₦airaland Forum

Reverend:
@supaguy
That is because even the most staunch Christian realizes that the story of the creation is absolute nonsense and a fairy tale

It's never ceases to amaze me how cocky and confident people can be in dismissing religious claims as nonsense without an inch of evidence! Notice i'm not insisting that the biblical versionof creation HAs to be the true one but it is obvious to any INFORMED person that there is more evidence supporting a sudden appearance of complex organisms of earth (which supports creation) than a gradual increase in complexity as claimed by evolutionists. Note that nferyn and kag have still not taken  up my challenge on giving me specific examples of speciation based on THEIR own knowledge, not some crap they pulled out of some crank evolution obsessed website. I have decided to stop posting serious threads until one of them has the courage to take up my challenge as I have noticed they seem to present speciation as the basic evidence supporitng evolution. It is easy to claim speciation, i myself can give millions of examples but i can also show anyone who's willing to learn that every single claim of speciation  is nothing but  variation, elaborate, sometimes dramatic, but still simple old boring variation

nferyn:
xcape,

If an organism is well adapted to it's environment and the environment doesn't change that much, there's litle evolutionary pressure (or to use a more accurate term, selective pressure). In that case, changes to the phenotype due to mutations do not lead to a significantly increased reproductive success. Coulacanth's haven't changed much over millions of years because the environment in which they thrived didn't change much either.

My guy you just shot urself in the foot. If that is the case, then 99.9% of organisms that live on earth today are not and have never been subjected to ur so-called evolutionary pressure

@kags reply to donnie

Ure a sarcastic one aren't u? If i was as rude as uare i'ld use harsher words than u did against xkp.
1) what god looks like is irrelevant! the bible says we (humans) were made in his image. Does tht refer to physical appearance or something else The answer depends on how u interprete the passage
2) Humans are THE MOST CREATIVE arent they? At leat i know im more intelligent than other animals, creative as used in donnies thread should be read as intelligent!
3) Whoever wrote genesis did not have it in mind to write it as a scientific paper. imagine u want to xplain to ur village man what evolution really is, won't u use very SIMPLISTIC terms
4 Job (or isaiah) was not a scientist. 4 a layman, a circle is good enuff descriptyion 4 a sphere and remember the bible was originally written in hebrew, meanings get twisted in translation, dog, u shld kno w tht

@kag and nferyn
u've made my point 4 me! It just shows you how easy it is to cclaim speciation. I'm now in the place of the evolutionist and ure the ones refuting my claims of speciation by showing thtat the differnces i mentioned can be xplained away as variation. Notice that this is a very 'uncomplex' (if im allowed to use that word) example relative to most evolutionist's claims of speciation but the same logic holds. By the way, nobody has taken me up on my challenge to give me a concrete example of speciation and expalin exactly why it should be taken to be speciation.
PLEASE DO NOT REFER ME TO SOME WEBSITE
As for the dinasour claims please dont try to pass it away as some creationist attempt at verifying biblical claims. Do ur own research on the net. I've already stated that the bible makes NO claims. The claims that exist are as a result of people's personal interpretations which is subjective at best

@kag's response to donnie
Please do not bandy around as fact contentious issues! Many scientists believe that there is enough evidence to suggest that dinosaurs existed side by side with homo sapiens. There are many others who think this is false. I'm not stating my opinion on this issue because i dont know which is right. The bible might have been describing a dinasour in the quoted passage and it might have not, the bible didnt specify,

@kag
thats semantics!! who cares what word is used, better, superior, more evolved,better adapted, the point is some races ought to have evolved further than others if they really got here by evolution.
Nb: I think we should all remember that the Nazi's justified the supremacy of the Aryan race by concluding that they are the most evolved of humans wich led to the gruesome happenings of the holocaust.

