Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[SkepticThinker]

Did I have a choice in school? Did you? Did the school say, you have a choice young man, do you want classes teaching creation or evolution? NO! Thats why I said that because it is. Same in our universities! You dont have a choice. Now reverse it, what if they only taught creationism? You'd have riots! Especially from the professors that teach biology, physics, chemistry, psychology and sociology etc., etc..

Why should you have a choice in the matter? Do you get to choose not to learn English, math, or history? Do you get to make up your own math if you don’t like what is being taught? Of course not, that’s ludicrous. If you want to learn specific things of your own choosing, that’s what college is for. I took a comparative religion class when I attended university.

They don’t teach creationism is science class because it isn’t science. Evolution is the prevailing, best supported scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on earth. It is scientific. It wins in the marketplace of ideas because it is supported by massive amounts of evidence from multiple independent groups of scientists in almost every single field of science in existence. Creationism is not. Creationism belongs in churches, synagogues, temples, etc.

What brand of creationism should they teach anyway? The Christian one? The Muslim one? The Hindu one?

See, I dont know what evidence you speak of. There isnt any more EVIDENCE for evolution as there is for creation. Actually more for creation due to the fact that God explains in His word that He made trees and plants with fruit bearing seed, all the creatures in the sea, the cattle and all the creaping things on the earth not to mention man and woman. All of which has the ability to procreate! Look around you, dont you see these things as EVIDENCE? I mean, what more could you ask for? And, has anyone or anything in history as we know it claimed to have done that? NO! Then look at the other side, that all these things devoloped out of some primordial goop? Really? Thats why I say, it takes a whole lot more faith to believe in evolution than it does in a creator. But again, thats just me. Obviously, creation doesnt make sense to everyone.But I guess if you dont believe in the living God of the bible, you have to believe in the alternatives, right? And satan has been busy for thousands of years keeping people away from the God of the bible, can you guess why?

There are massive amounts of scientific evidence for evolution; biology doesn’t work without it. If you aren’t aware of the evidence, it’s not because it doesn’t exist, it’s because you haven’t taken the time to find it. The Bible is not a science book.

“Look around you” isn’t evidence for creation. Sorry, but we need some empirical studies.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well, Rapture Era said this:
Yes demon possession can cause people to go into seizures, thats a fact and observable.

So if this person is stating that it is a FACT that demonic possession can cause people to go into seizures, can I not assume they think demonic possession is also a fact?


Yes rapture era said that. I have no problem with people stating their ideas. The problem I have is with some posters(guess I would be breaking RF roles if I mention specific poster) never stating their opinion clearly. Just tell others they are wrong.

For the record I don't believe that seizures are a sign of demon possession

Okay, I see.

Oh crap, did I break the rules?

 

[adi2d]

Okay, I see.

Oh crap, did I break the rules?

The rules seem to be pretty subjective. Like I didn't know you could say crap but you can't say it came from an ***

.

 

[CG Didymus]

The rules seem to be pretty subjective. Like I didn't know you could say crap but you can't say it came from an ***

.

Oh poo poo, should he be stoned? No wait, that was God's Law where you get stoned. Can we at least cast pebbles?

 

[Awoon]

Job 1, is about YHVH pointing out Job to Satan and telling him to test him.

YHVH is responsible in this story, not Satan, who was just doing his job.

*

The Devil made me do it....YHVH

 

[1robin]

Demonic possession is a fact? Oh boy.

There is far more evidence for demonic activity than for many other things we assign to "known" label to. Your the only one that used the word fact BTW. I said good evidence and plenty of it exists.

 

[1robin]

Notice he never said there were demons. Just said others have studied it. Same with Adam and eve story and numerous other topics here at RF. Never states his opinion right out so can't be shown wrong. Good debate tactic(I guess) but not much for a sharing conversation

Well this is a tough situation. If I never said fact then Skeptical thinker will assume I did anyway and post an emoticon instead of an argument with something I never said. Yet you suggest I do claim something to be a fact even though it resides within faith based history as almost all history claims of any type do as well. So I can not say X and be told I did, or I can say it and be told it is not a fact. This is one of these heads you win tails I loose kind of contrivances designed for a purpose, not by reason.

 

[1robin]

Well actually to be fair he stated that there were mountains of evidence for their existence such that he was comfortable with asserting it to be stronger than his impression of the case for evolution - and that anyone who dismisses such is biased or unfamiliar with the subject - not who disagrees with his conclusion but rather who would dismiss without weighing the evidence (which is decidedly lacking).

