What they won't say about Evolution.

Originally posted by Facefirst
That is an opinion. If that is what you believe, fine. More power to you.

Who talked about power here? I don't need power, I need God, it's the only thing I need. And the same with everyone else. Without that we don't exist. We'll evaporate in a puff of logics.

[Quote]I still have yet to see Darwin's theories shot down.

Ah, you mean that theory which is really not even a theory, which basically has layed the premise for letting the dragons into the sky? Dinosaurs are just a fancy new name for dragons. When they used to find those bones back in the days, they were dragons, not Dinosaurs. With the theories of Darwin et al birds are per ego definition: evolved dinosaurs with feathers. Who has managed to get up there all by themselves, without God's help or anyone's help but their own help and anility to kill and steal. You simply can't be a Christian and defend such a bogus "theory". It's policy, nothing else. Coldhearted calculations to foster a dream that the Dragon is really the good one. It's purely satanic. Just like the Catholic Church is pure satanism. Look at them. Read the book, then take a look at the Church. "Does it even remotely resemble the Right Thing" or "the Way of the Rightious"? Jesjuah said that if we were planning on getting our arses on one of them planes to Heaven, our rightiousness would have to heavier than that of the Pharicees. Now those people knew their Law. And to be rightious means to know the Law. If anyone of you ever get to see the pope and speak with him, please ask why he hasn't gone off, sold everything he owns and given the money to the poor. And if you ever meet Darwin among those dogs on the corner. Throw him a bone. It goes like this: A man once drowned in the ocean. Fish ate his body. The fish inherited the man's heart. A man caught the fish and served it to his family. The family inherited the man's heart. The man never really drowned. He just took a bath. Now he's everywhere. You become what you eat.

That being said, I know that theories are just theories until proven.

Yes, and that's why theories are always styled the way they are. They are meant to stay theories. It's just a method of thinking. Evolution is like flat Earth. It has no concept, just delusion and lack of True Spirit.

Originally posted by Facefirst
As I have stated previously:

We are of the animal kingdon.

I just have to break in here. No. There are billions of things that shows that we, humans, are as far from animals we can get. We are more gods actually. I have heared about people, humans, who are able to calculate pi in their heads to as many decimals as is possible to say in a lifetime. How many animals do you find who can even add two and two and understand what just happened? This example and billions more. Like our excellent motoric skills, combined with our excellent intelligence, our excellent sense of music and beauty in arts, our ability to be good and rightious, judge between right and wrong etc. We are god beings. We are created in his likeness and image. We master and throne above all corners of nature.

We are part of the Earth.

Yes, the crap that falls out of your onewaystreet is. And when you die, you you too become part of the Earth. The clay model didn't become Adam you know. God prolly destroyed that as soon as he had had it scanned. He is like that. Hates the idea of copies. He makes new things. He is creative. The clay model was made from the Earth. Adam, however, was made from Light. The Same Light God used to create all the animals too. The birds, the plants, everything. We are but walking, talking formulas on Life and the origin of beauty and intelligent design. And the really frustrating part is, that when science finally can proove Creation, faith in God and Creation is on a historic low. And among those who believe, nearly noone knows anything about what they believe. They often call that knowledge evil. Prolly because some angel said he was a serpent. Well, what if I told you that MOST angels have a serpent form? Not all serpents are evil you know. The staff of Mosjeh which he lended to Aaron in Egypt, became a serpent, which killed all the serpents the wizards of Egypt brought forth. Serpent means simply intelligence. Intelligence is hardly evil.

And for the rest of your post: The Catholic Church is EVIL! As plain and sinple as that. Good for you that you managed to get away. However, it's sad to see that they have succeeded in creating yet another "I hate God!" victim. Sadly this is how it works these days. And how it apparently always has worked

[Edited on 5-5-2004 by Camelop�rdalis]

Originally posted by amantine
On a side note, I don't think creationism is in conflict with either evolution or abiogenesis. God made amino acids come together in such a way that a first live form was made, thus creating the animals and the plants, etc. He could also have guided the evolution of a mammals into humans through selective mutations. This can never be proven, because there is no way to determine the difference between random mutations and guided mutations. Personally, I don't god has to be or should be included in any scientific theory, but if it helps you cope with the theory that has the most evidence supporting it, maybe you should include god in the theory for yourself.

that's beautiful, man. i totally agree.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
BEHAVE!
If you can't debate without insults, this thread will be removed.