Ive been stuck with friends who spend their life watching nollywood movies on africamagic for about a month now and i kid you not, I actually lost 15 units of I.q during this period. I really had to concentrate hard in order to post on this thread. See the potential damage to our kids!!! who are being raised on dullywood? If i was the president i'll ban 99% of the movies and imprison genevieve and omotola 4 daring to become musicians!! WHAT!!!?? the absolute crap they feed us on tv is no longer enuff 4 them!!! MUSt they invade our radios TOo? I'll send all the other actors to concentration camps where they'll be more productive to the society digging holes on the ground and covering them back up. Then I'll send Oge okoye to solitary confinment and then i'll send all nollywood SCRIPTWRITERS and DIRECTORS to the firing squad. I'll shoot them all personally for the hours of torture theyve subjected me to, WE are a society that celebrates MEDIOCRITY!!!!! Nollywood does more damage to nigeria's image than the 419'ers. I was watching a movie calld life of sorrow or somthng with a few american friends who were over at my house and i was sooo embarrased. I'm seriously looking for a way to pay back in their own coins any1 whos responsible for nollywood

@kag
but dog, explan how xkp's point is a strawman!!
If the different varuations of man that exist on earth today originated from a common ancestor and then diverged at a point in time , is it reasonable to assume that they evolved at exactly the same rates?
Isn,t it likely that a particular variant will evolve further (or in a slightly different direction) from another?

Hi, im back, it's nice to see the debate is still raging
KAG, You really need to read what you write sometimes! You claimed i misintepreted xkp's points and then proceeded to explain them to me, only you repeated exactly what i said, sometimes i think ure just after having the last word!!
Then because i don't have a theory or an expanation for man's origins (even though i do) does not diqualify me from saying evolution is wrong

Evolutionists will not give up
@kag
u seem unable to understand (or maybe u just refuse to) Xkp's point on evoluiton in humans.
What is responsible for the phenotypical differences observed in humans? Did all humans originate from the same source and then diverge at apoint in time? Is the white man the same specie with the black man, or the oriental man? Or are they all different species, Is that an example of speciation?
Be objective, if u where an alien from space would you think the hottentot (very short and blackskinned) and the typical Northern European (tall and whiteskinned) where the same species? Wouldnt that be an example of speciation to a diehard evolutionist alien? Like I said earlier, evolutionists will find speciation anywhere and everywhere they want to.It's sad, really to see such dishonesty and pretence amongst scientists. It makes you wonder what science (as practised by some) is really about. The fact about evolution reamins
1) Fossil evidence DOES not support evolution
2) There is no evidence for speciation, sorry let me rephrase,
There is NO REAL evidence! a lot of claims exist

@kag and nferyn
I have arleady defined information, I dont think its necesarry to define macro and microevolution as it is common knowledge to any knowledgable person. I will however ,define later specciation in this thread

I would really love it if you could give me 'SPECIFIC' examples of speciation instead of just refering me to sites.
Why? Because it is easy to claim anything on any website, if you could give me SPECIFIC examples I am more than willing to show you why each example CANNOT be qualified as speciation. The only animal directly referred to by kag is the african elephant and I shall show you why he's wrong.
But speaking generally speciation is a term invented by evoluitonists in order to justify Darwin's claims;however, every example of speciation published can be shown to be simple (or dramatic ) variation within genetically compatible organisms. At best these can be said to be examples of a sub-specie or just VARIATON in action! Speciation has been defeated time and time again by the simple fact that these so-called isolated genus can interbreed and produce fertile offsprings. To a casual observer these examples of speciation might appear valid but it takes a close look from an intelligent unbiased observer to notice how evolutionists twist facts and definitions to suit themselves.
For instance it is possible to claim speciation through the interbreeding that goes on with dogs, wolves,dingoes,coyotes etc, but the simple truth is that they are all just varietes withinin the same group (canis).
But first of all what is speciation?
Speciation, according to the Stedman’s Medical Dictionary (2004) is:
The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually by the division of a single species into two or more genetically distinct ones.
Let's get back to Kag's beloved african elephants, speciation experts for whatever reason refer to the dwarf and tall forms as seperate species!!!!!! Thats simply ridiculous!! Typical of evolutionists!! Evidence shows (abundant information on the african elephant exists on the net) that these two sub-species or varietes) can and do interbreed producing fertile offsprings.Every attempt to prove speciation and thus, evolution that I have come across is based on careless definitions, on badly classified organisms, and on false or naive presentations of the complex relationships between organisms.
It is of course impossible to singlehandedly debunk every claim of speciation as evoluitonists will find new species anywhere and everywhere. Some claims are easily debunked like the african elephant while some require a little more knowledge. If a SPECIFIC example is offered to me, I will be too glad to show exactly how wrong these carefully crafted claims are

