Well, I have just began an interesting discussion with a theist. He is generally quite intelligent, well respected, and rarely loses a debate, so I want to put in a good showing!
Below is his reply to my comments:
"How does natural selection explain how complex organs, like the eye, could have evolved, when everything we know about the eye says that it is useless unless all the components are in place at the same time?
As for "the reptile-mammal transition evidence," where is it in "evidence"? What are the actual mechanics that achieve it? Not speculation, ACTUAL. Not variation in a genus [which evolutionists cling to as being evolution]. Biological changes where a living entity can be observed to be changing into something different, breaching the barriers of its DNA.
For reptiles to become mammals, that breach must have happened. So, show where reptiles are in a state of doing so today - where that transition is taking place.
You cannot, so your comment "The FACTS show that the concept of a God is so utterly unlikely as to be considered impossible" is not what the FACTS show at all.
Instead, what is overwhelmingly in evidence is what the Bible itself says, that like begets like, and you as well as I rely on that to occur in all facets of life, from growing/eating fruit and vegetables through to human/animal procreation."
Any thoughts on how best to respond to his arguments?