What makes someone think God isnt real? (Page 3)

LiptonCambell: >>>So because it hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt

Whats the criteria for it to be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? For example, many errors have been found in the bible, just as many maniplulations through translations have been found. That certainly should bring doubt to the crediblity of such a source if nothing else.

Nonetheless, an important question to ask is this;

What needs to happen to prove to your statsification that there is no God?

I'm not saying there is no God- but how would it be proved if there wasn't?

ChutneyFerret: Way to go and miss the entire point of my post!
Maybe next time ill write it in red crayon and try to use words that contain only one syllable.

LiptonCambell: Lol I realised after I already wrote the rant above that your being sarcastic- but damnit, its a good question to ask!

XFixYourBrainX: Chutney I smiled when I read your ignorant comments about me, because they are very much not true. This is what I have to say to you. Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. I got the definition of the word theory from dictionary.com why dont you go check it out yourself you idiot! I bet half of those words that you called me you dont even know what they mean, and you should really learn how to spell certain words you ignorant nomadic neanderthal. And I will debate with you and your absord ideas on the so called lame idea of an excuse called, "Evolution" all day. This is a letter I recieved from a friend not to long ago. Debate this biatch!

"A change to the ecosystem from deep water to shallow streams may have driven some fish to make use of their genetic limb-building capability." BBC News, 5/23/07

New DNA and embryo studies show that our fingers and toes develop in a special second-stage of the embryo -- a stage we used to think fish didn't go through, but the new studies show ... they do.
If fish go through the "finger" stage ... why don't they grow fingers too? They say fish "can" but "don't". They say in the ancient past, there was "a change to the ecosystem" that made fish "driven" to "make use" of this "capability" they have. Right.
If anyone says natural selection is "trying" to "do something" ... they're in la-la land! Natural selection cannot "create" anything -- it can only select ... from what is already there! It's not a magic wand -- it's a screening process ... so how can fish feel "driven" to evolve ... into anything else?? They can't. Keep thinking. Dr J

LiptonCambell: >>>I got the definition of the word theory from dictionary.com why dont you go check it out yourself you idiot!

Because the theory of evolution is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY;

systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

"scientific theories must be falsifiable"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+theory

>>>and you should really learn how to spell certain words you ignorant nomadic neanderthal. And I will debate with you and your absord ideas....

You know you misspelt absurb, right?

>>>They say in the ancient past, there was "a change to the ecosystem" that made fish "driven" to "make use" of this "capability" they have. Right.

Well is there any additional evidence to support this?

>>>so how can fish feel "driven" to evolve ... into anything else?? They can't.

Nope- but there can be mutants- and if these mutants survive their surroundings better, they will flourish.

XFixYourBrainX: Thats all the evidence needed. What about this can you debate it?

The fossil of a camouflaged leaf-insect, found in Germany and evo-dated at 47Ma (mill yrs) has genitalia and legs "almost identical to those of modern leaf insects, a sign that subsequent species changed little in the millions of years that followed." (Science News, 1/6/07, p4) True -- they didn't change. But it hasn't been "millions of years."
Evo-stories tell us everything alive today had gazillions of "missing link" stages, before becoming what they are today. So why, in "47 million years" hasn't this bug changed?! Prof Michael Engel of U-KS-Lawrenceville says, although "many scientists suspect that ancient animals behaved quite differently ... fossils such as [this] provide direct evidence to the contrary." Wow! Data never lies. Only interpretations of data lie. Keep thinking. Dr J

RodneyRhombus: As far as i can read, no insults were aimed directly at you. Instead were aimed at the supernatural diety that u choose to worship. And if i did happen to hurt ur feelings, as the good christian u are should forgive me and not choose to insult me in turn.

