The Bible and Evolution

[kebotDiNaMute]

Evolution is not in the Bible so it's not true. Did the bible mention Electricity? sige dili tinood ang kuryents...hahaha...

Bible is a book of direction(imo)... it never mention your transportation... You don't have to walk to get there. You dont have to pay to get there... in anycase take your case and GET THERE!

Did the bible mention Electricity?
--- thunder and lightning...

Job 37:11
He loads the clouds with moisture; he scatters his lightning through them.

wala diay? hmmmm! ignorance of the law excuses no one!

[kebotDiNaMute]

wla pamay kuryente 2000 yrs ago.

Dia pod isa! hahaha! hala isyu-han ni ticket!

[bluedes]

but when Bible begins to dictate what is true or not for science, then that's dangerous..
--- how? site an instance be!
--- most dictators are athiest... indeed they are dangerous... so, what now?

but in the event that science uncovers facts based on observations and analysis, it has a side-effect of disproving some claims in the Bible..
--- like what? evolution... pft!

intawn pud nimo kebz oi.. most dictators are atheist? dictators are very religious and dogmatic, kahibalo ka ana..?

panahon pa ni aristotle, gi-hinay2x na nya ug classify ang mga living things.. pero ngano wala may mi-angal niya? kay wa pa may bible ato panahona gud..

[jamesmusslewhite]

No it is quite accurate labeling and term. Words used by members expose their deep hatreds and resentments to God, Scriptures, Christians, Creationism, and Me. It comes out in the language that is used and how they describe that which they choose not to believe. Lie all you want to yourself but it is still there. I love how when they are challenged, their disbelief is questioned, they love to throw the word predigest. When what they do is far worst. They can spit and blaspheme at God and religion, but do not tell them id pisses off God, even if it was written over 2,000 years ago. Foolishness. Acts of children and not of adults.
resentments towards God, Scriptures, Christians, Creationism and You? Woah, woah.. slow down there.. you're going too far.. that's your imagined resentment, not mine..
what you're doing is forcing down your belief on other people's throats.. that's the big difference.. there's belief, and there's reality.. don't mix them up.. kapeesh?

I have been on this forum over 4 months now and never has anyone ever discuss in depth ONE ACTUAL THEORY in intellectual debate. I have seen actual contradictions imposed to false claims by members. Which are met with silly smiley faces, stupid attempts to be comedians, or worse just ignored and trivialized.
wanna discuss Natural Selection? i sure hope you can provide evidence for your creation story.. the first post calls Bible the evidence? that's circular reasoning.. what kind of evidence is circular reasoning..
Well since you want to discuss The Theory of Natural Selection, and I hope stay on topic and not vary, scoff, or ignore questions or facts if they challenge the parameters and validity of the Theory. Lets start slowly then. I will list them below....We will see if members can act as adults.

There it is again. The lie that a good scientist can not be a Christian. The perverse bias bigot's comment. Based in no verifiable facts to support such a stupid remark. Yet you think I should respect some speaking from a position of blind ignorance. You see I was an Atheist, but being a scientist I was not afraid to look at all the variables, I did not just choose what made me feel comfortable. I did not listen to others on what I should see, I LOOKED FOR MYSELF.
Where is my science education? In my brains and not in my ass. Where is your scientific training?
so being an educated scientist, you start by concluding that others lack the science education that you have? whatta way to start a post..
This was in the middle of my post. The point is one will dismiss without having devoted the actual time to study and research the subject for themselves. Cut and paste artist who use others words do not use scientific reasoning. They actually do not have a general grasp of the sciences and theories on the subjects they want to act as authorities over. Science debate is not REDNACKING! Intellectual honesty is a must. Too many liars and redneckers on this forum is the real problem.

So if you have a limited understanding of science, do not be offended if I do not really care much about what you say, unless it is based on facts. "SCIENCE CAN NOT PROVE OR DISPROVE GOD" "SCIENCE CAN PROVE EVENTS IN THE BIBLE AS FACTS OR FICTIONS -ONLY IF THE SCIENCE IS NOT FLAWED, IF SCIENCE IS FLAWED THAN THE PROOFS AND FALLACIES ARE SUSPECT" "THERE ARE FLAWS IN THE THEORIES OF EVOLUTION." Both sides of the debate must Post your sources, state your facts, and leave them open for debate. I do not care if you disagree, you should not care if I disagree. Both sides brings their facts, evidence, contradictions, and observations to the table. Science is a game for adults, because egos and careers are destroyed by bad science.

