Creation vs Evolution

[Kev]

I state again it is not for me to prove myself correct. You have presented nothing except gee I can't imagine all this happened over a long time.


Prove god exists and then we can discuss.


Why would only one side of this discussion have to prove their belief?

If there were a fair evaluation both sides would present information and it would be examined. And for the record. No one can prove the existence of God with physical evidence. But I can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that what evolutionists believe DIDN'T happen. It's really not difficult if you actually apply a little critical thinking.

The entire evolution idea operates off of assumptions that "science" has proven it. There is not a single observed, tested, and demonstrated piece of evidence for any aspect of this fairytale called the "evolution theory". It should have been thrown out with the flat earth theory years ago. The only reason it is still around is because the only other answer is creation, and it is a scary thought.

Dur, because you are bashing evolution and in it's place you are putting creationism of which you have presented no evidence to support your views.

So far there has been a discussion questioning the "facts" with regard to evolution. They have been proven to be inaccurate. Please present one shred of evidence for evolution. You obviously believe that you have heard something that could be considered as evidence. Please share.

Actually Missy once again you are completely wrong. Up until the time of Charles Darwin the biblical model was accepted by virtually everyone. In fact it was the biblical world view that was held by most of the greatest scientists of those times.

Darwin and his supporters challenged the biblical model which was the scientifically accepted model up to that point.

Evolutionary theory won the idealogical war and was largely accepted as being the true around 30 years or so after Darwin's publication of his Origin of Species. Then began the quest to find evidence for it. This is extremely important to understand. The theory came first, the search for evidence to support the theory came afterwards.

The past 150 years has seen evolutionists combing the whole earth for evidence to support this theory and so far nothing has been found.

There is not a single shred of evidence presented by evolutionists, be it from the fossil record, biology, observational data etc that cannot easily be seen to fit a creationist model.

I am attempting to have a serious dialogue in this thread and so will no longer respond to you unless you actually start presenting some evidence to support your belief in evolution so that we can have a proper debate.

Where do you want to start? The fossil record, microbiology, dinosaurs living with man, mathematical probability theory?

Present your evidence and start providing explanations to counter mine and we can start having a serious discussion

[luvfightgame]

Of course explosions, and accidents are great scientific explanations.

Happens all the time.

[VictorCharlie]

Bilbo, other than an Evolutionist global conspiracy why would the majority of scientific research say that dinosaurs are millions of years old? I mean your in an extreme minority on your dinosaur beliefs. If your opinions are backed up my so much factual information why isn't it taught in schools, universities etc?

That's a great question. I believe that by asking questions you really get to the core of the issue.

The first question is how do you establish dates for something? How do you know the majority of science agrees?

Look as I've stated before I dont feel one way or the other in regards to mans evolution from primates. What I don't understand is how you can deny that man has been evolving both physically and socially over the past several thousand years. But my point was that through 12 years of public schooling and 5 years of college education that did include some biology, anthropology and archaelogy I've never heard anything other than that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, long before man showed up. So although I understand that there is quite a bit of information that is debatable it seems that most scientific research points to Bilbos theory of dinosaurs being wrong or at least widely disbelieved.

[luvfightgame]

Bilbo, other than an Evolutionist global conspiracy why would the majority of scientific research say that dinosaurs are millions of years old? I mean your in an extreme minority on your dinosaur beliefs. If your opinions are backed up my so much factual information why isn't it taught in schools, universities etc?

That's a great question. I believe that by asking questions you really get to the core of the issue.

The first question is how do you establish dates for something? How do you know the majority of science agrees?

Look as I've stated before I dont feel one way or the other in regards to mans evolution from primates. What I don't understand is how you can deny that man has been evolving both physically and socially over the past several thousand years. But my point was that through 12 years of public schooling and 5 years of college education that did include some biology, anthropology and archaelogy I've never heard anything other than that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, long before man showed up. So although I understand that there is quite a bit of information that is debatable it seems that most scientific research points to Bilbos theory of dinosaurs being wrong or at least widely disbelieved.

Do you beleive other peoples opinion on every matter? When you watch a fight do you always agree with the commentators? If you went to a beauty contest would you think the winner was the best looking one? My point is that absence of evidence leaves it in the realm of opinion. Why do schools continue to teach things in biology, and archaelogy that have been proven wrong That's a good question. I have an opinion, but that would lead us into a different topic. Just because you were taught something in school doesn't mean its true. They used to teach all kinds of ridiculous things that have since been proven wrong... Flat earth, smoking prevents sickness, bleeding out your "bad" blood cures sickness, removing portions of your brain will cure mental conditions, and many other misconcieved medical treatments.

