Creation or Evolution?, Which do you believe in? Options

[CraziWhiteBoi]

I think that God just took a huge hand in evolution.  If he had told the people who had written the Bible about evolution they never would have believed, so he told them about Adam and Eve.  That's what I believe.

I feel the same way!

Thats a lame post... sorry but I didnt wanna type everything she did!

[FourEyes334]

ok... im for creation.
There is much scientific evidence against the whole idea of molecules-to-man evolution...

1. Information and complexity: Modern knowledge of biochemistry shows that even so-called 'simple' bacteria are phenomenally complex - far more complex than the most sophisticated machine mankind has ever made - and they can reproduce themselves, some in less than 20 minutes. Such bacterian 'machines' contain the equivalent of about 2 large books of coded information on their DNA. Books don't write themselves and neither could the bacteria make themselves! If a book needs an intelligent creator, the bacterium needs a creator even more so. The source of this information is an insurmountable problem for the origin of life without a creator - and the development of more complex life forms. A human being has about 1,000 books worth of information on the DNA in each cell. How do you add 998 books of information to a bacterium to get the information in a human being, as evolutionists claim happened over hundreds of millions of years?

2. Limits to variation: The breeding of animals and plants shows that there are strict limits to how far selection can go - whether it be artificial or natural. Breeding of pigs will never make them fly. Nor can natural selection grow feathers on a reptile. Things were created to reproduce true-to-their-kinds, just like the Bible says in Genesis chapter 1. The limited amount of natural variation drives modern molecular biologists to try to take genes from one kind of organism and get them to work in another kind. It's all about transferring information, and much intelligence is applied to do this (with many failures). Natural (non-intelligent) processes cannot, and therefore have never, created anything containing meaningful information.

3. Mutations?: Mutations - random changes in the genetic information - are supposed to generate new information so that new features such as legs, feathers, brains, eyes, and so on, could 'evolve'. However, random changes in information do not create new meaningful 'paragraphs' or 'chapters' of information. They only currupt it. Mutations destroy; they do not create. They are knowwn by the diseases they cause in humans, like cancers. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is not due to an increase in meaningful information due to mutations. In all mutations studied, there has been a loss of function causing the resistance - for example, losso f control over the production of the emzyne that breaks down penicillin so that more of the emzyne is produced. Sometimes information has been acquired from another type of bacterium, which then enables the recipient to resist the antibiotic. Mutations will neverproduce the new complex information needed for evolution to proceed. Furthermore, research has revealed many examples of features in living things that are made up of highly complex parts where every part has to be present for it to function at all. They cannot be simpler and still funtion. It is not possible for small step-wise mutations and natural selection to create such systems because a series of functional intermediates is impossible. Examples are the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting system, the ATPase 'motor', the signallling system in cells, the DNA-coded protein synthesis system, etc.

4. Fossils: The fossils do not show that one kind of organism has changed into another. There should be millions of intermediate types of fossils showing the transitions, if evolution had occured. There are a handful of disputed ones. Claimed evidence of fossils linking different kinds of organisms does not stand scrutiny. Furthermore, there are many hundreds of types of creatures in the fossil record which are still present today. Jellyfish, starfish, and snails, for example, are present in rocks supposedly hundreds of millions of years old and yet they are very like the ones we have in the oceans today. Things breed 'true to their kind' just like the Bible says.

5. The age of the Earth: The story about the age of the earth has grown in the telling. However, fossils commonly show evidence of rapid burial in watercarried mud - as in a great Flood. Consequently, the rock layers containing these fossils were not laid down slowly and gradually - so fossils do not give support to the millions of years so widely taught today. The Bible tells of a great global Flood, and people groups around the world have their own stories of such a Flood. A global Flood would have created vast amounts of watercarried sand, silt and clay, burying plants and animals and creating layers of rocks containing fossils - and all very quickly. Furthermore, there are many different evidences against a vast age for the Universe. For example, the rate of erosion of the earth's continents, the decay of the earth's magnetic field, the lack of helium in the atmosphere, the number of people on earth, the brevity of recordere hustory, the prersistance of spiral galaxies, the low number of type-II supernovas and lack of type-III supernovas in our galaxy, the existence of short-period comets, and much more. Well, then, someone may wonder, why do so many apparently well-educated people believe in evolution? People may believe in evolution and dismiss creation because:
1. They are ignorant of the facts, only ever having heard the case for evolution. There are many like this.
2. They deliberately choose to deny the rightful place of God in their lives. God has told us that none of us has any excuse, bevause evidence is right under our noses, so to speak (Romans 1)

The idea of human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA is often asserted. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99% similarity, depending on who is spinning the story. What is the basis for these claims and do the data mean that there really is not much difference between chimps and people? Are we just (slightly) evolved apes?
First, similarity is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution), but rather for a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and the genuine Volkswagen 'Beetle' car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent rear suspension, two doors, trunk in the front, and many other simliarities. Why do these two very differnt cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether simliarity is morphological or biochemical, it is not argument for evolution, over creation.
If humans were entirely different to all other living things, then how could we live? We have to eat other organisms to gain nutrients and energy to live. How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different to the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is neccessary for us to have food.
DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. So, if two organisms look similar, we expect there to be similarities also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be mroe alike than the DNA of a cow and a worm. IF it were not so, then the ideao f DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned.
Humans and apes are quite similar in appearence, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans, so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.
Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of human beings, Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share simliarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes and protiens that do the same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example those that code for the proteins involved in chromosome structure, are almost identical.
What of the 97% similarity claimed between human and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what popular publications, and even some science journals, claim. DNA carries its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C, G, A, T. Groups of three at a time of these chemical 'letters' are 'read' by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of amino acids, of which there are 20 different types, to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has 3 billion nucleotides. The human and chimp DNA sequences have not both been fully sequenced so that a proper comparison can be made. Indeed it may be a while before such a comparison can be made because while we may have the full sequence of human DNA, chimp DNA has a much lower priority.
Where did the 97% similarity come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization. However, there are various reasons DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is the degree of similarity. Consequently, those working in the field of molecular homology do not use this somewhat arbitary figure; other figures derived from the shape of the 'melting curve' are used instead.
The original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interperetation of the data 'on faith'. Even if everything else were above criticism, the 97% figure came frmo making a basic statistical error - averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a peoper (weighted) mean is calculated it is 96%, not 97%. However, the work lacked true replication, so no real meaning can be attached to the figures.
WWhat if human and chimp DNA were 97% homologous? What could that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! As 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 500 pages each, if humans were 'only' 3% different this still amounts to 90 million base pairs, equivalent to about 30 large books of information. This is an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross, even given the several million years widely claimed as the time aviliable for this to happen.
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 implication.
There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implicatons.