Yes, natural selection is a modern idea. But the jury is still out on this one. Science has to tell faerie tales, ignore facts, and use blind faith for it to work. Science can not disprove the Bible are God! IT CAN NOT DO IT!!!!!!! You can claim that it can all you want, but it will still be a DAMN LIE!!! When you show those facts, The Atheist will make you a bigger God than their Darwin.

Atheist want the Bible to be proven wrong so badly you will be world famous. The man who could prove there is no God. Until you can become that man, I will believe in the Bible. It took me a long time to find my faith, because I was a man of science, and I believed the half truths and wild theories. I never stop studying to sciences, and I will never stop studying.
science cannot disprove the Bible, there's nothing to disprove.. again, you're mixing up belief and reality.. you honestly think you can prove God? some invisible being up in the heavens? where is he, what's he doing there sitting his ass off while the rest of the world are in some kind of suffering? and not only that, HIS followers are the ones creating all the suffering in this world for other people.. *tsk *tsk
Then if that statement is true, then why are members constantly trying to use science as proof in their disbelief of God and the Bible; and demand from believers scientific proof of God and the Biblical accounts? I do not need to prove God, he dwells in the hearts of men who will accept him. Sorry but true Christians do not cause suffering in the world, to bad that concept is beyond your understanding. Those men confused by their own internal demons cause most of the sufferings in the world. If man could live by the laws of the 10 Commandments, this world would be a Utopian society. 10 simple laws and most of man's problems would be cured. Man not God is the problem

Yes question it but with verifiable facts and challenge the sources and agenda of the sciences. Science is the only real form of evolution and natural selection on the planet. It is in a constant state of revision and new theories replacing the flaws of the old. Scientist are after all just people, and suffer from the same flaws that plague all men shortsightedness, laziness, incompetence, bias, predigests, stupidity, vanity, false pride, narcissism, and many others weaknesses.
Even Newton's Law of Gravity had to be revised. No theory is above review or revision, because science evolves constantly. What is believed true today may be proven to be wrong tomorrow, constantly test everything. Over 20 years in the sciences I have seen theories and beliefs come and go, science is yet a child trying to answer big questions. It will mature and the answers will come. Time can not be rushed, but science can be slowed. Agenda and bias in the Halls of Science academia is it's own worst enemy.



yep, there goes the f*cked up follower of a religion who has an anthropomorphic god..
everything changes.. even religion needs to change if it wants to keep up with the times.. there are new ways of organizing things.. new ways of looking at things.. yet you still cling to a 2000 year old book of looking at things.. the Bible is not perfect.. it has its flaws as much as science has.. because people wrote that book, not some invisible magic hand from the sky that loves to write holy books out of nowhere..
After writing this comment at the top of this post"
"resentments towards God, Scriptures, Christians, Creationism and You? Woah, woah.. slow down there.. you're going too far.. that's your imagined resentment, not mine..
what you're doing is forcing down your belief on other people's throats.. that's the big difference.. there's belief, and there's reality.. don't mix them up.. kapeesh?"
And then you write this?? Very intellectually honest. See you words and your actions show their bare different fruit. KAPEESH?Yes I follow the translations of the earliest text, and add nothing to them or take anything away from them. They were inspired by a higher intelligence than man, and if you ever studied the amazing properties of the Hebrew text you could see how shallow your statement actually is. The Hebrew scriptures are the most amazing text ever written by man. Sorry I still have faith in my God and his inspired scriptures. It stands the test of time.

Yep your are a true scholar, an intellect which rivals Einstein, Newton, and Galileo,. I am sure you think I should be blinded by the brilliance of your enlightenment. Satan has lost his luster to me, and I found my way back onto the path. My third eye has been opened.

proving god is dead or does not exist is not in my list of things to do.. first of all, that God exists cannot be proved nor disproved.. but you claim that God exists.. so where is he now? no amount of reason can show that god exists.. you're crossing the line between belief and reality..
Oh sure it is, your comments expose that to be a truth. You choose to disbelieve, and when your belief in Man's New Religion of No God belief is challenged, then you get angry and resort to insults. You are no different than any other man on this forum. You challenge my belief and insult my God, and you are surprised that Christians get angry? Oh yah that's right, they are suppose to forgive you. I forgive you but God does not forget. I stepped back from you reality, because I now understand where it will led you. Away with you, you are such a clever boy run with the devil, because you are his. That is the reality of your belief.

