THE GREAT FAITH OF THE EVOLUTIONIST

[perspective]

In fact, testing a theory's predictive power is the very basis of science. What predictions does creation theory make that we can test?

I am so glad you asked.
- Thousands of layers of strata, high mountains, and deep canyons from a world wide flood. Evidence matched.
- Uniformaity and harmony in the universe created and sustained by a consistant God. Evidenced mathced.
        Side note. Can science explain where scientific laws came from? (i.e. laws of thermodynamics, consevation of energy, matter can neither be created nor destoryed, gravity.) Answer= NO
- Universal moral code displayed differently in culture through mores. Evidence matched.
- Life can not form spontaneously, but only by God. Evidence matched.
- Life has never been observed to change from one kind to another because God created animals according to their kind. Evidence matched.
- The universe is being stretched out. Evidence matched. "Thus says God, the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it" Isaiah 42:5
- Dinosaurs walked the earth with man. Evidence matched.( Cave drawings of dinosaurs and Bible versus describing them)
- the Red sea being split. Evidence matched. (hundreds of Egyptian chariot axels found at the bottom of the red sea)
These are just ones I can think of off the top of my head.

[curiosityandthecat]

If I wrote a book and started in the middle of the story, would that make any sense.

Uh, that's a very popular way to begin a story. It's called in medias res. Also, wasn't that a question.

 

Jill, if I may...

- Thousands of layers of strata, high mountains, and deep canyons from a world wide flood. Evidence matched.

Uhm, yer gonna have to explain how that one works, bud. Actually, we've got a huge thread about the flood somewhere around here...

- Uniformaity and harmony in the universe created and sustained by a consistant God. Evidenced mathced.

A system does not denote a driving intelligence. The weather is a system. The planets move in a system (a "solar" system, if you will). What you're suggesting makes no sense.

Side note. Can science explain where scientific laws came from? (i.e. laws of thermodynamics, consevation of energy, matter can neither be created nor destoryed, gravity.) Answer= NO

Regardless of whether or not this claim is true (and I suspect it is not), there are some things science cannot answer. Not yet.

- Universal moral code displayed differently in culture through mores. Evidence matched.

A universal moral code based on the fact that people (most living things, in fact) have the same experiences: pain, enjoyment, etc. Moral codes come out of that. You're putting the cart before the horse. I expect nothing less, honestly.

- Life can not form spontaneously, but only by God. Evidence matched.

Opinion.

- Life has never been observed to change from one kind to another because God created animals according to their kind. Evidence matched.

Thanks, Mr Johnson. This whole "kind" thing has been completely fabricated by the Discovery Institute. You're talking about evolution by natural selection, which takes extraordinary amounts of time. Far longer than one human lifetime. However, there have been recent experiments using guppies that give evolution by natural selection an almost airtight seal. Look 'em up.

- The universe is being stretched out. Evidence matched. "Thus says God, the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it" Isaiah 42:5

Not entirely sure what you're trying to prove with this one, actually. One bit of the language in an old story is (given enough poetic license) somewhat similar to the expansion of space? It's called a coincidence, and they happen all the time. Doesn't prove anything.

- Dinosaurs walked the earth with man. Evidence matched.( Cave drawings of dinosaurs and Bible versus describing them)

I have a book about a big, red dog that someone drew. Does that mean there is a giant, red dog named Clifford somewhere? Imagination, man. It's what makes humans special.

- the Red sea being split. Evidence matched. (hundreds of Egyptian chariot axels found at the bottom of the red sea)

I see you're referring to Exodus Revealed. Real convincing. It's a scam. Ever found a car tire at the bottom of a lake? Does it mean that the lake was once dry and, as a car was driving through it, it spontaneously filled with water?

You're grasping at straws to uphold an antiquated, archaic and downright humorous concept. Evidence matched.

[Sophus]

I have a book about a big, red dog that someone drew. Does that mean there is a giant, red dog named Clifford somewhere? Imagination, man. It's what makes humans special.

You have splendid taste in literature.    

To perspective: I've yet to find an unbiased source that supports that. I have seen some cave drawings that looks like dragons - is that what you're referring to?

[perspective]

While I do suppose that you could contort religion and evoution to fit together, you have missed my point. The type of evolution supposed by seculer science DOES NOT suppose any super natural intervention. That means by the rule of illimination life must have formed spontaneously. Why are you failing to see this. Since secular evolution hinges on NO-GOD spontaneous generation. Then you must answer for it, or admitt that have to accept this by faith. There is NO way around this.