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.
Even if we acept the data as legimate, there is no way that mutations could bridge the gap between chimps and humans. Chimps are just ammals. We are made in the image of God (no chimps will be reading this, or discussing it with one another)

This is from a book...
Biblio here:

Batten, Don, Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland. Answers to the 4 Big Questions. 1st ed. Australia: Answers in Genesis Ministries, 2000.

So here ends my two cents. Most of you won't read through the whole thing, but I hope this convinces you of the truth of God.

[Spirited Away]

That was... a nice try. However, as with most debates, to convince people, not only must you prove that the other side is wrong, you must prove that your side right, or have some semblance of being the better solution/ opinion/answer. Which simply means, while you're saying that evolution has no bearing, you've failed to go into detail as to why creation is the better answer.

From what I've seen, both sides can efficiently prove the other side wrong... ahaha. So, where does that leave us?

First, similarity is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution), but rather for a common designer (creation).

Mr. Acid had once said before that evolution is not directly against creation, and I agree with him. It doesn't explain how living things exist, only how we become what we are today.

Chimps are just ammals. We are made in the image of God (no chimps will be reading this, or discussing it with one another)

You know what? I don't quite get what you mean. "Chimps" are mammals (I'm sure that's what you meant to say), but humans are mammals as well. And the image of God is someone who can stand upright with two legs and two arms... eyes, nose, ears... "Chimps" have those just like humans. Who's to say that God didn't create "chimps" and they evolved into humans, eh?

[sadolakced acid]

ok... im for creation.
There is much scientific evidence against the whole idea of molecules-to-man evolution...

1. Information and complexity: Modern knowledge of biochemistry shows that even so-called 'simple' bacteria are phenomenally complex - far more complex than the most sophisticated machine mankind has ever made - and they can reproduce themselves, some in less than 20 minutes. Such bacterian 'machines' contain the equivalent of about 2 large books of coded information on their DNA. Books don't write themselves and neither could the bacteria make themselves! If a book needs an intelligent creator, the bacterium needs a creator even more so. The source of this information is an insurmountable problem for the origin of life without a creator - and the development of more complex life forms. A human being has about 1,000 books worth of information on the DNA in each cell. How do you add 998 books of information to a bacterium to get the information in a human being, as evolutionists claim happened over hundreds of millions of years?

2. Limits to variation: The breeding of animals and plants shows that there are strict limits to how far selection can go - whether it be artificial or natural. Breeding of pigs will never make them fly. Nor can natural selection grow feathers on a reptile. Things were created to reproduce true-to-their-kinds, just like the Bible says in Genesis chapter 1. The limited amount of natural variation drives modern molecular biologists to try to take genes from one kind of organism and get them to work in another kind. It's all about transferring information, and much intelligence is applied to do this (with many failures). Natural (non-intelligent) processes cannot, and therefore have never, created anything containing meaningful information.

3. Mutations?: Mutations - random changes in the genetic information - are supposed to generate new information so that new features such as legs, feathers, brains, eyes, and so on, could 'evolve'. However, random changes in information do not create new meaningful 'paragraphs' or 'chapters' of information. They only currupt it. Mutations destroy; they do not create. They are knowwn by the diseases they cause in humans, like cancers. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is not due to an increase in meaningful information due to mutations. In all mutations studied, there has been a loss of function causing the resistance - for example, losso f control over the production of the emzyne that breaks down penicillin so that more of the emzyne is produced. Sometimes information has been acquired from another type of bacterium, which then enables the recipient to resist the antibiotic. Mutations will neverproduce the new complex information needed for evolution to proceed. Furthermore, research has revealed many examples of features in living things that are made up of highly complex parts where every part has to be present for it to function at all. They cannot be simpler and still funtion. It is not possible for small step-wise mutations and natural selection to create such systems because a series of functional intermediates is impossible. Examples are the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting system, the ATPase 'motor', the signallling system in cells, the DNA-coded protein synthesis system, etc.

4. Fossils: The fossils do not show that one kind of organism has changed into another. There should be millions of intermediate types of fossils showing the transitions, if evolution had occured. There are a handful of disputed ones. Claimed evidence of fossils linking different kinds of organisms does not stand scrutiny. Furthermore, there are many hundreds of types of creatures in the fossil record which are still present today. Jellyfish, starfish, and snails, for example, are present in rocks supposedly hundreds of millions of years old and yet they are very like the ones we have in the oceans today. Things breed 'true to their kind' just like the Bible says.

5. The age of the Earth: The story about the age of the earth has grown in the telling. However, fossils commonly show evidence of rapid burial in watercarried mud - as in a great Flood. Consequently, the rock layers containing these fossils were not laid down slowly and gradually - so fossils do not give support to the millions of years so widely taught today. The Bible tells of a great global Flood, and people groups around the world have their own stories of such a Flood. A global Flood would have created vast amounts of watercarried sand, silt and clay, burying plants and animals and creating layers of rocks containing fossils - and all very quickly. Furthermore, there are many different evidences against a vast age for the Universe. For example, the rate of erosion of the earth's continents, the decay of the earth's magnetic field, the lack of helium in the atmosphere, the number of people on earth, the brevity of recordere hustory, the prersistance of spiral galaxies, the low number of type-II supernovas and lack of type-III supernovas in our galaxy, the existence of short-period comets, and much more. Well, then, someone may wonder, why do so many apparently well-educated people believe in evolution? People may believe in evolution and dismiss creation because:
1. They are ignorant of the facts, only ever having heard the case for evolution. There are many like this.
2. They deliberately choose to deny the rightful place of God in their lives. God has told us that none of us has any excuse, bevause evidence is right under our noses, so to speak (Romans 1)

