correct me if I'm wrong...

when you see a sculpture or model on a desk you imediatly wonder who built it.


I heard a story once.
An athiest walked into a creationists office and noticed a model of the solarsystem on the desk. He then asked who built it, the creationist replied "No one, the gears and pieces all just formed together in that sculpture." The athiest then left.

nice little story hun.

well my point is when you see somthing your first impulse is 'who built it' not 'how long did it take for this to evolve'.

anyone can look at this buitiful universe and see that it must have been built. A universe doesn't just pop into existance from nowhere.

And the God who created it is alpowerful and has no begining and will have no end.

so if you have any comon sense you can see that the world did not evolve itno existence.

how many primitive indian tribs think they evolved. None they all know they were created and attempt to explain thier existence through thier rituals and stuff.

am I getting the message across already?!?

Originally posted by Mandolorian54
when you see a sculpture or model on a desk you imediatly wonder who built it.

Yes. Man built it. It is a purely natual process. It is not caused by something supernatural, and I can prove that. There's no magic behind it.

The old watchmaker analogy is severely flawed: Watches have evolved - they started off with crude contraptions (solar watches) and slowly evolved to modern digital watches. I don't care if an outside force did this - the point is that they do evolve. Similarily, I don't give a flying funk if God started the Big Bang, or even if God steers the evolution to his needs and end - the point is that it happens. You can believe in God and evolution at the same time.

I'm tired of this. Read the rest here, if you care. (http://www.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/watch.htm)

And refute this. (http://www.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/genesis.htm)

Once I get the time off, I'll begin the barrage. Happy disproving until then. You still haven't answered the at least 20 questions I must have asked by now. Gently skipping past it does no good for your reputations as literate people.

When I said sacrificing everything, it isn't all "God stuff"...I'm talking everything...I have. The only possession I have left is my computer...I own nothing else. I've done everything I can to help others, and I'm sick of people abusing that "helpfullness" and leaving me in the gutter.

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
When I said sacrificing everything, it isn't all "God stuff"...I'm talking everything...I have. The only possession I have left is my computer...I own nothing else. I've done everything I can to help others, and I'm sick of people abusing that "helpfullness" and leaving me in the gutter.

I'm really sorry to hear that.

But what exactly is it that requires you to sacrifice everything you own? :confused:

Is it because of a people exploiting your sacrifices, or is it too private to talk about?

I'm all ears.

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
Please tell how it contradicts itself. I'll see what I can do.

One easy one to spot is the birth of Jesus, and with the two different Authors, Matthew and Luke who talk of it, not all the facts easily fit in with each other. Pretty easy when one didn't really know Jesus, and has used other known texts at the time to try and create his book in the Bible.

Isn't one of the most important events in the Bible the birth of God's only son, and if this can't be a consistent story amongst different authors, then how can you say all of the Bible is historical fact. With the known mistakes in the backward application of the Roman calender in the 6th Century, we can say that most of the events match up historically. Except at least that of the Census held at the time, it was not until after the birth of Jesus that Syria actually became a full province of Rome. This supposed census is most likely to have been held about 6-10 years after Jesus was born.
Matthew and Luke disagree as to where Joseph and Mary actually lived, whether they are living in Bethlehem, or that they had to visit it on the need of a census, coming from Nazereth. Some of the contradictions and inaccuracies also exist from the translation of the original Greek text into English, which in some places the wrong interpretation of the word may have been used.
Also, since Jesus was a Jew, crucifixes were not used on those who were not Roman citizens.

Originally posted by C'jais
I'm willing to stake everything on stating that if you creationists (the ones I've been arguing with here) should ever encounter another evolutionist, and try to persuade him, you'll probably dig out the same "isotope dating is false",

[...]

I sincerely think you'll still proceed on your merry way and "forget" what I and many others proved to you.

This is exactly what I mean when I talk about Christian Doublethink, just in case Jedi-Monk ever sees this.

Me bad! I promised myself to stay out of this.

By "peer-reviewed" do you mean magazines like the famous science ones? The reason proof about Creationalism doesn't appear in that is because they don't want to put it in there. Thye only want evolution.

That's false. They get no submissions with creationistic contents (documented in several independent studies, for full details see the 15 Answers). Obviously they can't put something in their mags that they don't get and can't produce themselves.

And again you forget to answer the replies we give your posts. We have already asked you to explain the huge, glaring holes in this "conspiracy plot". But since you are so hell-bent on using it I'll just point out that a hoax of this scale would make the Apollo Program and the Manhatten Projekt put together look like childs play.

This masquerade would have to falsify mountains of studies from scores of different countries, and from almost all branches of science. I mean, seriously, do you think that it would actually be possible to pull it off? And if some "Masquerade" actually does have the resources and connections to pull it off, how come that science labs are cronically short of governmental founds?

No it isn't. Spam is something that is absolutely worthless such as calling the mods and the forums stupid on you're first post or posting 1 liners in 35 different threads. This is spam, what was posted on Lucy is not... it just something you don't want to even take a chance of looking at.

No it's something that I have refuted at least three times before in this very thread. And you have given no counterpoints whatsoever. You just repeat what I have already shot into the ground. Do you read my posts at all? The only reason that I can tell that you do is from your quotes.

All history books say this because talking about creationalism in a way that makes it seem like the book accepts it over evolution would violate the law of no binding between the school and church.

So you do admit that Creationism is infact nothing but a silly faith?

Umm they're is money in every "evolution proving" find... so won't they're be a fraud according to your reasoning?

False. You have not understood what I said. Firstly: There is not money involved in every evolution-supporting find (but there certainly would be money coming my way if I could produce some serious proof of Creation (even people who produce shoddy not-proof of creation can get it published in paperback format)).

Secondly: I said that in any business where there is money involved there will be fraud. I did not say that in every transaction in which there is money involved there will be fraud (there obviously isn't).

You apply the rules of two-way reasoning to a one-way argument. That doesn't hold.

Produce another website that agrees with this writer or this concept... one website that states this DOES NOT make it true... more sources please!

I can probably find several. But I would only have to look in a medical dictionary and match symptoms. However I only linked to this site to keep triggerhappy MODs at bay (aka: These aren't my words), not because I wanted to prove anything (that would be done in another thread).

BTW: You actually have a fine point. I may begin to take you Creationist remotely seriously when (or rather if) you start applying the same to your arguments.

And where are you getting this "proof" that the Bible is fiction from? I want to see how you are making this assumption.

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com) Go through a few of their links. I make no assumption here.

Please lets keep it civilized here.