you claim that your God exists, try telling that to a Muslim, he'd claim that his God exists too.. so which God is it now? then there's Judaism, he claims his God exists too.. my my, so many Gods existing but you don't even see any sort of real evidence or trails of their supposedly magical existence..
Jews and Muslims both follow the same God, but Christians also follow the Christ (who was a Jewish Rabbi). Yes there are some major interpretation problems. Jeewish Hebrew text is the oldest which also comprises the Christian Bible's Old Testament. Christians also follow text about the Christ written 1,960 years ago. Muslims use some the same Old Testament text and the writings of Mohammad with date back 1,400 years. Same God and he does exist.

Well since you want to discuss The Theory of Natural Selection, and I hope stay on subject and not vary, scoff, or ignore questions. To conduct yourself in a true debate. To review all facts even if they directly challenge the parameters and validity of the Theory.Lets start slowly then and see if you can do what I have seen no other accomplish.. To tell you the truth, I have my doubts; for I have been bored by the most part by most members. Darwin's theory of Evolution contains 2 defects, either of which is fatal to the theme:

1.) A claim that the "origin of species" is caused by "natural selection" is a tautology.

2.) The cause of variation in a species cannot be determined, or initiated, by an effect.
As might be expected, a fatally flawed theory does not work.

All the offspring produced in the plant and animal kingdom remain in the same species. The production of new creatures never occurs. Not only is natural selection supposed to have produced everything, the process is said to be entirely random! Evolutionists can never admit that any intelligence of proof of Intellegent design was involved in the formation of squirrels, humming birds, or human beings.Yet, how can it be called "selection"—when nothing was selected! And, surely, it cannot be considered "natural" since cross-species transitions never occur. Evolutionary theory requires change by random action alone. Yet, if even half those random changes were positive, the other half would have to be damaging. How can total randomness select only that which is better and move only in advantageous directions?
Charles Darwin said that natural selection made every single transition from one species to another. Those who adhere to natural selection as the only way evolution can occur are called Darwinists or Darwinian evolutionists.But, earlier in this century, some evolutionists already recognized that natural selection was a laughing stock and never produced new species. So they said that the trans-species changes were made by mutations and only the finishing touches within a species were done by natural selection. These evolutionists are called Neo-Darwinists. Science shows that scientific facts annihilate the possibility that mutations could ever accomplish anything worthwhile. If natural selection and mutations cannot produce new species,—then there is no way that new species could occur by evolution! Although they have tried for decades to invent something better, evolutionists have no other methods to offer. Keep in mind that changes within a species are not evolution. They occur all the time.

The book of Genesis declared that no trans-species changes would ever occur. And they never have. (Read Genesis 1, and note verses 12, 21, 24, and 25. The key phrase here is "after his kind.")
The species are always separate and distinct. Yet there are many, many variations within the species. Some we call subspecies, and some we call varieties. But, in spite of how many there are of them,—roses are still roses, dogs are still dogs, and horses are still horses.In most (but not all) cases, subspecies can interbreed. But, with the passage of time, changes in characteristics, such as size and exceptions, occur.
Mutations always damage and never help the organism, therefore, they cannot improve a species, much less make new and more advanced ones.

Survival of the fittest: This is just a buzz word of evolutionists. But it is actually meaningless, as far as enabling new kinds of species to occur. The truth is that "survival of the fittest" is the very opposite of evolution; it means that creatures which are not fit enough, whether produced by mutations or by accidents, are eliminated, thus returning the species closer to its pure species pattern. That is the true contradiction, oh it sounds good if you say it loud enough. Stare at it enough and the true picture raises for the haze.


Dogmatic Evolutionist: one who is as devout a believer in, and defender of, the Theory of Evolution as is a Creationist with the Bible. This distinction is made to separate the bona fide scientist (who may believe in evolution in some form) from the dedicated proselytizer of Darwinism. It turns out after an analysis such as the above (and hundreds of similar arguments never refuted by the Darwinists), that they are both using the same basis for their beliefs: Faith.
This is the new Man's Religion, the faithful hope for no need for faith.. Man's belief in stories so he does not need to believe in stories. Faith for no faith, and belief for no belief.


