Yes.  The irony is that you are the only person in this thread who didn't get what I said.

I think that would be a new species if that happened. What scientists have 'seen' in the fossil record is humans and monkeys sharing a common ancestor...We don't want to give out incorrect information when we are trying to prove which side of an argument is wrong by lying do we? So, I'm sure your statement about a monkey turning into a human being was simply a typo, right?

I'm not doing your homework for you, but, I'll get you started - do a Google search on: list of transitional fossils

Again, I implore you -- educate yourself about evolution before making statements like this. You are destroying any kind of cache you might have.

You realize that evolution is not a movement from the less-complex to the more-complex, right? Complexity can increase, but it isn't what evolution is about. Much of life is still very simple. Take planera or hydra or amoebas. Or fungus, for that matter. These are are relatively simple organisms, especially compared to the blue whale, as an example. So that fact that the fossils in a specific bed represent creatures of different levels of complexity does not indicate that evolution is somehow wrong.

As for the "missing link," you must understand that there aren't enough fossils in the world to represent every interesting specimen, every bit of genetic diversity. There are many "missing link" fossils, and every time a new type of fossil is found, it generally fits very neatly between two previously-known specimens.

Honestly, though, we are all potential transition fossils. Evolution doesn't stop. It doesn't have a goal. It's a process as continuous and inexorable and directionless as geologic uplift and erosion. So this "missing link" you are looking for is a ridiculous quest. It's like asking to fill in the light spectrum, one frequency at a time.

I'm not quite sure how the potential existence of God relates to him making the world in six days. Are you saying that if God exists, the Bible must be true? Why do you say that? Because you feel it in your heart? If that is so, then the Qu'uaran must be true, as many Muslims "feel it in their heart."

That means that anything we feel must be true, MUST BE TRUE. After all, humans aren't good at self-deception, and our emotions have always proven to be excellent guides to reality.

So, you believe in God based on a feeling? It seems you believe in a strict Biblical interpretation of God, based on the "god made the world in six days" remark.  How are you sure the Bible is true, even given the existence of God? Why not the Muslim God? Why not Brahma or Jupiter the Supreme God of Drink and Flatulence, Who farted the universe into existence, thereby clearing the room of all other Gods?

Evolution isn't about abiogenisis. That's a specific branch of biochemistry, whereas evolution cuts across almost all fields of biology and medicine, and even has strong implications for anthropology and psychology. So evolution will never answer the question of abiogenisis. That doesn't mean we'll never know; as I indicated in a previous post, we are close to being able to create life in the laboratory. If you are not too old, and you avoid accidents and terminal illness for another decade or so, you will live to see life created wholecloth in the laboratory.

As for the information stored in DNA, it's already fairly well understood. The fundamentals are based on (and have contributed greatly to) information theory, rather than strict biology. The origin of the information itself is governed by controlled information replication with limited variation in a feedback loop with the environment. It's really just that simple.

The origin of the energy? Which energy is that? Chemical? Radiant? Kinetic? Atomic? There are many kinds of energy in the universe. Do you mean the energy required to drive evolution? That's easy -- that comes from the radiant energy of the sun, ultimately from the atomic coupling of simple atoms into more complex atoms (atomic fusion).

Evolution doesn't strive to explain the world completely. Evolution merely describes the process by which genotypes change over generations, and the environmental feedback that culls certain phenotypes over variant phenotypes.

Most of the world once thought the sun revolved around the earth, and the earth was flat. Just because a belief is widespread doesn't make it correct.

Many atheists were once believers in one form of God or another. Many have experienced these moments of revelation. It's a bit disengenuous to claim we cannot understand your belief until we also accept it as true. That's like saying you can't imagine what burning alive feels like until you've been burned alive. Maybe it feels really good.

In the end, you are trusting your interpretation of an extremely subjective experience, for which there is no objective analogue. The mind is a terrible thing; it'll play tricks on you, and try to fit its internal experience into a framework which it understands. That is why Hindus tend to remain Hindu, even after experiencing a similar feeling; Muslims tend to stay Muslim. If there were an objective God, His revelations would drive individuals to a single belief, a unified understanding, instead of this divisive stew of disparate religions.

Excellent. This is the most rational thing you've said.

The truth will finally have the last word.

Ooooh.... scary!

I think he wants us to realize that we're going to burn in hell one day when god punishes us for believing in evolution.  Is that right, rev?  Now that you have run out of arguments, are you trying to scare us?

As Jack Nicholson once famously yelled at a pygmy scientologist - "The truth? You can't handle the truth!"

No, I'm not trying to scare anyone. I said, what I said. We can discuss a lot and bring argument by argument. But we won't change a bit of the truth.