Civilized behavior included actually listening to/reading what the other guy says/posts last time I checked. In Denmark we have a proverb: Don't throw rocks if you live in a house of glass.

since the Bible is a RELIGIOUS BOOK it WON'T teach how to make a boing. And since when does a religious book tell how to make a powerplant or a bike? Those are two totally different fields. Get your facts straight, your example proves nothing. Construction Does not have anything to do with the Bible.

[...]

And again... WHY ARE YOU COMPARING CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES TO A RELIGIOUS BOOK? Get your facts straight. People don't read and believe in the Bible to learn how to build a power plant.

You are proving my point better than I ever could: The Bible doesn't state anything about the real world. So why cling to your precious Genesis? And if you say that the Bible does say something about the real world, then where do you draw the line? If it tells you how the world came about, then why doesn't it tell you how to live in it? Because Man was never meant to know? Gee, that's a good God... NOT!

BTW: I wasn't talking about a bong. I was talking about a JumboJet. Sorry for my crappy spelling.

What is this true power?!?! "True power" is considered by many to control the world. Christians do not want to control the world. And hypocracy? Parasites? What positive results and what "power"?

Science is the power that I refer to. Controlling humans is incredibly easy. Controlling nature is a lot harder (besides the ability to control the world is also derived from technological progress, since better tech means more advanced weapons (one of the not-so-good things about progress).

The fact that you sit comfortably before a computer in a nice warm (or cold, depending on what climate you are in) house, instead of being out in the potato field picking up your dinner are the positive results that I refer to. And the fact that you totally dismiss the tool that has given you these oppertunities (science) is the hypocracy that I refer to. Parasitic are the effects of your hypocracy.

If you are referring to evolution the I can honestly say you have no idea what you're talking about by Christians using the "positive results" from that.

You are. New drugs. But it was not evolution alone that I referred to.

If you're talking about technology then you have no idea what you're talking about.

[...]

Hmm, Chrisitans aren't contibuting? What "positive results" are Christians "using like parasites without contributing"?

I would like to point out that every advance in technology that has ever been produced has been produced on the basis of Rationalism, the antithesis of any religion.

Unless I didn't understand what you were referring to then,once again, think before you type.

Same comment can be more justly applied to you.

Hmm I see you are very unfamiliar with the LIVING THINGS in our blood called CELLS that ARE ALIVE.

Out of context quote. Again. I was responding to a post that clearly referred to some "life force", among all the other superstition in it (at least that's how I read it, sorry if I was mistaken).

Oh man here we go again. THE WHOLE WORLD BELIEVED THAT THE EARTH WAS FLAT UNTIL COLUMBUS PROVED THEM WRONG. Where are you getting that this was a Christian practice? Sources, now.

You're flat out wrong here. The ancient Greek and Egyptians (I think) knew that the world was round (and they even had the size pretty right, unlike Columbus, who would have starved to death if he had not found America).

It's the obelisk-in-Alexandria-and-well-in-someothercity-experiment (or was it the well in Alexandria? Anyway it doesn't really matter). It's a text-book math example that you can find in most math books that deal with the dicipline of Trigonomitry.

But this was supressed by Christianity.

A literal translation of Job 26:10 ect.

You can't make a litteral translation. It's not possible, as anyone who has actually done a reasonably advanced translation will know (just try translating this into French or German or some other language with which you are familiar, if you doubt what I say).

Website that proves this? Where? Oh wait there is no website.

Again I was responding to someone who clearly needs to get things spelled out in capital letters, based on his posts. Anyway, it follows logically from the fact that the Bible is fiction. And even if you don't accept that, it follows logically from the fact that there are no truths. Therefore the Bible cannot be truth.

Then I honesly feel sorry for you because He has done a lot for me because I ASKED and BELIEVED that He could do things in my life.

I sincerely hope that I didn't sound whining. Don't take it personally, but I don't want pity. At all. I can't really use it, but thanks anyway. But I would like to know what It has done for you, because I am pretty sure that I could find a perfectly natural explanation for it.

SORRY FOR THE LONG POST BUT THE POST I WAS REPLYING TO WAS A VERY LONG ONE AND SOME THINGS SAID IN IT REALLY GOT ME GOING.

Not your fault. I did do a Redwing (sorry 'bout that... Woops, looks like I did another...). (And getting people 'going' is pretty much what the Chambers are about, 's far as I understood it.)

This is why I told you this debate is pointless...because it ISN"T a DEBATE.

A debate, both sides give "evidence" to something, and they debate.

Yes. And the Creationist side has provided none so far that has not been refuted.

Evo vs Creation...there is NO absolute evidence (if there was, evo would be thought as true by everyone, many scientists are beginning to re-think what they have been taught).

False. On both counts. Evolution would not be thought true, just like gravity isn't thought true. And 'scientist' don't rethink the very basics of evolution it is one of the most stable theories of science. See 15 Answers.

And there is plenty of hard evidence. I can't help it if you choose to close your eyes, but it won't go away because you do.

Yet... it seems every Evo side is this

"Evo is TRUE to there!"

No we're not. See above.

Umm, that isn't debate....it would be just like me saying Creation is true, so there. You can't debate by saying your side is absolutely true...it wouldn't hold squat in a debate at all.

We're not. We're supplying plenty of evidence. It's the Creation side that you should be shooting at with that.

I just mentioned something I saw on the news and I get attacked and I'm told to "get the hell out!"?

No, I attacked your repetingly posting of things that have already been refuted. That's what. And I attacked your habit of repeatedly posting things that are so logically thin that you couldn't even convince a bright 5-year-old child with them.

I'm sick of people...I gave everything I've had, I've lost everything all in the name of helping others...but not once has any of them done anything back. Sometimes I get so tired of it.

You don't have to give up everything to help other people. If you do, then it's your choice, but IMO it's a bit (or rather very) naive to expect them to return the favor. There is no good in this world. No evil either, just vast, pitiless indifference.

Get the hell out? yeah, why don't I***EDITED, best leave that out. Last thing I need is to be sent somewhere*** that'd make you happy then, wouldn't it? I know it would be easier for me, that's for sure.

What would make me happy would be a reasoned debate. Not just mindless quoting of something that has been disproven already.

Sick of it.

So am I. For the same reasons, but you have the sides mixed up.

If you are a true evolutionist you should applaud every time you see a kid with Down's, or with any other kind of mutation, because that is how you think we got here. What are some "positive" mutations in some parts of the human race, but not most? Also, how come humans on different continents, seperated by oceans on both sides, didn't have any significant adaption such as wings or extra limbs or an extra eye or something? You can just tell me that it was too short of a time period, cause I guess that's probably your answer, right? Finally, how do light-sensitive cells just mutate into being? You can't mutate volentarily, or pass on a mutation through will, so how would animals just happen to get the kind of cells they need, and a light-sensitive cell is a very amazing trait for it to just "appear" in the gene pool, but I guess thats probably wrong too, huh?

