However this may be the worng way to look at it. Their theory indicates that ‘microevolutionary’ processes occur and that these, coupled with other things, combine to create macro evolution. Sure this would work, if microevolution were able to translate to macro. But it cannot.

Ok, quick definition as i see it: macro is the idea of an original cell or creature or whatever evolving to what we have today, that is many different species.

Micro is small variations and changes within any given species for example, skin colour in humans.

Back to my point: Micro evolution cannot generate the mutations required for the generation of new information that is required for the creation of new specie types. There has never been a case of a beneficial mutation. This is due to the fact that ‘mutations… cause “noise” during the transmission of genetic information, in accordance with established scientific principles of the effect of random change on information flow, and so destroy the information.’

But what about the ‘gene duplication’ concept i hear you ask, well it is true that it allows for random mutations to occur without destroying the thing that is mutating due to the fact that if a bad mutation occurs then there is still a good copy of the gene to ensure the thing survives. but all this does is allow for the perpetuation of something that mutated badly, it does not prove that beneficial mutations have occured.

In short mutations decrease the amount of information in the gene pool, causing life to degenerate. This fits fantastically the idea that God created the world perfect, man sinned and brought the consequence of death into the world, which set off the process of mutations causing degeneration

Neo

The first thing i would like to take a look at is that of the idea of: There is no scientific explanation for your God.

Essentially this is the age old debate that if God created everything, who created God? This question has been in existence for centuries, and is more a question of philosphy than science (or at least it used to be, but in our society, which is only exiting modernism, things still must be proved, thus it becomes an issue of science)

Perhaps you have heard of the concept of causality. This concept stipulates that everything that exists has a cause. For example a car has a cause, that is a factory; the factory has a cause, that is other factories and machines to build it and so on.

The point is that you can follow this idea as far back as the beginning of existence itself. but there you hit a snag and this comes because if everything needs a cause then, what started it all?

‘Stuff’ cannot have just been there because it had no cause. Now if something has no cause then it cannot be said to acutally exist. This is because if something does not have a beginning then it never began and if it never began then it never came into existence. If that is the case then the entire universe does not exist because it never began due to the lack of a cause.

For the universe to exist then, an catalyst is required. That is, an uncaused cause. Now we of the Christian propensity would say that this uncaused cause which started everything is God. However for evolutionary theory, there is nothing. Thus to the evolutionary mind, how can anything be said to exist properly?

Neo

I believe their is a god that did create the universe, reason being that even if there was a big bang who created the shit that went bang?

You have fallen into a great trap JP. You believe in God, because you can’t believe in “stuff” just being there. Why then can you believe in God just being there? There is no scientific explanation for your God.

There is an old saying “it takes a lot of faith to believe there isn’t a God”

Take a look at the ocean, the sky, the animals. How can you think that beauty like that happened by accident.

How he did it can be debated till the cows come home but what is the scientific explanation for the “Stuff” being their in the first place?

I have a final point of question that may need clarification (if the debate is still going) is the type of evolution in question macro-evolution, or micro-evolution. I ask because there is a world of difference between the two and without a clear understanding, arguments can meld between the two and become horribly confused.

My understanding is that the only people who try and make out there substantive differences are the creationists. The only difference between micro and macro evolution is time. Evolution 101: Macroevolution. Also read the wikipedia article on Macroevolution – the two main theories it discusses have no substantive differences to microevolution.

Perhaps you can provide some evidence to show that there are major differences between micro and macro evolution?

Thankfully evolution has not been proved to a point beyond contention.

Except that it has. It is an accepted and applied scientific theory. The only people who are not accepting it are creationists. I highly recommend that you read the Berkeley site on evolution. There are screeds of evidence for evolution but not a single shred for creationism. Anyone is welcome to believe in creationism, but they are being foolish if they believe it is backed up by evidence. Remember, gaps or flaws in evolutionary theory do not validate creationism – evidence must stand up on its own.

Thankfully evolution has not been proved to a point beyond contention.

True, there has been much research in the field of evolution, but such is case in the of creationism also. both sides have the same evidence to interpret, ie the physical world which can be studied, and both have their own theories which they desire to prove. To discover which has more weight it is necessary to apply the given evidence to both models and see which is able to better explain the evidence.

If this debate is still continuing then i would be more than happy to list some of the evidence i have discovered in my search, but to put all of it may take some time and there have already been some dissatisfied people who seem to dislike lengthy posts.

I have a final point of question that may need clarification (if the debate is still going) is the type of evolution in question macro-evolution, or micro-evolution. I ask because there is a world of difference between the two and without a clear understanding, arguments can meld between the two and become horribly confused.

Neo

What, thats all? Why only 2 sentences? My question was serious, folks… but since you have decided to give a comic answer, I will give a comic reply…

“All of Earth’s experience are this Word thing. And its 6008. Good.

Oh, thats right. You want to be taken seriously, mmmm. My word, yes, all this evolution stuff is just a theory, coz the explanation is God verbalised (in English I guess, I mean, God’s American right?) and it just …. happened.

And John Howard singlehandedly will keep interest rates down.

Oh, no sorry, I’m being sarcastic. The world’s existance summed up in 2 sentences (so far, of course, you can expand if you wish) and I just accept it. You may be happy if I believed it too as you present it.

BTW I am interested. How can God, being all male, white (probably, what skin colour would he/she/it be) leave his Word-creating Earth (Bill Gates?) that has mitochondria, obturator externus’s and fossils + species WE dont know that exists (therefore did God make them if we dont know they exist?) and say his words & not say anything else since…

Yes, this is God you are talking about who so convincingly created the whole Universe (I guess) 2.6million days ago or approx.
does not send an update.

Since you know how to explain your position, and since this is so convincing, that you must be in personal contact with him/her/it, can you ask him/her/it about any updates since the 6th century AD when Mohammadism came about (Islam). I guess that was the last update.

What sort of God creates a planet & solar system & just … leaves? Dog God maybe.

Am I religios or athiest or agnostic or fundamentalist? No, labels are boring. Unless God wants me to have one, then he/she/it is not worthy of having the title of God & ought to reture on some marvellous superannuation.

Perhaps they are afraid that it suggests that Christianity is, essentially, a lie.

BTW – I’m an athiest.