That's all what I wanted to say.And I want to add: It takes more to find out the truth than only our mind.

• The heart does no thinking, it's a blood pump.
• Emotions don't lead to understanding (and often inhibit understanding).
• Faith is the precise opposite of understanding.

It also takes my eyes and ears and a lot of straightforwardness.

I trust you realise yourself with embarrassment how silly that remark is. The brain depends on its organs of input, but it is not those organs that deduce anything from what they relay. Personally I find using my eyes and my ears rather an empty experience without a brain to rationalise the input.

Of course not. But recognition of what's real and distinguishing it from fantasy is much more likely to occur if the person hasn't adopted a set of beliefs already based on nothing real at all. So while reality does not depend on anyone's "beliefs", enjoyment of it and the appreciation of it very much does. Of course one has to start by recognising it.

Ah, but those whose beliefs are predicated on evidence and are rooted in reality stand a much better chance of identifying a truth than those whose blind beliefs, based on nothing real, encourage them to lie - however unwittingly - even to themselves.

Just one other correction - "truth" is not always as objective a concept as "reality", it has tended to acquire a lot of shades of meaning depending on its application. In some of these senses there isn't even a guarantee that things deemed true now will always apply in the future. Reality however is of much sturdier semantic stock.

What they both have in common however is that neither stands much chance of being recognised by anyone using their eyes and ears, but with a disengaged brain.

Well you didn't see any macroevolution. You see microevolution and your brain is telling you that macroevolution is true, too. You see fossils and interpretate them in a certain way. But the fossils can also be interpretated in a way that fits in a creation theory. You don't see Macroevolution happening.

Why do many atheists think believers came to belief by tradition or any sort indoctrination? I decided to believe in God because of the creation and I experience his power everyday, when he is changing my heart.

I think I answered already. The atheistic evidence is just one way to interprated what is found in rock formations or what happens with moleculs and dna. But it's not the only one possible.

That's how you understand the word "truth". I believe the truth never changes. Well our world does, but it's not the whole truth. Truth how I understand it is everything visible and invisible, that has an influence in and on our world.

Don' t worry. Though it seems to you I'm not thinking I am a person, who never stops to. I have continuous experiences with God and Jesus, which I can't deny and I am thinking how that all fits to what I hear and see in this world and to what I read in the bible. Atheists fit well into this picture, too. How? you may ask. Well simply because the bible is talking about people denying the existence of god. The bible also talks about the rebellion in the human nature. We don't like to have a God above us, because we want to have our own will. Evolution is good explanation for the world and serves this rebellion. Therefore you can't "see" or "hear" him. But there is no peace for the godless.

I think I've heard enough in this forum and I need a time now to get involved into the scientific things.

Pray tell, how are macroevolution and microevolution different? In fact, what are macroevolution and microevolution? And how are they distinguished from just plain-old evolution?

There is no "creation theory." There are creation myths, but no "creation theory." At least, not in the scientific sense.

If evolution depended only on fossils, you might have a point about alternate interpretations. But, the way science works is simple: an hypothesis must be strong enough to make predictions about reality, and those predictions must turn out to be true. This adds strength to the hypothesis. The process of evolution has made many predictions, all of which have turned out to be true. It has given us entire new branches of research and medicine.

So, for there to be a "creation theory," it must make predictions that are testable. It'll be helpful if those predictions were to be unique to the hypothesis, as well.

As soon as you make the assumption of creation (which is what you are doing, rather than applying a theory), any data falls within it, as you can merely state, "God did it that way for a reason." And here is where creation falls apart.

Let me ask: how long ago was the universe created? Do you believe in a young universe (say, less than 100,000 years old)? If so, how do you account for the light between the stars? We know that light travels at a specific speed in a vacuum, and we also know that there are stars much farther away than 100k light-years. How do you account for the light between the stars? Did God place it there?

If so, did he also create that light as if it has been in transit this whole time? For instance, light generated behind absorption nebula has been filtered by the nebula, even though the nebula is more than 100k light years away. Also, light has been lensed by galaxies, which are much farther away than 100k light years.

My point is: if you recognize that life changes over time ("microevolution," as you called it), then doesn't it make sense that life would change greatly over vast amounts of time?

It seems you have two choices: a young universe, in which God is fucking with us by making it look like an old universe; or, an old universe, which has had plenty of time for evolution to give us this variety of life.

This might be a false dichotomy. If so, please give a third option. (Oh! I know. God made the universe a long, long time ago, and then only just recently made life. This seems almost as ridiculous as the "God is fucking with us" hypothesis.)

You keep saying this, but have demonstrated an incapacity to accept it yourself.