Shadow this is why I get frustrated. EVERYTIME SOMEONE POSTS A LINK ON CREATION OVER EVOLUTION YOU DISMISS IT AS IRRELIVANT. And then 5 posts later you ask for evidence.

Cjais - big question for you here.

You have repeatedly stated throughout this thread that evolution is science, and is about "cold hard facts". Yet, a few days ago, before I got really busy and didn't have time to reply, you asked the rhetorical question "Prove to me what isn't [philosophy]." Okay, so which is it? Is evolution philosophy or science.

You make my point perfectly with that statement, though - when it comes right down to it, everything is philosophy. There can be no conclusive evidence either direction in this debate; so far all I have seen from either side (myself included) is an attempt to debunk the other side's theory. Which is logical, when there is little conclusive evidence for either side. The watch example is a poor one to use, but it's point will work.

Admittedly, watches have changed over the years. But one doesn't question that the watch was created. While I disagree that macroevolution occurs - the whole finch thing proves nothing one way or another, as I'll explain in a moment - the point is that in order for evolution to occur, if it did, certain factors would have to be controlled by an external force.

Finches beaks - that whole thing doesn't show anything one way or another. The beaks can actually change sizes on individual birds. As in, if you take one bird and move it to a different island, where it has differenct needs, the beak will grow or whatever on that single bird. Gotta go.

Originally posted by Psydan
If you are a true evolutionist you should applaud every time you see a kid with Down's, or with any other kind of mutation, because that is how you think we got here.

Do people with Down's syndrome usually marry and pass the mutation? Is it beneficial?

What are some "positive" mutations in some parts of the human race, but not most?

Mutations depends solely on the environment. If it's benefical to grow larger beaks to break the only nuts available - the big ones - it will happen.

Also, how come humans on different continents, seperated by oceans on both sides, didn't have any significant adaption such as wings or extra limbs or an extra eye or something?

Every heard of the punchline -"get a sense of scale"? The timescale required for an extra limb would be enormous, and it's doubtful that an extra limb would ever help that much. Growing something stronger, lighter or tougher is ridiculously easy compared to growing a completely new skeletal structure.

You can just tell me that it was too short of a time period, cause I guess that's probably your answer, right?

Part of it. But humans would never be able to fly simply by adding wings. Our chest would need to be gargantuan for that to happen. Our weight would need to be reduced drastically, and we'd look completely different. It's not going to happen - especially not since we have no need of it.

Finally, how do light-sensitive cells just mutate into being? You can't mutate volentarily, or pass on a mutation through will, so how would animals just happen to get the kind of cells they need, and a light-sensitive cell is a very amazing trait for it to just "appear" in the gene pool, but I guess thats probably wrong too, huh?

The rate of mutations is pretty constant. Your own body cells are mutating all the time. It's evident. There's no need to debate that it's thoroughly fantastic how HIV evolves so quickly that it makes it impossible to target. It's marvelous.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Shadow this is why I get frustrated. EVERYTIME SOMEONE POSTS A LINK ON CREATION OVER EVOLUTION YOU DISMISS IT AS IRRELIVANT. And then 5 posts later you ask for evidence.

Point to a concrete example.

I'll happily answer your questions, but not if you simply copy-paste 19 GB worth of text and expect us to reply coherently to that. We haven't got that time.

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
You have repeatedly stated throughout this thread that evolution is science, and is about "cold hard facts". Yet, a few days ago, before I got really busy and didn't have time to reply, you asked the rhetorical question "Prove to me what isn't [philosophy]." Okay, so which is it? Is evolution philosophy or science.

It's science.

My commentary that "Everything is philosophy" was about how you looked at the universe. Everyone has their own view of it. Philosophy is about morals, for example.

"Philosophy is the no-man's land between Science and Theology, exposed to attack from both sides."

Me stating that everything is philosophy, is philosophy.

But facts are indeniable. You cannot deny that evolution happens - evidenced in observations and droves of evidence from the past.

There can be no conclusive evidence either direction in this debate; so far all I have seen from either side (myself included) is an attempt to debunk the other side's theory.

While I just posted a rough sketch of all the evidence for evolution, this is pretty much just about beating your theory to the ground. We've presented much empirical evidence for our theory, while the same sadly cannot be said for you.

Now, if you want to claim the moral high ground here, I suggest you make a rough draft of your theory. Back it up with empirical evidence and scientific observations. We've done our part long ago, it's high time you did yours.

While I disagree that macroevolution occurs

Disagree all you want. I'm sure bacteria and insects are not going to bother you about this.

the whole finch thing proves nothing one way or another

Finches' beaks shows that they're specialized to eating specific nuts available in their environment. This is evident. On the Galapagos Islands, there are several species of finches - each specialized to eat a specific kind of nut or even other sources of food. The finches are so specialized that they cannot eat each other's nuts (w00t?) - they can only survive by eating their own kind of nut. In other words - each species of finches are occupying a niche in their environment, that makes sure they share the food - they are at an equilibrium with the environment. They don't fight over food because they simply can't eat the other finches food.

It's now only logical to assume there once existed a common ancestor to all these different species of finches. One that was more diverse and not to so picky with regards to food sources. This ancestor gradually branched off into several niche species to take advantage of the abundant food. It's also curiously evident that the different species of finches are more or less isolated on different parts of the islands. This theory is being backed up by reasoning and empirical proof. Show me yours.

Regarding the watch analogy, the point is that you simply can't connect a watch to "God must have created everything." It doesn't work - there's no connection between the two, as it's clearly evident that the watch is being made by natural processes. There's nothing mystical about it. Evolution develops apes, which develops humans, which develops watches. Watches aren't created miraculously from nowhere. And the fact that they can't self assemble as nothing with the obvious ability of chemical compounds and living things to self assemble.

Show me where in the world living things are spontaneously assembled from nothing.

Originally posted by C'jais
Show me where in the world living things are spontaneously assembled from nothing.

Wait did you just contradict yourself? Didn't the universe assemble spontaneously from nothing according to evolutionists?

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Wait did you just contradict yourself? Didn't the universe assemble spontaneously from nothing according to evolutionists?

According to evolutionists? No.

You apparently still don't get that you can believe God created life on earth, God controls the direction evolution is taking and that evolution isn't the opposite of Christianity.