You then go on to misuse copypasta quotes from Albert Einstien 'Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence' etc etc

Its strange and kind of ironic how creationists choose to side with the great Albert Einstien who is no doubt at this moment turning in his grave at ur misunderstandings. Read the epic 'Einstein His Life & Universe By Walter Isaacson'.
Creationists tend to take a lot of his quotes out of context and use them to champion the cause of intelligent design/creationism, when in fact Einstein stood in direct opposition to everything u believe.
In a letter written by Einstein, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." (January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind)
Oh yeah, and before u criticize someone for spelling errors u really need to be extra careful what u type 'absord'? or may i recommend a good spell checker http://www.spellcheckanywhere.com/

And here u have answered your own question
'If anyone says natural selection is "trying" to "do something" ... they're in la-la land! Natural selection cannot "create" anything -- it can only select ... from what is already there! It's not a magic wand -- it's a screening process'
No one was saying Evolution is a magic wand (you really do enjoy fairy stories, dont u?) And to give Evolution its full title 'Darwins Theory of Evolution through NATURAL SELECTION' You see?

According to the National Academy of Sciences(NAS) a scientific theory is 'a well-substantianted explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses' Can u show the same evidence to support ur fantastical idea that everything in the known universe was created in a week by the utterance of a few words?

Moving on to ur final point where u mention the camouflaged leaf-insect, found in Germany. And why it hasnt evolved any further in '47 million years'
Ive heard this used by creationists before and its exactly the same thing but under a different guise. It usually goes something like this 'If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?'
Its a very common and typical argument that reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor, just like ur beloved leaf-insect had a common ancestor.
The deeper error is that this objection is like asking 'If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?'
New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficent differences to remain forever distinct. THE PARENT SPECIES MAY SURVIVE INDEFINITELY THEREAFTER, OR IT MAY BECOME EXTINCT.

Before u debate something please have at least a laymans grasp of the fundamentals u are trying to argue against.
Can i ask where u are getting ur information on what Evolution is? What books have u read on the subject?

XFixYourBrainX: All the information I have gained from the subject of evolution is from learning about it in school, from my freind who is a Creationist Dr.J and from my own research and information from what other creationists, and evolutionists have given me. I have still not seen any evidence behind evolution on it being true only evidence pointing to it not being true its kinda hard to ignore the evidence pointed toward evolution not being true. I dont understand how anybody can believe in evolution, its only a theory, its not been proven, and as far as im concerned its not real, id rather believe in God and Christ then believe in evolution, all the links such as the link of lucy and other missing links pointed toward being our ancient ancestors have not all been found, and never will be found EVER!!! Missing links dont prove evolution, until the day I see every single supposed missing link pointing to our ancestors and there is definate proof I will never believe in evolution EVER!!!

XFixYourBrainX: Creationists tend to take a lot of his quotes out of context and use them to champion the cause of intelligent design/creationism, when in fact Einstein stood in direct opposition to everything u believe.
In a letter written by Einstein, he states: "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." (January 3 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind)

The interpretation you think that Albert Einstein presents is only what you want it to be, nobody will ever know what Einstein thought about God and evolution unless he was alive today, you only pick and choose what Einstein has said! You only make the things that Einstein said to what you want them to be! Here are some quotes by him;

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
This shows only one thing that Einstein knows that there is a God, it cant be interpreted as anything else!

"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."
"God is subtle but he is not malicious."
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."

Einstein talks and mentions alot of things about God, it only points to him knowing there is a God, if Einstein didnt believe there to be a God he wouldnt make any kind of reference to him.

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind." Who is this SUPERIOR SPIRIT Einstein is referencing to hmmmm? It seems to me the only superior spirit that there is, is God, there is no other! Anything else is from the Devil!

LiptonCambell: Aight, lets discuss some of the evidence;

----Microbes----

An excellent source as an example- evolution is based on the concept that, if a creature reproduces enough, various tiny changes will occur to a rare number of offspring. Observing this firsthand is generally impossible, given the length of time we are discussing- but with Microbes, they breed so fast we can watch the mutations. And thats percisely why cures such as Insulin are used with care- because occasionally, a strain WILL evolve, and a mutant strain will become immune to the Insulin.

----Human Anatomy----

We have tail bones. Where did those come from? We have the completely useless apendix. Why do we have those? Evolution would readily explain that question.

----Missing Links----

The argument of missing links was apt- when Darwin presented his ideas a 150 years ago. Back then, there were huge gaps in the fossil record, clearly showing missing links. Since then, though, Dozens of transitional fossils have revealed themselves;

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

>>>its only a theory, its not been proven

As is Gravity is just a theory

>>>Missing links dont prove evolution, until the day I see every single supposed missing link pointing to our ancestors and there is definate proof I will never believe in evolution EVER!!!

