[karajorma]

Don't argue with jr2 on the whole "Does God exist" thing. That's what creationists like him want because it allows them to argue on matters of faith. Furthermore it alienates religious people who do understand evolution by drawing the battle lines at whether or not God exists (A philosphical point which can't be resolved) rather than at whether or not evolution is correct (A scientific point which has already been resolved).

In the same way that any argument about whether evolution is true or not should exclude abiogenesis, any argument should also exclude whether or not God exists. Because whether or not he does is completely immaterial to the science involved.

[Mefustae]

Don't argue with jr2 on the whole "Does God exist" thing. That's what creationists like him want because it allows them to argue on matters of faith. Furthermore it alienates religious people who do understand evolution by drawing the battle lines at whether or not God exists (A philosphical point which can't be resolved) rather than at whether or not evolution is correct (A scientific point which has already been resolved).

You've got a point, but frankly I don't care any more. He's just so convinced of his superiority that we can hardly expect to budge him on the issue. He doesn't want to try to understand the world around him and instead opt for myth and legend? It's both his descision and his loss, hence my taking the piss at the poor blighter.

[karajorma]

I can understand the point but one of the biggest reasons why these debates tend to drag on is because they quickly get off-topic. Arguing whether or not God exists is going to be another 10 pages of discussion with no resolution at the end.

The best way to prove jr2's arguments for the hollow shell they are is to stick to scientific grounds which can't be reputed without the kind of argument which is the same as simply saying "No, the Grand Canyon is 6000 years old and you'll just have to believe me on that"

For the purposes of this discussion whether God doesn't exist or is simply a master of chaos theory is completely unimportant. We simply need to prove that God didn't need to intervene during evolution to prove that the theory has scientific validity.

[Ghostavo]

Excuse me if I nitpick but I love doing this

I'd have to disprove physics?  That field was around before evolution and was invented by Bible-believing scientists, I'm afraid.  But are you admitting there is no rational explanation of the design in nature that excludes God?  (Of course not.  But it sounded like it.)

Yes, Physics was a field invented before Evolution was around, but not by bible believing scientists, that title goes to the Indians which have evidence Heliocentrism as early as 1800BC.

Do you follow my logic?  If aliens created life, you've got the same problem once removed.  If aliens created the aliens, it's second removed, etc, etc.  There must be an ultimate cause, whether it's the Big Bang, or an eternally pre-existing (or existing outside of time, possibly even creating time) creator of some type.  I never said that "Creation is the only conclusion that makes sense" - You're quoting me out of context.  I said, Creation without evolution to explain the universe away is the only conclusion that makes sense.

Erm... No.

If Evolution was ever disproved, all that would be left would be an empty space. Just like we don't assume god to be part of the theory that will unite gravity and quantum mechanics, we don't assume that the absence of a theory implies that whatever's left is right. Even if we were to assume that, creation is not one "theory" (I really don't want to use this word to describe it, but...) but many. Even if we confine it to a christian perspective, the views of it are endless. So like we can't say one of those theories that try to describe a possible theory of quantum gravity are definatly or even likely to be "the one" we can't say anything about that. End of story.

God always was.  You were actually expecting Him to be formed somehow?  According to the Bible, he spoke and it "was so".  The problem with the universe always existing is that it would have to create itself from nothing.  Let sort of rephrase this:  What created the Universe?  'the universe always existed'  OK, so now that we've established that this period of creation/big bang/evolution/whatever requires faith no matter which side you're on.  You actually think it requires more faith to think that God created the universe than to think that the universe created the universe?  Ok, fine by me.

Again... no. You fail to realise what the scientific method is in spite of it being literally shouted by pretty much everyone in this thread. That which can be concluded by the aplication of science is NOT and will NEVER be belief or faith. At best it is a fact and at worst an educated guess.

Also, ever heard of Occam's Razor?

And if you believe that you and your race really, really screwed things up on their one chance of having it easy, the way things were meant to be (hey, how hard would it be to live with only one rule: don't eat from that tree) and that they were condemned to eventually die because of that choice, made corporately as a race and individually as people, and that God still loved your race enough to sacrifice Himself in the form of His Son so that you'd have a chance to accept his free payment for your breaking of His rules, you would tend to act really, really well behaved, just because you really appreciate what He's done for you.  There.  I think I've summarized the morals from all three views: atheistic evolution, deistic evolution and/or creation, and Biblical Christian Creationism.