I have never received so much commentary concerning a claim less worthy of it before. I said plenty of evidence exists for demonic activity, more than enough for reasoned faith. I do not remember comparing it directly with evolution. I would compare it to much of science and even to aspects of evolution but I do not think I would try and claim the evidence for the spiritual exceeds that for evolution in general. I think your commentary on my statements are the most accurate so far but I did want to clarify that point.

 

[1robin]

Let's pretend humans were created about 6000 years ago. For 4000 years before Jesus, what was God's "perfect" plan? For the years before Moses and the Law, what was God's perfect plan? For most of the time since Jesus, what is God's perfect plan? 1500 years of Catholic domination and 500 years of various Protestant Christians arguing over what that plan is?

What a bizarre series of questions. Is the fact aspects of a plan are disagreed upon that no plan exists? Over 95% of all humans existed after Christ came, I am guessing over 99.9% existed after Moses. Are attempting to make a point concerning your opinion on the .1% that is remaining? If there existed a plan and those in need of one prior to 6000 years ago why would I be aware of it? Since your questions appear random and irrational to me as stated maybe you could tell me what conclusion you are driving at.

You said: At least partially? So it might be more? Maybe a lot more? What if it's completely allegorical and was only meant to speak of and teach spiritual truths?

There are methods for establishing the likely hood things are literal or allegorical. I have no idea why you think it worthwhile to take the most extreme and unlikely view but will adopt it anyway. Let's say Genesis creation stories are 100% allegory, what is that supposed to mean or prove. My faith is primarily based of the crucifixion and resurrection details recorded with a certainty that is easily assessed. I have no idea what your driving at.

And about satan, you truly believe there is an evil spirit being that wasn't there from the beginning, but God created him. That being had the power to chose to rebel and God let him and pretty much let him have his way with tormenting humans and trying to get them to not believe in the true God? You don't think notions of an evil adversary to the good God came from a Zoroastrian influence while the Jews were captive in Persia? And, you say he was "there in the old." Do you agree with the morning star=lucifer=satan? Do you believe the verses about the King and Prince of Tyre were referring to satan?

I believe there is a spiritual realm that contains spiritual beings who are evil. I have personal experience with them and know of many individuals and have read many documented cases of their activity. The criteria used by Catholicism is skewed so far in the skeptic direction that anything they have agreed was is almost a matter of fact. There are liability issues that have forced an almost insanely skeptical methodology for claiming spiritual causes or events have occurred. I take the existence of Satan specifically and what is said about him on faith. There are vastly different levels of faith and the evidence they are based on. It would be cumbersome to discuss what level every doctrine has and why. I think as religions all deal with similar issues they contain similar concepts or teachings. A commonality of belief suggests a commonality of truth or experience. I believe all faiths contain truth. I do not believe those truths all have a divine source. This is especially true for faiths that originated after the concepts were revealed to men commissioned by God had recorded them.

You also made it sound like you believe there is an "age of accountability." What is it and what verses do you use to support it. Thanks.

I believe that based of inference. It is not a specifically stated doctrine. I can get you the verses where this "unofficial doctrine" is derived but first I wanted to state what level of belief I have in it. I think it logically derived from the nature of God, verses that comment on aspects of it, the traditions that have existed for thousands of years going back to men who talked with God. I do not claim it is an easily demonstrated doctrine as it is never specifically revealed to my knowledge. Verses upon request.

 

[1robin]

I’m telling you that if we’re talking about RACE, you’re not making your case by talking about differences between INDIVIDUALS.

I have never qualified my comments by compartmentalizing them in this way. Evolution produces inequality not equality. Unequal things have unequal capacity. That is justification without God to make judgments concerning that in-equality. Race is a human construct. I am discussing what exists in reality.

The “Congo Bush People” is not a race. Race is a social construct, and biologically speaking, all humans are members of the same race: The Human Race. All human beings have had the same amount of time to evolve.

Whatever labels exist are contrived. I do not need them and care not for discussions about them. See above. Evolution produces inequality.

Well, for starters, Origin of the Species is not about human evolution. So your claim is meaningless and just wrong. Of course, you have to look beyond just the title and read the actual book itself to know that. Have you ever considered reading it, so you could produce an actual informed opinion on it?

