Creation vs Evolution

[crossroad]

Who set the cannon? A man did. Who edited out all the other stuff? Men. I don't see where god fits in at all. All the other books contained nothing about creation??!? WOW! You're read them all? All of them! I thought many of them were incomplete or destroyed. Or you're lying.

typo, thanks for pointing that out. I was talking about the book of Enoch.

You have to be careful what you write in some of these threads. I see that some hillbilly evolutionist cannot understand information as a whole, but can only attack tid-bit unintended points. Maybe I should attack the following:

Since you'd not accept microevolution unless you saw it with your own eyes (made even more difficult as yours would most likely be closed) the evidence required to prove this to you is greater than the proof for any event in the Bible itself.

SO, MICROEVOLUTION IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW!!!! OH MY!!! DID EVOLUTION SPEED UP TO A RATE THAT CAN BE SEEN HAPPENING WITH THE HUMAN EYE? ARE YOU INSUINATING THAT TIME HAVE CHANGED DREMATICALLY?

I could go on.

I guess I can see how you think most of the workd is grasping at straws. Any person who compares the world to a greenhouse can believe anything....

Until you actually look at the evidence (I better say, go back and click on the links or else you may go off on how I've presented no evidence, no I better post - http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...=view&page=233 you will continue to open your mouth in ignorance. (Sorry again, I ment speak)

One explanation from one site...
"Question: Where did the light come from before the sun and moon were created?
Answer: The light in the first three days was probably from God himself."

He created the light coming from himself? I have to take my hat off to them managing to shoehorn something to fit the text....

So, God can speak everything into existance, but can't light things up while waiting for the third day? (Another example of tidbit hunting.)

Thus I view this site as extremely low grade "evidence", since it is "we're right, you're wrong" when it comes down to requiring proof.

You never gave the name of the site. Typical. Have you considered the other Creation Science web sites? Have you checked out http://www.irc.org? Or, will you blindly discount them because of your biased unresearched views?

Why the bible? Loads of other "holy" books around. Why not one of them? And which version of the Bible? There are so many! And let's not get into the inconsistencies....

No one that I know of has said, "Only the Bible". Typical again. Try to remember the past posts before you make claims like this. Which version of the Bible? - All of them. There are a few that were translated loosly, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to discover which ones.

[Zain]

Zain...

It works firstly as it's had billions of years to improve the model. Amoebas replicate very simply. They divide down the middle. Easy peasy. Over time things did get more complex.

But the failsafes thrown into the system are evident in how imperfect it is. 20 MILLION sperm to fertilise one egg. Talk about wastage. And there's not a 100% chance of success that copulation will result in fertilisation. A certain time of the month is required for starters.

Oh, and you left / ignored the long list of errors that I could think of off the top of my head. ERRORS = LACK OF PERFECTION!

The argument "it's complicated so God had to have done it" only works in Church. It has evolved to the state it is, and it works well enough, even with the large numbers of errors inherent the system.

And what made it evolve? Did it just realize it's mistakes and change? How does something incapable of induvidual thinking make that decision to change? And how did it change? That's the thing that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yes, I was being lazy, but I'm talking about transitions of the animals we see. A cat has been a cat for all of recorded history. It speaks of cats on Noah's ark. Now you're going to say that evolution is a long process, and so, what? If no change appears in a cat for thousands of years, how does that prove evolution? It's all been the same for thousands of years, since everything was created by God. Natural Selection is the only "evolution" we ever will see.

How do you know a cat has been a cat for all recorded history? I mean, by your own logic, you haven't seen them for anything longer than your own life, and even then you haven't seen all cats. How can you prove to me that a cat you haven't seen didn't change one night into a rat? Because that's the proof you require from your opponents - you haven't personally seen evolution happen in front of your eyes, so it must be bunkum.

Yet you're happy to believe some chap resurrected himself from the dead, without seeing that. Why are your standards of proof so flexible?

[KingOfTheIsles]

A cat has been a cat for all of recorded history.

By cat, I presume you mean the common domesticated cat, felis silvestris catus.

It speaks of cats on Noah's ark.

Which was, what? 4,000 years ago? It is absurd to expect a species to evolve beyond recognition in that space of time.