I don't mean to be insulting a story from a "holy book" the same validity as say, Santa. The second you start bringing religion into scientific theories, another "Galileo" happens.

So the creation theory isn't an explaination?  It's one you can't scientifically prove, being that no one was there (same goes for evolution, I'm afraid... you could be 99.999% sure, but never prove it), but that doesn't mean it's not an explanation.  To prove that God's word is accurate, one might think miracles, fulfilled prophesies, and eyewitnesses willing to die for their testimony and beliefs might come in handy. >gosh!<  I'll have to put a few of those out here for you later.

Well guess what, we are here now and we have existed for thousands of years! Every day that goes by evolution gets more and more evidence! And so does gravity!

To conclude, I prophesise you will answer in this thread again. The FSM has spoken.

[NGTM-1R]

You depress me, jr2. Deeply. Your reactions to my reply all fall under either the informal logical fallacies of red herring or ignoratio elenchi (missing the point). You cannot answer me; you instead seek to distract me. Your own mocking comes back to haunt you; tornado in a junkyard and run. When you see fit to respond to rational, logical argument, with rational, logical argument, then we may debate. Until such time you have forfeited.
 

Oh my goodness.  Just when I thought it couldn't be misunderstood, I am amazed again.  Some of you folks from a different planet or something?  You're not following my train of thought very well, and I don't know why.

Your train of thought is, simply put, not rational.

Allow me to borrow a quote from David Kahn, (and through him A.J. Ayer, a noted philosophist of Oxford, as well) to demonstrate. Slight modification has been made to the quotation; a name change.

"For Creationists do not seek knowledge - they have the faith; they are not scholars, but advocates.

" 'A man can sustain his convictions in the face of apparently hostile evidence if he is prepared to make the necessary ad hoc assumptions. But although any particular instance in which a cherished hypothesis appears to be refuted can always be explained away, there must still remain the possiblity that the hypothesis will ultimately be abandoned. Otherwise it is not a geniune hypothesis. For a proposition whose validity we are resolved to maintain in the face of any experience is not a hypothesis at all, but a definition.'

"The Creationists so maintain their view. They insist their theory is true, but if it may be true then it may also be false, and this they will not concede. For upon what evidence would they abandon their assertions?...The Creationist cannot lose. But they cannot claim to have won, either...

"It is as pointless to try and convince the Creationists of this on rational grounds as it would be to demonstrate to an inmate of a mental hospital, with pictures of Napoleon's funeral and tomb and attested documents of Napoleon's death, that he is not Napoleon. For neither he nor the Creationists hold their views rationally. They hold them emotionally. The problem of Creationism is, at heart, not logical but pyschological. This is not to say that the Creationists are pyschotics, on the contrary, in non-Creationist spheres they function adequately, perhaps even outstandingly. But as Creationists they live in a fantasy world."

[Kamikaze]

Again, could no-one actually see that without evolution, creation of some type is a given?  Come on.  It's not that hard to figure out.

Sorry, that's not how it works. Even if evolution were completely falsified, there is still no empircal evidence for creationism. Creationism is not even in the running as a "back-up" to evolution because it is completely non-scientific (see the definition of a scientific theory). Biologists will have to think of new theories to account for the gaps; they won't go running to a Bible for help.

[Bobboau]

ok, if creation is science, or a replacement for evolution, then give me some sort of prediction that creation 'theory' night make, something I could conceavably make an experiment off of.
evolution makes predictions and we test them over and over again, and they confirm the theory. if creation is science, then it should be able to do the same.

[NGTM-1R]

I suppose I'll deign to destroy one section of your argument.

Allow me to prove Genesis: fossil record.  Allow me to prove the Flood: fossil record.  [Arnold]I'll be back.  You've made a big mistake.[/Arnold]  I'll explain that (perhaps quite a while) later (week or two?).

You will want to take that back. Very quickly. Amusingly enough, I just had this argument.

For the Flood to be correct, and for Genesis to be correct:

Two-by-two animals, so there should be no extinct species. (Unless humans killed it, and have you ever tried killing a 130-ton dinosaur with bows and arrows? Hell, you're going to have a tough time with a heavy machine gun.)

We should find no aquatic animal fossils on land, as 40 days is not long enough for the number necessary to die there, fossilize, and be preserved to the present day.

We should find fossils of all animals through all time periods.

