DescentBB

Damn, I have a 'little version' of the truth, and the world doesn't revolve around it!... hell of a day... Should I have taken anything away from that aside from \"Sit the f*ck down!\"?

I don't know whether you've noticed or not, Spidey, but I haven't been posting as much lately. Partly because I've been busy with work, but also because I've had some opinions changed in my life fairly recently. I know that in the past sometimes I seemed to claim to know everything, and I really came to the realization that I don't (to make a long story short). I firmly believe in God, and I believe that the Bible is His law (under the old \"covenant\"), His judgments, His instruction, His message (containing accurate pieces of our own history) to we who are created in his likeness--humanity. I still won't lie down for other people's opinions, but when it comes to other people's lives I think I have a new sensitivity, if you will--I tread a little more carefully. I also try (or rather I'm committed) to stick with reality, instead of dealing so much with conceptual things.

S13driftAZ, take a deep breath, I was talking to Spidey.

Jeff250, you do know that ID stands for Intelligent Design, don't you? As I understand it, the folks behind the I.D. movement have decided that there has to have been an intelligence behind the intricate order that is the universe. Then they shoot down the implausibility of some of Evolution's claims in light of that. I'm pretty sure that showing how something couldn't have happened without intelligent input/design is the only way to establish an author!

Furthermore I'm not being insincere in suggesting that we would have to have a working understanding of both DNA itself and the changes being discussed in order to intelligently evaluate a proposed change's plausibility. That's just common sense! Shall we throw it to the wind in favor of embracing the popular religion of the day? And make no mistake, naturalism, throughout history, has all of the attributes of a religion!

And don't think that my motive is to permanently stall the discussion by suggesting that we all need to become experts in DNA, I'm just saying that you can't pose that question in such a simple form and expect it to serve any purpose in reality (except perhaps to gauge people's capacity to decide on things that they don't truly understand).

Yay!

Anyone ever think evolution could be part of ID ?

Anyone ever thought that evolution is a tool used by the Devil to lead people away from God?

The term false prophet is sometimes applied outside religion, to describe promoters of scientific, medical, or political theories which the author of the phrase thinks are false.

EcoScam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse.

Autism's False Prophets

Dr. Henry Morris has always engaged the false prophets of evolution.

You don’t have to understand how DNA works to answer the question, can you cram 8 gazillion tons of high explosive into a tube, and fly it to the moon. You don’t have to understand rocket science to believe. And that was what my question was…one of belief, not understanding.

Do you understand DNA Thorne…yet, you believe god created it. I don’t know how DNA got here, but I believe that it can change over time, as all things change over time.

I personally have no problem with either theory…evolution or creation, my problem starts when people try to teach their own truths as fact.

If I were in your position Thorne, I would have answered the question something like this…

No I don’t believe, Chimps and humans have an XX amount of DNA difference because god made it that way. Can you prove that DNA changes over time?

And, I would have to admit that I could not prove DNA changes over time, it’s only that I believe it to be true.

Spidey wrote: I don’t know how DNA got here, but I believe that it can change over time, as all things change over time.

LEONIDAS-SAMA CREATED THE WORLD IN 1 KICK, HE CREATED 300 HUMANS, HAVE THEM DINE IN HELL WITH POWERTHIRST, AND SPAWN 400 BABIES EACH, SO THE WORLD THEN SUDDENLY HAVE 120,300 HUMANS POPULATING IT, AND WE EVOLVE FROM SPARTANS

Consider the different between explosives and DNA. Whether you realize it or not, you have to have something on which to base your belief--you have to have a reason, and in my book you ought to have a pretty good one. ...It's possible that I'm overstating it, but I dare say that you have more on which to base your belief for an explosive-driven cylinder than even the most educated people do on DNA.

Do you understand where I'm coming from yet? I still say it's ridiculous. You actually have a grasp on explosions and explosives... how's your grasp on microbiology?

No, the average person couldn’t tell you the what’s happening when hydrazine combusts, any more than when an enzyme breaks down a protein.

The average person knows that DNA is the blueprint for creating a life form, just as they know Gasoline will burn. How exactly it works is not relevant.

If what you claim is true…that being, belief is based on understanding…well, how did god create humans?

Are you claiming people understand this process?

