Were the Earth and animals, etc, created by random chance?

For those that think that there has been archaeological proof of evolution, there hasn't been. EVERY piece of evidence for evolution has already been proved wrong or could just as easily be wrong. Evolutionary scientists have yet to find any single "missing link", yet according to evolutionary calculations, we should be buried in "missing link" fossils. Should be able to go into my backyard and find ten of them, and then start digging!

For those that think that life can spontaneously happen, consider this: There have been many experiments in highly controlled environments to artificially create amino acids. None of these experiments have ever worked, yet you expect me to believe that it happened, naturally, all on it's own in an unbelievably unstable environment, and than continue on and form life?

For those that believe that evolution is probable, do you know just how probable it really is? Even after denying the very laws of physics the chances of are so incredibly remote, it boggles the mind!

The phrase "to be or not to be" has 18 characters, if we count the spaces as characters. ,. . . At one try per second, it will take poor Charlie [the chimp at a typewriter] more than 1022 years to do that number of tries. Should the open model for the universe be correct, Charlie will still be typing away long after the stars have ceased to shine and all the planets have been dispersed into space through stellar near-collisions.

(Shapiro, Robert. [Professor of Chemistry, New York University], "Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Origin of Life," Summit Books: New York NY, 1986, p.169)

(Poor Charlie, I hate to know what the cost of healthcare would be for such an old chimp!)

Originally Posted by LinkZeldaGanon

For those that think that there has been archaeological proof of evolution, there hasn't been. EVERY piece of evidence for evolution has already been proved wrong or could just as easily be wrong.

Examples?

Evolutionary scientists have yet to find any single "missing link", yet according to evolutionary calculations, we should be buried in "missing link" fossils. Should be able to go into my backyard and find ten of them, and then start digging!

Actually, every fossil found is a missing link. On top of that, evolution makes no such claim since fossils take very specific conditions to form. Besides, in order for every single generation of every animal to be preserved (which is what you're asking for) the Earth's crust would have to be 10x as thick as it is now and be made of nothing but fossils.

For those that think that life can spontaneously happen, consider this: There have been many experiments in highly controlled environments to artificially create amino acids. None of these experiments have ever worked, yet you expect me to believe that it happened, naturally, all on it's own in an unbelievably unstable environment, and than continue on and form life?

Actually, there have been many experiments, and all of them worked. Take the Urey-Miller experiment for example, the first one, it worked perfectly.

For those that believe that evolution is probable, do you know just how probable it really is? Even after denying the very laws of physics the chances of are so incredibly remote, it boggles the mind!

The laws of physics have nothing to do with it.

(Poor Charlie, I hate to know what the cost of healthcare would be for such an old chimp!)

And the connection would be...?

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Examples?

OK, how about these? I learned about them before I was even in 9th grade.

Java Man was named from skull fragments of a gibbon found in 1891 by Dutch physician, Eugene Dubois. Fifty feet away were found other bone fragments of a human. They put them together and gave it the name of Java Man. A decade before he died, Dubois admitted that Java man appeared to be nothing more than a large gibbon. Piltdown Man. Bone fragments found in 1912 were thought to be that of a cave man. Scientists were fooled by alterations someone had done to the bones to make them appear older. After testing in 1953 it was admitted that the skull was human to which someone had attached the jaw of an orangutan. Peking Man. Dr. Davidson Black discovered some teeth and bone fragments in a cave. Though he classified it as a possible “missing link” his bone fragments and 147 teeth he found have all disappeared. Therefore, they are no longer available for examination. However, in the same cave there were also found many more human skulls which presents a dating problem for Peking man being the ancient “the missing link.” Other scientists have claimed to have found the link between primate and humans, but not one of them has been able to pass the test of approval under scientific scrutiny. Dr. Lyall Watson, an evolutionist, stated that the fossil record does not support evolution:

At least a few honest ones of their number will speak frankly about the lack of evidence. Quite frankly, we need more admissions of this type in books that the public school use.