How would you react if I told you that nearly 80% of all Christians take evolution as a fact? That the pope does? That it in no way makes your beliefs invalid, except the Creationistic ones.

Ok C'jais I see your point now. I agree that evolution could be a work of God BUT I also believe in Genesis which I BELIEVE contradicts evolution because Adam names all the animals. It is a very difficult concept for a Christian who is still searching. BUT, do you believe that they're is a God? The whole point of the thread was "The History of the Universe". If they're was a big bang, God did it. This is what I believe. We've kind of fallen away from that subject and into another debate in which there is no "winner".



I am the first to admit, that though I may not sound like it in my posts, I am still wrestling with the concept.

Just popping in.


The term "Christian" isn't always what some people mean. Awhile back, any Catholic was called a Christian, for example.

The "Christian" most of us are talking about are the true Christians. The ones who believe in God, Christ's blood, and the Holy Trinity.

Also, all because someone says they are a Christian, doesn't always mean they are. I've had people my entire life telling me they were Christians, but they were never saved. People get the wrong idea what Christian means.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
I agree that evolution could be a work of God

Wait. Go no further. Hold on to this.

It could, couldn't it? God created everything. God created nature, no? God created evolution. Why do you feel like you have to defend some absurd theory when the answer is right in front of your face: Everything ties so well together because God made it. Isotope dating is not an insult to God, or a way to lead his followers astray - it's a part of nature. God is in nature.

When God made the Big Bang, there was light. When God made the first life on earth, there was life. When God made man what they are today, Adam was created. It's all metaphorical.

A time has come to stop viewing the Bible in a "take-no-prisoners" literalistic way. It's a work of art, and art can be understood on many levels. The most crude and primitive of them is to take it as what meets the eye at the fleeting glance - the purely literal way. Just as an abstract painting is rubbish to those who don't see the depth in it, so is creationism bland and irresponsibly false to those that translate it the petty literal way.

BUT, do you believe that they're is a God? The whole point of the thread was "The History of the Universe". If they're was a big bang, God did it.

God could have made the Big Bang. God could have seeded life on earth. God could manipulated his creation to his vision and end. God can always be there.

One problem with that theory

and the evening and the morning were the first day


a total of 6 days to create
7th He rested.

Now, 1 "day" back then couldn't be millions of years...because of that "and the evening..." sentence. Now, by using your own science that you say in infallible, the earth could NOT have slowed down that long (to prolong one day to a million years), or the orbit would totally screw up. SO...the evening and the morning WERE the first DAY.



Only way you can say He used evolution to create the world is by not believing what the Bible says...which is His Word.

There you have it

:)


Don't bother asking me any questions...I'm just dropping by.

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
Now, 1 "day" back then couldn't be millions of years...because of that "and the evening..." sentence. Now, by using your own science that you say in infallible, the earth could NOT have slowed down that long (to prolong one day to a million years), or the orbit would totally screw up. SO...the evening and the morning WERE the first DAY.

Wh-wha?

The days mentioned are metaphorical. Do you really believe in physical "doors" in the firmament as well? I'd never, ever try to compare the "days" to units of time. It wouldn't make any sense.

Don't bother asking me any questions...I'm just dropping by.

Oh, it doesn't exactly work that way :)

There's no "I'm just dropping by, don't bother replying to my posts"-immunity here, that renders your statements invulnerable.

Fine.

If it said "day" I might not take it as a day

but it says

"the evening and the morning were the first day"

I'm saying, it HAD to be an actual DAY...because if one DAY in that instance was a million years, the earth (according to your infallible science) would fly out of it's orbit and who knows...get sucked into the sun.

so that proves (proving itself now, I'm saying..grr how do I say this. I'm not saying it's proof, but according to itself..what it is saying is an actual day)

Originally posted by C'jais

Regarding the watch analogy, the point is that you simply can't connect a watch to "God must have created everything." It doesn't work - there's no connection between the two, as it's clearly evident that the watch is being made by natural processes. There's nothing mystical about it. Evolution develops apes, which develops humans, which develops watches. Watches aren't created miraculously from nowhere. And the fact that they can't self assemble as nothing with the obvious ability of chemical compounds and living things to self assemble.

Show me where in the world living things are spontaneously assembled from nothing. [/B]

Well, first of all, apes aren't thought to be the ancestors of humans(see 15 Answers to creationist nonsense, SCIAM, I believe its been mentioned here a lot) secondly, if there isn't a creator then you're stuck in a question of where the materials for that watch came from, unless you believe the Sci-Fi versions.
Also,
Originally posted by C'jais

You apparently still don't get that you can believe God created life on earth, God controls the direction evolution is taking and that evolution isn't the opposite of Christianity.

How would you react if I told you that nearly 80% of all Christians take evolution as a fact? That the pope does? That it in no way makes your beliefs invalid, except the Creationistic ones.[/B]

But isn't the argument over whether or not you believe that some inteligent being, whether God, Aliens, or a hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue, something made the Universe, or the opposite veiw that it was a complete random coincidence, with no help by an intelligent being in our creation. It doesn't matter what your personal religous or theological beliefs are, the question was whether or not you thought an intelligence helped to create us. I agree with you 100% Cjais on the fact that evolution isn't the opposite of Christianity, but I don't believe that humans can come from fish(or ameobas, or whatever anyone believes). Can we set aside our personal descrepincies in our beliefs on what God we believe in, or what created us, and have arguments over why creationism can or can't be true?

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
I'm saying, it HAD to be an actual DAY...because if one DAY in that instance was a million years, the earth (according to your infallible science) would fly out of it's orbit and who knows...get sucked into the sun.

Why would it do this? You haven't explained why, yet.

Stop making the assertion that a day in the Bible context is meant to be a single unit of time. A day meant time has passed.

It makes no sense for God to operate in terms of night and day, since if he's God, he's everywhere and thus night and day doesn't exist to him. Do we agree he made the terms "night" and "day" to help humans understand him, even though it's not really true? Because, as we know, night and day are as relative as they get.

so that proves (proving itself now, I'm saying..grr how do I say this. I'm not saying it's proof, but according to itself..what it is saying is an actual day)

No, the Bible cannot prove itself. You're the one who's using circular reasoning to make your head and the earth spin.

Originally posted by Psydan
Well, first of all, apes aren't thought to be the ancestors of humans(see 15 Answers to creationist nonsense, SCIAM, I believe its been mentioned here a lot)

We have a common ancestor in apes, yes.

secondly, if there isn't a creator then you're stuck in a question of where the materials for that watch came from, unless you believe the Sci-Fi versions.