The whole point of having faith that God created everything is under the foundation that faith doesn't require knowledge to have it.
That's why the bible isn't a science textbook.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:As I understand it, the folks behind the I.D. movement have decided that there has to have been an intelligence behind the intricate order that is the universe. Then they shoot down the implausibility of some of Evolution's claims in light of that. I'm pretty sure that showing how something couldn't have happened without intelligent input/design is the only way to establish an author!

But there you go--you just made exactly the same mistake again. Trying to show that evolution is wrong just shows that evolution is wrong. I get that you think that life is too intricate to have evolved. But, if evolution is wrong, then we just go back to not really knowing where we came from. ID is not the default choice. Evolution vs. ID == false dichotomy. To show that ID is right, you need some positive evidence for why ID is right, not just negative evidence for why some other theory is wrong.

Come up with a scientific experiment to test whether something was designed or not, and then you will find that scientists will no longer think that ID is wrong by default. Hint: the experiment can*not* be just demonstrating how something couldn't have evolved.

I can see that we're not communication here, Spidey. The thing that really bothers me is that I feel like in the face of it you just keep trying to prove me wrong, no matter which direction you decide I'm going--I feel like I'm the only one attempting to communicate. I'm running out of patience, and running out of words.

I'll nail it down for you tomorrow.

I will point out, tonight, that I said that (sound) beliefs are based on "REASON", not understanding. If you don't see the difference, then maybe you could do ol' Thorn a favor and break out your dictionary once you put that damn thesaurus back on the shelf!

Jeff...

I wrote:As I understand it, the folks behind the I.D. movement have decided that there has to have been an intelligence behind the intricate order that is the universe.

Jeff250 wrote:... I get that you think that life is too intricate to have evolved. ...

Rather that the intricacy/order/design is itself evidence of design. You're turning what I said around, and you're not making any sense.

Behemoth wrote:The whole point of having faith that God created everything is under the foundation that faith doesn't require knowledge to have it.
That's why the bible isn't a science textbook.

"Under the foundation"?

You missed it too. Faith that is sound is based on reason. Faith cannot, of course, be based on understanding or knowledge, or it is not faith.

Thorn, I am not trying to prove anybody here wrong…that’s your ego talking. I asked a question, aimed at the general audience, you decided to challenge it. (instead of answering it)

Now I’m supposed to just give up, because you are correct and I’m wrong? It’s your idea of “communication” here that is askew…I ask a question…you respond with…that’s crap (paraphrase) then expect me to simply capitulate to your wisdom. Not going to happen.

Ok, fine…reason.

It was “reason” that made my give up on “religion & faith” to begin with.

I’m not out to “prove anybody wrong” in this thread…actually just the opposite, my point right from the beginning…is and was…both creation & evolution require “belief” no matter what “reasoning” you wish to base it on, because neither one can be tested or proven in the lab or the field.

They are both, observe and extrapolate conclusions, that cannot be tested or proven.

JFTR…I don’t use a thesaurus.

.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

Behemoth wrote:The whole point of having faith that God created everything is under the foundation that faith doesn't require knowledge to have it.
That's why the bible isn't a science textbook.

"Under the foundation"?

You missed it too. Faith that is sound is based on reason. Faith cannot, of course, be based on understanding or knowledge, or it is not faith.

Either or, i made my point.
Faith does not need knowledge to back it up, likewise one does not need to have faith to be knowledgable, or is that wrong too?

Bet51987 wrote:

Spidey wrote:....both creation & evolution require “belief” no matter what “reasoning” you wish to base it on, because neither one can be tested or proven in the lab or the field.

They are both, observe and extrapolate conclusions, that cannot be tested or proven.

I'll post more later Spidey but placing creationism and evolution on the same exact level isn't even close to what's been observed.

Bee

I didn’t put them on “the same exact level” you made that conclusion.

I said they were both cars, one might be a Rolls Royce and the other a Chevette, but they are still both cars.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Rather that the intricacy/order/design is itself evidence of design. You're turning what I said around, and you're not making any sense.

Introducing more synonyms makes the problem less clear, not more. When you say that evidence of "intricacy/order/design" is evidence for "design," this is, worst case circular, best case postponing the problem, and does not provide any insight as to what robust scientific procedure you have in mind for detecting design. Devise this scientific procedure, and ID will stop losing by default in science.

Jeff250 wrote:Introducing more synonyms makes the problem less clear, not more. When you say that evidence of "intricacy/order/design" is evidence for "design," this is, worst case circular, best case postponing the problem, and does not provide any insight as to what robust scientific procedure you have in mind for detecting design. Devise this scientific procedure, and ID will stop losing by default in science.