Source

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Actually, every fossil found is a missing link.

Like you said, "Examples?"

Originally Posted by GDwarf

On top of that, evolution makes no such claim since fossils take very specific conditions to form. Besides, in order for every single generation of every animal to be preserved (which is what you're asking for) the Earth's crust would have to be 10x as thick as it is now and be made of nothing but fossils.

I'm not asking for millions of fossils, evolution is. All I want is one, single, little "missing link". In fact your "10x crust thickness" only helps my case. There has to be more than what there is for evolution to be true.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Actually, there have been many experiments, and all of them worked. Take the Urey-Miller experiment for example, the first one, it worked perfectly.

Whoops! OK, I messed-up. It wasn't amino acids, it was cell parts. I can't remember exactly, but I've read about experiments where scientists have attempted to artificially create cell parts or take apart a cell, then put it back together again. The point was to prove whether or of not cells could even be created at the hands of man (let alone by itself). All of these experiment met with failure.

The fundamental laws of science contradict this basic evolutionary premise. The fundamental law of biology is the Law of Biogenesis. This scientific law upholds that all life must come from preceding life, and that of its kind. Science teaches that life does not come from nonliving matter. Dr. Lazzaro Spallanzani and Louis Pasteur proved in the middle of the eighteenth century that the concept of “spontaneous generation” was indeed false. Dr. Pasteur in his “victory speech” to the French Academy of Science stated, “The theory of spontaneous generation will never recover from the mortal blow dealt it by this simple experiment.” The experiment of which he spoke proved the formerly held theory of spontaneous generation false.

Source

Please, LinkZeldaGanon, that "source" you gave us was incredibly biased and expected from someone that criticized the credibility of the evolution theory. As stated in words so obvious in large text at the beginning of that "source" you've given us, Richard Massey is a Christian and has been teaching in the Brown Trail School of Preaching. I don't think I need to explain to you how influencial this word - "preaching" - can be on a controversial debate such as this. A preacher can find every single little link to his or her theory of Creation and manipulate them to his or her favor. Not to mention that Massey immediately proved that he wrote this "source" in a way to completely discredit theory of evolution with his first starting sentence containing the word: "hoax" and stated it as a-matter-of-factly. I hardly find this "source" even persuasive at all.

Please find a better, less subjective and biased source to back up your arguments.

Originally Posted by Lone Wolf

Please find a better, less subjective and biased source to back up your arguments.

He's correct. Although I can't be sure of the validity of the information you gave us, LinkZeldaGanon, it was written by a biased source, which means that - even if the information is correct - it can't be used to change the way we look at the subject.

And I'm curious about something. If you're using lack of evidence to combat the theory of evolution, how can you honestly support the theory of creationism? Even with some people who debate the possibility of spontaneous life, at least the theory of evolution is based on scientific facts.

The belief that a divine being created the universe has pretty much no support. There was a big book written a long time ago which claimed that its content was absolute fact. I could write a book equally a large, create my own religion, state that everything in the book was fact, and then my created religion would basically be as valid as christianity.

Granted, I'd probably need to learn Hebrew .

Originally Posted by Lone Wolf

Please, LinkZeldaGanon, that "source" you gave us was incredibly biased and expected from someone that criticized the credibility of the evolution theory. As stated in words so obvious in large text at the beginning of that "source" you've given us, Richard Massey is a Christian and has been teaching in the Brown Trail School of Preaching. I don't think I need to explain to you how influencial this word - "preaching" - can be on a controversial debate such as this. A preacher can find every single little link to his or her theory of Creation and manipulate them to his or her favor. Not to mention that Massey immediately proved that he wrote this "source" in a way to completely discredit theory of evolution with his first starting sentence containing the word: "hoax" and stated it as a-matter-of-factly. I hardly find this "source" even persuasive at all.

Please find a better, less subjective and biased source to back up your arguments.

Fine, point taken. I only gave the source link so that I wouldn't have to dear with arguments that I didn't have a source.

