We live in a world of uneducated people, and even those who are sometimes go one about things they need to do more research on themselves. Kind of like Micheal Moore, he is making a bucket of money off of other people's misery or even Mr. Gore's Inconvenient truth (which that issue has been known about for a long time) does that mean we have the responsibility to continue everyone's stupidity?

Think about it, creationism is the belief that everything was created in 6 days by intelligent design.

Evolution : that life just mutated and became what we see now.

Instead of evolution, which would mean we would be gathering information to become (on a genetic level) something more than we are...

We live in a world of uneducated people, and even those who are sometimes go one about things they need to do more research on themselves. Kind of like Micheal Moore, he is making a bucket of money off of other people's misery or even Mr. Gore's Inconvenient truth (which that issue has been known about for a long time) does that mean we have the responsibility to continue everyone's stupidity?

Think about it, creationism is the belief that everything was created in 6 days by intelligent design.

Evolution : that life just mutated and became what we see now.

Instead of evolution, which would mean we would be gathering information to become (on a genetic level) something more than we are now, look at the reality of it. We are not gathering information, in fact we as "species" are loosing information (ie all the "sickness" we see)

It has only been with the advancement of technology and the health care arena that we are living longer, we are becoming genetically very weak. A really good example is super strains, they genetically mutate losing information that gives them sustainability outside of their original environment.

So Adaptation instead of Evolution.

If you really want to know something about creationism, read ancient texts, in the original languages (so you don't loose anything in translation) and you will see people have changed dramatically since the invention of language.

Maybe time then wasn't what it is now? Giving us now a much different if not skewed perspective on things.

Well...Well...Well. Look at what we got here. Uh-Oh! Oh-no, there are actually people in the world who actually believe something different than you people. Yes there are people who believe in God, and also believe that God created the earth in 7(not 6) days. There are actually people who believe that there is more to this life on this ball of spinning super heated mass of rock floating in dark matter that is bigger than ones self. Lets be reminded that evolution also is STILL a theory. There are so many gaps in the "missing link" idea that I could drive a Mack through it. One may not agree on God being the creator of life and earth, space, time, etc. But that is ok. BUT it is not c...

Well...Well...Well. Look at what we got here. Uh-Oh! Oh-no, there are actually people in the world who actually believe something different than you people. Yes there are people who believe in God, and also believe that God created the earth in 7(not 6) days. There are actually people who believe that there is more to this life on this ball of spinning super heated mass of rock floating in dark matter that is bigger than ones self. Lets be reminded that evolution also is STILL a theory. There are so many gaps in the "missing link" idea that I could drive a Mack through it. One may not agree on God being the creator of life and earth, space, time, etc. But that is ok. BUT it is not child abuse, nor should it ever be. So until the "true" missing link is found, (reference other failed attempts to prove missing link: also if you are a palenotologist, or biologist you know what I mean.) Please let people decide for them selves. And we all know God has not been disproven, ( I know that is a child's argument, but I like to put it in there), but we will ALL find out in the end, won't we.

Common misconception here. Evolution is a fact - just as gravity is. Both exist and happen. What people confuse is the use of the term "theory". The 'theory' is simply our best guess as to HOW it works - not a guess if it exists or not. We know it exists because we can see it happen in the real world. We use our understanding of it to develop new medicines and improve our understanding of biology and genetics.

The theory of evolution is our best understanding of how it works based on observation and research. Even if the theory were proven wrong evolution would still be a fact. Science would simply develop a new theory learning from the mistakes of the old.

If our understanding, or theory...

Common misconception here. Evolution is a fact - just as gravity is. Both exist and happen. What people confuse is the use of the term "theory". The 'theory' is simply our best guess as to HOW it works - not a guess if it exists or not. We know it exists because we can see it happen in the real world. We use our understanding of it to develop new medicines and improve our understanding of biology and genetics.

The theory of evolution is our best understanding of how it works based on observation and research. Even if the theory were proven wrong evolution would still be a fact. Science would simply develop a new theory learning from the mistakes of the old.

If our understanding, or theory, of gravity were discovered to be wrong, you wouldn't expect everyone to simply float off the earth would you? The same thing with evolution.