I am not the champion of I.D., Jeff. I'm no scientist (although I try to be scientific). I am what you would call a creationist. I started with the Biblical view-point. Having started with a Biblical view-point, however, I am very interested in science.

To spell it out, let me say that when you look at a 747 you see design. You see order. Upon close examination you see intricate order and design. It is obvious that there was an intelligence behind it. We take that for granted. Because of the way all of you were raised, when you see things in nature that are very intricate and ordered in such a way that they have a purpose and a place, you don't think design, you think evolution. But evolution is not apparent, even though design is, but design is rejected because of the way you were taught. The folks at the head of I.D. have seen this design at levels that most people do not, and they have come to the conclusion that all of this design had to have had a designer, and that nothing less was plausible.

Spidey wrote:Is it really so hard to believe that over a 6 million year period, DNA could change ½ of a percent*

True or false:
This sentence requires either an assumed generally high level of knowledge regarding the way DNA works, or the assumption that a ½ percent change in DNA is a simply-grasped concept.

Now forget that question, and answer "yes" or "no" to your question that I've quoted, then explain, in the simplest terms possible why you have answered either "yes" or "no".

(By the way the "thesaurus" bit was purely a joke)

True or False:….False

Answer to quoted question…no

Explanation: A hell of a lot of mutations can occur in 6 million years.

mu·ta·tion [myoo táysh'n]
(plural mu·ta·tions)
n
1. change in genetic material: a random change in a gene or chromosome resulting in a new trait or characteristic that can be inherited. Mutation can be a source of beneficial genetic variation, or it can be neutral or harmful in effect.

.........................................

I’m not answering for jeff, but I would like to comment on this…

When I look at an airplane, I do indeed see design, but when I look at a human being…I also see design & beauty, design & beauty sculptured by nature, and thousands of years of selective breeding.

If I took your statement to it’s logical conclusion…then everything in the universe, is the way it is because of intelligent design, and there would be no place at all, for random change, or evolution of any sort.

I just happen to believe there is room for both.

I'm gonna end it there. I'm dissatisfied, but you are technically safe (if careless).

I will say that to suppose that apes and humans were the result of DNA mutations, or any other vague process, is on the level of science-fiction in my opinion.

Spidey wrote:If I took your statement to it’s logical conclusion…then everything in the universe, is the way it is because of intelligent design, and there would be no place at all, for random change, or evolution of any sort.

I just happen to believe there is room for both.

Am I the only party that must be trapped by the inflexible stupidity that is read into my statements? Things change. They still evidence design. I never said that things are exactly the way they are because of the designer. I said they evidence design!

Cults believe their Scriptures are the final word when their judgment is clouded in ignorance and or blind faith or even the inability for personal choice.

Just think if killing infidels and strapping bombs to your chest was in the Bible!



But seriously before you utter another comment about Creationism answer these 3 questions:
* without the use of a Bible or Scripture.....
** in 3 words or less

1 - When were you given the choice to pick your religion/cult.

2 - Where do you go to find your God?

3 - If God is the creator of Life then what does that make you

Faith - Belief in something that has no logical proof or actual material evidence to prove it.

Evolution is just a THEORY because we cannot PROVE, only observe, what has happened over the entire history of the earth. We are assuming that evolution has occurred because of the obvious changes in species that show up throughout the historical fossil record.

Intelligent Design has absolutely NO proof or evidence to even BECOME a THEORY, so it's based solely on faith.

tunnelcat wrote:Faith - Belief in something that has no logical proof or actual material evidence to prove it.

Intelligent Design has absolutely NO proof or evidence to even BECOME a THEORY, so it's based solely on faith.

That's is truly a vicious but factual circle you have there tunnlecat

you left out 2 points

ID is a forced belief

Evolution is a shared hypothesis

BUBBALOU wrote:But seriously before you utter another comment about Creationism answer these 3 questions:
* without the use of a Bible or Scripture.....
** in 3 words or less

1 - When were you given the choice to pick your religion/cult.

2 - Where do you go to find your God?

3 - If God is the creator of Life then what does that make you

1. every single day

2. everywhere

3. humble

Heh. When I started to read your post, it sounded like you were gonna ask some hard questions.

BUBBALOU wrote: ID is a forced belief

Evolution is a shared hypothesis

Forced...? Really now?