This is a great topic on it's own. To debate the contradictions of both Evolution and the Bible." if others are interested in actually will to deal with the actual theories and not just hero worship of Darwin and pushing belief agendas. The problem is most will just choose to name call and use misdirection and unsubstantiated comments baseless of verifiable sources, dealing with specific theories, use actual facts, or engage in true debate?

[cromagnon]

Bible is a book of direction(imo)... it never mention your transportation... You don't have to walk to get there. You dont have to pay to get there... in anycase take your case and GET THERE!

Did the bible mention Electricity?
--- thunder and lightning...

Job 37:11
He loads the clouds with moisture; he scatters his lightning through them.

wala diay? hmmmm! ignorance of the law excuses no one!

thunder and lightning

electricity diay nang thunder , ? sounds mana otro sad ay - point is , naay computer sa bible . wala?

[newtonscousin]

Evolution is not in the Bible so it's not true. Did the bible mention Electricity? sige dili tinood ang kuryents...hahaha...

looya pud sa imo logic sir im sure that's how your church taught you.

[bluedes]

So if you have a limited understanding of science, do not be offended if I do not really care much about what you say, unless it is based on facts. "SCIENCE CAN NOT PROVE OR DISPROVE GOD" "SCIENCE CAN PROVE EVENTS INTHE BIBLE AS FACTS OR FICTIONS -ONLY IF THE SCIENCE IS NOT FLAWED, IF SCIENCE IS FLAWED THAN THE PROOFS AND FALLACIES ARE SUSPECT" "THERE ARE FLAWS IN THE THEORIES OFEVOLUTION ." Both sides of the debate must Post your sources, state your facts, and leave them open for debate. I do not care if you disagree, you should not care if I disagree. Both sides brings their facts, evidence, contradictions, and observations to the table. Science is a game for adults, because egos and careers are destroyed by bad science.

yeah, i agree with you on these.. i never said that science is everything.. but it sure does explain a lot of things so far.. as much as science has it flaws, because its not perfect, otherwise it wouldn't keep on changing itself, the bible too has its flaws because its not perfect either..
but between science and the bible, i'd rely more on the science for definite facts in nature than some 2000 old book written by who knows.. the bible has its purpose, but definitely not explaining the material universe in such accuracy and detail..

i prefer to put my faith in the present and the future, than in the past..

Then if that statement is true, then why are members constantly trying to use science as proof in their disbelief of God and the Bible; and demand from believers scientific proof of God and the Biblical accounts? I do not need to prove God, he dwells in the hearts of men who will accept him. Sorry but true Christians do not cause suffering in the world, to bad that concept is beyond your understanding. Those men confused by their own internal demons cause most of the sufferings in the world. If man could live by the laws of the 10 Commandments, this world would be a Utopian society. 10 simple laws and most of man's problems would be cured. Man not God is the problem

because science has shown that *some* beliefs and *God* in the bible simply does not exist. where is this *heaven* that God is supposed to reside in? its not up in the skies, and its not beyond in outerspace.. i'm pretty sure its not in some distant galaxy.. and talk of another *place* where we are supposed to go when we die is just based on pure speculation and wild imagination..

you do not need to prove God and that he dwells in the hearts of men.. yeah, that's your claim, but then again, you cannot prove it.. and when you use that claim to begin saying that those men who have no (alleged) God in their hearts will go to *hell*, well, now.. who's pushing who's beliefs down one's throats.. i'm just not talking of you in particular, its pretty much all the other so-called believers out there too..

true christian, i also believe will never cause suffering on others, but try telling that to the false christians, not to the ones who openly claim they don't believe in an anthropomorphic god..

And then you write this?? Very intellectually honest you actually are. See you words and your actions show their bare different fruit. KAPEESH?

you're just proving your own point.. when a follower begins to condemn others who do not share their beliefs, wouldn't you call them fuc*ed up followers? when a muslim begins to condemn you because you don't believe in Allah, wouldn't you call that muslim a bit looney?

Oh sure it is, your comments expose that to be a truth. You choose to disbelieve, and when your belief in Man's New Religion of No God belief is challenged, then you get angry and resort to insults. You are no different than any other man on this forum. You challenge my belief and insult my God, and you are surprised that Christians get angry? Oh yah that's right, they are suppose to forgive you. I forgive you but God does not forget. I stepped back from you reality, because I now understand where it will led you. Away with you, you are such a clever boy run with the devil, because you are his. That is the reality of your belief.

get angry and resort to insults? i beg to disagree.. that's the problem there.. does your God even exist to begin with for him to be insulted? oh well.. tell your *God* I said hi.. let me know what his response is, okay..

