Uhhh.. no actually they are critical thinkers. We have found similarities between apes and humans, doesn't mean we're actually related. Humans have 46 chromosomes and apes have 48, tobacco also has 48. Chickens and dogs have the same number of chromosomes. The similarities point to a common designer not a common ancestor. You have no idea how many lies have been covered up by evolutionists to protect that theory, it's literally only surviving on tax dollars. A variation of a species within the kinds of animals happen (dog, wolf, coyote are the same kind, but different species), that's just a variation. Evolutionists call it micro-evolution, it's not. Then they expect this evidence to be enough to support the theory that animals evolve into different kinds, that has been been observed tested or demonstrated. It's not science, and has not been proven. You sir, have been brainwashed if you blindly believe what they as Evolution to be fact, it's fiction.

It'd also be easier if we discussed these topics one at a time & in a format that makes it easier to continue a conversation.


Feel free to shoot me an email - stepho_alan@ yahoo.com

Unless you're afraid of being totally & irrevocably proven wrong that is.
If that's the case, I understand. It's common for fearful people avoid situations where they may be forced to admit that they were wrong.


Can't wait for that email.

Wow. Everything you said was literally incorrect. Lets pick through this shall we.

"Humans have 46 chromosomes and apes have 48"
- Because our 23rd chromosome is the result of a direct fusion between 2 ape chromosomes. As explained by Dr. Kenneth Miller here: http://www.youtube(DOT)com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
It's less about the number of chromosomes & more about the TYPE of chromosome.

FYI - Humans having the same chromosomes as other apes = slam dunk for evolutionary theory. You have ape chromosomes in your DNA. That's irrefutable. Deal with it.


"similarities point to a common designer not a common ancestor"
- No. That's called comparative anatomy & it's a legitimate branch of science, a branch of science in favor of the theory of evolution - not I.D. As it turns out, there is no REAL evidence in favor of design, anywhere.


"Evolutionists call it micro-evolution"
- Evolutionary theory says nothing about micro vs macro evolution. Those are creationist terms used to accept only half of the theory.


"that's just a variation"
- What do you call variation over hundreds of millions of years? How much does something have to continue varying before it becomes something entirely different? Eventually, it will become a new species. Once you admit that life changes over time, you can't put your own limits on what it may or may not change into.


"It's not science, and has not been proven"
- All scientific theories are facts.

If you could somehow irrefutably prove that the universe was under 10,000 years old, then I'd be hearing about it on every news station right now.

I'm watching the news.

I don't see you.




What does that tell you?

(But go ahead and try to "prove" it anyways.) This'll be funny.

Light happens: Fact.
How light happens: Theory.
= The Photon Theory of Light Energy.

Gravity happens: Fact.
How gravity happens: Theory.
= The Theory of Gravity.

Molecules bond: Fact.
How molecules bond: Theory.
= The Theory of Molecular Bonds.

Evolution happens: Fact.
How evolution happens: Theory.
= The Theory of Evolution.

That's a strawmen agrument, you evolutionists use it all the time. Since other theories have been proven right, you think therefore that all scientific theories are right, in this case, evolution.

http://www.barr-family.com/godsword/old.htm

1) There's no such thing as an "evolutionist." You wouldn't call me a "gravityist" or a "gravitationalist" for accepting the theory of gravity.

2) As a matter of fact, just the opposite. It's logically fallacious for you to accept every theory of science EXCEPT for the ones that contradict your biased & preconceived notions based upon your religion. Science is one universal methodology. The same scientific method we use to understand evolution & the big bang, we also use to understand everything else, for example, the computer you're reading this on right now.

I never said that I only accept (not believe) evolution because of other theories.

I accept evolution because of the overwhelming amount of evidence in favor of evolution.

List of evidences for evolution:

* Virology
* Homology
* Embryology
* Immunology
* Geneaology
* Bacteriology
* Biochemistry
* Bio-geography
* Fossil Record
* Molecular biology
* Comparative Anatomy
* Chromosomal fusions & fissions
* Biology (including vestigial and atavistic organs)
* Evolution has been reproduced in the lab & documented in nature.