Evolution CANNOT be tested so it isn't a hypothesis.

dissent wrote:

BUBBALOU wrote:But seriously before you utter another comment about Creationism answer these 3 questions:
* without the use of a Bible or Scripture.....
** in 3 words or less

1 - When were you given the choice to pick your religion/cult.

2 - Where do you go to find your God?

3 - If God is the creator of Life then what does that make you

1. every single day

2. everywhere

3. humble

Heh. When I started to read your post, it sounded like you were gonna ask some hard questions.

When I get more replies on those 3 questions
{please no more quotes of quotes)
- I'll Post mine
- Then ones for a person who is truly religious
- Then the ones for a fanatic

(btw why what's with the "Postcount Quote Fail" CUDA? That is a basic lack of individual thought... you are quality sheep stock)

S13driftAZ wrote:Forced...? Really now?

Evolution CANNOT be tested so it isn't a hypothesis.

S13driftAZ/Isaac That's your obvious ignorance

S13driftAZ wrote: Forced...? Really now?

Evolution CANNOT be tested so it isn't a hypothesis.

Neither is the theory of relativity but that doesn't make it any less valid.

I can see that we're not communication here, Spidey. The thing that really bothers me is that I feel like in the face of it you just keep trying to prove me wrong, no matter which direction you decide I'm going--I feel like I'm the only one attempting to communicate. I'm running out of patience, and running out of words.

This right here is the MAIN reason why a lot of people do not contribute, or even continue to contribute.

This is interesting... read it



An Atheist Professor of Philosophy was speaking to his Class on the Problem Science has
With GOD , the ALMIGHTY. He asked one of his New Christian Students to stand and . . .

Professor : You are a Christian, aren't you, son ?
Student : Yes, sir.
Professor : So, you Believe in GOD ?
Student : Absolutely, sir.
Professor : Is GOD Good ?
Student : Sure.
Professor : Is GOD ALL - POWERFUL ?
Student : Yes.
Professor : My Brother died of Cancer even though he Prayed to GOD to Heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But GOD didn't. How is this GOD good ! then? Hmm?

(Student was silent )

Professor : ; You can't answer, can you ? Let's start again, Young Fella.
Is GOD Good?
Student : Yes.
Professor : Is Satan good ?
Student : No.
Professor : Where does Satan come from ?
Student : From . . . GOD . . .
Professor : That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this World?
Student : Yes.
Professor : Evil is everywhere, isn't it ? And GOD did make everything. Correct?
Student : Yes.
Professor : So who created evil ?

(Student did not answer)

Professor : Is there Sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness?
; All these terrible things exist in the World, don't they?
Stude! nt : Yes, sir.
Professor : So, who Created them ?

(Student ha d no answer)

Professor : Science says you have 5 Senses you use to Identify and Observe the World around you. Tell me, son . . . Have you ever Seen GOD?
Student : No, sir.
Professor : Tell us if you have ever Heard your GOD?
Student : No , sir.
Professor : Have you ever Felt your GOD , Tasted your GOD , Smelt your GOD ? Have you ever had any Sensory Perception of GOD for that matter?
Student : No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.
Professor : Yet you still Believe in HIM?
Student : Yes.
Professor : According to Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?
Student : Nothing. I only have my Faith.
Professor : ;Yes, Faith. And that is the Problem Science has.

Studen! t : Professor, is there such a thing as Heat?
Professor : Yes.
Student : And is there such a thing as Cold?
Professor : Yes.
Student : No, sir. There isn't..

(The Lecture Theatre became very quiet with this turn of events )

Student : Sir, you can have Lots of Heat, even More Heat, Superheat, Mega Heat, White Heat,
a Little Heat or No Heat.
But we don't have anything called C old.
We can hit 458 Degrees below Zero which is No Heat, but we can't go any further after that.
There is no such thing as Cold.
Cold is only a Word we use! to describe the Absence of Heat.
We cannot Measure Cold.
Heat is Energy.
Cold is Not the Opposite of Heat, sir, just the Absence of it.