How about looking at who is contributing insults instead of threatening to remove a very interesting topic because one little kid is unable to discuss in a mature way.

Silq, you should really try to read peoples posts.
You're not only missing peoples points, but also missing the sarcasm in their posts and it's almost hilarious sometimes.

You seem pretty agressive towards christians in general, why is this?
When Christians try to convince you of a God existing, maybe you should realize that they are not doing this to annoy you, but to try to help you find truth and reality.
Regardless of wether you agree with them, you should understand that they care enough about people like you to ignore your insults and remain in conversation with you. Would you do the same for them?

I pose this to Both sides, I think you can both be right!!.

I do belive GOD (insert Deity here) Has a Master plan.
The universe is to Mathamatical not to be pre designed.

But!! Why cant evolution be part of this plan. Just think about it, I saw some one mention programing before, take a simple concept like Object Oriented Prog.

You take a Parent Script and give it basics, In our Case Hydrogyn etc, (Star Dust) and then different things take this parent and add there own parameters which make it different than the Parent, right up until Stars, Different types of planets etc. Each Plaent forms different, and life, so have water, some dont, one with water add a new parameter etc.. LIFE!! , And this could go on forever until there are so many different things all being traced back to those stars.

Now doesnt that seem much more creative than, Creation. I would like to give GOD a little more credit than the Creation Story gives Him/Her/?

THe Story of creation, there have been many , the ones before the Torah are very diverse and also "told by GOD" Do these stories or Chariots from the Sky and other stories of this type hold any less evidence than the story of creation. YOu have about the same amount of proof for all.

I think it more likley to belive GOD set the Universe in motion, the part where Something Came from Nothing, with a plan to make the universe as diverse and dynamic as possible, not just this static world where he said "By the Power in me , ZAP here some clay and some ribs here ya go" Sounds alot like a folk tale and really not the most creative way to do it.

I give GOD much more credit than this. You should too.

OH also HOW THE HECK DID GOD USE THE Roman Calendar " And on Sunday he Rested" I would hope you see GOD is much more than these simple tales.

Originally posted by amantine
Right, retroviri are very species-dependant, which is logical, because they need a certain protein on the cellular membrane to enter a cell. Yes, there are viri that can attack multiple species, but only species that are very closely related. In fact, my guess is that if we would determine how close two species are related through checking how many viri can attack both species and we do this of every animal, we would first support for evolution. We only get primate or sometimes large mammal viri, not plants or fungi viri.

Someone here also metioned that abiogenesis can also be replaced with life from space. This theory is known as panspermia, but it doesn't solve the problem. Life has to have formed somewhere else, through abiogenesis. Why can't life here have formed through abiogenesis?

I've always wondered if creationists have a problem with microevolution. The direction microevolution takes a species depends on the environment. If you have two isolated populations in different environments and both microevolve into different directions, there's going to be a time where members of two species can no longer mate together. Two new species are born. Microevolution is a fact, it is has been shown in different experiments, including this one and an updated version. A scientist grew different clones of a E. Coli bacteria in a special environment (only a low amount of glucose). The different clones are now very different from their ancestors. They are 50% larger and are much better adapted to their environment. Imagine something like this happening in two different environments. Eventually the two colonies will no longer be able to mate.

On a side note, I don't think creationism is in conflict with either evolution or abiogenesis. God made amino acids come together in such a way that a first live form was made, thus creating the animals and the plants, etc. He could also have guided the evolution of a mammals into humans through selective mutations. This can never be proven, because there is no way to determine the difference between random mutations and guided mutations. Personally, I don't god has to be or should be included in any scientific theory, but if it helps you cope with the theory that has the most evidence supporting it, maybe you should include god in the theory for yourself.

