Question for the biblical religious

[El Kabong]

Fine, be sarcastic, I am just saying if no one questioned these scientific facts then the world wouldn't be any different than it was in the dark ages where religion ruled over everyone and controlled what they thought....only there would be no Pope only some sort of teacher with tenure

Over the centuries religion has done everything it could to supress science and scientific discoveries that conflicted with their dogma. Check what happened to Gallileo Gallilei for instance. Science is constantly questioning itself every single day. Nothing in the scientific world has ever been rigourously proved or ever will be, but a great number of scientific theories have overwhelming evidence of proof, like evolution.

Hey science has also fought science before just look at the history of medicine no religion to stop any progress there.

[luvfightgame]

If mechanisms weren't in place, then they had to be evolving at the same time and still be finished before the next one could evolve. It still requires an amazing amount of coincidence and very good planning.

With transitional species there should be millions of examples of the failed adaptations of naturally selected for extinction species. There are scant examples of birds looking like dinosaurs, but they are birds. They have wings and presumably can fly. We are missing the failed adaptations in every species of which there should be millions.

Scientists did think the earth was flat and just like the entire rest of the world that accepts evolution at face value they found out later they were wrong.

The problem with evolution being science is it hasn't been tested, observed, measured, it's stringing together theories and observing things now and estimating or guessing what happened long before. Gravitational theory and electromagnetic theory are extremely different. The theory on those is how they work, not what happens. Evolutionary theory has already decided how it works and is now trying to force fit what happened.

Interesting that you mentioned quantum physics in another post. Quantum physics has proven mathematically that there are at least 10 dimensions. We are only capable of interacting in 3 but are aware of the 4th. Did time evolve also? How about other dimensions. Not just the matter, energy, and space, but time, and whatever else exists. Evolution is a theory, but it's a very loose and unproven and untestable theory. It still remains more of a philosophy than science.

Biomechanical and biochemical actions on the ancient earth to create original life had billions of years to happen. No planning necessary.


There are plenty of examples of transitional species. Here are just a few. You could go and do a bit of research yourself and find plenty more :

talk.origins newsgroup


It depends what you mean by "scientists". There were also plenty of "scientists" that thought they could change lead into gold. But if we're talking about actual academic disciplines that developed their own methods of peer-reviewing of their discoveries based on observation, calculation etc. rather than a bunch of quacks making claims without evidence then no, no scientists have ever claimed the world was flat.


Evolution has been observed and measured endlessly. From Darwin discovering different shell shapes on Galapagos turtles (go read the hows and whys of just this single thing) there's more observation and testing of evolution than you could read in ten lifetimes. I've already posted examples of all this for you yet you continue to make the same arguments.

Once we've dealt with evolution we can start on quantum mechanics.

Checked out the sites you posted. I don't think we are talking about the same thing when it comes to transitional species. The examples are variations of the same species. That point is moot. There is no controversy that animals, and virtually all life adapt and have changes within the same species. There is however no real examples of a species that is in between or shows any real signs of being in between 2 species. The biggest problem with it all is that life is made of DNA which is basically nothing more than information. You can't get more information added from the same information, you could get different combinations of the same information but you cant get more and different. Single celled forms could reproduce but to also add information? Come on man. Look at the complexity of mapping DNA one error causes horrible results. Evolution proposes that random chance caused millions of versions of life to exist and mutate their dna randomly until a good one sticks and it keeps producing. How many generations would it have taken for the reproductive system to evolve? How many errors would it take for it to completely wipe out all life? Just think about that. When the jump to multiple celled creatures that reproduced sexually happened, the male and female both had to have been evolving at the same rate and both hit it in one generation or the species dies all together.....

[Andre]

Al had a thought for the day



ALERT THE MEDIA!



Al there's nothing wrong with being spiritual or believing in the Bible or Jesus or whatever religion you want to mention but once organized religion takes over you're in trouble. All Organized religion is The New Roman Empire, The Persian Empire (Shia Muslims), The Arab Empire (Sunni Muslims) and so on and so forth....it's the same thing just in a different more accepted package.

I advocate thinking for yourself and using any scripture to learn about a different more peaceful way of thinking and being.

Doh, I have to spread rep around !

Well said Mate,couldnt agree more.
But there is more in all the scriptures if you wish to explore even on creation and evolution both are correct its a blend ;the real pathways back wasnt completly hidden either if you care to seek them.

