Evolution vs. Creation

[Drew Smith]

Charles Idemi wrote:

The eyes again, can never be deceived. No link of evolvement between humans and apes.

Scientists use their eyes to compare human fossils with the fossils that have been discovered. Scientists use their eyes to compare human DNA with the DNA of other great apes, such as chimpanzees and gorillas.

And because their eyes are open, they can see evolution.

Your eyes are shut. You choose to shut them.

Why are you afraid to see?

[wolverine]

Doc Wrote

"If your god is real, your free will will destroy you like mine did me."

I Have Given It Much Thought, And My Conclusions Are That " Free Will " Is The Only Way God Could Allow Us To Love Him, Without Force.

Like A Bird In A Cage...Let Him Go, If He Returns ?

I Feel Sorry For You Doc.....But I Know Your Heart Is Hardened And It Will Take An Huge Event To Release It. For Now, Hatred And Condemnation Are Your Best Friends. But, I Love Ya Like The New Age Doper You Are.....Nuttin But Love Doc....Im Sending Good Vibes To You....LOL

[Drew Smith]

Charles Idemi wrote:

Show me a monkey engineer and the likes?

Where did you get the idea that monkeys would be engineers if they were related to you?

You keep bringing up "engineers", but what does that have to do with evolution?

Or do you not understand that evolution leads to *different* species with *different* DNA which means *different* capabilities?

Do you simply not understand biology? Is that where the problem lies?

[JBH]

Did you hear about Obama speaking of economics and security,and foreign policy, how come they are so bad? That results that his words have never been real and never worked in reality, but they amount to all failures, and yet he is never able to support what he says with proving valid methods, position-stands and numbers--and that is why people are in big debts.

Obama is a big failure and that he is not to continue is the primary issue.
Continuance with Obama makes you doomed, and do you know that?

People of all dimensions and diversities, you have to do your jobs and figure out for yourselves.

You are asking a doctor to fully tell what illness about you without diagnosis, by telling the doctor you can't do many things, have very bad fever and cough only--on the surface alone, that you can't even eat and sleep, you need hospitalization based on knowing how bad your conditions are. The doctor needs to fully examine you first.

You know the ill economy and security are such very bad now with Obama, which can make you feel ill, don't you?

WHAT ELSE CAN YOU PEOPLE ASK FOR, AT THIS TIME SEEING ALL THE MESSES DONE BY OBAMA ALREADY?

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE WITH OBAMA ABOUT THE ECONOMY, SECURITY AND FOREIGN POLICY--PROVEN by subtraction of middle class and general people's wealth, and generating crisis in Libya,Egypt,and Pakistan and handling and so on, whereby had resulted violences against US security all over many places.

The only concern is that Romney can make the great policies with improvement in all areas, that people will have to build on faith and trust,with no need to ask too much, in order to make the possible turn around.

WHAT ELSE CAN YOU ASK FOR?
--JUST FAITH AND RELIABILITY will be good enough.

ROMNEY HAS TO TAKE A DETAIL LOOK AT THE CONDITIONS AND SHAPE OF THE ECONOMY AFTER becoming president in order to fully execute the fullness of all the aspects.
Romney should assure that social security,and welfare (until further evaluation for back-to-work programs) will not change much and other people's basic needs.

The cutting costs and expenses should be the matters of delegating to responsibilities of those to come up and provide with cost efficiency,in housing, transportation, etc. to finalize the can-do things as well.

They can assure you the numbers do work fine when all other numbers are known as well.
Then the economy basics will be vesting on encouraging private sectors with public to enhance.
They can be done with the numbers to be presenting as the guideline.

They can present an outline, without the full figures of areas to trim costs.

Romney needs specifics of the areas and (if) what Obama has done to work on upon taking presidency.

He can take a great look of them, and work from then on to remedy all which are needed,in all areas and situations,in the security and foreign policy aspects too.

What else can you ask for at this time because Obama has never been possible?

You should do your best and then and do not expect the Impossible Obama any more.

But you don't need to ask too much as Romney cannot have full everything, but will make affirmation of basic care and social security needs are there, etc.

YOU don't NEED TO ASK TOO MUCH AS EVERYTHING WILL SET IN PLACE BASED ON his known accomplishment, THE CREDIBILITY as reliability AND OF ROMNEY'S EXPERIENCE IN PRIVATE SECTOR ECONOMY in achieving good employment for many people.

But from what he says, he already gives you a lot of all the overall and outline of areas of economics.

What else can you do now?

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE WITH OBAMA --NO MATTER WHAT HE SAYS,AS ALL HAVE BEEN PROVEN that Obama is a big failure.

But continuance with Obama makes you doomed,and do you know that?

[Charles Idemi]

Drew Smith wrote:

So why didn't he create something that couldn't be deceived?
<quoted text>
Yes, you keep dodging the answer to that question. I guess it's because you can't figure out an answer.
One has to wonder why you worship such an incompetent deity.
<quoted text>
No.
See? I answer your yes-or-no questions, but you can't seem to answer mine.
You're such a fraud.

To you( a minority). God does not exist, then why the blame?

[Drew Smith]

Charles Idemi wrote:

Again, the difference are very clear. Humans invent concrete things like God unlike others.

Humans and other species are different.

Yes, we know that. I don't know why you keep saying it, since nobody has claimed that humans don't invent things.(Although I'm glad to see that you agree that humans invented God.)

Now, how does that show that humans and other great apes are not descended from a common ancestral population of great apes?

[Drew Smith]

See? I answer your yes-or-no questions, but you can't seem to answer mine.
You're such a fraud.

Charles Idemi wrote:

Fraud? An understatement.

I'm glad that you agree that my calling you a fraud is an understatement.

Charles Idemi wrote:

If you don't believe, then what has your beliefs, done to avert that?

