Creation or Evolution? (Maybe both)

Bojulay, I can't deal with this anymore. There is an explanation for everything you brought up, and I think you sound a bit like the way of the master with the platypus. You do realize we made the modern banana right?

First of all, micro evolution is just a step to a macro scale over millions of years and yes we do have plenty of examples of linking species over this time. Birds have a rather ancient history, but we still have some that really do not fly much, like a chicken or turkey for example.

Take a look here for a widely held idea on the evolutionary history of the platypus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus#Evolution


If you doubt the arguments presented by wikipedia then feel free to look at the references ex.[58] cited next to the various claims in the wiki article.

---------------------

Evolution, it is a simple concept really and very evident. We bred a subspecies of wolves and we have them commonly in our homes, another million years and the decision to CALL them another species would be all that it takes. You see, we tend to say a species is unique when it can no longer breed with its parent species but clearly lions, tigers, horses, and donkeys are capable of a 1 generation breeding. Obviously the key fits for a reason however, think about it.

Why do you think most major diseases have originated in the Uganda/Zaire/DRotCongo region of Africa? Marburg virus, Ebola Virus, West Nile Virus, HIV and more have come from that region. Not because the Gods cursed that area with pestilence, it is because our last common surviving ancestors live out there, other primates and most specifically bonobos/chimpanzees. Our ancestors branched off before Australopithecus genus and then later Homonids of the genus Homo, but we still carry a close enough genome to allow the virus to attach to gain entry via our cell receptors.

Ironic but the very allele that gives a lot of Caucasians a resistance to many strains of HIV known as the CCR5-D32 (D for Delta) can also make it easier for the west nile virus to infect human hosts and cause a harsher form of the disease. At least that is believed by much of the medical community.

So what is my point? We are primates my friend, there is no denying it, the genes aren't in a pool and changing sequence, they are adapting and changing generation after generation. There is no logic in the concept of families in genetics from a divine standpoint without evolution.

If you are a creationist you aren't a fan of Dawkins but here is a great video about the poor creation of a giraffe, there is a certain rather illogical vestigial nerve that seems to keep growing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO1a1Ek-HD0


So what do we have left? I can offer proof until the cows come home my friend. I once argued these same points and for years, I wouldn't stop, I just never looked at the wealth of evidence until later on. Originally Posted by exoticdanceweardealer

Once again, examples of Micro evolutional change.
Who said creationary design was some how perfect.
Everything dies, that doesn't seem very perfect to me.
The giraffe probably evolved from some shorter
necked creature, (micro evolution) at work, but
it didn't turn into a whale.

Strict evolutionist tend to avoid other anomalies
in their theory, for example the complexity of one
celled organisms and plants, which are supposed
to be the first living creatures. How did they come
about and just appear out of nowhere with all of
their very complex structures and biological systems
already in place, with nowhere to go backwards
in the evolutionary chain. No answer.

They just appeared, sounds like creation occurring
from some higher force.

I'm sorry but small evolutionary changes do not
get you (not from one celled organisms to all that is)
but from nothing at all to all that is, including plants,
animals, man, and the vastness of space.

There are so many flaws in evolution- let me give just a few:
The Giraffe- evolutionist state the Giraffe didn't always have a long neck and that somehow it "evolved" perhaps it gave them advantage over other herbivores to reach vegetation in higher areas. Ok, if you do the anatomy of giraffe- it has a unique structure in it's brain that prevents it from passing out when it dips it's head down and goes for a drink of water- if the giraffe hears a predator and raises it's head- it would pass out from the BP going from one point to another point in a matter of seconds- but it doesn't? Are you going to tell me the giraffe evolved this particular structure? or ws this structure always there or "created" and designed? Because if it evolved- how could it possible evolve if it at one time didn't have this structure- because everytime it would raise it's head it would be pass out and be eaten by the predator and it could never "evolve this ability.

Woodpecker- can any of you evolutionist tell me another bird that can mimic the abilities of a woodpecker without getting their brains scrambled? Between a woodpeckers beak an skull is a special cartilage which enables the woodpecker to drill at enormous psi without getting his brains scrambled as that something evolved or created? Now if it was evolved are you guys telling me there was a time when Woodpeckers would peck wood they originally got their brains scrambled until "they evolved" the ability to peck wood without any consequences?


