I have repeatedly asked for someone to show me how their religious text has more merit than a fairy tale. Maybe you can rise up to the challenge? It's not hateful bigotry, it's how things stand. Do eligious people really not think about the authenticities of the source material they are following?

As for how to treat religious, people. Live and let live. They don't try to mess with my business and I don't think of hem as raving lunatics. They start trying to pass all forms of retarded laws, and that's when I start labeling the supporters are gullible lunatics, incicdentally, they are almost always religious. Bsically, as soon as religious people stop trying to push their views down people's throats I'll be happy.

Im actually interested to hear an evolution based explanation of the point Dioxinis initially made. It seems to be a good point to me; I can understand how if an organism had, for example, eyes, it would give it a survival advantage... natural selection etc. But that would never mutate all at once, one single part of it would have to mutate, and that single part would have to give it a survival advantage. I dont really see this happening. This logic can be applied to any body part, really. Just about all of them need all of their parts to work.

The complexity of life is incomprehensible. Every time we think we've gotten to the fundamentals of matter or living organisms or whatever it may be, it turns out that they themselves are full of unbelievable complexity. in my opinion, to believe that it all made itself takes as much faith as believing in a creator.

The concept of life being created by chance in the first place is unbelievable. A life form capable of reproduction must have been created at one time, otherwise the life would have just died out. This sort of complexity being created by chance all at once? It just isn't possilble.

I personally think that most creationists are not at all clueless, and it is fairly unfair to label them all like that. I would argue that the majority (read: NOT ALL) of the people who come out and say that creationists are stupid and know no science actually know very little about science themselves. I have a subscription to creation magazine and there is definately solid science in it. They dont make up stuff - they reference every claim so the reader can research it on their own accord.

I think when it comes to the origin of the universe, no matter what it is, it comes down to faith. No matter what scenario you come up with it doesn't seem to make logical sense. A creator God? Who made him? Big bang? what caused the big bang? what made the stuff that caused the big bang? You can't tell that it came from nothing and expect me to take you seriously cos science says everything comes from something.

Without going into to much detail - because it is time to go to bed, and because you can do your own research, it is generally believed that Jesus Christ was a living person, and not made up. There is plenty of evidence which im sure you can Google. Obviously I can't give you evidence that Jesus Christ is Lord - that is a faith.

There is also supporting evidence that King Arthur actually was based on a person as well, not just made up. Dragons have also been referenced in cultures which never had any form of communication with each other and the details are eerily similar (serpent, flames, wings, etc.). Meanwhile religious texts and god vary wildly among cultures.

So these are just two quick examples of fairy tales with equivalent and stronger backing than the bible. A part that is true does not make the whole true.

Going of what I read in pro-evolution books, the earliest recognisable life-form were single-celled organisms which most likely reproduced in the same way that modern day bacteria do (No, do not take my word on this as I dont think the book Im talking about mentioned the reproduction methods and I dont know enough about it to argue it is a fact).

The same book also said that the first multi-celled organisms were worms. How do worms reproduced seeing as they are genderless? What happens when you cut a worm in two? It dies? No, you get two worms. There you go, as far as I know, thats ancient reproduction that for you. Except now we have a more advanced system (see my post around page 5/6 about advancing systems)

That thesis (irreducible complexity of bacteria flagella) was the famous claim of Dr Micheal Behe, supporter of ID, and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.

Several studies have shown that there are precursors of the proteins partecipating in the rotor attending different roles in other bacteria. Moreover, phylogenetic analysis of genes in very well known genomes of bacteria have traced all the genes intervening in the flagella rotor mechanism and their variants in different phyla and thus it was possible to infer the sequence in which the mechanism originated through gene combination and variation.

As for the eye, it's again one example of a structure that is very complex in its end stage, but you can get there through progressive steps each of which has advantages relative to the previous one, thus retaining a selective pressure (it's actually the exact example Dawkins tackles in The Blind Watchmaker). You can start by an animal having a photosensitive area of skin: that's not as good as an eye, but it gives an advantage in sensing the shadow of a predator before touch comes into play. If the sensitive area recesses into an open cavity, it gains progressively more directional focus. Muscles to orientate the cavity give an obvious further advantage. Close the cavity with a transulcent tissue and fill it with a transparent fluid and you can have bigger and more sensitive areas. If the translucent lid grows curved like a lens it can offer variable focus...

Really, the complexity of the final structure can be decomposed in a number of simpler steps. Please note that if intelligent design was behind our eyes, it would not be that intelligent, as our retina has photosensitive cells pointing "the wrong way", with the sensitive part poitning inwards, and the "cabling" part pointing towards the light and converging to cause our blind spot. The same is not true e.g. in octopi, where the retina cells are oriented correctly, but scientists believe have evolved an eye indipendently from vertebrates. Also note that the Nautilus has "lensless" eyes, open to the water environment, that work a bit like the pinhole boxes you can make to observe an eclipse. That sounds like further proof of the utility of "intermediate" eye models.

Plus, from a methodological point of view it can be hard to understand how a complex structure was originated by steps. That doesn't excuse us from trying to find the steps without resorting to outlandish metaphysical explanations, and up to this point the scientific community has never found a real case of irreducible complexity.

I suggest you google for Behe, irreducible complexity, "Krebs cycle shunt" if you want to get technical.

Regarding to that point, people tend to antropomorphizise (:P does that word even exist?) everything, including the universe, so just because our life, or that of every life form, have a beginning and an end and some kind of parents we assume that everything has to. The point is, the universe and its matter don't necesarily need a beginning or a creator. It just...is.

...That last phrase sounded very religious :P

If it has eyes, can see predators, it's offsprings can escape while the blind die, hence leaving only the ones with eyes.

Organism grows hands next, now if can hold stuff, defend itself, climb up higher where no other species are..

Next legs.. now it can run, can run away from predators, still looks like the other species it came from, eyes and hands, but now it has legs and can get away from stuff that wants to eat it... or chase and grab stuff it wants to eat..

Over and over these things happen, they do not happen over a couple years, or hundreds, or even thousands of years, these evolutions took MILLIONS of years (and if you believe in creationism - you KNOW that can't be true, because the earth is only what, 6000 years old?) Yeah Carbon dating is a myth...

I'm sorry, but I will believe science in it's "Earth is MILLIONS of years old" stance.. If you think that the earth is 6000 years old and dinosaurs only walked the earth 4000 years ago.. you are a fool

Atheism I will grant you is a religious ideology, and can be described as an individuals religious preference. Perhaps religion is going too far though.

As for the theory of evolution by means of natural selection, I have no idea how it can be considered a religion. Biological evolution is a science, and our current model is based on a lot of evidence. It is fact, there is no faith involved. It's not in any sense a religion, pure and simple.

We are the product of numerous incestuous acts my friend : )

I know, the truth can hurt sometimes