Staredit Network

If there's already a thread like this, then my bad. But if not, let's enjoy and discuss. This has been bugging me for a while now, about why creationists want creation to be taught in schools. Well, as a life-long evolution advocate I'd like to start us off.

Understanding evolution requires a lot of common sense. Some of the challenges to it are quite literally lacking in that regard. My favorite one is the "improabability factor", when a creationist states that it's so unlikely that we could evolve to become what we are that evolution is impossible. To explain that, just have them draw cards from a deck.

Start it like this - the odds of drawing one particular card are 1 in 52. Then draw another card - the odds are now one in 51. But, the odds of drawing those two cards together are 1/52 * 1/51, or 1/2,562. The odds of drawing the next card are 1/132,600. The odds of drawing the next are 1/6,497,400. Next is 1/311,875,200. See where I'm going? Let's not stop now! If we go through the whole deck, the odds of us drawing the cards in that particular order are 1/(8.06581752 × 10E67). But that doesn't mean that there was no possible way for you to draw the cards in that order. After all, you just did.

Anybody else have anything cool to add?

There was already a thread about this, but after 30 minutes of searching in forums, I couldn't find it, so I'll act as what I just wrote was never read.

Creation > evolution, once we'll have reached the evolutionary peek (which ain't any close to happen), we'll need more ways to evoluate (evolution).

The topic is right here >_<

http://www.staredit.net/index.php?showtopic=8339

I just got my wisdom teeth pulled on Thursday. Geez, can't God effin' count? We only have enough room in our jaw for 28 teeth, not 32.

As you can see from the attached picture, our jaws got shorter - but you know what effin' sucks? Our number of teeth didn't decrease enough with it, so now we have 4 extra teeth that are a nuisance, pain, and can ruin the alignment of our other teeth if not removed.

We also have an vestigial organ called the appendix that our ancestors used to digest grassy plants, which can explode on us any minute now, causing bile to integrate with our blood stream and death from infection. What a wonderful design, eh?

Wow.
This is probably about the 6th one of these in SEN history.
Maybe someone should make a pinned thread for this


Anyways, my current stand is, atleast partially, evolution.
I find it hard to believe that something which had self-repeating patterns, and all the other junk included in life, spontaneously appeared out of nowhere.
I don't resort to creationism, now, I'm just saying I don't know about that.

But otherwise, evolution.
I haven't seen any recognizable evidence of God.
I see no reason to believe in him.

ADDITION:
Wow.
This is probably about the 6th one of these in SEN history.
Maybe someone should make a pinned thread for this


Anyways, my current stand is, atleast partially, evolution.
I find it hard to believe that something which had self-repeating patterns, and all the other junk included in life, spontaneously appeared out of nowhere.
I don't resort to creationism, now, I'm just saying I don't know about that.

But otherwise, evolution.
I haven't seen any recognizable evidence of God.
I see no reason to believe in him.

Evolution is a very strong theory, which i support but i also belive in a creator. The whole god created earth in 7 days blah blah is impossible, but i beileve something started life on this earth. who/whatever it was i beleve it "programmed" it to evolve and adapt.

Meh, im ebtween but hey

i think that evoulution occured becuz we needed to adapt to our surroundings so hah i win

Oh, and about the complexity argument. Not really a problem for evolution. I'll just quote what I stated in another thread.

You're conflating evolution with abiogenesis. Atomic theory doesn't explain how atoms came into existence, but that doesn't hinder our ability to explain chemistry. Germ theory doesn't explain how the first germ came into existence in order to explain things like sickness and antibiotics. Evolution doesn't need to know how the first life came into existence, but that doesn't mean we can't explain biodiversity now.


It is more sublime and meaningful for me to grow my own flower, rather than to buy a matured one from a store. It is more sublime and meaningful for me to sculpt my own sculpture than to buy a factory-made one from a store. If I were a god, it would probably be more sublime for me to plant a single-celled organism, and evolve it into a man, rather than just puff him from the dirt magically.

Also, being a god, I probably wouldn't be subject to the confines of time. Like a WarCraft III, Sims, or Zelda 64 game, where five minutes to the player is an entire day to the lil' men. Perhaps 7 days to me, is 14.4 billion years to man.

This is the belief held by theistic evolutionist.

I don't think you can combine creationism and evolution.

How could a god 'program' evolution.

