roli: Do you even read other people's posts? Or do you just repeat your prepackaged irrational rants over and over. Never mind, don't answer that.
Scientists have some very interesting studies in certain areas of science and as I have said before, they are important to enhance life, but when they mix humanism in with atheisim it becomes a religion that has an agenda to totally remove the concept of God ,creationism etc, dspite what you or others say in defense.
Well, if they did that, it wouldn't be science. Are you listening at all? Or do you insert your fingers into your ears before typing. You don't seem to have learned anything at all. I can't count how many times that we've told you that God is outside of the scope of science. Please try to follow along: for the purpose of this discussion, we are all assuming not only that God exists, but that He created the universe and everything in it. Now we're going to learn how He created living organisms. Have you grasped that much? Please answer specifically, because my fingers are getting tired of typing the same thing over and over.
Scienists are stumped by such complexities as the origin,fuction and design of the eye
No they're not. Scientists know the evolutionary origin of the eye, how it functions, and that design does not enter into it.
which causes questions regarding evolution by natural selection, random chance.
Yes, that is what science is for, to explore and answer questions. This one has pretty much been answered. Cool, eh?
The only difference with modern evolutionary theories today is the spin they palce on all their terms ,findings and objectives.
Don't know what you mean here. Actually evolutionary theory is constantly expanding and refining, which is why there are entire university departments, long books, scholarly articles constantly being churned out about various aspects of it. None of them touch on explosions, God, or rocks.
Man can't come close to designing an equal to the human eye, which if they tried would take the most massive and complex computer to attempt to simulate what the eye can do.
I don't know whether this is true, but nature certainly is marvellous. You have to admire what God in His wondrous glory has accomplished through evolution.
Understand what , that the underlying argument and overall objective of evolutionists is to ultimately set in the minds of society that we came from a massive inanimate explosion, but they mask it with a modern theory and smoke screen that we have come from a common ancestor , how appropriate and almost convincing, a common ancestor really does make sense to the masses.
I don't know how else to say this, roli, but you're just plain lying. The first time you said it, you may have been confused. But now that it's been explained to you again and again, there's no other word for it.
It's like this. Science is divided up into different subjects, such as geology, chemistry, astronomy, biology, and the like. I think the subject you are talking about here is cosmology. And not to get derailed, but even the Big Bang theory, which is what I think you are referring to, is not an explosion. In any case, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION. Evolution is part of biology. Big Bang has no more to do with evolution than does the pipe theory of plumbing.
It's interesting that is not what was in the school text books , when evolution made it's scene in our western culture,maybe because the theories scientific explainations evolve as random as they beleive humans did.
No one knows what you were trying to say here. Try again.
It's revised into a new evolutionary model , such as the" common ancestor"
Did'nt it go something like this in the school textbooks,"millions and millions of years ago there was a massive explosion" and man came from some Prebiotic soup mix" , which ultimately says we came from a bacteria cesspool and surprise complex humans.
No.
Evolutionists simply amaze me in their creativity.
What is an evolutionist?
I truly beleive the irony of all this is that evolutionists are creationists in the fact they create evolutionary theories continuous to cover over their last findings to appear superior and on top of their field.
Yes, science does require creativity as well as rigor.
But what is it that you beleive beyond the common ancestor, you got all the answers ,why stop there,how can speicies change into other speicies, where is the fossil records and where is evidence of it happening today.
I think I answered the first one, and I hate to waste my time repeating myself, so please go back and read my posts and tell me whether you understood them. (You don't seem to have, or why are you asking this?) And, since you asked, when my fingers are recovered, I will begin on the evidence.
There is no evidence of the evolutionary process that you all believe happened and where not talking about mini ,micro evolutionary change that we all believe takes place .
Yes, there is, as I will demonstrate. So this sounds like you agree that new species do evolve, you just think it stops at some point? Is that correct? Because if so we're half way there.
it's macro evolutionary process that you ultimately believe, which there is no record of speices changing into other species as you suggest.
I'm confused. You think that species change, but never into new species? Why not?
I am not talking about your proof in which you use an insect changing metamorphically into some particular advanced stage of the same species doing nothing more than what was in it's DNA.
Are you saying that new species never evolve? If I cited actual examples of that very thing, would it change your mind?
I know,.... you claim it is all over ,they ceased milliona of years ago REGARDING macro evolutionary changes, how convenient.
No, you're mistaken in this as in everything else. Evolution is going on right now. Isn't that exciting?