All plants should be traceable to a small group of (or single) relatively recent ancestors and there should be a mass extinction of plantlife in relatively recent history.

There should be a single strata containing vast numbers of all animals fossilized. Succeeding strata should have no fossils for the next 100000 years minimum.

Our ability to date by radioactive decay and erosion must be perfectly correct. (The significance of this will become clear momentarily.)

Our understanding of the way water picks up and drops dirt must also be perfectly correct. (Hard to imagine it isn't...again, significance will become clear shortly.)

Now, the problems:
The first six patently false. The last two are...well, you'll see.

The argument generally offered is that geologic strata are not the result of time but of layering from the Flood; this is, however, impossible given the Biblical description of the Flood. The Flood is described as having taken several days (possibly weeks, my collection of books is elsewhere and I cannot check). It was an insidious, gradual thing. It came silently in the night. But wait, you argue, that means others could have survived, only Noah did that! Well, yes. But he was not the only survivor via his forewarning; this is not explictly stated but is obvious with a little thought. He was the only survivor via having the biggest boat around, and hence able to stand up to the ensuing stormy period immediately after the intial "phase" of the Flood ending, when everyone's much smaller boats would have foundered or capsized.

Having just spent a semester on physical geography, I know a good deal about how water moves dirt around and drops it. A single strata as described above is possible but would not be attributeably to the Flood, because that would require the Flood to be poof-here-comes-the-tidal-wave; it would merely be the strata that was being laid down at the time. The existance of multiple layers attributeable to the Flood would require multiple poof-here-comes-the-tidal-wave Floods, and that is about as far from the Biblical description as one can get and still vaguely resemble it. Furthermore, all the execution would have been wrought by the first of these multiple not-Biblically-correct Floods; there should be no fossils in layers afterwards, everything that needed air was already dead, and the fish think it's just awesome they've got all this extra space now.

Because of this, for the Flood and Genesis to be correct, our ability to date by radioactive decay and by erosion must be perfectly correct; otherwise the Biblical description of the Flood must be false. Yet the only argument that you can offer requires these ablities to be in error. Paradox. The same applies to our understanding of how water picks up dirt and moves it around; this is furthermore testable and intimately familar to modern science, primarily because of its agricultural value. Yet the only way your argument can work for the Flood to be correct requires that this knowledge be false, which it is, quite demonstrably, not.

[karajorma]

Allow me to prove Genesis: fossil record.  Allow me to prove the Flood: fossil record.  [Arnold]I'll be back.  You've made a big mistake.[/Arnold]  I'll explain that (perhaps quite a while) later (week or two?).

I am rubber you are glue....


Seriously though your argument amount to parroting back what was said to you with no science involved which is little better than the way 5 years olds argue. If you think that the fossil record supports creationism you'd better post some evidence as to why cause ngtm1r (and Aldo earlier) have pointed out a ton of flaws in that logic and you've not posted anything beyond sticking your tongue out and saying that "You're wrong"

[aldo_14]

We've done genesis (and why it's wrong) earlier in this thread anyways; http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,39227.100.html

EDIT; damn.  I forgot how funny the whole flood myth is, when you consider that the Egyptians were around at that time

"Ah, Ramanhemotep, it's a bit wet out there!"
"Really?"
"Yes, the entire world is underwater"
"But not us?"
"Um..... nope"
"Should we write it up?"
"Nah, let's go eat crocodiles and have beer"

[Edward Bradshaw]

Oh my goodness.  Just when I thought it couldn't be misunderstood, I am amazed again.  Some of you folks from a different planet or something?  You're not following my train of thought very well, and I don't know why.

Speaking of confused, I wish some of you guys would use the quote button. Writing this post is going to be annoying...

Yes, that would be their main problem.  They are supposed to consider everything in an unbiased, unemotionally affected way.  But they don't.  Your argument about aliens creating life is moot.  'There was once a speaker who gave a lecture in which he stated that the Terra was suspended in space with nothing supporting it.  Afterwards a lady came up to him and said, "You know, you're very wrong about that."  "Okay, lady," says the speaker, "Tell me what the Earth is supported on, then!"  "On the back of a turtle."  she replied.  "Umm, I'm afraid that doesn't answer the question in mind."  the speaker said.  "You see, the turtle would have to be suspended on nothing then."  "Oh, you may think you're clever, young man."  the lady replied, "But it's turtles all the way down!"' 

