If you want to understand science you are going to have to stop going to the religious conferences in crazy town.  Limbs or lungs just don't pop into an species genome, its takes a long time for a gene to slowly change.

Just look at the fossil record.  You can easily see humans, horses, you name it slowly changing over millions of years.  No new limbs or eyes, just changes to the expression of these genes.  But how do complex organs like eyes develop?  The same way, just with more time (and faster generation lifecycles don't hurt).  Eyes use to be light-sensitive cells, the same process that even the simplest of organisms have today as its actually a very common stimuli.  Over millions and millions of years those light sensitive cells continued to develop into something more and more complex.

Please, before you go any further with the science, explain your reasoning for the slowly changing fossil record to me.

Others have already answered about other points, so I'll just tackle the one about thermodynamics.

Scientists don't "like to suppress" any laws, but you have to really understand their formulation. The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy in a closed system tends to always raise. Connect a computer to a power grid and let it sort files, and you'll get more order in the final state than in the beginning. Let many pebbles fall through a sieve and you can separate the bigger from the smaller. Plant an apple seed and with the right nutrients and sunlight it wil grow into a tree.

In each case a subsystem (files, pebbles, plant) got more ordered and more complicated with time, because that ordering was payed for by other parts of the global system with the expenditure of energy. Nothing violates the second law in that: if you can supply energy (properly work) from the outside then you can locally diminish entropy. Even if evolution by either artificial or natural selection didn't happen, that's still what happens when every single living organism grows. Would you not believe in eggs becoming chickens because of thermodynamics? :)

PS: once again, Pascal's wager has only the form of a game theory deduction, but it's logically flawed.

Firstly evolution makes sense statistically as it is not a random process but rather a selective one. Also the second law of thermodynamics is for a closed system, the earth is not a closed system as the sun constantly pumps energy into it. The decrease of entropy in the form of ordered life is more than countered by the increase of entropy in the sun.

Also one of the problems with Pascals wager is that it ignores that there have been many Gods worshipped throughout history - it just assumes that you have picked the right God. If you take into account the fact that if you picked the wrong God you're still going to hell, by Pascals wager you're likely going to hell no matter what God you believe in.

Also if you seriously only believe in God because of Pascals wager...

1) Do you need to be a bible literalist?
2) Do you really have faith or are you just pretending out of fear of the possibility of hell?

Edit: "But that's exactly what I'm talking about.  I went to a conference on genomics that talked about this.  Less than 300 mutations on average occur per generation per 6 billion base pairs.  These are almost always harmless, and the probability of them impacting anything is negligible aside from those that kill you.  In order to create a new gene to express growth of new limbs or digestion of new materials or lungs or whatever you need you would need thousands of non-fatal mutations on the same gene to occur.  The likelihood of that happening in a way that doesn't kill you is so low that you wouldn't even see it once in 6 billion years.

300/6000000000=.00000005 mutations/pair

300/6000000000*299/5999999999*298/5999999998........*1/5999999701= a really really small chance of stringing all those mutations consecutively. "

Oh where to begin? Evolution doesn't just drop a lung in occasionally, the process involves slow changes each one have a positive effect. The eye is a very nice example, take a look at this wee picture.

Each step along that picture is an improvement upon the last.

Lots of them, thanks God!

(I'll answer this, because I think this was meant as an answer to my post)

1) The universe being closed is irrelevant to what is being discussed. Let's say that there's life developing in a puddle, and that the entropy of that puddle is diminishing. The fact that the universe is compensating it at large, and entropy of the whole universe is increasing, does not change this.

2) "Sorters having a designer" is irrelevant. I chose easy examples that tackled abstract information, mechanical information and a biological system. The point was thermodynamic's second law, and it still stands that you can locally decrease enthropy if a subsystem is not closed. Thermodynamics never mentions "designers": it's either a physical law or it isn't.

Once again: if the second law of thermodynamics did forbid evolution, then it would in the same way forbid any biological process that increases the complexity of a single organism, such as growth and development from a single cell to an adult. In these physical terms there's absolutely no difference between the process of a single lifespan and the continuous process of life, mutation, selection of a whole race. You could view the whole race as a single immortal organism extracting energy from its environment and going through a continuous complex process of organic modification, as far as thermodynamics is involved.

Do you believe you get chickens from eggs?

^^^

Oh my........that is SOOOOO wrong! I made questions, I got answers and I got PROOF that God exists! I do NEED proof for my beliefs! And I have more than enough proof by experience! Yes, experience. But I've come to realise that any experience I've had with God that I tell an atheist about, if they realise they can't explain it away, they conclude that I'm making it up. So after saying all I can, I live the rest to God for Him to decide how he wants to make them experience Him for themselves.

Ah really? have you talked with it? saw it? listened to it? touched it? No. you WANT to think that you "experienced" it in any way you want to twist.. But you have no proof. Simple like that.