[Edward Bradshaw]

Seriously, how old is m, seriously.... 

[Turambar]

he reminds me of the people that actually believe everything they say on fox news

[Flipside]

I wonder if he's aware the Nitrogen would smell if we had nasal receptors for it? Or that people who work in very smelly environments end up developing a tolerance for that smell?

It's the confusion between Creationism and Evolution that gets me. Creationist time-scales when applied to evolutionary theory simply won't work. Skunks evolved over millions of years, a distance of time impossible to imagine from the viewpoint of a species with 70ish years at best. Male and Female skunks developed together.

Predicted Response:
"He uses 'irreducible complexity!  He said 'Intelligent Design!'  IGNORE HIM!!!" 

Frankly M, you've got things more than a little round the wrong way there, you might want to look at the reactions of IDers to evolutionary arguments before making blanket statements like that. After all, how many valid evolutionary points have been made in this thread alone that have been conveniently ignored?

[NGTM-1R]

Sheesh.  I take up half a !!@#!! page with posts that consist of "You're wrong!  We have proved it!" and false assumptions. 

Fixed it for you.

[Bobboau]

and the other half of the page filled with one quote in one post from one person, seriusly, post a friging link if it has more than five thousand words

[watsisname]

By the way, I've got a question for the young-earth creationists:

Oceanographers have been looking at the sea floor around divergant zones of the Earth's crust (areas where the sea floor is literally splitting apart, and lava fills in the gap to create new land) for a long time now, and they can measure the rate at which the two plates are moving apart.  We can then compare the recession velocity with the distance from the rift zone, and calculate how old that part of the sea floor is.  And it turns out that some areas of sea floor are on the order of hundreds of thousands, even millions of years old. 
Also, we can determine its age via magnetism:  Since the Earth's magnetic field switches polarity every now and then, certain crystals in the lava become alligned North or South, and freeze that way when the lava solidifies as new sea-floor.

So my question is this:  How does someone who believes in a young Earth account for this?

Oh, here's a few links about sea-floor spreading:
http://www.discoverourearth.org/student/tectonics/sea_floor_spreading_i.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_floor_spreading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_boundary

[aldo_14]

(I'm just going to address direct replies to myself at this point, as I'm busy at work; however, i would not you've cited a pair of biased creationist sources - no peer review! - which we've seen to prefer dogma over science in previous examples, and that the mudskipper is a great example of the adaptive advantage and thus selection reward/pressure of developing an ability to breathe outside the water.  The lungfish, of course, does have primitive lungs which are of great advantage in de-oxygenated water.)

We're talking about them BOTH being on the surface of the water; smaller fish gulps air to increase its oxygen, but suddenly can't dive away from the predator like it normally could.  Fish gets eaten.  (But that's really just going to get into a tangent on fish's evasive manuvers, so let's not go there.  Big grin ) (You probably think that's the most intelligent thing I've said so far.)

You've completely missed the point, actually.  But it's ok, because it gives me a good opportunity to explain selection in action.

Every predator-prey interaction is a risk-reward situation.  Both expend energy in a chase situation; the predator expends less in these situations, because it's 'running' for its dinner, not its life (as the prey is). 

Ok.  So, any advantage the prey gets is manifold, because it can afford to spend more on running away (a predator has to use energy in a way allowing multiple hunts, after all).  Now, let's go back to the swim bladder.

The predator is not in the surface of the water.  It doesn't have the natural bouyancy because - shock - it has no swim bladder.  Bear in mind we're talking about evolutionary advantage here; a predator might develop a bouyancy mutation (to simplify; not necessarily a swim bladder at this point, just an ability to regulate bouyancy) before prey, but it won't be useful enough to be selected until the prey is living on the surface, i.e. bouyant.  I believe this is sometimes referred to as the 'red queen' effect, i.e. is akin an evolutionary arms race.

So, initially, this bouyancy mutation is selected for the prey, because the predator, lacking bouyancy, resides at the bottom.  Remember, swimming - going - up takes more energy than going down; same as it's more useful for a bird to fly up away from a ground based predator, than for said predator to jump up in the air and the bird dive away. 