Look at it this way. Evolution is cell division error causing mutations. Those with beneficial mutations survive and multiply, those with bad ones die out. It is just an error in the chromosome copying. This is how people eventually came from apes, the really dumb people dies out (like neanderthals and stuff), but homosapiens survived because we were slightly smarter. Of course, same thing for viruses. If you accept the cel division error for humans, you must accept it for everything else. If god guides the chromosome sopying errors for people, he must also do it for influenza which evolves each year, that is why we need a flu shot every year, it has evolved to something different. This alone proves evolution over creationism, the flu is an example of evolution at work. Are you going to say that god made the flu to piss people off?

I wonder what's up with these tails. And I wonder if any creationist will reply.

I think what the above poster was trying to say that 'God' simply started things off - creating the Universe at the Big Bang and seeding life (what are the chances of life appearing spontaneously?). Also, all natural laws were created by this 'God,' as I'm sure that before the Universe there were no laws of physics etc. and that they must have been created...somehow.

Mutations are probably not mistakes as far as these 'laws' are concerned. The fact that they can occur (but not too often) could be intentional, to allow life to adapt to changing environments.

The problem with things such as influenza is that it is our fault that they successfully mutate more often. We begin to kill off a strain through vaccination, but a mutation on one virus causes its antigens to change, fooling the immune system and allowing this new strain to become dominant. Our attempts at controlling natural law are meeting with some degree of success, but the laws can only be bent so far, it would seem.

I also find it quite ironic that after smallpox was eliminated, HIV 'appeared' and spread like wildfire. Is this one of natural law's ways of redressing the balance of death rate in species, by creating new diseases? I'm getting philosophical now, but perhaps these natural laws are 'conscious' and could be described as 'God.' It just seems like natural law is always trying to maintain the status quo, although humans have managed to shift this somewhat.

...

Well, the complex network of electrons firing around in our brain are just programmed reactions to stimuli, and we call that consciousness. I don't see any reason for another very different system to not behave in the same manner. It's just a much larger scale, so i guess you could call that "God", if you want. It's certainly not conscious in a way that our minds could comprehend, its scale is too large. There's certainly no way to communicate with it, sadly.

I don't think the erros are controlled to allow adaptation. Evolution happens alot, and those who have bad adaptations die, while the lucky ones live with helpful adaptations. Now that people have medicine and houses and stuff, more kinds of people live. This kind of screws stuff up. You don't find many obese animals, or retarded animals or something (rarely at least). Tjose with those kinds of disablilites die. Humans however have changed things so the less abled survive, which is why we know have obesity problems, and dumb people in schools and stuff. I am not saying we should kill these people or anything like that, I am just saying they wouldn't have survived unless they were people.

There are also a lot of conflicting ideas about god. A lot say he created the first people (their kids' kids magically didn't have those gentic disorders when relatives mate), and then they multipled and then a few thousand years later we got to the modern age. This means evolution would have to happen bloody fast, unless animals were cerated aswell, which goes against the 'starting off' theory. If god started stuff off, then that means the 'adam and eve' stuff is much harder to support. It's all a mess because everyone has different views. Evolutions is much neater and easier.

That's called natural selection, Micro evolution, not much resembleance other than its a very small scale compared to 'evolution'


Perhaps HIS time is different than OUR time. I'ts clearly stated [in the bible] that his time is different than ours. Maybe one day in HIS time is 600,000,000 years in ours?!

Like I said, Who says that our time isn't the same as God's time? 7 days in his time could be 4.2 billion years in ours.

Like WarCraft III, five minutes to us is an entire day to those lil' troops.

Hmm, wow I'm surprised their isn't more of a Creationist respone to this thread. Seeing as their is a lack of such a response I shall add my own Creationist response. I do not support the theory of evolution or think it is more "logical" than creation. Evolution was created by Charles Darwin as a theory, however when he created it he said that "thousands of links should be found proving it" later in his life Mr. Darwin acknowledged that no such links had been found(and none have been found today I might add) and that his theory was probably incorrect. Think about it, if we have all these species "evolving" we should have fossil records that support this however we don't.
Furthermore Evolution assumes that things are created out of "Chaos" however we know that isn't the case. You don't just throw a bunch of parts together and get a car, or put them all in a room and have an explosion that makes a car. Human life is much more complicated than a car. Quite frankly it takes alot more faith to believe that a big explosion created our universe and that we all evolved from (whatever) than it does to believe that there is a creator.
I'd much rather trust the Bible is accurate and that God created everything in Six Days. I could go into alot more detail, but for now I'll leave ya'll with this link: http://www.halos.com/index.htm there is a video on that site you can download for free (58 minutes) which refutes evolutionists claims that the earth is ancient and gives evidence for a young (created earth). There is alotta evidence and stuff on the site, I wouldn't suggest you try to read it all, just watch one(or both) of the videos and make your own decisions. Furthermore the sun is always growing and if it had been around as long as evolutionists would like to think it has it would have already extended to Jupiter making life on Earth impossible.
As far as only teaching Evolution in schools, its a mistake, they should teach both sides, especially since evolution is only a theory. Schools shouldn't lie to students and act like evolution is proven and for sure true. Basically they just want God out of the schools and that's the main attraction of evolution it offers a view that takes God out of the picture and that if you don't think too long/hard about it may seem to make sense. In concluding I challenge you to look around at the facts and evidence and make your own decision.