However, I don't like you calling Christians liars, which is basically what you did. Of course the facts I presented were biased (it's impossible to be fully neutral), but they were facts all the same. Not only that, but give me one single source that contains evidence of evolution that isn't biased toward evolution. You can't, can you? You have no right to be calling Creationists "manipulators", when the same can be said for Evolutionists.

Edit:

Originally Posted by Aerixeth

He's correct. Although I can't be sure of the validity of the information you gave us, LinkZeldaGanon, it was written by a biased source, which means that - even if the information is correct - it can't be used to change the way we look at the subject.

And I'm curious about something. If you're using lack of evidence to combat the theory of evolution, how can you honestly support the theory of creationism? Even with some people who debate the possibility of spontaneous life, at least the theory of evolution is based on scientific facts.

The belief that a divine being created the universe has pretty much no support. There was a big book written a long time ago which claimed that its content was absolute fact. I could write a book equally a large, create my own religion, state that everything in the book was fact, and then my created religion would basically be as valid as christianity.

Granted, I'd probably need to learn Hebrew .

No, there is no scientific proof for Creationism, but there is no scientific proof for evolution, either. The difference is, evolution has evidence stacked against it, while I've never heard a single shred of evidence against Creationism.

As for creating your own religion, go for it! Make millions! After thousands of years, future generations can compare the validity of your simple little cult, next to the Bible, which has already stood the tests of time.

Originally Posted by LinkZeldaGanon

As for creating your own religion, go for it! Make millions! After thousands of years, future generations can compare the validity of your simple little cult, next to the Bible, which has already stood the tests of time.

You misunderstood my point. People wouldn't have to consider the religion correct in order for it to be just as valid as christianity. You see, christianity, as far as I know, is based on the bible. The belief in the christian god comes from the bible. It was a book; words on paper. Now, why, I ask you, would the bible be any more valid an explanation for the creation of the universe than the book I might write about my religion?

If the bible had never been written, we wouldn't be having this argument. Perhaps we would, but you'd be arguing in favor of some other religion, and not christianity.

Originally Posted by LinkZeldaGanon

However, I don't like you calling Christians liars, which is basically what you did. Of course the facts I presented were biased (it's impossible to be fully neutral), but they were facts all the same. Not only that, but give me one single source that contains evidence of evolution that isn't biased toward evolution. You can't, can you? You have no right to be calling Creationists "manipulators", when the same can be said for Evolutionists.

Take it how you want. You can interpret my post as calling Christians liars, or you can take my post as stating how Christians can manipulate scientific theories and certain facts. Amazingly, throughout my three years in ZU, I've seen Christians calling evolutionists, or at least implied, as "insane, fake, illogical" and the such. In a debate such as this, it's all fair game. If you can't take the comment of my post without feeling the need to defend your position as a Christian in the situation of "being called as a liar" (which nowhere in my post have I stated as such), then perhaps you are not cut-out for this type of discussion at all.

If an evidence of evolution is an evidence of evolution, then it is directed toward evolution. I have no idea what you are talking about or trying to say here. And amazingly, most of the evolution theories have been proven by fossil and biological records, of which you can search either online, in the library, or even in school textbooks (biology courses), if you want their credibilities.

So with this, I can say: "yes, I can".

And to be honest, some Christian Fundamentalists are manipulators. They can interpret the Bible in a radical way. They can try and force people to believe what they believe in. They can also ignore all the evidences and facts thrown at them with credible sources and still claim they are right using some unbelievable logic to bend everything in their favor.

I have friends who are Christians and I have no problem with that. But I do have a problem with you directing that comment to me like so, which, I wasn't expecting such reply from you other than: "Gee... fine, it was biased" or "it wasn't biased at all".

I personally think that something or someone like god created us. I beleive there's a combination in evolution and creation. That's all I have to tell you guys. There's no and never will be an explanation of how things work.

PS: GDwarf will probably quote my post and give me a sarcastic remark. Well go ahead cauz I really don't care.