Because it does not deal with when/how life began. Yes, science doesn't like supernatural explanations, imagine that. If we would have settled for supernatural explanations how primitive would this earth still be? How ignorant would mankind be? I am certain that biologists will try to figure out the secret to life because they don't like supernatural explanations but until they reach a conclusion on that you may believe life was pulled out of God's hat. But you should also acknowledge that he designed evolution as well.

So you are now conceding that because their is no current proof that life can form by naturalistic means that you accept that there is no God by faith. Which means you have no basis besides pure subjective preference by which you have said, "There is no God." If you are not saying this, then provide proof that life can form by naturalistic means. There is none. So by the definition of faith this is all you have to go by to claim there is no God. I am so glad I finally helped you see this.

[Whitney]

Perspective, does it take faith to believe in flying saucer aliens due to the lack of evidence for little green men from Mars?  If you happen to be  an alien believer...then replace aliens with leprechauns and pots of gold at the end of rainbows.

[PipeBox]

Without life, or at least a component mutation and natural selection (these being the two major components of biological evolution), you cannot have evolution.  That is the juncture.  Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.  The theory of evolution only describes the evolution we observe and postulates consistent mechanisms that explain those observations.  THAT is scientific theory.  For all we know, invisible space gnomes hold you down with uniformly distributed force consistent with gravitational theory, where distance inversely proportional with the amount of force.  Maybe matter doesn't curve space-time at all, and the time pixies and light-bending sprites gather and do what they do (which is exactly what the general theory of relativity predicts, meaning that it will still accurately describe the effects surrounding a large body of matter moving at high velocities, regardless of whether matter actually bends space-time) and all these ethereal beings gather around the gravity gnomes (in only the proper proportions, mind).  Maybe your particular deity created all life instantaneously, and changes it now in just such a way as to be consistent with evolutionary theory, throughout the past and future, but make no mistake, we see a branching pattern consistent with inherited traits and mutation all throughout the fossil record.  Everything with fingernails has a backbone, and everything with a backbone has a spinal cord, and everything with a spinal cord opens its anus before its mouth as an embryo.  You will never find this in reverse or random order.  It's always a new development to a lot of existent traits.  Life diversifies, it does not randomize.  You will never see a fish with hair, or a duck with fingernails, nor anything that has a backbone that does not develop its anal opening before its mouth opening.  Because these are inherited traits.  Transitional forms are those basal to present day life.  The fossil record is jam-packed with these basal life forms, fossils that exhibit precursor traits for life present today.  Horses with less fused hooves and canine teeth, whales with legs, thin and long lizards with legs, and even humans with smaller craniums, longer arms (relative to our size) and shorter stature.  Now, I want you to give me your definition of a transitional form, one we should expect if we were to believe evolution were actually happening, and I'll see if I can find an example.  Assume for just a moment that you want to demonstrate evolution actually happens and you realize the evidence should be present in the fossil record, what would you expect?