I wonder why so many people are against the continuation of this thread, if u don't like it don't bother reading it. I for one has learnt a lot (in an indirect sort of way) from nferyn and kag
@ darkey
Its quite suprising how remakably accurate you are in your 'whirlwind' theology,  I wonder if theology isnt't really your calling. But seriously, I believe science and religion are like water and oil (they don't mix,  they could support each other sometimes but thats besides the point) and I rather prefer to leave them seperate. Religion can never adress scientific issues and science cannot adequately answer religious questions. If you notice, I never mentioned my religious beliefs or inclinations in my posts (even though i did state that I belieive in the Christian God) and thats why I wonder what nferyn thinks he knows about my religious beliefs!
@nferyn
Its quite obvious youre not going to be satisfied until I publish a paper on this topic .Anyhow, if this is what it will take to convince you that evoluiton does not happen, thats what I will do, but since that will take a litttle bit of my time (which i don't have now) I'll post my thoughts on the questions you raised in a little while
@ jagunlabi
Its not a comproise because evoluiton as a phenomenom does not exist!

@nferyn
I've come across these (and many more) claims of speciation
Yer, but do this 'so-called' speciations = macroevolution
At first glance it might, but think again!
For true macroevolution to occur these species must GAIN new information in their geneic sequence that now makes interbreeding impossible e.g a rodent modifying its limbs to a wing is macroevolution; this same rodent shortening it's limbs is still microevolution.
ALL observed 'so-called' speciation involve a loss of information,
What do u know about my faith by the way?
Gene duplication
Evolutionists go about bandying such stuff as evidence for evolution while it is still contentious! Repetition does not increase information!and even though some traits can be acquired by mutation,gene amplification blablabla this example will show you how misleading such evidence can be
A bacterium through mutation develops immunity to a particular antibiotic, but it does so because it looses its ability to ingest the antibiotic meant to kill it. Now if that isnt a loss of information, tell me what it is.

@kag
first your habit of quoting evrysingle line of my thrd makes it hrd to reply u, but i'll try
I'm adressing evry single reply u give when quoting me
Quote 1
The 2+2=22 stuff was referring to your (i.e evolutionists) line of reasoning. It doesnt make sense does it? Then why do u state nobody can claim ure wrong UNTIL he can propose a better tteory. Because a better theory does not xist does not make u right!
Qoute 2
Yhear,whatever!
Quote 3
None whatsoever, but u can only claim it actually happens, uve got no proof. Fossil records don't support macroevoluiton.
Quote 4
Ure the one missing the point. No one says a cat ACTUALLY changes into a dog.But evolutionists say dogs evolved from simple unicellular organisms till they became complex multicellular organisms until they became dogs. i.e they changed from one specie into ANOTHER! thts the important thing and its just as preposterous as saying a rodent changed over time into a bat.
Quote 5
Yhear sure,  if u can provide it, whic h i doubt
Quote 6
Yes it is!
Kag says "no it isnt"
Simmy says "yes it is"
blablablayadayadayda
Quote7
I love the word suggest, not prove, many other (many more than u think) have their own way of explaining these records. If you get your facts right u'll be forced to agree (because im sure you wont want to) that there is REALLY no fossil records which beyond reasonable doubt support macroevolution (but of course evolutionists don't want u to know this so they pretend otherwise)
Quote 8
Google it, my guy, my bad,  i thought it was common knowledge
Quote 9
I'm trying to make this thread as simple as possible so that it can be followed by just about ANYBODY, what part of the word information don't u understand? Anyhow, i' will define information later in this thread
Quote 10
I disagree with u. Just imagine a bird with a half formed wing! Or a lion with blunt teeth,  or a human with a half formed brain (just kidding there)
Quote 11
Ok
Quote 12
The important thing is thatit is FUNCTIONAL! you're the one assuming it is incomplete in any way.
Quote 13
Huh yourself,  I was speaking english wasn't I? gradual changes as claimed by macroevoluitonists bring about dysfunctionality which is detrimental to the specie evolving,  the only way out for evoluitonists is to assume that evolution occurs in leaps (not gradual).
Quote 14
What is it about the african elephant, except there is something i'm missimg thats an example of microevolution
About the dog thingy, the point here is that the gene pool is thinned out by selection, natural/artificial and sure ive got evidence
Quote 15& 16
Information as used in this thread means codes which contain instruction on how to synthesize the aminoacid sequence in proteins which finally helps in determining the phenotype (or physical appearance ) of the organism. Note that specific bases on their own are not NECESSARILY information because a base might or might not be useful to the dna sequence depending on its position.Incorrect copying of this information most of the time results in what is called nonsense codons which in a general sense results in a lossof information.Anyways, it is a well known fact that an overwhelming majority of mutations have no effect because the body has a way of coping with such (Dna reapair) Mutations only have a noticable effect on an organism when they are placed under unnatural conditions (e.g overexposure to radiation) and even then, its effcts are either deletirious or neutral. Ver,very,very, rarely does it add to functionality
Quote 17
Well,yes i have
Quote 18
If uve read my thread carefully u'll realise why its such a dumb idea
Quote 19
Yes it is
Quote 20- the end
So the creationist is going to lecture the evolutionist on evolution?Hmmm,my guy, go and ask your teachers o! Theres a lot they can't explain with evolution. This particualr thread was just to enlighten you on the many HOLES that can be picked in your theory. I'll post a thread on i.d later. Personally, i wont even claim that id makes more sense (scientific sense that is ) than evoluiton but my point is STOP pushing evoultion around as a fact because it ISNT