The one fact you can rely on is that if someone has something to gain from something they will present slanted information. There is no lack of accusations for this for anyone promoting creation. However the general populace automatically assumes that "science" is the good guy and they would never do anything but present unbiased information. It is entirely untrue. "Science" is often promoting a product and edit out unfavorable information. Just look at all the pharmacuetical companies that passed through FDA testing, then people started dropping dead and they had to recall the product. Don't be niave and just assume something is true because a credible organization backs it.

[gyrokai]

There is not a single shred of evidence presented by evolutionists, be it from the fossil record, biology, observational data etc that cannot easily be seen to fit a creationist model.

It is amazing what people can do to sound smart. hahaha
Sorry man, but your twisting scientific evidence to meet your personal beliefs or should I say "community beliefs."

Virus' such as HIV evolve, but at an extremely fast pace, since there are sooo many of them and they multiply rapidly. That's why it's so difficult to make a vaccine for HIV, because it evolves to survive a specific vaccine.

Beak length from a certain birds have changed to meet their surroundings in a matter of generations.

Evolution is the FOUNDATION of Biology. Sure you can "squeeze in creationism" into evolution if you were a biology major, but you can also "squeeze in" just about anything in the constitution with semantics and self-delusion.

[Kev]

Bilbo, other than an Evolutionist global conspiracy why would the majority of scientific research say that dinosaurs are millions of years old? I mean your in an extreme minority on your dinosaur beliefs. If your opinions are backed up my so much factual information why isn't it taught in schools, universities etc?

Hey vanchilds, that is a great question and I will attempt to answer it as fully as I can.

The scientific community, especially in the areas of paelontology and evolutionary sciences all of course subscribe to the evolutionary world view. The vast majority are also humanists who have a strong anti-God agenda, and are actively seeking at all levels to destroy belief in God. As this may sound a strong satement I will back it up with examples in a moment.

The education system is run largely by people with a humanist agenda who again seek to turn people away from belief in creation and to their own humanistic evolutionary beliefs. This is not so much a conspiracy as it is trying to have their own world view established as the official explanation for man's origins.

I mean you would not expect an evangelical Christian university to employ an athiestic college professor would you?

In exactly the same way it is virtually impossible for a scientist who happens to believe in creation to get a position on any secular university, or to get his papers published in secular journals. Anyone who holds to a creationist viewpoint is at odds with the evolutionary community and so will never be allowed to teach or to hold a position of responsibility in a secular establishment.

This much should be obvious.

In America this is changing. In places such as Kansas there is a battle royal taking place between creationist and evolutionists over the teaching of creation being restored to schools. The tide is turning slowly in the favour of creationists in some parts of the world.

To see the scale of the prejudice and evolutionary scientists contempt for Christianity let me give you some examples.

Here are some quotes from Richard Dawkins, lecturer of Zoology at Oxford University, winner of numerous awards and the most famous evolutionist in Europe, and probably the worlds biggest authority on evolution

Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world

To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as contemptuous or even hostile. It is both. I am often asked why I am so hostile to organized religion.

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.

It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

To an honest judge, the alleged convergence between religion and science is a shallow, empty, hollow, spin-doctored sham.

Dawkin's contempt for creationism is similarly shared by his fellow evolutionary scientists so it is fairly apparant that he would never allow any science teacher who did not believe in evolution to practise under him or to to work in any secular university!


Any creationist believing scientist therefore will never be allowed to teach or to hold a recognised position. There anti-evolutionary evidence will NEVER be published in the accepted scientific journals and their position will always be labelled as idiotic etc. It is an uphill battle but nonetheless there are a huge amount of scientists with impeccable credentials who do believe in the biblical creationist model.

However there are a large number of qualified scientists who believe in special creation.

There are over 600 voting members of the Creation Research Society, the minimum membership entrance is a masters degree in a recognised area of science.

The Korea association of Creation Research has over 150 PHD members and a further 600 with masters degrees.