I would expect that we should find life forms that are not a fusion of two extant, present day life forms, but that appear ancestral to them.  I would expect that numerous features should change over time, as no feature should be locked so long as it was not essential for survival in an environment (like the amnion in the womb and land-borne eggs, as us land dwellers can't get past the need of it: our first stages of development are still much like those of fish, and our development would need to occur in a completely different way for the absence of the amnion to be viable in future life).  I would expect that we should not find a wolf fossil in the same strata as an ancient trilobite, because a wolf is a canine, mammilian, tetrapodal, endothermic, vertebrate, chordate, but they are both animals.  The wolf has a far longer chain of inherited traits, where the trilobite is one of the early animals, lying down a different branch.  To satisfy a "missing link" between a wolf and a trilobite, we would have to find an animal that could have given rise to the vertebrates, and modern invertebrates.  It should not have a jaw bone, as that is a trait of bony, vertebrate fish, another line of inheritance this basal form could not have access to.  Its later branching forms should have been able to to give rise to the anthropods, on the branch leading to the trilobite.  This ancestor, as you will note, will not look anything like a trilobite or a wolf, because the two are so distantly related as to only share a "bare-bones" common ancestor, most of the features in both the wolf and the trilobite being later developments in their lineage.  What we should absolutely not see is a half-wolf, half-trilobite.  We should, again, never find a wolf in strata populated with early animals.  We should not find that this basal life form has a three-lobed, segmented body, nor hair.  And here's the kicker, I'm nowhere near the descriptions and evaluative rules scientists have to use to say something is a basal life form.  So, do you think if we dug in earlier strata than the trilobites we would eventually find something that met my predictions?  I'm not asking you to say it's related (that response is only inductive), but only that under the constraints I have given you, it meets the requirement of being the "missing link" between trilobites and wolves.  Such a life form would be fit proof of evolution, unless the fossil was fake (meaning either global, multi-discipline conspiracy, or a deceitful god).  The process, driven by natural mechanics or deities, obviously happens, unless you expect us to believe a god just poofed in new life forms that looked like old ones, dare I say even after their kind, as time went on for many millions of years, even thousands of millions of years (oh yeah baby, bacteria can leave fossils, too), but he managed to differentiate them greatly over time, using the appearance of successive differentiating generations, where he only just recently placed in the mechanic that we observe today into the universe and stopped poofing in new species.  Now reproduction will do the trick.  That's another thing:  I guess I might not be able to convince you that male and female horses have always needed to have sex to reproduce.  I mean, maybe your god just zapped in new horses with similar traits right next to them.  This only pisses into the wind of inductive reasoning.

Again, tell me what you would accept as a transitional form, if you were looking to prove evolution.  I'll write up a post detailing evo better for you later.  You can understand if you want to: you already label the observed evolution as "adaptation" (this is really the wrong word, as adaptation is an individual response that does not alter the genome, but instead is a response allowed for by it: lifting heavy things gives you larger muscles, handling rough things gives you callous hands, and running more produces a more fit cardiovascular system), you just haven't realized that if there is no barrier (or at least no natural one) to how far they can "adapt", given enough time; enough generations and proper environments.  You do have some misconceptions, but I think they are only stem in a minor way from a flippant dislike of evolutionary theory, and mainly from a lack of information.

[curiosityandthecat]

Gotta love it when they just completely ignore arguments.  :|

[perspective]

Gotta love it when they just completely ignore arguments.  :|

You gave no creditable arguments of which to ignore. All you did was dismiss my claims. So you are telling me that a good argument against the Egyptian Charriot axels being found in the Red Sea is that, "Just because they are there doesn't prove the Bible." Well, the Bible says that Pharohs army and all the charriots were drowned by the Red Sea. So like good scientists Christians expected to find.....Charriots at the bottom of the Red Sea. Guess what happened when we looked.... We found Charriot axels at the bottom of the Red Sea. Well, what do ya know.

[perspective]

Without life, or at least a component mutation and natural selection (these being the two major components of biological evolution), you cannot have evolution.  That is the juncture.  Abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution.  The theory of evolution only describes the evolution we observe and postulates consistent mechanisms that explain those observations.  THAT is scientific theory.  For all we know, invisible space gnomes hold you down with uniformly distributed force consistent with gravitational theory, where distance inversely proportional with the amount of force.  Maybe matter doesn't curve space-time at all, and the time pixies and light-bending sprites gather and do what they do (which is exactly what the general theory of relativity predicts, meaning that it will still accurately describe the effects surrounding a large body of matter moving at high velocities, regardless of whether matter actually bends space-time) and all these ethereal beings gather around the gravity gnomes (in only the proper proportions, mind).  Maybe your particular deity created all life instantaneously, and changes it now in just such a way as to be consistent with evolutionary theory, throughout the past and future, but make no mistake, we see a branching pattern consistent with inherited traits and mutation all throughout the fossil record.  Everything with fingernails has a backbone, and everything with a backbone has a spinal cord, and everything with a spinal cord opens its anus before its mouth as an embryo.  You will never find this in reverse or random order.  It's always a new development to a lot of existent traits.  Life diversifies, it does not randomize.  You will never see a fish with hair, or a duck with fingernails, nor anything that has a backbone that does not develop its anal opening before its mouth opening.  Because these are inherited traits.  Transitional forms are those basal to present day life.  The fossil record is jam-packed with these basal life forms, fossils that exhibit precursor traits for life present today.  Horses with less fused hooves and canine teeth, whales with legs, thin and long lizards with legs, and even humans with smaller craniums, longer arms (relative to our size) and shorter stature.  Now, I want you to give me your definition of a transitional form, one we should expect if we were to believe evolution were actually happening, and I'll see if I can find an example.  Assume for just a moment that you want to demonstrate evolution actually happens and you realize the evidence should be present in the fossil record, what would you expect?