Then your standard of proof is flawed. If everyone on Earth were to die at this exact moment, all over the world- out of all 6.7 billion of us- in the millions of years following, the creatures who found our remains would only be able to muster less than 25 complete skeletons. Fossilization is an intensely rare process, one of which that doesn't yeild to your demands for a greater fossil record. Imagine if you applied the same stubborn standard to everyday life? That you refused to believe your car can only run on gasoline, until you poured every chemical in the engine. We have over a dozen different kinds of skeletonal remains that look human, but aren't *quite- how do you explain those away?



Still, you are correct on Albert- he was vague and unclear as to his religious beliefs- it seems his beliefs were his own;

"I'm not an atheist."

Albert, Time Magazine.

XFixYourBrainX: Aight, lets discuss some of the evidence;

----Microbes----

An excellent source as an example- evolution is based on the concept that, if a creature reproduces enough, various tiny changes will occur to a rare number of offspring. Observing this firsthand is generally impossible, given the length of time we are discussing- but with Microbes, they breed so fast we can watch the mutations. And thats percisely why cures such as Insulin are used with care- because occasionally, a strain WILL evolve, and a mutant strain will become immune to the Insulin.


I will quickly justify this to what it shall be! 90% of the cells in our bodies are bacteria ... and they help us, like God originally intended. It's only certain kinds that make us sick. Sometimes they mutate and lose a trait our drugs depend on for killing them. Some germs are already immune to our drugs. Either way, eventually the only germs that will be left are ones that are all immune to our drugs. And that is dangerous to us. But it is not evolution. It is just natural selection.

XFixYourBrainX: ----Human Anatomy----

We have tail bones. Where did those come from? We have the completely useless apendix. Why do we have those? Evolution would readily explain that question.

The tail bone is a caudal vertebra, a COCCYX

A caudal vertebra is one of 4 vertebrae in the human coccyx

Coccyx is a small triangular bone forming the lower extremity of the spinal column in humans, consisting of four ankylosed rudimentary vertebrae.

"The coccyx provides an attachment for nine muscles, such as the gluteus maximus, and those necessary for defecation. It also acts as something of a shock absorber when a person sits down, although forceful impact can cause damage and subsequent bodily pains. The remnant of a vestigial tail in humans, in many other species the coccygeal vertebrae support a full tail and accommodate its nerves."

Its only interpreted to be a tail, because it looks like a tail, but its not a tail.
Penguins look like they can fly, but they cant fly.

XFixYourBrainX: ----Missing Links----

The argument of missing links was apt- when Darwin presented his ideas a 150 years ago. Back then, there were huge gaps in the fossil record, clearly showing missing links. Since then, though, Dozens of transitional fossils have revealed themselves;

Wikipedia: List_of_transitional_fossils

>>>its only a theory, its not been proven

As is Gravity is just a theory

Then let Gravity be a theory, and let Evolution be a theory!

>>>Missing links dont prove evolution, until the day I see every single supposed missing link pointing to our ancestors and there is definate proof I will never believe in evolution EVER!!!

Then your standard of proof is flawed.

How is my standard proof flawed, not all the supposed missing links have been found and every time a new one is found for direct ascention from our ancestors the whole chain has to be rearranged, this doesnt prove evolution, because not all the missing links have been found.

If everyone on Earth were to die at this exact moment, all over the world- out of all 6.7 billion of us- in the millions of years following, the creatures who found our remains would only be able to muster less than 25 complete skeletons. Fossilization is an intensely rare process, one of which that doesn't yeild to your demands for a greater fossil record. Imagine if you applied the same stubborn standard to everyday life? That you refused to believe your car can only run on gasoline, until you poured every chemical in the engine. We have over a dozen different kinds of skeletonal remains that look human, but aren't *quite- how do you explain those away?

If they look human as you say, does that mean they are human?



Still, you are correct on Albert- he was vague and unclear as to his religious beliefs- it seems his beliefs were his own;

I believe his beliefs were his own, from what he has stated in his quotes.

"I'm not an atheist."

Albert, Time Magazine.

LiptonCambell: >>>But it is not evolution. It is just natural selection.

Whats the distinction between the two?