What beliefs? Avert what?

[It aint necessarily so]

KJV wrote:

Nice, I work in science and earn just over.... Well not as much as you but most likely a lot more then most these atheist make added up!

I'm sure that you and Woofie both make much more than I do. We have been living on nothing but interest income since we retired to our Mexican mountain paradise a few years ago, and will until we hit Social Security age.

So I guess you and Woofie win. Your jobs sound very interesting.

Salud!

[Drew Smith]

Charles Idemi wrote:

To you( a minority). God does not exist...

How does it matter that atheists are a minority?

Majorities can never be wrong?

[Charles Idemi]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Nothing in science is "proved", but the evidence fully supports the evolution from the ancestral population of great apes to the current population of humans.
Here is that evidence (from talkorigins.org ):
***
"There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids. The transition is gradual enough that it is not clear where to draw the line between human and not.
Intermediate fossils include
Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.
Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.
Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.
Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones.(Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)
A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).
A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).
And there are fossils intermediate between these (Foley 1996-2004).
Creationists themselves disagree about which intermediate hominids are human and which are ape (Foley 2002).
There is abundant genetic evidence for the relatedness between humans and other apes:
Humans have twenty-three chromosome pairs; apes have twenty-four. Twenty-two of the pairs are similar between humans and apes. The remaining two ape chromosomes appear to have joined; they are similar to each half of the remaining human chromosome (chromosome 2; Yunis and Prakash 1982).
The ends of chromosomes have repetitious telomeric sequences and a distinctive pretelomeric region. Such sequences are found in the middle of human chromosome 2, just as one would expect if two chromosomes joined (IJdo et al. 1991).
A centromere-like region of human chromosome 2 corresponds with the centromere of the ape chromosome (Avarello et al. 1992).
Humans and chimpanzees have innumerable sequence similarities, including shared pseudogenes such as genetic material from ERVs (endogenous retroviruses; Taylor 2003; Max 2003)."

Humans can not evolve from what they are more than. Food for thought.

[Drew Smith]

Charles Idemi wrote:

Humans can not evolve from what they are more than.

Why not?

[It aint necessarily so]

a_visitor wrote:

Big Foot, I saw that on the History channel last night. I think it's a man in a suit.

Not any more.

From "Bigfoot hoax ends badly: Montana jokester hit, killed by car" at http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/... :

"A Montana man who was apparently trying to trigger a Bigfoot sighting by dressing up in a costume and darting out onto a dark stretch of highway was struck and killed by two passing cars, officials said."

Darwin Award nominee.

[Charles Idemi]

Drew Smith wrote:

You're the one claiming that he was an atheist. That means that you have the burden of proof. Provide the evidence.
<quoted text>
Nope. It's not *my* job to do research to support *your* claim. If you think the evidence is there, then go find it, copy it, and post it here.
If you don't, then we'll know that you are lying. Which will it be?
<quoted text>
I know exactly what I'm saying.
<quoted text>
In this context, it means looking for evidence that supports a claim.
<quoted text>
I'm in favor of its being done by those who make the claim that requires it.
You made the claim that your hero Albright was an atheist, but you can't seem to produce any evidence (based upon a written quote by Albright) that supports your claim.
So your claim fails.

WRONG!
He was an atheist. Is there any one to challenge that?

[Charles Idemi]

Drew Smith wrote:

You're the one claiming that he was an atheist. That means that you have the burden of proof. Provide the evidence.
<quoted text>
Nope. It's not *my* job to do research to support *your* claim. If you think the evidence is there, then go find it, copy it, and post it here.
If you don't, then we'll know that you are lying. Which will it be?
<quoted text>
I know exactly what I'm saying.
<quoted text>
In this context, it means looking for evidence that supports a claim.
<quoted text>
I'm in favor of its being done by those who make the claim that requires it.
You made the claim that your hero Albright was an atheist, but you can't seem to produce any evidence (based upon a written quote by Albright) that supports your claim.
So your claim fails.

The sources, are on wikipaedia and google.

[It aint necessarily so]

Thomas Robertson wrote:

Jonathan Wells made that story up.

Apparently, he made up "Jonathan," too. From Wiki: "John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells (born 1942) is an American author and advocate of intelligent design."

[Charles Idemi]

Drew Smith wrote:

So if Satan caused it, why would your god punish people? Shouldn't he just punish Satan and be done with it?
<quoted text>
Who created Satan?

Interesting!!!
So, you now believe that, God created all things. What a farce.

[Drew Smith]

I'm in favor of its being done by those who make the claim that requires it.
You made the claim that your hero Albright was an atheist, but you can't seem to produce any evidence (based upon a written quote by Albright) that supports your claim.
So your claim fails.

Charles Idemi wrote:

WRONG! He was an atheist. Is there any one to challenge that?

I already challenged your claim. That means that you have to produce evidence to support your claim.

Provide a quote written by Albright where he said that he was an atheist.

Do you accept the challenge or do you withdraw your claim?

Your choice.

[Drew Smith]

Charles Idemi wrote:

The sources, are on wikipaedia and google.

Great! Go to them and come back here with a quote written by Albright himself where he said that he was an atheist.

Or withdraw your claim.

Your choice.

[Charles Idemi]

Drew Smith wrote:

So if Satan caused it, why would your god punish people? Shouldn't he just punish Satan and be done with it?
<quoted text>
Who created Satan?

According to you, there is no God. Why then, the blame?

[Drew Smith]

So if Satan caused it, why would your god punish people? Shouldn't he just punish Satan and be done with it?
<quoted text>
Who created Satan?

Charles Idemi wrote:

Interesting!!!
So, you now believe that, God created all things.

No, I understand that *Christians*(among others) believe that their god created all things.

You don't believe that your god created all things? You're not a Christian?