  The idea of human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA is often asserted. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%,  or even 99% similarity, depending on who is spinning the story. What is the basis for these claims and do the data mean that there really is not much difference between chimps and people? Are we just (slightly) evolved apes?
  First, similarity is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution), but rather for a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and the genuine Volkswagen 'Beetle' car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent rear suspension, two doors, trunk in the front, and many other simliarities. Why do these two very differnt cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether simliarity is morphological or biochemical, it is not argument for evolution, over creation.
  If humans were entirely different to all other living things, then how could we live? We have to eat other organisms to gain nutrients and energy to live. How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different to the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is neccessary for us to have food.
  DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. So, if two organisms look similar, we expect there to be similarities also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be mroe alike than the DNA of a cow and a worm. IF it were not so, then the ideao f DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned.
  Humans and apes are quite similar in appearence, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans, so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.
  Certain biochemical capacities are common to all living things, so there is even a degree of similarity between the DNA of yeast, for example, and that of human beings, Because human cells can do many of the things that yeast can do, we share simliarities in the DNA sequences that code for the enzymes and protiens that do the same jobs in both types of cells. Some of the sequences, for example those that code for the proteins involved in chromosome structure, are almost identical.
  What of the 97% similarity claimed between human and chimps? The figures published do not mean quite what popular publications, and even some science journals, claim. DNA carries its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as nucleotides, abbreviated C, G, A, T. Groups of three at a time of these chemical 'letters' are 'read' by complex translation machinery in the cell to determine the sequence of amino acids, of which there are 20 different types, to be incorporated into proteins. The human DNA has 3 billion nucleotides. The human and chimp DNA sequences have not both been fully sequenced so that a proper comparison can be made. Indeed it may be a while before such a comparison can be made because while we may have the full sequence of human DNA, chimp DNA has a much lower priority.
  Where did the 97% similarity come from then? It was inferred from a fairly crude technique called DNA hybridization. However, there are various reasons DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is the degree of similarity. Consequently, those working in the field of molecular homology do not use this somewhat arbitary figure; other figures derived from the shape of the 'melting curve' are used instead.
  The original papers did not contain the basic data and the reader had to accept the interperetation of the data 'on faith'. Even if everything else were above criticism, the 97% figure came frmo making a basic statistical error - averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a peoper (weighted) mean is calculated it is 96%, not 97%. However, the work lacked true replication, so no real meaning can be attached to the figures.
  WWhat if human and chimp DNA were 97% homologous? What could that mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common ancestor with chimps? Not at all! As 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 500 pages each, if humans were 'only' 3% different this still amounts to 90 million base pairs, equivalent to about 30 large books of information. This is an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross, even given the several million years widely claimed as the time aviliable for this to happen.
  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 implication.
  There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implicatons.

  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.
  Even if we acept the data as legimate, there is no way that mutations could bridge the gap between chimps and humans. Chimps are just ammals. We are made in the image of God (no chimps will be reading this, or discussing it with one another)

This is from a book...
Biblio here:

Batten, Don, Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland. Answers to the 4 Big Questions. 1st ed. Australia: Answers in Genesis Ministries, 2000.

So here ends my two cents. Most of you won't read through the whole thing, but I hope this convinces you of the truth of God.

long post comming... mind you i read all of yours, read all of mine. very good arguments for creation; however other evidence is lacking from your points.


(note= my relpy is going to be very long. conseqently, i'm going to be editing the original post, instead of sending the post all at once, to avoid loosing the post.

1.

1.Information and complexity: Modern knowledge of biochemistry shows that even so-called 'simple' bacteria are phenomenally complex - far more complex than the most sophisticated machine mankind has ever made - and they can reproduce themselves, some in less than 20 minutes. Such bacterian 'machines' contain the equivalent of about 2 large books of coded information on their DNA. Books don't write themselves and neither could the bacteria make themselves! If a book needs an intelligent creator, the bacterium needs a creator even more so. The source of this information is an insurmountable problem for the origin of life without a creator - and the development of more complex life forms. A human being has about 1,000 books worth of information on the DNA in each cell. How do you add 998 books of information to a bacterium to get the information in a human being, as evolutionists claim happened over hundreds of millions of years?


since this 'segment' is still large, i'm going to break it down more, into alpha parts.

A. information and complexity: Modern knowledge of biochemistry shows that even so-called 'simple' bacteria are phenomenally complex - far more complex than the most sophisticated machine mankind has ever made

you are right. but you do leave out a part... the smallest replicating unit is not a bacterium. there is something much smaller. no, not a virus, even smaller.

i'm talking about RNA. it's a relativily simple molecule, less than 50 atoms in it. RNA is self replicating. it makes more of itself.

RNA, in turn, is a base unit for making DNA, and RNA bacteria. therefore, although bacteria are complex, the various parts of it are NOT, and HAVE been produced in laboratories (miller/ urey experiment). more importantly, the self replicating part of a bacterium is not complex.

B. - and they can reproduce themselves, some in less than 20 minutes. Such bacterian 'machines' contain the equivalent of about 2 large books of coded information on their DNA.

yes; they can reproduce themselves. yet you leave of the part that actually is reprocuced (the RNA) is actually not that complex... in all it is probably less complex than this post is going to be long... (which still isn't saying much, but still.) the RNA is the only thing that need reproduce, and it is self replicating

C. Books don't write themselves and neither could the bacteria make themselves! If a book needs an intelligent creator, the bacterium needs a creator even more so. The source of this information is an insurmountable problem for the origin of life without a creator

contarley; book don't usually write themselves. however, lets pretend that you have a bag of scrabble tiles; 26 letters. if you make the word "replicate" by drawing each letter in order, you have a self replicating strand. However, The probability you create the word "replicate" randomly is 1/5429503679000 . However, once you do create the word 'Replicate', the porbablility that the word 'replicate' is on the scrabble board in subsequent times is pretty high; i'd say 1/2. it also increases the more 'replicates' are on the board, and there are constantly more.