I wanna know-Joe thomas

Hi nferyn and kag
. Evolutionists claim that intelligent design cannot be considered a theory but turn around and tell us that evoluiton cannot be proven to be right until its proven to be wrong(as applies to all theories) i.e 2+2=22 You cant tell me i'm wrong until u come up with a better number!! (Nferyn,feel free to tell me that my analogy does not apply in this case)Evoluiton can be viewed it in 2 ways, if u consider evolution to mean a change in the gene pool of a population over a period of time, then i agree with u that evoluiton is a fact! But evoluitonists go a step further and insist that 'all species' which exist today descended from a common ancestor, i.e they all evolved in different directions from some simple organism over a long period of time (I'm trying to keep my language as simple as possible).Then,they tend to lump macroevolution with microevoluiton while ignoring the fact that theres a whole load of difference between them.They claim maccro and micro are the same thing but insisting that a dog over years has grown bigger and smarter is a far cry from stating that this same dog has changed to a cat! I am yet to meet an evolutionist who has a reasonable explanation to exactly how small minor changes become dramatic and obvious. Variation even in extreme cases NEVER brings about nothing more than a variant of the SAME species. i.e a great dane and a lapdog might not look anything alike but they are still both dogs! Biochemically they are practically identical! It can be argued that variation can occur indefinitely until it produces a variation that is so at variant with the original species as to be considered a different specie but ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE!!! has been observed to support such bold claims. The tendency to by evoluiitonists to lump micro and macroevoluiton together is a clever ploy!There are simply no examples in nature which even remotely indicate a change of species through evoluiton. Of course it is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a layman to be aware of such facts and so evoluiton as a fact is fed to an ignorant public. Even fossils dated to pre-historic times (such as ants)have been observed to be exactly identical with mordern organisms.One of the most serious flaws withevoluiton is that natural selection CAN REMOVE Dna information but does not ADD.Another problem is the fact that when a trait is neccesary for the survival of a specie it HAS to be fully functional. i.e a dogs extremely sensitive nose could not have evolved 'gradually' because dogs in the wild are TOTALLY dependent on their keen sense of smell. A dog with a half formed nose (in terms of sensitivity) would have found it hard to ctach its prey and so would have gone extinct faster than the time required for it to evolve the fully sensitive nose. Simply put, the idea of a half formed organ of any kind in any animal is simply illogical. Gradual evoluiton only produces dysfunctionality between species!!!The only way out is to assume that their is a sort of leap in changes observed which favours creationists, except it is argued that ALL cells have encoded in them the ability to change into any organism (something similar to human stem cells), but again their is NO evidence to support this.The fact that species dont change (or evolve) is indirectly proven by the genetic code. In simple terms, even though there is an unlimited amount of variation which can result from rearranging the genetic code,there is a LIMITED amount of TRAIT variatons. NO NEW GENETIC MATERIAL CAN BE ADDED. Nature is simply shuffling the same old stuff around over and over and over again. The only phenomenon which favours evoluiton in nature is mutation. Without mutation, no new addition can penetrate the boundaries of the genetic code. A contradiction to evoluiton that is unknown to most laymen is that exxagerrated variation makes species prone to diseases, in ohter words the species is prone to genetically induced diseases.An obvious example is dogs which have been overbred. Everyone knows that the mongrel is hardier than the exotic pedigree.Evoluitonists ignore the fact that natural selection ACTUALLY thins out the gene pool in the very long run.For evoluiton (macro) to be possible NEW information has to be added to the gene pool . I'm still waiting for someone,ANYONE to suggest to me how this happens.MUTATION?
I laugh !!
Mutations which add new information has NEVER been observed in nature. It is quite the contrary! 9.9999999999(raised to atrillion trillion) out of ten times mutations are an incorrect copying of the information or a loss of information. The chances that life evolved through mutation is sooooo close to impossible that it is to all purposes and intent IMPOSSIBLE!!!
There is NO evidence of macroevolution. Fossil records show a zero change. Microevolution DOES occur but in strict terms that is not evolution.Interdependency of species also makes evoluiton qite a dumb idea. Nature is filled with species that are totally dependent on each other. That renders evoluiton as an impossibility in an indirect sort of way.
I maintain that the concept of evoluiton is a very bright idea and one can get carried away when one views it in isolation of other fcts but when the whole picture is viewed it becomes obvious that evolution is rather an improbable theory. Intelligent design on the other hand makes no pretext. It recognises the amazing complexity that exists in life and says "if there exists such a complex design, it is only logical to assume that their is a designer". It does not ATTEMPT to explain how the design came to be or state who the designer is.
LAST WORD: Even evolutionists confess that they cant explain the exact mechanism of evolution, so how are they different from creationists? Please shed off this cloak of intellectual superiority and admit that you are as much at a loss as to how life came to be as anyone else.

