The theory of evolution is still labeled a theory because it indeed lacks a vital detail..proof.No absolute proof has been found that this theory holds water since its introduction by Charles Darwin,therefore cannot be considered as fact like many try to assert.

Darwin even said in his own book on pg.91 “if a complex organ of life is ever found that could not have been formed by numerous excessive slight modifications,I would cease to believe in Darwinism”.

Lets look at the human eye.Just one of many examples we could use.The human eye can handle 1.5 million simultaneous messages.It gathers 80% of all the info absorbed by the brain.The eye contains over 130 million light sensitive rods and cones which generate photochemical reactions that convert light into electrical impulses and there are 1 billion such impulses that are transmitted to the brain every second.Darwin was quoted saying “To suppose that the eye with all of its inevitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances,for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic abberration could have formed by natural selection semms,i freely confess,absurd.”

Over the years there have been many skeletal fragments and other “evidence” discovered that supposedly helps prove this theory.The end result on the investigations of many of these proved the remains to have been of animal origin,and in some cases a hoax altogether.

In the cambrian fossil layer millions of species suddenly appeared and scientists cannot tell us where they came from.What the fossil record bears is the sudden,instantaneous appearance of fossils.If you look at the pre-Cambrian layer you dont find any transitional forms,you dont find any of the ancestors of all this sudden appreance of life.What the fossil record bears is not the story of evolution but the story of extinction.The vast majority of all the creatures that have ever lived are extinct.So,therefore what the fossil record shows is the sudden appearance of life.Sounds much like creation.The cambrian fossil layer is the achilles heel of evolution.

There literally tons of information available on this subject,all of which would not be plausible to state here.So,as a summary ill just state this.To believe in evolution,we must believe that life came from non-life,intelligence came from non-intelligence,and through blind chance we now have all of the intricate,complex,and intelligent forms we have today.Sounds to me like it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation.Not to mention,for years mankind has needed to travel-so why havent we evolved into winged humans-why must we rely on external devices for means of travel..where is evolution now?

I also am curious to know why you seem to have such blatant hostility towards creation,or for that matter God and those who choose to follow Him.But,before you jump to the keys in an attempt to claim that is not the case,allow me to copy and paste a section of your own article.

“The article makes fairly clear the idiocy of the Fundamentalist Cult headed by President George W. Bush, which has not only made an earnest effort at silencing political debate in the United States, but has made a concerted effort at supplanting science, as well.

And the greatest example of that idiocy was mentioned — though its implications were not teased out — in Steve Mirsky’s hilarious one-page article. That wonderful example of the lunacy of the bozos who strive to obtain “balance” by teaching mythology in science classrooms (but never suggest teaching science in church!) is “intelligent design.”

“Intelligent design,” of course, is the theory that is variously and succinctly described thusly: Existence, or life, or the world, or the universe is so vastly wonderful, or complex, or miraculous, or amazing that it simply could not exist if it were not for Intelligent Design, or a Guiding Hand, or G-d. (It can be succinctly described thusly because, in the end, that’s practically the whole asinine argument.)”

And shortly after that,you go on to take a cheap shot at Paley just because he doesnt agree with your view.Oh,and not to mention,basically insult the intelligence of the american public as well.

It is completely unfair and ignorant of you to assume that because someoen doesnt agree with you that they are uninformed lunatics who have a deluded world view.True,i cannot pin those words on you as you have not stated that.However the inferrances are plain for all to see.

Just what would the odds be for so many cosmic events to happen in the perfect sequence to create us?

Yet, it is logical to bet AGAINST those odds and say that God does not exist?

As I said before, take this same argument and use it for G-d. If your argument is that it’s just so absolutely incredible that we could exist that the only possible explanation is “G-d created us,” then who created this absolutely incredible being? You can’t have your cake and eat it, too. If you’re saying that the absolute incredibleness of it all is what should convince one that there must be a Creator, that’s fine. So…the absolute incredibleness of G-d required that he has a Creator, too, using that rationale.

If I read you right, you want to say, “Well, no. Because you don’t get it, Rick. You have to go ‘outside the restrictions of human logic.’” That’s fine and dandy, too. But don’t turn around and try to use human logic to make an argument for “intelligent design” and then say, “that’s a convincing argument, but you aren’t allowed to use it for anything other than what I said you could use it for.”

Note in all this that I have nowhere said, “G-d does not exist and I can prove it.” I said that the argument for Intelligent Design — as you yourself delineated it — is paradoxical. You try to say, “Look, logic shows there must be a Designer,” but when someone uses that same logic to show that an infinite regress would be required, you say, “well, you have to go outside logic.”

Take your leap of faith, folks. I have no argument with that. Try to argue that we should teach your view in our science classes, based on “logic” that only works when it favors your position, but has to be ignored when it doesn’t, and you just sound, as you said, “silly.”

For all you math geeks: please calculate the number of stars and planets we have ‘discovered’. Now how many of them contain life similair to ours? I’ll wait but the answer is one.

Just what would the odds be for so many cosmic events to happen in the perfect sequence to create us?

Yet, it is logical to bet AGAINST those odds and say that God does not exist?