Moreso, the predator will not be inclined to 'hunt up', as most fish - most prey - at this point will lack a bouyancy aid, and thus be in the lower reaches of the water; within the more optimum hunting (energy) range.  However, should a predator evolve a bouyancy aid of its own, then that can be selected, because it opens up a new hunting niche for that species - it makes it energy-efficient to hunt.

Oh, what the hell; i'll do a wee bit more;

On the topic; "Did Lungfish Evolve Into Amphibians?"

Firstly, the biblical quote at the top should show you the hidden (or not) agenda here, and the inherent bias.  Moreso, should the lack of any scientific reference source.  It's worth also noting John Morris, Ph.D., is a geologist (which also makes me wonder - has he ever published anything?  And also note that he was caught out in a hoax;http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ark-hoax/jammal.html), not a biologist, and thus completely unqualified.

Secondly, there appears to be a deliberate attempt to mischaracterise lungfish evolution; for example, no mention that mammals are believed to have evolved from the Devonian lungfish (Osteolepiformes).  He's also - deliberately, I'd wager - making the completely erroneous statement that evolution would require synchronized changes rather than sequential; presumably to create the 'false chance' type arguement we've seen to many times before.

Here's a bit more - with references - on transitional forms from fish; http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC212.html

This goes on a bit further; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html  Again, it provides references.

Also, a bit on his mischaracterisation of the status of the Coalacanth; http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1.html

and finally, to mention the Rhipidistia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhipidistia

Interesting how he tries to wrongly imply said families position in evolutionary history, somehow - shock - omitting that it's seen as a 'root' of the fish evolutionary tree and describing it more as if it were some sort of leaf branch.  Look at http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/140Sarcopterygii/140.400.html and see how 'far' away the Tetrapod branch is, for example.

I hope you also note how he takes 3 very specific examples; I'd guess because those were the 3 easiest to 'disprove', even though things like, er, basic facts or any form of scientific references went missing along the line.....not to mention twisting the context of them.  Tut-tut, not very scientific.  Propagandistic, one might say.

[jr2]

Going to be away for about a week; gotta go to camp (I'm an adult leader) with m.  Yikes!!  But after that, I'll be back & he'll be going to another camp; then I'll take a look at some of these responses.  I thought the article m posted (I showed the article to him; you can blame me ) was actually pretty good... but anyways, I'll look here later.

In a week.

[Flipside]

My biggest problem with it is that it is textbook vanity writing. Look at the context, he says something that he obviously feels passionately about, and disagrees with the scientific community with, and yet, for all his need to get his point across, still remembers to name every single one of his books. It's like subliminal marketting, pick something that is currently a hot subject, make an announcement that disagrees with one side of it and insert several references to your books in it.

Jack Thompson is a great example of using this technique, he selects parts of facts, and pieces them together to create non- facts, and still manages to add shameless self-promotion of himself and his book to every single press release he makes. He's actually extremely skilled at it.

Also, it just seems to be the same arguments in different words. Protein folding etc etc, though his references towards that and the computing power of the human brain goes straight over my head, DNA was around long before any kind of central nervous system was, DNA is a biological event, our brain doesn't intelligently design it.

The fact is, science as about 30 different possibilities as to how life could have started, from volcanic vents to more elaborate theories around Clay's abilities to form complicated microscopic structures, Carbon compounds can stick onto clay surfaces, where they act as catalysts for the formation of more complex molecules. It's sounds far fetched, but it had been raining for several million years, there may well have been a lot of clay around.

Remember, Prokaryotes are NOT cells, they are Bacteria, a far simpler form of life, Cyanobacteria, which is one of the earliest detected life-forms still exists in vast quantities in the Oceans today, without it, we'd be dead, because it contributes massively to the Oxygen cycle of the planet via Photosynthesis. Anatartic core sample have shown that the Oxygen content of the atmosphere slowly starts to rise with appearance of Cyanobacteria. It was that which starts to act as a trigger for O2 breathing creatures and more complex systems as the bacteria slowly evolve and exploit their surroundings.

[Ace]

On "the brain designing/modifying DNA" there is Niche Construction, an organism modifying its genetics through manipulation of its environment. (i.e. human gene frequencies being changed due to technologies such as glasses) Generally applies only to tool using primates or other social animals though.

[Flipside]

What I'd like to know is why teeth.