Why on God's green Earth are you separating Human evolution from evolutionary principles? Are you claiming that what would be true about races would not be true about differences within a race? Simply to be on the same page are you claiming race applies to humanity but not to divisions within it? If so I will use whatever word you wish to distinguish within humanity as it will only make a difference of degree not of existence. I used that title to introduce a principle. That principle applies to every creature that ever evolved. I care not about semantics concerning terminology. Nothing has ever evolved equally.

If you’re talking about racism, you have to talk at the race level, not at the individual level. Human beings have all had the same amount of time to evolve, so one “race” or population, or whatever, is not “more evolved” than another. Furthermore, biologically-speaking, we know that almost all genetic variation between humans is relatively adaptively insignificant, amounting to about 0.1%. The differences we do find are things like hair colour, skin colour, eye colour, etc.; not exactly things that one could argue would make one race superior to another. We also know that individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population. So again, I don’t see how your claim holds any water.

For some reason your side always choses a technical semantic argument for some reason. I will go with any labels you choose just to get back to what reality contains. I care little for what Human contrivance contains. The principles of evolution would produce inequality on every level so the titles of books are irrelevant. The principle is relevant and it doesn't give a rip about what groups of classes we invent.

Look, this is ridiculous. You are talking to a person who fully accepts evolution and doesn’t believe that it promotes racism. You are a person who doesn’t fully accept evolution (I would further argue that you don’t fully understand it either) and are claiming that it is racist. Maybe the problem is on your end.

Instead of complaining about technicalities you can type one sentence that can dispel my entire claim. Does evolution produce equality in capacity or in-equality? Just one word with a one sentence proof it's true and none of this other stuff would be necessary.

You are talking about social and cultural differences, not biological differences. That’s why I am so unable to see what you are claiming about evolution promoting racism, given that evolution is a biological process. Maybe you’re starting to see why race is just a social and cultural construct?

All of those come from our brains. Our brains are produced by evolution as you would claim. Just simply having brains with differing capacities would be enough alone to make my argument. Dawkins agreed. He said within Atheism how could we ever claim Hitler (his racist ideologies) were wrong. I agree. It seems who does not understand evolution is not who was said not to. There is much more derived from evolution than brain capacity but I think it alone is plenty.

What race is more biologically advanced than the other races? What criteria are you using to make this claim?

I do not think any are. I believe God makes them all equal under a different standard and so transcends that standard. For you to be right you would have to prove this: All races (or whatever term you like, but racism is the common term to denote inter-human injustice) are perfectly identic ale in all biological ways. Good luck.

What examples are you claiming that history has made? The Congo Bush people? They’re not a race.

That is probably why I supplied two more labels for groups. I have no idea why I bothered. You ignored them then made an argument based on their non-existence that is not even true even if I had never supplied them and that would be irrelevant even if it was true.

What inequality? Remember, we’re talking about biology.

I left my brain scans in my other pants, fortunately I do not need them. Evolution is constantly adapting and changing. That is all that needs to be said.

Again, what biological differences between races are you talking about?

Why are using this word if you object to my using it? If you can't see the biological differences between an African and an Eskimo I do not think we are going to get anywhere.

No, it’s not a matter of fact, and biology disagrees with you.

Biology proves on every level that not one thing is biologically identical to another. Your playing around with terminology will never ever make that false. Every single occurrence of evolution that has ever occurred produced an inequality.

 

[Rapture Era]

Why should you have a choice in the matter? Do you get to choose not to learn English, math, or history? Do you get to make up your own math if you don’t like what is being taught? Of course not, that’s ludicrous. If you want to learn specific things of your own choosing, that’s what college is for. I took a comparative religion class when I attended university.
Im talking about not having a choice as a 6 year old child and all through elementry school, not when a person gets to a university. And why not only teach creation as the reason we and all life are here? Why be taught we evolved from apes? The funny thing is, that was their starting point, apes Its hilarious actually, but as a kid we didnt know. Unlike math, english and history, teaching evolution vs.creation creats more devistating consequences down the road for people individually. You just dont realize it yet, thats extremely obvious.

They don’t teach creationism is science class because it isn’t science. Evolution is the prevailing, best supported scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on earth. It is scientific. It wins in the marketplace of ideas because it is supported by massive amounts of evidence from multiple independent groups of scientists in almost every single field of science in existence. Creationism is not. Creationism belongs in churches, synagogues, temples, etc. Wow! You have really fallen behind in the education of science! The evolutionists in the know are running scared because science is showing them that what they thought created life is full of holes and they keep creating, desperately I might add, patches to cover the holes realizing that the whole bottom is falling out!