>>>Its only interpreted to be a tail, because it looks like a tail, but its not a tail.

But its completely unnessary. You can have it removed, and your body won't know the difference. Same with Apendix's. What purpose would our bodies have for such things? Why do we see simular things- under developed limbs esspecially, like with flightless birds such as Emu's and Ostriches- many whales actually are born with 4 legs, left over from their ancestors who lived on the land. If a breed of fish breeds too long in a cave, they lose their sight, but keep their eyes.

In a world where life is constantly changing and adapting, yes, Vestigial limbs and organs make perfect sense. But in a world where everything was always as it is? Not quite.

>>>Then let Gravity be a theory, and let Evolution be a theory!

Well, again, I'm using theory in the sense of Scientific Theory.

>>>because not all the missing links have been found.

And what if it is impossible? What if we find 57 transitional fossils, but theres a gap between #23 and #24 that should fill 1 more species? Does that then disprove evolution? What if evolution is, in fact, true, but a large number of our ancestory is simply lost to time?

Again, I cannot stress it enough- Fossils are not a common occurance.

Why do you expect such definately absolute proof on the basis of evolution, but do not demand the same level of proof from your religious texts?

>>>If they look human as you say, does that mean they are human?

No, they have simular human features, but significant genetic and phsyical differences

XFixYourBrainX: I have a few questions?

The Science of Addiction

"The Science of Addiction," Time, 7/16/07, p42.
"For a species wired for survival, we have an odd habit of getting hooked on things that can kill us ... Addiction is such a harmful behavior, in fact, that evolution should have long ago weeded it out of the population: if it's hard to drive safely under the influence, imagine trying to run from a saber-toothed tiger or catch a squirrel for lunch."

Well -- get a clue! The above quote is like saying the Easter Bunny should have come and fixed it by now! Yes, if evolution were true ... it should have removed addictive behavior by now. But it didn't ! Guess why.

Taste Buds

http://news.biocompare.com/newsstory.asp?id=171220 Thanks Pete, for the source.
2/18/07 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science

To study DNA, biology lab students lick PTC paper soaked in a bitter chemical you can only taste if you have the right gene. Univ of Utah evo's say "By enabling us to perceive noxious chemicals in potential foods [this gene] probably helped our early ancestors avoid poisoning."
The article rightly asks, "then why are both tasters and nontasters still present? Based on natural selection, shouldn't all of the nontasters have died off? The answer is complex, Dr. Wooding said."
Watch out folks! When someone says "this is going to be complicated" often what comes next ... is a lie. "This is a kind of natural selection that keeps two different forms of the same gene active in a population," Dr. Wooding said. "because for some reason, there is not a strong advantage of one over the other." But there was a strong reason -- death by poisoning!
So both genes are being positively "selected"? So -- how is this different from having no selection ... at all? and no evolution ... at all?! (hint: it's not

"mature" starlight

God created prehistoric animals like a billion years ago and then when they went extinct ... He just made new ones to replace them. In this "progressive creation" theory, God eventually creates humans. But the Bible says on the 7th day God "rested" and stopped making creatures.
Creationist D Russell Humphreys notes the Bible says God "stretched out the heavens as a curtain" when He created them. Einstein proved if you stretch space, you stretch time. Distant stars were stretched far away from us, and so have experienced more time than we have. This explains starlight from more than 6000 light years away, and goes along with the Bible and E=mc2

XFixYourBrainX: Correct me if I am wrong, that [blind cave fish] is a much better arguement for adaptation then evolution.
Cave creatures are sometimes blind and/or albino. In total darkness, eyes and protective pigments are of no use in "survival of the fittest." Evo's try to call this adaptation -- but it's not. It is mutation and natural selection. Fish are born blind all the time. Above ground, their chance of survival is like zero. But in a dark cave, they have the same chance as any other fish. Blind fish didn't "evolve" in the cave, or "adapt" to the darkness. They live there -- simply because it's the only place they can live! This is not evolution. There is no new DNA, no new gene, no new information, no new trait. It's the loss of a trait. It is de-volution.

XFixYourBrainX: I read recently [a quote] that has been attributed to Charles Darwin. Supposedly he made this "confession" near the end of his life: "I was a young man with unformed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire. People made a religion out of them."
Have you ever read this before? I'm assuming it's true.

