Okay then. Since you are so brilliant. Can you disprove that God exists. I mean there must be some way to disprove it. If you can't, you have to admit a bias.

There is no way to disprove god because he is described as outside of space and time where we cannot test for his existence. It isnt bias to then not believe that he exists, its common sense.

I will gladly admit mine but I once considered evolution and now find it absolutely silly. There are more scientific things going on in art classes than classes about evolution and I love science.

Loving science isnt the same as understanding it, which clearly you dont.

Why can't a God create simpler versions of things?

What? Do you mean why cant evolution create simpler versions of things? If not then this question is random and meaningless, if so "simpler" is a matter of opinion and isnt a scientific term. I could point out a species of fish that evolved to become blind because devoting energy to eyes that cant see in the caves where they live isnt beneficial. That seems like an example of "simpler".

Why aren't there any living transitional forms. Why did they all die out?

There are, technically everything is a transitional form. eventually all animals today will be viewed as "transitional" to future life forms. Transitional loosely means that which is a prior stage. They arent living anymore because obviously if a species evolves that is better suited to its niche, the previous species will die out.

Why do some nectar attract insects... was it dumb luck?

Because its a food source?

The sticky pollen coincidentally has a use.

And the twigs for birds nests coincidentally have a use? Its no coincidence that life forms have evolved to have mutual symbiotic relationships, whether intentional or not. The flowers with sticky or sweet pollen attracted the bees which allowed them to be pollenated and pass on genes, the ones that didnt have the sticky sweet pollen did not and thus died out. simple.

The seeds coincidentally evolved wings.

A mutation occured in a plant giving its seeds small outer protruding "wing like" growths. These growths caused the seed to be carried by the wind better and spread, allowing the plant to pass on genes better. over time with more and more mutations the wings got better and better until becoming what we have today.

I love this cool coincidences.

Theyre not coincidences, theyre simple products of millions of years of natural selection.

I love the way the mammal's heart and lungs evolved simultaneously and blood vessels and macrophages and the nervous system just correctly at the right places.

lol what? If they werent in those places they wouldnt survive and pass on genes. The species with well positioned heart and lungs survived. the ones without didnt. Seriously this is first grade biology.

There must have been millions of failures though but somehow it worked out despite the law of large numbers.

in probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.

The LLN is important because it "guarantees" stable long-term results for the averages of random events.

read that last line.

Also i dont even think that this really applies because if one single organism has a bad mutation it dies. Not a significant loss or "failure" on the scale of millions of years. As long as the species as a whole survives its meaningless. And with evolution while a bad mutation is a small loss, a good mutation is a massive gain. this isnt equal odds.

This is assume. If I ever had this luck Id go to Vegas immediately.

There are significantly more bad mutations than good ones. Therfore the odds of "winning" are very very small. You would lose thousands.

Considering that we would die quickly without a lymph system it must have evolved quickly coincidentally.

Earlier species didnt need lymph systems. With a mutation a lymph-type system evolved in one whic must have aided it somehow because it survived to pass on its genes. i dont even have to know the exact explaination of every single system because the same fucking pattern applies in every single one. That isnt to say there IS no explaination because i guarantee there is, just not from me because im not a textbook nor a career biologist.

Maybe nature had some good luck one day. Some very good luck.

Not luck, just probability and a lot of time.

You see random chance. I see an engineering masterpiece ruined by man. It is all a matter of perception.

No its all a matter of what the evidence says. and the evidence shows random chance.

How did it work out so well?

For all we know our form of life today is shit compared to what it will be in a billion years.

Yes there are errors but this will be expected with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics doesnt apply. The earth is not a closed system. please submit another classic easily disputable creationist claim and try again.

What are the chances of a fully functioning eye evolving?

100% apparently. actually our eyes arent even fully functioning. if they were we wouldnt need 2 of them. Also our eyes are shit in the dark and underwater. Fishes eyes are far better there. its not a matter of what is percieved as "biggest and best" or the newest model. its what works best where you live.

