[quote]...and divine/supernatural explanations require divine/supernatural evidence.[/quote]I thought you would have agreed with physical evidence. Oh well...

Like what? The bible saying something happened isn't physical evidence.

Evidence: We exist; thus, we need a cause. God's eternal; thus, He needs no cause.

God has no evidence. So many people need a cause, that's fine. One persons cause is another's folly. Each individuals cause is something they make for themselves. You're getting way offtopic. Man having a cause doesn't affect evolution.

[quote]God has no evidence.[/quote]Evidence: Irreducible Complexity in Biology.[quote]So many people need a cause, that's fine. One persons cause is another's folly.[/quote]What?[quote]Each individuals cause is something they make for themselves.[/quote]What?[quote]You're getting way offtopic.[/quote]You just stated what I was thinking.[quote]Man having a cause doesn't affect evolution.[/quote]I wasn't talking about man. I was talking about everything.

Irreducible conplextiy is a made up idea by creationists. Evolution isn't built from the top down, it's built from the bottom up. Extremely simple versions of modern body parts are what evolved over time to what we see today. This is evident in the fossil record. When creationists such as yourself quote Darwin in Origin Of Species about the eye, they leave out how he goes on to say [quote] 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...... 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. [/quote] He recognizes that the structures evolution created are indeed amazing, but how they began simply and over millions of years became complex is what makes it all believable. Stop sucking up religious propaganda. That shit rots your brain. So your precious creationist quote of Darwin is simply taken out of context. As you can see even at that point in time there was enough fossil evidence to support the theory of evolution. Now over 150 years later we have even more evidence and evolution stands solidly upon reality.

Okay. Correct me if I'm wrong. I admit to not knowing the rest of the quote, but since Darwin assumed that it was caused by Natural Selection in minuet stages over ever-changing moments in human biology, would that not mean that our eyes are still "evolving" into something more complex than now, or was that just Darwin speculating, and if yes that the eye is evidently ever-changing, would that not mean that anything determine as complex would have to evolve into something slightly more complex in the next generation?