I think this is probably as much as I should post at once, that way my post is a readable size .

Yeah, because anything that doesn't leave traces is always right. Like the idea of God and Santa!


http://www.staredit.net/index.php?act=Atta...pe=post&id=3490

Posted right up there!


You're not trying to look for fossils, you're trying to find skeletons! We all know fossils take many years to make.


Of course not! Instead, you throw some water (H2O), methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3) and hydrogen (H2) into a sealed off container, add heat and lightning!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment


Cars are made in weeks; Humans took many, many, many, many years to be "perfected" into what we are now.


So, if I went back in time, changed the Bible into my bidding and people loved it, also no one knew I did it, would you still listen to the Bible?
If I wrote a book that was titled "This Book is True No Matter What You Think!", would you believe it? Let's say it sounds really "Bibley", would you still beleive it? What if god came down and told you the Bible was fake, would you still beleive it? All this trust into a book?
How about research? Why do people do researches on things that they can't explain? Wouldn't it be much easier to say "yeah, god did it" and leave it at that? So why do those idiotic scientists spend their day doing a pointless experiement?


You're assuming the sun started as the size you see it now and grows at a rate that is too fast. Also, just because earth claims to be a certain number of ages, that has absolutley no relation to the age of the sun.


They should teach whichever is more scientific. Saying Evolution is "just a theory" is like saying the Quadratic Formula is "just a theory". But we use it anyway. Why? Because it works the best, just like evolution fits the current problem.

That is wrong. Evolution was created as a hypothesis. Once hypothesies are tested alot, and get the same results, they become a theory. Theory's are based on large numbers of reproducable tests. So saying that the theory of evolution is wrong, is wrong in it self. (Wow, repedative)

Hmm, I wasn't really planning on posting on this topic again tonight but considering the response I decided I probably should:



You obviously didn't look at any of the evidence I mentioned. You can of course believe whatever you want to but next time try to put less lines of unsupported statements.



That doesn't prove anything, just that people can collect a bunch of skulls and put them together. Though it could probably be used to prove the inaccuracies of carbon dating.



And according to evolutionists we have had millions of years for them to be made so their should be plently of fossils that show us missing links. There should be thousands of missing links not a frantic search for one that once thought to be found always is discovered to be not really a missing link a few years later.(There are plently of embarassing examples of such formerly thought to be for sure missing links).

Basically it boils down to there are:

-No transitional species, which are transitions between two different types of life, e.g. half fish and half reptiles, half horse and half cows, etc.
No Transitional Organs—There are neither any transitional, nor half developed organs: no half eyes, no half legs and no half wings.
The Archaeopteryx Fraud—Archaeopteryx is the only fossil evolutionists can claim to be a transitional species. Considering all the evidence, it is clearly a forgery.

http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/fossils.html



This one deserves more than a link to answer

It is a logical progression, and one that, admittedly, works well in the classroom. The only problem is that this notion is totally false. Not once have scientists succeeded in producing living material from nonliving material. And yet, year after year the public is led into believing that the very foundation upon which evolution stands has been resolved.

This weakness has not gone unnoticed. In fact, the evolutionists’ modus operandi is having to be revised as biologists scramble to find new ways of “enlightening” freshman biology students on the origin of life. It is because of this weakness that Stanley L. Miller himself refuses to let the idea of the spontaneous generation of life fade into oblivion. In the September 19, 2002 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Miller and his colleagues described how they obtained bioorganic compounds utilizing carbon monoxide as a component in their model of the atmosphere (see Miyakawa, et al., 2002). As the old adage goes, “try, try again.” And, as evinced by the almost 50 years that have passed since his initial experiment, Miller appears determined to squeeze life from nonliving chemicals.