Btw, the earth is not "suspended on nothing". I know thats what the Bible says, along with God fixing it immovable on its foundations, but the earth is actually constantly falling around the sun.

Do you follow my logic?  If aliens created life, you've got the same problem once removed.  If aliens created the aliens, it's second removed, etc, etc. 

Correct. Aliens seeding the planet is just moving abiogenesis off world.

There must be an ultimate cause, whether it's the Big Bang, or an eternally pre-existing (or existing outside of time, possibly even creating time) creator of some type.

No, thats a philisophical assumption with no scientific basis. Its also bad philosophy.

You guys are really, really good at finding small ommisions or errors in someone's statement, but absolutely no good at correctly supposing and suggesting what the person really meant to say or possibly meant to say, or so it seems at least.[/color]

Im not going to defend others but at least three times now you claimed I misread you about the Tornado in the Junkyard thing, but you still dont understand why its wrong.

  You folks don't seem to get the logic behind If it didn't just happen, someone put it there.[/i]  That is why no argument is needed to 'prove' creation; It is self-evident, unless one can logically explain how it came to be without someone to put it there.[/color]

No, I dont see the logic in calling it "creation", because you just presupposed it was "created" for no more reason other than your own faith and incredulity.

Come again?  That sounds a whole lot like an argument that is quite undefensible.  It exists because the Universe is sentient, and doesn't like unstable environments.  So >poof!< we have something from nothing, which then became compressed (somehow) into a dot smaller than a period, smaller than an atom, perhaps even nothing at all (I do believe I actually heard that once) and then exploded.  Okay, whatever.  : 

If you dont understand the Big Bang dont mock it, you only end up mocking yourself. Actually the phrase "the Big
Bang" is really more of a nickname than the name of the scientific theory, it was coined by Sir Fred Hoyle who opposed it till his death.  There was no "explosion" with the Big Bang, space "expanded".

  Nope.  the Bible, in Isaiah, states that the Earth is round, thousands of years before they were supposed to have come up with the idea. 

It also talks about the immovable "circle" (a round flat disk) of the earth, pillars holding it up with a firmament in the sky with windows which holds the water back from space. The Hebrews grew out of the ancient Sumarians, so most likely got their flat earth cosmology from them.

Everyone used to believe the world was flat until people like Plato, Aristotle, etc demonstrated it wasn't (actually, that's a slight lie; the Vedic scrolls from India described a spherical earth orbiting the sun thousands of years before that)  except the Jews and later Christians who actually believed their Bibles, you mean.

Then pretty much no one was a Christian then.

Moreso, evolution doesn't even touch on the areas of 'creation' because it deals with the evolution of lifes complexity, not the formation of life or the universe (abiogenesis and the big bang / physics cover this) in any case.  If you believe the current theory, Evolution had to deal with what the Big Bang and physics handed it, didn't it?  Or did it get a free pass?

Thats not how science works Jr. You could very well say that EVERY scientific theory has to "deal with Big Bang physics" , but that doesnt mean germ theory is wrong, that doesnt mean aerodynamics is wrong, that doesnt mean atomic theory is wrong. You are saying science needs a complete theory of everything , or they dont know anything. I know thats how fundamentalists read their scriptures, that if one part is wrong you might as well throw the rest away, but science doesnt work like that.

as pointed out, let's say evolution is disproven, even though it never has been and no-one has even come close to it (yay for rational evidence based science!).  misinterpreted evidence based faith, you mean.   

Thats exactly what Creationism is. Faith, and faith is not based on facts or evidence. Faith is stubbornly believe in something with no or very little supporting evidence, or when their is evidence to the contrary. Thats why you cant reason with fundamentalists because they have faith and as long as they have their faith they will never change their minds. The question is, are you a fundamentalist or are you just ignorent.

God always was.  You were actually expecting Him to be formed somehow? 

If your God doesnt behave to our laws of physics, why do you presume to know the universe did before the Big Bang?

The problem with the universe always existing is that it would have to create itself from nothing. 

Creationists using the word "from nothing" to refer to the Big Bang never makes sence to me. We really dont know what happened before the Big Bang, and our whole concept of "nothing" is pretty meaningless in THIS universe let alone what happened before it existed. You cant define nothing so no one can really say the universe was formed "from nothing".

let sort of rephrase this:  What created the Universe?  'the universe always existed'  OK, so now that we've established that this period of creation/big bang/evolution/whatever requires faith no matter which side you're on. 