If no change appears in a cat for thousands of years, how does that prove evolution?

It doesn't, but neither would it disprove it. In any case, cats most certainly have changed. Have you considered all the different varieties of breeds of cat? They have not yet been selectively bred long enough to be incompatible with other breeds, but with a much longer amount of time, it would happen. The fact is, human have been on the earth for hardly an eyeblink.

Or, perhaps the cats will not significantly evolve. Some species, such as sharks and crocodiles, have not needed to, because they were adapted enough for their habitats, which didn't massively change. They did evolve a bit, mind you, but not to the extent that other groups, such as mammals, did.

[doc_bean]

Well it seems like Rory gave a few good counterarguments to your answers to my questions (getting complicated ?). I'm not going to waste bandwidth repeating him. So it's time for some more questions !

Male nipples. What's the point ? Female nipples have a point of course, but why do men have nipples. Because that's how God created them, you think. Okay, but considering he created Man before Woman and Man had no need for nipples, then why do men still have nipples ? Did God change his mind about men and said "Let them have Nipples !" ?? It makes no sense.

Men and Dinosaurs. You still haven't answered this one. If men had always existed, did they live when there were dinosaurs ? How come there are no mentions of dinosaurs in the bible ? If it is indeed a reliable source for the early history of the world, how come it doesn't mention them ??
Are dinosaurs fake ? Then why are their bones found ? Did God put them there to test our faith ?

Cavemen. When Adam and Eve got kicked out of paradise, and had a few children, they seemed to be pretty 'civilized', I saw no mention in the bible of people living in caves, hunting to survive, etc. (okay, maybe my limited bible knowledge) What were cavemen then ?

Big Daddy?

Jesus binds atoms, hilarious !

Does anyone else find it ironic that he says gluons are not real since no one has actually seen them ? Anyone seen God lately ?

Also, the kid is referring to an old pre-quantum physics model (Rutherford ? or even Bohr ?) when he makes the planetary comparison.

[Zain]

How do you know a cat has been a cat for all recorded history? I mean, by your own logic, you haven't seen them for anything longer than your own life, and even then you haven't seen all cats. How can you prove to me that a cat you haven't seen didn't change one night into a rat? Because that's the proof you require from your opponents - you haven't personally seen evolution happen in front of your eyes, so it must be bunkum.

Yet you're happy to believe some chap resurrected himself from the dead, without seeing that. Why are your standards of proof so flexible?

I guess I'm getting tired.

I believe Jesus raised himself from the dead because the bible says so and because I have faith. I have also personally seen the lives of people change because of the decision of accepting him into their heart. The day before they would drink and do naughty things people he wasn't married to, then the day after he just couldn't stomach that. Their lifestyle changed because they had something to guage their morals onto.

My standard right now are simply because I'm tired and I'm tired of saying the same things over and over, I apoligize for my weak proof in this particular moment.

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, I was being lazy, but I'm talking about transitions of the animals we see. A cat has been a cat for all of recorded history. It speaks of cats on Noah's ark. Now you're going to say that evolution is a long process, and so, what? If no change appears in a cat for thousands of years, how does that prove evolution? It's all been the same for thousands of years, since everything was created by God. Natural Selection is the only "evolution" we ever will see.

Dogs. Bred from wolves. This has been mentioned before.

Evolution can be seen happening in bacteria. Cells divide every 20 minutes. Put them in an increasingly strong solution of antibiotic and they will evolve resistance. Et voila. One down.

my point was that god on day three decided to make himself into a lightbulb?

Noah's flood. great explanation. More interstingly how did all the animals fit onto the Arc? What did they eat? Where did they decacate? Let's leave aside the meterological evidence for a flood, and focus on one person making an arc for all animals on the planet, bringing in food - and all animals leaving alive? I know, best stick to details, as the story itself is absurd. Facinating theory on how the water got into the air - nearly concealed the rather more obvious problem!

How can you tell which version of the bible is translated loosely? There are few origional texts, and even fewer people read the language.

Ah, of course - only a few posts ago you can tell us that all the books not in the bible were not to do with creation! Aramaic, Latin, Greek - there's no end to your talents!!!