Miller was able to produce a mixture containing two simple amino acids—which are the building blocks of proteins. Yet the highly praised Miller-Urey experiment did not produce any of the fundamental building blocks of life itself. Rather, it produced 85% tar, 13% carbolic acid, 1.05% glycine, 0.85% alanine, and trace amounts of other chemicals.

Many scientists now believe that the Earth’s early atmosphere would have made the synthesis of organic molecules virtually impossible under conditions simulated in the Miller-Urey experiment. For example, NASA has reported that a “reducing atmosphere” never has existed, although the experiment assumed one (Levine, 1983). Scientists also now realize that the ultraviolet radiation from sunlight is destructive to any developing life. Evolutionist Robert Shapiro stated regarding the products of the Miller-Urey experiment: “Let us sum up. The experiment performed by Miller yielded tar as its most abundant product. There are about fifty small organic compounds that are called ‘building blocks.’ Only two of these fifty occurred among the preferential Miller-Urey products” (1986, p. 105).



Yea sure were perfect, that's why were susceptible to diseases and we can't take care of our environment. I don't anyone can look at our population and honestly say they think were perfect. As far as evolving to our current state, mutations are actually harmful not helpful.

Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature…

If you want more evidence:
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms06.html




Well first off your assuming science is against Creation. It's not, just some scientists are against the idea that a Divine being created us/the world/excetra. Most scientific laws support creation more than they support evolution.

As for the historical accuracy of the Bible it has proved itself accurate. And no I wouldn't believe your book because nobody would have copied it and preserved it over 2000 years. Not to mention you wouldn't be traveling back in time in the first place.



It does if you want us to believe that life has been evolving for millions of years.... without the sun we wouldn't have much if any life. Though I suppose we could have just had another sun that went super nova on us, perhaps that might have helped us form life more... . Or maybe a really big random explosion brought order to our universe and formed life.



If they did that you wouldn't be happy because they'd be teaching Creation and not perpetuating the myth that evolution is so well supported by Science.

Nuclear...I googled Hypothesis of Evolution and got 909 results whereas Theory of Evolution got me 588k+ so let's just call it a theory. That's what all the University websites called it.

For your big long posts, give me sources for them. Then, I'll see what I can do.


What evidence? How can you support creation which is defined as a greater being that created earth and life when this being has shown absolutely no trace of it's existance.


The Bible doesn't prove anything, just that people can collect a bunch of stories and put them together. Thought it could probably be used to prove the inaccuracies of human perception of events.


Yeah, similar to how if you throw yourself into a volcano, then a fossil of you will just "magically" appear. But what of the pictures that Drunken has shown? Are you going to go against the years of evidence by scientists because of blind faith?


You're looking at mutation through the wrong way. Mutation is change in your genetics. Most of the times, it is harmless, in fact, you would never even known it was there! Now, just because we are so easily exposed to diseases is because the bacteria also "evolve" into ones that will be more powerful and more immune to our cures.


You're thinking of mutation through harmful ways like radioactive substances. Mutations are usually harmless and unnoticable. Don't believe me? Check your genes, compare them with mom and/or dad, find change, and look! You're still alive!


I never said anything about science going against creation. I agree, science can not disprove the idea of creation since something that doesn't exist cannot leave traces of it's existance!


Wrong. You take the laws meaning differently than what it's suppose to mean. Give me which laws you speak of, then I'll explain it.


This is why it's sad. Your ignorance of the given situation is terrible. I said suppose that were to happen and no one knew I did it. For all we know, the bible we have may be a joke played by the people of the future. Assuming I did do so, and the bible sounds right, and people loved it, but it was following against the ideas of the "real" god, but you had no idea, would you still follow it?

Easiest way to think of this:

-You believe in your bible. <-- This is the Constant
-The Bible can be changed. <-- This is the Variable

The bible has been changed, but you must still believe in it because you did not know it was changed. Would you still believe in it, even though you did not know it went against god's idea?


Good, you say it's possible that life formed from a big explosion.
If no life existed within this universe, then time would go infintely fast. Therefore, anything that can happen, will happen.

Besides, you were not very clear on your point. How fast is the sun growing? What was it's initial size? How far was earth at any given point?