Man- evolutionist state that we evolved from apes who have hair- so did human being have hair at one time like apes and then all of a sudden we lost hair? Then oh wait- we lost our body hair yet caveman started killing animals and using the animals's fur for clothing??? So again man evolved from apes who are hairy- therefore early man had full hair on their bodies like apes- then over years we evolved into hairless creatures in order to start hunting and wearing fur- yep that makes sense.

or this:

or this:

Originally Posted by Juan Pablo de Marco

I've been outed by Juan. I demand that he be banned.

That is my good side though.

Also, thr 97 % comparison to chimps has been fooling a lot of people- the 97% doesn't tell the whole story- even with 97% similarities chimps are vastly different- take this and I quote this source:
What if human and chimp DNA was even 97% homologous? What would that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! The amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell has been estimated to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopedia size [6]. If humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross

Does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? No, not necessarily. Compare the following sentences:

There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings! There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences.

The DNA similarity data does NOT quite mean what the evolutionary popularizers claim!

Most of the world agrees with you Bojulay.
Somewhere in mankind's DNA is instilled a belief in a higher power. We've gone from cave drawings, to human sacrafices, to golden temples, to wars. We will never really know if there is a god or not, but we will always believe in him for as long as our species exists. However it is not rational.

This is how I try to live my life...

The view that universal ethics and love can guide actions more effectively than questioning the existence of deities. A spiritual agnostic would say "It doesn't matter which religion you might follow, nor does it matter whether or not you believe in God. What matters is what you do, not what you believe

@WellEndowed

There aren't holes in it, if you look it up you will find your answer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodpecker#Systematics_and_evo lution

This includes linking species which are extinct. Your answer is contained on the internet and can be found in multiple places by many experts.

Your giraffe argument suggests that we all suffer from postural hypotension, that isn't a common problem in all mammals. Even so, if it does in fact have this as a unique trait to surviving species of its genus then my answer would be that those who survived had this trait and that is why it exists, not because it was created that way. It wouldn't be around otherwise, it HAD to develop that trait BECAUSE the others that didn't have the feature were dying off. Now chances are if we look back down the line of ancestral species this mechanism was smaller and smaller and more primitive. It didn't just *poof* one day on a giraffe or happen as a recessive gene anomaly.

The hairy ape argument, well our lineage is clearly traced to very hot parts of Africa and we adapted sweat glands rather than panting. Ironic that your own argument actually leads to an unmistakable piece of evidence that proves our link to other bipeds, specifically only primates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_gland

Why, if we aren't sharing a common ancestor, does no other living creature on the planet not have sweat glands other than primates? Checkmate my dear friend, checkmate. I should write Prof. Dawkins and tell him I finally crushed the creationists once and for all.. err.. wait... or did I? Does this disprove God or decrease our worth? Absolutely not. It just points out a mechanism from which we developed.

Not to mention I certainly wasn't the first to offer that argument so I am just kidding of course.

@Bojulay - Of course not, whales evolved completely different but it was a fascinating transition as these mammals came from aquatic species, to amphibious species, to reptiles, to mammals, to amphibian like mammals to aquatic mammals. Actually I think your beavers and duckbill platypusses probably share a similar if not somehow linked story but then I haven't researched each evolutionary line.

Here is how it happened for whales:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans


Here is the line to humans
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution


It is well explained and fossil records back it up in the correct dating order.

An article refuting the land animal to whale theory,
and it is very much a theory nothing but conjecture.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natu...tory_2_15.html

Something else that you will find if you do a little research
is that there is a lot of dishonesty and spin that the
evolutionist put out, from down right lying to more subtle
activity, like drawings and pictures of creatures made
from a few fossils that were found but made to look
like what would best fit their theory.

That's just plain dishonest.

Of course they would make some of the same claims
about creationist.

@WellEndowed

There aren't holes in it, if you look it up you will find your answer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodpecker#Systematics_and_evo lution

This includes linking species which are extinct. Your answer is contained on the internet and can be found in multiple places by many experts.

Your giraffe argument suggests that we all suffer from postural hypotension, that isn't a common problem in all mammals. Even so, if it does in fact have this as a unique trait to surviving species of its genus then my answer would be that those who survived had this trait and that is why it exists, not because it was created that way. It wouldn't be around otherwise, it HAD to develop that trait BECAUSE the others that didn't have the feature were dying off. Now chances are if we look back down the line of ancestral species this mechanism was smaller and smaller and more primitive. It didn't just *poof* one day on a giraffe or happen as a recessive gene anomaly.