Zain. See the little thing above re: bacteria. The ones that aren't "fit" die. The ones that are live. No thought goes into this. It just happens. The exact change is one that makes it more "fit". It may be obvious (an enzyme to catabolise an antibiotic) or maybe not. It doesn't have to have a reason, it just does.

[KingOfTheIsles]

And what made it evolve? Did it just realize it's mistakes and change? How does something incapable of induvidual thinking make that decision to change? And how did it change? That's the thing that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Natural selection.

Another point: why do human fetuses have tails, and look almost identical to every other mammalian fetus?

[Avicenna]

SO, MICROEVOLUTION IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW!!!! OH MY!!! DID EVOLUTION SPEED UP TO A RATE THAT CAN BE SEEN HAPPENING WITH THE HUMAN EYE? ARE YOU INSUINATING THAT TIME HAVE CHANGED DREMATICALLY?

Does that have ANY relevance to the quote WHATSOEVER? If it does, please point it out, I'd love to know.

Until you actually look at the evidence (I better say, go back and click on the links or else you may go off on how I've presented no evidence, no I better post - http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=...=view&page=233 you will continue to open your mouth in ignorance. (Sorry again, I ment speak)

"I'm right and you're wrong nah-nah-nah-nah-boo-boo," sounds extrememly childish to me, blindly following what people wrote down a few thousand years ago.

So, God can speak everything into existance, but can't light things up while waiting for the third day? (Another example of tidbit hunting.)

So, did the stars get made and just NOT produce any light WHATSOEVER until something says do it?

[doc_bean]

Yes, I was being lazy, but I'm talking about transitions of the animals we see. A cat has been a cat for all of recorded history.

All of recorded history being roughly 5000 years, where as the human species as we know it is about 100 000 years old and life existed almost a billion years ago (according to evolution yeah yeah). Macro evolution is a slow process, you can't expect to prove it in a few years, it takes millennia for a different species to form.

You know the clock analogy don't you ? If the entire existence of earth was scaled to 24h, the existence of mankind would only take up the last 5 minutes or so. Evolution is slow, 5000 years is nothing compared to the timescale of evolution.

[rory_20_uk]

I guess I'm getting tired.

I believe Jesus raised himself from the dead because the bible says so and because I have faith. I have also personally seen the lives of people change because of the decision of accepting him into their heart. The day before they would drink and do naughty things people he wasn't married to, then the day after he just couldn't stomach that. Their lifestyle changed because they had something to guage their morals onto.

My standard right now are simply because I'm tired and I'm tired of saying the same things over and over, I apoligize for my weak proof in this particular moment.

Belief. Sure, that's fine. Just don't get that mixed up with other matters.

Belief is important. If I believed that killing someone would prevent the earth from ending I'd do it. Suicide bombers believe they are doing the right thing. Belief is a very powerful thing. It just requires... belief. Holding up a view on the origins of species requires one hell of a lot more than that - or at least should do.

[doc_bean]

And what made it evolve? Did it just realize it's mistakes and change? How does something incapable of induvidual thinking make that decision to change? And how did it change? That's the thing that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Have you ever heard of genetic algoritmes ? They use the principles of evolution to solve optimization problems, they're quite effective if you use them right.

Does God make sure they work too ?

[Zain]

Male nipples. What's the point ? Female nipples have a point of course, but why do men have nipples. Because that's how God created them, you think. Okay, but considering he created Man before Woman and Man had no need for nipples, then why do men still have nipples ? Did God change his mind about men and said "Let them have Nipples !" ?? It makes no sense.

I guess it's like hair, what's the point of hair being on your head? To protect your head from getting burned by the sun. But, what about your shoulders, they have no significant hair. I guess the nipples are there simply for filling up space, but that's something I've never had to contimplate. Oh, the connection between hair and nipple, hair is there to fill up space, make everyone look different, possibly the nipple is simply there to fill up space. Don't you think we would look strange without them?

Men and Dinosaurs. You still haven't answered this one. If men had always existed, did they live when there were dinosaurs ? How come there are no mentions of dinosaurs in the bible ? If it is indeed a reliable source for the early history of the world, how come it doesn't mention them ??
Are dinosaurs fake ? Then why are their bones found ? Did God put them there to test our faith ?

