (based on physical and natural things and the evidence and body of knowledge thereof) to find answers about various topics including, but no limited to, how there came to be diversity of life. Now, if you want all scientists to just accept '' The Judeo Christian God did it'', and believe science should start with that conclusion and then bend the evidence to suit it, then you aren't a scientist and certainly aren't of any benefit for the furtherance of scientific discovery.
Science is supposed to search to find answers based upon natural and physical occurences, using already established knowledge thereof. The scientific method is not necessarily, or should not be, about disproving God. It should be about learning how the universe works in regards to the physical and natural and the concrete evidences we can glean from it. For instance, we know the Earth is round. We know the Earth orbits the sun. We know the Earth spins on its axis. We know gravity means a stratified deposition of minerals.
We learn, then we build on what we learn. We do not assert things as fact unless they are factually proven. We assert theories based on fact when they are consistent with proven facts, and we change or dismantle theories when they are proven false by new proven facts. Evolution is currently the best explanation we have, based on natural and physical evidence, for the diversification of life.
I myself have believed in the theory of evolution. I even believed that maybe evolution and Christianity could both be true and exist harmoniously. It wasn't until I studied evolution in depth that I realized it is a garbage theory which doesn't even make sense logically.
I think it does.
If evolution is a completely unguided process, caused by the random mutations of DNA.
Randomness in my sense isn't randomness in your sense. Just because biochemistry exists as it does, does not mean that it was designed to exist that way. If something must always have a designer to exist as it does, then that logic demands that God have a designer too. But biochemistry is not random. Chemicals form in many specific ways. Chemicals themselves are complex as far as electromagnetic bonding and energy exchange. Energy is everything, and everything is energy. And that energy can interact in inumerable ways, giving us the diversity of chemical forms that we have come to discover.
Then why would it be advantageous for (take the eye for example) to begin to form and develop?
Randomness in science means unpredictability, thus its probability is meaningless to calculate. So, asking ''why did the eye develop'' is the wrong question. Science mainly deals in ''how''. ''Why'' is a philosopher's question, and one science doesn't intend to answer ultimately. But from a biological ''why'', the eye developed because it was a result of mutations that ended up being beneficial to the organisms that had them.
Plants have photosensitive cells. Eyes are just a much more developed encapsulation of that. Eyes are beneficial because they provide sight in ones surroundings, thus the ability to recognize danger, defend oneself, pick fruit, hunt, etc. If you look at the most basic photosensitive cells on Earth and track their progression through less complex fauna to insects, fish, to amphibians and then to more complex organisms you can see a progression.
Why would the skull begin to hollow out by its own accord over millions of years?
You're asking these questions and you obviously haven't bothered to look at the available answers. You consider asking them to make it look ridiculous enough that you don't have to actually look for any answers. It's sort of like when the famous mathemitician Alan Turing was asked ''can machines think?'' as though asking the question made the notion of machines thinking look so ridiculous as to make questioning any further pointless.
Alan Turing was a genius, and basically invented the idea of computers and artificual intelligence. If he'd stopped asking questions, you and I probably wouldn't be typing right now.
So ask some questions, and actually consider that they might have answers. Most of yours do. The information is available to you, if you are willing to hear it.
Then what benefit would it serve the species to begin to grow useless blobs (as all the random mutations necessary to make that eye even somewhat usable would take millions of years to occur) in that hollow place?
It's not as simple as there being a mutation to hollowness, then the body says ''right, we've got the socket, now we need to develop the eye!!'' It's much slower, much less deliberate, and much more incremental.
If it is a random process, than how could every species, regardless of phylum have perfectly developed and working eyes. And two of them, perfectly placed at that. DNA would not stop mutating once "perfection" was reached. It would not even reach perfection.
Not every species has eyes. Most species don't have eyes. And we're still mutating, still evolving, still changing.
The random processes of evolution, would naturally produce completely random mutations.