Its funny that I always have to teach those of faith what faith means. Faith would be believing the" universe always existed" and never changing your mind, regardless or any facts that come to light in the future.

You actually think it requires more faith to think that God created the universe than to think that the universe created the universe? 

Yes, of course. Because "God" is just a cop out. You can answer any question with "god did it", but thats not an answer it means you dont know, so you're putting God there. You dont know, but you pretend and think you know. Another symptom of stubborn faith.  You can do it with anything. If you hear something running around in your attic do you say its a goblin? Is that a real answer? No, and neither is God.

Ok, fine by me.  This is where the evolutionary 'morals' refered to come in:  If there's no point, no purpose, we might as well have the best smashingest party while we can by any means necessary, because eventually, we're gonna croak.  No need to research or develop anything.  Sure, it might make you able to party a few more years, but in the big picture, what's it really matter after you've ceased existing?  Who the heck would care?  Life is purposeless, enjoy it? 

First of all you dont hear of many atheists that go killing raping and pillaging. I dont know why fundamentalists seem to be so oblivious to that fact when they sit down and type such nonsence. Interestingly, Confucious the Chinese atheist talked about loving your neighbour and treating others as you would like to be treated centuries before Jesus. Buddism is probably they only religion I know of that doesnt have blood on its hands.

Second, animals still manage to live with each other including insects like bees and ants where thousands of them spend their entire lives in service of one or two queens that will eventually mate. No there are no absolute morals. What we have is inbuilt desire to get along with our fellow human. If humans didnt get along we would have probably died out long ago because we couldnt get along.

Thirdly, I do love it when literalist Bible Believing Christians being this up. You guys try and lecture to us about morality when you believe in some of the most bloody and disgusting books ever written. Thats right Im talking about the Old Testament here. I know Christians get around having to perform the ridiculous laws of Leviticus, but these were still supposedly laws given by your God. And how many times did God have people killed? How many times did God order his chosen people to whipe out entire civilisations "without mercy", to pillage destroy and kill every living thing including animals. Sometimes the Bible God says its because they were wicked wicked people, another times he says its his chosen peoples "inheritance". The actions of his "chosen people" and their God, can only be accurately be described as a murdering horde of barbarians.

The New Testament is admittedly much better, but still has some pretty stupid morals in places. This God has to kill his own son, but Christians tell us it was just him in in human form, for our sins. And why does he have to do that? Well Paul tells us, because without bloodshed there can be no forgiveness! The only reason I can see for this surpreme God killing himself is to make a point and then make us feel guilty for making him do it! What Creationists believe is worse still, that it was becuase of Adam and Eve that Jesus killed himself. That means we didnt have anything to do with this mess anyway. God as we can see from the OT in several place, passes down the punishment for generations. I could go on and on about this, but I see theres more to cover.

 

And if you believe that you and your race really, really screwed things up on their one chance of having it easy, the way things were meant to be (hey, how hard would it be to live with only one rule: don't eat from that tree)

Yes because apparently God feels its moral to punish something for what their ancesters did thousands of years ago. Are young germans guilty of the the WW2 crimes some of their grandfathers were guilty of? Of course not. Apparently we are more moral than God.

, and that God still loved your race enough to sacrifice Himself in the form of His Son

Creationists and some hard nosed Christains seem to have a VERY bizzare and scary idea of what "love" is.

Again, you've forgotton what evolution is; technically you need to disprove abiogenesis and physics.  And even then, it's ludicrous that this would 'prove' creation; did the absence of an explanation for gravity for all those years, mean it was Intelligent Falling?  I'd have to disprove physics?  That field was around before evolution and was invented by Bible-believing scientists, I'm afraid.

And Darwin was still a Christian when he wrote Origins, and years before Darwin Creationist geologists disproved a global flood, because the evidence just wasnt there. And again before Darwin, Carolus Linnaeus a Creationist way ahead of his time and father of Taxonomy once pleaded to his colleagues for "a generic characteristic" by which to tell the difference between apes and humans, he said he "assuredly knew of none". But due to the rather exclusive nature of science back then being Creationist they placed humans in a seperate catagory to other apes for no scientific reason. But unlike todays Creationists back then they still managed to do real science and have some scientific integrity.