Mountainous on which side of the debate? I don't hear you arguing with the point I made of Macro and and Micro Evolution? You think I haven't made an educated decision and am believing what I've been told to believe? I've studied and made an informed rational decision... As you have to I hope, I think for as many "ignorant creationist" there are easily twice as many "ignorant evolutionist" who believe it just because it was what they were taught, I hear it all the time in conversation "Evolution's a fact dude" "Really, I say, how do you know?" "It just IS, it's proven" and all because of a deep fear that maybe there could be a God who would want them to be a better person, so they cling ...

Mountainous on which side of the debate? I don't hear you arguing with the point I made of Macro and and Micro Evolution? You think I haven't made an educated decision and am believing what I've been told to believe? I've studied and made an informed rational decision... As you have to I hope, I think for as many "ignorant creationist" there are easily twice as many "ignorant evolutionist" who believe it just because it was what they were taught, I hear it all the time in conversation "Evolution's a fact dude" "Really, I say, how do you know?" "It just IS, it's proven" and all because of a deep fear that maybe there could be a God who would want them to be a better person, so they cling to the "Fact" that they came from nowhere and go to nowhere as a justification for a despicable and selfish life.

What would you have me tell you? You and I both know you will only deny anything that I say. That is apparent as soon as I read you making the claim that evolution "is only a theory" immediately after accepting that "micro" evolution is fact.

When you are intellectually dishonest with yourself then there is really nothing anyone can say to you that you will accept so long as you choose to continue a belief simply because you refuse to change it.

We have so many advances in science and medicine and biology that we get directly from the usage of our understanding of evolution. We can accomplish things by applying those understandings. If evolution did not exist or our understanding of it was...

What would you have me tell you? You and I both know you will only deny anything that I say. That is apparent as soon as I read you making the claim that evolution "is only a theory" immediately after accepting that "micro" evolution is fact.

When you are intellectually dishonest with yourself then there is really nothing anyone can say to you that you will accept so long as you choose to continue a belief simply because you refuse to change it.

We have so many advances in science and medicine and biology that we get directly from the usage of our understanding of evolution. We can accomplish things by applying those understandings. If evolution did not exist or our understanding of it was way off then those accomplishments wouldn't happen.

Tell me, what accomplishments or advances have been made through the application of Intelligent Design?

What is so hard to understand. Adaptation and Intelligent design are NOT mutually exclusive. Adaptation = Micro-Evolution. An amoeba turning into a human = Macro-Evolution. and THAT IS A THEORY!
MICRO DOES NOT PROVE MACRO. I think one place where this whole thing is breaking down is a little bit of an issue of semantics. So, I'll give it my best shot per say your comments directly above in your second to last paragraph. All the advances from in Science and Medicine etc. Would be the same with or without Evolution. Yes the same. The understanding comes from seeing how viruses ADAPT, how cells ADAPT, Having the Theory that we MIGHT have been the products of molecules floating in the...

What is so hard to understand. Adaptation and Intelligent design are NOT mutually exclusive. Adaptation = Micro-Evolution. An amoeba turning into a human = Macro-Evolution. and THAT IS A THEORY!
MICRO DOES NOT PROVE MACRO. I think one place where this whole thing is breaking down is a little bit of an issue of semantics. So, I'll give it my best shot per say your comments directly above in your second to last paragraph. All the advances from in Science and Medicine etc. Would be the same with or without Evolution. Yes the same. The understanding comes from seeing how viruses ADAPT, how cells ADAPT, Having the Theory that we MIGHT have been the products of molecules floating in the ocean and over billions and billions of years had an infinitesimal amount of beneficial random genetic mutations, until a fish crawled out of the ocean and became a chimp ergo a human does not help us understand how the HIV virus reacts to meds. What does help are scientist who are in the hear and now, dealing with what actually IS. An understanding of Micro-Evolution /Adaptation is needed and relevant to today. Macro-Evolution is irrelevant and is grasping at straws, contributing nothing but movies like Planet of the Apes...I guess its not all bad... I always see Macro and Micro lumped together and I simply believe it always needs to be qualified because of semantics.