And what makes you think you aren't stuck with the same question? The only answer we know for sure right now, is that we honestly don't know.

Creator or non-creator, these are still just postulations until we've identified what it really is.

But isn't the argument over whether or not you believe that some inteligent being, whether God, Aliens, or a hyper-intelligent shade of the color blue, something made the Universe, or the opposite veiw that it was a complete random coincidence, with no help by an intelligent being in our creation. It doesn't matter what your personal religous or theological beliefs are, the question was whether or not you thought an intelligence helped to create us.

What we're discussing here, if you somehow managed not to see it, is whether creationism is fact or not.

Again: I don't care if God made the Big Bang. I don't care if God made the first bacteria and afterwards mutated and evolved them to his needs. What I do care about is that the Biblical Genesis isn't fact. It isn't, no matter how much you believe in a holy text.

Again: We've presented positive proof of evolution. You still need to present positive proof of the biblical genesis. It doesn't help to present dating constructs and state "Because the earth is young, our theory must be the right one". It doesn't work, you can't prove the connection, much as I can't state "Because the earth is old, my theory must be right." Try to debunk our dating methods, try to debunk science all you want - in the end you won't be right simply by having done this.


but I don't believe that humans can come from fish(or ameobas, or whatever anyone believes).

It's not about believing fact. Do you believe in the theory of gravity as well? The theory of relativity?

Can we set aside our personal descrepincies in our beliefs on what God we believe in, or what created us, and have arguments over why creationism can or can't be true?

Which is exactly what we're doing.

Obviously those Creationist Scientists out there that take a view of the Bible in some cases being metaphoric, use the Genesis text to desribe what is in essence a logical six step sequence to the creation of life on earth.

They use eras to describe the days, being more of a metaphorical description of how events happened. If you fit this into how scientists describe the creation of the Earth, it all fits.

How did they know this back 2000 or more years ago, I do not know. You want a mystery, work out how ancient civilisations had enough of an understanding in science to write how the earth was created.

Originally posted by BCanr2d2
They use eras to describe the days, being more of a metaphorical description of how events happened. If you fit this into how scientists describe the creation of the Earth, it all fits.

I dunno... creating light before the source of light itself? Creating plants that require photosynthesis before the sun was created?

How did they know this back 2000 or more years ago, I do not know.

I'll let you in on a secret: They're no more right than my viking myths. But it's still art.

Originally posted by C'jais
Why would it do this? You haven't explained why, yet.

Stop making the assertion that a day in the Bible context is meant to be a single unit of time. A day meant time has passed.

Genesis 1:3 And God siad, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he seperated the light from darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness He called 'night." AND THERE WAS EVENING, AND THERE WAS MORNING - THE FIRST DAY

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Genesis 1:3 And God siad, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he seperated the light from darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness He called 'night." AND THERE WAS EVENING, AND THERE WAS MORNING - THE FIRST DAY

Night and day are relatives. To the Inuits, half the year is one big day, and the other half is one big night.

It's flat out impossible to state that "When there's light, it's day - when there's darkness it's night". To God, whom I assume hovers in orbit of Earth, there'd be no night and day. To the Inuits, it'd make no sense to speak of night and day since their days and nights are pretty damned long to say the least.

There's always light as long as the stars are here, and there's always darkness as long as something blocks that light. Which means the concepts of day and night are as relative as they can possibly get.

Just as God can't label "Light is good", because light actually kills certain lifeforms, and oxygen is toxic to others as well.

Conclusion: Either God is an abstract invented by tribespeople, or He seriously has no clue WTF he was talking about at that time.

No offense to you C'jais, but do you find discussing "God" comical? You say you assume he hovers above the Earth in Orbit, that sounds like a joke. I have a few friends who are athiests, we argue alot, I know the deal..just wondering..

And um, what do you mean by God has no clue as to what he is talking about? Do you mean the people who wrote that section of the Genesis have no clue what they're talking about?

Originally posted by Pnut_Master
No offense to you C'jais, but do you find discussing "God" comical? You say you assume he hovers above the Earth in Orbit, that sounds like a joke.

I meant it in all seriousness. Where else would he be? Hiding in the grass?

And um, what do you mean by God has no clue as to what he is talking about? Do you mean the people who wrote that section of the Genesis have no clue what they're talking about?

Read what I just wrote one more time.

Cjais, you're still missing the point of this. We respect your belief that evolution is true. It is a belief, because you simply cannot prove that humans evolved from amoebas. I think we can all agree on that, right?

And you still haven't explained irreducible complexity. Next point: If there is a design, a very carefully crafted universe that is, by all appeareance, specifically engineered to support life. Now, take into account things like the known fact that the Big Bang, however, whenever it happened, had happened at a rate less than one percent faster than it did - we wouldn't be here. The universe would have expanded to fast for anything to ever form from gravity and the like; motion would have simply been too great. Less than one percent slower, and we wouldn't be here either: the universe would have collapsed back in on itself almost instantaneously. And there are thousands of other variables just as critical to the existence of any life - much less life as fragile as that of humanity. That's called the anthropic principle, and everyone knows it exists - not just Christians.

So what we ultimately come down to is that, regardless of how God created us, He clearly did. I personally cannot see that you've proved evolution more than anything else. Isometric dating is reliable in that it agrees with what we want it to. And those "dating constructs" you're so fond of referring to aren't just constructs. Remember the hoaxes - the ones that they dated as being thousands, some of them millions of years old - and proved to be wrong. Those weren't Christians trying to disprove anything; those were evolutionists trying to date what they thought was a real fossil. So how is it that when Christians do it, it is a giant conspiracy, but when evolutionist scientists get crazy dates, it's just a mistake in the dating sytem that one, random time?

Unless we invent a time machine (which is extraordinarily improbable), we cannot know conclusively either way. It still comes down to what you believe. I happen to beleive that Genesis is right; you can't prove it's not. Just as I cannot conclusively prove you wrong. Which is where this went wrong; it should have been a rational debate and instead has turned into a mud-throwing argument. If we are going to continue, let's do it right. No more "get the **** out". Which I know most of us haven't done, but you get the point.

I'm trying REEALY hard not to think of yourself as stupid here.