The source of this information is not a problem. The ones that sustain life, once created, don't go away. the ones that don't sustain life, fade away. thus, life becomes prominet.

[color- red]D.[/color] and the development of more complex life forms. A human being has about 1,000 books worth of information on the DNA in each cell. How do you add 998 books of information to a bacterium to get the information in a human being, as evolutionists claim happened over hundreds of millions of years?

the devolpment of more complex life forms is also explained quite well. millions of years, my friend, is a long time. LONG. and once the first self replicating strand is created, more are created. If mutated so that they are more complex, and help the chances of replication; this is become prevalent.

do you realize that there is a nice strand in your DNA called an Alu? It's about 26 'words' long. do you realize in every single cell, you have more than a mol's worth of alus? that the number of Alus in the world is very, very, very ,very large? Alus probably make up 10% of your genome. This Alu strand can insert itself in random strands, and cause itself to be replicated more. it can also turn on different parts of the genome, causing more drastic mutations.


whoot! done with paragraph one...
ok next.

2.

2. Limits to variation: The breeding of animals and plants shows that there are strict limits to how far selection can go - whether it be artificial or natural. Breeding of pigs will never make them fly. Nor can natural selection grow feathers on a reptile. Things were created to reproduce true-to-their-kinds, just like the Bible says in Genesis chapter 1. The limited amount of natural variation drives modern molecular biologists to try to take genes from one kind of organism and get them to work in another kind. It's all about transferring information, and much intelligence is applied to do this (with many failures). Natural (non-intelligent) processes cannot, and therefore have never, created anything containing meaningful information.


again subdivided like before.

A. Limits to variation: The breeding of animals and plants shows that there are strict limits to how far selection can go - whether it be artificial or natural. Breeding of pigs will never make them fly. Nor can natural selection grow feathers on a reptile.

selective breeding has already made new species. in mere HUNDREDS of years. we're talking MILLIONS of years.

if, given millions of years, i can breed pigs so that they fly.

you're statement here is, unforchantly, purely wrong.

B. Things were created to reproduce true-to-their-kinds, just like the Bible says in Genesis chapter 1.

genisis chapter one. i'm familiar with it. are you familiar that it says that what you look like now is what adam look like, basically? are you aware that you are probably a foot taller than Adam 'was' ?

are you aware that you don't even look like someone from the 1st century? you're too tall. doesn't matter if you're 'short'. you're still too tall.

therefore, genesis chapter one is moot. humans could not have been created as they are now.

C. The limited amount of natural variation drives modern molecular biologists to try to take genes from one kind of organism and get them to work in another kind. It's all about transferring information, and much intelligence is applied to do this (with many failures). Natural (non-intelligent) processes cannot, and therefore have never, created anything containing meaningful information.

this is because we want the changes in mere years. as said before, given a million years i can make pigs fly. of course, they won't look like pigs...

much intelegence isn't required... most gene splicing is trial and error. take this bit, see if it works here. copy and paste.


3.

3. Mutations?: Mutations - random changes in the genetic information - are supposed to generate new information so that new features such as legs, feathers, brains, eyes, and so on, could 'evolve'. However, random changes in information do not create new meaningful 'paragraphs' or 'chapters' of information. They only currupt it. Mutations destroy; they do not create. They are knowwn by the diseases they cause in humans, like cancers. Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is not due to an increase in meaningful information due to mutations. In all mutations studied, there has been a loss of function causing the resistance - for example, losso f control over the production of the emzyne that breaks down penicillin so that more of the emzyne is produced. Sometimes information has been acquired from another type of bacterium, which then enables the recipient to resist the antibiotic. Mutations will neverproduce the new complex information needed for evolution to proceed. Furthermore, research has revealed many examples of features in living things that are made up of highly complex parts where every part has to be present for it to function at all. They cannot be simpler and still funtion. It is not possible for small step-wise mutations and natural selection to create such systems because a series of functional intermediates is impossible. Examples are the bacterial flagellum, the blood clotting system, the ATPase 'motor', the signallling system in cells, the DNA-coded protein synthesis system, etc.

this time not subdivided. i can explain this very simply.

MUTATIONS ARE NOT BAD. half the time they don't even do anything. Code is mostly NOT used... over HALF of the genetice code you have is not used.

also, a mutation can, subsequently, turn on millions of letters that were lying dormant; therefore, it is not possible to say muttions are small things.



4.

4. Fossils: The fossils do not show that one kind of organism has changed into another. There should be millions of intermediate types of fossils showing the transitions, if evolution had occured. There are a handful of disputed ones. Claimed evidence of fossils linking different kinds of organisms does not stand scrutiny. Furthermore, there are many hundreds of types of creatures in the fossil record which are still present today. Jellyfish, starfish, and snails, for example, are present in rocks supposedly hundreds of millions of years old and yet they are very like the ones we have in the oceans today. Things breed 'true to their kind' just like the Bible says.


i've heard this one before. the whole' massive flood' thing making the rock layers.

i will tell you simply why this is impossbile.

1. if it did happen, oil would not exist.

2. if it did happen, diamonds would not exist.

3. not all rock is formed from silt. that's only ONE kind, mind you. and it's not evey in bedrock primarily. Volcanos are needed to create these rocks; not mere floods.

4. the flood itself is not possible. a global flood is impossible. there is not enough world in all the oceans, glaciers, icecaps, air, aquefers and animals to flood the earth.

5.