What brand of creationism should they teach anyway? The Christian one? The Muslim one? The Hindu one? The Christian one of course! Isnt that the one we are talking about? Isnt that the one that is always spoken of when the debate of evolution and creation are discussed? Come on man


There are massive amounts of scientific evidence for evolution; biology doesn’t work without it. If you aren’t aware of the evidence, it’s not because it doesn’t exist, it’s because you haven’t taken the time to find it. The Bible is not a science book.

“Look around you” isn’t evidence for creation. Sorry, but we need some empirical studies.

Boy, this is teriffic! Im sure you will agree that evolutionist assume evolution is true which is why they write endlessly about when and where it happend, rates and lineages, etc. But, if macroevolution is physically impossible in the REAL world, and it is, then all the rest is pure fantasy. There are only two possibilities. Either every part of every living thing came about by random chance out of some ridiulous goo, or an intelligence designed them. It is now very clear that the theory of evolution's only mechanism for building new parts and creatures, mutation-natural selection, is totally, utterly, pathetically inadequate. In spite of overwhelming evidence that the theory of evolution is dead wrong, many are not ready to throw in the towel. They desperatly hope that some natural process will be found that causes things to fall together into organized complexity. These are people of great faith as I mentioned before. They are so afraid of connecting God with science, that like the Japanese Army of World WarII, they would rather die than surrender. Unfortunately, the staunhest defenders sit in places of esteem and authority as professors, scientists, and editors, and have the full faith of the news media. The public is naturally in awe of their prestige. But once the facts are understood it becomes obvious that the theory of evolution is long overdue for the trash can, and to perpetuate it is fraud. Perhaps it made sense for what was known when On the Origin of Species was published in 1859, but not today. So, now its your turn, present something that you know is fact about your empirical eveidence for how life began, how it is remotely possible for the cell to begin and develop.

 

[johnhanks]

But, if macroevolution is physically impossible in the REAL world, and it is...

Would you like to explain what makes it impossible? Evolution is change in gene pools over time - something we readily observe. Over short periods, like human lifespans, a population's gene pool can diverge from the ancestral type at least as far as founding a new species - what you would no doubt call microevolution.
The only difference between this process and "macroevolution" is how far the ATCG base sequence of the population's genome diverges: it is a difference of degree, not of kind. So tell us, what mechanism limits the extent of genetic divergence and renders macroevolution "physically impossible"?

 

[McBell]

There are only two possibilities. Either every part of every living thing came about by random chance out of some ridiulous goo, or an intelligence designed them.

False Dichotomy.

It is now very clear that the theory of evolution's only mechanism for building new parts and creatures, mutation-natural selection, is totally, utterly, pathetically inadequate.

"very clear"?
Says who?

In spite of overwhelming evidence that the theory of evolution is dead wrong, many are not ready to throw in the towel.

Wishful thinking.

So, now its your turn, present something that you know is fact about your empirical evidence for how life began, how it is remotely possible for the cell to begin and develop.

What post did you present empirical evidence for how life began?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The rules seem to be pretty subjective. Like I didn't know you could say crap but you can't say it came from an ***

.

I want to know why *** is worse than crap.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is far more evidence for demonic activity than for many other things we assign to "known" label to. Your the only one that used the word fact BTW. I said good evidence and plenty of it exists.

Somebody else said it was a fact.

There is no good evidence for demonic possession, as far as I can see. It can all be explained without having to invoke the supernatural.

Have you ever read an eyewitness account of an exorcism and then watched the actual exorcism itself? They rarely match up with the eyewitness account usually being massively exaggerated.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Well this is a tough situation. If I never said fact then Skeptical thinker will assume I did anyway and post an emoticon instead of an argument with something I never said. Yet you suggest I do claim something to be a fact even though it resides within faith based history as almost all history claims of any type do as well. So I can not say X and be told I did, or I can say it and be told it is not a fact. This is one of these heads you win tails I loose kind of contrivances designed for a purpose, not by reason.

Excuse me, when have I ever done that??

Just so you know, another person on this thread suggested demonic possession is a fact.

 

[adi2d]

I want to know why *** is worse than crap.

Maybe cause crap is good for the flowers but an ** is just an ****














I know that was lame but got to be a point or two for quickness

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have never qualified my comments by compartmentalizing them in this way. Evolution produces inequality not equality. Unequal things have unequal capacity. That is justification without God to make judgments concerning that in-equality. Race is a human construct. I am discussing what exists in reality.