The "Darwin confession" story, so well-circulated among Christians, is not well enough documented or confirmed for us to use it or believe it. Yes, I've read Lovelace's account of Darwin "renouncing" evolution on his deathbed. Even if it is true ... we have no proof. And if we can't prove it, we can't use it. Urban myths are for evo's, not us.

F0rdPrefect: Is this guy for real?
Your childish attitude is on the same level as the other delusional nitwit, Risen_Sun. But i guess u both subscribe to the same history-denying fanclub.
And please stop getting ur ideas of what evolution is from Answers.com!
Most of everything u have posted is direct copypasta.
Please do some real research into evolution, read 'real' books from ur local library. You may learn something and see the real beauty in nature and evolution.
I advise u start by reading Prof. Richard Dawkins 'The Greatest Show On Earth - The Evidence For Evolution', it was actually written with history-deniers like urself in mind. Its easy to understand and u may just enjoy it.

LiptonCambell: >>>To study DNA, biology lab students lick PTC paper soaked in a bitter chemical you can only taste if you have the right gene. Univ of Utah evo's say "By enabling us to perceive noxious chemicals in potential foods [this gene] probably helped our early ancestors avoid poisoning."
The article rightly asks, "then why are both tasters and nontasters still present? Based on natural selection, shouldn't all of the nontasters have died off?

Isn't it obvious? Because we've adapted. Just like how losing a hand should, in the natural world, lead to death, we've developed means to adapt and survive such things- not to mention, just as not all that glitters is gold, not all that is bitter is poison- not being able to taste bitter doesn't mean what you cannot taste is poison- this gene either needed to be nipped early on, with the original ancestors dying early on, or left for nature to take its course, with people with this gene not receiving treatment to survive the poison.

In the short of it, not all the genes that are passed down are positive- and in this instance, it would require a very spefic code of conditions for this to be an actual problem.

>>>But there was a strong reason -- death by poisoning!

Yes, but it required many conditions to be met;

The person had to take a spefic kind of poison- The person had to not have reproduced prior to this- and, again, through advances we've learned which kinds of plants are poison and which are not, so we avoid eating them anyways, and are able to create anti-vemons to cure people who do eat it- so because of our understanding of our surroundings, we've managed to overcome this genetic abnormality to the point where it really doesn't make a difference.

Saying that, because some people cannot taste poison that they should not have survived to create offspring is like saying that some men have small pw&w~'s, and thus should not have managed to create offspring. Its a narrow way to veiw the world thats not at all credible with the way the world works.

>>>So both genes are being positively "selected"? So -- how is this different from having no selection ... at all? and no evolution ... at all?!

We don't select our partners based on their ability to taste poison. If I find a sexy, funny chick who gets me- and cannot taste bitter poison- thats not going to stop me from having a family with her- and our children might very well not be able to taste this poison either- but again, we do not choose our partners based on genetic code, and we have the ability now to side-step evolution.

Its the same argument as people who oppose vaccinations- in all fairness, if you need a vaccination to survive, or you need a cure to a disease to survive, then you are acting in opposition to evolution.

LiptonCambell: >>>God created prehistoric animals like a billion years ago and then when they went extinct ... He just made new ones to replace them. In this "progressive creation" theory, God eventually creates humans.

And which religions teach this "progressive creation"?

You wish to twist the words of the bible to suit the needs of the modern evidence found, while at the same time, disregard the evidence found as flawed.

Why did Dinosaurs go extinct? If the Garden of Eden is correct, then all life that ever existed began there.

And if you wqant to be accurate on your timeline, if we were to look at all of life as a clock,with life first appearing at 12:01am, Single celled organisms would be the only life till about 7am, and mankind wouldn`t appear on the scene until 2 minutes before midnight. Doesn`t seem like we are Gods chosen people considering 99.999999% of all life was extinct before a single hxy& sapian entered the world.

>>>the Bible says God "stretched out the heavens as a curtain" when He created them. Einstein proved if you stretch space, you stretch time. Distant stars were stretched far away from us, and so have experienced more time than we have.

You honestly think the men who wrote the bible had any understanding of what you claim they did? That they understanded Einsteins theories before they understood multiplication?