I'm still in this discussion, i've been a lil busy, i'll post my thits later

Crossroads-bonethugsnharmony

@ nferyn and others like him

Most evolutionists assume this superior intellectual attitude when regarding creationists because they assume creationism is based strictly on belief or faith, but it isn't.
Evolutionists argue that changes occur over a period of time in a population and that the dramatic changes we notice is brought about by time, time on a grand scale, millions and billions of years, but they get carried away by the grandness of their own theory (yes, i'll be the 1st to admit that only a genius could have thought out evolution).
First of all, evolution is a THEORY (or a school of thought). Scientists insist that NO theory can be proven right but has to be proven wrong. Pray tell me then how the theory of evolution differs from the the theory of intelligent design in that respect. I see no way in which evoluiton ties facts together! All evolutionsits observe is a certain gradation in complexity of organisms and they hastily jump into conclusion that these organisms somehow transform into each other over time!! I challenge ANY scientist the world over to show JUST 1 organism in the process of evolution.
They probably will shake their head and say it happens so slowly u can't see it
To that I issue a challenge to ANY scientist the world over to show complete fossil records that capture accurately one organism evolving into another. (To that they mummble somehting about incomplete fossil records)
Whatt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?
And you dare accuse creationists of basing their opinions on non-facts

When certain individuals posess certain characteristcs that somehow give them an advantage over others what we get is A VARIANT of the SAME SPECIES!! not a new specie! I wonder why evoluitonists cant get that. Nature even has a way of dealing with interbreeding between two different species which tells any one who cares to listen that nature is intent on keeping species seperate
I agree that all species are related but claiming they have a common ancestor is like claiming that because two ladies are blond means thaty they must be sisters. I think there is a leap in logic!
Anyone well versed in genetics will realise that variation produced by genetic reshuffling can NEVER lead to such dramatic differences that exist between a monkey and a frog! Evolutionists tend to hide under the cloak of time to hide the outlandishness of their claims but they fail to realise that even if a gazillion years where offered to evolution, the chances of life evolving in the direction it has would be so close to impossible that , (duh!) Pray explain to me how patterns of behaviour like instinct evolved (please don't qoute some jargon penned down by some halfwit , such complex behaviour is simply unexplainable by evolution. Take for example the migratory instincts of common birds!!)
Mutation?? maybe, but it is inplausible and I was taught in school to always look for the more plausible answer. The genetic system of more advanced species has a way of correcting mistakes (such as might arise from mutation) during reproduction, making the possibility of error as small as possible. This proof reading also allows mistakes to be made occasionally in order to promote variation, but saying mutation accounts for evolution is the effect of an overworked and overactive and anti creationist mind!
The theory of intelligent design is based on a very simple premise
The planet earth is SOOO perfectly positioned to support life that to assume that it wasnt placed their by someone or something on purpose is simply not logical (one reason why some people arew not so easily carried away by that argument is ignorance. I recommend such a person conduct a simple research on the conditions necessary for ANY intelligent life and how the earth goes out of its way to meet such conditions).
Lif as we know it is SOOOOOO (raised to the power of a gazillion trillion trillion) unbelievably complex that no amount of time will be sufficient to account for a slow change from simple to complex (no wonder evolutionists insist that evolution is not necessarily about increase in complexity, I wonder!!!anyone who knows anything about biology would realise that nature is extremely efficient, no amazingly efficient, an increase in complexity is ALWAYS DEFINITELY for a purpose). Everywhere you turn in the universe ruthless purpose is observed and yet evoluitonists draw a blind eye to all this and explain life away like a kindergatten kid armed with the knowledge of simple arithmetics trying to solve a problem in calculus!!!