Reply to the last question, None of the concrete advances made by science precludes Intelligent Design. Many 'accomplishments' in science are made by Christians, probably more of yore than late (up until shortly after Darwin, most scientist were Christian, I believe Darwin himself started out in a career in religion) but nonetheless the question is kind of like me asking you "what advances in or accomplishments has believing that we came from nothing contributed to science?" Your hard pressed for an answer. I think a lot of the contributions lately have been in simply challenging Evolution.

And thereby making it more of a valid Scientific theory.
think of it as if all we could vote for was one person for President...that would suck. weather you vote or not that person is gonna be president. You should have nothing to fear if you know your right, sooner or later we will know which is true, or truer as the case is right now its a matter of worldviews, but maybe soon they will start to uncover the many thousands of missing transitory fossils that fill in all the blanks, and I'll come to my senses, and start smoking again and re-enslave myself to porn, or you will read somewhere that since the sun is burning out at a fixed rate and getting smaller, that if you were to go back in t...

And thereby making it more of a valid Scientific theory.
think of it as if all we could vote for was one person for President...that would suck. weather you vote or not that person is gonna be president. You should have nothing to fear if you know your right, sooner or later we will know which is true, or truer as the case is right now its a matter of worldviews, but maybe soon they will start to uncover the many thousands of missing transitory fossils that fill in all the blanks, and I'll come to my senses, and start smoking again and re-enslave myself to porn, or you will read somewhere that since the sun is burning out at a fixed rate and getting smaller, that if you were to go back in time a billion years the sun would literally burn up the earth because of it's proximity to us, and you will realize the empty void and longing in your inner most being that a life of selfishness and bondage to a world that will be ripped from your hands has created and you will cry out to The Lord. Who knows. But I sure enjoy hasing it out online with you guys keep up the Clips and Comments

Look, "macro" evolution is a creationist term created to provide a platform to argue from. Evolution is evolution. The term is even rejected by mainstream science because there is simply a preponderance of evidence to telling us they are both the same thing with the only difference being in time and scale. This goes back again to you simply refusing to accept the evidence presented. The fossil records lays it out plainly. You find exactly what you expect to find when discovering transition fossils between older and newer species - a gradual change of characteristics between the two.

What you do not find is characteristics out of place in the fossil record. You don't find modern human skull...

Look, "macro" evolution is a creationist term created to provide a platform to argue from. Evolution is evolution. The term is even rejected by mainstream science because there is simply a preponderance of evidence to telling us they are both the same thing with the only difference being in time and scale. This goes back again to you simply refusing to accept the evidence presented. The fossil records lays it out plainly. You find exactly what you expect to find when discovering transition fossils between older and newer species - a gradual change of characteristics between the two.

What you do not find is characteristics out of place in the fossil record. You don't find modern human skulls mixed up with ancient pre-human skulls. It all works out. The devil didn't put them there.

I just find your acceptance of adaptation and your dismissal of evolution as a strange juxtaposition. It weakens your credibility. The argument is a vieled creationist argument against transitional fossils. We have plenty of evidence of them, you simply refuse to accept it. Macro and Micro evolution is the same thing, only on different scales. It's like you believe in sugar but refuse to believe it can be made into candy.

All the advances from in Science and Medicine etc. Would be the same with or without Evolution.

Dude, adaptation IS evolution! You're like ping pong ball, you go back and forth making conflicting statements. You cannot argue that evolution is not needed for science advancement when understanding of adaptation does it - THEY ARE THE SAME THING!

From here you comments degenerate to the point in which they are not worth pursuing (shrinking sun, crying out to the Lord for a void on a missing boat or something, and admition that you are only here to argue), so with that final bit of clarity I realize that you are another broken mind happy in your delusion and beyond rational discourse.

I checked the wiki on fossils you posted, now check these out Problems with Macro Evolution:

http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/problems_macro/prob_macro.html

now see this one on the fossil record that has more detail
and requires a bit of reading, but is concise nonetheless.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrc01.html

I guess we will have to agree to disagree, on the Micro macro terminology, Adaptation is evolution in the sense of maybe a virus becomes immune to a vaccine but that virus will not become a new species of dog over the period of billions of years. Just because we can breed dogs to be big and small, through Mans selective breeding, doesn't mean they wi...

