The Great Debate UK

Just go to the discovery institute, or any of their sister sites. Look at any of their arguments and assertions.Rest assured that every single argument creationists make on their websites are based on either:-Intentional and dishonest representations,-Deliberate MISrepresentations and/or quote mining,-Arguments based on circular or faulty logic,-Or all of the above.Let us provide a prime example of creationist ‘honesty’.A creationist site claimed that an Allosaurus bone had been sent to a lab, with a misleading label on it. The scientist radiometric dated the bone and found the age of the fragment was 10,000 years old. Not millions of years old as was expected.So the creationist sites rant at how this proves that either Young Earth Theory is correct, or that radiometric dating is flawed. And all the little drones who view the information cheerfully pass it on to other sites.But the creationists fail to mention an important fact to the sheep in their flock. The scientist, not knowing what the bone was, was instructed to give the bone radio-carbon dating.The creationists also failed to mention that carbon dating is only accurate for things less then 60,000 years old. Any older fossils will give unusual and incorrect results.So the question was not “is radiocarbon dating accurate, or is young earth correct?” as the creationist claimed.Rather the question in this case was “Is the creationist being intentionally dishonest, or just being an imbecile?”Now this isn’t isolated. Not by a long shot. All creationist arguments follow the same issue:-Evolution caused the holocaust.-Evolution is random chance.-No transitional fossils have ever been found.-There is still a missing link.-Complexity is proof of design.And the pattern? Dishonesty, misquotation, bad logic, simple denial of the facts, or all combined.Now an educated person would easily be able to pick these things up in creationist arguments and recognise them for what they are and represent. And so an educated person would not be convinced by these arguments, whether they are Christian or not.Hence, it must be concluded that these arguments are aimed at the uneducated, or those who simply accept what they are told at face value and don’t bother to verify the information they recieve.It must also be concluded that creationists are willing to engage in deceit and dishonesty in order to fool people into believing evolution is flawed. And feel morally justified in doing so.That isn’t my bias or an insult. It is simply a conclusion based on the evidence which creationists themselves present.