Originally Posted by GDwarf

Once again, the burden of proof is on you, not me.

Burden of proof from what I understand the burden of proof is placed on those making some sort of statment. In this case it would be about the existance of spirites. However I made no such statement anywwheres in my post I simply asked why are you aloud to disprove something without proof anymore then you can prove something without proof. Without proof the existance of spirites lives in ones own opinion but in the matter of reality it should not be stated yes or no because there is no evidence either way. I am not saying they exist I am saying we dont know if they exist.

(A little late yes I know but I was busy sleeping so sue me)

Originally Posted by Puck the Trickster

Burden of proof from what I understand the burden of proof is placed on those making some sort of statment. In this case it would be about the existance of spirites. However I made no such statement anywwheres in my post I simply asked why are you aloud to disprove something without proof anymore then you can prove something without proof. Without proof the existance of spirites lives in ones own opinion but in the matter of reality it should not be stated yes or no because there is no evidence either way. I am not saying they exist I am saying we dont know if they exist.

(A little late yes I know but I was busy sleeping so sue me)

What GDwarf was trying to say, I believe, is that it is up to those who claim that spirits exist to prove such, not those who dispute the claim. This makes sense, after all, as he already pointed out.

I don't think that my younger brother is a vicious alien from Mars, but if my cousin were to suddenly accuse him of this, then it would be his job to prove this, and not mine to prove otherwise. If he could not do so, then people would go on assuming that he was a human, and not an alien from Mars.

It's the same thing here.

Originally Posted by LinkZeldaGanon

OK, how about these? I learned about them before I was even in 9th grade.

Plitdown man was found to be a hoax because he went against what evolution predicted.

As for apes, I don't know much about their fossil history, but I do know that every stage of development from our common ancestor with apes all the way to what we are now has been traced.

Like you said, "Examples?"

A missing link, as you use the term, is essentially a step between two different species, correct? Well since every fossil is that of a creature that's between two species it must be so.

I'm not asking for millions of fossils, evolution is. All I want is one, single, little "missing link".

No, you don't want one 'missing link', if I give you that you'll want the two on either side of it. However, please explain neanderthal man, Australopithecus, Trilobites, and archaeopteryx.

In fact your "10x crust thickness" only helps my case. There has to be more than what there is for evolution to be true.

Not at all. Tell me, do you believe in gravity? Do you believe that if we went to Pluto gravity would act the same there? Why? I mean, we aren't monitoring every single place in space all the time to determine if gravity is the same there, so we must conclude that the entire theory is wrong and throw it out! Or, at least, that's what you seem to be saying.

Whoops! OK, I messed-up. It wasn't amino acids, it was cell parts.

Which took millions of years to form, so I'm not surprised that they don't just appear in labs.

Oh, and you didn't read my post, did you? Pasteur's experiments have nothing to do with the theory of abiogenesis. What he showed was this: That maggots don't come from meat. He did not show that replicating molecules can't come from other replicating molecules. It's a favourite tactic of the creationists who know better to purposely lie about what his experiment was to try and prove evolution wrong. Yes, they lie about it. Most of them have a very large axe to grind and don't care at all about morals. All they 'know' is that if evolution catches on then they can't use their fundamentalist viewpoint to support their bigotry and so they lie about it and twist facts.

Originally Posted by LinkZeldaGanon

Fine, point taken. I only gave the source link so that I wouldn't have to dear with arguments that I didn't have a source.

However, I don't like you calling Christians liars, which is basically what you did.

Not Christians in general, only those ones.

Of course the facts I presented were biased (it's impossible to be fully neutral), but they were facts all the same.

Actually, no, most of those 'facts' are made up or taken out of context.

No, there is no scientific proof for Creationism, but there is no scientific proof for evolution, either. The difference is, evolution has evidence stacked against it, while I've never heard a single shred of evidence against Creationism.

Did you not read my earlier post? Genetics proves evolution, the fossil record proves it, it makes predictions that have been found to be correct. What, exactly, do you want it to do?