Let me say this. I have studied evolution, creationism, abiogenesis, intelligent design, and many other solutions to the puzzle of life. I beleive in a form of creationism because I do not fall completely in line with the mainstream creationism because some of the idea's that they beleive in require you to just beleive in it which I will not do, I suppose you could call me a progressive Creationist. Anyways, evolution and abiogenesis go against the grain of modern science so much that it is as if they would require a miracle, an act of God if you will, to have happened at all.

BTW I will not argue with the fact of microevolution and do not have a problem with it. Microevolution has been proven as fact and you can see it happening on the other hand you cannot see Macroevolution happening. However, there has not ever been a case of microevolution in which the organism benefited from the change it has always been either neutral or harmful.

[Edited on 5-5-2004 by BlackJackal]

Originally posted by Kano
Religion is based on belief. Creation is a belief, it is not meant to be tested or analysed by Science. The very reason for religion is belief. Creation can never be backed up by science, if you wish to bring Science into an Evolution/Creation debate, there will always only be one solution. But that is not what Religion is about. I suggest the people who need to try and justify their Beliefs have a deeper problem with their faith. Something that subjective pseudoscience can not solve.

In no way does the idea of particles to people evolution meet the long accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transistions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past, and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but increasingly more the ideas used to backup evolution is becoming more and more far-fetched. Accordingly, evolutionists now decline opportunitites for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists. This is something that I do not understand because if evolution is such a solid fact why would you want to attack an idea that is supposdely not feasible.

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
But!! Why cant evolution be part of this plan.

Simply because modern evolution theory is an "alternative" to God. Evolution existing without any interferance whatsoever. No love, no nothing. Just brutal force, luck and a bunch of stuff which is impossible to proove. Don't get me wrong, God has enabled most ifnot all his creatures to adapt to new environments etc. But "there is nothing new under the Sun". That last Bible quote is one of the oldest examples of a precursor to the Laws of thermodynamics. Wonder if science has something more in common with Zionce..........

Originally posted by BlackJackal
BTW I will not argue with the fact of microevolution and do not have a problem with it. Microevolution has been proven as fact and you can see it happening on the other hand you cannot see Macroevolution happening. However, there has not ever been a case of microevolution in which the organism benefited from the change it has always been either neutral or harmful.

You didn't read those links in post to the work of Jenski, did you? Is it neutral or harmful for the E. Coli bacteria of his experiment that they can now use glucose, the only food source in their environment much more effeciently? No, it's good for them. Microevolution in different environments leads to macroevolution.

I think some evolutionists have stopped debating people who don't even bother to read the arguments the evolutionists provide. Some however, still want to continue debating, like the people at TalkOrigins.org and me.

Originally posted by Camelop�rdalis

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
But!! Why cant evolution be part of this plan.

Simply because modern evolution theory is an "alternative" to God. Evolution existing without any interferance whatsoever. No love, no nothing. Just brutal force, luck and a bunch of stuff which is impossible to proove. Don't get me wrong, God has enabled most ifnot all his creatures to adapt to new environments etc. But "there is nothing new under the Sun". That last Bible quote is one of the oldest examples of a precursor to the Laws of thermodynamics. Wonder if science has something more in common with Zionce..........

Yeah..... ummm right. Belief in Evolution does not equal no belief in God. That is an assumption on your part. (maybe god put those first cells together to form into the first being which evolved into....and so on and so on)

The only thing that separates man from animal is self awareness. Nothing more.

Originally posted by amantine
Cytochrome DNA is not morphologically related, because the order of the amino acids in a certain part of the protein does not change it function. This is allows us to look at genes that are not dependant on the physiology of the organism. There are many other genes like this for all the organisms, like ubichinon and DNA-synthase, and the number of the genes is even larger if you only want to look at relations within a certain group, like the mammals. You can look at the differences in the genes that code for hemoglobin or enzymes required for the myelinzation of the longer nerve-cells. We can also take a look at redundant genes or junk DNA. This is not related to the morphological features of the species.

We can also look at mytochondrial DNA. Mytochondria have seperate DNA, not related with the DNA of the organism. Although the form of the organism may favour certain versions of the enzymes used in the mytochondria, we can use the junk DNA of the mytochondria to check for similarities between species.

The abundance of so-called junk DNA in the genetic code has been offered by evolutionist, as it was by amantine, as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called pseudogenes. However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions.