All you'd have is the absence of an explanation; the thing that led to the invention of creation myths, and the thing which science has tackled.  So the creation theory isn't an explaination? 

No of course it isnt. Its an argument from incredulity and faith. And which Creation story are you talking about? Sure, I know you mean the Bible one, but there are literally thosuands of Creation stories and they all are "explanations" in the same way yours is - in other words, they arent explanations at all.

It's one you can't scientifically prove, being that no one was there (same goes for evolution, I'm afraid... you could be 99.999% sure, but never prove it), but that doesn't mean it's not an explanation. 

You cant "scientifically" prove any theory.  Creationism isnt a scientific theory because it isnt science.

To prove that God's word is accurate, one might think miracles, fulfilled prophesies, and eyewitnesses willing to die for their testimony and beliefs might come in handy. >gosh!<  I'll have to put a few of those out here for you later.[/color]

Pretty much all religions claim miracles, and "fulfilled prophesies". And as for these "eyewitnesses willing to die", i dont know how anyone today can use that as evidence their religion is correct. Just switch on the news and it wont take too long to hear about terrorists blowing themselves up and flying passenger airliners into buildings.  Does that mean Islam is true? If it doesnt convince you then why would you think it would convince me?  Lots of people died for their faith throughout history, it means exactly nothing.

.  the bounds of evolutionary theory, summed up in four words: God didn't do it!  EDIT: Summed up in four words plus a contraction.  Sorry.

Just because Evolution doesnt say anything about a God doesnt mean its saying theres no such thing as God. Atomic theory doesnt mention Gods either, neither did the Newtons law of Gravity or Pastuers germ theory but that doesnt mean atomic theory and germ theory can be summerised as "god didnt do it". Thats because God if he exists at all cannot be scientifically tested in any way. They are faith positions not scientific ones.

In fact, every ID/creationist arguement I've seen in this thread so far has been characterised by a lack of understanding and hence mischaracterisation of how evolutionary theory works.  We know how it supposedly works.  And because we have a problem with that, we don't understand it?  "

No Jr, you dont know what Evolution is or how its supposed to work. Remember what you said about the 747 analogy? Case in point. You dont get it, but thats not surprising to me, Ive never met a Creationist that wasnt either ignorent of Evolution or dishonest in that they knew they were wrong but spread misinformation anyway.

You can't understand it unless you believe it" sort of thing?

Dont be ridiculous, all you have to do is realise that everything creationist organisations ever told you about evolution is very likely a caricature or misrepresentation of it. Once you do that you can finially learning what Evolution actually is, then after you do that you can go back to your Creationist sources and you'll see for yourself how much they lie.

(ach!  abiogenesis, abiogenesis, abiogenesis.....)  Here's a clue: the formation of the first life, according to Darwin, et al. was a product of evolutionary process.  Period.  Look it up in one of your textbooks. 

Support this please, with Darwins own words.

While Im certian you are totally wrong about that it wouldnt matter anyway Darwin being right 100% doesnt mean anything, once again, I know you guys believe that science has to be 100% correct or its 100% wrong but thats not how science does things. Darwin couldnt have talked about abiogenesis anyway, as that theory was formed around the middle of the 20th century. Evolution is the change in allele frequences over time, so without alleles theres no evolution. Abiogenesis is the theory of the chemistry of how those simple life forms first developed.

That you can't think of one besides evolution demonstrates rather well how it is by far the best evidenced and logical - rational - theory.   Challenge: come up with a theory besides "it was created" (by whatever means) or "it just happened".  You can't, because there aren't any.

No one says "it just happened", thats your caricature of all the scientific theories to do with our origins.

Except that's still wrong, because it characterises evolution as a single, random chance event.  And evolution is a multi-staged event with a random differentiation action and deterministic natural selection events.  This fellow needs a little help.  He thinks tornadoes are single staged and happen instantaniously.  jk, I know what you mean, but you know what I mean by that statement previous too.

It also assumes that a flying machine is the only output that 'works', which is again wrong.  Actually, a flying machine would be a bit less complex than a self-reproducing, self-sufficient machine.  But, then again, Tornadoes don't last as long.

Jeez, come on!  Just give it up, the Tornado in a Junkyard analogy is simply NOT HOW EVOLUTION WORKS. Youve been told many times now, and each time you reply you show yet another example of how you dont understand the topic. It doesnt matter if its a "flying contraption" or a 747, yet somehow you think thats so different. This is NOTHING like evolution. Maybe this is some kind of bizzare reference to abiogenesis in which case, its still horrendously wrong.

