Evidence for God from Science

Found this and thought it was helpful. Just wanted to share it with you guys. I want to share it with a friend of mine. Any flaws I should know about?

Evolution

Mystical wrote:Found this and thought it was helpful. Just wanted to share it with you guys. I want to share it with a friend of mine. Any flaws I should know about?

Evolution

Hmm, I liked the website beyond that article (which I didn't read, because I simply don't believe in evolution ). Great articles to read.

that's a pretty good read... I really enjoyed the Genetics part

Have you heard of the "Missing Link"? A title like that makes it sound as though if we could just find one more link between apes and men we'd have it made. Not true. The truth is, they're all missing!

this is actually one good line amidst plenty of ignorant remarks. the transitional fossils that so many are looking for will never be found because all organisms are transitional. every organism that ever lived is just a little bit different than the last, that is how evolution works.

Evolution has no good explanation for how something as complex as life arose from nothing.

that is because the theory of evolution does not concern this. the theory of evolution only concerns the differentiation of organisms through reproduction and natural selection.

Simply stated, life either comes from life or it does not.

evolution posits that complex life only comes from life. the origin of life is thought by many to have been a long process of developing organisation of certain chemicals that are able to keep their form. they developed much like how evolution happens, merely because they were able to 'survive' or stay intact.

Creation and all empirical evidence teaches the former, evolution teaches the latter.

i simply don't see how you believe this. evolution states that life does not come from life? complex life does not come from non-life, but it is quite apparent that life developed from non-life because we are all made of non-living particles. it is possible for our bodies to be broken down into non-living molecules.

For evolution to be true, life had to come from non-life at some point in the past. Pasteur showed over 100 years ago that this does not happen (remember the flies-coming-from-garbage theory?). What we see in reality is that life does not spontaneously generate from non-life. Life from life, kind from kind, just as the Bible teaches.

life is made up of non-living particles. we are made of the same things as the rest of the universe, which is described as non-living. it seems to me then that life is a characteristic of complexity, not simply of being. life is the organisation of non-living particles. in this way it is easy to see that life originally developed from non-life. life has since been increasing in complexity because complexity has served for better survival.

Another thing missed in this idea of parts is that life cannot come into being just by getting the right ingredients together. An airplane is millions of non flying parts put together by design to fly. In the same way, we are millions of nonmoving parts that live! Life cannot evolve from death. The only difference between a live body and a dead one is . . . what? It just stops being alive. Making the physical parts necessary for life does not make life.

the idea missed in this argument is that there are neccessary 'ingredients' missing in a dead organism. a plane cannot fly without fuel. the difference between a live body and a dead one is that the dead one does not have energy flowing through it.

Many scientists recognize this fact, and the naturalist theories conjured up to explain the problem only highlight evolution's bankruptcy as a theory. Fred Hoyle, the originator of the steady state universe theory (which he later abandoned), in his book Lifecloud: the Origin of Life in the Universe, lists evidence why it would be impossible for life to begin here on earth, and then presents a theory that life originated on comets! Francis Crick, who received the Noble Prize for his discovery of the DNA molecule, fills the first half of his his book, Life Itself, with reasons why life could not originate on our planet—and then he proceeds to suggest that it came from outer space on rockets ("panspermia")!

so a chemically enriched ocean surrounded by numerous gases is a less likely place for chemicals to organise into life than a desolte rock with no atmosphere and no liquid water? or is the author here trying to say that because anyone can come up with theories based on what humanity has recorded to have observed, then this one theory that gets you uptight must be incorrect?