I'm not saying the BIble proves itself...I'm SAYING, since you are taking the scripture and saying a day was a million years, since YOU ARE TAKING THE SCRIPTURE, THE SCRIPTURE IS SAYING

the evening and the morning


which means an actual DAY. Now you will say "but a day could be one FRILLION GAZILLION years" but since you are working with your "infallible" science, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the eart to have a "frillion gazillion years" day...because how do we have days? The earth orbits the sun, correct? Now....if a day lasted 43769269247643786034986734076892470689402376734890 67023849674384375348259656464212342165107452374575 38067237697436897349673549678493675908374028967403 89679437634768342672231233612125214356426754628754 69742389672340673412687375462875469742389672340673 41268736784967893761389678490367849678237697436897 34967354967849367590837402896740389679437634768342 675462875469742389672340673412687367849678 hours of standing still....don't you think the earth is going to be screwed up, and pulled into the sun by gravity? What keeps the earth from getting pulled in, that's right, the ORBIT......having days and nights!


I'm saying, according to ITSELF (The Bible), since you are taking something from it and saying something about it, the 6 days it took to created was.... SIX days.


man..I don't get why it's so hard to understand such elementary concepts.

Originally posted by Master_Keralys
It is a belief, because you simply cannot prove that humans evolved from amoebas. I think we can all agree on that, right?

I can prove we descended from a common ancestor to apes. I can prove all life didn't exist simultaneusly at one point in history. I can prove evolution happens on a daily basis right now. I can prove the earliest forms of life were very primitive and gradually evolved to the currents forms.

Now, take into account things like the known fact that the Big Bang, however, whenever it happened, had happened at a rate less than one percent faster than it did - we wouldn't be here. The universe would have expanded to fast for anything to ever form from gravity and the like; motion would have simply been too great. Less than one percent slower, and we wouldn't be here either: the universe would have collapsed back in on itself almost instantaneously. And there are thousands of other variables just as critical to the existence of any life - much less life as fragile as that of humanity. That's called the anthropic principle, and everyone knows it exists - not just Christians.

What is this meant to prove? That the chance that we're here is very slim indeed? I agree on that.

Give me a link to the site you got this from.

Isometric dating is reliable in that it agrees with what we want it to.

It obviously does not. You think scientists are specifically "crafting" the numbers they get? That they invent the results?

And those "dating constructs" you're so fond of referring to aren't just constructs.

Why don't you show me one that isn't. Show me one I haven't refuted by now.

Remember the hoaxes - the ones that they dated as being thousands, some of them millions of years old - and proved to be wrong.

Such talk again. Similar to "the fact" that human footprints are found alongside dinosaur ones? These footprints never happened - it's a myth.

but when evolutionist scientists get crazy dates, it's just a mistake in the dating sytem that one, random time?

Yet it obviously is, when it's possible to date with several different methods and achieve the same result. And not just radioactive dating methods, glacial and wood dating gives the same result. Fantastic.

What's even more remarkable, is that it's possible to predict the results that these several different dating methods spit out, based on which layer and where it was found.

So state once again with certainty that these one-time occurances somehow invalidates the entire principle of isotope dating.

Which is where this went wrong; it should have been a rational debate and instead has turned into a mud-throwing argument. If we are going to continue, let's do it right. No more "get the **** out". Which I know most of us haven't done, but you get the point.

And while you're still whining how this debate is going down the drain with each post you make, I'm trying hard to get it back on track.

Why don't you present some positive proof of the Genesis, and get to work on the questions I still need answered (some posts back).

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
I'm trying REEALY hard not to think of yourself as stupid here.

Thank you. And I'm trying reeeeally hard not to think of you as deliberately trying to steer away from my unanswered questions and logic.

I'm not saying the BIble proves itself...I'm SAYING, since you are taking the scripture and saying a day was a million years

Stop right there. I never said that. I said the exact opposite. Very well, continue if you must.

the evening and the morning

which means an actual DAY.

And by stating this, you also claim that the years on the poles consists of fewer days than ours, since winter is one long night where the sun never rises, and the summer is one long day where it never sets.

Now you will say "but a day could be one FRILLION GAZILLION years"

Hold on. I never said that either. I'm now stating once again that I said the exact opposite, but since you're so convinced, quote me.

Now....if a day lasted [Humongous number edited out] hours of standing still....don't you think the earth is going to be screwed up, and pulled into the sun by gravity?

Ahh - I think I get it now. So when I said that Inuits and whatnot have days that last longer than we've ever experienced outself, you assumed I meant the earth was standing still. Am I right?

Clearly, your understanding of basic astronomy fails you here, as you don't even know what causes days and nights, and how they're completely dependant on where you are on the earth.

I'm saying, according to ITSELF (The Bible), since you are taking something from it and saying something about it

I am taking something from it and saying something about it? Errr.... And why does this make me open to illogical attacks on my intelligence?

You said

"No, the Bible cannot prove itself."

and now you just said

"Stop right there. I never said that. I said the exact opposite."

You're changing what you say. Make up your mind already


What causes our "evening and mornings"? The orbit around the sun. Sun goes up, sun goes down, sun goes up, sun goes down.

Now, if the Bible's "day" was a million years, the earth would have to had STOPPED turning (well, xtremely slowed down, without any change noticable except for maybe a few feet per 5,000 years?)...but it showes in itself the day was in fact, a day by showing and evening and the morning.

Go outside, look at the sun go up, look at the sun go down...it doesn't change. Now, if the sun were to go up, and stay up for the rest of yoru life...well...you're life wouldn't be that long because in order for the sun to stay in "position", the earth would actually stop rotating totally. Could you imagine what would happen to the earth if that happened for even a few months (ignoring the fact that gravity would drag the earth away first)? The light side would be scorched, and the dark side would have no sunlight and die off....so saying "evening and the morning" was a million years is out of the question.

Re-cap...what makes an evening and the morning? The earth rotating and orbiting around the sun. True, some evenings and mornings may LOOK different than other places on the earth, but they still have the same evening and morning.

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
You said

"No, the Bible cannot prove itself."

and now you just said

"Stop right there. I never said that. I said the exact opposite."

You're changing what you say. Make up your mind already

Ooooh... quoting out of context - how I just love that.

No. I said the Bible could not prove itself, because that'd be circular reasoning. And now I'm saying you quoted me out of context (more than once) with regards to me saying the days should be taken for years.

Now, I understand the rest of what you posted, but as I said before, it makes no sense to see the "days" as literal days.

When I said it should be taken as a period of time having passed, I meant it. Let's see - how would a few tribespeople try to condense the history of the world as they knew it into laymen's terms? By writing -"A few days passed and God made the animals." How on earth could you get the idea that it meant literal days? That's nonsense, much as you can see it's equally moronic if I write "3 days passed and I made all the killer whales on earth. Then, 5 days after that, I made all the water on the planet for them to live in". If people start believing in that horsedung, they should get a psychic treatment, fast.

because it said

"and the evening and the morning were the first day"

the earth doesn't suddenly speed or nor slow down "everyonce in awhile"

If it just said "It was the first day", I understand what you're saying, but it gives you a window of time...an evening and a morning.