The hairy ape argument, well our lineage is clearly traced to very hot parts of Africa and we adapted sweat glands rather than panting. Ironic that your own argument actually leads to an unmistakable piece of evidence that proves our link to other bipeds, specifically only primates:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweat_gland

Why, if we aren't sharing a common ancestor, does no other living creature on the planet not have sweat glands other than primates? Checkmate my dear friend, checkmate. I should write Prof. Dawkins and tell him I finally crushed the creationists once and for all.. err.. wait... or did I? Does this disprove God or decrease our worth? Absolutely not. It just points out a mechanism from which we developed.

Not to mention I certainly wasn't the first to offer that argument so I am just kidding of course.

@Bojulay - Of course not, whales evolved completely different but it was a fascinating transition as these mammals came from aquatic species, to amphibious species, to reptiles, to mammals, to amphibian like mammals to aquatic mammals. Actually I think your beavers and duckbill platypusses probably share a similar if not somehow linked story but then I haven't researched each evolutionary line.

Here is how it happened for whales:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans


Here is the line to humans
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_evolution


It is well explained and fossil records back it up in the correct dating order. Originally Posted by exoticdanceweardealer

If there are no holes in it- tell me another bird outside of the woodpecker family that can mimic what woodpecker can do? I only touch on the basics of the woodpecker- once it has drilled the hole it has a unique tongue unlike any other bird to catch insects- was this evolved or created? If it was evolved than their had to be a time when woodpeckers were drilling for insects and when they dd either they had a massive headache that excedrin couldn't fix or they had concussions and got their brains scrambled.

Take a dolphin and Whale. These mammals bear their young alive and breathe air, yet spend their entire
lifetime in the sea. Presumably, in order for dolphins and whales to have evolved, they
must have originated from a land mammal that returned to the water and changed into a
sea creature. But dolphins and whales have so many remarkable features upon which
their survival depends that they couldn't have evolved!
The following is a list of transitions evolutionists have to account for in the dolphin in its
evolution from some unknown land dwelling pre-dolphin:
 The nose would have to move to the back of the head.
 Feet, claws, or tail would be exchanged for fins and flippers.
 It would have to develop a torpedo shaped body for efficient swimming in the water.
 It would have to be able to drink sea water and desalinize it.
 It's entire bone structure and metabolism would have to be rearranged.
 It would need to develop a sophisticated sonar system to search for food.
Could the dolphin acquire these features gradually one at a time over a period of millions
of years? What about the transitional stages? Would they have survived with just some of
these features? Why is there a total absence of transitional forms fossilized?


Also, take the last 50 years look at all the things Man has invented in just the past 50 years- so why is it according to evolutionist "modern humans" have been around 200,000 years- yet if we simply see the advances modern man has just made in the last 50 years- do you honestly think that 100,000 years man had just caveman type intelligence?

I guess next you are going to tell me the Pyramids of Egypt evolved? Better yet while I am speaking on the Pyramids- believing Evolution would be as crazy as saying well the pyramids was once a little rock- but over millions of years it slowly evolved to a brick until it reached it's full design as we see it today.

Also the Big Bng theory basically says there was a huge explosion and thus the planets were created blah blah blah but the Big Bang theory defies imple physics- if you have an explosion and things are blasted into the space- it's impossible for one thing to spin one way and the other object to spin the other way- in our solar system all the planets do not rotate in the same direction - some rotate counterclockwise- so there's no way an explosion can cause one object to spin one way and the same object in the explosion to spin another way- it's IMPOSSIBLE.

An article refuting the land animal to whale theory,
and it is very much a theory nothing but conjecture.

www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_z_15.html

Something else that you will find if you do a little research
is that there is a lot of dishonesty and spin that the
evolutionist put out, from down right lying to more subtle
activity, like drawings and pictures of creatures made
from a few fossils that were found but made to look
like what would best fit their theory.

That's just plain dishonest.

Of course they would make some of the same claims
about creationist. Originally Posted by bojulay

I can't possibly debate this with you, there isn't a way to debate with a mind that is already made up.

If it comforts you to deny all that science and research offers in hopes of a more "I dream of Jeannie" or "Bewitched" sort of *Poof!* method, by all means. Certainly you should go on believing that. Your source is clearly going to be biased, it is well documented that the scientific community widely accepts evolution as well as academia and has for the past 100 years for the most part.

Your link actually points to a very biased source without cited references. It is an Islamic site, of course they will try to prove the creation story is accurate. However with the reasoning you are giving me, you could just as well fit Evolution into the creation story of any given religion.