Time and chance are the creators of evolutionists. The idea is that given enough time, anything possible will happen. But will it really? Consider: How long do you suppose it would take 1,000,000 monkeys typing at 100 wpm for 24 hours a day to type the first four words of a Shakespeare play by chance? Estimates are somewhere around 800,000,000,000,000 years. That's a long time for four words! Now imagine a DNA strand containing the equivalent of 500,000 pages of words being formed by chance (chance cannot actually "do" anything of course - it is merely a description of odds). The actual odds of the DNA of a simple microorganism randomly reaching required specificity is 1 in 10 to the 78,000th power. How high are these odds? Consider that the number of atoms in the entire universe is about 10 to the 80th power. And it gets even worse.

the author here forgets that science does not posit that everything is up to chance. in fact, just the opposite is implied. everything has a cause. it would take a lot less time than 800,000,000,000,000 years for 1,000,000 monkeys to type shakespeare because the monkeys would evolve and learn higher levels of thinking and one of them would grow up in the right environment to start writing dramatic and sometimes tragic and ironic plays. Wait, this is what happened, isn't it?

the flaw in the logic this author is using is that change within the system does not occur, or that it is too small to be noticable. one thing causes another and that causes another thing and so on and all these causes and effects affect each other. this goes on infinitely. nothing is random, it is caused by something, which is caused by something else before it. in this way, if there is even the slightest chance that life could develop from chemicals, then we could be that small chance. if there is a chance, it can still happen, no matter how remote the chance is.

i might be back for more refutation, but this article is a bit assinine and its late.

this is actually one good line amidst plenty of ignorant remarks. the transitional fossils that so many are looking for will never be found because all organisms are transitional. every organism that ever lived is just a little bit different than the last, that is how evolution works.

Really? Then why are there such stark contrasts between...say, birds and dinosaurs?

that is because the theory of evolution does not concern this. the theory of evolution only concerns the differentiation of organisms through reproduction and natural selection.

But the purpose of evolution is to explain how life came to be naturalistically...so if the first life can't be explained naturalistically, you have a problem. Dawkins obviously knows this, as he felt complelled to write a book begging the question in order to defend his views.

evolution posits that complex life only comes from life. the origin of life is thought by many to have been a long process of developing organisation of certain chemicals that are able to keep their form. they developed much like how evolution happens, merely because they were able to 'survive' or stay intact.

What one thinks is now synonymous with evidence?

i simply don't see how you believe this. evolution states that life does not come from life? complex life does not come from non-life, but it is quite apparent that life developed from non-life because we are all made of non-living particles. it is possible for our bodies to be broken down into non-living molecules.

No, it is not apparent. It's reading your philosophy into the evidence. A car is made out of several naturally occuring materials, but it is not "apparent" that the car came to be naturalistically.

life is made up of non-living particles. we are made of the same things as the rest of the universe, which is described as non-living. it seems to me then that life is a characteristic of complexity, not simply of being. life is the organisation of non-living particles. in this way it is easy to see that life originally developed from non-life. life has since been increasing in complexity because complexity has served for better survival.

A computer is not alive. A man with a bullet hole through his head is not living, even though he has not lost any complexity. Also, you're begging the question. Something must be alive for more complexity to make it survive better.

the author here forgets that science does not posit that everything is up to chance. in fact, just the opposite is implied. everything has a cause. it would take a lot less time than 800,000,000,000,000 years for 1,000,000 monkeys to type shakespeare because the monkeys would evolve and learn higher levels of thinking and one of them would grow up in the right environment to start writing dramatic and sometimes tragic and ironic plays. Wait, this is what happened, isn't it?

You seem to miss the point of the odd explanation. It's that dumb animals by random chance cannot type out Shakespeare. You're using intelligence in your version to get the works produced.

the flaw in the logic this author is using is that change within the system does not occur, or that it is too small to be noticable. one thing causes another and that causes another thing and so on and all these causes and effects affect each other. this goes on infinitely. nothing is random, it is caused by something, which is caused by something else before it. in this way, if there is even the slightest chance that life could develop from chemicals, then we could be that small chance. if there is a chance, it can still happen, no matter how remote the chance is.

Infinite causual regression. Now you're talking nonsense. And, nothing can go on infinitely-the universe is only 14-15 billion years old.

i might be back for more refutation, but this article is a bit assinine and its late.