An evening and a morning doesn't change. It may look different at differnt parts of the world, but it does not change. The earth simply could not survive with pure darkness / pure light over a long period of time.

Put it this way, do you actually think a morning is a week long?

Btw, in the Biblical times, people were quite intelligent, they weren't "cavemen", as some people think.

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
The earth simply could not survive with pure darkness / pure light over a long period of time.

Put it this way, do you actually think a morning is a week long?

Go live on the North Pole for a year.

Btw, in the Biblical times, people were quite intelligent, they weren't "cavemen", as some people think.

I never said cavemen - I said tribespeople. Tribespeople who couldn't fathom the idea that the earth was bigger than they could see. People who thought the earth was flat, because they had no way to tell otherwise. I'd be stupid living in that age as well, not having modern science at my disposal.

Originally posted by C'jais
Go live on the North Pole for a year.

And notice that the North Pole is what... wait... its all ice? What no life can live there on its own without bringing thousands of pounds of gas for heat? Hmmm...

Originally posted by C'jais
I never said cavemen - I said tribespeople. Tribespeople who couldn't fathom the idea that the earth was bigger than they could see. People who thought the earth was flat, because they had no way to tell otherwise. I'd be stupid living in that age as well, not having modern science at my disposal.

Umm C'jais, technically, everyone in the world right now fits in as a tribesmen. Does that make us stupid? I think not.

Evidence the creator of all life wasn't very "Intelligent" at all:

First off, why oh why did he make something as malevolent as viruses and HIV and not even tell the people at that time in the Bible? Better yet, why didn't he tell him that HIV would evolve thousands of years after their time?

Human embryos have tails and gill slits. Why would a creator make them this peculiar way?

Why do we have vestigial, but non-functioning remains of tails?

Why does the hair at the back of our necks stand up when we're scared, similar to other fur-covered animals? Cats and dogs use it as a warning sign of aggresion, but on us, it's completely useless in that regard.

Wisdom teeth. Why would a creator give us more teeth than could fit in our jaw?

Our little toes. They're useless. We don't use them in walking, and if we lost them, they wouldn't hinder our mobility in any way. Kids notice right away that monkeys really have four hands . A fifth digit is pretty useful if you're scrambling through branches (and secondarily manipulating objects). Our little fingers are truly useful and probably in no danger of disappearing. But we quit climbing in trees with our rear "hands" and they became feet - which explains why they have useless fifth digits.

Ever notice the thing hanging down your dog's, cat's or tiger's leg? It's called a dewclaw, and is completely useless, much as our little toes. In fact, it's sometimes so much in the way that it's removed. What could it possibly mean except a useless fifth toe in the process of being naturally selected out, and getting smaller and smaller to the point where it won't even be there anymore?

We have five fingers. So do all other mammals. Curious. All other mammals have five digits per limb, or the vestigial remains thereof, or we can trace the gradual shrinkage and loss of digits through the fossil record (as with horses). But the principle remains: Mammals have five digits- even when there's no good reason. Why should whales have the bones of exactly five digits buried in their flippers? Why should bats have wings seeming awkwardly stretched over exactly five fingers? Same old song: the commonality of five digits among the mammal family makes sense only if we are all descendants of a five-digited ancestor.

Why do snakes have useless remains of hips?

If hemoglobin were designed by God, it was designed to have far too much affinity for carbon monoxide. This great affinity has resulted in countless deaths.
Carbon monoxide is a colorless and odorless gas. This is, if anything, an even nastier bit of "design." At the very least, carbon monoxide could have been given a smell to help warn us (unless the Designer was constrained by the laws of chemistry--surely no impediment). It remains one of life’s traps for the unwary, with its victims often being infants in poorly ventilated winter homes. Or perhaps it is just one of evolution’s quirks, a chance attraction which natural selection has not eliminated because there is too little selection pressure against it. Evolution can play seemingly malicious tricks (think about it: the possibility of carbon monoxide poisoning is such a recent development in our evolutionary history that we have acquired no ability to detect it), but could a Perfect Designer?

Why do dolphins have genes that code for smell receptors? They have no noses, they cannot smell. Perhaps they were once descendants of a land-living species that returned to the sea?

Why do we need to have vitamin C in our diet when dogs can make it themselves? Surely God could have done the same for humans.

The Plantaris muscle. In the monkey it is a useful muscle which causes all the digits to flex at once, and thus is useful in swinging from trees by the feet. In the human it is atrophied, may be absent, and does not even reach the toes, but disappears into the Achilles tendon. There is no sensible reason for its existence in the human, except a common ancestry with monkeys.

Now, get to work and answer this. Just some of it, though. I can always give you more if you're interested.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
And notice that the North Pole is what... wait... its all ice? What no life can live there on its own without bringing thousands of pounds of gas for heat? Hmmm...

Try Greenland instead. The same day-night dilemma, slightly better living conditions. People have lived on Greenland for thousands of years now. They don't need gas to survive.



Umm C'jais, technically, everyone in the world right now fits in as a tribesmen. Does that make us stupid? I think not.

Technically, you haven't presented any logical inference that we fit in as tribesmen.

I've gotta admit C'jais, the "Evidence the creator of all life wasn't very "Intelligent" at all" post had alot of nice information.. How it proves that the "Creator of all life" isn't intelligent is beyond me. I see that post as a great way to prove that evolution is a fact.

Originally posted by Pnut_Master
I see that post as a great way to prove that evolution is a fact.

Thank you.

I remember now, you're one of the cool Christians - one of those who feel evolution doesn't invalidate or violate the concept of God and the Bible, right?

All the more power to you.

Originally posted by C'jais
Technically, you haven't presented any logical inference that we fit in as tribesmen.

Here is the definition for tribe:

1. A unit of sociopolitical organization consisting of a number of families, clans, or other groups who share a common ancestry and culture and among whom leadership is typically neither formalized nor permanent.

2. A political, ethnic, or ancestral division of ancient states and cultures, especially:
Any of the three divisions of the ancient Romans, namely, the Latin, Sabine, and Etruscan.
Any of the 12 divisions of ancient Israel.
A phyle of ancient Greece.

3. A group of people sharing an occupation, interest, or habit: a tribe of graduate students.

4. Informal. A large family.

Sounds a lot like humans nowadays.

Originally posted by Reborn Outcast
Sounds a lot like humans nowadays.

That's abusing the word.

The point is not that they were tribespeople dammit - the point I was desperately trying to make is that they were ignorant compared to us. No way around it.