Below is a list of current scientists who all hold doctorates and believe in special creation, google search them if you are interested


Who's Who? in Creation/Evolution

Creationists holding DOCTORATES IN SCIENCE
(partial list, in alphabetical order)

Do real scientists believe in Creation? Answer...

Why do so many scientists endorse Evolution? Answer

How is it possible for reasonable, intelligent, well-educated people to hold such diametrically opposite views as Evolutionism and Creationism? Answer...
Recommended Resource:

In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation IN SIX DAYS:
Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation
Click here for more info

1. Agard, E. Theo
2. Allan, James
3. Anderson, Kevin
4. Armstrong, Harold
5. Arndt, Alexander
6. Austin, Steven
7. Barnes, Thomas
8. Batten, Don
9. Baumgardner, John
10. Bergman, Jerry
11. Boudreaux, Edward
12. Byl, John
13. Catchpoole, David
14. Chadwick, Arthur
15. Chaffin, Eugene
16. Chittick, Donald
17. Cimbala, John
18. Clausen, Ben
19. Cole, Sid
20. Cook, Melvin
21. Cumming, Ken
22. Cuozzo, Jack
23. Darrall, Nancy
24. Dewitt, David
25. DeYoung, Donald
26. Downes, Geoff
27. Eckel, Robert
28. Faulkner, Danny
29. Ford, Dwain
30. Frair, Wayne
31. Gentry, Robert
32. Giem, Paul
33. Gillen, Alan
34. Gish, Duane
35. Gitt, Werner
36. Gower, D.B.
37. Grebe, John
38. Grocott, Stephen
39. Harrub, Brad
40. Hawke, George
41. Hollowell, Kelly
42. Holroyd, Edmond
43. Hosken, Bob
44. Howe, George
45. Humphreys, D. Russell
46. Javor, George
47. Jones, Arthur
48. Kaufmann, David
49. Kennedy, Elaine
50. Klotz, John
51. Koop, C. Everett
52. Korochkin, Leonid
53. Kramer, John
54. Lammerts, Walter
55. Lester, Lane
56. Livingston, David
57. Lopez, Raul
58. Marcus, John
59. Marsh, Frank
60. Mastropaolo, Joseph
61. McCombs, Charles
62. McIntosh, Andrew
63. McMullen, Tom
64. Meyer, Angela
65. Meyer, John
66. Mitchell, Colin
67. Morris, Henry
68. Morris, John
69. Mumma, Stanley
70. Parker, Gary
71. Peet, J. H. John
72. Rankin, John
73. Rosevear, David
74. Roth, Ariel
75. Rusch, Wilbert
76. Sarfati, Jonathan
77. Snelling, Andrew
78. Standish, Timothy
79. Taylor, Stephen
80. Thaxton, Charles
81. Thompson, Bert
82. Thomson, Ker
83. Vardiman, Larry
84. Veith, Walter
85. Walter, Jeremy
86. Wanser, Keith
87. Whitcomb, John
88. White, A.J.(Monty)
89. Wilder-Smith, Arthur Ernest
90. Wile, Jay
91. Williams, Emmett
92. Wise, Kurt
93. Wolfrom, Glen
94. Zuill, Henry

[luvfightgame]

There is not a single shred of evidence presented by evolutionists, be it from the fossil record, biology, observational data etc that cannot easily be seen to fit a creationist model.

It is amazing what people can do to sound smart. hahaha
Sorry man, but your twisting scientific evidence to meet your personal beliefs or should I say "community beliefs."

Virus' such as HIV evolve, but at an extremely fast pace, since there are sooo many of them and they multiply rapidly. That's why it's so difficult to make a vaccine for HIV, because it evolves to survive a specific vaccine.

Beak length from a certain birds have changed to meet their surroundings in a matter of generations.

Evolution is the FOUNDATION of Biology. Sure you can "squeeze in creationism" into evolution if you were a biology major, but you can also "squeeze in" just about anything in the constitution with semantics and self-delusion.

Gyroki,

Those are not evidences of one thing changing into a different thing. Those are ADAPTATIONS. Noone disputes that things change and adapt within very specific limits. The idea that something can turn into a different species has never ever ever ever been observed. The very same examples you presented are also used by schools. The conclusion is far from proven, and again 0 evidence for it exists.

[Kev]

There is not a single shred of evidence presented by evolutionists, be it from the fossil record, biology, observational data etc that cannot easily be seen to fit a creationist model.