The theory of evolution is usually described as fact, and many people see it like this due to a moulding of public opinion. Yet the trouble is that it is simply a theory. And like many theories it is wont to constantly chop and change. Indeed we can see on numerous occasions how it has changed over time and undergone revisions. For example, according to Darwin himself, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”.Another example is the proposition of a slightly different model in recent times. Called “punctuated equilibrium”, this model rejects the Darwinist idea of a cumulative, step-by-step evolution and holds that evolution took place instead in big, discontinuous “jumps”. This is because those who ascribe to it believe the fossil record does not support gradual evolution. Sadly for the proponents, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Gould (American palaeontologists) their own theory is bankrupt – since for one thing, it conflicts with the understanding that genes cannot undergo radical mutations.The sources of proof given for the theory essentially rely on retro-fitting the supposed evidence to the theory i.e. the theory states evolution occurred from a common ancestor, and then study of fossils and homologies is used to indicate that indeed the theory is correct and evolution does occur. But equally we could state there is a creator who created the amazing diversity of life and also the similarities between species. Thus fossils and homologies would just as much, if not more, support this ‘theory’ of a Creator.Fossils are a record of what may have existed. They do not indicate anything more than this. By examining a fossil we could equally state that the organism was created as opposed to evolving from an ancestor. The fossil record is also very much incomplete – there are massive, gaping holes. This presents a staggering problem for proponents of the Theory. The somewhat weak argument is that the bulk of the fossil record may have been destroyed or is yet to be discovered. According to Neville George, a professor of Palaeontology at Glasgow University:“There is no need to apologise any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration…” Yet he goes on to say, “The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps”.Contrary to what evolutionists claim, there are only limited (if any) transitional forms. Importantly, for example, we don’t see transitional forms that show the alleged evolution of apes to humans [and to try and explain the many loopholes regarding this, there is a current debate among evolutionists themselves about whether it occurred in steps or smoothly which we alluded to earlier i.e. punctuated equilibrium]. The fossil record back then (and still today) is nearly totally void of transitional species. If species are continually mutating, never constant, why do we find several of the same, certain prehistoric creatures, but never any that appear to be in transition? Why do palaeontologists find lots of dinosaurs but never where dinosaurs come from, nor what they turned into?In Darwin’s own words, ‘Why, if species have descended by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of species being, as we see them, well defined?’ It is an excellent question, which he answers himself, ‘I can give no satisfactory answer.’Indeed British evolutionist Derek Ager admits, “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find – over and over again – not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another”.Yet another problem in using the fossil record as evidence for evolution is that under closer examination, it appears to be a proof for exactly the opposite argument – i.e. creation. For example, one of the oldest strata of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years. The living creatures found in the strata belonging to the Cambrian period seemed to emerge all of a sudden in the fossil record – there appeared to be no ancestors, although in relatively recent times palaeontologists believe fossils have been found dating from the preceding Vendian (or Ediacaran) period. The fossils found in the Cambrian rocks belonged to snails, trilobites, sponges, earthworms, jellyfish, sea hedgehogs, and other complex invertebrates. This wide mosaic of living organisms made up of such a great number of complex creatures emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the “Cambrian Explosion” in geological literature.“A half-billion years ago, the remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. This moment, right at the start of Earth’s Cambrian Period, some 550 million years ago, marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the world’s first complex creatures. The large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and they were as distinct from each other as they are today”.And one of the most vociferous advocates for atheism and evolution in today’s age, Richard Dawkins, comments “the Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists”.The basic mechanism for gene variation is mutation. And it is known that mutations are random and limited in their scope. We should note that what is not a point of debate here is the fact that genes undergo mutation; neither is there a point of conflict with the various biological processes within organisms. For example, we know that insects can build up resistance against forms of pesticide over time – in fact, in the same manner humans have long believed that taking poison in small quantities can help survive what would normally be a fatal dose. These observations do not really constitute evolution. However, even if we agreed to define these particular cases as examples of microevolution, the fact is that they can be explained by what we have come to know through scientific study and resulting conclusions. The argument for a Creator also accepts scientific facts and conclusions – it no more denies the laws of biology being created, than it denies the laws of physics being put in place by the Creator. Hence, change within the framework of the laws of biology is possible – and there is sufficient evidence for this. The main problem however is with macroevolution. To even begin to consider macroevolution, mutations would need to be dramatic – trying to get round this, it is claimed that there has been sufficient time for many small scale mutations to eventually yield the different species we see. But frankly this isn’t plausible – we have seen no evidence to support such a claim – and so this is again nothing more than a pure hypothesis.In addition, there are many other problems with the mutation argument. If mutations occur, they actually cause harmful effects and not beneficial ones. We can witness the effects of mutations caused in humans following radiation poisoning at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl – that is, a litany of death, disability and illness.According to the evolutionist scientist Warren Weavers commenting in the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that may have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:“Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are necessary parts of the process of evolution. How can good effects – evolution to higher forms of life – results from mutations practically all of which are harmful?”Similarly, another scientist B.G. Ranganathan states in his book ‘Origins?’ that “Mutations are small, random, and harmful. They rarely occur and the best possibility is that they will be ineffectual. These four characteristics of mutations imply that mutations cannot lead to an evolutionary development. A random change in a highly specialised organism is either ineffectual or harmful. A random change in a watch cannot improve the watch. It will most probably harm it or at best be ineffectual. An earthquake does not improve the city, it brings destruction”.Finally, mutations do not actually add any new information to an organisms DNA. During a mutation, the genetic information is either destroyed or rearranged, but since there is no new information, it is impossible for mutations to cause a new trait or organ within a living organism.Evolution cannot answer where the first cell came from. The best guess is that came about through a random coincidence. Fred Hoyle, a well-known English mathematician and astronomer, and someone who believes in evolution, made the analogy that the chances of the first cell forming in this manner were comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials present. And according to Professor of Applied Mathematics and astronomy from University College (Cardiff, Wales), Chandra Wickramasinghe:“The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it… It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence”. In other words the random formation of such a first cell is an impossibility.But still let’s assume we suddenly have a cell. The first cell would then have to self-reproduce otherwise there would only ever be one cell. This becomes problematic for evolutionists so they suggest self-replication – i.e. the first cell has the ability to clone itself. However, organic matter can only self reproduces if it exists as a fully developed cell with existing support structures such as the particular environment and energy. This then requires more leaps of faith – so let’s make another assumption, this time that the cell does have a complex structure and the ability to reproduce. But, for evolution, mutation needs to happen. So firstly, since mutation is random, even given an absolute age, mutation might not occur. And secondly, mutation can only take place if the cell is forced to repair itself or if it makes a copy of itself. Thus, for a handful of cells, to copy and mutate successfully and form different cells and for this process to continue onwards to produce the complexity of life we see is something, which cannot happen. Leaving aside time, and the random nature of mutation, just the series of mutations necessary to produce even the simplest of species are impossible.There is no actual hard evidence for the process of evolution itself. We don’t witness evolution. All that experiments (such as the one widely used.. involving guppies) or observations in the field (such as the house sparrows example…another widely used one) demonstrate is a form of selection. But this is not real evolution – the fact that a population may change due to various factors (such as environment, predators, etc) or that it may become extinct is not a change from one species to another. So even if we can see natural selection of sorts, this is based on rational factors, and is not evolution.Adaptation is mentioned as a feature of evolution. That is, the manner in which organisms have evolved beneficial characteristics adapted to their environment, which help them survive. Such as some insects, where their body itself is a form of camouflage protecting them against predators. However, evolutionists themselves state that mutation is random and can lead to beneficial as well as harmful results. The environment cannot influence the occurrence or form of any mutation. So in this case, the evolutionary argument would have to be that today’s stick insects evolved from ancestors, which did randomly mutate to have this beneficial characteristic of camouflage. Those within the population that didn’t inherit this mutation would have died out due to their inability to survive. But once again, claiming that a series of mutations occurred, that lead to stick insects possessing characteristics that are suited to their environment, is nothing but conjecture. As before, we could equally state that a Creator has created various species and organisms of life with these inherent varying characteristics. So, organisms were in fact created with characteristics that we interpret as beneficial to them, instead of these traits evolving through time. Thus, the fact that many organisms seem well matched to their environments cannot be cited as any kind of proof or indication of evolution.Let’s take a look at another argument that shows the fallacy of evolution. Many organisms and parts of organisms do not appear to have evolved from lesser things because they are ‘irreducibly complex’ life forms. Irreducible complexity is a concept that has been developed to describe something that is made of interacting parts that all work together. To understand this, take the example of a mousetrap. A mousetrap cannot be assembled through gradual improvement. You cannot start with a wooden base, catching a few mice, then add a hammer, and catch more, then add a spring, improving it further. To even begin catching mice one must assemble all the components completely with design and intent. Furthermore, if one of these parts changes or evolves independently, the entire thing will stop working. The mousetrap, for instance, will become useless if even one part malfunctions.Likewise, many biological structures are irreducibly complex. Bats are a well-known example. They are said to have evolved from a small rodent whose front toes became wings. This presents a multitude of problems. As the front toes grow skin between them, the creature has limbs that are too long to run, or even walk well, yet too short to help it fly. There is no plausible way that a bat wing can evolve from a rodent’s front toes. In fact, the fossil record supports this, because the first time bats are seen in the fossil record, they have completely developed wings and are virtually identical to modern bats.Consider another example, that of the eye. Suppose that before animals had sight, one species decided it would be advantageous to be able to decrypt light rays. So, what is evolved first? The retina? The iris? The eye is made of many tiny parts, each totally useless without the others. The probability that a genetic mutation that would create each of these at the same time, in the same organism, is zero. If, however, one organism evolved just a retina, then the logic of Darwin suggests that the only solution is to rid oneself of useless traits replacing them with beneficial ones, so the idea of the eye evolving one segment at a time is also bogus.The tenet idea of the theory is based on assumption, simply blind assumption. What the evolutionists put forward as evidence neither prove nor disprove the theory of evolution…either way, those so called abundant evidences favors the the theory of Creationism in equal strength.So no wonders that ’The debate over Darwin 150 years on’….and all these are sobering indications that, far from being fact, the theory of evolution is nothing more than speculation and hypothesis.