5. The age of the Earth: The story about the age of the earth has grown in the telling. However, fossils commonly show evidence of rapid burial in watercarried mud - as in a great Flood. Consequently, the rock layers containing these fossils were not laid down slowly and gradually - so fossils do not give support to the millions of years so widely taught today. The Bible tells of a great global Flood, and people groups around the world have their own stories of such a Flood. A global Flood would have created vast amounts of watercarried sand, silt and clay, burying plants and animals and creating layers of rocks containing fossils - and all very quickly. Furthermore, there are many different evidences against a vast age for the Universe. For example, the rate of erosion of the earth's continents, the decay of the earth's magnetic field, the lack of helium in the atmosphere, the number of people on earth, the brevity of recordere hustory, the prersistance of spiral galaxies, the low number of type-II supernovas and lack of type-III supernovas in our galaxy, the existence of short-period comets, and much more. Well, then, someone may wonder, why do so many apparently well-educated people believe in evolution? People may believe in evolution and dismiss creation because:
1. They are ignorant of the facts, only ever having heard the case for evolution. There are many like this.
2. They deliberately choose to deny the rightful place of God in their lives. God has told us that none of us has any excuse, bevause evidence is right under our noses, so to speak (Romans 1)


yada yada about the flood. i've already told you that can't be. (sorry, not trying to be disrespectful- i have homework that needs doing, and i need to be finishing this post soon.)


1- the erosion of the earth's continents is mostly caused by humans now; that's why it's high.

2- the earth's magnetic field switches. it's recorded in magma on the sea floor. what the heck are you talking about?

They are ignorant of the facts, only ever having heard the case for evolution. There are many like this.

i know the creation side. sure, i have never heard a priest explain it, but this is because the priest is unwilling to come out of his church to explain it.

They deliberately choose to deny the rightful place of God in their lives. God has told us that none of us has any excuse, bevause evidence is right under our noses, so to speak (Romans 1)

evolution doesn't preclude god. unless you're some sort of f*cked up person who takes the bible literally, in which case means all blacks are inferior (sorry- it's in the bible), women are property;(again, sorry. it's in the bible.) and the earth is flat.


6.

The idea of human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA is often asserted. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98%, or even 99% similarity, depending on who is spinning the story. What is the basis for these claims and do the data mean that there really is not much difference between chimps and people? Are we just (slightly) evolved apes?
First, similarity is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution), but rather for a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and the genuine Volkswagen 'Beetle' car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rear, independent rear suspension, two doors, trunk in the front, and many other simliarities. Why do these two very differnt cars have so many similarities? Because they had the same designer! Whether simliarity is morphological or biochemical, it is not argument for evolution, over creation.
If humans were entirely different to all other living things, then how could we live? We have to eat other organisms to gain nutrients and energy to live. How could we digest them and how could we use the amino acids, sugars, etc., if they were different to the ones we have in our bodies? Biochemical similarity is neccessary for us to have food.
DNA in cells contains much of the information necessary for the development of an organism. So, if two organisms look similar, we expect there to be similarities also in their DNA. The DNA of a cow and a whale, two mammals, should be mroe alike than the DNA of a cow and a worm. IF it were not so, then the ideao f DNA being the information carrier in living things would have to be questioned.
Humans and apes are quite similar in appearence, so we would expect there would be similarities in their DNA. Of all the animals, chimps are most like humans, so we would expect that their DNA would be most like human DNA.

you know what? my toyota tercel station wagon looks quite like a Golf. they aren't made by the same people. but they are the same.




ALL CARS HAVE TWO FRONT WHEELS THAT TURN. THEY ALL HAVE STEERING WHEELS. they must be designed by the SAME person...

(sorry, i'm getting a little pissed because you seem to know why i belive in evolution. )

First, similarity is not evidence for common ancestry (evolution), but rather for a common designer (creation).

wow. i mean, you look JUST like your brother/sister. you look nothing like guy A. Guy A must be designed by the devil.

DNA, DNA. i'm assuming you have had a high school biology course. which is of course not in depth enough. read GENOME, by matt ridely to learn a bit more about the human genome.


Even if we acept the data as legimate, there is no way that mutations could bridge the gap between chimps and humans. Chimps are just ammals. We are made in the image of God (no chimps will be reading this, or discussing it with one another)

actually; it is quite possible. read more about how mutation actually work. High school biology is NOT enough to understand Mutations.


[yes, i cut this post a little shorter. i need to do homework. i'll adress your other posts later. ]

[FourEyes334]

OK then...

If we compare vertebreate embryos at the pharyngula stage, some can look vaguely similar, but at earlier stages, they are quite different.
After 'converging' together, the embryos then diverage away from each other. How can this be explained through explination? God made things to show that there is one creator (similarity at the pharyngulta stage), but this similarity cannot be explained as a result of natural processes (evolution) because the earlier stages of embryo development differ greately. The differences at the earlier stages give no support to a naturalistic explanation for the similarity at the later pharyngeal stage being due to common descent.
Likewise, with the mode of development of amphibian and mammal foot bones in the embryo. They can end up looking very similar, but the amphibian's toes develop from a bony plate by the dissolving of bones between the toes, whereas the mammal's toes develop by growth outwards of buds. The different modes of development rule out evolution as an explanation and show that the similarity is due to a common Creator/Designer.
Patterns of embryo development point to creation, not evolution.

[FourEyes334]

OK. evolution = big bang right?
So what youre saying is that a gigantic explosion was made in the beginning of the universe and everything came together perfectly. The solar system, the earth, and the bacteria that were our alleged ancestors.
Now think about it. The likelyhood of this happening is about the same likelyhood of a jug of water being poured down a drain and having the water going back into the jug, every single molecule in its exact same place. It's impossible. How could an explosion create everything? A much more logical explanation would be God, the Creator.



The Fossil Evidence. Evolution is supposed to be a process of change. If some ancient species of worm or other creature without a backbone slowly changed into a vertebrate fish with a backbone, there should be a series of intermediate fossil species which document that actual process of change. These intermediate fossil forms are totally absent from the fossil record. Prof. Alfred Romer at Harvard University wrote that this evolution from invertebrate to vertebrate must have required 100 million years for which we do not have the fossil evidence. Prof. Stephen Stanley of Johns Hopkins University wrote in 1979 that the known fossil record provides not a single example of a series of fossils which prove that a process of evolution really took place to produce a new kind of creature.

These systematic gaps in the fossil record mean that every basic type of plant or animal seems to appear suddenly in the fossil-bearing rocks. The fossils speak of sudden appearance of the kinds, not the slow, gradual change of one kind into another kind. But this fossil evidence appears more in agreement with special creation than with evolution, doesn't it?