As pointed out by Rachel Nowak in the Journal Science Febuary 4, 1994 edition page 608 in her article Mining Treasures from �Junk DNA� there isn�t much junk to DNA.

Enough genes have alreasy been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code.

It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the pseudogenes, have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the vestigial organs in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists.

At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model.

A good question to ask is Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the laws of thermodynamics.

DNA always undergoes some kind of change over long periods. In different environments with different selection factors, different mutation are positive and different are negative. Some species will develop in a different direction than others, depending on their environment (biogical and abiogical selection factors).

Different genes might tell different stories, not very different stories, but somewhat different stories. That's why we look at universal genes like the cytochrome DNA and retrovirus DNA, which is easily identifiable.

As I have said before there is absolutely no proof of positive mutations in correlation with an environment or not. Beneficial mutations are simply hypothesis of scientists that are certain that evolution is the way of the world. Positive mutations are a belief and have no place in observable science

Interesting, but not bizarre. It would be bizarre if we found that a cow is more related to a fungus of zygomyceta kind than to a horse. I do enough about these comparisons and the genes involved in the research, but I can guess that maybe they were caused by looking at genes related to morphology or that maybe the DNA comparison is sometimes better than the normal morphological ways of constructing trees.

Yes very interesting indeed. I guess my question is how far fetched would the DNA correlations need to be before you would believe that there is something to it?

The evolutionists are right and your argument does nothing to disprove it. You say heat, not energy, increases the entropy of a system. That is true. However, external energy can be used to lower the entropy of a system. See that I say energy and not heat? If energy couldn't be used to lower entropy, we would also not be able to build buildings, where we use energy to lower the entropy of a certain area and a certain groups of stones and glass.

Until some prebiotically plausible mechanism for capturing and channeling the available prebiotic energy into performing useful "biological" work is found the argument still stands because no chemical or amino acid has ever been proved to channel energy on its own.

Mutations can become a positive influence in combination with environmental conditions. You see, a random mutation can cause an enzyme to function completely different. This can be both good or bad, depending on the environmental conditions. Bad mutations are more common than good ones, but if a mutation occurs, the organism dies. Good mutations give the organism an advantage. Good mutations survive, bad ones die out. If new mutations give a certain enzyme a new function or changes it's old function, it can create new order.

Once again there have never been a case of an observable mutation that has had a positive outcome.

Originally posted by Camelop�rdalis
I just have to break in here. No. There are billions of things that shows that we, humans, are as far from animals we can get. We are more gods actually. I have heared about people, humans, who are able to calculate pi in their heads to as many decimals as is possible to say in a lifetime. How many animals do you find who can even add two and two and understand what just happened? This example and billions more. Like our excellent motoric skills, combined with our excellent intelligence, our excellent sense of music and beauty in arts, our ability to be good and rightious, judge between right and wrong etc. We are god beings. We are created in his likeness and image. We master and throne above all corners of nature.

Come on, biologically, humans are not special at all. The cells of humans are no different than the cells of pigs, rabbits or monkeys. All have a nucleus, endoplasmatic reticulum, ribosomes, mitochondria, lysosomes and the other standard animal organelles. The reproduction is exactly the same. The senses work exactly the same. The hair, the nails, the skin are all similar. It is quite difficult the see the difference between human and pig organs. If you give a pigs ten times his normal brain volume and a lot of free time, you'll be suprised what he can accomplish. We can even identify what parts of the human brain come from the reptile stage in evolution, what part from early mammals, etc. Human are just another animal. Thinking otherwise, is not facing the facts.

Originally posted by amantine
You didn't read those links in post to the work of Jenski, did you? Is it neutral or harmful for the E. Coli bacteria of his experiment that they can now use glucose, the only food source in their environment much more effeciently? No, it's good for them. Microevolution in different environments leads to macroevolution.

I think some evolutionists have stopped debating people who don't even bother to read the arguments the evolutionists provide. Some however, still want to continue debating, like the people at TalkOrigins.org and me.