Yeah

the flaw in the logic this author

Wait, you're saying logic transcend the individual? But aren't you a materialist-everything has its root in some physical thing (for lack of a better word) meaning that logic is somewhere, physically, in a man's head. So, you are now contradicting yourself. Great work team.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Really? Then why are there such stark contrasts between...say, birds and dinosaurs?

because there are millions of years between them. there might have existed proto-birds at the time of the dinosaurs, but that was in the jurassic or cretatious; dinosaurs were around for about 200 million years, thats plenty of time for them to differentiate drastically. you are making god out to be a pansy without any ability to do anything if you think he has to design each and every thing himself. rather than that, he is able to know how every cause brings and effect and what that effect will be. he is able to guide the universe without actually interfering with it (except in the case of jesus, but that was neccessary).

But the purpose of evolution is to explain how life came to be naturalistically...so if the first life can't be explained naturalistically, you have a problem. Dawkins obviously knows this, as he felt complelled to write a book begging the question in order to defend his views.

it can be explained naturalistically, it just hasn't been proven. there have been many experiments which have formed life out of mere chemicals, electricity and seawater. it is possible.

What one thinks is now synonymous with evidence?

i could say the same for religion. but i try not to be condescending to other's belief's; it goes against everything jesus taught humanity.

No, it is not apparent. It's reading your philosophy into the evidence. A car is made out of several naturally occuring materials, but it is not "apparent" that the car came to be naturalistically.

reading your philosophy as evidence is believing that god is real based only on the bible. you are still using the argument that something complex cannot come from uncomplexity. i agree with you, but that doesn't disprove evolution. actually, it agrees with evolution. of course a car cannot occur naturally, but the metal used to make a car occurs naturally. single cells did not form from chemicals. the nucleotides and RNA formed from chemicals. the RNA formed structure. the structure became a cell. the cell began living communally (the ones that did were more likely to survive). the multicellular became varied. they became complex. this is how life formed.

A computer is not alive. A man with a bullet hole through his head is not living, even though he has not lost any complexity. Also, you're begging the question. Something must be alive for more complexity to make it survive better.

a car without gas will not run. yes it must be alive, that is why evolution depends on survival. why do you think a rabbit runs from a wolf. a bullet in the head disrupts the structure that controls the body. without fuel pumping through the body, cells no longer recieve vital nutrients. when the brain is dead, there is no longer a structure through which energy can flow.

You seem to miss the point of the odd explanation. It's that dumb animals by random chance cannot type out Shakespeare. You're using intelligence in your version to get the works produced.

yeah, i agree with that. but the logic he uses is ignorant to many facets of reality. just by walking around outside, in nature, one can see that the world does not work like he interprets it. and what difference does intelligence make? we are more intelligent than our beastly cousins, are we not? we became intelligent, most likely, through a process of survival. those who were smarter, survived because they could figure out how to. given a few million years and the ability to survive that long, a bunch of monkeys will evolve, most likely intelligently, but it all depends on their environment. the reason nothing intelligent evolved for billions of years before is because there was no need to. organisms survived without having to become intelligent.

Infinite causual regression. Now you're talking nonsense. And, nothing can go on infinitely-the universe is only 14-15 billion years old.

i know that. i'm glad you do too, though. but there must have been something before the big bang, even before god. either that, or god must be eternal. existence cannot exist with a beginning because that means that there was nothing and nothing is something so that means that there was always existence.

the flaw in the logic this author

Wait, you're saying logic transcend the individual? But aren't you a materialist-everything has its root in some physical thing (for lack of a better word) meaning that logic is somewhere, physically, in a man's head. So, you are now contradicting yourself. Great work team.

stop putting words in my mouth. the way i see the world might be labeled materialistic, but in actuality, its just another way of explaining the same things you observe. logic is one's own way of leading one cause to an effect. it is based on that person's entire experience. therefore it is truth in the mind of the person, but not neccessarily truth in reality.

because there are millions of years between them. there might have existed proto-birds at the time of the dinosaurs, but that was in the jurassic or cretatious; dinosaurs were around for about 200 million years, thats plenty of time for them to differentiate drastically. you are making god out to be a pansy without any ability to do anything if you think he has to design each and every thing himself. rather than that, he is able to know how every cause brings and effect and what that effect will be. he is able to guide the universe without actually interfering with it (except in the case of jesus, but that was neccessary).