If anything, discarding all that logical mathematics for a belief of no God defines the term “leap of faith”.

IF you find only one watch in the forest, you decide that it was left there by man. Why is it such a stretch to seriously consider that this one planet is intentional?

For all you philosophy geeks: How can you use rational thought to ‘discover’ something as irrational as your Creator? If the “Intelligent Designer” was intelligent enough to create all of this without your help, what leads you to believe that his thoughts must be rational by your definition of the term? If the rules of time and space and physics all bent to his will in the creation of the universe, wouldn’t that redefine what is ‘practical’? What is ‘possible’? Or more importantly, what is ‘Impossible’?

Isn’t “rational” thought built on a series of beliefs that make sense? How can you apply rational thought to a concept of creation so vast that it overwhelms the human mind?

Oh I forgot, we only believe in what we can see and what we can prove. I guess that means my definition of existance is different from yours since I have seen and proven a different set of experiences than you have. Obviously, your views and beliefs are flawed because they don’t arrange themselves neatly around my views and beliefs.

In the end, the human mind that does not comprehend the intent and intelligence of creation is striving to become its own god, a creator of an existance that can be rationalised by a limited and imperfect brain.

The rats in the maze only know the maze, human philosphers will only know the maze without a leap of irrational logic somewhere that allows them outside the restrictions of human logic.

I believe that’s called faith.

In 1633 Galileo Galilei, astronomer, was convicted of heresy, for supporting the theory that the Earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa. It was not until more than 300 years later in 1992 that Pope John Paul II said the church had wronged Galileo. The reason for his excommunication was that the rotation of the earth and its orbit of the sun were entirely contrary to Holy Scripture.

Also the epithets “infidel” and “atheist” have been hurled against a distinguished list of benefactors of humankind. Among them are Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, John Locke, and John Milton. Incredibly and ironically, these four possess otherwise unblemished, and unquestionable — Christian credentials!

As for your experience of knowing people who read Bibles: bravo! The existence of Anabas testudineus doesn’t have me taking my guppy out for an occasional walk.

My claim was not “No Christians read the Bible”; it was “Most Christians do not read the Bible.”

I’d hoped, somewhat: “Hey, this is about aesthetics?”. So, that was “a real hypothesis”, I suppose.

Yet, this is not like “about aesthetics”, fair enough!

It sounds like this may be about something, contrived – “however possibly” – contrived, after some terms of “yay many” university graduates?

The phrase, “intelligent design” might sound as if it was a term, made in the addressing of concerns, in regards to software.

Now, in how the term is applied — in reference, in this page — it sounds utterly secular, though it might ever be supposed, by whomever, as if it was “theological”?

So, still, it seems to be about some designs of people.

One design: To attempt (quite vainly, quite sadly, and in some possible embarrassment to any reverent sense of Christianity) a “social design”, namely: To attempt to base a theological argument, upon secular material.

Perhaps another: To attempt to make “an argument, about creation” – firstly.

and then: To try (and utterly fail, indeed) to make an argument, about what — if they would get it through their foggy {Q} — does not even need an argument, about it.

finally, then: “Perhaps”, all of the above, being attempted, by (whom?), despite some very, very thin knowledge.

When “religion” might be regarded as-if being akin to “television show”, then I suppose that we will see such trivial garbage of “religious?” spectators — “this ‘intelligent??’ design”, for example.

but my! How the liken a human property to “their? G-d”, by it — “intelligence”, there — exemplary?

(I become more alarmed, in some — though I’m glad to know more of “the lay of the ‘modern’ land” — after hearing of any commonality, of any “such Christian? nonsense” — any frittering trivia of deep-fried stupidity, apparently being served-up, thoughout the nation.)

(Four years remain, I suppose — a time, enough? — to overcome the figurehead, supposed “leader of the tripe” — reelected, then! “Yay for the DNC?”)

I think the problem with the way you tend to argue is that you do not even see the merit in arguing something you already cannot be persuaded in believing. AKA you do not need feel you need to argue any point with substance.

Now, if you were to say that in your personal experience, Christians do not read their Bible because they do not live it, I would be quite fine with accepting that. Sure. Why not? But for you to say that I live on a different planet because you claim know what I have experienced as far as Christians and their Bibles are concerned, is a bit of a stretch. Perhaps it is because you cannot accept the fact that certain niches beyond your circle of living may disrupt your worldview.

As far as you quoting Scripture to piss off Christians, I am guessing that there is some bitterness about Christians that I am not aware of. How can I even dialogue with you about that? Unless, of course, it was intended to be a monologue.

That said, I know many Christians who read their Bibles religiously. And many Christians who read Christian writers religiously. Many of them are my friends.

Sure, you are bound to meet many Christians who do not read their Bibles, who do seem to assert themselves as bearers of the truth, and who seem to have lost the meaning of Scripture along the way. I have met many myself. But does this make you better than them because you point out their inconsistencies?

I suppose it may be the same if I asked you a question along the same vein. Why you chose to revere a God that you do not believe in by not writing his full name (G-d)?

It seems to me it is because of the old Hebrew tradition which exchanged YHVH with Adonai or because you do not believe he exists. However, if it was the latter, I would ask if you spell unicorn like “unic-rn.”