Let me start by saying I appreciate your willingness to debate on this matter and always have. We are just two scientifically minded individuals that see science from two totally different view points. There is probably nothing short of a new species being born right in front of my eyes that will convert me to evolution and probably nothing short of God coming down from the sky and creating a new species that will convert you to creationism but its still great to hear your side of the story.

As far as the Jenski Work I will evaluate it now and report back soon. Thanks for the links.

Originally posted by BlackJackal
The abundance of so-called junk DNA in the genetic code has been offered by evolutionist, as it was by amantine, as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called pseudogenes. However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions.

As pointed out by Rachel Nowak in the Journal Science Febuary 4, 1994 edition page 608 in her article Mining Treasures from �Junk DNA� there isn�t much junk to DNA.

Enough genes have alreasy been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code.

It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the pseudogenes, have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the vestigial organs in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists.

At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model.

Let me adjust the term junk DNA to non-coding DNA. In what used to be called junk DNA some coding genes have been found. Non-coding DNA is morphologically independent. It doesn't matter what other function it has, if the shape or functioning of the creature is not changed the code of the DNA, we can use it for constructing reliable trees. Even if this turns out wrong, which I highly doubt, we still have the cytochrome and retrovirus DNA. Pseudogenes are non-coding DNA and can therefore also be used. Why? Because they don't influence the chance of survival for the organism.

A good question to ask is Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the laws of thermodynamics.

As I have said before there is absolutely no proof of positive mutations in correlation with an environment or not. Beneficial mutations are simply hypothesis of scientists that are certain that evolution is the way of the world. Positive mutations are a belief and have no place in observable science

Read my links to articles published in well-known magazines! Unless you think that organism that are better adapted to their environment are not a beneficial change, you are wrong.

Interesting, but not bizarre. It would be bizarre if we found that a cow is more related to a fungus of zygomyceta kind than to a horse. I do enough about these comparisons and the genes involved in the research, but I can guess that maybe they were caused by looking at genes related to morphology or that maybe the DNA comparison is sometimes better than the normal morphological ways of constructing trees.

Yes very interesting indeed. I guess my question is how far fetched would the DNA correlations need to be before you would believe that there is something to it?

If the DNA correlations show that two organism from different phylums (for animals) or divisions (for plants) are more closely related than two organisms from the same genus or family. Otherwise we may simply have been decieved by looks when we made our first trees without the help of DNA. I find the difference between phylums or divisions and genes or family large enough to show that there's something weird going on.

Until some prebiotically plausible mechanism for capturing and channeling the available prebiotic energy into performing useful "biological" work is found the argument still stands because no chemical or amino acid has ever been proved to channel energy on its own.

Amino acids don't have to channel that energy. They just have bump into eachother by random movements and form chains. It doesn't have to happen a lot. Once in every 100 million years is enough. When that first self-replicating chemical complex is made, it can simply use the energy of heat at first and of light or reduction of chemicals later to get the energy needed to make copies of itself.

Once again there have never been a case of an observable mutation that has had a positive outcome.

Yes, there has been a very well-documented case. Read my links to the work of Jenski.

Originally posted by Camelop�rdalis

Originally posted by Facefirst
That is an opinion. If that is what you believe, fine. More power to you.

Who talked about power here? I don't need power, I need God, it's the only thing I need. And the same with everyone else. Without that we don't exist. We'll evaporate in a puff of logics.

[Quote]

It is a figure of expression.
Don't take it literally....like the Bible.


.

Originally posted by Camelop�rdalis

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
But!! Why cant evolution be part of this plan.

Simply because modern evolution theory is an "alternative" to God. Evolution existing without any interferance whatsoever. No love, no nothing. Just brutal force, luck and a bunch of stuff which is impossible to proove. Don't get me wrong, God has enabled most ifnot all his creatures to adapt to new environments etc. But "there is nothing new under the Sun". That last Bible quote is one of the oldest examples of a precursor to the Laws of thermodynamics. Wonder if science has something more in common with Zionce..........

Like I said, You dont give GOD any credit, Story and All Stories like it do not make sense.
I have faith in GOD and I am a firm believer of Evolution.

I think at least compared Evolution is Much more plausable and Vanity is a Sin, We are not special , only the Chosen one are LOL =) J/k .