Who cares? That’s the argument you keep making when you point out differences between individuals rather than between races. Again, this discussion centres on racism.

Whatever labels exist are contrived. I do not need them and care not for discussions about them. See above. Evolution produces inequality.

Yes, the labels are contrived. There is only the human race.

Please tell me the differences that evolution produces that promote racism. Because at this point, you have agreed that race is a social/cultural construct. So, please tell me how one has something to do with the other.

Why on God's green Earth are you separating Human evolution from evolutionary principles?

Because we are talking about your claim that evolution promotes racism! Because the book isn’t about human races! You are claiming the title is racist because it’s about the superiority of one race over another. Do you think rabbits are racist? If not, I have no idea what you’re talking about.

Are you claiming that what would be true about races would not be true about differences within a race?

I’m saying the differences between humans are far fewer than the similarities.

Simply to be on the same page are you claiming race applies to humanity but not to divisions within it?

I’m saying all humans are members of the human race, biologically speaking.

If so I will use whatever word you wish to distinguish within humanity as it will only make a difference of degree not of existence. I used that title to introduce a principle. That principle applies to every creature that ever evolved. I care not about semantics concerning terminology. Nothing has ever evolved equally.

Every human has evolved equally. I.e. We’ve all had the exact same amount of time to evolve.

For some reason your side always choses a technical semantic argument for some reason.

That tends to happen when the person you’re conversing with keeps talking about differences between individuals as some kind of proof that evolution produces racist ideologies.

I will go with any labels you choose just to get back to what reality contains. I care little for what Human contrivance contains. The principles of evolution would produce inequality on every level so the titles of books are irrelevant. The principle is relevant and it doesn't give a rip about what groups of classes we invent.

If the titles of books are irrelevant then I guess you should stop citing them as some kind of evidence for your argument about racism.

What inequality has evolution produced at the race level?

Instead of complaining about technicalities you can type one sentence that can dispel my entire claim. Does evolution produce equality in capacity or in-equality? Just one word with a one sentence proof it's true and none of this other stuff would be necessary.

I’m sorry, but I don’t know what you’re asking me.

All of those come from our brains. Our brains are produced by evolution as you would claim. Just simply having brains with differing capacities would be enough alone to make my argument.

Racism comes from our brains, not from biology.

Dawkins agreed. He said within Atheism how could we ever claim Hitler (his racist ideologies) were wrong. I agree. It seems who does not understand evolution is not who was said not to. There is much more derived from evolution than brain capacity but I think it alone is plenty.

Yeah, yeah, I know. This is like the thirtieth time you’ve said that in discussion with me. What on earth does it have to do with your assertion that the biological process of evolution promotes racism?

I do not think any are. I believe God makes them all equal under a different standard and so transcends that standard. For you to be right you would have to prove this: All races (or whatever term you like, but racism is the common term to denote inter-human injustice) are perfectly identic ale in all biological ways. Good luck.

If you don’t think any are, then why are you arguing that knowing about evolution causes people to be racist?

You’re making this assertion about racism. You are the one who needs to show that these differences you claim exist between human races are vast enough to justify claiming that one or some are superior to others. Remember, I’m the one saying that the racial differentiations we make are social/cultural constructs that have no actual bearing on evolution because all humans have evolved over the same period of time and all are members of the same race.

That is probably why I supplied two more labels for groups. I have no idea why I bothered. You ignored them then made an argument based on their non-existence that is not even true even if I had never supplied them and that would be irrelevant even if it was true.

Yeah, because making up new labels to make your argument work doesn’t actually work. I have no idea why you bothered pointing out that some tribes are more socially advanced than others without bothering to point out what genetic differences would make it so.

I left my brain scans in my other pants, fortunately I do not need them. Evolution is constantly adapting and changing. That is all that needs to be said.

Wow, seriously? That’s all that needs to be said? Is that a cop out?

Why are using this word if you object to my using it? If you can't see the biological differences between an African and an Eskimo I do not think we are going to get anywhere.

Because you’re making claims about racism stemming from acceptance of the evolutionary process.

Please tell me what biological differences you think there exist between Eskimos and Africans that makes one superior to the other.

Biology proves on every level that not one thing is biologically identical to another. Your playing around with terminology will never ever make that false. Every single occurrence of evolution that has ever occurred produced an inequality.

Apparently I have to repeat myself, because you missed it the first time.