Jews and Muslims both follow the same God, but Christians also follow the Christ (who was a Jewish Rabbi). Yes there are some major interpretation problems. Jeewish Hebrew text is the oldest which also comprises the Christian Bible's Old Testament. Christians also follow text about the Christ written 1,960 years ago. Muslims use some the same Old Testament text and the writings of Mohammad with date back 1,400 years. Same God and he does exist.

yeah right.. tell that to the majority of muslims.. see if they believe that Christ is the son of god.. whoever that god of the muslims are, Allah, he sure didn't have any son at all..

Well since you want to discuss The Theory of Natural Selection, and I hope stay on subject and not vary, scoff, or ignore questions. To conduct yourself in a true debate. To review all facts even if they directly challenge the parameters and validity of the Theory.Lets start slowly then and see if you can do what I have seen no other accomplish.. To tell you the truth, I have my doubts; for I have been bored by the most part by most members. Darwin's theory of Evolution contains 2 defects, either of which is fatal to the theme:

1.) A claim that the "origin of species" is caused by "natural selection" is a tautology.

which is why it explains a lot of things.. its like a universal truth.. it makes sense by all accounts.. the mere discovery of such an idea, the pain-staking development to arrive at a tautology is solid foundation/cornerstone of a branch of knowledge. much like karma.. karma is a tautology too..

now, ud probably beg to disagree that tautologies have no place in science.. but on the contrary, it has every right to be in science. the reason why science stands so well is because it is backed up by rock-solid mathematical foundations (which are tautologies as well).. a triangle will always have three sides that equal 180 angles.. 1 + 1 = 2 in base 10, 1 + 1 = 10 in base 2.. those are in themselves tautologies.. you can't refute that in whatever dimension you put yourself into..

2.) The cause of variation in a species cannot be determined, or initiated, by an effect.

• As might be expected, a fatally flawed theory does not work.

All the offspring produced in the plant and animal kingdom remain in the same species. The production of new creatures never occurs. Not only is natural selection supposed to have produced everything, the process is said to be entirely random! Evolutionists can never admit that any intelligence of proof of Intellegent design was involved in the formation of squirrels, humming birds, or human beings.Yet, how can it be called "selection"—when nothing was selected! And, surely, it cannot be considered "natural" since cross-species transitions never occur. Evolutionary theory requires change by random action alone. Yet, if even half those random changes were positive, the other half would have to be damaging. How can total randomness select only that which is better and move only in advantageous directions?

Charles Darwin said that natural selection made every single transition from one species to another. Those who adhere to natural selection as the only way evolution can occur are called Darwinists or Darwinian evolutionists.But, earlier in this century, some evolutionists already recognized that natural selection was a laughing stock and never produced new species. So they said that the trans-species changes were made by mutations and only the finishing touches within a species were done by natural selection. These evolutionists are called Neo-Darwinists. Science shows that scientific facts annihilate the possibility that mutations could ever accomplish anything worthwhile. If natural selection and mutations cannot produce new species,—then there is no way that new species could occur by evolution! Although they have tried for decades to invent something better, evolutionists have no other methods to offer. Keep in mind that changes within a species are not evolution. They occur all the time.

i see where you're getting at.. it would be contrary to laws of probability for a random event to have a definite evolutionary pattern.. if you are only considering the random events themselves, the specific random event that caused the change at one time-frame has a limiting factor on what random event can happen in the next time-frame. but there are still other factors to consider, and that is the environment. the random event in one time-frame could have a totally different environment than the next time-frame, and it would be difficult to show that the cause of variation in a species directs the next change in the time line. all we can do is just trace the time line and infer what changes have occurred.

The book of Genesis declared that no trans-species changes would ever occur. And they never have. (Read Genesis 1, and note verses 12, 21, 24, and 25. The key phrase here is "after his kind.")
The species are always separate and distinct. Yet there are many, many variations within the species. Some we call subspecies, and some we call varieties. But, in spite of how many there are of them,—roses are still roses, dogs are still dogs, and horses are still horses.In most (but not all) cases, subspecies can interbreed. But, with the passage of time, changes in characteristics, such as size and exceptions, occur.
Mutations always damage and never help the organism, therefore, they cannot improve a species, much less make new and more advanced ones.

so how do you explain fossils in a *creationist* type of origin?

the way i've understood natural selection, there is no intelligent design out there that has directed the course of change in species.. this *intelligence* is inherent in the species and it has directed its course of evolution.. if it wasn't intelligent, it would not survive the current environment unless it adapted to it and thus sparked a step of change in evolution..