A Leviathan, which is considered a dinosaur, is mentioned in the books of Job, Psalm, and Isaiah. The Behemoth, is mentioned in the book of Job. Humans and Dinosaurs lived at the same time, otherwise Creation would be false.

Cavemen. When Adam and Eve got kicked out of paradise, and had a few children, they seemed to be pretty 'civilized', I saw no mention in the bible of people living in caves, hunting to survive, etc. (okay, maybe my limited bible knowledge) What were cavemen then ?

I don't think that they were very civilized after Adam and Eve. They could very easily have spread out over the land after some reproduction and began to live like cavemen, but I don't know entirely.

[crossroad]

I am so going to hate myself for getting back into this, but:

Since you want stunningly obvious transitional forms that you can see, try amphibians. You know, frogs, newts etc.

Not quite fish, not quite reptiles. What you might call fish-reptiles. See there's this fish with a simple lung called - guess what, a lung-fish. And it has some amphibian characteristics. Then there are fish which use their fins as limbs on the margins of land, but live almost wholly in the water. These fish have the basic pentadactyl (five-toed) arrangement in those fins which is found in all land animals.

Is that simple enough for you? Or does it have to be a monkey-cat or a mollusc-rhinocerous?

Explain the Platypus.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...3/platypus.asp

[Avicenna]

Human bodies aren't machines made to do everything perfectly, which leads to mutations. The sperm or egg may have some small mutations, and when they fuse, the mutations are present in every single replicated cell for the foetus, which has a change. Normally, under uncivilised conditions, an animal would gain some different traits, eg perhaps being an albino. Now, if you were an albino in the North Pole, and hence were a camouflaged predator or prey, it is an advantage, and the chance of you living long enough to reproduce is increased. Similarly, an albino herbivore prey living in the jungle will get spotted and made into lunch quickly, and die before it can reproduce. Hence, the more wanted traits will get passed down more, and the species changes. I forgot the link and the site, but I've read an article showing that even in the past 100 years or so, the 'tall' gene has become more prevalent within the homo sapiens species.

[crossroad]

I guess I'm getting tired.

I believe Jesus raised himself from the dead because the bible says so and because I have faith. I have also personally seen the lives of people change because of the decision of accepting him into their heart. The day before they would drink and do naughty things people he wasn't married to, then the day after he just couldn't stomach that. Their lifestyle changed because they had something to guage their morals onto.

My standard right now are simply because I'm tired and I'm tired of saying the same things over and over, I apoligize for my weak proof in this particular moment.

Zain, God raised Jesus from the dead. And yes, that is one arguement that is very ironclad. The lives that have been changed by God, supernaturally, is with out a doubt very convincing.

[doc_bean]

I guess it's like hair, what's the point of hair being on your head? To protect your head from getting burned by the sun. But, what about your shoulders, they have no significant hair. I guess the nipples are there simply for filling up space, but that's something I've never had to contimplate. Oh, the connection between hair and nipple, hair is there to fill up space, make everyone look different, possibly the nipple is simply there to fill up space. Don't you think we would look strange without them?

Of course not, not if no man had nipples, than we would laugh at the idea of a man having nipples.

A Leviathan, which is considered a dinosaur, is mentioned in the books of Job, Psalm, and Isaiah. The Behemoth, is mentioned in the book of Job. Humans and Dinosaurs lived at the same time, otherwise Creation would be false.

So there musn't have been a lot of dinosaurs around back then, right, otherwise they would have been mentioned a bit more don't you think ? After all, giant carnivores tend to be the kind of thing that you mention in a book about your history....
Fossil findings would indicate the existence of a lot more dinosaurs then there seem to be mentioned in the bible though. Also, why didn't they get a ride on the ark ?

[Reenk Roink]

Ok, I'm seeing a trend that I've seen in other debates of this nature:

'Creationists' attack evolution instead of defending creationism.

'Evolutionists' attack creationism instead of defending evolution.

This is why these kind of discussions are...

Anyway, it may just be that I am an enlightened Gahist , but I would rather change these debates up, say a theistic evolution vs. naturalistic evolution discussion...