And FFS, stop practicing these linguistic acrobatics - how would you feel if I blatantly ignored the point of your post and blasted your out-of-context quotes to hell and back for not making it clear enough, when I knew full well that I got it?

Gah.

Unforunately it seems as if this thread has gone way off topic ;)
The name of this thread: "History of the Universe" is so freaking vague, was it meant to be that way O_o?

Originally posted by Pnut_Master
Unforunately it seems as if this thread has gone way off topic ;)
The name of this thread: "History of the Universe" is so freaking vague, was it meant to be that way O_o?

The title is vague, yes, but I think people have got the gist of what it's about now ;)

It's not off topic yet, but certain people are working their way towards it. I've presented two minor Redwings of unrefuted facts and evidence.

I'm willing to go on with this, if we drag the topic back to refuting theories instead of arguing about the oh-so-apparent uselesness of this thread and how none of us are going to win. Come on.

I never said that you called them cavemen...there you go again, picking up stuff that isnt there and discussing it.


Why did He do all of that? Because He can? Why do I like vanilla coke, and I like Cherry Dr. Pepper, but I don't like Cherry Coke that much, and I hate Vanilla Dr Pepper? Makes no sense to you maybe, but I do it.

Nothing you stated proved or disproved anything, and according to what that other person said (no me), it's spam. actually, it was quite pointless to post all of that.

yes, look at the north/south pole...I don't see a massive civilizaton or anything up there. Quite cold, ice. I don't see why you're trying to prove my point.

Originally posted by RpTheHotrod
Nothing you stated proved or disproved anything, and according to what that other person said (no me), it's spam. actually, it was quite pointless to post all of that.

It's evidence of evolution. Powerful evidence, since the best you can come up with, is the tired old "God did it because he could".

Since you don't think this disproves an "Intelligent" creator, go ahead and tell me why it is not evidence of evolution.

yes, look at the north/south pole...I don't see a massive civilizaton or anything up there. Quite cold, ice. I don't see why you're trying to prove my point.

Not a massive civilization, but the point is there people up there. And that the concepts of night and day has a completely different meaning to them than to those who apparently got the message from God.

You asked for answers, well here are some...

Originally posted by C'jais
Evidence the creator of all life wasn't very "Intelligent" at all:
[...]
Why do we have vestigial, but non-functioning remains of tails?


Well, if you look at any good anatomy book, you'll notice that there IS a purpose for these "non-functioning remains of tails". The "tailbone" has many important muscles attached to it that allow such things as going to the bathroom and giving birth, and we kind of need those things, so I'm guessing it's good that we have them.(Don't ask for a website, I got this out of my Bio book and from my Bio teacher)
Originally posted by C'jais
[...]
Why do dolphins have genes that code for smell receptors? They have no noses, they cannot smell. Perhaps they were once descendants of a land-living species that returned to the sea?
[/B]

YEAH!!! That makes perfect sense!!!
All of the land mammals just jumped into the water, and those that didn't drown decided that it was a good place to live, so they sprouted fins, (like all animals are able to do if they wish really hard) and changed into dolphins! ;) That sounds plausible, and a lot more likely than God (I'm being sarcastic, so don't quote me on this!).

Originally posted by C'jais
Evidence the creator of all life wasn't very "Intelligent" at all:

First off, why oh why did he make something as malevolent as viruses and HIV and not even tell the people at that time in the Bible? Better yet, why didn't he tell him that HIV would evolve thousands of years after their time?

Human embryos have tails and gill slits. Why would a creator make them this peculiar way?

Why do we have vestigial, but non-functioning remains of tails?

Why does the hair at the back of our necks stand up when we're scared, similar to other fur-covered animals? Cats and dogs use it as a warning sign of aggresion, but on us, it's completely useless in that regard.

Wisdom teeth. Why would a creator give us more teeth than could fit in our jaw?

Our little toes. They're useless. We don't use them in walking, and if we lost them, they wouldn't hinder our mobility in any way. Kids notice right away that monkeys really have four hands . A fifth digit is pretty useful if you're scrambling through branches (and secondarily manipulating objects). Our little fingers are truly useful and probably in no danger of disappearing. But we quit climbing in trees with our rear "hands" and they became feet - which explains why they have useless fifth digits.

Ever notice the thing hanging down your dog's, cat's or tiger's leg? It's called a dewclaw, and is completely useless, much as our little toes. In fact, it's sometimes so much in the way that it's removed. What could it possibly mean except a useless fifth toe in the process of being naturally selected out, and getting smaller and smaller to the point where it won't even be there anymore?

We have five fingers. So do all other mammals. Curious. All other mammals have five digits per limb, or the vestigial remains thereof, or we can trace the gradual shrinkage and loss of digits through the fossil record (as with horses). But the principle remains: Mammals have five digits- even when there's no good reason. Why should whales have the bones of exactly five digits buried in their flippers? Why should bats have wings seeming awkwardly stretched over exactly five fingers? Same old song: the commonality of five digits among the mammal family makes sense only if we are all descendants of a five-digited ancestor.

Why do snakes have useless remains of hips?

If hemoglobin were designed by God, it was designed to have far too much affinity for carbon monoxide. This great affinity has resulted in countless deaths.
Carbon monoxide is a colorless and odorless gas. This is, if anything, an even nastier bit of "design." At the very least, carbon monoxide could have been given a smell to help warn us (unless the Designer was constrained by the laws of chemistry--surely no impediment). It remains one of life’s traps for the unwary, with its victims often being infants in poorly ventilated winter homes. Or perhaps it is just one of evolution’s quirks, a chance attraction which natural selection has not eliminated because there is too little selection pressure against it. Evolution can play seemingly malicious tricks (think about it: the possibility of carbon monoxide poisoning is such a recent development in our evolutionary history that we have acquired no ability to detect it), but could a Perfect Designer?

Why do dolphins have genes that code for smell receptors? They have no noses, they cannot smell. Perhaps they were once descendants of a land-living species that returned to the sea?

Why do we need to have vitamin C in our diet when dogs can make it themselves? Surely God could have done the same for humans.

The Plantaris muscle. In the monkey it is a useful muscle which causes all the digits to flex at once, and thus is useful in swinging from trees by the feet. In the human it is atrophied, may be absent, and does not even reach the toes, but disappears into the Achilles tendon. There is no sensible reason for its existence in the human, except a common ancestry with monkeys.

Now, get to work and answer this. Just some of it, though. I can always give you more if you're interested.

You just said all of that is powerful evidence...

Those are questions, not evidence.

There you go again stating things that simply arn't true.