It is amazing what people can do to sound smart. hahaha
Sorry man, but your twisting scientific evidence to meet your personal beliefs or should I say "community beliefs."

Virus' such as HIV evolve, but at an extremely fast pace, since there are sooo many of them and they multiply rapidly. That's why it's so difficult to make a vaccine for HIV, because it evolves to survive a specific vaccine.

Beak length from a certain birds have changed to meet their surroundings in a matter of generations.

Evolution is the FOUNDATION of Biology. Sure you can "squeeze in creationism" into evolution if you were a biology major, but you can also "squeeze in" just about anything in the constitution with semantics and self-delusion.

Hey gyroki, it's an interesting question you raise and one of the most widely believed misconceptions that ordinary people have about evolution, namely their inability to differentiate between adaptation and macro evolution.

The examples you have presented are examples of adaptation, a virus can develop resistance to certain vaccines, but this is NOT evolution. It is merely a selective organisation of DNA already present within the virus, there is no new information being added to the genetic materail of that virus, the fundamental requirement for evolution to work.

Thus a virus can change forms and develop resistance to a certain antibiotic but it will remain a virus. It CANNOT ever become something else because the information required to turn it into a different organim is not present within it's DNA.


Regarding dinosaurs living millions of years ago, I completely agree it is the universally accepted viewpoint but does that mean it's true?

Again look yourself critically at the evidence.

1. Ancient man's detailed descriptions of encounters with beast that fit exactly the description of many dinosaurs.

2.Many of these stories and the same descriptions are found in many diverse cultures suggesting a shared experience of seeing the same animal.

3.Drawings and paintings such as I showed already are abundantly found amongst many many ancient cultures.

4.Dinosaur bones have been found that were unfossilised! This is a proven scientifically documented fact. How does fresh bone hang around for 65,000,000 years?

5. The discovery of many animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years but are known to be still living.
The most famous example here is that of the coelacanth, an early form of fish, that actually 'evolved' over 100 million years BEFORE the dinosaurs and was believed to have become extinct 70,000,000 years ago. Several live specimens have subsequently been found

See this BBC news link http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1049818.stm for more details.

The actual evidence when examined impartially clearly is clearly suggestive of the possibility dinosaurs living in recent times, however as this would completely destroy evolutionary theory these evidences are completely ignored.

Please examine this information for yourself, you will be amazed by what you find.

[Memphis]

Just quickly. If God is the creator, what is he doing now that the place could do with some running repairs? Are his hands tied by red tape, planning and barmy health and safety directives like the rest of us?

[TyBuff]

Although I am not as smart as some of the other posters on this thread, you have to admit bilbo makes some pretty compelling arguments. The idea that dinosauers were alive a lot longer than most people believe is a lot for people to swallow. Since the word dinosauer wasnt yet used till the 1800's it takes some interpretation of what was written or drawn thousands of years ago. It is truly one of those things that may never be discovered in our lifetime.

I believe in the creationism theory. I believe in God, and that we are here for a reason. If God wanted us to know why and how he could and would. Not to get religious or anything on this thread, but if we knew how everything was suppose to be and what we were suppose to do, wouldnt that take some of the fun out of living? Thank you for your time (steps off of soapbox).

Now you may proceed to tear this apart as you wish.

[TyBuff]

Just quickly. If God is the creator, what is he doing now that the place could do with some running repairs? Are his hands tied by red tape, planning and barmy health and safety directives like the rest of us?

(Personal believe) we have free will to do as we please. God does not interfere with what we do. He gave us some instructions and guidelines (bible and 10 commandments) and then it is up to us whether we follow them or not.

[Lords Gym]

luvfightgame where you at? I enjoyed your twist on things . you were putting me into a deep renaissance trip !

[gyrokai]

I want to stop this so called "discussion".... BUT I will say this...

...

No human can comprehend a million years. You can SAY "a million years," but can you really comprehend it? We can't even comprehend 50 years!!! I hear 50 year olds say,"I can't believe it's been 50 years!" or I hear 70 year olds say,"I NEVER thought I'd live to this age."

Evolution explains biology, it's the FOUNDATION of biology. Species change, you guy's except that right? Well you have a Tiger and a Lion, both are closely related, but they haven't interchanged inter bred in a while. BUT THEY CAN STILL HAVE SEX AND HAVE A KID. But that kid can't have a kid. I'm very sure you already know this. It just explains that we actually observe species that aren't really separated, it can almost be classified as the same species, except we define species to have offspring and that offspring must have offspring.

