[photon]

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

One, I do agree that atheism is frowned upon more often than not- not even an option in certain parts of the Islamic and Catholic world. Indoctrination in children is an awful way to increase the religious population... yet studies would suggest it is essentially the sole reason Islam is growing.

Even in Canada and the US there's lots of incidents of discrimination against atheists, I know many who are in the closet because the repercussions of coming out to their families or friends would basically devastate their lives.

The #1 indicator of what religion anyone will be is geography, so yeah it is kinda like indoctrination, though there's varying degrees. Telling my kid what I believe and him likely believing the same is just the way it goes.. making sure my kid believes the same and disciplined or disowned, not so good.

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

Second, if the intention of said graphs is to discredit biblical realists, then fire away. That is not to suggest that I don't think the Bible has an incredible amount of historical value.

Me either, a good amount of our current culture has roots in the Bible and religion, not understanding either makes it much harder to understand our culture.

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

While my education might suggest that I would be inclined to discredit religion any chance I get, I have found it wise to simply separate the two. Literal creationists, while entertaining, do not bother me.

At least until they try to change the education system with falsehoods to fit their own goals, then it bothers me. But yeah if someone wants to believe the earth is flat, go for it. Just don't be surprised if people think its silly.

Originally Posted by puckluck

I find it actually humorous (mmm humous) that atheists are usually the most radical with their beliefs.

Really? Do you have a specific example?

Originally Posted by puckluck

Yes I understand that, but what formed the heart and brain? did evolution just create a man and woman and tell them to make babies?

The heart and the brain evolved over time. They evolved quite early, which is why most species share those features. Sexual reproduction as well evolved quite early.

Originally Posted by puckluck

How did the human body form? not how did it evolve. The actual physical flesh and the organs. Who or what created the human body?

The question of how did the body form and how did it evolve are the same questions. The layout of the body of mammals evolved from fish, all mammals share a common ancestor. Tiktaalik is representative.

Originally Posted by puckluck

Nope you're understanding it perfect, but if something gets created from another specie then how was the very first specie created.

The first species evolved from its ancestors. Are you asking how life got started in the first place? That isn't evolution, evolution assumes there's a lifeform to start with. How life got started is called abiogenesis.

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

To play devil's advocate, then explain why essentially all genetic mutations observed in the modern world are harmful to an organism, and almost never give an advantage over its competitors??

edit: sorry, some mutations are neutral and do not give an organism an advantage or disadvantage... some mutations are in fact beneficial- extremely rare though

I'll start with a question, do you know how many mutations there are between you and your parents?

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

1/ the rarity of beneficial mutations

They're rare, but when you factor in the time scales involved as well as the # of generations and the size of the population, the rate of beneficial mutations are sufficient to explain the diversity of life.

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

2/ the lack of fossil evidence of said mutations and their linear path to a new organism

I don't think there's a lack of fossil evidence at all.. there's lots of very good lines with good representation over time.. equine evolution and whale evolution being two. There are lots of great fossils.

More would be nice, but fossilization is a rare event, we're fortunate to have what we do.

And incidentally with the understanding of genetics, evolution would be the correct conclusion even if we didn't have a single fossil.

Originally Posted by Flabbibulin

3/ the usefulness of half an organ as it evolves into a complete form.

Of course half an organ would be useful. A patch of light sensitive cells could be useful. Some cells that produce an enzyme that is useful to the organism even though incomplete. Things also get reprovisioned, so an organ that used to do one thing changes to do something else. There's lots of research around this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli...ion_experiment
This is a good experiment showing a completely new ability evolving as a result of multiple mutations, one mutation building on a previous mutation to create a pathway to metabolise citrate.

Usefulness isn't the measurement, fitness is.

But basically this boils down to an argument from incredulity. "I can't think of how this organ is useful if it isn't complete, therefore it can't have evolved", which is a logical fallacy.