An d they are so damn smug about it!!! accusing other people of being unreasonable
HUMMMMMMMMPHGH!

@jagunlabi
No life outside earth has been discovered yet, so i think ur question is irrelevant but to humour u i think both sides will come up with ingenous arguments to tip the scale in their favour
@ nferyn
Homo sapiens? or prehistoric man? except im wrong mordern civilisations are not much more than 6000yrs old

jagunlabi:
According to the jewish creationist myth,the human race is about 6000 years old.That was the accepted fact till a few centuries ago,but nobody believes that anymore these days,except the usual uninformed.Even the Vatican has quietly turned it's back on it.
Since then,the age of mankind has been continually pushed back further and futher into prehistoricity.Thanks to the scientists.
But the concept of a supreme deity being the power behind the creation still remains undisproved.

Mos people misunderstand the bible, misinterprete and then turn around and accuse the bible of being incorrect, the bible NEVER claimed the human race was 6000yrs old, it only suggests that CIVILISED MAN is 6000yrs old which most anthropologists agree with

@nferyn
Proponents of gene drift, sexual and natural selection refuse to answer the most important question.its another form of the use and disuse hypothesis, which doesnt make sense! Whatever physical adaptations i might have will NOT be passed down to my kids. And i still maintain that its too simple an explanation. Human organs like the heart or th kidney are just too complex tobe expalined away thus.
Seual recombinations dont produce new or a different specie it just produces a more adapted version of the same thing
Mutations are a more likely cause, but telling me that the fish turned int o a tadpole and then a dog or cat through mutation is insulting my intelligence

@dark
Please stop posting references of all these books like i havnt read them all!(at least ive read the selfish gene)
@kag
Atheism has a lot to do with evolution. the theory initself was an attempt by leading intellectuals o fthose times to find something to refute the bible's story of creation with. I hope you're familiar circumstances surrounding the publishing of darwin's book. The book was named origin of species wasn't it? Im glad u agree it does nothng of the sort. All darwin succeded in doing was to notice that all organisms are graded in levels of complexity and that has been known for thousands of years. Pray tell me what predictions evolutins make and how isit testable? Please do not refer to all the  fossils that have been unearthed by scientists . These same scientists keep quiet when they unearth fossils which totally differ from their expectations. And please because most people believe something (or have been browbeated into believing something) does not make it true.
Evolution is simply a theory (or a hypothesis, it does not matter) drawn up by people who do not fully appreciate or refuse to appreciate the complexities involved in life. I fail to see how even a simple unicellular organism could have evolved from some amno acids.
Saying just because a couple of amino acids can be fused together in the lab or( even viruses) is evolution is like saying reciting  a,b.c-z is poetry. Its a leap in logic and until scientists can prove exactly how this leap into complexity took place,then I'm at a loss as to what scienceis really about.
Most people fail to realise that the planet earth in itself had to be prefectly located for evoluiton to take place. it moves at just the right speed and wobbles in exactly the right way. It's mass is even perfectly balanced by jupiter to stop it from spriralling  towards the sun (or away) and facts like these does not even remotely suggest a design which in turn suggests a designer which in turn suggests intelligence which "might" suggets a personality? PLEASE!! These facts are not even the tip of the iceberg! The codes that contain the info. that makes u  would fill all the volumes that exist in the world and way more. your body has "evolved ' a way of checking itself for accuracy (proofreading) and even purposely allows for mutation when it deems fit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I dont mean to be rude but honestly you have to be crazy to even remotely consider evolution or just very ignorant
Ps: I'm not tryng to sound like a Mr. know-all but if you knew eeven half of how complex life really is you would realise that creation is infinitely more likely a possibility than evoluiton