[Avicenna]

Explain the Platypus.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...3/platypus.asp

Same as before, they've got traits that allow them to be very successful in the environment they live in, and so they will reproduce more and be all over Australia. It's really not incredibly much to this evolution once you understand the concept.

[Zain]

Natural selection.

Another point: why do human fetuses have tails, and look almost identical to every other mammalian fetus?

Because we are mammals, and that's the way God made us.

All of recorded history being roughly 5000 years, where as the human species as we know it is about 100 000 years old and life existed almost a billion years ago (according to evolution yeah yeah). Macro evolution is a slow process, you can't expect to prove it in a few years, it takes millennia for a different species to form.

You know the clock analogy don't you ? If the entire existence of earth was scaled to 24h, the existence of mankind would only take up the last 5 minutes or so. Evolution is slow, 5000 years is nothing compared to the timescale of evolution.

I've studied that in my IPC class. Yes, I've heard of it. It's rather interesting, but untrue if you believe in Creationism.

Belief. Sure, that's fine. Just don't get that mixed up with other matters.

Belief is important. If I believed that killing someone would prevent the earth from ending I'd do it. Suicide bombers believe they are doing the right thing. Belief is a very powerful thing. It just requires... belief. Holding up a view on the origins of species requires one hell of a lot more than that - or at least should do.

I agree. Try arguing with 10 people on a matter for a few hours and see how long you stay clear minded.

Have you ever heard of genetic algoritmes ? They use the principles of evolution to solve optimization problems, they're quite effective if you use them right.

Does God make sure they work too ?

Has this been scientifically proven? Do they have examples of them in little slides you can look at under a microscope? If they do, then sure, that's a corrective program, basically, created by God, to where if something's wrong it corrects it. But, that process isn't the same in all the induviduals in a species, so therefore wouldn't work in an evolutionary standpoint.

Human bodies aren't machines made to do everything perfectly, which leads to mutations. The sperm or egg may have some small mutations, and when they fuse, the mutations are present in every single replicated cell for the foetus, which has a change. Normally, under uncivilised conditions, an animal would gain some different traits, eg perhaps being an albino. Now, if you were an albino in the North Pole, and hence were a camouflaged predator or prey, it is an advantage, and the chance of you living long enough to reproduce is increased. Similarly, an albino herbivore prey living in the jungle will get spotted and made into lunch quickly, and die before it can reproduce. Hence, the more wanted traits will get passed down more, and the species changes. I forgot the link and the site, but I've read an article showing that even in the past 100 years or so, the 'tall' gene has become more prevalent within the homo sapiens species.

Two words, Natural Selection. Nice examples Ti!

[KingOfTheIsles]

Explain the Platypus.

What is there to explain?

Zain, God raised Jesus from the dead. And yes, that is one arguement that is very ironclad. The lives that have been changed by God, supernaturally, is with out a doubt very convincing.

Which argument is ironclad? The first one is anyting but ironclad. the second is a) a complete strawman and b) not ironclad, at least not the "supernatural" part.

A Leviathan, which is considered a dinosaur, is mentioned in the books of Job, Psalm, and Isaiah. The Behemoth, is mentioned in the book of Job. Humans and Dinosaurs lived at the same time, otherwise Creation would be false.

Or they refer to giant squid, whales, elephants or hippos. The idea that humans and dinosaurs lived side-by-side has no evidence, and I am quite frankly astounded that anybody would seriously make that claim.

Don't you think we would look strange without them?

Not really, unless you look at it from the view that it would contradict the theory of evolution if there weren't any, which would indeed be odd.

Because we are mammals, and that's the way God made us.

That is just validating the conclusion using the conclusion as evidence. So why do we exhibit primitive, obsolete features such as a tail at that stage? If we are created in God's image, why do we look identical to every other animal, which is not? If mankind is so special, why did we get placed in the same group as mere mammals? Why do we function in essentially the same way? Why did God give us a tail, only to get rid of it before birth? All of these are compelling evidence that mammals share a common ancestor, whilst saying "God did it because he did" is not answering the question, let alone providing evidence for your viewpoint.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I guess I'm getting tired.