(There was Pin-Drop Silence in the Lecture Theatre )

Student : What about Darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as Darkness?
Professor : Yes. What is Night if there isn't Darkness?
Student : You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the Absence of Something
You can have Low Light, Normal Light, Bright Light, Flashing Light . . . But if you have No Light constantly, you have nothing and its called Darkness, isn't it? In reality, Darkness isn't. If it is, were you would be able to make Darkness Darker, wouldn't you?
Professor : So what is the p! oint you are making, Young Man ?
Student : Sir, my point is your Philosophical Premise is flawed.
Professor : Flawed ? Can you explain how?
Student : Sir, you are working on the Premise of Duality. You argue there is Life and then there is Death, a Good GOD and a Bad GOD. You are viewing the Concept of GOD as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, Science can't even explain a Thought. It uses Electricity and Magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view Death as the Opposite of Life is to be ignorant of the fact that Death cannot exist as a Substantive Thing.
Death is Not the Opposite of Life: just the Absence of it
Now tell me, Professor, do you teach your Students that they evolved from a Monkey?
Professor : If you are referring to the Natural Ev! olutionary Process, yes, of course, I do.
Student : ; Have you ever observed Evolution with your own eyes, sir?

(The Professor shook his head with a Smile, beginning to realize where the Argument was going )

Student : Since no one has ever observed the Process of Evolution at work and Cannot even prove that this Process is an On-Going Endeavor,
Are you not teaching your Opinion, sir?
Are you not a Scientist but a Preacher?
(The Class was in Uproar )

Student : Is there anyone in the Class who has ever seen the Professor's Brain?

(The Class broke out into Laughter )

Student : Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's Brain, Felt it, touched or Smelt it? . . .
No one appears to have done so.
So, according to the Established Rules of Empirical, Stable, Demonstrable Protocol, Science says that You have No Brain, si r. With all due respect, sir, how do we then Trust your Lectures! , sir?

(The Room was Silent. The Professor stared at the Student, his face unfathomable)

Professor : I guess you'll have to take them on Faith, son.
Student : That is it sir . . . Exactly !
The Link between Man & GOD is FAITH.
That is all that Keeps Things Alive and Moving.

That young mans name was ALBERT EINSTEIN


HEHEHEH This is my argument!

S13driftAZ wrote:Evolution CANNOT be tested so it isn't a hypothesis.

eh? where does this come from? Evolution can and *has* been tested lots of times. It is a theory that makes certain predictions, and these predictions can be tested, both on a historical level and as a process.

1. historically. Whenever natural selection predicts that a transitionary fossil exists between two stages and one is found, this provides a test of the theory. Two my knowledge, no other competing theory, would make such a prediction (especially not ID or creationism).

2. as a process: We test the theory everytime we exert artificial selection pressure on a species and we make it change over generations. Guess how our different breeds of dogs came to be.

Pandora wrote: Guess how our different breeds of dogs came to be.

They had dog sex for the first time in history and all the DNA for different kinds of dogs was contained in that DNA. That's what I believe

S13driftAZ wrote:This is interesting... read it

Tho old Atheist Professor Malice of Absence gag again........That young mans name was ALBERT EINSTEIN

HEHEHEH This is my argument!

So your argument is Fiction

S13driftAZ wrote:

Pandora wrote: Guess how our different breeds of dogs came to be.

They had dog sex for the first time in history and all the DNA for different kinds of dogs was contained in that DNA. That's what I believe

So the more a couple reproduces eventually they will have a baby of every creed and color? Thanks I laughed on that one

Are Dinosaurs are fake also ????....., since they predate when the world was created in 6 days....

S13driftAZ wrote:

Pandora wrote: Guess how our different breeds of dogs came to be.

They had dog sex for the first time in history and all the DNA for different kinds of dogs was contained in that DNA. That's what I believe

I think mice evolved into giant mice giving us bears.

.

BUBBALOU wrote:So your argument is Fiction

Interesting

BUBBALOU wrote:So the more a couple reproduces eventually they will have a baby of every creed and color? Thanks I laughed on that one

No.

BUBBALOU wrote:Are Dinosaurs are fake also ????....., since they predate when the world was created in 6 days....

Untruth. The Bible does NOT refer to those as being LITERAL earth days. According to my beliefs, we are in the seventh day at present.

Spidey wrote:I personally have no problem with either theory…evolution or creation, my problem starts when people try to teach their own truths as fact.

I think you're striking a note with me... on one level in agreement, and on another in disagreement.

There are two questions that the creation/evolution arguments blend, resulting in highly heated arguments. (This gets back to my original post in the thread about taking some and leaving some.)