You can imagine small change, because the evidence is too overwhelming and blatant, because it happens within YOUR DAMN LIFETIME. haha

Now try to imagine something happening over Millions of YEARS times your lifetime. Imagine the drastic changes.

You can't because you don't see it within your lifetime, so you say it doesn't exist. EVEN THOUGH IT EXPLAINS ALL OF BIOLOGY and just about everything around us.

Well if you can pull off that bullshyte, then "No stars exist because I can't travel to them and touch them." "Atoms don't exist because I don't see them." "Light doesn't exist because I don't see IT."

If religion, and it IS religion, and ignorance also, had a problem with those questions, you'd see them complaining about that bullshyte, EVEN THOUGH a tremendous amount of evidence is based in favor of those standard theories.

"Gravity doesn't exist because I can't see it or comprehend it." "Electromagnetic Feilds don't exist because I don't understand it and it contradicts what my stupid book says." heheh

"I don't exist because I don't KNOW me." ---You see, now your in philosophic garbage now. heh

No concrete, robust, consistent, and simple theory to explain natural phenomena, just someone saying they don't believe it because it happened another way.

Plain stupid, someone has too keep telling you, or this whole world will turn into idiots while our technology keeps improving, which makes the mind of babies in charge of nuclear missiles.

[Lords Gym]

Is it possible the bible was put together just to try and instill some law and order in that time period?

[Kev]

I want to stop this so called "discussion".... BUT I will say this...

...

No human can comprehend a million years. You can SAY "a million years," but can you really comprehend it? We can't even comprehend 50 years!!! I hear 50 year olds say,"I can't believe it's been 50 years!" or I hear 70 year olds say,"I NEVER thought I'd live to this age."

Evolution explains biology, it's the FOUNDATION of biology. Species change, you guy's except that right? Well you have a Tiger and a Lion, both are closely related, but they haven't interchanged inter bred in a while. BUT THEY CAN STILL HAVE SEX AND HAVE A KID. But that kid can't have a kid. I'm very sure you already know this. It just explains that we actually observe species that aren't really separated, it can almost be classified as the same species, except we define species to have offspring and that offspring must have offspring.

You can imagine small change, because the evidence is too overwhelming and blatant, because it happens within YOUR DAMN LIFETIME. haha

Now try to imagine something happening over Millions of YEARS times your lifetime. Imagine the drastic changes.

You can't because you don't see it within your lifetime, so you say it doesn't exist. EVEN THOUGH IT EXPLAINS ALL OF BIOLOGY and just about everything around us.

Well if you can pull off that bullshyte, then "No stars exist because I can't travel to them and touch them." "Atoms don't exist because I don't see them." "Light doesn't exist because I don't see IT."

If religion, and it IS religion, and ignorance also, had a problem with those questions, you'd see them complaining about that bullshyte, EVEN THOUGH a tremendous amount of evidence is based in favor of those standard theories.

"Gravity doesn't exist because I can't see it or comprehend it." "Electromagnetic Feilds don't exist because I don't understand it and it contradicts what my stupid book says." heheh

"I don't exist because I don't KNOW me." ---You see, now your in philosophic garbage now. heh

No concrete, robust, consistent, and simple theory to explain natural phenomena, just someone saying they don't believe it because it happened another way.

Plain stupid, someone has too keep telling you, or this whole world will turn into idiots while our technology keeps improving, which makes the mind of babies in charge of nuclear missiles.

Actually what you are saying is contradicted by our modern understanding of biology and the fossil record.

So you are saying we can't observe evolution happening in the present because it happens way to slowly right, tiny little changes over millions of years.

Well that being true we can just have a little look through the fossil record and see all these tiny little changes happening gradually over millions of years right?

Dead Wrong! The fossil record does not show any evidence of a slow gradual evolution of species. None whatsoever!

Whenever a new species first appears in the fossil record it appears complete, fully formed (evolved) with no visible ancestors.

As an expert on evolution Gyroki I'm sure you will be aware of the Cambrian explosion where invertebrate fossils appear suddenly in the fossil record with no visible ancestors.

Supposedly invertebrates evolved into the first fish. But despite millions of fossils from both groups, transitional fossils linking them are missing.