All the bible bashers recon they are off to Heaven from one belife ,(CHristians number iin their millions) when in the bible it also states only 130,000 will be accending this next time around. It also states that if you are so much as luke warm you will be spat from the mouth of Christ etc.
Whats 3 million minus 130,000 ? MAybe the Good books creator accidently left a digit out...

IT isnt just cut and dried there are many ways ,many groups,many destinations in many dimensions and many personal choices to either decend or to accend its not just one road up and the same one down (can be if you choose it).
It isnt just heaven and hell with Earth stuck in the middle we are on a muti-dimentional playing field,we in truth are a ball in space amongst trillions of others, some alive, some dormant, some dieing off, others being born, or transmuted, there is no real up and no real down to any of it from our physical stand point.
There is a black hole that spins like a plug hole and our whole solar system is heading slowly towards it. From our set of rules it looks devestating cause we cant exist there as our light disappears into it and appears to be consumed by it. Light speed is eternal ! it is not constant out there as we have measured it to be here.

[Dark Lord Al]

I think i had better leave this debate before i offend any of you believers (which i dont intend to do as you are entitled to your opinions )

[Andre]

I think i had better leave this debate before i offend any of you believers (which i dont intend to do as you are entitled to your opinions )

You have my deepest appreciation for your view point AL.
Without yours; my one (Which is opposite to yours)could not exist as it does and would fall flat to all my sences.
Experience can only be had by relating to something else.
We are for the time being in duality supported by a third entity.

Its the third thing ot GOD that stands alone and does so by choice.

I only know I am here because I have something to relate to not being here.
If you were here on your own, zip, you would have no thing to relate to.

Everything is like that, but only in this the third dimension. The other 12 have different make ups completly but some simular only up to the 6th.
Seperation and relation cease at a certain frequency as does all physicality.

[luvfightgame]

I think i had better leave this debate before i offend any of you believers (which i dont intend to do as you are entitled to your opinions )

No offense taken. I was arguing evolution stand alone. Not as compared to another faith. That's when you see the holes in the theory. If you compare it to something else, it makes sense. If you try to stand it up on it's own, it won't do it.

The fact remains.....

A male and female of a species both had to evolve at the same time with a reproductive system in place and a method to feed the offspring, and themselves. And the food system had to evolve also and reproducing enough to feed the other thing long enough. There is no stand alone life form. It's all interdependent which makes evolution that much harder to believe.

You are entitled to your opinion as well, just don't call it a fact when it's an opinion, and not at all settled fact.

[pacfan]

I think i had better leave this debate before i offend any of you believers (which i dont intend to do as you are entitled to your opinions )

No offense taken. I was arguing evolution stand alone. Not as compared to another faith. That's when you see the holes in the theory. If you compare it to something else, it makes sense. If you try to stand it up on it's own, it won't do it.

The fact remains.....

A male and female of a species both had to evolve at the same time with a reproductive system in place and a method to feed the offspring, and themselves. And the food system had to evolve also and reproducing enough to feed the other thing long enough. There is no stand alone life form. It's all interdependent which makes evolution that much harder to believe.

You are entitled to your opinion as well, just don't call it a fact when it's an opinion, and not at all settled fact.

Excellent observation. The theory has some fatal loopholes that leaves it still just a theory after more than a century. One of its flaws is that it is anchored solely on the process of natural selection that must favor the most successful or prolific breeders; no other criteria are allowed. It fails to explain why we have eyebrows, which I discussed earlier. Definitely, the eyebrows, which protect our eyes from irritating sweats, has nothing to do with our ability to reproduce and continue our progeny. So why was it put there, for our convenience? Of course scientists will never accept that. I'm pretty sure there are other parts of our body that perform some useful functions in our life but have nothing to do with our ability to reproduce. So why are they there or why were they evolved?

[luvfightgame]

True, very true.

That's why doctors now remove organs and say we don't need them anymore. I had a friend that was an untrained mechanic. He could figure some things out, but whenever he reassembled things there would always be leftover pieces. He said they weren't necessary, but he was always working on his car.

I ain't opting for having anything removed. Just because a human thinks it doesn't serve a purpose, doesn't mean they are right. I have seen enough bad medical advice, I ain't believing everything I hear from someone cause they have a long title or an impressive degree that they paid for.....