I would expect that we should find life forms that are not a fusion of two extant, present day life forms, but that appear ancestral to them.  I would expect that numerous features should change over time, as no feature should be locked so long as it was not essential for survival in an environment (like the amnion in the womb and land-borne eggs, as us land dwellers can't get past the need of it: our first stages of development are still much like those of fish, and our development would need to occur in a completely different way for the absence of the amnion to be viable in future life).  I would expect that we should not find a wolf fossil in the same strata as an ancient trilobite, because a wolf is a canine, mammilian, tetrapodal, endothermic, vertebrate, chordate, but they are both animals.  The wolf has a far longer chain of inherited traits, where the trilobite is one of the early animals, lying down a different branch.  To satisfy a "missing link" between a wolf and a trilobite, we would have to find an animal that could have given rise to the vertebrates, and modern invertebrates.  It should not have a jaw bone, as that is a trait of bony, vertebrate fish, another line of inheritance this basal form could not have access to.  Its later branching forms should have been able to to give rise to the anthropods, on the branch leading to the trilobite.  This ancestor, as you will note, will not look anything like a trilobite or a wolf, because the two are so distantly related as to only share a "bare-bones" common ancestor, most of the features in both the wolf and the trilobite being later developments in their lineage.  What we should absolutely not see is a half-wolf, half-trilobite.  We should, again, never find a wolf in strata populated with early animals.  We should not find that this basal life form has a three-lobed, segmented body, nor hair.  And here's the kicker, I'm nowhere near the descriptions and evaluative rules scientists have to use to say something is a basal life form.  So, do you think if we dug in earlier strata than the trilobites we would eventually find something that met my predictions?  I'm not asking you to say it's related (that response is only inductive), but only that under the constraints I have given you, it meets the requirement of being the "missing link" between trilobites and wolves.  Such a life form would be fit proof of evolution, unless the fossil was fake (meaning either global, multi-discipline conspiracy, or a deceitful god).  The process, driven by natural mechanics or deities, obviously happens, unless you expect us to believe a god just poofed in new life forms that looked like old ones, dare I say even after their kind, as time went on for many millions of years, even thousands of millions of years (oh yeah baby, bacteria can leave fossils, too), but he managed to differentiate them greatly over time, using the appearance of successive differentiating generations, where he only just recently placed in the mechanic that we observe today into the universe and stopped poofing in new species.  Now reproduction will do the trick.  That's another thing:  I guess I might not be able to convince you that male and female horses have always needed to have sex to reproduce.  I mean, maybe your god just zapped in new horses with similar traits right next to them.  This only pisses into the wind of inductive reasoning.

Again, tell me what you would accept as a transitional form, if you were looking to prove evolution.  I'll write up a post detailing evo better for you later.  You can understand if you want to: you already label the observed evolution as "adaptation" (this is really the wrong word, as adaptation is an individual response that does not alter the genome, but instead is a response allowed for by it: lifting heavy things gives you larger muscles, handling rough things gives you callous hands, and running more produces a more fit cardiovascular system), you just haven't realized that if there is no barrier (or at least no natural one) to how far they can "adapt", given enough time; enough generations and proper environments.  You do have some misconceptions, but I think they are only stem in a minor way from a flippant dislike of evolutionary theory, and mainly from a lack of information.

Alot of words, not really convincing.

[curiosityandthecat]

Gotta love it when they just completely ignore arguments.  :|

You gave no creditable arguments of which to ignore. All you did was dismiss my claims. So you are telling me that a good argument against the Egyptian Charriot axels being found in the Red Sea is that, "Just because they are there doesn't prove the Bible." Well, the Bible says that Pharohs army and all the charriots were drowned by the Red Sea. So like good scientists Christians expected to find.....Charriots at the bottom of the Red Sea. Guess what happened when we looked.... We found Charriot axels at the bottom of the Red Sea. Well, what do ya know.

"We"? You were part of the dive team?

You would expect to find, if the Pharaoh's entire army was drowned under the Red Sea, an entire army's worth of chariots, coral encrusted human bones, weapons, armor, etc. You know, all the stuff an army takes with them. Not maybe one axle, maybe five wheels and one femur. Seven items does not, an army, make.

