Evolution

Where did anyone mention Darwin? Darwin was not the first to examine the possibility of biological evolution - or "descent with modification". Many scholars before him also shared these ideas. Today, the unifying principle of "common descent" that comes from all the foregoing lines of evidence is being reinforced by the discoveries of modern molecular biology and biochemistry - especially through new understanding of DNA. The early fossil record was incomplete, and many of the gaps have since been filled with modern paleantology research which was non-existent in Darwins time. The main "record" has not changed in the least, it has only been reinforced. Whoever said all life began on one particular day? I'm sorry, I am not understanding your assertion there, as fossil evidence proves this is not the case. Evolution is seen in minor instances when a bacterial strain - through natural selection - morphs and becomes resistant to medications, when mosquitos become immune to pesticides, etc.

Darwin achnowledged: "If numerous speicies have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution." Does the evidence indicate that numerous species came into existence at the same time, or does it point to gradual development, as evolution holds? The Smithson Institution scientist Porter Kier says: "There are a hundred million fossils, all catalogued and identified, in museums around the world." A Guide to Earth History adds. "By the aid of fossilds paleontologists can now give us an excelent picture of the life of past ages." The Bulletin of Chicago's Field Musem of Natural HIstory pointed out: "Darwin's theory of evolution has always been closely linked to evidence from fossils, and probably most people presume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument that is made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history if life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true, the geologic record did not then and still does not yield a finely graduated chain of slow and progressive evolution."

That is when our own genetic system is broken down from pestersides and poisons on the earth wrecking our immune system.That is not evolution that is the stupidity of the human race if you look at the bible Adam lived for 935 years in Genesis 5:5 in our so called modern day we find it very hard to live for 85 years this is nothing to do with evolution it is due to the genics in our body being destroyed by mans greed to have machinery and mines and factories and fast cars planes and rockets with no thought for our children or our grandchildren

Name one who has true scientific credentals. This is a blatantly untrue statement.

It's true. And the credentials have been presented to several times before. Why do you pretend?

The scientific method is as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch and see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. Is this the method followed by those who believe in and teach evolution? Astronomer Robert Jastrow says "To the scientists chargrin they have no clear cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature's experiments on the creation of life out of non living matter.Scientist do not know how that happened According to New Scientist "An increasing number of scientists most particularty a growing number of evolutionists argue that Darwinian evolutionary theary is no genuine scientific theory at all Many of the critics have the highest intellectual credentials."

My suggestion would be to examine records and studies that better reflect the advancements science has made since 1959, or even 1980. These arguments are severely outdated, and bear no relation to modern scientific knowledge and substantiated facts.

Carl Sagan in his book Cosmos, candidly acknowledged: "The fossil evidence could be consistent with the idea of a great designer." (New York 1980) page 29. Paeontologist Alfred Romer wrote: "Below the Cambrian period, there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambiran forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could resonably be sasid to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the begining of Cambrian times. Matural History, October 1959 page 467 Many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic over and over again the question of the origin of the species has been presented as if it were finally settled. Nothing could be further from the truth. but the tendency to be dogmatic persists and it does no service to the cause of science." The Guardian, London England December 4 1980 page 15.

Carl Sagan made a direct comment on design. He did not say "could be". The statement comes from "Pale Blue Dot" and is as follows; "The evidence, so far at least and the laws of Nature aside, does not require a Designer." The other quotes you listed are hopelessly out of date.

I'm not really sure how to respond to this. I don't worship the Christian God. I have read many Christian and Jewish scriptures, but while there are many interesting things in them, I don't have any particular attachment or belief rooted there. I answered this from the perspective of "religion vs. evolution" and in my case, my perspective involves a mixture of both. I really don't understand why these two viewpoints have to be at war.

It is important to unterstand the the Hebrew scriptures is the original bible and in Isaiah 40:22 It says "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth." So how did the bible know that the earth was a circle if human beings at the time of the hebrew scriptures being written though the earth was flat. This is one of the many reasons that we find that the bible is written by God through man. God is far more believable then evolution, as evolution is a man made idea and is found by scientist to not be correct.

I didn't think they were at war, this is just the facts that I have found them to be from the bible evolution is an interesting concept but that doesn't mean that it is right.

Organic evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the suprnatural intervention of a creator. Some people endevor to blend belief in God with evolution, saying that God created by means of evolution, that he brought into existence the first primitive life forms and that then higher life forms, including man, were reproduced by evolution. If a child has some building blocks and he wants to make a tower, by leaving the blocks on the foor will they evolve into a tower by them selves, no, they will need the boy to make the tower. This is the same with all creation it had to be created by God and has not evolved.

you see to me, lifeless matter to living matter isn't such a huge jump for the mind. I beleive all natural things have a soul. we do. animals do. plants do. even rocks. to me deity is what drives evolution, but that's not the same as a being intervening. Gods, whichever ones we beleive in, are the force of nature that drives life. some people see them as this God, or that God, atheists see it as natures faceless forces. but it all boils down to the same thing. not a chap on a cloud with a beard, but that energy that is present in absolutely everything and makes it function.

In Genesis God gave life to all things and he isn't a literal old man with a beard, There is no actual description of God because no-one living has ever seen God and anything in heaven does not have a solid body they are like mist or a ghost 1 Corinthians 15:50 Says, However I say, brothers that flesh and blood cannot inherit Gods kingdom. A view of life states that begining at the base of the Cambrian period and extended for about 10 million years there exists skeltol life, but before that there is none. This has been recorded in the Natural History october 1959 on page 467

While your Bible may be Gods truth for you it is not for all of us. Some people consider reincarnation to be the truth and it is supported by their religion. Believe what you want but do not contest the beliefs of others. They hold them as dear as you hold yours.

Spirits don't get reincarnated the bible states that when we die we will become dust again as we started as dust and dust we will become. but Gods purpose was for us to live for ever on earth as healthy young looking people in a garden of Eden like place in Genesis 9:29 Noah lived for 950 years. The world will have to change a alot for us to be able to live for ever as youthful healthy people.