And what of the examples of life that appear billions of years before us? Why this there such a overwhelming struggle to prove that the bible is right on the issue of scientific fact, when they've been proven wrong before numerous times in the past, like with the Sun revolving around the Earth?

>>>Correct me if I am wrong, that [blind cave fish] is a much better arguement for adaptation then evolution.

Howso? These fish aren't losing their eyesight in their lifetime- but their offspring are being born without sight.That implies that the species is changing, not the individual fish are simply adapting to their surrounds.

>>>Evo's try to call this adaptation -- but it's not.

But....you said 3 sentences before that it was adaptation....

>>>It is mutation and natural selection.

Again, you never bothered to answer that question- what is the difference between natural selection and evolution? Its my understanding that they're the same thing

>>>Fish are born blind all the time. Above ground, their chance of survival is like zero. But in a dark cave, they have the same chance as any other fish.

That sounds awefully alot like evolution to me. Random changes to a species create advantages or disadvantages that might help the species thrive

>>>It's the loss of a trait. It is de-volution.

Not nesscessary- theres no law that states that you need to have gained traits to have evolved- as mankind evolved, they lost alot of their bodyhair, for example- or the aforementioned whales lost the use of their hind legs.

>>>Have you ever read this before? I'm assuming it's true.

I'm certain you would assume its true. Its not. Darwin became demonized because of his veiws during his time, and upon hearing it all of Darwins friends and family immeadiately rejected such an idea- the person he supposively "confessed" to was a complete stranger to him, who, as it was later found out, wasn't even at his deathbed- people like Darwins wife Emma, who was a devout Christian, and admitedly troubled by her husbands veiws, for example, disputed these claims.

Nonetheless, who really gives a shit? If Darwin had stood infront of a giant crowd and threw down pamplets signed by him announcing that evolution was a total farce, and it wouldn't change a thing- because Evolution is not the worship of Darwin. If Darwin held doubts, despite ruinning his reputation by holding these beliefs throughout his life, it wouldn't change any of the evidence supporting evolution.

http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurbs/darwin-deathbed.html

XFixYourBrainX: >>>>Is this guy for real?

Well im obviously real and alive here duh.

>>>>Your childish attitude is on the same level as the other delusional nitwit, Risen_Sun. But i guess u both subscribe to the same history-denying fanclub.

And what do you subscribe to pointing your finger at other people and making a mockery of them, what do u believe in?

>>>>>And please stop getting ur ideas of what evolution is from Answers.com!
Most of everything u have posted is direct copypasta.

You say I got my information from answers.com, I never have and if I have can you prove I have so keep on lieing you moron.

>>>>Please do some real research into evolution, read 'real' books from ur local library.

Evolution is only what people want it to be, I do believe Darwin did denounce on his deathbed that Evolution wasnt real. But there is no definate proof no matter what anyone says behind if he really said that or not.

>>>>You may learn something and see the real beauty in nature and evolution.

I do see the real beauty in everything that there is supposed beauty, but you claim the is beauty in evolution remember its only a theory, so let it be a theory, just like gravity is a theory.

>>>>I advise u start by reading Prof. Richard Dawkins 'The Greatest Show On Earth - The Evidence For Evolution', it was actually written with history-deniers like urself in mind. Its easy to understand and u may just enjoy it.

So far you are only saying useless stuff that I have heard from time and time again, why dont you give your own thoughts on evolution and not what other people say like this prof. richard dawkins person. I could care less about him he probably feeds lies to you by the spoon full!

XFixYourBrainX: >>>>And which religions teach this "progressive creation"?

Does this being said have to be about religion its common knowledge.

>>>>You wish to twist the words of the bible to suit the needs of the modern evidence found, while at the same time, disregard the evidence found as flawed.

I dont wish anything. I am not twisting anything you should read and understand what I have said better, to better understand it and know the reason for why it is being said.

>>>>Why did Dinosaurs go extinct? If the Garden of Eden is correct, then all life that ever existed began there.

Where does it say this in?

>>>>And if you wqant to be accurate on your timeline, if we were to look at all of life as a clock,with life first appearing at 12:01am, Single celled organisms would be the only life till about 7am, and mankind wouldn`t appear on the scene until 2 minutes before midnight. Doesn`t seem like we are Gods chosen people considering 99.999999% of all life was extinct before a single h~^* sapian entered the world.