Just do a google search on the Cambrian Explosion and see for yourself.

And it's not just creationists who say there are no transitional fossils whatsoever.

To prove this point I'll demonstrate by finding and quoting only evolutionists articles.

Please check these out for yourself and challenge me if I'm incorrect.

This quote is from Colin Patterson the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History,

Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. … I will lay it on the line -- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument It goes without saying that Patterson is a 100% committed evolutionist.

Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History says the following

It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species or fossil 'group' can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another

If evolutionary theory is true, we should find the innumerable transitional forms Darwin predicted would be in the geologic record. We shouldn't find just a handful, but billions of them. Instead, the fossil record shows animals complete, not in developmental stages.

The evidence for the gradual evolution of species you described is not in the fossil record, it completely and utterly proves the opposite!

As for your example of a lion and a tiger do you not see how this too is actually evidence against evolutionary theory.

Both creationists and evolutionists agree that lions and tigers share the same ancestor so that they can breed is not a big deal. However the fact that their offspring are unable to reproduce themselves is another nail in the coffin to evolutionary theory.

You see species resist change, they don't change easily. For evolution to be true creatures must have gradually evolved and changed, tiny little changes to their internal organs, reproductive organs etc. The whole time these creatures still have to be able to mate and reproduce, and their own offspring also must reproduce.

You have just identified how hard it is for even a lion and a tiger to reproduce and and create a new species of animal, so what are the chances of all the millions of species on this earth being able to live a fully functional life, find a partner, mate and reproduce when all the time their sexual organs, internal organs, bones, anatomy etc are changing? If one animal suddenly evolves some tiny change in it's sex organ, it has to find a mate with a corresponding change in it's sex organ for them to be able to copulate.

You can repeat that this happens so slowly that the changes are simply not noticable in any one or even thousands of generations but again this leads you back to the dilema mentioned at the begining of this post namely the fossil record proves that a gradual transition from one species to another did not occur.

I don't claim to know a great deal about microbiology but one scientist with impeccable credentials is Michael Behe professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

His famous book entitled 'Darwin's Black Box' completely destoys the idea that evolution is possible at the molecular level. He is an interesting case as he is not a bible believer, has no creationist axe to grind but merely reached his conclusions through his own study. His arguments are devastating and have never been succesfully answered by the evolutionary community.

Your analogies using stars and gravity make little sense to me. It is the scientific community who refuse to accept what they can't see not the creationists.

For an evolutionary scientist the idea of creation, or intelligent design is simply unacceptable no matter what evidence there might be to support it. It is part of the scientific creed to only and always look for an answer within the confines and science and to exclude any possibility of the supernatural or any other force whose work we cannot detect and verify. No amount of evidence to the contrary will ever convince a scientist committed to the idea of evolution.

I find it rather ironic that you clearly have little knowledge about evolution yourself as evidenced by your argument but yet will defend it aggressively and absolutely.

You state that the evidence is overwhelming and blatent and that evolution forms the foundation of biology it may suprise you to know that the founder of modern biology John Ray was a commited Christian and creationist, as was the founder of chemistry Robert Boyle, and the founder of the scientific method Francis Bacon.

Actually the kind of changes you seem to think take millions of years take very little time at all.

Consider a butterfly. It is a caterpiller for 4/5ths of it's life or more then undergoes the most amazing metamorphis where it spins a cocoon around itself, then it's entire body procedes to liquify itself, and inside the cacoon those parts move around and form an entirely new creature. Did you know that back end of the caterpiller actually become the head of some butterflies? Remarkable, a transition from one insect into something completely different in just a few weeks!

It's also proved an impossible question for evolutionists to comprhend. Try and imagine how the first caterpiller managed to evolve the ability to turn into a butterfly. Did it do it gradually over millions of years, not changing much at all to start with and gradually getting a little bit more daring?

I repeat with absolute confidence, there is NO evidence whatsoever for macro-evolution. The available data we do have such as the fossil record and our knowledge of microbiology actually provide firm evidence against it. The only people who believe in evolution are those scientists committed to it on philosophical grounds and ordinary people who believe it because of indoctrination and have never studied the evidence for it.

Instead of dismissing people as being backwards and idiotic for not believing maybe you should examine both sides of the argument yourself. I promise you, you will be amazed by what you find out.