There is no evidence for any transition. And don't go off and attack something else.

it can be explained naturalistically, it just hasn't been proven. there have been many experiments which have formed life out of mere chemicals, electricity and seawater. it is possible.

Dogmatic claims, undogmatically defended. And if you're referring to the Miller-Urey experiment...that's been shown wrong for several decades. If you'referring to something else, to tell what it is.

i could say the same for religion. but i try not to be condescending to other's belief's; it goes against everything jesus taught humanity.

I'd agree. Atheism has no evidence for it (because there can be no such thing as evidence for a belief that something does not exist). Christianity does have evidence though. So please, learn just A LITTLE bit about Christianity before you go and mock it.

reading your philosophy as evidence is believing that god is real based only on the bible. you are still using the argument that something complex cannot come from uncomplexity. i agree with you, but that doesn't disprove evolution. actually, it agrees with evolution. of course a car cannot occur naturally, but the metal used to make a car occurs naturally. single cells did not form from chemicals. the nucleotides and RNA formed from chemicals. the RNA formed structure. the structure became a cell. the cell began living communally (the ones that did were more likely to survive). the multicellular became varied. they became complex. this is how life formed.

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/rnaworld171.htm

RNA world hypothesis...once again...

And I do not believe God exists JUST because of just the Bible. Stop attacking me without knowing what I believe. You make me up as you go along. And my argument is not, once again, based on "it's too complex"-my statement was to show that you claiming that the fact that life is made out of non-living matter somehow proves we evolved from non-living chemicals!

The fact doesn't contradict your beliefs, yes, nor mine, but it doesn't prove yours is right over mine!

yeah, i agree with that. but the logic he uses is ignorant to many facets of reality. just by walking around outside, in nature, one can see that the world does not work like he interprets it. and what difference does intelligence make? we are more intelligent than our beastly cousins, are we not? we became intelligent, most likely, through a process of survival. those who were smarter, survived because they could figure out how to. given a few million years and the ability to survive that long, a bunch of monkeys will evolve, most likely intelligently, but it all depends on their environment. the reason nothing intelligent evolved for billions of years before is because there was no need to. organisms survived without having to become intelligent.

Once again, just storytelling. And there is no goal of evolution, so why are you using the word need?

i know that. i'm glad you do too, though. but there must have been something before the big bang, even before god. either that, or god must be eternal. existence cannot exist with a beginning because that means that there was nothing and nothing is something so that means that there was always existence.

Nonsense. Pure nonsense. That which begins to exist had a cause, God did not have a cause, therefore God does not have a cause. God is eternal. Universe, though, is 14-15 billion years old though.

stop putting words in my mouth. the way i see the world might be labeled materialistic, but in actuality, its just another way of explaining the same things you observe. logic is one's own way of leading one cause to an effect. it is based on that person's entire experience. therefore it is truth in the mind of the person, but not neccessarily truth in reality.

So, if I believe life didn't evolve...that's still somehow true? Even though it contradicts your "truth?" I think your statement is self-defeating. You're saying truth is subjective...but if that statement is true, then truth is not subjective! This is awesome, I love this stuff!

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:There is no evidence for any transition. And don't go off and attack something else.

every fossil is evidence, every living organism is evidence. evidence does not have to prove something, it just has agree with our model for our model to be accurate. if a piece of evidence doesnt agree with our model, then we change the model.

Dogmatic claims, undogmatically defended. And if you're referring to the Miller-Urey experiment...that's been shown wrong for several decades. If you'referring to something else, to tell what it is.

i dont remember the others, but the miller-urey experiment more than showed the possibility that life formed from chemicals through completely natural causes. i don't know of a scientific refutation of the experiment though, could you please supply one?

I'd agree. Atheism has no evidence for it (because there can be no such thing as evidence for a belief that something does not exist). Christianity does have evidence though. So please, learn just A LITTLE bit about Christianity before you go and mock it.

i agree that atheism has, nor ever will have any evidence for it. and i was not mocking christianity, i actually believe in what jesus taught.