Biological Design. Nature is rich everywhere with biological designs which defy evolutionary explanation. Secular scientists, when pressed, have to admit that they cannot offer testable or even plausible explanations for the origin of biodesigns. For just one example, consider the little intestinal microbe, Escherichia coli. Each tiny single-celled microbe propels itself around with six corkscrew propellers which are connected by universal joints to six constant torque, variable speed, reversible rotary motors!

Evolutionary scientists have not the slightest idea how this complex assembly of complex, interdependent parts could have evolved. Yet, they believe it happened. They have faith in dumb atoms. Faith in the Creator God is far superior.

Genetics: For thousands of years intelligent humans have been selectively breeding plants and animals to develop varieties which are of special value to man. So there are 150 varieties of dogs, scores of varieties of roses, many different varieties of cattle and sheep, of apples and potatoes, etc. But they are still dogs, roses, cattle, sheep, apples and potatoes. There is much variation under artificial selection. Also, there is much variation in nature in the wild. But the changes are always limited. Genetics teaches that there are barriers through which genetic change cannot go. Species of plants and animals exist in groups of species which are separated from all other such groups. And this is just what the Bible teaches in Genesis 1 where Moses tells us that God created the "kinds" of plants and animals to reproduce each one "after its own kind." Genetics gives the lie to Charles Darwin's notion that, given time, genetic variation has been unlimited, so that an amoeba could evolve into a university professor in 3 billion years.

Molecular Biology. In 1953 Crick and Watson demonstrated the helical structure of the DNA molecules which are the genes that control inheritance of characters. Since then the new science of molecular biology has opened up a vast new field of knowledge. The amazing accomplishments of molecular biologists are a tribute to the power of the human intellect and of the scientific method. The knowledge of cell biology at the level of the individual molecules is expected to give understanding of life and of evolution. However, after over 30 years of molecular biology it can be said the evolutionary theory has yet actually to explain or demonstrate the origin of anything new. He can boldly say that today there are no testable scientific theories for inheritance, development of the embryo from egg to animal, formation of new species, or the evolution of anything new.

Evidences for Evolution. The standard evidences adduced for evolution can either be shown to be invalid or be reinterpreted within the framework of the creation model of origins. For example the stages and similarities of embryos of different species can be shown to be related to the condition and needs of particular species at each stage. Similarities revealed by comparative anatomy (of the vertebrates, for example) can be explained in terms of the Creator's use of basic designs modified for particular applications. Biological classification reveals the separateness of the kinds, and the data for alleged molecular evolution also shows the separateness of the kinds.

[Spirited Away]

I'm rushed, therefore I haven't the time to tell you a little bit about the hypothesis of universal common descent... but I did find something that suits this discussion and relevant to my future rebuttal:

"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.

I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "

- Richard P. Feynman (1918-1988),
from the introductory lecture on quantum mechanics reproduced in QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Feynman 1985).

Note that he says Nature is absurd twice and the third time, he calls it strange. There are many questions that humans cannot answer about God and His ways, I would then think it fair to leave room for leniency towards the mystery and questions yet to be answered about Nature. Both, I think are absurdities and strange.

Anyway, I need to get this off my chest: did you copy and past all those info from some site, Mr. FourEyes?

[FourEyes334]

Negative. I did not copy much info, and all the info I copied had bibliographies under them. check them.

Edit [2207 hours] You know there really is no answer that both sides will willingly accept, so this whole thread has no point. I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe, and the matter is done. Just remember how foolishly you argued for evolution... you'll regret the decision soon.
Happy new year!

[Spirited Away]

LOL, I'll remember how we're all foolish, some more than others. As for regret, I highly doubt it .

[starfaerie06]

I'm not sure which I believe in... it's a very complex series of subjects. I don't think we'll ever know for sure which one is correct. Right now I'm leaning toward a combination of the 2... kind of Evolution but without the big bang theory... A higher power created the solar system and the ancient organisms and we evolved from there....

[sadolakced acid]

Evolution and Creationism don't have to clash.

I belive an inteligent being willed life to evolve.

you don't have to only belive one.

(PS. i put the rest of my post up there; it's finished now. )

[Spirited Away]

^^^ Yes, yes Mr Acid, that's what I said and questioned, but the person seemingly ignored my original response:

"You know what? I don't quite get what you mean. "Chimps" are mammals (I'm sure that's what you meant to say), but humans are mammals as well. And the image of God is someone who can stand upright with two legs and two arms... eyes, nose, ears... "Chimps" have those just like humans. Who's to say that God didn't create "chimps" and they evolved into humans, eh?"

Oh well.

[crocodilo]

I believe in Zecheria Sitchin's Theory in which humans were created by the gods of Nibiru inorder to work as slaves for the gods
Humans (Homo Sapiens) were created from the DNA of Homo Erectus plus their own DNA
This is what was written in ancient Sumerian text

[fameONE]

Evolution and Creationism don't have to clash. 

I belive an inteligent being willed life to evolve. 

you don't have to only belive one.

(PS.  i put the rest of my post up there; it's finished now. )

OH NO!! YOU GOIN' TO HAIL!! HOW DARE YOU SPEEK SUCH BLASPHEMY

I don't see how that doesn't make sense. No, I don't beleive that we just rolled out of the earth and I don't exactly believe that God created two people and let them reproduce to 9 billion. Why can't the two coincide?

[stryker76]

Hmmm this my sound crude but im sorry if it does....and its actually from the Simpsons



If God made Adam and Eve and Adam and Eve(Sin: Pre-Marrital Sex) had Kain and Abel.....how did Kain and Abel have kids????? Where they Gay and some how have kids with eachother(Sin) or did they have children with there mother(Sin) and if there where other people then that means the God didnt not create everything......Hmmmmm i wonder

[~*Crizzy_Babee09...]

I say Creation Dammit! Lol. I hate when im in Science n they say ''The Big Bang''. Well how did we get here? From slime in the ocean? hell nah man... The world didn't make itself. I believe in God strongly and if you don't like it, then that's you. U can stay to ur belief. Hey, it ain't hurtin meeh....