Darwin is irrelevant. Darwinism is the pablum taught to middle school children who don’t have enough math to be taught how it really works. Scientists say they agree with Darwin, but then quickly leave Darwin in the dust. Darwin is not science, it is observation at best and poor observation at that. Why we waist our time talking about this has been no body I can not understand. Darwin is not the father of biology, that goes to an Austria priest who actually did science with a bunch of sweet pea plants.

Both positions are incorrect, the issue is that we do not know how God did it.Please watch this video from TED. We don’t knoe hoe HE moved his “mouse”, we were created ti His image and resemblance, and we have as humands strived to “imitate” Our Father, in almost everything but the only failures is LOVE.Regardshttp://www.ted.com/talks/wil l_wright_makes_toys_that_make_worlds.htm l

Anon-In your example, you gave a false reading of 10,000 years because C14 dating is only accurate for things 60,000 years or less. Is this a typo, or does C14 yield false postives within it’s acceptable range? If it does, it seems to me that any C14 test would need a second supporting test (possibly qualitative).I think the proper way to frame any evolution-creation debate is to focus on the creation side. A quick scan of Genesis compared to the Book of Kings or the gospels makes it obvious that Genesis is not written as a historic account of the beginning of the universe. It’s written poetically to express truth beyond sterile fact, like Song of Solomon. The gospels, on the other hand, include many references to events for verification by later readers. Anyone who is seriously arguing about a 6-day creation has missed the point of Genesis.

Straight talk.Despite your long and rambling post, which you obviously regurgitated from a creationist website, I was able to deduce the following failures in your argument.1. Irreducible complexity has long been debunked as stupidity of the highest order.2. Random mutation is not the main driver of evolution. Natural selection and genetics is. And they are not random.3. The eye began in early forms as simple nerves capable of detecting light. How these nerves gradually evolved into eyes is well established.4. Evolution doesn’t ‘claim’ that humans evolved from apes. Ape means a hominid. Humans are a class of hominid. We are hence, apes. And evolution simply concludes that based on the current evidence the branches of ape, of which humans are part, share common ancestors.5. We discovered the missing links (and there were a few) in hominid evolution ages ago. So many, in fact, that we now have difficulty establishing whether they belong to one stage or the next. You would probably call them ‘transitional’ forms, in the sense that every life form is essentially a transitional form.6. Complexity is proof of complexity. Claiming it is proof of design means you assume there is a designer. You have not proven a designer exists, so you assume he exists. Hence you are assuming that complexity is proof of a deity you are assuming exists. Circular reasoning.7. You refuse to accept evolution based on gaps in positive evidence. But you also believe in the existence of a deity based on no evidence at all. So we can conclude that you don’t hold any value to actual facts or evidence. Or that you will only believe something when there is no evidence it is true.8. If you are going to quote evolutionists, don’t quote mine them. It just makes you look silly when people track down the full text and realise how dishonest you are.9. Even if evolution has gaps in evidence which are never found, religion has no evidence at all. So from that point alone, evolution is more likely to be correct.10. If the bible cannot be taken literally, then it has been proven to be fallible. Meaning that evolution, with each fossil proven correct or improved, disproves your faith just a little bit more.

Straight Talk.I found your post incredibly depressing. You ignore all the evidence of the last 150 years that has made the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as well proven as any other scientific theory: including Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Nobody refers to that as “simply a theory”. Evolution does not even require the fossil record to provide sufficient proof. Genetics and recent biological studies give us more than enough evidence.If you want to disprove the theory of evolution, you had better come up with a sound theory of your own that explains ALL the evidence in a more convincing way. Creationists are quick to critisize but slow to come forward with testable hypotheses. I would be fascinated to hear how a “creator” physically affects biological development. Such a theory would be the greatest scientific achievement ever if it could be tested and proven. Let’s hear it.

A scientific debate between biologists and priests.Do we really need to go any further?

