There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Shuttlecraft]

Guys, guys, which came first, the Pringles or the tube?
Until the boffins can explain simple grass roots stuff like that they're just whistling dixie..

The retina is lined with light-sensitive rods and cones-

Here's a typical rod, note the light-sensitive cells stacked up inside it..

..like a tube of Pringles-

There are 120 million tubes of Pringles (rods) in the human eye (and another 7 million cones), each one containing stacks of individual pringles which takes the numbers way off the scale, and scientists can't even begin to fathom how they "evolved", let alone explain how they "wired themselves up" like a printed circuit board and then connected themselves up to the brain..

 

[Sapiens]

Here's a good, but technical paper on the subject: Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup

Here's a wiki entry: Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's a passel more (are you really that uninquisitive and/or lazy?)

1. Evolution of Retinal Structures ...
2. Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye - PBS
3. Evolution of vertebrate retinal photoreception...
4. Evolution of phototransduction, vertebrate photoreceptors ...
5. [PDF]Evolution of thE EyE - Physics
6. [PDF]The developing and evolving retina: using time to organize ...
7. Inverted Retinas - Did the Octopus do Better? - Catalase

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Are you still posting this? Go here and read:

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Guys, guys, let's bring in Dawkins-

"It is not difficult then for rudimentary lens-like objects to come into existence spontaneously.
Any old lump of halfway transparent jelly need only assume a curved shape" (Richard Dawkins: 'Climbing Mount Improbable', page146)

Well that's that then, a lump of jelly 'spontaneously' appeared out of thin air as if by magic, then decided to shape itself into a lens..

 

[Sapiens]

Guys, guys, let's bring in Dawkins-

"It is not difficult then for rudimentary lens-like objects to come into existence spontaneously.
Any old lump of halfway transparent jelly need only assume a curved shape" (Richard Dawkins: 'Climbing Mount Improbable', page146)

Well that's that then, a lump of jelly 'spontaneously' appeared out of thin air as if by magic, then decided to shape itself into a lens..

You're just quote mining, or more likely (given what appears to be your propensity for avoiding intellectual heavy lifting) just falling into the trap of not recognizing another fool's quote mine, and then making it up as you go. Read the entire book ... even you might learn something.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Guys, guys, let's bring in Dawkins-

"It is not difficult then for rudimentary lens-like objects to come into existence spontaneously.
Any old lump of halfway transparent jelly need only assume a curved shape" (Richard Dawkins: 'Climbing Mount Improbable', page146)

Well that's that then, a lump of jelly 'spontaneously' appeared out of thin air as if by magic, then decided to shape itself into a lens..

The fact that you continue to use this obvious quote mine, despite if being shown multiple times to be misleading, proves that you are just another congenital liar.

 

[Sapiens]

Congenital?

No, he was not born that way.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Congenital?

No, he was not born that way.

Whoops, meant to write "compulsive". Still, I'm going to leave it as it is, for funsies.

 

[Serenity7855]

On the poll you cited, you need to add the first two sets of numbers together since the first one is in reference to God and the second is in reference to a higher spiritual power, which is still implied as being theistic. For example, if one is a polytheist, they certainly wouldn't be in the first category but probably would be in the second.

By adding the two together, the number with theistic inclinations comes to 51%.

I am sorry, but I do not accept your extrapolation

the·ism (thzm)
n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.


Paganism

Disparaging and Offensive. pertaining to the worship or worshipers of any religion that is neither Christian, Jewish, nor Muslim.

of, pertaining to, or characteristic of pagans.

Theism is the belief in God. The belief in anything other than God is not theism.

The column that contains those "Who believe in God" is for Christians, Moslems, Jews and Buddhists. The second column contains those "Who don't believe in God, but do Believe in a universal spirit or higher power" which is for beliefs like Paganism. They are not theists. If they were meant to be together than they would have been put together. One section believes in God, the other section does not. You cannot add them together just to make your point right. It does not work like that, and I am sure you know that. But let me just remind you of what you said.

Originally Posted by metis View Post
But you're playing the same we/they game that you stereotypically claim scientists pursue, and let me remind you that a high percentage of scientists are theists, and most of the rest are agnostics (defined as not committing one way or another) and not atheists (defined as a belief there are no deities).

Even if you add both figures together it is still not a "High" percentage.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Guys, guys, let's bring in Dawkins-

"It is not difficult then for rudimentary lens-like objects to come into existence spontaneously.
Any old lump of halfway transparent jelly need only assume a curved shape" (Richard Dawkins: 'Climbing Mount Improbable', page146)

Well that's that then, a lump of jelly 'spontaneously' appeared out of thin air as if by magic, then decided to shape itself into a lens..

Stop posting this. It's blatant dishonesty at this point.

Seriously.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Shuttlecraft quoting Dawkins: "It is not difficult then for rudimentary lens-like objects to come into existence spontaneously.
Any old lump of halfway transparent jelly need only assume a curved shape" (Richard Dawkins: 'Climbing Mount Improbable', page146)

Well that's that then, a lump of jelly 'spontaneously' appeared out of thin air as if by magic, then decided to shape itself into a lens..

Stop posting this. It's blatant dishonesty at this point.
Seriously.

Dawks said it, not me..

 

[outhouse]

Well that's that then, a lump of jelly 'spontaneously' appeared out of thin air as if by magic, then decided to shape itself into a lens..

Stop appealing to ignorance, as if it is credible.

Evolution is fact and not up for debate in some militant theist thread

 

[outhouse]

Stop posting this. It's blatant dishonesty at this point.

Seriously.

Very dishonest.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Dawks said it, not me..

You do realize that he's saying the lense shape could come into existence spontaneously, right? Not the material by which the lense is made? He's just saying that if a pre existing material such as a jelly like substance were to curve then it is essentially a lense. Even when you're quote mining you fail to discredit him.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Guys, guys, Dawks does a good job discrediting himself without my help!
For example he says the eye is wired back to front, but even if that was true it'd mean he's saying evolution is krap for getting it wrong..

 

[outhouse]

Guys, guys, Dawks does a good job discrediting himself without my help!
For example he says the eye is wired back to front, but even if that was true it'd mean he's saying evolution is krap for getting it wrong..

why do you keep embarrassing yourself?

 

[fantome profane]

Guys, guys, let's bring in Dawkins-
...

Because instead of actually looking at the evidence yourself you would rather attack Dawkins personally.

But this is not about Richard Dawkins.

It has never been about Richard Dawkins.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Because instead of actually looking at the evidence yourself you would rather attack Dawkins personally..

Perish the thought, I haven't even mentioned the fact that he's on his third wife..

 

[SkepticThinker]

You do realize that he's saying the lense shape could come into existence spontaneously, right? Not the material by which the lense is made? He's just saying that if a pre existing material such as a jelly like substance were to curve then it is essentially a lense. Even when you're quote mining you fail to discredit him.

Exactly.

He should know by now. Sheesh.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Dawks said it, not me..

And you're the one who's doing his best to misunderstand it.