Ok now you're either llorting or just plain stupid. I hope you're llorting, because stupidity is forever. Are you actually using embryology as an evidence for evolution? That's been proven wrong, a fraud, 150 years ago. The guy who made the sketches of the photos even admitted it, yet they are still used in today's textbooks all over the world. It's sad knowing how deeply evolutionists need to hold on to a belief so that they can shield themselves from God. The human embryo does not have "gill slits", those are tissues that grow to be the glands of the throat. This has been know for a LONG time. No animal has vestigal organs either. Most commonly used examples: human tailbone, "leg" bones in a snake, "used to be leg" bones in a whale, the human appendix. ALL of those currently have a function, and NONE of those are evidence for evolution, yet they are still taught today to be evidences for it. The human tailbone attaches to several muscles to help you do some very valuable functions, and if you don't believe it, I'll actually pay for your surgery to have yours removed. The "leg" bones in a snake aren't evidence of legs, the snake needs those for mating to hold it's mate. Whale "leg" bones, again are used in reproduction, it has nothing to do with walking on land. The human appendix is part of the immune system, this has been known for a very long time as well. You can live without it, true, but that doesn't mean you don't need it, you'll just be much more vulnerable to diseases. You live without both your legs, arms, eyes, ears, etc also, it doesn't prove you don't need them.

Please explain to me how you can get life from non living material please?

"Are you actually using embryology as an evidence for evolution? That's been proven wrong, a fraud, 150 years ago"
- That means you're 150 years behind on evolutionary theory. What makes you think we rely on a SINGLE piece of evidence from over a century ago? Did you think that we had made no further advances with our more sophisticated technology? LOL

"The human embryo does not have "gill slits"
- I never said anything about gill slits. Embryology is an evidence because nearly all embryos of different species in the same Class (e.g., mammals) often have very similar embryos, even if the adult forms are quite different.

"evolutionists need to hold on to a belief so that they can shield themselves from God"
- Evolution & theism are not mutually exclusive. There are theists who accept evolution & there are theists who do not. There are atheists who accept evolution & there are atheists who do not. The two are non-comparable.

"Most commonly used examples: human tailbone, "leg" bones in a snake, "used to be leg" bones in a whale, the human appendix. ALL of those currently have a function, and NONE of those are evidence for evolution, yet they are still taught today to be evidences for it. The human tailbone attaches to several muscles to help you do some very valuable functions, and if you don't believe it, I'll actually pay for your surgery to have yours removed. The "leg" bones in a snake aren't evidence of legs, the snake needs those for mating to hold it's mate. Whale "leg" bones, again are used in reproduction, it has nothing to do with walking on land. The human appendix is part of the immune system, this has been known for a very long time as well."
- All of this was so laughable & full of loosely arguable, vague interpretations, I almost feel bad for you.

"Please explain to me how you can get life from non living material please?"
- Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. So, how is this relevant?

As for the "laughable" arguments, please explain why. I'd love to be full of "knowledge" like you are.

Seeing as I didn't get an answer from you on the life from non-living material, I'm guessing you don't know.

Laughable part when I get back home from work (Only have a few minutes in the mornings.)

Evolution is the change of life over time.
ABIOGENESIS is the theory dealing with the origin of life.

They're two completely different theories. Creationists confuse confuse theories all the time. I love it when creationists pull lines like "evolution isn't true because an explosion can't create order (referring to the big bang.)

If you want to know about abiogenesis, look up the Urey-Miller experiment.

Also, I call argument from ignorance.

*You don't know where life came from.
*Therefore, God did it.

It wouldn't matter if I didn't know, it doesn't make your position automatically correct. You still have to prove creation. Then you still have to prove that it was YOUR god who did the creating.

Did you take a look at Kenneth Millers slam dunk findings for evolutionary theory? What are your thoughts? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

Lol you're funny, good one.

My position isn't "I don't know where it came from, therefore God did it". I actually look at the design and detail at everything around me, and it is CLEAR that there is a God, just like stated in the Bible. The evidence is all around us. If you want to believe that a complete accident created this much order that isn't even comprehensible, you go ahead and do that. Let me warn you though, you are pulling at empty strings here, you are hoping for something against the obvious answer, against logic, against scripture and against science. The funniest part is, you guys try to make it seem like it's logical to NOT believe in God, when really it's the complete opposite. There is tons of evidence that the Earth is under 10,000 years old, yet you keep stressing that evolution happens over a very long period of time. I just trumped your evolution theory, and you can't even see it. The only reason you guys deny God is because of your lust for earthly things, and if you start to believe in God that means you can't do those things. Just like stated in the Bible...

