Evolution is now A FACT OF LIFE

[chad_tukes]

Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things. ~ Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D., is the director of the Human Genome Project.

Take time to read from the view of a theistic evolutionist --> Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN.com

thanks for the article. i've read it from top to bottom---and one of the readers review states:

"I agree with the scientist in the report, however, why is it only Judeo/Christian creation myth that can be 'real.' There are many different creation myths from the past until the present. I think it is offensive to negate all those other myths for the "one true 'real'" myth (depending on one's point of view). After all, who is to say which one is right? Could it be that they are all right in their own way?"

precisely my point about the mythological GREEK GODS i posted in the previous pages, and nobody has yet to convince me with the right answer.

[brownprose]

@ BLIND WATCHMAKER ( E......) TS


Why does every evolutionist posts an article about evolution think that they are the foremost experts on the subject? I assume most of you probably failed biology, because the majority of you can't even form a complete, grammatically correct sentence, which leads me to believe that you are unintelligent. If you're trying to be intellectual, have the decency to post an intelligent comment. I can't take you seriously if you can't even communicate.

wineup cheers...

Talk about grammar, why don't you mind your own grammar, sir? "Why does every evolutionist posts an article about evolution think that they are the foremost experts on the subject?" <-- That's wrong grammar!



Now, back to topic.

[chad_tukes]

@ BLIND WATCHMAKER ( E......) TS


Why does every evolutionist posts an article about evolution think that they are the foremost experts on the subject? I assume most of you probably failed biology, because the majority of you can't even form a complete, grammatically correct sentence, which leads me to believe that you are unintelligent. If you're trying to be intellectual, have the decency to post an intelligent comment. I can't take you seriously if you can't even communicate.


wineup cheers...

...and you think you are INTELLIGENT? why don't we get started and lay all your CREATIONIST arguments down the table and let's feast on it.

[brownprose]

thanks for the article. i've read it from top to bottom---and one of the readers review states:

"I agree with the scientist in the report, however, why is it only Judeo/Christian creation myth that can be 'real.' There are many different creation myths from the past until the present. I think it is offensive to negate all those other myths for the "one true 'real'" myth (depending on one's point of view). After all, who is to say which one is right? Could it be that they are all right in their own way?"

precisely my point about the mythological GREEK GODS i posted in the previous pages, and nobody has yet to convince me with the right answer.

IMHO, there is no such thing as a "real" creationist view or even closer to what has been scientifically accepted. All of them (creation stories) are mythical constructions of their authors regarded by its believers to be "accurate" historical reports.

[schmuck]

I for one can not disprove that his Noodlyness, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, is the one overlooking the evolutionary process

[chad_tukes]

IMHO, there is no such thing as a "real" creationist view or even closer to what has been scientifically accepted. All of them (creation stories) are mythical constructions of their authors regarded by its believers to be "accurate" historical reports.

exactly my point.

watch: YouTube - A caller has proof of Creationism

[Thugstaz Hustlaz]

Soon after humanity empirically awoke we noticed biological things have the ability to evolve. However, no one can yet demonstrate what is/was the evolving force. Yes genes trigger specific evolution, but randomness as the agent of genetic change is so unsupported by observation that treating like a "fact" is science's HUGE lie to the world. We don't know what's behind the genetic changes that created organisms; random luck is proposed merely as a physicalist ploy to eliminate the need for God.

[brownprose]

exactly my point.

watch: YouTube - A caller has proof of Creationism

Thanks. Nagkatawa ko sa video.

And yes, creationism is a non-factor in evolution.

[schmuck]

Soon after humanity empirically awoke we noticed biological things have the ability to evolve. However, no one can yet demonstrate what is/was the evolving force. Yes genes trigger specific evolution, but randomness as the agent of genetic change is so unsupported by observation that treating like a "fact" is science's HUGE lie to the world. We don't know what's behind the genetic changes that created organisms; random luck is proposed merely as a physicalist ploy to eliminate the need for God.

Evolution by Natural Selection is not random

[brownprose]

[FONT=Arial]
randomness as the agent of genetic change

*yawns* and who told you that? suggest you read evolution first then come back and make your point.