And if they were not beneficial, the organism would die and the mutation wouldn't be passed on. If the mutation WAS beneficial (like a small change in photosensitive cells that allowed even slightly clearer vision) then the organism would most likely pass on the mutation by being alive to have sex and having a selective advantage (clearer vision) over other like oganisms. Thus, the mutation survives. Somewhere along the line, another mutation happens, and they accumulate in the lineage, and eventually, eyes are the result.
A mutation is only passed on if the organism that mutated is alive to reproduce. So, if the mutation was not advantageous (childhood cancer in humans for instance) then that organism wouldn't survive to procreate. If the mutation WAS advantageous (increased muscle mass in humans for instance) then the organism WOULD survive to have sex and pass on the mutation.
So where are all the genetic abnormalities within the species? Where are all the countless unformed unusable structures that would be in development at this very moment? The structures that will only become useful to a species after many millions of years?
Think ''Every genetic illness and biological disorder known to man, in every species, across every part of planet Earth''.
If, you accept the theory that a single celled organism (which is amazingly complex) managed to pop into existence from a soup of amino acids. Then how did it have the genetic code necessary to duplicate itself?
You think the first life was as complex as DNA? I don't think it was.
And when did that genetic code decide, "Hey, I better program myself to start acting in unison with other single celled organisms to create lifeforms which contain many billions of cells.
There is a fantastic program that allows you to see just how amazing ''dead'' chemicals can be. How they can form together, how species diversified, how life could have come from chemicals, and how, crucially, EVERYTHING is actually made of chemicals. Nothing exists in the form of matter, that ISN'T chemicals.
It's called ''Wonders of Life'', by Professor Brian Cox.
I should program myself to be a kidney wall cell. I should go tell all my other cellular buddies my plan and maybe we can devise a way to create the more complex multi cellular forms of life."
You're simplifying it far beyond it having any reasonable implications. It's more complex than this, and what you're saying here isn't what scientists say happen.
And then once they accomplished making a fish or whatever by working together with great intelligence, how did they realize that they should also create reproductive organs. Some male and some female, and that some of the cells should be sperm while others eggs?
They didn't ''realize'' or deliberately mutate. Chemicals (in varying degrees of complexity) interact naturally in complex ways. That's the nature of chemicals!
If fish were among the first to evolve, then the very first fish needed to be able to have fully formed reproductive organs and eggs to continue itself with its offspring. How would that be accomplished over millions of years? It would never work no matter how much time you gave it.
Read the literature on the development of binary sexuality, and why it is important in protecting organisms from pathogens.
DNA is the most complex intelligent coding known to man.
Wrong. It's four chemicals, in pairs, in repeated patterns. Among EVERY SPECIES KNOWN TO MAN, it is just a length of four chemicals in different orders of patterns.
It is a much more sophisticated version of computer code. It is an incomprehensibly complex language, which could not be created by chance any more than your computer could write its own OS by chance. ( a task which would be trivial in comparison)
Given the innumerable (uncountable number) of chemical combinations which can exist, and the incalculable number of ways in which chemicals can bond, release, interact and exchange, I disagree.
When did the caterpillar (which has no reproductive organs) decide (one day after millions of years of self replication), "I think I'm going to create organs capable of producing silk. Then I am going to put myself into a cocoon, dissolve myself into a cellular soup, and create an entire new version of myself. Retaining none of my previous characteristics or organs. I am going to create wings to fly (because I always wanted to fly) and reproductive organs (because I always wanted to reproduce with other butterflies, who hopefully also choose to do the exact same thing I am going to do) and then I am going to migrate all over the world to meet with my friends (who hopefully choose to do what I am going to do) to reproduce in very specific locations each and every year.
It never decided. Just like you never decided to be born, and you never decided to have the hair you have, the eyes you have, the illness you have, the country you were born in, the social customs that were engrained in you. None of it was your choice.
"Then we will all collectively stop self replicating (however they supposedly did that) and enjoy our new existence."
The answer is they couldn't have chosen to do anything, because evolution is completely random and takes "millions of years" to make it supposedly plausible.
Scientists don't say that the caterpillar chose anything. You do.