[Spirited Away]

^^ This is a debate forum, "damnit", support your views!

Since you edited, but done so poorly:

You obviously haven't read the whole thread, your objections have been answered AGAIN AND AGAIN in pages before this one. Please read the thread before posting.

This post has been edited by uninspiredfae: Mar 29 2005, 01:39 AM

[dopeyalan]

i go for...

evolution after creation!!

[*jcwdragon*]

i'm for creation.

first, i'd like to point out that the bible does not say how old the earth is. if it does, show me exactly where. the reason i say that is because the old testament was written in hebrew. the word "day" in hebrew does not mean 24 hours like it does today. "day" actually meant a really long period of time. just study the creation. genesis says that everything was created in six "days." but those days weren't 24 hours long.

furthermore, even though we might be so similar to primates, how will any species' DNA tell it to change its physical body? and since evolution is so slow, how will any species survive if it were necessary? do we see any living intermediates between humans and apes and monkeys and gorillas? no! each living species today was created individually.

creation had to have occurred. no species originated from one single cell. even a single cell has so many intricacies within itself. You can convince me that evolution is true if you can tell me the plausibility of an element combining with another element to create a compound to combine with another compound to create an amino acid to combine with another amino acid to create proteins to find other proteins and construct organelles and find more organelles to construct a cell which in turn must find more cells to create tissues and find more tissues to create muscles and find more muscles to make organs and find more organs to make organ systems and then fit evenly with more systems to make a living organism, and at the same time all the components are still secure in one. can you convince me?

there must be a god; otherwise, how did life come about?

[sammi rules you]

i'm for creation.

first, i'd like to point out that the bible does not say how old the earth is.  if it does, show me exactly where.  the reason i say that is because the old testament was written in hebrew.  the word "day" in hebrew does not mean 24 hours like it does today.  "day" actually meant a really long period of time.  just study the creation.  genesis says that everything was created in six "days."  but those days weren't 24 hours long. 

furthermore, even though we might be so similar to primates, how will any species' DNA tell it to change its physical body?  and since evolution is so slow, how will any species survive if it were necessary?  do we see any living intermediates between humans and apes and monkeys and gorillas?  no!  each living species today was created individually. 

creation had to have occurred.  no species originated from one single cell.  even a single cell has so many intricacies within itself.  You can convince me that evolution is true if you can tell me the plausibility of an element combining with another element to create a compound to combine with another compound to create an amino acid to combine with another amino acid to create proteins to find other proteins and construct organelles and find more organelles to construct a cell which in turn must find more cells to create tissues and find more tissues to create muscles and find more muscles to make organs and find more organs to make organ systems and then fit evenly with more systems to make a living organism, and at the same time all the components are still secure in one.  can you convince me?

there must be a god; otherwise, how did life come about?

how did god come about?

and the cell theory must be true; go look in a microscope, you can SEE the cell. it's RIGHT there.

show me something that proves god's existance. a fact, something i can see and you can prove.

[someflipguy]

Well I have no real explanation for why I believe Creation, but being a Catholic and believing in God, I follow my beliefs to the end. Even though I think about evolution constantly!

[*jcwdragon*]

how did god come about?

and the cell theory must be true; go look in a microscope, you can SEE the cell. it's RIGHT there.

show me something that proves god's existance. a fact, something i can see and you can prove.

god is the alpha and omega, meaning that he has no beginning nor end. if god were created or born, then he wouldn't be god.

how can the cell theory be true? merely looking into a microscope doesn't explain how all the protein and organelles were constructed and how they all came together just to form a single cell. even in chemistry, the probability of any of those elements forming together is considered "negligible." it will never happen. you give me an instance where life was formed out of nothing. you can't, which explains that there must be a supreme being and his name is god.

you want evidence for god's existence? look at nature. look at everything around you. do you actually think that those things created themselves or evolved from other things? that is not plausible. the human body is even more complex that a computer. do you think a computer can assemble itself? of course not. living things cannot evolve from one species to another. god's existence is evident in nature.

you can't see god. he is a spiritual being. even though you can't see god, you have to have faith that he exists. what is faith? faith is trust. don't tell me that faith is a false idea. everyone has faith. how do i know that this message will be sent? i don't know for sure. but i send it anyway because i have faith that my computer will transfer it to this website.

you can see nature. now give me something that disproves god's existence.

[Spirited Away]

Here we go again Sammi. I sure wish these people would read the whole thread, but oh well.

god is the alpha and omega, meaning that he has no beginning nor end.  if god were created or born, then he wouldn't be god. 

If you can think of God as the "alpha and omega" then why can't you think of Nature and the existence of the universe as such? How biased you are!

how can the cell theory be true?  merely looking into a microscope doesn't explain how all the protein and organelles were constructed and how they all came together just to form a single cell.  even in chemistry, the probability of any of those elements forming together is considered "negligible."  it will never happen.  you give me an instance where life was formed out of nothing.  you can't, which explains that there must be a supreme being and his name is god.

If you can say that God came to be out of nothing, was formed out of nothing, then how come you can't think that it's possible life was formed out of nothing? God is life, is He not?

you want evidence for god's existence?  look at nature.  look at everything around you.  do you actually think that those things created themselves or evolved from other things?  that is not plausible.  the human body is even more complex that a computer.  do you think a computer can assemble itself?  of course not.  living things cannot evolve from one species to another.  god's existence is evident in nature. 

Alright, I am looking at Nature. You know what? That tsunami that took away more than 200,000 lives, and whose after effects are more deaths, was a part of Nature. Lovely thing wasn't it?

you can't see god.  he is a spiritual being.  even though you can't see god, you have to have faith that he exists.  what is faith?  faith is trust.  don't tell me that faith is a false idea.  everyone has faith.  how do i know that this message will be sent?  i don't know for sure.  but i send it anyway because i have faith that my computer will transfer it to this website.

There is faith that God exists, and there is faith that God doesn't exist. Yes, you're right, of course, everyone has faith.

you can see nature.  now give me something that disproves god's existence.