dont go(mafimisile) blu

It's all good;no shaking

dakmanzero:
simmy

I respectfully put it to you that it is you who have no idea what ID is.

I much less respectfully declare that you have absolutely no idea what evolution is.

If you wish to contest these points, please do so clearly and intelligently. Spewing random gibberish doesn't help your case.

My guy if u say so no shaking
I'm spewing random gibberish??
No wonder you believe in evolution, 1ce again you're interpreting carefully planned and thought out action as random occurences that somehow come out as text in a language you understand!!!
Pls dont take this personally, i've alread y apologised for being slightly rude earlier, ok?

@nferyn
sorry if i sounded insulting, i didnt mean to,  i tend to argue with a lot of passion. i apologise.
Evolution only explains a plausible way in which the fittest came to be fit< it doesnt explain how they got there in the first place.When darwin wrote the origin of species very little of the complexities of lifewas known and so , so much was taken for granted. I still maintain that the theory of evolution is elaborate nonsense. Simply stating that simple organisms evolved into complex multicellular organisms like humans stretches the limits of imagination. Saying that this a case of extreme oversimplificationis an understatement. Evolutionists tend to cover up their inplausible arguments with time. Millions and millions of years give organisms enough time to evolve into whatever they want they say!!!!Thats pure balderdash! Anyone who understands even remotely how complex the dna sequence of a gorilla is will realize how close to impossible evolution is. Its like asking a gorilla to randomly punch away at a keybooard and getting him to type out the complete works of william shakespaeare at his first or second or even third attemot. think,  even if he has a million or billion years to work , how possible is such a feat? Please don't lets get carried away by the proponents of evolution jsut because it's the theory in vogue right now and because being anti-religious is considered intellectual. Evolution is crap!!Note that I am not arguing in favour of any religious sect.
@darkmanzero
Scientists like me decided to grace evolution with the term theory, please don't lets get carried away by semantics,  the same scientists graced intelligent design with the same term.some scientists believe in evolution and consider i.d as crap while others like me think i.d is tha bomb and consider evolution as crap
catch ny drift?
Its also obvious u have ABSOLUTELY NO idea what I.d is about if u consider it as an attempt to mix science with metaphysics or spiritual stuff.
I'll surf the web and get u the link which explains the concpt of intelligent design in the simplest and most concise way
NOTICE that I am not arguing in favour of ANY religious sect even though I happen to believe in the xtian God. This arguement has little to do with religion

hey , if hotangel waswhite she'd be blonde
oops!

I believe in intelligent design i.e creation
Exactly who the creator is, is a topic for another forum

@nferyn and others like him
@ anyone who thinks the theory of evolution is anything but a stupid theory
ARRRRRRRGHHHHHH!!!
HERE comes these pseudo-intellectuals who know nothing about nothing totting their false knowledge about. I happen to be a biochemist and I know that the theory of evolution  is exactly that, A THEORY!!! there's absolutely NO evidence to support evolution. It's just a load of elaborate crap. THE WHOLE UNIVERSE STINKS of creation. Intelligence!!, intelligence suggets a personality, which indirectly leads a reasoning person to conclude that a god of some sorts exists somewhere. Ever heard of the theory of Intelligent design?

scar tissue-redhotchilipepper