As for creating your own religion, go for it! Make millions! After thousands of years, future generations can compare the validity of your simple little cult, next to the Bible, which has already stood the tests of time.

Time has nothing to do with how valid a viewpoint is.

Originally Posted by Darmani`s Ghost

I personally think that something or someone like god created us. I beleive there's a combination in evolution and creation. That's all I have to tell you guys. There's no and never will be an explanation of how things work.

PS: GDwarf will probably quote my post and give me a sarcastic remark. Well go ahead cauz I really don't care.

I can be sarcastic at times, but it's usually not my intent.

Anywho, if we can never know things then why bother looking? Do you support the destruction of science? The closing of schools? After all, if we can never know...

Originally Posted by Puck the Trickster

Burden of proof from what I understand the burden of proof is placed on those making some sort of statment.

The burden is on whoever is trying to prove something true.
If you ignore it and accept everything that hasn't been explicitly proven wrong then you get nonsense like I used earlier (Either in this thread or the spirits one.) You suddenly have to believe everything.

(Sigh) I don't know why I bother. I should have leaned my lesson back at the Timeline Theories section. There is no point in debating. Each side has already made-up their minds. My dad once told me that he debated with someone once about Christianity. After my dad had laid down a mountain of evidence against the other guy's claims, this guy said, "You know, you're probably the smartest Christian I have ever met, but I still don't believe it." That's what happening here. Those opposed to my beliefs had been bred and grown in the teachings of evolution. No matter what I say, they will never bend. I lost this battle before I even made my first post.

I know I'm right, but at the same time, you know you're right. I can't scientifically prove Creationism to be true, yet you can't scientifically prove evolution is true. At this point, the debate has degraded to the point of calling each other liars and twisters of truth, and I tire of this. It's no wonder I haven't seen LionHarted around here lately.

Lastly, all I ask is this, check-out the book or DVD called The Privileged Planet. I saw the DVD, and I'll tell you that it's just a simple presentation of facts. It is biased, because it is attempting to show that evolution is impossible. However, it doesn't try to stuff Christianity down your throats, either. In the end, you draw your own conclusion. As I said, it's just a simple presentation of facts.

Even so, after looking at all the evidence on both sides of the table, it is up to the individual to believe in which theory he wants. It all comes down to the heart, not the mind. Which theory will you believe?

Originally Posted by LinkZeldaGanon

I know I'm right, but at the same time, you know you're right. I can't scientifically prove Creationism to be true, yet you can't scientifically prove evolution is true.

No, see, evolution has been proven scientifically, that's why scientists believe it. I also wasn't calling you a liar or claimed that you twisted the truth, I was saying that your sources did, because they actually do lie and twist facts. Look at what you put about Pasteur and what he actually did. Look at their claims about transition fossils and what the truth actually is. I was not throwing out insults to try and stop the debate, I was saying facts about them. I admit it, my intent was to make you question them, but I want you to question them because of the devious and underhanded tactics they use, not because I can insult them.

Even so, after looking at all the evidence on both sides of the table, it is up to the individual to believe in which theory he wants. It all comes down to the heart, not the mind. Which theory will you believe?

I get tired of repeating this: Reality doesn't have to follow what you believe. This is not a matter of opinion, this is a matter of truth. You may brush it aside, but the orchestrated attack on evolution that's been going on has, by several of the people leading it, in fact, been called the first step to destroying science and putting up a new, 'faith-based', institution in it's place. I doubt they'll succeed, but it's still a scary claim. No matter what your opinion you can't just throw this away as a matter of belief, evolution is a fact and to call it otherwise without proof is to take the first step towards another dark age when all that mattered was what the Pope said, even if he was wrong.

Originally Posted by LinkZeldaGanon

At this point, the debate has degraded to the point of calling each other liars and twisters of truth, and I tire of this.

See, the problem is that you started the whole idea of "liars" the moment I told you that some Christians, especially that source you gave us, could be twisting things around in their favors. Never have I once stated Christians as liars, you did.