Human beings have all had the same amount of time to evolve, so one “race” or population, or whatever, is not “more evolved” than another. Furthermore, biologically-speaking, we know that almost all genetic variation between humans is relatively adaptively insignificant, amounting to about 0.1%. The differences we do find are things like hair colour, skin colour, eye colour, etc.; not exactly things that one could argue would make one race superior to another. We also know that individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population. So again, I don’t see how your claim holds any water.

 

[shalom-sobal]

I am muslim and I want to tell you there is purpose for human being

God created us to worship him, obey him and believe in his massangers

Life like test either you pass or fail in judgement day

Die is life process every one must go through


It is god sympathy that kids die before growing up
To save them from hell


Only Kids ( whether believer or not they go to paradise without being judge)

Purpose story from quran :

God say in holly Quran :

So they set out, until when they met a boy, al-Khidh r killed him. [Moses] said, "Have you killed a pure soul for other than [having killed] a soul? You have certainly done a deplorable thing."

[Al-Khidh r] said, "Did I not tell you that with me you would never be able to have patience?"

.......

[Al-Khidh r] said, "This is parting between me and you. I will inform you of the interpretation of that about which you could not have patience.

........

And as for the boy, his parents were believers, and we feared that he would overburden them by transgression and disbelief.

So we intended that their Lord should substitute for them one better than him in purity and nearer to mercy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Im talking about not having a choice as a 6 year old child and all through elementry school, not when a person gets to a university.

My questions still stand. Why should a 6 year old get to choose what they are taught? Should they get to choose that they don’t want to learn how to read too? Should they get to choose to do whatever they want too?

And why not only teach creation as the reason we and all life are here?

Um, because it’s not a scientific theory. How about that? Creationism belongs in churches, synagogues, temples, etc., not in a science classroom. Same goes for astrology. Are you upset they don’t also teach astrology and alchemy in science classrooms?

Why be taught we evolved from apes?

We aren’t taught that we evolved from apes. We’re taught we share a common ancestor with living great apes because it’s demonstrable.

The funny thing is, that was their starting point, apes Its hilarious actually, but as a kid we didnt know. Unlike math, english and history, teaching evolution vs.creation creats more devistating consequences down the road for people individually. You just dont realize it yet, thats extremely obvious.

I don’t doubt that is hilarious when you’re a kid and don’t fully understand it.

What devastating consequences come from learning how our world operates?? The theory of evolution has been around for over 150 years now, when are these devastating consequences supposed to kick in? Should we not teach the scientific theory of gravity in schools, lest there be devastating consequences? What are you talking about?

Wow! You have really fallen behind in the education of science! The evolutionists in the know are running scared because science is showing them that what they thought created life is full of holes and they keep creating, desperately I might add, patches to cover the holes realizing that the whole bottom is falling out!

Um no, it seems that you have really fallen behind in the education of science given that you don’t seem to know how it works or how scientific ideas make their way into the education system. Evolutionists aren’t running scared (what’s an evolutionist?), they have no reason to. Evolution is a biological fact with mountains of evidence from every field of science supporting it. You can’t say anything close to that about creationism.

Boy, this is teriffic! Im sure you will agree that evolutionist assume evolution is true which is why they write endlessly about when and where it happend, rates and lineages, etc. But, if macroevolution is physically impossible in the REAL world, and it is, then all the rest is pure fantasy.

First of all, evolution has nothing to do with how life on earth began. That is a different field of science called abiogenesis.

Secondly, your statements are contradictory. You say that “evolutionists” are writing endlessly about evolution while at the same time you’re trying to say that they are “running scared.” Which one is it? If they are running scared, why are the taking the time to explain evolution to people like yourself who clearly don’t really understand it?

Thirdly, evolution is a considered a fact because it is demonstrable through empirical study. The evidence supporting it is overwhelming and it comes from practically every field of science in existence. When all the evidence from all fields of science converges on the same conclusion, what else can you conclude?

Microevolution leads to macroevolution: This is demonstrable by genetics alone, even before you add in the all the rest of the evidence from the fossil record.

There are only two possibilities. Either every part of every living thing came about by random chance out of some ridiulous goo, or an intelligence designed them. It is now very clear that the theory of evolution's only mechanism for building new parts and creatures, mutation-natural selection, is totally, utterly, pathetically inadequate.

There are many, many possibilities, but we need to be interested in the possibilities that are demonstrable, like evolution. Natural selection is the driving force behind evolution, it is not random, and it works. Mutation, migration and genetic drift also contribute to the evolutionary changes we see. Again, these things can be demonstrated scientifically.

Continued ...