Not 'where did teeth come from?', let's leave the what made what argument to one side, and look at it from a purely logical point of view. Why do we grow 2 sets of teeth?, why do they have nerves in them? Why aren't they self repairing?


If ID wants to be recognised as a science then answers to questions like these have to be provided in a testable fashion. Evolutionists have their theories, based on what they believe, so I'd be interested to hear the other side of the opinion.

Edit : Oh, and http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/darwin_evolution

[Kosh]

About the lungfish, see http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1153

ICR is a discredited, non-scientific group of people trying to push creationism into science using whatever double-talk and outright lies necessary.

[watsisname]

This was certainly a documented case of microevolution, added Fleischer, who was not part of Grant's research.

Sorry, but I just found this line rather amusing. 

[StratComm]

Good god, the thread that absolutely refuses to die.  Wow.  This is what I get for letting my attention drift to other matters. 

As much as I'd love to see this handled as a proper debate between two sides with competing claims, the truth is that I know it will never be that.  What we inevitably have is the evolutionary camp presenting evidence, over, and over, and over, and whichever poster is currently 'defending' creationism/ID/whatever by essentially sticking their fingers in their ears and singing.  Whether they are unable, unwilling, or simply uninterested in understanding the counterarguments is irrelivant; ultimately it's nearly impossible to convince someone who is willing to come into a public space (even in the anonimity of the internet) and try to defend creationist nonsense that they are wrong.  And with that, there's one point (that was brought up before) that I'd like to comment on, since ultimately this whole thing comes down to faith.   For the half-dozen or so "experts" who have lended their names to creationism, how many ordained ministers are unable to deny that evolution happens?  I'll be the first to admit that I don't have numbers or even any evidence to back that up, mainly because the point is meaningless when it comes down to a scientific argument; without evidence someone's opinion doesn't mean anything.

[karajorma]

Well one billion Catholics all have decided that evolution is real for if we're talking priests it's all of them. It's only the protestants (And mostly American protestants at that) who still disagree. And even there it's not all of them. You can find lots of ministers and vicars who agree that evolution is real.

Of course the YEC all think that they're heretics or something no doubt.

[karajorma]

About the lungfish, see http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1153

From that page.

The problem would be solved if we could find fossils of transitional forms, but alas, no "fishibian" has ever been found. Every fish, living or fossil, even those with unusual characteristics, is fully fish, and every amphibian, living or fossil, is fully amphibian.

Points to page 1 and the post that started the whole bloody topic.

The creature shares some characteristics with a fish; it has fins with webbing, and scales on its back.

But it also has many features in common with land animals. It has a flat crocodile-like head with eyes positioned on top and the beginnings of a neck - something not seen in fish.

So by Dr Josh's own words the problem is solved then?

[jr2]

Of course the YEC all think that they're heretics or something no doubt.

Not necessarily.  As long as they believe that God was the one that used evolution... the problem is, if you haven't noticed, the whole Christian faith has a few basic tenets: (This is an incomplete and not expanded properly list, but you'll get the gist of it.)
1. God created the Universe.  Genesis 1:1
2. God created mankind.  Genesis 1:26-28
3. Mankind rebelled.  Genesis 2:15-17; Genesis 3:1-19
4. God punished that rebellion.  Genesis 3:16-19; Romans 5:12-14
5. God decided to save mankind from his punishment by sending Jesus to die for mankind's sins, and then raising Jesus from the dead.  Matthew 1:21-23; Romans 3:3-3:31; Romans 4:25-5:9; Many, many others.

Evolution says that death has been here all along; it's just part of life (how's that for an oxymoron).  The Bible says that death is the end of life and is a punishment for sin.  You can't have both.  The only way to have both would be to say that God used evolution for everything except man, or perhaps including man and then made man immortal, then punished his disobedience by returning him to his previous state??

BTW, check this out, emphasis on verse 19.  That is why evangelical Christians have such a hard time with evolution: it goes against the core of their faith.  Also, I didn't mention that, if evolution were true and God was not involved, and just kind of watched it happen, then he would be a liar, because the Bible states that He did indeed create everything.  Now, if He's lying about creating the Earth, then why would you trust Him to save you from your sins and bring you to Heaven when you die?  Why would you care about the said "sins" anyways?