To Myth Busta1. ‘Irreducible complexity has long been debunked’ by the evolutionists as because it poses a considerably big question to the theory of evolution that the evolutionists can not deal with. To hold faith on their predefined theory they have to reject all that facts which do not suit with their idea. In evolutionists’ term ‘Irreducible complexity’ is a ‘redundant’ idea so as to leave it to make their own idea viable in their own senses.2. Though not a main driver but you should not lose faith on mutation, after all, random mutation is the initiator of the whole saga. If it wouldn’t be the case then you have to rewrite the whole story in another form to explain at least the initial stage of evolution…means another fairly tale. However, natural selection or genetics are not conclusive evidence for the theory of evolution.3. ‘How these nerves (nerves of eye) gradually evolved into eyes’…you can say……are already ‘assumed’……..but can’t say ‘is well established’….this gradual evolution is hypothetically assumed on the basis of findings the homologies between the eyes of simple and complex creatures. The basis of giant leap from ‘finding similarities’ to ‘concept of gradual evolution’ is simply blind assumption….which is too weak to claim ‘well established’4. ok, I agree.5. Those so called missing links or transitional forms only describe the similarities between different species. But that does not necessarily mean one species evolves from or into another. If you believe its EVOLUTION that’s causes those similarities to transform one into another, then what’s wrong with creationists’ who claim its CREATOR that created all diversified beings of similarities and differences?6. Complexity puts weakness into evolution theory as evolutionists have to believe in more and more assumptions to explain a complex biological design. I am not sure why don’t you accept the complex biological body as a biological design?? Is it for only that you don’t want to accept the existence of a designer?? Again you are trying to find out a favorable suit to fit your presumption. Well, if you don’t accept the existence of designer it’s up to you… but you have to accept that human or any other animal body is a biological design. You may not accept the existence of IBM Company but still you have to admit that IBM branded laptop is a laptop indeed.7. I want to say that the theory of evolution is a hypothesis based on assumption…..irrespective of existence or non-existence of a deity or creator.8. In my post I didn’t mention any quote of any scientist which has potential to produce a different meaning while a really honest person goes to track down the whole text. However, the quotation was put to show the writer of the article “The debate over Darwin 150 years on” that his claim “its universal acceptance among scientists” is not quite right.9. “Religion has no evidence” is not the conclusive evidence that the theory of evolution is correct one.10. Whether the bible or any other book is fallible or infallible is not the discussion here…this is the problem with evolutionists…when they face opposition they presume the protestor as being bearer of another presumption as they themselves hold their own. Here the discussion is all about the theory of evolution…whether it has any evidence to be true or not. However, your fossil records don’t have any conclusive evidence to prove the evolution theory…once more; fossil records show only the similarity not the gradual transformation from one species to another.To R GilyeadIn last 150 years or more evolutionists didn’t bring any thing new.. other than all that repeated descriptions of finding similarities among structures of different creatures…..once they showed similarities in outer characteristics now due to instrumental advancements they are able to show the similarities in molecular level….that’s the difference. How genetics and recent biological studies give evidences for evolution theory?…I am quite interested to know that. Evolution theory always used to seek favors from scientific advancement but never got it in real sense rather sometimes it has to be depressed to see some scientific advancements which contradicts its blind assumptions. Germ theory of Louis Pasteur or Mendelian inheritance theory are a few that put an end to some enthusiastic assumptions of conceptual ancestors of modern evolutionists.Before going to disprove you have to prove the theory conclusively at first hand. All that have been put forward as evidences of evolutions are simply observations from which evolutionists have drawn a random conclusion on the basis of assumption… So you accept the evolution theory as truth..because you don’t have any other one???? Not a good logic at all. Due to the absence of a testable hypothesis you are relying on a hypothetical assumption??…..Not a convincing way at all to accept a theory in stead of another. However, if there is a creator then he must have the ability to put all the physical and biological laws in place and that doesn’t go wrong with the fossil records etc. But in this case we have to prove the existence of a creator at first place….and that is a different discussion irrelevant to our present debate of whether the theory of evolution is a fact or far from being fact it’s a hypothesis and assumptions?

The theory of Irreducible ComplexityCreationist: Eyes are too complex to form incrementally.Scientist: Actually they can be formed over time.Creationist: They can’t, because eyes are too complex to be reducible.Scientist: Simple sight organs can develop into complex ones through natural selection and genetics.Creationist: But eyes were always complex, they never were simple organs.Scientist: Why do you say that?Creationist: Because they were complex when God made them.Scientist: So what you are saying is that it is impossible for eyes to develop incrementally, because they were complex when God made them?Creationist: Yes.Scientist: Do you have any evidence that God made them?Creationist: Yes. Because eyes are too complex to form incrementally.Scientist: You do realise that your thinking is illogical, right?Creationist: No, it isn’t. Your thinking is illogical!(Scientist walks away)

The argument for Darwinism seems to go something like this: there is no alternative provable scientific theory that accounts for the origin of life. Therefore Darwin must be true. However it is easy to forget that even if Creation is not provable, it may still be true. Truth is a question of actual facts. Was the world created by G-d, or not? Saying that because it is not possible to prove G-d therefore we must believe in Darwinism is ludicrous.