I have mingled with enough "professionals" to know that some idiots just make more money than others, and having a degree doesn't mean you're intelligent, just means you went to school and at least passed the minimum requirements.

[Kirkland Laing]

Checked out the sites you posted. I don't think we are talking about the same thing when it comes to transitional species. The examples are variations of the same species. That point is moot. There is no controversy that animals, and virtually all life adapt and have changes within the same species. There is however no real examples of a species that is in between or shows any real signs of being in between 2 species. The biggest problem with it all is that life is made of DNA which is basically nothing more than information. You can't get more information added from the same information, you could get different combinations of the same information but you cant get more and different. Single celled forms could reproduce but to also add information? Come on man. Look at the complexity of mapping DNA one error causes horrible results. Evolution proposes that random chance caused millions of versions of life to exist and mutate their dna randomly until a good one sticks and it keeps producing. How many generations would it have taken for the reproductive system to evolve? How many errors would it take for it to completely wipe out all life? Just think about that. When the jump to multiple celled creatures that reproduced sexually happened, the male and female both had to have been evolving at the same rate and both hit it in one generation or the species dies all together.....

Evolution doesn't work like that at all. Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

As for how DNA evolved, we're gaining more knowledge every day :

Scientists at The Scripps Research Institute have successfully converted an RNA enzyme (ribozyme) into a DNA enzyme (deoxyribozyme) through a process of accelerated in vitro evolution. The molecular conversion or transfer of both genetic information and catalytic function between these two different genetic systems, which are both based on nucleic acid-like molecules, is exactly what many scientists believe occurred during the very earliest period of earth's existence.

'Accelerated Evolution' Converts RNA Enzyme To DNA Enzyme In Vitro


And there are plenty of examples of transitional species, as already posted. There's also endless evidence to show that species on the earth today evolved from species that walked the earth millions of years ago. Here's the latest evidence, made public a few days ago :

In the first analysis of proteins extracted from dinosaur bones, scientists say they have established more firmly than ever that the closest living relatives of the mighty predator Tyrannosaurus rex are modern birds.

The research, being published Friday in the journal Science, yielded the first molecular data confirming the widely held hypothesis of a close dinosaur-bird ancestry, the American scientific team reported. The link was previously suggested by anatomical similarities.
In fact, the scientists said, T. rex shared more of its genetic makeup with ostriches and chickens than with living reptiles, like alligators. On this basis, the research team has redrawn the family tree of major vertebrate groups, assigning the dinosaur a new place in evolutionary relationships.
Similar molecular tests on tissues from the extinct mastodon confirmed its close genetic link to the elephant, as had been suspected from skeletal affinities.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/sc...hp&oref=slogin


We also have DNA evidence showing evolution in a single species over short periods of time :

Using perfectly preserved, ancient DNA, scientists have demonstrated microevolution in a single species over a span of some 6,000 years. The researchers examined well-preserved bones of Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) found in Antarctica and compared them to the birds' living descendants.


Ancient Penguin DNA Reveals Microevolution on Ice

[Andre]

Checked out the sites you posted. I don't think we are talking about the same thing when it comes to transitional species. The examples are variations of the same species. That point is moot. There is no controversy that animals, and virtually all life adapt and have changes within the same species. There is however no real examples of a species that is in between or shows any real signs of being in between 2 species. The biggest problem with it all is that life is made of DNA which is basically nothing more than information. You can't get more information added from the same information, you could get different combinations of the same information but you cant get more and different. Single celled forms could reproduce but to also add information? Come on man. Look at the complexity of mapping DNA one error causes horrible results. Evolution proposes that random chance caused millions of versions of life to exist and mutate their dna randomly until a good one sticks and it keeps producing. How many generations would it have taken for the reproductive system to evolve? How many errors would it take for it to completely wipe out all life? Just think about that. When the jump to multiple celled creatures that reproduced sexually happened, the male and female both had to have been evolving at the same rate and both hit it in one generation or the species dies all together.....

Evolution doesn't work like that at all. Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

As for how DNA evolved, we're gaining more knowledge every day :

Scientists at The Scripps Research Institute have successfully converted an RNA enzyme (ribozyme) into a DNA enzyme (deoxyribozyme) through a process of accelerated in vitro evolution. The molecular conversion or transfer of both genetic information and catalytic function between these two different genetic systems, which are both based on nucleic acid-like molecules, is exactly what many scientists believe occurred during the very earliest period of earth's existence.