If there are no holes in it- tell me another bird outside of the woodpecker family that can mimic what woodpecker can do? I only touch on the basics of the woodpecker- once it has drilled the hole it has a unique tongue unlike any other bird to catch insects- was this evolved or created? If it was evolved than their had to be a time when woodpeckers were drilling for insects and when they dd either they had a massive headache that excedrin couldn't fix or they had concussions and got their brains scrambled.

Take a dolphin and Whale. These mammals bear their young alive and breathe air, yet spend their entire
lifetime in the sea. Presumably, in order for dolphins and whales to have evolved, they
must have originated from a land mammal that returned to the water and changed into a
sea creature. But dolphins and whales have so many remarkable features upon which
their survival depends that they couldn't have evolved!
The following is a list of transitions evolutionists have to account for in the dolphin in its
evolution from some unknown land dwelling pre-dolphin:
 The nose would have to move to the back of the head.
 Feet, claws, or tail would be exchanged for fins and flippers.
 It would have to develop a torpedo shaped body for efficient swimming in the water.
 It would have to be able to drink sea water and desalinize it.
 It's entire bone structure and metabolism would have to be rearranged.
 It would need to develop a sophisticated sonar system to search for food.
Could the dolphin acquire these features gradually one at a time over a period of millions
of years? What about the transitional stages? Would they have survived with just some of
these features? Why is there a total absence of transitional forms fossilized?


Also, take the last 50 years look at all the things Man has invented in just the past 50 years- so why is it according to evolutionist "modern humans" have been around 200,000 years- yet if we simply see the advances modern man has just made in the last 50 years- do you honestly think that 100,000 years man had just caveman type intelligence?

I guess next you are going to tell me the Pyramids of Egypt evolved? Better yet while I am speaking on the Pyramids- believing Evolution would be as crazy as saying well the pyramids was once a little rock- but over millions of years it slowly evolved to a brick until it reached it's full design as we see it today.

Also the Big Bng theory basically says there was a huge explosion and thus the planets were created blah blah blah but the Big Bang theory defies imple physics- if you have an explosion and things are blasted into the space- it's impossible for one thing to spin one way and the other object to spin the other way- in our solar system all the planets do not rotate in the same direction - some rotate counterclockwise- so there's no way an explosion can cause one object to spin one way and the same object in the explosion to spin another way- it's IMPOSSIBLE. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

Let's narrow this down with short quick answers:

The woodpecker has a close relative in its family that still survives and was listed in the article I gave you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antillean_Piculet

Your argument on whales and dolphins again proves you didn't read the actual theory of evolution and what it proposes. Again, this was not a dolphin growing new features over millions of years but hundreds of species with genes passing from recessive to dominant over and over via virtually a huge process of elimination, those species died out and others that branched like a tree from it reigned and after 58 million years we ended up with a modern dolphin or whale.

Probably the best way to explain this to you, watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

As for the evolution of societies, I am not sure it would have been very plausible without a written language which ushered in our history about 6,000 years ago in Mesopotamia. What we had prior to that is a mystery to some degree but cave paintings do show a lot about our history as do artifacts such as Venus statues.

I would never suggest a non-living object evolved via natural selection. The pyramid argument is a bit ridiculous, however when forces such as wind erode a rock, there is a similar effect. The rock adapts and makes a path for water or wind.

Exoticdancer- let me just break it down simply- the giraffe with its very long neck once it bends it neck down to drink water- the blood pressure drops- we all agree there right? Even in humans if we raise up to quick you could pass out- simple biology. Now, a giraffe must drink water- so when a giraffe bends it's head down to drink water and let's say a lion is nearby- once the giraffe lifts it's head up because it hears the lion- the giraffe BIOLOGICALLY should faint because of the rapid change in blood pressure- if the Giraffe faints- it get's eaten by the lion and thereby nothing gets passed on. However, the giraffe does not faint-or get light headed it's able to lift it's head and neck and gallop away-WHY? because it has a special organ in it's body that prevents blood from dropping to quick- now can you tell me when this evolved? What I am trying to figure out is if at one time this organ wasn't present than how could this be passed on - because the giraffe would get light headed- pass out and be eaten by the predator- so how in the hell can this trait be evolved?