Evolution argues that based on all the evidence which exists, the life of today share common ancestry.Creationism argues that based on no evidence at all, a deity created all life as it exists today.We are not saying that evolution MUST be true because of overwhelming evidence. A scientific theory does not operate in truths. Only facts are true. A theory is simply the most concrete conclusion which can explain previous evidence and make testable predictions of future observations.Because most positive evidence supports evolution, it is the most likely possibility for how life developed. Much like gravity is currently the most likely possibility for why things fall to the ground when dropped.Religion is completely the opposite. Because creationism relies on assumption, it is not based on any positive evidence. Because it operates on negative proof, it isn’t based on any scientific method. Because it relies on circular reasoning, it isn’t even based on logic.The true tragedy is that religion professes to provide an answer to the universe around us. But it has no grounds to back up its assumptions. It has not met the onus of proof. It cannot make testable predictions, or credible analysis of previous observations. And as a result, any conclusions it reaches are completely useless. Nothing more then platitudes for which there is no basis.In fact, all creationism does is devalue the human reliance on the scientific method and the manner in which humans discover the world around them. Because discovery is based on observation of evidence and using it to reach a logical conclusion. Religion involves neither evidence nor logic.If you are going to believe in a deity based on no evidence, then evidence itself no longer means anything to you. You could be shown every scrap of evidence, every fact and observation in the universe. But it will not matter. Because if you are willing to believe something based on no evidence, no amount of actual evidence will ever change your mind.And if you actually dismiss the actual evidence because it disagrees with a conclusion based on no evidence, your folly is double.

A recent study of 1000 children under the age of 6 determined that they could be classified as those who believe in Santa Claus and those who are sceptical (only 2 children stated outright that Santa doesn’t exist).Among the sceptics, there was a marked tendancy to sneak downstairs on the night before Christmas and wait to see if Santa comes down the chimney. They want proof.The true believers were happy to sleep and wait until Christmas morning to get their presents. Some even felt that those who doubted were less likely to get what they asked for.

“the complexity of a finger making a tight grip is enough to convince me that we did not get here by evolution.”Wow…………..I’m sure your parents propping up christianity as the righteous way of living, society telling you you have to be christian to have any morals and your stubborness has absolutely nothing to do with it. It’s just because of a robot’s ability to grip something.

“I have asked at school and at college how many birds had to dive off the cliff before they sprouted wings.”Birds didn’t just ‘sprout’ wings. That would be a creationist way of thinking, and by ‘creationist’ I mean illogical.Common ancestry has already determined how flight in creatures developed over several species. The ancient ancestors of birds (reptiles) knew how to climb, glide and jump long before they developed the ability to fly.Natural selection would then favour lighter bones and bodies, streamlined feathers and stronger limbs. And eventually when gliding became the primary method of travel, the frontal limbs would lose useless claws and become wings.So to answer your question “how many birds had to jump off a cliff before they sprouted wings”. None. But it took many billions of reptiles jumping and gliding from tree to tree.As for the complexity of the human hand giving no doubt as to a master designer? I feel about evolution in a similar way.When I look at the human hand, and the hands of all the current species of Hominid apes alive today, and the hands of all the previous Hominid ancestor species discovered by science, and the frontal limbs of even older Primate and Eurochonta fossils discovered, it is enough to convince me that we got our hands by evolution.We both look at the same hand. But because you don’t look at the same fossils I do, you come to a completely different conclusion.And that was assuming you also don’t look at genetics, horse breeding, animal domestication, bacteria, vestigal organs/bones, peppermint moths and dinosaur fossils. Things which a college educated robot designer such as yourself should also be aware of.

“Many of the people who tout the theory of Darwinian Evolution skip from that basic idea to Atheism. Until the Darwinians can answer the questions of the origin of the universe and the nature of human consciousness, then the insertion of Darwinian Evolution into the history of the Universe is just one chapter in a book which may have no beginning, no end and, certainly, no facile explanations of who we are and what we will become.”1. Evolution doesn’t explain the origin of the universe, because it has nothing to do with physics.2. Human consciousness is explained by our mental and social development. Both of which have their primitive origins in biology, natural selection and evolution. Unless, of course, you believe our brains came out of a magic hat.3. Religion does not provide the answers you seem to believe evolution lacks. Because none of religion’s answers are based on any actual evidence, religion’s creationist conclusions are of no value and can be dismissed without consequence.4. Even the big bang theory has more worth in it then the bible. After all, at least the big bang conclusion is based on the doppler effect and physics. Which means it is a conclusion based on actual observations and evidence, an infinite improvement over anything religion can claim.5. Atheism accepts that we do not understand many aspects of the universe, limiting our conclusions to what we can actually learn and observe. Religion reaches baseless conclusions, with no evidence, surviving simply by mass social reinforcement and the fear of the unknown.6. If you are so afraid of the unknown that you must cling to a groundless belief for comfort, and you value that comfort so much you will dismiss any direct evidence that contradicts your belief, then you probably deserve religion just as much as it deserves you.