How did the flagellum evolve?

i dont know exactly, but i do know that whatever the first flagellum type mutation was, it aided the species in doing its job and living in its environment and thus it survived and passed on its genes. if you really wanna know google it.

Can you explain to me how a virus evolved considering that it doesn't really live.

i dont know. google it.

Why do some butterflies have mimicry on their wings that are very specific to animals that live near them?

Oh this one is too fucking easy. A butterfly evolved to have color patterns that look like the animals in its environment. This allowed it to blend in against their fur which must have been beneficial enough to allow them to survive and pass on their genes. do you see the fucking pattern yet?

You can't deny that it does seem logical to believe in a creator whether he abandoned us or not.

actually i can. that seems completely illogical considering we have no evidence to suggest a god ever existed let alone created the world and therfore no reason to consider it especially when we have the theory of evolution which explains how life evolved very well and is backed by evidence and consistent with everything else weve ever discovered including all of the laws of physics which go out the window if we are to jump to the god conclusion.

I have hope and you do not.

thats irrelivant to the topic. Good for you i have hope too. no reason why that is dependent on a god.

So yeah I am gonna enjoy my life but pay my due respects to the one who made it.

You do that. Keep living in your delusion and ill enjoy my life without having to pay "respects" to a cosmic ju-ju in the sky and instead devote that energy to maintaining the world and spreading science, knowledge, and truth to all humanity.

I never claimed to be able to prove God doe not exist. I simply am unconvinced by the simplistic and often ignorant evidence provided to attempt to prove him. My bias is that I do not find it wise to conflate faith with truth. I am a rationalist, not a spiritualist.

I love science.

That is a good start. Now learn some.

Questions:

Why can't a God create simpler versions of things?

Actually, I should be asking you this question. If God did exist and create everything as explained in Genesis, then yes, we would expect everything to be simpler. There wouldn't be all the extraneous evidence suggesting otherwise EVERYWHERE. All these extra lines of evidence indicate that he must have incorporated countless untrue aspects into the universe that tell a story that conflicts with his chosen forum for God's word. Why do this?

Why do some nectar attract insects... was it dumb luck? The sticky pollen coincidentally has a use.

I love the way the mammal's heart and lungs evolved simultaneously and blood vessels and macrophages and the nervous system just correctly at the right places.

Considering that we would die quickly without a lymph system it must have evolved quickly coincidentally.

What are the chances of a fully functioning eye evolving?

How did the flagellum evolve?

Why do some butterflies have mimicry on their wings that are very specific to animals that live near them?

I already previously explained the eye scenario to you. You ignored it, so I'm not particularly interested in answering this one by one, especially since avesatanus already answered a few of them. The bigger point is that the way you are asking these questions show that you do not understand the basic tennants of evolution. None of these things evolved immediately, and non of them had to. They were very small, very gradual changes. Also, the whole organism evolved throughout time, with several changing characteristics happening simultaneously. And, one of the most central and simple aspects of evolution is that characteristics that help a species survival are carried on. These may get better and better over time, until we get to the present stage of evolution. They may get better still in the future.

Why aren't there any living transitional forms. Why did they all die out?

Because they transitioned. Modern life forms will be classified as transitional once they evolve into something else.

There must have been millions of failures though but somehow it worked out despite the law of large numbers.

What the hell are you talking about? The LLN shows that averages are more accurate the more trials you run. So what? What does this have to do with evolution?

Yes there are errors but this will be expected with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

You probably don't understand the second law, do you?

Can you explain to me how a virus evolved considering that it doesn't really live.

First off, the definition of life is an essentially arbitrary of traits assigned by people for the sake of definition, and there is still some debate as to whether viruses should be considered living or not. Second, they don't have to be alive to be affected by natural selection. The still reproduce. Anything that reproduces and has variant traits in successive generations can be subject to natural selection.