I dismissed your claims because they're ludicrous, spurious and an insult to everyone who has a shred of intellectual integrity.

[perspective]

"Faith= Firm belief in somthing for which there is no proof."  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
"Religion= 1) A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.
                2) A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
                http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

There are only two options when it comes to life origins. Option number one is that life came about by natural processes which means life had to form spontaneously (by itself, with only matter, randomly). The only other option is by supernatural means. (God, higher intelligence, beyond physical) If you are an atheist you do not believe in God or the supernatural, only natural processes and matter. There is currently no proof that life can form spontaneuosly. There is currently no proof that life has ever formed spontaneously. Therefore, you are atheist by faith. Faith is subjective preference to a believe system not founded on proof. Atheism is a Religion. What if your religion is wrong?

[perspective]

I dismissed your claims because they're ludicrous, spurious and an insult to everyone who has a shred of intellectual integrity.

Really.. you think my claim that life has not been shown to form spontaneously is, "ludicrous, spurious, and an inslut to everyone who has a shred of intellectual integrity." Please dig yourslef out of this hole by producing evidence to the contrary.
  :idea: ......... :|

[PipeBox]

Sorry to still not have that post about evolution for you, but this, uhh, needs addressing...

I am so glad you asked.
- Thousands of layers of strata, high mountains, and deep canyons from a world wide flood. Evidence matched.

Major problems.  The layers of strata can only have been laid down according to density if the flood set them in place, for as long as you call those "flood layers".  If you find a bunch of layers under a layer of volcanic ash, and a bunch more layers on top, you're screwed.  It should also be noted that "hydraulic sorting" does not lay sediment down in layers, it just lays one graded layer, where particles of nearly the same density will bleed into each other, and heavier stuff will be at the bottom.  Finally, the turbulence of those waters must've been very special to have left the surrounding area of the Grand Canyon not nearly as eroded (please note, it would be doing this special erosion only after all most of the layers had been laid down), and to carve mountains out of granite, basalt, and other rock.  No, in actuality, mountains are given us by plate tectonics, and the Grand Canyon was carved by only a continuous river's worth of water, which explains why the nearby sandstone is untouched and why the layers are extant.  A global flood suggests nothing but a more uniform surface.

- Uniformaity and harmony in the universe created and sustained by a consistant God. Evidenced mathced.

If the universe were unstable and didn't permit our existence, we wouldn't be here to discuss it.  If it wasn't tenable for our kind of life, but another, that other life could claim exactly the same thing.  This is an anthropic argument.  The puddle can assume the hole it's in was specially made for it, as that hole will fit perfectly even as the puddle evaporates.  You don't get to say this universe is ideal, or that it was created with intent for us, or even intended harmony.  You only get to make the completely equivocal statement that the universe is as it is, and we're here because of that.

Side note. Can science explain where scientific laws came from? (i.e. laws of thermodynamics, consevation of energy, matter can neither be created nor destoryed, gravity.) Answer= NO

First off, scientific laws are observations.  We can not tell you why the universe functions in a matter observable and describable by us, but if it didn't, we either wouldn't have these things to describe, or wouldn't exist at all.  This is only a slightly stronger anthropic argument.  The philosophical answer is that they are properties of the universe that stem from other properties (they are allowed to be circular, as if the universe has always existed, or even if it hasn't, all these properties, or the potential for their emergence, have always existed).  We have fire because we have an oxidizer (oxygen) that bonds with other free elements (fuel) whenever they are heated to a point where free atoms of the fuel vibrate out of the molecular structures containing them.  This vibration occurs because atoms vibrate based on their absorption of energy.  Free energy is present because it is released from other material sources, and the net amount of energy in the universe has existed for as long as the universe has, so far as everything else we know tells us.  It may be no more meaningful to you if we answer why we have seemingly arbitrary constants.  They may truly be arbitrary, owing to no other mechanic.  If we're the sole universe (there is no multiverse), and we just got really, really lucky with our odds and getting these constants, then we are exactly a lucky as we would be to have a god with necessary attributes and willingness to make it as it is.  In nonsensical imagination land, we might go to another universe where no one and nothing exists, and all the people there would tell us how lucky we were to get a god who made us.  The silent is a testament to all possibility.

- Universal moral code displayed differently in culture through mores. Evidence matched.