Read the whole thread, including the ones called God I (more than 50 pages of debate) and God 2 (27 pages and going) and you'll get what you want.

[sadolakced acid]

god is the alpha and omega, meaning that he has no beginning nor end.  if god were created or born, then he wouldn't be god. 

how can the cell theory be true?  merely looking into a microscope doesn't explain how all the protein and organelles were constructed and how they all came together just to form a single cell.  even in chemistry, the probability of any of those elements forming together is considered "negligible."  it will never happen.  you give me an instance where life was formed out of nothing.  you can't, which explains that there must be a supreme being and his name is god.

you want evidence for god's existence?  look at nature.  look at everything around you.  do you actually think that those things created themselves or evolved from other things?  that is not plausible.  the human body is even more complex that a computer.  do you think a computer can assemble itself?  of course not.  living things cannot evolve from one species to another.  god's existence is evident in nature. 

you can't see god.  he is a spiritual being.  even though you can't see god, you have to have faith that he exists.  what is faith?  faith is trust.  don't tell me that faith is a false idea.  everyone has faith.  how do i know that this message will be sent?  i don't know for sure.  but i send it anyway because i have faith that my computer will transfer it to this website.

you can see nature.  now give me something that disproves god's existence.

oo... what fun.

i'm going to break down your post into segments and tell you why each is wrong. I can also tell you something that disproves god's existance.


1. god is the alpha and omega, meaning that he has no beginning nor end. if god were created or born, then he wouldn't be god.

oh and here was me, thinking that jesus the SON was god, and was BORN. wow i must be mistaken... cus see here i thought god was in this trinity, and his SON was BORN to mary. strange, right? so i guess god isn't really god. the rest of that is opinion. what says god is the alpha and omega?


2. how can the cell theory be true?

i have not the time to write a textbook on cell theory for you. read any and you will find how cell theory can be true.


3. merely looking into a microscope doesn't explain how all the protein and organelles were constructed and how they all came together just to form a single cell.

of course, you think all science has is microscopes? there's this thing called DNA, you see. and it is copied because of the chemical attractions, onto RNA. RNA is a self replicating molecule. put one RNA molecule in a beaker with all the parts of RNA, and that RNA string will make more.

so, this RNA also gathers protiens amino acids by itself. these in turn are made into protiens by RNA, and these protiens make up everythin becasue of thier structure, which is determined by RNA.


4. even in chemistry, the probability of any of those elements forming together is considered "negligible."

even in chemistry? why in chemistry? is chemistry something that looks at things with low propabilities? even as such, RNA is self replicating. the probablity of having RNA molecules increases TONS every second.

this is, in short, a wrong fact. no truth in any part of this.


5. it will never happen. you give me an instance where life was formed out of nothing.

Miller- Urey expirement. They made 'life'. actually, they made amino acids and some parts of RNA, and then the plug was pulled. should have gone on longer,but it didn't.

however, they still created self replicating units. all from inorganic elements.


6. you can't, which explains that there must be a supreme being and his name is god.

you can't just say stuff, and then say it proves something else. it has to ACTUALLY prove it. you see, first off i can prove it, i just did. secondly, even if i couldn't prove it it would not explain hat there has to be a supreme being. even if you could, by some stroke of luck, explain why there has to be a supreme being, that would not say that his name is god. his name could very well be bob for all you know. no, the bible is not a historical source and cannot be used as proof of that.


7. you want evidence for god's existence? look at nature. look at everything around you. do you actually think that those things created themselves or evolved from other things? that is not plausible.

i see cells replicating, i see DNA making it happen. nice opinions there, but not facts. facts, my friend, are proven. what you have here are assertions you (not even the bible!) made.

8. the human body is even more complex that a computer. do you think a computer can assemble itself? of course not.

did you know, that that happens every single FREAKING DAY!!!!
it's a freaking computer that puts together other computers. also, there are computer programs designed that design other computers.

anyways; the human body has less genes than corn. so much for complex, eh?

9.living things cannot evolve from one species to another. god's existence is evident in nature.

the evidence that god is a lie is in nature. there are documented cases of speciation. and evolution. animals have been selectivly speciated untill they could no longer reproduce. that's speciation.

10. you can't see god. he is a spiritual being. even though you can't see god, you have to have faith that he exists. what is faith? faith is trust. don't tell me that faith is a false idea. everyone has faith. how do i know that this message will be sent? i don't know for sure. but i send it anyway because i have faith that my computer will transfer it to this website.

hello. i'm paris hilton. you can't see me, i'm just letters on a screen. have faith in me. i'm paris hilton. have faith in me.

11. and now: proof god does not exist.

a. god, if he were to exist, would be good.
b. god, if he were to exist, would be allpowerful.
c. god, if he were to exist and be good and all powerful, would stop every single crime and every single murder.

look around you. humans are proof god doesn't exist.

columbine is proof god doesn't exist
war is proof god doesn't exist
september 11th is proof god doesn't exist
the death of any christian due to violence is proof god doesn't exist

look around you. god doesn't exist.

[sammi rules you]

Here we go again Sammi. I sure wish these people would read the whole thread, but oh well.

oh, but i'm starting to find it funny that most of these people replying are at least 2-3 years older than me and so much less competent!

how can the cell theory be true?  merely looking into a microscope doesn't explain how all the protein and organelles were constructed and how they all came together just to form a single cell.  even in chemistry, the probability of any of those elements forming together is considered "negligible."  it will never happen.  you give me an instance where life was formed out of nothing.  you can't, which explains that there must be a supreme being and his name is god.

no, looking into a microscope doesn't explain the process, but there, RIGHT THERE, i see all the little organelles and cells that are part of the cell theory. if someone tells me the endoplasmic reticulum is a transport mechanism for a cell, and i look into a microscope and i see it, it makes sense! it's logical, it's proven time and time again. it's a heck of a lot more plausible than this guy, showing up out of nowhere, creating everything there ever is, and sitting up in the sky watching us, plaguing us with diseases and deaths and sadness when he loves us so much.