And what evidence does Creation have? Absolutely none, it's one-hundred percent blind faith. Not to mention that you don't even know if you're choosing the right religion.


http://www.talkorigins.org/

http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.ph...emid=2097&cat=5

On the Miller-Urey Experiment


http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.ph...emid=2048&cat=5

On the Grand Canyon's Age.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.ph...emid=2047&cat=5

On a Major Hurdle against the Big Bang Theory

http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.ph...emid=2056&cat=5

On Evolutionists futile search for Missing Links/transitional creatures.



One of the most arresting evidences of the Bible’s inspiration is the unique scientific foreknowledge it contains.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.ph...at=1&itemid=255

Can these instances of scientific foreknowledge, and the numerous others that the Bible contains, be counted as mere “lucky guesses”? Hardly! The simple fact of the matter is that the Bible’s awareness of, and accuracy in, scientific matters is indeed one of the most impressive evidences available to document the truthfulness of its claim of divine inspiration.


http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.ph...at=1&itemid=269

The Case for the Existence of God

Which in conclusion leads us to:
The law of cause and effect, and the cosmological argument based upon that law, have serious implications in every field of human endeavor. The Universe is here, and must have an adequate antecedent cause.

Dr. Wysong then presented an interesting historical case to illustrate his point. Some years ago, scientists were called to Great Britain to study orderly patterns of concentric rocks and holes—a find designated as Stonehenge. As studies progressed, it became apparent that these patterns had been designed specifically to allow certain astronomical predictions. Many questions (e.g., how ancient peoples were able to construct an astronomical observatory, how the data derived from their studies were used, etc.) remain unsolved. But one thing is known—the cause of Stonehenge was intelligent design.
Now, suggested Dr. Wysong, compare Stonehenge to the situation paralleling the origin of the Universe, and of life itself. We study life, observe its functions, contemplate its complexity (which defies duplication even by intelligent men with the most advanced methodology and technology), and what are we to conclude? Stonehenge might have been produced by the erosion of a mountain, or by catastrophic natural forces working in conjunction with meteorites to produce rock formations and concentric holes. But what scientist or philosopher ever would suggest such an idea?
No one ever could be convinced that Stonehenge “just happened” by accident, yet atheists and agnostics expect us to believe that this highly ordered, well-designed Universe, and the complicated life it contains, “just happened.” To accept such an idea is, to use Dr. Wysong’s words, “to break stride from what is natural to believe” because the conclusion is unreasonable, unwarranted, and unsupported by the facts at hand. The cause simply is not adequate to produce the effect.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.ph...t=1&itemid=2518

The Case for the Existence of God Continued

The only people who “have difficulty understanding the tremendous order and complexity” found in the Universe are those who have “refused to have God in their knowledge” (Romans 1:28). Such people can parrot the phrase that “there is no obvious designer,” but their arguments are not convincing. One does not get a poem without a poet, or a law without a lawgiver. One does not get a painting without a painter, or a musical score without a composer. And just as surely, one does not get purposeful design without a designer. The design inherent in the Universe is evident—from the macrocosm to the microcosm—and is sufficient to draw the conclusion demanded by the evidence, in keeping with the law of rationality. God does exist.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.ph...at=1&itemid=271

And continued :-)

http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.ph...t=4&itemid=1980

Creation Model Vs Evolution Model

http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.ph...t=4&itemid=1983

Tell me, how did your ancestors survive when their eyes were evolving?

http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.ph...mid=2534&cat=11

Or how about insects learning how to fly?

The evolution of insect wings and subsequent flight is a concept impossible for evolutionists to explain. Insects are the ultimate flying machines—even humans’ most state-of-the-art aircraft cannot match the flight of insects. There is no way that the insects could have gradually evolved flight, nor is there fossil evidence of any intermediate species of insect between flying and non-flying insects. The fossil record indicates that if, in fact, flight evolved in insects, then it did so very rapidly. However, such a rapid, complex evolutionary advancement is impossible, and even goes against evolutionary theory. All of the evidence exemplifies elaborate design, and documents that everything was created fully functional in the beginning. All evidence points toward the intelligent design of insect flight—its form, function, and creation.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.ph...mid=2529&cat=11

Or how about the complex cells our bodies are made of?

The cell, in all of its complexity and purposeful design, can be attributed only to the workings of a Supreme Designer. Even renowned evolutionists have conceded the difficulty of accounting for the ultimate origin of the cell via naturalistic processes. Russian biochemist Alexander Oparin commented: “Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question which is actually the darkest point of the complete evolution theory” (1936, p. 82). Klaus Dose, as president of the Institute of Biochemistry at the University of Johanes Gutenberg, stated:

More than thirty years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather that to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance (1988, p. 82).