'Accelerated Evolution' Converts RNA Enzyme To DNA Enzyme In Vitro


And there are plenty of examples of transitional species, as already posted. There's also endless evidence to show that species on the earth today evolved from species that walked the earth millions of years ago. Here's the latest evidence, made public a few days ago :

In the first analysis of proteins extracted from dinosaur bones, scientists say they have established more firmly than ever that the closest living relatives of the mighty predator Tyrannosaurus rex are modern birds.

The research, being published Friday in the journal Science, yielded the first molecular data confirming the widely held hypothesis of a close dinosaur-bird ancestry, the American scientific team reported. The link was previously suggested by anatomical similarities.
In fact, the scientists said, T. rex shared more of its genetic makeup with ostriches and chickens than with living reptiles, like alligators. On this basis, the research team has redrawn the family tree of major vertebrate groups, assigning the dinosaur a new place in evolutionary relationships.
Similar molecular tests on tissues from the extinct mastodon confirmed its close genetic link to the elephant, as had been suspected from skeletal affinities.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/sc...hp&oref=slogin


We also have DNA evidence showing evolution in a single species over short periods of time :

Using perfectly preserved, ancient DNA, scientists have demonstrated microevolution in a single species over a span of some 6,000 years. The researchers examined well-preserved bones of Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) found in Antarctica and compared them to the birds' living descendants.


Ancient Penguin DNA Reveals Microevolution on Ice

Belive me when im 'not' saying your wrong. Evolution is a massive part of creation.I can see where people using a brain that is in two linked but seperate parts can see from one side or the other.
I belive that the fundamentalist religious can only see out of one side too.

Try this out for measure; what do you think or feel about this, is this just a massive coincedence as well? Take 9 min.

http://www.youtube.com/v/D39eGrx3a_A

[luvfightgame]

Checked out the sites you posted. I don't think we are talking about the same thing when it comes to transitional species. The examples are variations of the same species. That point is moot. There is no controversy that animals, and virtually all life adapt and have changes within the same species. There is however no real examples of a species that is in between or shows any real signs of being in between 2 species. The biggest problem with it all is that life is made of DNA which is basically nothing more than information. You can't get more information added from the same information, you could get different combinations of the same information but you cant get more and different. Single celled forms could reproduce but to also add information? Come on man. Look at the complexity of mapping DNA one error causes horrible results. Evolution proposes that random chance caused millions of versions of life to exist and mutate their dna randomly until a good one sticks and it keeps producing. How many generations would it have taken for the reproductive system to evolve? How many errors would it take for it to completely wipe out all life? Just think about that. When the jump to multiple celled creatures that reproduced sexually happened, the male and female both had to have been evolving at the same rate and both hit it in one generation or the species dies all together.....

Evolution doesn't work like that at all. Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

As for how DNA evolved, we're gaining more knowledge every day :

Scientists at The Scripps Research Institute have successfully converted an RNA enzyme (ribozyme) into a DNA enzyme (deoxyribozyme) through a process of accelerated in vitro evolution. The molecular conversion or transfer of both genetic information and catalytic function between these two different genetic systems, which are both based on nucleic acid-like molecules, is exactly what many scientists believe occurred during the very earliest period of earth's existence.

'Accelerated Evolution' Converts RNA Enzyme To DNA Enzyme In Vitro


And there are plenty of examples of transitional species, as already posted. There's also endless evidence to show that species on the earth today evolved from species that walked the earth millions of years ago. Here's the latest evidence, made public a few days ago :

In the first analysis of proteins extracted from dinosaur bones, scientists say they have established more firmly than ever that the closest living relatives of the mighty predator Tyrannosaurus rex are modern birds.

The research, being published Friday in the journal Science, yielded the first molecular data confirming the widely held hypothesis of a close dinosaur-bird ancestry, the American scientific team reported. The link was previously suggested by anatomical similarities.
In fact, the scientists said, T. rex shared more of its genetic makeup with ostriches and chickens than with living reptiles, like alligators. On this basis, the research team has redrawn the family tree of major vertebrate groups, assigning the dinosaur a new place in evolutionary relationships.
Similar molecular tests on tissues from the extinct mastodon confirmed its close genetic link to the elephant, as had been suspected from skeletal affinities.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/sc...hp&oref=slogin


We also have DNA evidence showing evolution in a single species over short periods of time :

Using perfectly preserved, ancient DNA, scientists have demonstrated microevolution in a single species over a span of some 6,000 years. The researchers examined well-preserved bones of Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) found in Antarctica and compared them to the birds' living descendants.