Take the Cheetah- why is it no other cat in the feline family can match it's speed? The cheetahs's claws never retract making it ideal for traction. The cheetah has extra wide nostril and although the cheetah is far smaller than a Lion, tiger or leopard it has a larger lung capacity than any other cat. Also, the cheetah's tail is the longest and largest in the feline family and the tail acts as a rudder that helps the cheetah when it makes sharps turn. So let's see- I guess one day in time the cheetah was a slow animal and that as millions of years evolved it decided that it(cheetah) wanted to be quicker than all other animals and it evolved un-retractable claws, over sized lungs and nostrils, a tail designed for speed and balance???? Who are you kidding???? The cheetah lives amongst leopards and lions why haven't they evolved the ability to run at fast speeds?? Wouldn't it be an advantage to lions and leopard if they were able to run faster???
There are 2 choices here- either you are born or designed with these features or you die wishing you had these capabilities. If evolution were true- than Impalas and Gazelles should have developed wings by now to fly away when cheetahs are chasing them- doesn't evolution teach survival of the fittest? Well lst time I check Gazelles run at 40 mph Cheetahs can hit 70 mph- so I guess maybe in a million years cheetahs will develop wings in order to "fly" out of harm- or will Gazelles evolve special features to make them run at 90 mph?????

Again, not all species are inherently stricken with postural hypotension.

The giraffe argument is null and void. However, if there is a proven mechanism, simply follow the linking species down for the primitive source. You find it with eyeballs, noses, mouths, teeth, things we share with most species on the planet even fish.

Let me ask you this, why are there families of animals with extreme similarities who can also breed at least 1 generation with one another?

Why are you in denial, there is no reason most animals would be created with eyeballs, tongues, teeth, claws/nails, etc. We would be much more like a Dr. Seuss book if anything and that wouldn't begin to describe how different we would be without evolution and mere creation. There really is no debate if you read what I gave you, again want the answer it is posted online in several places by authorities on the subject. You can live in denial of a fact but it still is a fact and again it does not discount your religion so there is no need to fight it so hard.

Exoticdancer- let me just break it down simply- the giraffe with its very long neck once it bends it neck down to drink water- the blood pressure drops- we all agree there right? Even in humans if we raise up to quick you could pass out- simple biology. Now, a giraffe must drink water- so when a giraffe bends it's head down to drink water and let's say a lion is nearby- once the giraffe lifts it's head up because it hears the lion- the giraffe BIOLOGICALLY should faint because of the rapid change in blood pressure- if the Giraffe faints- it get's eaten by the lion and thereby nothing gets passed on. However, the giraffe does not faint-or get light headed it's able to lift it's head and neck and gallop away-WHY? because it has a special organ in it's body that prevents blood from dropping to quick- now can you tell me when this evolved? What I am trying to figure out is if at one time this organ wasn't present than how could this be passed on - because the giraffe would get light headed- pass out and be eaten by the predator- so how in the hell can this trait be evolved?

Take the Cheetah- why is it no other cat in the feline family can match it's speed? The cheetahs's claws never retract making it ideal for traction. The cheetah has extra wide nostril and although the cheetah is far smaller than a Lion, tiger or leopard it has a larger lung capacity than any other cat. Also, the cheetah's tail is the longest and largest in the feline family and the tail acts as a rudder that helps the cheetah when it makes sharps turn. So let's see- I guess one day in time the cheetah was a slow animal and that as millions of years evolved it decided that it(cheetah) wanted to be quicker than all other animals and it evolved un-retractable claws, over sized lungs and nostrils, a tail designed for speed and balance???? Who are you kidding???? The cheetah lives amongst leopards and lions why haven't they evolved the ability to run at fast speeds?? Wouldn't it be an advantage to lions and leopard if they were able to run faster???
There are 2 choices here- either you are born or designed with these features or you die wishing you had these capabilities. If evolution were true- than Impalas and Gazelles should have developed wings by now to fly away when cheetahs are chasing them- doesn't evolution teach survival of the fittest? Well lst time I check Gazelles run at 40 mph Cheetahs can hit 70 mph- so I guess maybe in a million years cheetahs will develop wings in order to "fly" out of harm- or will Gazelles evolve special features to make them run at 90 mph????? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

I can't possibly debate this with you, there isn't a way to debate with a mind that is already made up.

If it comforts you to deny all that science and research offers in hopes of a more "I dream of Jeannie" or "Bewitched" sort of *Poof!* method, by all means. Certainly you should go on believing that. Your source is clearly going to be biased, it is well documented that the scientific community widely accepts evolution as well as academia and has for the past 100 years for the most part.

Your link actually points to a very biased source without cited references. It is an Islamic site, of course they will try to prove the creation story is accurate. However with the reasoning you are giving me, you could just as well fit Evolution into the creation story of any given religion. Originally Posted by exoticdanceweardealer

We probably agree more than we disagree. I haven't said that
I don't believe that certain evolution has occurred, read my other
posts. I just don't believe that it is some replacement for the
involvement of a higher power. I don't believe in some
grand species to species, one celled organism to modern man
no need for God macro evolutional process that there is no
real proof of that has been perpetrated on mankind.