And I do not believe God exists JUST because of just the Bible. Stop attacking me without knowing what I believe. You make me up as you go along.

sorry i got caught up in the creationist method of argument.

And my argument is not, once again, based on "it's too complex"-my statement was to show that you claiming that the fact that life is made out of non-living matter somehow proves we evolved from non-living chemicals!

The fact doesn't contradict your beliefs, yes, nor mine, but it doesn't prove yours is right over mine!

oh, well it seemed like you were saying life is too complex for it to have evolved when you likened it to an airplane occuring naturally. the fact that we are only made of elements that can be found anywhere in the universe is not proof of evolution, but evidence for its possibility. the sole purpose of my posts in this thread were to refute some of the outrageous and irrational claims in the link the thread starter posted. i am not trying to disproove christianity, or god, or any religion. i am only here to clear up misconceptions of the theory of evolution.

Once again, just storytelling. And there is no goal of evolution, so why are you using the word need?

sorry, forgot you folk only like one story. there is a goal in evolution, the same goal every living thing has; to survive.

Nonsense. Pure nonsense. That which begins to exist had a cause, God did not have a cause, therefore God does not have a cause. God is eternal. Universe, though, is 14-15 billion years old though.

depends on what you define as the universe. can you imagine nothing? can you imagine something created from nothing? no? then you agree that there must have always been something. maybe what you call god is this something that has existed eternally and put our universe in motion 14 billion years ago. i don't doubt the age of our universe to be just that, but i do doubt that there was nothing before the big bang.

every fossil is evidence, every living organism is evidence. evidence does not have to prove something, it just has agree with our model for our model to be accurate. if a piece of evidence doesnt agree with our model, then we change the model.

The famous philosopher of science Karl Popper wrote that all scientific theories
must be falsifiable.

So, since evolution is no longer falsifiable, it is no longer science. Every evolutionist seems to admit this-it's not falsifiable. Amazing.

i dont remember the others, but the miller-urey experiment more than showed the possibility that life formed from chemicals through completely natural causes. i don't know of a scientific refutation of the experiment though, could you please supply one?

http://www.astrobio.net/news/article5.html

But the Miller-Urey experiment, important as it was, had a flaw. Urey had based his primitive-Earth atmosphere on astronomical data just then coming in, the first spectra from the giant planets in our Solar System: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. These characteristic bands of color showed that the giants were swathed in atmospheres rich in methane and ammonia, thought to be left over from the planets' formation.

At the time, people thought all of the planets had once shared a "primordial" atmosphere, the result of their common birth. Because of their stronger gravity, the giants were believed to have retained this early atmosphere, while the atmospheres of Earth and the other, smaller planets had lost some of their lighter gases, hydrogen among them, to space. Thus, Urey reasoned, an early Earth atmosphere, before its hydrogen had escaped and the life-driven process of photosynthesis had boosted its oxygen, would have been a lot like a present-day giant's.

Shortly after the Miller-Urey experiment was published, however, geologists came up with new findings on Earth's volcanic emissions - and threw the old reasoning for a loop. "What comes out of volcanoes is not methane and ammonia," Kasting said, "but about 80 percent water vapor, 15 to 20 percent carbon dioxide, and traces of carbon monoxide and molecular hydrogen." James C. G. Walker, one of Kasting's graduate advisers at the University of Michigan during the 1970s, took these emissions data and balanced them against the rate at which hydrogen would be expected to escape from a planet with Earth's gravity. ("He did all this stuff on the back of an envelope," Kasting said.) What Walker came up with was a much different picture of Earth's early atmosphere: an oxygen-rich mix of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor.

The catch is that oxygen, although an absolute necessity for multicellular, advanced life, is poison to pre-biotic synthesis. Do a Miller-Urey experiment in an oxygen-rich atmosphere, Kasting said, and "you don't form things like amino acids. There are too many oxygen atoms in there." So, over the years, "enthusiasm for the warm little pond theory has waned."

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_ch ... iller.html

There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.

i agree that atheism has, nor ever will have any evidence for it. and i was not mocking christianity, i actually believe in what jesus taught.