In addition, so far, of all the "facts and evidences" I've seen from people who believe in Creationism were all from either biased Christian sites, or from the Bible which was occasionally interpreted wrongly, or from just the mere opinions of individuals.

And like GDwarf said, there were enough solid evidences given for the evolution theory.

The main problem right now isn't about who's a liar and who's not, but who can see the reality and who cannot. In the end, seriously, it's common sense and logic. Some of the fundamentalists definitely lack this common sense and logic.

Did you even read my post? I'm not trying to argue about it anymore, yet you continue on. Are you so desperate to prove that you're right that have to have the last word? Take what I said however you want. I know what I said, I know what I believe, and I'm done futilely arguing about it. We could debate Creation vs. Evolution until the end of time, but it will do no good. In then end it all comes down to a simple question:

Do you believe that there is some sort of god who created everything and has the power and the right to judge you?
I do, and if you don't, fine. That's all.

Originally Posted by LinkZeldaGanon

(Sigh) I don't know why I bother. I should have leaned my lesson back at the Timeline Theories section. There is no point in debating. Each side has already made-up their minds. My dad once told me that he debated with someone once about Christianity. After my dad had laid down a mountain of evidence against the other guy's claims, this guy said, "You know, you're probably the smartest Christian I have ever met, but I still don't believe it." That's what happening here. Those opposed to my beliefs had been bred and grown in the teachings of evolution. No matter what I say, they will never bend. I lost this battle before I even made my first post.

Sorry, but nobody's bending because you have yet to present a good case. Not because we're stubborn. Yes, it's very easy to just blame the other side, but I always try to avoid accusing my opponents of doing this because it's never going to change anything. The point of debating is to learn. Even if you don't change opinions, you learn something. From what I've read, you have a lot to learn about evolution, and until you build up the patience to deal with those with differing opinions, you'll never really understand where we're coming from. I've built up an understanding of how creationists think. I've debated just about every creationist at ZU ever since a couple years ago. Just do a search with "Mad Hatter" and "Evolution." I've gotten to learn pretty much every argument by heart now, and at my university, I attended a creationist lecture a few months ago. I stood up in the Q&A session after, and refuted every single point he made about evolution. It was easy, because I've heard all of his arguments over and over again, and after pointing out all his fallacies, he shut up, and we agreed to disagree. I've taken it easy these days, and GDwarf is carrying the torch now. He's a good man. Why am I telling you this? Because I think you need to build up your patience the same way. Don't take the easy way out with your Ad Hominems and, "you'll never change" comments. Enlighten us, and we'll enlighten you. If, after many debates, you still believe strongly in creationism, you will be prepared, and you will be familiar with the arguments for evolution, and you will be able to refute them (if they are false).

I know I'm right, but at the same time, you know you're right. I can't scientifically prove Creationism to be true, yet you can't scientifically prove evolution is true. At this point, the debate has degraded to the point of calling each other liars and twisters of truth, and I tire of this. It's no wonder I haven't seen LionHarted around here lately.

You don't know you're right. I don't know I'm right. I've been wrong plenty of times, and I'm sure you have too. I'm perfectly willing to give up any belief I've ever had (and in the past, I've given up many strong beliefs). I simply accept evolution as the most plausible (and NOT the most intuitive) explanation out there.

Even so, after looking at all the evidence on both sides of the table, it is up to the individual to believe in which theory he wants. It all comes down to the heart, not the mind. Which theory will you believe?

No. It comes down to the mind. I will believe whichever side has the most evidence. I have not seen much evidence for creationism, even after reading most of the articles on Answers In Genesis. I've watched many of Kent Hovind's videos and debates (who's now being arrested for tax evasion, after complaining that his hard earned tax money is going towards teaching evolution...). Still, I have seen no valid evidence.


I encourage you to check out some of the compilations of evidence for evolution, such as this.




