If there is not god or we don't believe in god, WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT? How do you figure? That's quite a leap. In fact, it's a faulty syllogism. Moral precepts arise from our need to form community, our need to get along, a pretty powerful adaption on the path of survival.

why did we evolve to were we need air to live?
wouldnt it of been easier and safer not to need air?

__________________
1.http://gotquestions.org/crucial.html
2. http://www.godandscience.org/
3.http://www.carm.org/christianity/answers-seekers

You're still thinking in intelligent design terms. It works more like this:
1000000 animals are born
1000 mutations happen
999 of these mutations are useless or detrimental
The other 1 is the ability to see colours

This animal is more successful at hunting than his peers, due to his advanced vision, kills more prey, becomes more attractive to females due to his physique and prowess, and fathers 10 offspring. Half of them have the colour mutation, which makes them more successful than their peers.

Eventually the colour gene is widespread, and the less efficient monochrome gene is superceded.

kinda interesting thought tho .. it just happend by chance? anyways one kind of creature changing into another via beneficial mutation has simply NEVER been shown.

__________________
1.http://gotquestions.org/crucial.html
2. http://www.godandscience.org/
3.http://www.carm.org/christianity/answers-seekers

Still haven't read the wiki links i gave you earlier, I see. This shit is well documented. There are plenty of transitional species. The only argument you have left is "but you haven't found them all".

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/12/04/sc...tml?sec=health

__________________

true science deals with facts -- observable, testable, reproducible under controlled conditions. The origin of things is not observable, not testable, not reproducible.

__________________
1.http://gotquestions.org/crucial.html
2. http://www.godandscience.org/
3.http://www.carm.org/christianity/answers-seekers

THE HUMAN EYE: The human eye is so complex and sophisticated that scientists still do not fully understand how it works. The eye completes 100,000 separate functions in a single day. While we sleep the eye conducts its own maintenance work. Considering the number of complex structures in the eye, as well as the highly integrated synchronization, it is difficult to understand how the evolutionist can believe that the eye emerged from a natural trial-and-error process. Darwin himself was troubled by the design shown in this marvelous organ. The eye is known to be useless unless fully developed. It either functions as an integrated whole or not at all. Interestingly, the evolutionist has a deeper problem with the eye. Five different types of eyes exist: man, squid, vertebrate, arthropod, and trilobite. Are we to assume that chance mutations created not one, but five separate viewing systems?

__________________
1.http://gotquestions.org/crucial.html
2. http://www.godandscience.org/
3.http://www.carm.org/christianity/answers-seekers

A stupid argument, as well as being completely wrong.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o...nt/256/1345/53
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

Just because it is complex does not imply design. The current incarnation of the eye is more complex than earlier versions, so your argument is being deliberately misleading by suggesting otherwise.

And yes, it is definately possible that types of eye evolved independently of each other.

The other guy answered the color sight, so I will answer this.

No it is not safer and easier. What drove the first land creatures was the escape from the predators that were in water, at first that just meant the need to be able to survive short bursts. As predators adapted they had to go further and further out, until it was necessary to be able to breath air fully, making the ability to breath water unneeded.

But in reality we still have the dna in us that allows other animals to form gils and be able to breath under water, it is just that we over the hundreds of millions of years have not needed it and those genes have been pushed aside and dormant.

This is where ID fails, it assumes that this is some kind of chance, it is not. The intellegence is in the creatures decisions on how and when to mate.

If an animal is born with something that puts then at a disadvantage they may get eaten before they can mate. Like say a bird with a gimp wing. But say that the bird was born with a mutation of better eyesight it may be a better hunter or evade predators better so survives and thrives so it is able to mate passing those mutations down through the lines.

What I don't get is when people say that God is the intelligent designer, and we are all gods creatures and he loves us all the same, why would he chose to make most the mutations negatively affect us and end up dying shortly after birth? Wouldn't that mean that the designer is willing to warp 9999 out of 10000 of the things to design a better creature? Does he need that practice to get it right?

If it was really god wouldn't it just be done right the first time?

During one of the ID trials they used this argument about a bacteria, showing that the complexity of the design would not work without any of the pieces the same. And made referance to the mousetrap. If you take any one piece of the trap away, like the trigger, or the spring it would not ever catch a mouse.

So the scientists all took out the trigger and used them as tie clips.

The reason for this is to show that the way evolution works is not in one direction. We all (animals) have the same basic structure, we just use vastly different parts to make ourselves up.

Structures like the eye can form from things they were never meant to be.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml

To help you think of evolution think of it as all sciences working in concert. If one branch of science has a workable theory, you have to take it into consideration. So if you think about underwater creatures. They are able to hear vast distances to know predators are around. But think about sight underwater, things are distorted or foggy almost. So sight is very unreliable.

But on land you do not have the same scenerios. The sound waves are not as pronounced, so sight is much more valuable. So what happens the mutations that benefit it will make those animals more apt for survival.

__________________
“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.” -Einstein