I checked the wiki on fossils you posted, now check these out Problems with Macro Evolution:

http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/problems_macro/prob_macro.html

now see this one on the fossil record that has more detail
and requires a bit of reading, but is concise nonetheless.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrc01.html

I guess we will have to agree to disagree, on the Micro macro terminology, Adaptation is evolution in the sense of maybe a virus becomes immune to a vaccine but that virus will not become a new species of dog over the period of billions of years. Just because we can breed dogs to be big and small, through Mans selective breeding, doesn't mean they will ever become an elephant, no matter how much time we give it. I still think the that there is a terminology breakdown that is mis-leading to the general public.

now check these out Problems with Macro Evolution:

Now we're getting somewhere. Looking at that page it opens up with 5 claims :

OBSERVATION- steps of evolution never observed

I'm going to assume that you will immediatly deny any claims of observation through bacterial and viral evolution as observed in the laboratory so let's focus on Observed Instances of Speciation in higher organisms. If you follow the link you will find several examples of observed speciation in plants, insects, and animals. The claim of no observation is false.

EXPERIMENTATION -The processes would exceed the lifetime of...

read more»

now check these out Problems with Macro Evolution:

Now we're getting somewhere. Looking at that page it opens up with 5 claims :

OBSERVATION- steps of evolution never observed

I'm going to assume that you will immediatly deny any claims of observation through bacterial and viral evolution as observed in the laboratory so let's focus on Observed Instances of Speciation in higher organisms. If you follow the link you will find several examples of observed speciation in plants, insects, and animals. The claim of no observation is false.

EXPERIMENTATION -The processes would exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter

Obviously the first example disproves this claim. Scientists are continually observing speciation (macro evolution) in the laboratory. Some of the examples in the Speciation link describe years being allowed to pass in order to produce very pronounced results.

REPRODUCTION impossible to reproduce in the laboratory.

wrong, Wrong, and WRONG.

FALSIFICATION -cannot be refuted thus outside empirical science.

See above.

Next the article attempts to provide research problems with macroevolution.

ORIGINS - the chance of life originating from inorganic chemical elements by natural means is beyond the realm of possibility

This is NOT evolution. This is abiogenises. This is why we point out to people that they are just ignorant of the science when they make their claims. Even working on the grounds of abiogenesis the claim is still purely speculative. It's an assumption based on preconcieved beliefs as well as a healthy dose of ignorance.

DEVELOPMENT -to produce a new organism from
an existing life-form requires alterations in the genetic material
which are lethal to the organism

Sigh. There are 3 possible outcomes to a genetic mutation : Negative, nuetral, and positive. Ironic that this pie

(cont'd)
Ironic that this link article makes claims that there is no "macro" evolution, but then begins to lay down rules within a macro framework. to make the claim that any changes in genetic structure is ridiculous and simply exposes ones lack of understanding of basic genetics.

STASIS -enzymes in the cell nucleus repair errors in the DNA

Let's hop over to wikipedia again! DNA repair. "The DNA repair ability of a cell is vital to the integrity of its genome ... Failure to correct molecular lesions in cells that form gametes can introduce mutations into the genomes of the offspring and thus influence the rate of evolution....

(cont'd)
Ironic that this link article makes claims that there is no "macro" evolution, but then begins to lay down rules within a macro framework. to make the claim that any changes in genetic structure is ridiculous and simply exposes ones lack of understanding of basic genetics.

STASIS -enzymes in the cell nucleus repair errors in the DNA

Let's hop over to wikipedia again! DNA repair. "The DNA repair ability of a cell is vital to the integrity of its genome ... Failure to correct molecular lesions in cells that form gametes can introduce mutations into the genomes of the offspring and thus influence the rate of evolution."

GEOLOGIC COLUMN -out-of-place artifacts

Kent Hovind arguments? See here.

DESIGN -irreducible complexity within the structure of the cell requires design

Assumption and speculation as well as psuedo science. Here is a link that explains the problems with irreducible complexity.

Anything else you need answered?