Without God as the One to be responsible to because of His being your Creator, there is no 'wrong' or 'right', just whatever helps you to survive.  If God had nothing to do with Creation, then I'm sorry, but He has no say in what we do.  We would be the only 'gods' around, unless something else evolved on a higher level, and even then, maybe evolution would smile on us and we'd evolve faster.  Without a Creator, everything is relative.  Life is pointless.  You fight to survive, but you'll eventually die.  Your species may continue, but who cares when you're dead?  And even your species will eventually die out, unless they evolve the ability to evade that nasty second law of thermodynamics.

So, either we must get rid of the Christian (and Muslim and Jewish) religions, or at least relegate them to something you believe in for no particular reason.  Or, on the other hand...[/i] what if those Christians are right?  You have managed to seriously T-off the God of the Universe.  (Everyone has, not just you in particular.)  Congratulations, you have until the end of your life to figure out how to patch things up.  Don't worry, though, He did all the work for you, you just have to accept His gift.  Now, on the other hand, if you don't accept... well then, it's extra crispy for all of eternity for you (or me ).  That's assuming the Christian religion is right.  The Muslim religion I am less familiar with.  The Jewish religion is the same as the Christian, except they don't believe that God sent Jesus as Savior, they think He's still coming.

But regardless, for any religion to be correct, God needs to be Creator.  (You can figure out which one's correct by studying the religions after you figure out that a Deity was involved.)  So one would definitely hope that one could figure out whether or not God is Creator before one dies.  Now there are plenty of scientists who would agree that some Intelligent force was involved with the creation of the world.  There's the fact of our positioning in the Solar System, the rotation speed, angle and the distance from Sol to Terra, the size and type of Sol, the moon which provides tidal forces to circulate water, and many other things mentioned in greater detail here:
web page, preview clip, script (.pdf).  Basically, the chances of getting it right are 1/1,000,000,000,000,000 . 
Also, the dreaded Intelligent Design factor:
web page, preview clip, script (.pdf).  I'm not certain, but I believe the chances of that are much worse.  Also this might be interesting, but you'd have to buy it.  (You can't download the script or any previews; I have not looked at these yet.)

Also, here's an article that my pastor wrote a while back.  (I'm sure it's no shocker to you guys that I go to church!!) 

So, what do you think?  I've got more, but I must collect my wits after my trip, and I do believe I also probably have some unanswered stuff further back in this thread.  (Probably some of you guys think I didn't answer anything, but... have patience!!!

PS  Much, much patience! 

[Mefustae]

Of course the YEC all think that they're heretics or something no doubt.

Not necessarily.  As long as they believe that God was the one that used evolution... the problem is, if you haven't noticed, the whole Christian faith has a few basic tenets: (This is an incomplete and not expanded properly list, but you'll get the gist of it.)
1. God created the Universe.  Genesis 1:1
2. God created mankind.  Genesis 1:26-28
3. Mankind rebelled.  Genesis 2:15-17; Genesis 3:1-19
4. God punished that rebellion.  Genesis 3:16-19; Romans 5:12-14
5. God decided to save mankind from his punishment by sending Jesus to die for mankind's sins, and then raising Jesus from the dead.  Matthew 1:21-23; Romans 3:3-3:31; Romans 4:25-5:9; Many, many others.

Evolution is compatable with every single one of those tenets. Case in point, the Catholic Church accepts evolution, and don't they follow the same Bible as the rest of you?

BTW, check this out, emphasis on verse 19.  That is why evangelical Christians have such a hard time with evolution: it goes against the core of their faith.  Also, I didn't mention that, if evolution were true and God was not involved, and just kind of watched it happen, then he would be a liar, because the Bible states that He did indeed create everything.  Now, if He's lying about creating the Earth, then why would you trust Him to save you from your sins and bring you to Heaven when you die?  Why would you care about the said "sins" anyways?

Without God as the One to be responsible to because of His being your Creator, there is no 'wrong' or 'right', just whatever helps you to survive.  If God had nothing to do with Creation, then I'm sorry, but He has no say in what we do.  We would be the only 'gods' around, unless something else evolved on a higher level, and even then, maybe evolution would smile on us and we'd evolve faster.  Without a Creator, everything is relative.  Life is pointless.  You fight to survive, but you'll eventually die.  Your species may continue, but who cares when you're dead?  And even your species will eventually die out, unless they evolve the ability to evade that nasty second law of thermodynamics.

