Jimmy Jones "One more time for the dummies, ok? ...
Your premise was that without SRI in primary schools, western civilization would be "utterly indecipherable"....Therefore, your premise is demonstrably WRONG."

I never stated any such premise.
I stated that without knowledge of Christianity you would not understand a lot of our history.

If you cannot understand the difference between that statement and yours, then it is you who is the dummy.

I note no atheist has bothered to answer my query about symmetry.

How do you explain this through random mutation and natural selection?
If symmetry was an evolutionary advantage (it makes movement easier, it saves on DNA coding), surely *everything* would have ended up symmetrical.
Even ancient fossils of the earliest lifeforms show symmetry.

Many things are symmetrical, but not everything (even within the same lifeform).

Why did we evolve symmetrical limbs, eyes, lungs, kidneys, reproductive organs, ears, teeth, but *not* symmetrical intestines, liver, heart?

@ Dan,

You clearly didn't bother to view the UTUBE link I posted,
actually showing in real time,
evolution taking place.

!

Saltpetre

Thanks for your apology - could have done without the accompanying lecture.

For the record. I don't think you are an extremist like Dan S or Runner but that doesn't mean I won't challenge you either.

Happy to agree with you about where it is appropriate to teach RI - keeping schools secular means that everyone gets a fair go - whether they be Hindu, atheist or Christian. Plus children are not potential 'fodder' for indoctrination, at least not during school hours.

Some Christian denominations must be feeling very desperate to go to the excess as is currently happening with groups like ACCESS. No single ideology should be presented as the only true path. There are many paths to wisdom and compassion - they don't have to come from formal religion with all its attendant limitations.

Oh, alright then, Shockadelic. You got us.

<<I note no atheist has bothered to answer my query about symmetry.>>

It’s all a lie and the truth lays hidden in a church pamphlet. Time to collect your Nobel prize.

Did it ever occur to you to look for the answer yourself? I mean beyond a deliberately misleading Jehovah’s Witnesses pamphlet?

Or do you think you’re waving around a trump card that not one scientist has bothered to look at. Now that would be some oversight!

<<How do you explain this through random mutation and natural selection?>>

You already answered this in your very next sentence.

<<If symmetry was an evolutionary advantage (it makes movement easier, it saves on DNA coding), surely *everything* would have ended up symmetrical.>>

Not if it didn’t prove to be a hindrance to survival. How does your asymmetrical live hinder your existence?

<<Even ancient fossils of the earliest lifeforms show symmetry.>>

Of course. Most mobile organisms that weren’t, would have been at such an extreme disadvantage, they would soon have been completely overtaken by symmetrical creatures very, very early in the piece.

<<Many things are symmetrical, but not everything (even within the same lifeform).>>

And what law of nature renders that impossible?

<<Why did we evolve symmetrical limbs, eyes, lungs, kidneys, reproductive organs, ears, teeth, but *not* symmetrical intestines, liver, heart?>>

Because we only need one of each; eliminating the need for a symmetrical mirror image on the other side. If we had two livers, they’d probably both be a mirror image of each other.

You even mentioned the saving of DNA coding - suggesting you understand that the same gene control both sides - so why do you find it so strange that there is no need for that saving of DNA coding when only one organ exists?

Placing a lone organ, like the heart, in the dead centre of a living organism’s body (if that’s what you’re getting at too - in a confused manner) wouldn’t save on DNA coding and so it would stay right where it was if it wasn’t detrimental to survival.

Actually, Shockadelic, one other point I’ve just thought of after considering the interesting shape of the liver (ignoring for a moment your confusion between the symmetry of a lone organ as opposed to the symmetry of two that are like mirror images of each other - sharing the same function) is that our liver has probably taken on its shape in order to maximise its size, in the location it evolved in, while still leaving enough room for the other organs.

When you look at its shape, it’s as though someone slipped it in as the final organ to complete the entire set and cut it to fit every square inch of what room was left; baring in mind that with random mutations and natural selection, that “someone” didn’t have to be a being with a conscious mind.

With the above in mind, if our DNA followed a "one-size-fits-all" methodology (as you seem to think nature dictates it must) - requiring all organs to either have a symmetrical mirror image copy on the other side or be centered and symmetrical themselves - then that would be an even bigger hindrance to our evolution and we probably wouldn't have made it this far.

Ogg,
I usually don't bother clicking on YouTube links as most of YouTube is junk in my experience (a small percentage of it is great.) So if you especially ask me to click on a link, if you think it is exceptional, then I would be happy to. 

However, if you want engagement in some type of dialogue, you should refrain from calling people liars. That is just name calling and abusive. When you retract that word from your post, I'll be happy to reflect on your video.