I believe Jesus raised himself from the dead because the bible says so and because I have faith. I have also personally seen the lives of people change because of the decision of accepting him into their heart. The day before they would drink and do naughty things people he wasn't married to, then the day after he just couldn't stomach that. Their lifestyle changed because they had something to guage their morals onto.

My standard right now are simply because I'm tired and I'm tired of saying the same things over and over, I apoligize for my weak proof in this particular moment.

I respect your belief. But you're right, it is faith. No evidence but hearsay. I'm glad you've seen good things happen because of that faith. But I'm sure you are also aware many very terrible things have happened because of that blind faith in God too.

Faith and science are based on very different things. It is certainly possible to reconcile your faith in your God with evolutionary theory. Indeed, many argue evolution would be a very creditable reflection on a supernatural being.

I'm tired too. I would urge you to read the books I recommended and stop feeling that your faith is threatened by evolution. But to remain stubborn is equally your choice.

Being faithful doesn't require you to stop thinking.

[Avicenna]

Zain: natural selection will inevitably lead to more and more mutations accumulating and becoming dominant, which leads to the evolution of a species. If you can accept natural selection, it should be easy to accept evolution. Or so I like to think

Zain, God raised Jesus from the dead. And yes, that is one arguement that is very ironclad. The lives that have been changed by God, supernaturally, is with out a doubt very convincing.

So, something that nobody has seen ever says something which nobody has heard and it is an ironclad statement? Well, frankly, that just cracks me up.

By the way, evolution has changed lives very significantly as well. So have politicians, but does it mean that you trust in whatever they say?

[Zain]

Of course not, not if no man had nipples, than we would laugh at the idea of a man having nipples.

Haha, true. I don't know the answer then, besides God did it because he wanted to.

So there musn't have been a lot of dinosaurs around back then, right, otherwise they would have been mentioned a bit more don't you think ? After all, giant carnivores tend to be the kind of thing that you mention in a book about your history....
Fossil findings would indicate the existence of a lot more dinosaurs then there seem to be mentioned in the bible though. Also, why didn't they get a ride on the ark ?

I honestly believed that the humans wiped out the dinosaurs that are extinct because they were a huge threat. You've got the carnivores, who will eat you. Kill them off and save your hide. You've got the omnivores, who will eat all of the vegetation all around. Kill them off and get some food. I that possibly the extinct ones all died out before the flood. Don't you think that with the Earth completely covered in water that that would cover up these carcasus with multiple layers and explain the huge dating on these fossils? It's a thought. Or maybe some of the living dinosaurs did get a ride on the ark, which would explain crocodiles still being around.

[crossroad]

Does that have ANY relevance to the quote WHATSOEVER? If it does, please point it out, I'd love to know.

Do you speak english, or are you useing one of those web browser translators? I bet you don't even realize that you just made my point (the point I made in the post you were quoting)

"I'm right and you're wrong nah-nah-nah-nah-boo-boo," sounds extrememly childish to me, blindly following what people wrote down a few thousand years ago.

Thanks again! I posted research that you choose to ignore. Are you writing about yourself in this one?

[doc_bean]

I've studied that in my IPC class. Yes, I've heard of it. It's rather interesting, but untrue if you believe in Creationism.

Sure but it expalins why you won't see 'macro-evolution' and does based on science (carbon dating and all that) instead of faith.

Has this been scientifically proven? Do they have examples of them in little slides you can look at under a microscope? If they do, then sure, that's a corrective program, basically, created by God, to where if something's wrong it corrects it. But, that process isn't the same in all the induviduals in a species, so therefore wouldn't work in an evolutionary standpoint.

Genetic algoritmes are computer programs, just lines of code to solve complex optimization problems.

Also: info on the evolution of the eye !

[rory_20_uk]

Everything else I wrote got ignored? Noa's flood, microbe biology 101.

Is that due to lack of defence for the points raised?

That Jesus was raised from the dead is Ironclad to Christians. Noone else. Basically why it's a belief. Please, let's keep belief and evidence seperate! One can believe whatever they want. That's fine.

natural selection is evolution. Organisms selected naturally which slowly over time evolve.

I feel that the argument seems to shift. We get something mentioned, refuted then dropped. But like a prophet in a book it rises up from the dead later in the same page as though nothing had happened.