I'm not even going to touch you reference to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, as i'll let someone else more versed in rebuffing that piece of tripe rip into you for  that one. Regarding the rest of your little rant there, welcome to the basics of existentialism. Forgive me if i'm wrong, but what exactly is wrong with there being no real meaning behind our existence? No real impact upon the greater universe as to how we conduct our short, boring lives? It may be hard for you to accept, or even consider, given your obviously religious mindset, but it's a very possible and very real situation that we are all in. Whether or not you accept that is in no way connected to the theory of evolution, and there is no real point even discussing the whole depressing reality of existence any further.

Moreover, if you try getting into the whole 'no such thing as morality in an atheistic society', I recall a study that showed heavily religious societies were in fact more crime-ridden, more unstable, and basically that religion was in fact more damaging to society than the lack there of. However, as this has no bearing on evolution, I won't go into it further.

But regardless, for any religion to be correct, God needs to be Creator.

Wrong. There are plenty of religions where 'God' is not a creator.

Now there are plenty of scientists who would agree that some Intelligent force was involved with the creation of the world.  There's the fact of our positioning in the Solar System, the rotation speed, angle and the distance from Sol to Terra, the size and type of Sol, the moon which provides tidal forces to circulate water, and many other things mentioned in greater detail here:
web page, preview clip, script (.pdf).  Basically, the chances of getting it right are 1/1,000,000,000,000,000 . 
Also, the dreaded Intelligent Design factor:
web page, preview clip, script (.pdf).  I'm not certain, but I believe the chances of that are much worse.  Also this might be interesting, but you'd have to buy it.  (You can't download the script or any previews; I have not looked at these yet.)

No, there are not 'plenty of scientists' who agree that intelligent design took place. If they do, they're not scientists or they're simply in an unrelated field and therefore cannot comment on the subject from a scientific standpoint. Scientists, or at least most of them, back up hypothesis with testable evidence. As the notion of an intelligent force does not have any evidence [and what little is lauded as evidence is complete bollocks as previously stated in this thread], no credible scientist would even consider intelligent design.

Now, regarding the whole 'chances of Earth being here, and the sun being there, yadda yadda yadda', you're making one fatal error; what we are now isn't the only way we could be. Yes, our life requires a relatively specific habitable zone regarding placement in a solar system, but that's because we evolved/developed in this particular zone. So of course, it would stand to reason that life that developed in our planetary situation would obviously find it rather difficult developing in a completely different planetary situation. If the Earth were closer to the sun, life would have developed differently. If Earth was farther from the sun and didn't have a moon, we would have developed differently. You've got to remember that life on this planet is not the only possible way life can exist. The universe didn't 'get it right', as there is nothing to 'get right' in the first place. Think of it like this, when you absent-mindedly draw on a piece of paper, just doodle when you're bored in Maths class, is that doodle right or wrong?

We corrected you when you assumed that about evolution, and it applies again here.

So, what do you think?  I've got more, but I must collect my wits after my trip, and I do believe I also probably have some unanswered stuff further back in this thread.  (Probably some of you guys think I didn't answer anything, but... have patience!!!

PS  Much, much patience! 

Before making more assertions, perhaps you could go back and answer most of the questions posited to you previously in the thread. Just out of politeness.

[achtung]

One arguement against intelligent design.

If we had been designed by a all powerful being, wouldn't we be instilled with the knowledge of it's existance at birth?

[aldo_14]

BTW, check this out, emphasis on verse 19.  That is why evangelical Christians have such a hard time with evolution: it goes against the core of their faith.  Also, I didn't mention that, if evolution were true and God was not involved, and just kind of watched it happen, then he would be a liar, because the Bible states that He did indeed create everything.  Now, if He's lying about creating the Earth, then why would you trust Him to save you from your sins and bring you to Heaven when you die?  Why would you care about the said "sins" anyways?

The Vatican seems to be able to rationalise it pretty well, I note.  Although, I couldn't really give a **** about the religious objections; because it's the scientific objections that apply to the scientific theory of evolution, and all those scientific objections have been thoroughly shown to be wrong.

(if people want to teach ID in science classes, then why not teach aetheism in RE and point out all the little holes in the Bible et al?)