These confessions are characteristic of the troubles that evolutionary theory has encountered in explaining the origin and decisive design of the cell. God’s omnipotence can be seen throughout His creation—a creation that continually defies any and all evolutionary explanations.



I'm not the one with evidence being refuted and as I am showing its not blind faith.




Um, the pictures were a bunch of skulls together, anyone could put a buncha skulls together with differing amounts of damage and photograph them mixing in a few ape ones with human ones and badly damaged ones and claim its evolution. I didn't see anything about where those skulls came from and I certaintly didn't see any that looked like they were half human half ape. The fossil record problems evolution has are one of its major problems. You don't have all the species we have evolving over millions of years and not have any missings links/proof of it.




A Mutation occurs when a DNA gene is damaged or changed in such a way as to alter the genetic message carried by that gene.

You seem to think we all have mutations when were born which is far from the truth, mutations are rare and usually result in rare illnesses/diseases...hardly a way for our species to evolve.

The most important proof that mutations lead only to damage, is the process of genetic coding. Almost all of the genes in a fully developed living thing carry more than one piece of information.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/mechanisms07.html

Because of this characteristic of the genetic structure of living things, any coincidental change because of a mutation, in any gene in the DNA, will affect more than one organ. Consequently, this mutation will not be restricted to one part of the body, but will reveal more of its destructive impact. Even if one of these impacts turns out to be beneficial, as a result of a very rare coincidence, the unavoidable effects of the other damage it causes will more than outweigh those benefits.

To summarize, there are three main reasons why mutations cannot make evolution possible:

l- The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the living organism that undergoes them. Reason tells us that unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure will not improve that structure, but will rather impair it. Indeed, no "useful mutation" has ever been observed.

2- Mutations add no new information to an organism's DNA: The particles making up the genetic information are either torn from their places, destroyed, or carried off to different places. Mutations cannot make a living thing acquire a new organ or a new trait. They only cause abnormalities like a leg sticking out of the back, or an ear from the abdomen.

3- In order for a mutation to be transferred to the subsequent generation, it has to have taken place in the reproductive cells of the organism: A random change that occurs in a cell or organ of the body cannot be transferred to the next generation. For example, a human eye altered by the effects of radiation, or by other causes, will not be passed on to subsequent generations.


I hope that clears up some of your confusion on mutations.



How about the one that we don't get Order out of Chaos?



That was sarcasm, that's why I winked.... ya'll don't use winkies like that on this site? Hmm... I'll remember that for future reference.



Try the evidence I've already posted above for starters. There is of course alot more of it. The universe is not as you'd like to think it is completely without evidence of a creator. Check out the evidence, you can of course choose to ignore it, it's your choice after all.

Wow, your resources are the same place. A creationist side. Try a variety of sites before you post things you know about.

Here are some sites you should check out before giving out wrong data:
www.wikipedia.org
www.google.com (for everything!)
www.talkorigins.org/ (<-- very important)
And other forums that discuss this topic.

For your mutation thing:

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


It's only a couple of random skulls of carbon dating or whatever the method was used was wrong. Now, I don't know what's wrong with your eyes, but I can clearly see a small difference between each generation in the skulls. Given the dating to be accurate, it's pretty easy to conclude they were within our own class.


Second Law of Thermodynamics. Misconception.
You assume the earth to be a closed system. Of course, a closed system can only result in organisms to be "worse" than the generations before it. But our planet is not a closed system, as we receieve energy from the sun.
http://members.aol.com/steamdoc/writings/thermo.html


You're saying it's 100% impossible for life to come from non-life? Alright, well, god is alive, where did he come from? 'He always existed' you might say.
If this god always existed, then what about other dieties such as Zeus, who, at one time was believed to be just as real as the current god. Those people believed in a different god, will those people go to hell? They lived to the standards of their time. They led the perfect life. But only failed to show faith in god because he did not even give evidence of his presense.


Something that hasn't been done does not mean it cannot be done.


What does this have to do with anything?


The Big Bang Theory is used because it works the best as of right now, as opposed to any religious reason.


Something that hasn't been found does not mean it cannot be found.


A lot of mutations from light sensing cells to be able to detect colors.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vision.html


That's basically asking how we learned to breathe.

Your 'proof on god existing' sites gave me a laugh. Keep it up, I like sites that make me laugh.