All of these things come from your mind. So please, again suggest what other than a mind one can use.

Reality is oblivious to what anyone believes. Accept this, move on.

Yet again, you demonstrate the capacity to communicate this, yet show no capability to accept it yourself.

Some meat! Excellent. There is a specific difference between a preist and a scientist. They are similar in that they will tell you something, yes. However, a scientist can prove his or her assertions through experimentation. A preist cannot prove anything.

The terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" are fictional, and have nothing to do with evolution. You demonstrate your lack of understanding of evolution merely by using these terms. THEY DO NOT EXIST. When you have learned and accepted this, you will be in a better position to debate evolution. Though, of course, you will be no more successful than you are now.

Because macroevolution is the creation of theists like yourself, who are unable or unwilling to learn what exactly evolution is. Fossils prove evolution conclusively, and attempting to make them work for you is just laughable.

No, you didn't. You would never have heard of or conceived of the notion of the god you believe in had noone ever presented it to you. You may have made up your own god, but you wouldn't have made up the one you currently bow down to.

You equate the term "atheist" with the term "scientist" when the terms have nothing to do with each other. The fossil record can be interpretted correctly in only one way with the scientific method. You are making up stories by suggesting otherwise. Worse, you are not corroborating your stories with evidence.

How you interpret the word is completely irrelevant. The definition of truth is quite clear in the English language, and your refusal to accept it merely furthers the proof of your illogical and irrational position.

So you like to believe. Maybe one day you will find the TRUTH.

Aw, don't leave yet. I was just starting to have fun ripping apart your arguments.

Oo. That is an interesting way to put it. I'm going to have to try and remember that for future reference. Thanks!

In case Ali is still on this forum, I'll try to show the flaw in believing in microevolution, but not macroevolution. I'm only 18 years old, so perhaps you'll be able to understand my impossibly simple explanation.

We know that there is variation in traits among different organisms, produced by mutations, etc. We can see it. One dog has slightly longer legs. One dog has a slightly longer tail. One dog has slightly thicker hair.

We know that traits are passed down. If my parents are blond, I'll probably be blond. If my parents have black hair, I'll probably have black hair.

We know that in any environment, some traits will be more advantageous than others. Organisms with better traits have a better chance of survival. Organisms with traits that are detrimental to its survival will have a lower chance of survival. For example, if the climate suddenly got colder, organisms that could survive in colder weather would be more likely to survive. Thus, eventually, the area will end up with many species that are proficient at surviving in cold weather.

Of course, this process never stops. Natural selection continues, always selecting the best adapted organisms. The organism does not consciously attempt to be a better organism. The environment does not consciously strive to change the organism. It is automatic. This produces change

This is evolution. Microevolution is evolution. Macroevolution is still evolution. The only difference between the two is the variable of time. Macroevolution is just a bigger change than microevolution. Thus, it takes a longer period of time.

People who deny evolution always make the argument that a dog can change, but it will always be a dog, it can't change into something else. But, why not? If a chihuahua can evolve into a great dane, (I'm not stating that it did. This is hypothetical.) what prevents it from changing more? They both work by the same process. This is like saying that you can walk to the kitchen, but you can't walk to the mall, because it's too far away. In order to prove that microevolution is true, but macroevolution is not, you would have to show that there is some kind of invisible DNA barrier that prevents your genes from changing from a certain point. Obviously, Creationists aren't going to find this "wall" because it doesn't exist. Our genes are subject to mutations, and when our genes change, our characteristics change.

Can you see why scientists become so annoyed when people accept micro but reject macro?

Furthermore, determining speciation is not easy and the answers aren't perfect. Since organisms are constantly changing and humans discover new species all the time, scientists frequently debate about what animal belongs where. Take the platypus, it's warm blooded, amphibious, and lays eggs. Where do you place this animal? Scientists decide, not God. Zebras can mate with horses. Are they the same species? If not, at what point do they become different species. Once again, the answer is only estimated by the parameters that biologists, zoologists, etc. have set. The answers are not absolutes.

Creationists seem to believe that when you change from animal X to animal Y, you start with animal X, then briefly becomes a freaky half X half Y abomination, then change into animal Y. This is ridiculous. This is ludicrous. Evolution works in small steps.

Ray Comfort stated that we have never observed a transitional form. When confronted with a platypus, his answer was that even though it looks strange, it just means that God creates all kinds of special animals. We always think that the way the animals are right now is the right way because the alternative is counterintuitive. In the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Jim shouted, why don't a Frenchman talk like a man. He had never experienced other languages before. However, the state that organisms currently occupy are not the "only," "best" or "highest" state, they're just a state.

If you're still watching this board, Ali, I hope that helped.