Without God as the One to be responsible to because of His being your Creator, there is no 'wrong' or 'right', just whatever helps you to survive.  If God had nothing to do with Creation, then I'm sorry, but He has no say in what we do.  We would be the only 'gods' around, unless something else evolved on a higher level, and even then, maybe evolution would smile on us and we'd evolve faster.  Without a Creator, everything is relative.  Life is pointless.  You fight to survive, but you'll eventually die.  Your species may continue, but who cares when you're dead?  And even your species will eventually die out, unless they evolve the ability to evade that nasty second law of thermodynamics.

Ridiculous bollocks; I really hate this - frankly vile - tactic to portray evolution as some sort of aetheistic and immoral tenet, when all it is is the science of studying the complexity of life.  Should I pull out the old 'only religion makes good people do bad things' quote in response?

Firstly, we've already dealt with the 2nd law multiple times, and you're still not reading our replies obviously.  Sigh.

Secondly, evolution and group dynamics evolve the concept of right and wrong; moral behaviour has a reward.  Life, in fact, becomes more valuable, not less, if you view it as a singular, 'short' event of time to be used.  (I kind of like the Buddhist philosophy over this; worrying about the afterlife is like being shot by an arrow and worrying about who made the arrow)

Moreso, the rules of right and wrong as defined in the various holy books reflect that; they're an attempt to codify and mass-apply social rules of good behaviour.  why else have things like requiring battlements on your house, or not wearing goods of mixed cloth?  So in actuality, it's a conflict between a set of moral guidelines defined by modern society and the modern world, against a set of moral guidelines defined by society about 2000 or so years ago.

So, either we must get rid of the Christian (and Muslim and Jewish) religions, or at least relegate them to something you believe in for no particular reason.  Or, on the other hand...[/i] what if those Christians are right?  You have managed to seriously T-off the God of the Universe.  (Everyone has, not just you in particular.)  Congratulations, you have until the end of your life to figure out how to patch things up.  Don't worry, though, He did all the work for you, you just have to accept His gift.  Now, on the other hand, if you don't accept... well then, it's extra crispy for all of eternity for you (or me ).  That's assuming the Christian religion is right.  The Muslim religion I am less familiar with.  The Jewish religion is the same as the Christian, except they don't believe that God sent Jesus as Savior, they think He's still coming.

I've never understood this arguement that God gave us this highly intelligent rational, logical brain.... and then punishes us for using it.  Apparently God is not only vengeful but irrational, egocentric and insecure.  (and whatever happened to non claiming to know the mind of God?)

And not even a very good designer, too.

But regardless, for any religion to be correct, God needs to be Creator.  (You can figure out which one's correct by studying the religions after you figure out that a Deity was involved.)  So one would definitely hope that one could figure out whether or not God is Creator before one dies.  Now there are plenty of scientists who would agree that some Intelligent force was involved with the creation of the world.  There's the fact of our positioning in the Solar System, the rotation speed, angle and the distance from Sol to Terra, the size and type of Sol, the moon which provides tidal forces to circulate water, and many other things mentioned in greater detail here:

Um... you do realise that there are billions of stars in this universe, equally billions of planets, quite possibly billions or trillions of big-crunch-bang cycles, and even perhaps parallel universes (depending on your view of how time works)?  So even accepting those odds, it's not even all that unlikely.  When I get home - assuming I remember - I'll quote the section of the Blind Watchmaker which deals with this exact subject.    I also suspect those odds are made up using the most exaggerated values possible to enlarge them....

And, as was pointed out, those odds only apply to the form of life that developed here.  Not life itself.  Now, it kind of stands to reason that life developing on a planet will be life adapted for the environment, doesn't it?

(any support for 'plenty of scientists'?  Or context as to what that immeasurably vauge statement 'intelligent force' comprises?  Or is this one of those 'Ill try and get away with making stuff up' things we see so often from creationists?)

EDIT; wait a sec, why the **** are we even talking about this thing.  The religious angle is entirely irrelevant - on the same level as ascribing gravity is against God because it's not Intelligent Falling - and the scientific 'arguement' has already been shown to be incorrect several times already.  If you really want a debate, how about a) you post a single scientific criticism per-post that we will reply to and b) you answer said criticisms or at least indicate a basic reading of them?