What piss'is me off is that they present it as if it were proven
fact with nothing left for argument, that is simply not true
and is dishonest.

Their idea is still just theory, unproven theory.

And so what if it's accepted by the scientific
community, really proves nothing except that
a lot of people could be wrong about something.

Truth is that strict no God involved belief in evolution
is a religion, and has to be believed by faith just like
any religion.

That's some ultimate irony there. They thought that they
were doing away with all religion only to create a new one
in it's place.

I bet God laughs about that one every day.

This thread is fun.

We probably agree more than we disagree. I haven't said that
I don't believe that certain evolution has occurred, read my other
posts. I just don't believe that it is some replacement for the
involvement of a higher power. I don't believe in some
grand species to species, one celled organism to modern man
no need for God macro evolutional process that there is no
real proof of that has been perpetrated on mankind.

What piss'is me off is that they present it as if it were proven
fact with nothing left for argument, that is simply not true
and is dishonest.

Their idea is still just theory, unproven theory.

And so what if it's accepted by the scientific
community, really proves nothing except that
a lot of people could be wrong about something.

Truth is that strict no God involved belief in evolution
is a religion, and has to be believed by faith just like
any religion.

That's some ultimate irony there. They thought that they
were doing away with all religion only to create a new one
in it's place.

I bet God laughs about that one every day. Originally Posted by bojulay

Well, I disagree that the term you use so loosely is worthy of discounting it. I couldn't explain this better than a friend of mine did recently when he said, "Calculus and gravity are "just" theories in exactly the same way that evolution is "just" a theory. The word "theory" in scientific language doesn't mean the same thing that it does in everyday speech. It's not the "hypothesis" of evolution. It is precisely a theory--a whole body of predictions, evidence, and experiment that are not contradicted by any observation to date. If contradictory evidence arises, the theory has to be changed to accommodate it--that is the essence of the scientific method. Such revision of evolutionary theory has not been necessary except in obscure details for a very long time.

The sloppy use of the colloquial meaning of the word "theory" as a way for people with not even a college freshman's understanding of biology to discount hundreds of years of work by thousands of extremely clever people who dedicated their lives to biological research is so arrogant and flippant that it almost defies description."

Not my words, but I thought this would be accurate at depicting the feelings most of us who support evolution deal with.

Evolution is not the anti-God, in fact it has nothing to do with God aside from being a potential mechanism a creator could have used or perhaps something that simply occurred without intervention or the help of an architect.

I personally am a creationist. I believe an architect had to have made such a balanced long lasting ecosystem. I am not referring to the life on the planet directly but the fact that our planet is where it is and has not been knocked out of orbit and hurled into an iceball far from a star. Or one could argue the reason we flourished was because we have such a stable atmosphere. However to assert that it is a fact there is no outside force involved in our existence is impossible. It is unscientific, you need variables to present as evidence to support any assertion in science whether hypothetical or null hypothetical.

i am going to retire for the evening but thanks for the enjoyable debate.

"Such revision of evolutionary theory has not been necessary except
in obscure details for a very long time"

What planet is this guy from. Excuse me, nearly ever new fossil find
is toted as being a missing link later to be declared not to be.

If he is talking about the basic tenets of the THEORY of evolution
then I can see his point. No, hardcore EVs haven't changed their mind
about it, never will, like I said it is a religion like any other with
very zealous members of the church.

One of the most striking things to me is not any evidences that
they point to but what they avoid or leave out.

Example--Here we have these little fossils that indicates that it
was a distant relative to this other creature that it eventually
became-- " Where did one celled organisms originate from with
all of their complexity already in place and fully functional
with nothing below them to evolve from?"--Don't ask such silly
questions--Ok if you really must know, lightening struck some
muckey slimey water and formed the little complex fully functional
creature out of the muck, it happens all the time--" How come scientist
can't do the same thing in a lab?"--Ugh, another silly question--Ok
if you really must know, evolution is much smarter than all of the
scientist put together--" You mean evolution is an intelligent being
with designing capabilities "-- Shut the fuck up you unscientific bitch!

Your statement--" Evolution is not the anti God "

But that is exactly what it is presented as being.
The answer to where did we all come from,
not only how did everything develop and progress,
but where did we actually come from as well.

Not just the ax but the hand that wielded
it as well.