People reject evolution

I should get that much just for explaining the fundaments of thermodynamics and having the testes to think he'd actually listen.

Anything is possible, if you believe. But as I said earlier, it's clearly a matter of faith.

I read your posts and reply thoughtfully. You might try it some time.

No, it isn't. It's a matter of accepting something is possible. Faith is saying something is absolute.

You've yet to reply to my refutation of your counterpoint.

I see, like having faith there is no God? Or having faith life came from non-life?

Nope, it is measureably different on a genetic level.

Sorry I can't keep up with three or more at the same time. I will get to your posts if they are thoughtful. I miss some when the scroll flies by, but I give it my best to answer all thoughtful questions and respond to points with counter-points.

That's a horrible dodge.

Okay, look at fruit flies. Scientists experiment with fruit flies because their generational span is less than 24 hours. They have seen, with their own eyes, as of today, changes in the charactaristics of separated fruit fly populations.

Is it a miracle? No. It's science.

Two different comparisons. And you're still not countering my earlier refutation to your counterpoint. You're avoiding the real issue.

Doubt is not faith. You can doubt your faith, but you don't require faith to have doubt.

Atheism is a matter of doubting the existence of God. It is not a matter of having faith that there is not one. Faith implies that you would hope for or want one. Atheists typically do neither; to them, a God just doesn't seem plausible.

God is, technically, non-life. Deity is not a corporeal being.

Which explains a lot about your understanding of evolution.

I know, there is no connection to birds, unless one believes the Archaeopteryx connection. The point is if everything came from a single life form as is now accepted by evolutionist, then everything came out of the primordial swamp.

its time for

Reposted. I'll keep reposting it until you counter it, unless you're ready to concede that you don't have a damn clue what you're talking about, Kevn.

there was no swamp till plants evolved

Or faith that some invisible being magically zapped everything into existence out of the void?

Noone said a single life form.

A microbiological creature, such as a single-celled organism, could be many, many different species that evolved into many species of multicelled organisms.

And even creationists believe that God used the stuff of the earth to create Man. Primordial swamp = gooey dirt.

I disagree. Atheism, by definition, requires faith. When one believes a certain thing absolutely, without proof of it being true, accepts it by faith.

That isn't the accepted theory. The widely accepted theory says all life is related by the fact they came from a single source. That's why they say all DNA is so similar, and they use that as evidence for evolution.

Watch him guys, he's changing the topic because he's losing the argument about evolution.

They fall on their own observation and the observations of others. Therefore, they still reference proof, be it empirical or not.

You're not diverting this conversation to something that has no bearing on it. Address the thermodynamics argument or spend the rest of this thread with your failure being constantly and consistently addressed. Your choice.

You mean, like educated, working biologists accept the Archaeopteryx as a transition between fish and birds? The really annoying part of all this, Kevn, is that Creationists love to scream about there being no missing link -- and when such a link is laid in front of them, they refuse to accept it. You don't get to change the rules as you go, chum.


No, not a primordial swamp. More likely it was the chaotic, volcano-laced oceans of primitive Earth.

Newsflash: Results of the Human Genome Project have discovered that

Hey, whaddya know? Humans and fruit flies have remarkably similar biochemistry! That speaks very powerfully for a common source of life, I'd say.

Erm. No. Saying "Primordial ooze" does imply a single source. But it wasn't all one puddle. NOONE thinks what you just said.

In response to your post. If you don't want a response, np.

...no, the evidence for evolution is by watching things with short generational timespans (such as fruit flies) evolve over time.

You're confusing abiogenesis (ie spontaneous generation, which was disproven in the 1600's) with modern day evolutionary theory.