First question: How? This is the question that scientists love to ask. This is the question that science can and should strive to answer. How is the question that the scientifically valid ideas of natural selection & survival of the fittest answer.

Really, it's a quite logical question for an inquisitive mind to ask: "Hey, look, lots of animals have lots of things in common, I wonder how it could have happened?" Religion's traditional answer of "Don't worry about it, we already know 'how' (I'll explain the quotes in a second) it happened." just takes the wind out of science's sails, and people eventually got tired of it.

Here's my point of disagreement with you, Spidey. There's a definite, concrete, 100% correct answer to "how"... and a lot of times we're really darn close to know what that answer is. For origins, it's harder to know "how" because it's in the past and over a long span of years... but there is definitely a right answer, and all of the rest of the answers are definitely not 100% right.

Second question: Why? This is, by nature, an essentially philosophical question.

The "random" part of Darwin's work is where the scientific "how" starts to dabble in the philosophical "why."

Let's assume that Darwin got the "how" part right... that small genetic changes resulted, in the long term, in the variety of species that we have now. Who's to systematically pick between "random genetic change," "Divinely-engineered genetic change," "alien-engineered genetic change," or whatever other cause for genetic change that you can come up with? Trying to systematically prove/confirm the "why" ends up being driven by the assumptions that you start with. (I avoid "scientifically", because it implies certain assumptions.)

On Spidey's point of forcing our "why's" on other people: From my perspective, there's got to be a right and a wrong answer: Either God exists and made sure everything was created exactly the way He wanted it, or not. The problem is, in this world we can only be convinced by revelation, and it's not revealed to all of us. (That's the Biblical answer, as far as I understand it.) So, for the rest of us, we're not convinced because it's not divinely revealed, and we're never going to be convinced otherwise... so all sorts of people come up with all sorts of answers to the question "why do I exist," and base their lives on the conclusions that they draw. So, if someone comes along, and tells you you're basing your life on completely the wrong assumptions (which is what people subconsciously are arguing about in the creation/evolution debate) people tend to get defensive... After all it's what gets them out of bed in the morning.

Point being: some people are definitely wrong. Maybe all of us are wrong, but when you have mutually exclusive ideas, at least one has to be wrong.

Second point being: we're really never going to know who's philosophically right and who's philosophically wrong in this world (or until it's too late to change your mind), if you want to try to prove it by some systematic proof. I believe that I'm right in believing in God, and I believe that it's been revealed to me... but in the end I could be wrong, too.

EDIT- one more point.

I think science primarily tries to answer "how" and ends up dabbling in "why"

The Bible is primarily a book about "why" and ends up having to relate some "how" in order to get the point across. I'd dare to say that probably the majority of Christians end up confusing this and thinking that the Bible is mostly about "how."

Recipe

1 Qt Evolutionists
1 Qt Creationists

Place in a blender and Puree

best served cold

the book of "How and Why"

BUBBALOU wrote:But seriously before you utter another comment about Creationism answer these 3 questions:
* without the use of a Bible or Scripture.....
** in 3 words or less

1 - When were you given the choice to pick your religion/cult.

2 - Where do you go to find your God?

3 - If God is the creator of Life then what does that make you

I cant answer these in three words or less...

1- I was raised on and taught the beliefs I have now

2- Prayer, and the earth around us

3- An insignificant grain of sand, carrying out his will

Good post Snoop…I agree, science is about the how’s and religion, or in my case spirituality is about the why’s. And we would all be better off leaving each to it’s own.

This is also why I criticize people who completely replace religion with science. (never going to answer the why’s)

……………………………….....

Pandora, breeding dogs can indeed test the theory, but only so far…breeds are a far cry from species, and until you create an actual species thru breeding, the test will be inconclusive. (as in, not proof)

Hell if you want to observe evolution in action, just look at the development of a baby in the womb, heck…at one point, it even has a tail. Even just look at the human brain…we still have the “lizard” brain.

But, still not proof.

But, with that being said..I’m not going to argue that evolution is bad science, because I believe that it “is” good science…until it crosses the line…that I have pointed out before. (being taught as fact)

.....................

Also…historically:

Actually, the theory predicts a \"lot\" more fossils, and is one of the major sticking points in the theory, that even the people involved in the science admit. Of course…evolution may happen in larger jumps, as well as the smaller ones we observe.

And, don’t even say it…because I know the argument about the intermediate species never being around long enough to leave behind fossils…but this also has problems.