You said Christianity had no evidence for it other than the Bible. You weren't mocking, you were being ignorant of the facts.

sorry i got caught up in the creationist method of argument.

....why the mocking tone? As if all creationists can't argue?

i am only here to clear up misconceptions of the theory of evolution.

Like the misconception that evolution is science.

sorry, forgot you folk only like one story. there is a goal in evolution, the same goal every living thing has; to survive.

First, your trying to make your story scientific evidence. Second, you're not understanding me. Evolution has no goal.

depends on what you define as the universe. can you imagine nothing? can you imagine something created from nothing? no? then you agree that there must have always been something. maybe what you call god is this something that has existed eternally and put our universe in motion 14 billion years ago. i don't doubt the age of our universe to be just that, but i do doubt that there was nothing before the big bang.

Based on what? The universe could not have been eternally expanding and contracting-second law of thermodynamics. Then you have the infinite causal regression again. And then you also can't have the Big Bang's cause and the Big Bang itself cotemporal with each other.

Wow! This is exciting! I forgot I started this thread. I will try to join in, but I am short on time because of the holidays. I will say one thing, however...

What follows is just about the most nonsensical statement I've ever heard (and I don't mean this to be offensive):

The transitional fossils that so many are looking for will never be found becasue all organisms are transitional.

I don't know if whoever said this originally was ignorant or desperate...but, it's embarrassing.

Here are some questions: So every "transitional" being survived just long enough to become something else...that's why we have no fossils of the something before? So, in a billion years (according to evolution) when humans become something else, the new-humans won't find present day human fossils because we are transitioning as we speak?



Here's some more cool links:

http://www.evolutiondocumentary.com/homepage.html

http://www.renewamerica.us/analyses/050818hutchison.htm

http://www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/Evolve.htm

The transitional fossils that so many are looking for will never be found becasue all organisms are transitional.

I don't know if whoever said this originally was ignorant or desperate...but, it's embarrassing.

It's true that everypopulation that doesn't go extinct is transitional to something else, but we have to be careful to be precise about what we mean by transitional.

Here are some questions: So every "transitional" being survived just long enough to become something else...that's why we have no fossils of the something before?

There's quite a number of those. Would you like to learn about some of them?

So, in a billion years (according to evolution) when humans become something else, the new-humans won't find present day human fossils because we are transitioning as we speak?

Think of it this way; there have been billions of humans in the past. How many fossils of humans are forming now? The bodies of most of us will be entirely gone within a decade of our death. However, there are enough fossil H. Sapiens out there so that there will still be a few left in a few million years. A billion, I dunno. If geology is kind, yes.

Your first link, BTW, is Muslim, and promotes the doctrines of an extremist brand of Islam. You might want to be careful about things you read there.

Your second touts the opinions of Anthony Flew, who thinks some kind of god wound up the universe, from which it evolved without any more attention, including biological evolution. I don't think that's a very good idea, either.

And the last one?

The following are a sample of the religions which are structured around an evolutionary philosophy. Buddhism, Hinduism, Confuscianism, Taoism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Jainism, Animism, Spiritism, Occultism, Satanism, Theosophy, Bahaism, Mysticism, Liberal-Judiasm, Isalm (sic) and Christianity, Unitarianism, Religious Science, Unity and Humanism. All these share the philosophy (belief structure) that the Universe is Eternal, and reject a self-existent personal God.

Christianity is "centered around an evolutionary philosophy" and "reject a self-existent personal God?" You sure about that?

...but we have to be careful to be precise about what we mean by transitional.

That is true!

There's quite a number of those. Would you like to learn of some of them?

There are no "transitional forms", my friend. There are what many think are transitional forms.

Think of it this way...

The point was that: "the transitional fossils that so many are looking for will never be found because all organisms are transitional" is a ridiculous statement. There's not much to think about, is there?

Your first link, BTW, is Muslim...you might want to be careful about things you read there.

I'm glad you are concerned about me. The point is to analyze different views on the flaws in evolution.

Your second...

Ditto

And the last one?