Survival of the fittest: This is just a buzz word of evolutionists. But it is actually meaningless, as far as enabling new kinds of species to occur. The truth is that "survival of the fittest" is the very opposite of evolution; it means that creatures which are not fit enough, whether produced by mutations or by accidents, are eliminated, thus returning the species closer to its pure species pattern. That is the true contradiction, oh it sounds good if you say it loud enough. Stare at it enough and the true picture raises for the haze.

honestly, i'm confused what your understanding of that phrase is..

but in any case, the survival of the fittest stands true today as the first time it was coined. you probably have just an emotional misunderstanding of it.. what is your definition of the "fittest"?

and how would you know what the species pure pattern is? evolution does not claim such, but the Bible seems to.. and that's a mighty claim without any proof whatsoever either.

Dogmatic Evolutionist: one who is as devout a believer in, and defender of, the Theory of Evolution as is a Creationist with the Bible. This distinction is made to separate the bona fide scientist (who may believe in evolution in some form) from the dedicated proselytizer of Darwinism. It turns out after an analysis such as the above (and hundreds of similar arguments never refuted by the Darwinists), that they are both using the same basis for their beliefs: Faith.
This is the new Man's Religion, the faithful hope for no need for faith.. Man's belief in stories so he does not need to believe in stories. Faith for no faith, and belief for no belief.

This would make a great topic on it's own. Titled "Contradictions of both Evolution and the Bible." if others are interested?

i'm sorry, but i don't belong in that category you have just stated.. i don't believe in evolution.. and i don't have any dogma in evolution whatsoever. i accept evolution as a fact, not as a belief.. that's because i have studied it considerably, on the grounds of science and not on some religious dogmatic affinity. probably you have aligned yourself as an atheist before and *clinged* to evolution which more likely explains your dogmatic stand against it now..

creation story is just that.. a story.. a fable.. it may attempt to explain the origin of living things, but its quite crude.. its best suited for children who have not developed their thinking capabilities well enough yet..

for a child to question the creation story, i'm sure he would ask further questions, and this is a sign of growth of thinking capabilities on the child's part.. but how would you go about answering his questions? you just tell him to shut up and just believe? i certainly hope not.. that's why there is science..

[chad_tukes]

Evolution scientist said "its out definitely there"
--- wheres the evidence..
--- yet you call it science...
--- so now its Faith + Science = Evolution, makes sense.

hehehe... it would take pages just to present evidences of Evolution. seriously, do you know anything about it? seems to me you know little or nothing about the subject that's why taka lang ka yawyaw diha. i'm not surprised. even Mr. Scientist here knows little or nothing about Evolution. he claims to be a scientist but how long has he been in the Philippines?

seriously, is he up-to-date with all the scientific achievements lately? i doubt he still even reads scientific journals other than probably a book he claims to be scientific---the Bible. who the F knows. the fact that you guys keep pushing your creationist ideals into people without any real evidence is a sign that you know little or nothing about Evolution.

[hizuka007]

sa tales of creation pa kuno sa mga sumerians, kay ang tawo kay produkto kuno na sa genetically engineered creature (nakalimoty ko kung mao ba tong homo sapiens, etc.).

unya sa bible kay gibuhat daw ang tao (lalaki) kaparehas sa image sa God. unya gibuhat ang babae pinaagi sa pagkuha sa part sa ribs (?) sa laki....

so kung imo nang ecombine na ang ilang tales of creation, makahuna-huna tag (in modern times) DNA manipulation.....in other words cloning/human cloning.

[bluedes]

hehehe... it would take pages just to present evidences of Evolution. seriously, do you know anything about it? seems to me you know little or nothing about the subject that's why taka lang ka yawyaw diha. i'm not surprised. even Mr. Scientist here knows little or nothing about Evolution. he claims to be a scientist but how long has he been in the Philippines?

seriously, is he up-to-date with all the scientific achievements lately? i doubt he still even reads scientific journals other than probably a book he claims to be scientific---the Bible. who the F knows. the fact that you guys keep pushing your creationist ideals into people without any real evidence is a sign that you know little or nothing about Evolution.

you might just well have a point there..