Ancient Penguin DNA Reveals Microevolution on Ice

Micro evolution is a fact. And it is the only type of evolution that is anything more than a theory or hypothesis. The problem is using it to prove MACRO took place.

In a court room proving that a person stole candy when they were little, doesn't prove they just robbed the bank down the street. It's not physical evidence. All the evidence presented is micro not macro.

Still let's focus on this...

The reproduction of a species sexually. How many generations would it have taken to master it? Was there some other way of reproducing in place for that species until it was replaced by sexual reproduction?

Did the female and male species have to evolve at the same time?

[pacfan]

Micro evolution is a fact. And it is the only type of evolution that is anything more than a theory or hypothesis. The problem is using it to prove MACRO took place.

In a court room proving that a person stole candy when they were little, doesn't prove they just robbed the bank down the street. It's not physical evidence. All the evidence presented is micro not macro.

Still let's focus on this...

The reproduction of a species sexually. How many generations would it have taken to master it? Was there some other way of reproducing in place for that species until it was replaced by sexual reproduction?

Did the female and male species have to evolve at the same time?

First off, luvfightgame, I'm not trying to contradict you, or any of you here. But I'll be borrowing your point to prove my point.

As I've said, I have no problem with evolution. I think God can work through either creation or evolution. That's not impossible for me because I don't interpret the Bible literally. I think if there was an evolution, I think it was a guided evolution, guided somewhere from above, not the haphazard trial and error method as espoused by scientists, or else, I think it would have been an ugly evolution, not the perfectly symmetrical type we see in reality. That's the only way how some questions like how both sexes evolved simultaneously and why we were given eyebrows, which beautifully protect our eyes from our own sweat but which has nothing to do with our 'ability to multiply', which is the sole goal of the pure evolution theorists.

You know, folks, you may not believe this but there is this channel through which all these powers flow, call it whatever you wish, universal energy, universal mind or God Himself. This is the channel through which lifeforms on earth are guided, this is also the channel where all religious pray thru, and this is the channel through which we receive our knowledge... ...and this is also the channel where I get my ideas. Nuts, heh? Ask Andre.

[Andre]

Micro evolution is a fact. And it is the only type of evolution that is anything more than a theory or hypothesis. The problem is using it to prove MACRO took place.

In a court room proving that a person stole candy when they were little, doesn't prove they just robbed the bank down the street. It's not physical evidence. All the evidence presented is micro not macro.

Still let's focus on this...

The reproduction of a species sexually. How many generations would it have taken to master it? Was there some other way of reproducing in place for that species until it was replaced by sexual reproduction?

Did the female and male species have to evolve at the same time?

First off, luvfightgame, I'm not trying to contradict you, or any of you here. But I'll be borrowing your point to prove my point.

As I've said, I have no problem with evolution. I think God can work through either creation or evolution. That's not impossible for me because I don't interpret the Bible literally. I think if there was an evolution, I think it was a guided evolution, guided somewhere from above, not the haphazard trial and error method as espoused by scientists, or else, I think it would have been an ugly evolution, not the perfectly symmetrical type we see in reality. That's the only way how some questions like how both sexes evolved simultaneously and why we were given eyebrows, which beautifully protect our eyes from our own sweat but which has nothing to do with our 'ability to multiply', which is the sole goal of the pure evolution theorists.

You know, folks, you may not believe this but there is this channel through which all these powers flow, call it whatever you wish, universal energy, universal mind or God Himself. This is the channel through which lifeforms on earth are guided, this is also the channel where all religious pray thru, and this is the channel through which we receive our knowledge... ...and this is also the channel where I get my ideas. Nuts, heh? Ask Andre.

I can only add one thing to that: Physical orientated thoughts are the only thing that gets in the way or blocks the energy or the information that comes down that pranic tube you are talking about; also blocks whats recorded in your dna.

The more you only think one way the less you can except from all the ways.

Its like asking God who are you? show yourself to me now,why am I here?why do you allow all this? Why me? why this pain? whats right ?whats wrong?all the while you are only really trying to justify your own view point or where you chose to stand ,still telling your own storyline.