As you'll notice (Pay attention here. Your earlier arguments show that you don't yet grasp this), evolution is not the result of one piece of evidence. I can't look at a fossil and say, "AHA! Evolution!" Evolution is the result of a stunning convergence of evidence. Our fossil record alone (check that previous link if you honestly don't think there's a big fossil record) shows this convergence in many ways. As we arrange our fossils in order of height in the strata, we can construct a line of descent. Of course, the exact same line of descent is constructed by carbon dating the fossils. It can also be constructed by examining the locations around the world in which the fossils were found. Now in addition to this, we can arrive at this line of descent without fossils. We have structural homologies that are predicted by this line. We also have chemical homologies, DNA homologies, mitochondrial DNA, and much more. If ANY single one of these pointed to a different line of descent, evolution would be proven false. But we haven't found one. If there were one, it should be pretty easy to find. Just find a transitional fossil between fish and sea mammals, or something similar. You'll notice there are none. Every transitional fossil fits perfectly with evolution's predicted line of descent.

THIS is why I believe evolution has occured. Not because of suboptimality, not because of single specimens, and not because of vestiges. It's because every piece of the puzzle fits together perfectly. Of course we haven't solved the puzzle yet. Evolution hasn't answered every question out there, and we shouldn't expect it to. But the more we discover, the more pieces fall into place, and they all lead to the same line of descent.

Now after reading my post, please go back and read some of that article I linked to. I know it's long, but it's a good read. Keep in mind that the evidences on their own are not magical irrefutable proof for evolution. The real evidence lies in the fact that they all uncoincidentally converge.

Originally Posted by LinkZeldaGanon

Are you so desperate to prove that you're right that have to have the last word?

I'm more like: "Trying to correct your faulty accusations of tellings others that I or someone else in this thread is calling Christians a 'liar'". You can't see that, can you? Nope.

Originally Posted by LinkZeldaGanon

Did you even read my post? I'm not trying to argue about it anymore, yet you continue on.

I pointed out why I continue.

Take what I said however you want. I know what I said, I know what I believe, and I'm done futilely arguing about it. We could debate Creation vs. Evolution until the end of time, but it will do no good. In then end it all comes down to a simple question:

Do you believe that there is some sort of god who created everything and has the power and the right to judge you?
I do, and if you don't, fine. That's all.

I know many Christians who have no problems with evolution. So that is obviously not the question.

The question is: What is the truth of this issue? What is correct? I'm not willing to try and find a middle ground about this truth unless you can give me evidence. I'm also not willing to simply stop a debate without a resolution, although it's happened before simply because everyone leaves.

There is a reason to keep arguing this, and it's not because I get an ego-boost from debating. It's because I'm trying to educate you, and because I honestly do want to know what the truth is here, if you do have evidence then show it, you never know, it might be capable of overthrowing all of biology. If you want to know what the truth is, not just what you want to think it is, then you should keep debating, or at least read books by biologists on Evolution, I highly recommend anything written by Richard Dawkins.

(Sigh) As I said, I've stated my beliefs and that is all. I'm not saying that truth changes depending on what you believe, on the contrary, I believe truth is set in stone before man even considers it.

As for evidence, I presented my case to the best of my abilities. I may not know everything (to know everything is to be God), but just because I may not be able to answer all of your statements, that does not mean that I'm wrong. Besides, what difference does it make? If I refute your claims, you'll just restate your claims and say that I'm wrong. That's why I say, it's up to the individual to decide for himself. That does not mean that truth is variable. What I mean is that it is up to the individual to decide what he will believe.

As for enlightenment, (this may sound arrogant, but I can't help it) thank you, but no thank you. I get all the enlightenment I will ever need from God's Word. I do not need humanistic ideas to cloud my mind. I have already chosen what I want to believe, and so have you. With each of us, we have already dug our roots too deep in our beliefs that we cannot be moved.

I've already stopped my "Creationism is true!" preaching a few posts ago. Could you maybe do the same and stop your "Evolution is true!" preaching?