And? The article is discussing/criticizing evolution. This thread is to discuss those critiques and whether or not they are accurate. So, what about the article and evolution isn't correct? If you want to talk about its portrayal of Chritianity, you might have to start another thread.

Yehren on transitionals:
There's quite a number of those. Would you like to learn of some of them?

There are no "transitional forms", my friend. There are what many think are transitional forms.

Hmmm... maybe you should define "transitional." There seem to be a very great number of them. What do you think a "transitional", if it existed, would be:

Yehren suggests:
Think of it this way there have been billions of humans in the past. How many fossils of humans are forming now? The bodies of most of us will be entirely gone within a decade of our death. However, there are enough fossil H. Sapiens out there so that there will still be a few left in a few million years. A billion, I dunno. If geology is kind, yes.

Yehren observes:
Your first link, BTW, is Muslim...you might want to be careful about things you read there.

I'm glad you are concerned about me. The point is to analyze different views on the flaws in evolution.

I think a Christian evolutionist is a more reliable witness than a Muslim creationist. But I suppose it depends on which one is more important to you.

Yehren observes:
Your second touts the opinions of Anthony Flew, who thinks some kind of god wound up the universe, from which it evolved without any more attention, including biological evolution. I don't think that's a very good idea, either.

Ditto.

Again, I suppose it depends whether the creationist/evolutionist or the deist/Christian issue is more important to you.

Yehren continues:
And the last one?

"The following are a sample of the religions which are structured around an evolutionary philosophy. Buddhism, Hinduism, Confuscianism, Taoism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Jainism, Animism, Spiritism, Occultism, Satanism, Theosophy, Bahaism, Mysticism, Liberal-Judiasm, Isalm (sic) and Christianity, Unitarianism, Religious Science, Unity and Humanism. All these share the philosophy (belief structure) that the Universe is Eternal, and reject a self-existent personal God. "

Christianity is "centered around an evolutionary philosophy" and "reject a self-existent personal God?" You sure about that?

And?

You can't really believe that, do you?

The article is discussing/criticizing evolution. This thread is to discuss those critiques and whether or not they are accurate. So, what about the article and evolution isn't correct?

Pick a paragraph, and I'll probably be able to show you at least one misconception in it. Just give me the first few words of the paragraph, and I'll see what I can do.

If you want to talk about its portrayal of Chritianity, you might have to start another thread.

Far as I'm concerned, if they don't get that right, there's a good chance they're wrong about everything else.

But again, it might depend on what's most important to the person reading it.

Yehren:

Maybe you should define "transitional." There seem to be a great many number of them...

Really? Is that why you seem to be having problems naming even one?

I think a Christian evolutionist is more reliable...But I suppose it depends on which one is more important to you.

No disrespect, but why do you believe your opinions and thoughts are of any consequence? Again, and for the last time, I don't care who wrote the articles, the question and issue is whether others here believe the information presented is accurate and why or why not?

Again, I suppose it depends whether...issue is more important to you.

Nope, doesn't depend on that at all. Sorry.

You can't really believe that, do you?

I will repeat myself only one more time: the issue is not the authors view on Christianity, but on Evolution. Maybe you would like to start another thread?

Pick a paragraph,...I'll see what I can do.

No. You pick a paragraph. This thread was started so others could pick out what they felt were flaws in the information presented; the articles are available--the information has been presented.

Far as I'm concerned, if they don't get that right, there's a good chance they're wrong about everything else.

You might be right, you might be wrong. But, you haven't really proved anything, yet, have you?

But again, it might depend on what's important to the person reading it.

You've said that alot. But, you're wrong again. The question is evolution, not Christianity.

p.s. Why do you refer to yourself in the third person.

Let's take it one quote at a time then.

"The odds against life developing randomly are 1 in 10 to the 280th power, this is beyond the entire universe's capacity to match. To make a complete horse is 1 in 10 to the 3,000,000th power! "

It is not random. If I took a population of deer, and removed the forest gradually until it was completely gone, what do you think would happen to the deer? Would the deer not adapt? And if they did not they would surely perish.