Have Faith GOD is there, he just is much more creative than the folk tale told in the bible.

Also (and I am no expert) But they found a direct DNA link to us and eariler versions of Us (at least thats what the Walking with Man series said on Discovery)

It is also very hard to beleive that the Majority 90% of Sceintific mind say it is what happend as well.

Until a better option with PROOF! is shown, it just makes much more sense.

[Edited on 5-5-2004 by ShiftTrio]

Many of todays scholars take Evolution as another way of backing up creationism...
For example, I ask 'Why does the kettle boil?'
Some people may say 'Because the heating element releases to the surrounding enough energy for the water molecules to break intermolecular bonds'
Others may say 'Because you turned it on'

This is a good way of looking at it. God created humans because he wanted to. His creation process was through evolution.

I'm not saying I support it myself, just that it is an alternative view point.

However, you need to look at how logical the evolution idea is.
Radiation hits the body. It ionizes, which incurs a change in the DNA, resulting in mutated DNA which MAY OR MAY NOT give benefical results. We see this alot in people suffering from radiation sickness, except that they are exposed to doses millions of times stronger than the background radiation, which would cause evolution (as well as the cause for Downe's Syndrom, there may be others but they dont come to mind).
A mutation in DNA is evolution. From here, it is then decided whether or not the DNA is passed on by natural selection aka survival of the fittest. For all we know, there may have been benefical DNA strands that were lost due to illness, starvation, etc.

The whole process is extremely logical, and if you can seriously doubt that evolution occurs, then you are a fool. However, the enlightened ones will see that evolution can be seen as 'alongside' creationism.

Thats exactly what I am saying

Originally posted by Facefirst
Yeah..... ummm right. Belief in Evolution does not equal no belief in God. That is an assumption on your part. (maybe god put those first cells together to form into the first being which evolved into....and so on and so on)

The only thing that separates man from animal is self awareness. Nothing more.

When did ever the scool pensum for science classes contain referances to God? If God is mentioned in those books, he is mentioned like an alternative, or perhaps a petty spice, just to fill out a couple of blank spaces. My Gopd is the greatest architect, he's not a poor window cleaner. Well, the great thing about God is infact that he could also show up as a window cleaner after he had first constructed the place. Maybe just to check that his window-cleaner-friendly-new-glass worked the way he planned it.

Does your science books talk of the most probable scenarios, which can soon be 100% prooved and even repeated as many times as possible after that? After inventions such as the computer, the electron microscope, that neat little genestrain xeroxer, the table of elements etc. After we made these discoveries, who can now not believe in a Creator? An intelligent Designer? Who infact has made all this stuff. Nooooo they have to continue believing what their predessessors believed in, as not to hurt their families etc. Collegues, societies, the old woman on the corner. Get a grip. Everything evolutionists have accused us creationists for through the last couple of hundred years, is now about to be slammed right back in their faces. With science! For Creation has always been science. You don't sincerely believe that God was a magican? He created all the species among other things. Exactly how he does it, I hope Man never understands fully, but atleast we know that it is highly complex stuff, and stuff which needs technology to be created or generated. At the same time God limited our lifespan to 120 years, at the time of the flood, God also either did something with the athmosphere, or something to our vision or brains. The rainbow became visible for us. These things can all be rationally explained using what we know today. But still it is debunked as bogus before the debate even started, because of the simple formulae: God=Church=Misbehaviour=Fascism=Wedontf'''''wantthat! Grow up, open your eyes, and instead of just listening and reading, try some thinking on your own. Add two and two for yourself, weigh the possibilities.

Okay this is a simple one. IF life on earth was strictly a function of evolution then please show how a Human is connected to a spider, or how about how a human is connected to a reptile or how about how a human is connected to a fly. So for you evolutionists who deny that at least SOME form of creation was required please provide for me a logical flow chart that allowed the evolution of ONE single organisim to self divide into totally seperate genus's of creatures. Each of which share no conclusive genetic trait in common.

IMO the world was started with KEY genus divisions in regards to living things. Whether animal (including insectoid) or plant. And from those primary divisions life slowly evolved and refined its self and either adapted or died off allowing for other variations to take its place.