Lol a blind guess.It’s like seeing someone with a gas can and lighter in their hand dancing around a burning house, yelling “BURN BURN!!!” and them then confessing to the police, yet if it’s not on high definition video recording to you creationists that’d be a blind guess.It truly is impossible to change the mind of creationists, no matter how many facts are presented. That’s just the grip that religion puts on people’s brains. If you’re told from birth to death that the only way to be happy in an infinite eternal life you’ll have a lot of people making the blind assumption that that’s the truth.Fearmongering at its best, or worst, i guess depending how you look at it.

Creationism is one of the most damaging movements to come out of the rise of radical Christianity. The move to try selling it as science in American schools is just embarrassing, no wonder we’re so far behind the rest of the world in science and math.Humans used to think that everything in the world revolved around the Earth. Only humans are arrogant and self-important enough to believe that they certainly must be the creation of a great god when, in fact, humans probably invented their god in their own image.

Michael Ham,Even on the basis of judiciary, from the example of …“someone with a gas can and lighter…..” you can not pose a serious judgment from the incident and can not simply send the person to jail…..the court is there for judgment. Even if it happens in daylight, court will take all influencing factors into account and will consider every possibility before deciding whether the person is guilty or not…whether the ‘yelling’ and ‘confessing’ are real or camouflage…etc.In case of science any decision comes through much more strict methodology. It’s not something like seeing and deciding. You can do it but this is not science. There is far difference between a scientist and a philosopher who makes a blind guess after observing nature and keeps faith on it. As like there is difference between a judge who is making a judgment in a court upon a crime and a viewer who was sauntering around the incident and makes a guess after having a glance. If you are later type here while discussing evolution theory I don’t have any objection but if you claim it to be scientific one than your example has just made your logical position a little bit more vulnerable.

To Haha…”Science is about taking the observations of the world and reaching an understanding about the universe around us. That which we cannot observe or test, is simply not relevant.”…I agree with it and that is why your all comments regarding a deity or creator, including the question whether creator does exist or not, are completely irrelevant….observing and experimenting on material worlds means scientific study neither prove nor disprove the existence of a creator.So your notion… “We certainly wouldn’t be able to ‘know’ he exists. Nor could we ever hope to even guess at his actions or understand his motives.” …sounds like.. after knowing algorithms, circuits,hardware, software etc you are claiming, as you know the mechanism of computing you will not accept the existence of the manufacturer of the computer, coz you do not know where the manufacturer lives, what does s/he eat, what s/he wear etc….However, the discussion of existence of creator is like the issue of discussion of your own existence to me while you are reading this post….or vise versa…when I read your post I have only some electromagnetic signs on the screen of my computer symbolizing the alphabates…I don’t know who you are, where are you from, what you do, no idea, no fossil records, can’t test on you, can’t observe you etc….but still I am sure you exist…this is a conclusion from direct thinking of human as rational being….denying such a fact is not only like to devalue science (as scientific method of thinking…observation and experiments on material worlds….itself depends on direct rational thinking),such denying is also a serious insult to human intellect.

“Most ridiculous thing about evolution theory is claiming it to be a scientific theory. But it is really not. It’s only a philosophy.” Nonsense. There is in fact overwhelming scientific evidence that evolution is how nature works, in terms of species. Darwin spent decades collecting a lot of evidence for it, and it’s been supported by more and more evidence since his time. By now, there’s a rich wealth of supporting evidence, including lots from genetic research. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that supports creationism. None!To suppose that it is merely a theory or “philosophy” ignores the fact that evolution has been directly observed. For example, in the UK, it was observed that over a period of just a few decades, owing to soot covering buildings, moths had also grown darker, to be better hidden against predators. That was evolution (natural selection) in progress.It doesn’t take millions of years; it can happen in merely decades, or maybe only a few years. And you can see it! All you need is eyes. But I guess that is asking a lot of the blind.The creationists should spend more time educating themselves, and less time spouting their ill-informed nonsense in public forums.

“I agree with it and that is why your all comments regarding a deity or creator, including the question whether creator does exist or not, are completely irrelevant”Good. That was what I was pointing out and I am glad you understood that.Hopefully you will also understand that your assumptions which form the basis for your belief are equally irrelevent to this debate, because they are not based on any evidence.So can we agree to leave reality to the scientists?