This is hogwash trying to promote evolution, I dont see any significance behind this.

>>>>You honestly think the men who wrote the bible had any understanding of what you claim they did? That they understanded Einsteins theories before they understood multiplication?

If you say that the men who wrote the Bible didnt have any understanding your saying that God didnt have any understanding for God was the one that told the men of the Bible to write those things I would hold you tounge or stop typing blasphemies if I were you.

>>>>And what of the examples of life that appear billions of years before us? Why this there such a overwhelming struggle to prove that the bible is right on the issue of scientific fact, when they've been proven wrong before numerous times in the past, like with the Sun revolving around the Earth?

Evo's claim it was 4.6 billion years ago when life started, for the time fraim given its still not long enough to provide enough time for evolution to happen so say some evolutionists which create problems for their theories.

>>>>Howso? These fish aren't losing their eyesight in their lifetime- but their offspring are being born without sight.That implies that the species is changing, not the individual fish are simply adapting to their surrounds.

The species are not changing its the only place that they can live while being blind.

I said blind cave fish are a much better arguement dont twist my words, to what you want them to be. I didnt say their offspring are born blind. In total darkness, eyes and protective pigments are of no use in "survival of the fittest." Evo's try to call this adaptation people like you call this adaptation -- but it's not. It is mutation and natural selection. Fish are born blind all the time. Blind fish didn't "evolve" in the cave, or "adapt" to the darkness, and their offspring are not being born blind, thats a lie! This is not evolution!

Remember what I said There is no new DNA, no new gene, no new information, no new trait. It's the loss of a trait. It is de-volution. And since this is true then this is not considered EVOLUTION DUH.

>>>>Again, you never bothered to answer that question- what is the difference between natural selection and evolution? Its my understanding that they're the same thing

Im only guessing they are since its stated in evolution.

>>>>That sounds awefully alot like evolution to me. Random changes to a species create advantages or disadvantages that might help the species thrive

Dont lie random changes to a species create advantages not disadvantages where did you get this information from you liar! So it is stated in evolution now your the one twisting what evolution really is. Bad evo.

XFixYourBrainX: >>>>Not nesscessary- theres no law that states that you need to have gained traits to have evolved- as mankind evolved, they lost alot of their bodyhair, for example- or the aforementioned whales lost the use of their hind legs.

One "evidence," a supposed link in the whale evolution which is such shabby evidence that many evolutionists don't accept it. Im sure you didnt know this.
Neither is there a law stating evolution to be real its only a theory, just like gravity is. Whales never had hind legs. Because God created them to have fins to swim. They only look like hind legs, so i guess if you say the are hind legs since they look like hind legs i wonder why penguins dont fly, they do have wings right, because they cant.

When was there a time in history when men did have all over body hair? There isnt. Why do we still have body hair? To keep us warm, it makes more sense to have more body hair, why did we lose all that body hair in the first place was it because of global warming, but global warming didnt take place bad enough or far enough back in time to cause us to lose our body hair. Why do we have two different types of lice the ones in the pubic area and the ones on our head, was it because at one point in time we had all over body hair and when the hair seperated from out head and pubic area the lice did some kind of evolution stage to create two different types of lice hmmmm i think not its already been proven by scientists that we got one of the lices from apes far long ago, so they have stated.

Nosferatu: I don´t believe in God for many reasons. One, why is there so many religions? Certainly if there was a true god or gods one religion would prevail and the rest would die off. This gives me evidence to believe they are man-made. Two, there has been no proof of immortality throughout history and even the claims that Jesus rose from the dead cannot be proven. Three, everyone´s claims that God controls events on Earth has an equally scientific explanation: plate techtonics, hurricanes, lightning, heliocentrism, evolution, etc.

Also, the claims that life will be better if there is a God is not necessarily true. I tend to think if there is only one life it motivates me to be much happier in the one we live in. Is God a fantasy? Well since there are so many claims in the bible that God promises so much I would think he-she would go out of his-her way to prove his-her existence, which he-she doesnt.

Fallacies. The bible is the central book around Christianity. I´m only criticizing this religion at the moment since there is a Western audience. The bible is very wrong.