OK nipples: we have two - most of the time. We have a "nipple line" that runs down both sides of our body. We can sometimes have more than the usual two, and women can even have a third breast. Pretty odd - until you remember that other mammals have up to 6 nipples.

As with all mutations, either God mucked it up with his selection, or evolution is showing evidence of mutation.

Reenk Roink, can that be discussed? I assume the difference is how the process commenced. If so, how could we tell?

[Avicenna]

Yes, I speak english. Words such as 'insuinating' and 'drematically' don't appear in my vocabulary though. You just spouted a whole load of rubbish hoping to intimidate people into avoid looking at the horridly spelt caps locked passage, as you had NOTHING relevant to say. Micro-evolution happens between generations, so you cannot see it in front of your eyes. Which is your argument, which is, frankly, rubbish.

Your links include people saying that what the bible is true because it says so and hence everything is wrong. I just put it in simple terms so that you might finally after a long time get the point.

[Quietus]

How about another argument, how did the reproductive system come out PERFECT without God?

Zain, nothing is perfect. It's only an illusion.

The DNA accumulates and losses information randomly (mutation) and these information are passed on during reproduction (sexual and asexual). Whichever organisms happen to have the better genetic information are generally favored to live and reproduce within their environment (natural selection). Hence those that have the inferior and wonky codes tend to die and disappear (natural selection as well). Hence creating the illusion that reproduction is perfect.

Oh and here's how an eye can evolve:

The human eye is not irreducibly complex

[Zain]

I respect your belief. But you're right, it is faith. No evidence but hearsay. I'm glad you've seen good things happen because of that faith. But I'm sure you are also aware many very terrible things have happened because of that blind faith in God too.

Faith and science are based on very different things. It is certainly possible to reconcile your faith in your God with evolutionary theory. Indeed, many argue evolution would be a very creditable reflection on a supernatural being.

I'm tired too. I would urge you to read the books I recommended and stop feeling that your faith is threatened by evolution. But to remain stubborn is equally your choice.

Being faithful doesn't require you to stop thinking.

My religion is based on Creationism, Evolution is not Creationism, so therefore it's always going to "threaten", but yes, I will always study on this, it's very intresting to me.

What is there to explain?

Which argument is ironclad? The first one is anyting but ironclad. the second is a) a complete strawman and b) not ironclad, at least not the "supernatural" part.

He was talking about the changes in people's lives, and they're true.

Zain: natural selection will inevitably lead to more and more mutations accumulating and becoming dominant, which leads to the evolution of a species. If you can accept natural selection, it should be easy to accept evolution. Or so I like to think

So, something that nobody has seen ever says something which nobody has heard and it is an ironclad statement? Well, frankly, that just cracks me up.

By the way, evolution has changed lives very significantly as well. So have politicians, but does it mean that you trust in whatever they say?

Mutations? No, simple changes due to casted out genes. I can not accept the Evolution saying that something changes for no reason. I do, however, will accept Natural Selection. What changes have evolution made? Does it make someone a better person?

Sure but it expalins why you won't see 'macro-evolution' and does based on science (carbon dating and all that) instead of faith.

Genetic algoritmes are computer programs, just lines of code to solve complex optimization problems.

Also: info on the evolution of the eye !

I understand that as far as that goes, it's long term. Computer Programs, in the human body? I'm probably missing something, can you help me out a little to understand this?

Everything else I wrote got ignored? Noa's flood, microbe biology 101.

Is that due to lack of defence for the points raised?

That Jesus was raised from the dead is Ironclad to Christians. Noone else. Basically why it's a belief. Please, let's keep belief and evidence seperate! One can believe whatever they want. That's fine.

natural selection is evolution. Organisms selected naturally which slowly over time evolve.

What was ignored?

Yes, I speak english. Words such as 'insuinating' and 'drematically' don't appear in my vocabulary though. You just spouted a whole load of rubbish hoping to intimidate people into avoid looking at the horridly spelt caps locked passage, as you had NOTHING relevant to say. Micro-evolution happens between generations, so you cannot see it in front of your eyes. Which is your argument, which is, frankly, rubbish.

He was being sarcastic!!!