2 Peter 3:3 - "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts"

Ok then. If you think you can do better than the men & women who argued (and lost, I might add) the judicial case for intelligent design, then please, answer this question.

What is your strongest piece of evidence in favor of creationism?

I say strongest piece because it's better to discuss one topic at a time; so please, pick one.

The fact that it's a complete impossibility without a creator. It's as simple as that. You look at a painting, you conclude there was a painter, even though you see nobody around. You see a builder, you conclude there was a builder, even though none are present. Logic tells you that things have design and were built for a purpose. The most complicated things in the universe are the human eye and brain, and you are telling me that it's logical to think that they simply magically came into existence from chemicals you can't explain how they got there. You expect me to believe that Life actually started from non-living material (which has never been proven can happen), and you expect me to believe that random genetic mutations actually helped those organisms (even though all science proves that mutations are deadly in the long run), and there are is no evidence of a beneficial mutation. If, at any time a group of intelligent scientists, get together in a lab and create life, all it proves it, it takes intelligence to create life! Even we as the smartest "species" on the planet cannot even begin to imagine how life can be formed from non-living material, and you expect me to take it on faith that it happened on it's own, and worst of all you expect me to believe that it's supposed to be scientific? You have no idea how much faith you are putting in your belief, way more than I'm putting into mine.

http://www.gennet.org/facts/metro10.html

Please, pick a single topic. It's near impossible to have a conversation where all we can do is quote & answer 8 avenues of conversation one sentence at a time. Literally every "evidence" you gave was argument from ignorance, or down right intellectually dishonest.

The human eye/brain is complex - therefore it was created.
- Argument from ignorance. Would you like to discuss this topic?

"chemicals you can't explain how they got there"
- Yeah. We can. Is that the topic you'd like to discuss? Where matter came from?

"even though all science proves that mutations are deadly in the long run"
- This is blatantly false.

"and there are is no evidence of a beneficial mutation"
- False.

"cannot even begin to imagine how life can be formed from non-living material"
- False.

"You look at a painting, you conclude there was a painter, even though you see nobody around. You see a builder, you conclude there was a builder, even though none are present."
- Yes, of course there was a beginning. But you're entire argument is going off of the unproven assumption that that beginning was a BEING, rather than a natural process.

"human eye and brain, and you are telling me that it's logical to think that they simply magically came into existence"
- It's funny because that's exactly what you're telling me LOL!

Pick ONE topic please.
I repeat, Pick ONE topic.

This is why the case for I.D. lost in court.

Because there is no evidence for intelligent design. Eventually you're going to have to admit that it's faith based; not evidence based.

It's religion vs religion, not science versus religion. I have accepted that it's faith based, if you could explain God with science, he wouldn't really be God. You, on the other hand, are you arrogant to accept the fact that every "piece of evidence" that has been portrayed as proof for evolution has either been disputed, or shown to be a lie.

I'm not telling you the eye and brain magically came into existence, I'm telling you there was a designer, an intelligent one, are you even paying attention?

Then please, dispute chromosome 23. Do it. I dare you to try. I double dog dare you.

"I'm telling you there was a designer, an intelligent one"
- Then prove it. All you're saying is "Just look at how complex they are." Which is a textbook example of argument from ignorance.

Evolution explains how the eye & brain formed, but even if it didn't (which it does,) it wouldn't automatically make your argument right. It would just mean that we don't know.

Religious logic:
"I don't know -> God did it."

Conventional logic:
"I don't know - > I don't know."

Religious logic:
"Living things obviously have design, there must have been a designer" = normal logic

Evolutionist logic:
"Well it's obvious things have design and are extremely complex, but we have to rule out anything that is supernatural or that can live outside of the laws of time, space and matter. Even if it makes no sense, has no proof and goes against several universal laws, we have to believe it and teach it as fact because otherwise that would mean we believe in a creator. That means there are rules, and we don't like that" - stupid logic

The only problem with that is that there isn't any evidence for a designer.

So lets try this again.

Give me your single (Keyword: SINGLE) strongest piece of evidence, that you feel is in favor of creation.

Lol since you're considering my belief a religion, and yours "scientific", shouldn't you be the one showing an awesome piece of evidence for evolution? I mean, I'm not telling tax payers to cough up money so I can teach MY religion in the public schools, that's what you're doing. So the burden of proof wouldn't be on me, it would be on your. Please show your best piece of evidence for evolution, and please don't insult me by showing the lies that I've already refuted.