Suppose I am wondering about the creation of the universe.As a person, I can create and destroy life. I can create original things. As far as I am concerned, the world didn’t exist before I was there to experience it. And when I die, there is no way to know if the universe will continue without me.So I then conclude that I must be a God, and I actually created this universe.The big question is: When does my assertion become truth?-Is it when I think of it?-Is it when I write about it in a book?-Is it when other people read my book and agree with me?-Is it when the people who read my book start teaching their children that my godliness is truth and failure to believe in me will send them to hell?Following that line of thought, at what point does any religion cross the line between ‘illogical belief’ and ‘faith’?

“just wonder if, according to you, evolution takes place in decades even in few years why the monkeys in zoo waiting for, for decades after decades….being homologous with human they can easily evolute themselves into human being and get out of that cages”Not really.Because monkeys and men are both hominids. Our species share a common ancestor, but are no longer familiar enough to breed successfully.Homo Sapian (modern man) and Homo Neanderthalensis (Neanderthal) were two sister species among many others (Such as Homo Erectus, Homo Ergaster), who all shared the same ancestor species (potentially Australopithecine or something close to it).But the various other Apes of today are several more steps removed. Chimps were the Pan branch that split off from Hominini. Gorillas are descended from the Gorillini who split off a step earlier from Homininae. Orang-utans split off another step earlier from that.So it is impossible for monkeys to evolve into men. Just like a cat can’t evolve into a dog. And much like a human could not be said to have actually evolved from the same monkeys we see in a zoo today.But given a longer amount of time (tens of thousands of years at the least), it is quite possible that monkeys could evolve even further. They already form communities, use tools, have the capacity for communication, recognise that their reflection is a projection of themselves rather then another ape, and can use their developed brain to solve complex problems. That alone is impressive.So it is entirely realistic to believe that given the opportunity, monkeys could evolve to the point where they closely resemble us, or even develop complex society as we did.The predictable question which would then come from creationist lips would be “if they have the capability to evolve further, why have they not done so already, why do they show no signs of doing so now, and will they ever do so?”The answer is simple. We killed their chances.As the dominant species, Humans have obtained complete superiority over the environment and resources of any potential competitor hominids. And in many cases, we have decimated their populations to the point of extinction.Those who survive are now in tiny genetic communities, or isolated groups in zoos. The chances that their species will survive at all is remote due to genetic stagnation, hence the chances of them evolving to a level resembling us is almost impossible.So in the near future, if there is a terrible planet of the apes, it will most likely be the planet of the human-ape.

To Noah Idea…Everything we see around is ‘matter’ and we are talking about the very existence of matters of their various forms…whether these matters of various forms are created by someone or not? Making any differentiation between these matters in name of “Artificial” and “Natural” is immaterial here if we are not eager to get some odd favors in support of our own logic by such differentiation…However, let’s have a look at your extension in this way,If someone- DOESN’T understand the scientific concepts behind computers and programs.- CANNOT manipulate computers and programs with his actions.- DOESN’T know how things are taken apart and put together in a computer.- CANNOT build more computers and programs himself or improve them.Then is it illogical for him to think that computer is designed and manufactured by someone????? Then what do you suggest for him as logical conclusion…Over the time some steel, irons, plastic, silicon, glass etc evoluted themselves into a well designed computer???!!!! Is this thinking a logical and rational for him????? So everyone needs to be an expert on spaceship and astronomy to decide whether the spaceship is manufactured by someone or not???? Reality is we all know (instead of being almost ignorant for many of us about spaceship or astronomy) spaceship is designed and manufactured by someone.Your another point “If we cannot witness the deity, or communicate with the deity, then there is no grounds for believing that a deity was responsible for designing existance.”…very poor logic, indeed not a rational proposal. After going back to home from outside if you find the door of the home to be broken and valuable goods are missing…..wouldn’t you think its theft (means someone taken away the goods) or still you will wait to communicate with the thief to make such a judgment?? Reality is you will instantly decide (without witness or any kind of communication with the thief) that someone has looted your home and probably you will inform the police to find out who did it.The fact is, in your example you ignored a fundamental observation about the computer etc as a MATTER and for that reason you have come up with such a ridiculous conclusion.One of the direct observations on computer or spaceship is, it is a combination of different matters….and matters can not be combined, placed, displaced, changed by themselves unless someone do it to happen.So knowing that matters are created, designed by someone is independent of the discussion how a combination of matters (like computer) works or having a witness or getting communication with the designer/manufacturer/creator…..The very existence of matters in its any form is a sobering indication that someone has designed or manufactured it, as because matter itself can not do it to happen.