[Mefustae]

Just wanted to clear something up...

Yes, that would be their main problem.  They are supposed to consider everything in an unbiased, unemotionally affected way.  But they don't.  Your argument about aliens creating life is moot. 'There was once a speaker who gave a lecture in which he stated that the Terra was suspended in space with nothing supporting it.  Afterwards a lady came up to him and said, "You know, you're very wrong about that."  "Okay, lady," says the speaker, "Tell me what the Earth is supported on, then!"  "On the back of a turtle."  she replied.  "Umm, I'm afraid that doesn't answer the question in mind."  the speaker said.  "You see, the turtle would have to be suspended on nothing then."  "Oh, you may think you're clever, young man."  the lady replied, "But it's turtles all the way down!" Do you follow my logic?  If aliens created life, you've got the same problem once removed.  If aliens created the aliens, it's second removed, etc, etc.  There must be an ultimate cause, whether it's the Big Bang, or an eternally pre-existing (or existing outside of time, possibly even creating time) creator of some type.

You'll notice I said transdimensional aliens. In their universe, evolution works just fine and thus gave rise to their life, after which they travelled into our universe - in which [according to your hypothesis] evolution cannot exist - where they terraformed Earth and deposited life here. There, i've got a considerable more plausable theory than "God did it", and - while I have no evidence - having no evidence is technically more than being incapable of having evidence [as you and others have outlined that there is and cannot be evidence for creation or the existance of a designer], and thus i've got the more credible theory. Prove me wrong, and if not, then bow down to our new Lords; the Transdimensional species of Og, lest they smite you with their transdimensional smiting apparatus.

[Ace]

Wouldn't god though technically be a transdimensional alien? An angsty transdimensional alien who has sex with women too...

Hell, Scientology all of the sudden starts to sound good. Hail Xenu!

[Charismatic]

Ok you guys are horribly horribly aweful. The size of these dam replys are friggin rediculous! **** takes up half a friggin page. Seriously? You expect us all to read that?

[watsisname]

We all read, understood, and replied to all of the things that you've posted.  (Including the things that have been discredited multiple times). 
Is it really too much to ask for you to do the same?

[Bobboau]

if it's too hard to keep up with... fine, just, let me make it simple for you, I put up a calenge a few posts back, I want a prediction that creationism, being proported as a better explaination than evolution, makes, something that we don't know already and can make an experiment off of, that'll settle it once and for all.

[Mefustae]

Ok you guys are horribly horribly aweful. The size of these dam replys are friggin rediculous! **** takes up half a friggin page. Seriously? You expect us all to read that?

That attitude pretty much characterizes most, if not all, people like you. You have this preconceived notion that evolution somehow seeks to disprove God, and thus instantly disagree with it, taking no time to even bother trying to understand the theory or what it is actually saying. Because of this fundamental misunderstanding of the entire theory that it is somehow an attack on your faith, [which it most certainly is not], you couldn't care less about how it works, because you don't agree with it, and thus you maintain your initial misunderstandings in spite of being told time and time again how utterly wrong they are. This cycle leads to further misunderstanding when we try to debate the issue, ending with people like you lashing out not because you disagree with the theory, but because of your ignorace towards it leading you to think you must defend your faith, rather than expand your mind.

Honestly, we read all the s*** you post, at least have the goddamn courtesy to reciprocate.

[Ford Prefect]

God can see you whenever you reciprocate, you filthy creep. Reciprocation is unclean and a sin.

[Edward Bradshaw]

Ok you guys are horribly horribly aweful. The size of these dam replys are friggin rediculous! **** takes up half a friggin page. Seriously? You expect us all to read that?

Personally, since my post was very very long, I wouldnt expect someone to reply to each point but I would expect them to have actually read it and when they reply show they understand it. I dont want to be telling you something over and over because you didnt read it the first time.

[aldo_14]

Ok you guys are horribly horribly aweful. The size of these dam replys are friggin rediculous! **** takes up half a friggin page. Seriously? You expect us all to read that?

Well, that depends whether (generic) you want to actually learn or understands things, or if you accept the simplest answer regardless of factual merit.

I mean, it's not particularly much to read anyways.  Do people not read novels any more or something?