Charles Darwin himself said that the human eye was way to complex to be a random occurance. If there is a creation, then there is a creator. Also, about the Bible; it's not just a book written by one person. It is compiled of several peoples written accounts of things that happened during their lives. Like a history book. Also, me personaly, I believe because I have seen things that could not be explained any other way except there be a God.
Sorry, you are utterly misinformed. This is what evolution deniers are very fond of quoting the following passage from On the Origin of Species, chapter 6:
"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.:"
However, they invariably neglect to quote the remainder of the section, where Darwin goes on to say that, absurd though it might seem, he had no problem believing it.
"…If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."
Indeed, in a later edition of On the Origin of Species, Darwin went on to have a go at so-called common sense:
"When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of vox populi, vox dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
Clearly, your standpoint on this issue is one from nothing but ignorance.
Previously in a different Thread titled "Proof of God? Is there Any? I talked about the problems of personal accounts and verifiabiliy. I will posting a short excerpt to object to your latter claim, but you may view the thread to see the whole dialogue.
"We all have standards that we use to determine whether claims we hear are true or false. We use these standards every day to asses claims of truth on a daily basis. If I came and told you that I had been abducted by aliens last night, would you belief me? Hopefully not. And your reasons for disbelief should be as follows 1) My claim is discredible because you do not know me personally; I could be a compulsive liar or suffer from delusions as a result of a profound brain disorder or susceptible brain states. 2) We don't observe observe alien abductions. Ever. Although I may profoundly believe that I was abducted by aliens, chances are, this is not what actually happened.
Now, Christianity is based on the notion that the Gospel account for the miracle are true; Consequently, this is what you would have to reject to reject the religion of Christianity - You do not have to prove that the universe is absent of God, or that any of the thousands of dead Gods such as Zues, Rha, Thor, etc. are void as well. The truth is, even is we had multiple contemporaneous claims of the miracles of Jesus, this simply would not be good enough evidence - because miracle stories abound even in the 21st century.The deputies of South Indian Guru Sathya Sai Baba ascribe all of the miracles to him: He reads minds, he can tell the future, he raises the dead, cures the blind, walks on water, born of a virgin, etc.
Sathya Sai Baba is not a Fringe figure. They had a birthday party for him a few years ago and over a million people showed up just to see him. There are vasts amounts of people that think he is a living God. So Christianity is predicated on the claim that miracle stories, exactly of the kind that are affiliated with Sathya Sai Baba today, become especially credible when you place them in the pre-scientific, religious context of the first century roman empire; decades after their supposed occurrence, as attested to by copies of copies of copies and translations of ancient Greek, and largely discrepant manuscripts. We have Sathya Sai Baba's miracle stories attested to by thousands and thousands of living eye witnesses, and they don't even merit an hour on cable television."