You cant hear when your still talking/you cant meditate while still thinking.
How can you expect to hear Universal answers when your still busy with your own story?
"Silence is golden" for many reasons.

There is truth in : "better somethings end than in their begining."

Ask with an empty cup ,not a full one or even a half full one.

Grasshopper

Space/matter

Its the space within ,the window openings and the door openings that make a building useful.

Therefore profit comes from what is there,usefulness from what is not there.

See both sides except both sides.

[Kirkland Laing]

Checked out the sites you posted. I don't think we are talking about the same thing when it comes to transitional species. The examples are variations of the same species. That point is moot. There is no controversy that animals, and virtually all life adapt and have changes within the same species. There is however no real examples of a species that is in between or shows any real signs of being in between 2 species. The biggest problem with it all is that life is made of DNA which is basically nothing more than information. You can't get more information added from the same information, you could get different combinations of the same information but you cant get more and different. Single celled forms could reproduce but to also add information? Come on man. Look at the complexity of mapping DNA one error causes horrible results. Evolution proposes that random chance caused millions of versions of life to exist and mutate their dna randomly until a good one sticks and it keeps producing. How many generations would it have taken for the reproductive system to evolve? How many errors would it take for it to completely wipe out all life? Just think about that. When the jump to multiple celled creatures that reproduced sexually happened, the male and female both had to have been evolving at the same rate and both hit it in one generation or the species dies all together.....

Evolution doesn't work like that at all. Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

As for how DNA evolved, we're gaining more knowledge every day :

Scientists at The Scripps Research Institute have successfully converted an RNA enzyme (ribozyme) into a DNA enzyme (deoxyribozyme) through a process of accelerated in vitro evolution. The molecular conversion or transfer of both genetic information and catalytic function between these two different genetic systems, which are both based on nucleic acid-like molecules, is exactly what many scientists believe occurred during the very earliest period of earth's existence.

'Accelerated Evolution' Converts RNA Enzyme To DNA Enzyme In Vitro


And there are plenty of examples of transitional species, as already posted. There's also endless evidence to show that species on the earth today evolved from species that walked the earth millions of years ago. Here's the latest evidence, made public a few days ago :

In the first analysis of proteins extracted from dinosaur bones, scientists say they have established more firmly than ever that the closest living relatives of the mighty predator Tyrannosaurus rex are modern birds.

The research, being published Friday in the journal Science, yielded the first molecular data confirming the widely held hypothesis of a close dinosaur-bird ancestry, the American scientific team reported. The link was previously suggested by anatomical similarities.
In fact, the scientists said, T. rex shared more of its genetic makeup with ostriches and chickens than with living reptiles, like alligators. On this basis, the research team has redrawn the family tree of major vertebrate groups, assigning the dinosaur a new place in evolutionary relationships.
Similar molecular tests on tissues from the extinct mastodon confirmed its close genetic link to the elephant, as had been suspected from skeletal affinities.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/sc...hp&oref=slogin


We also have DNA evidence showing evolution in a single species over short periods of time :

Using perfectly preserved, ancient DNA, scientists have demonstrated microevolution in a single species over a span of some 6,000 years. The researchers examined well-preserved bones of Adélie penguins (Pygoscelis adeliae) found in Antarctica and compared them to the birds' living descendants.


Ancient Penguin DNA Reveals Microevolution on Ice

Micro evolution is a fact. And it is the only type of evolution that is anything more than a theory or hypothesis. The problem is using it to prove MACRO took place.

In a court room proving that a person stole candy when they were little, doesn't prove they just robbed the bank down the street. It's not physical evidence. All the evidence presented is micro not macro.

Still let's focus on this...

The reproduction of a species sexually. How many generations would it have taken to master it? Was there some other way of reproducing in place for that species until it was replaced by sexual reproduction?

Did the female and male species have to evolve at the same time?

I'm pleased we both agree that microevolution is a fact.

As for sexual reproduction, it developed while asexual reproduction was still going on in the same species, didn't just happen overnight. Eventually the evolved version of the species (through the benefits of natural selection allowed by sexual reproduction) took over, while some species like dandelions (and Lyle's ancestors) remained asexual.

And sexual evolution continues today. In a few thousand years' time man will evolve a penis that can suck itself.

[El Kabong]

So out of nothing came everything we know of, and that is completely explained by science


Yeah and now who has the FAITH issue?