Is killing the enemies of your culture's god right or wrong?  Can I really ask this of anyone on the planet and see the same response?  We could ask a psychopath if killing was wrong, does he not count as universal?  Let us ask cyanide if killing is wrong, will it reflect the universal moral code?  I see only some morals in some humans.  Never all of them in all humans.  This, I would say, is evolved.  Spiders do not share our sense of reciprocity (one favor to you deserves one in return to the one who favored you), our sense of loyalty (sexual fidelity, for example), or our sense of what killing is justified (a spider will kill more than it can eat, and it will kill what is not a threat without first trying to assess whether it is a threat), but a chimpanzee largely shares our morality.

- Life can not form spontaneously, but only by God. Evidence matched.

If you mean full-blown evolved life, you're right.  If you mean it is absolutely impossible for life (or its precursors, which can then give rise to full life), which is functional chemistry, to be created from non-life (which it is already made of), then I don't know what evidence you're citing.  This is sort of like the evidence showing there are no craters with a diameter larger than 30 miles on Gliese 581c, or better yet, one of its moons.  Sure, we have no evidence that there are such craters, but it seems like a reasonable assumption based on what we know.  We know we've never seen a god poof new life into existence, we know that any new-forming pre-bacterial life would be consumed by modern, evolved bateria, and we know that after a cell level, all we are is non-life.  If you mean to say we've never seen a frog assemble on the spot from goo, well, I wholeheartedly agree.  I'd say it's all but impossible.

- Life has never been observed to change from one kind to another because God created animals according to their kind. Evidence matched.

Covered previously, but we have observed speciation, both in bacteria and ring species, and we definitely observe changes.  Why there should be any natural limit on these changes that prevents them from straying outside a completely arbitrary "kind" based on creationist pattern recognition, I do not know, and you can't tell  me without the assumption of the supernatural, which willfully influences the supernatural.  I'll put it like this.  We agree corn can grow a little shorter, yes?  And a little shorter after that?  And the kernels a little more brown, and then a little harder?  The leaves can grow differently, too, yes?  Throw in mutations and selections for millions of years, and you could make something that looks nothing like it was the same "kind".  You're arguing, with "adaptation", that things can microgrow, but they can't macrogrow.  You don't realize that microgrowth is macrogrowth, just over a longer period of time.  "You can walk to the end of the driveway, but not down the street," or "You can 'adapt', but no more than some as-yet-unknown, arbitrary amount I think exists."

- The universe is being stretched out. Evidence matched. "Thus says God, the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath to the people on it and spirit to those who walk in it" Isaiah 42:5

Eh, I'll give you a point.  Nice verse, I would argue that spreading out the earth is metaphor for planetary accretion, if I were still a Christian.

- Dinosaurs walked the earth with man. Evidence matched.( Cave drawings of dinosaurs and Bible versus describing them)

Can you show me the evidence you claim matches this assertion?

- the Red sea being split. Evidence matched. (hundreds of Egyptian chariot axels found at the bottom of the red sea)
These are just ones I can think of off the top of my head.

That's interesting since "Red Sea" is a mistranslation, rather a typo, from the translation to English.  In the original language, it said only the sea of reeds, which is mighty indescriptive.  I'd like to see this evidence, too, the typo aside.  This could still be a point in your favor.  It'd make for a really awesome episode of Unsolved Mysteries on its own, though.  I mean, if we didn't accept it as wholesale confirmation of the entire Bible.

[BadPoison]

First, I don't like you telling me what I believe based on your opinion. Just because you are incapable of dreaming up an explanation besides the two you presented, does not mean that there are only two options. Also, I'm not sure why you put "random" with your ill-described natural process. What about life forming from inorganic material has to be random? Thirdly, am I correct in understanding that since you believe there is not a current explanation that is as observable and testable as newton's law of motion, god must be the only alternative? You find God being a cause an easier and more logical description of reality than simply stating "we haven't figured it all out yet?"

-BP

EDIT: I shouldn't have assumed you find any of Newton's theories on physics credible. Perhaps you are like Aristotle, and see objects having a natural state of rest (Though I am sure I will regret comparing you to the genius Aristotle.)

[PipeBox]

Alot of words, not really convincing.

 

So, will you at least step up to the plate and play with this horrible salesman?  If you were trying to find evidence evolution happened, what would you look for?