More sensibility: If you were to estimate how much time it took humanity to come into being from the same ancestors between humans and monkeys, how long would it take for you to soon to distinguish them as a new species? I don't just walk up to an orangutan and say, "That's one dumb, hairy human who has no capabilities of speaking. Let me go help and 'teach this man to fish.'" Accordingly, evolution requires time for every organism to develop, but what spawns the necessity for an instant but minuet, biological change that we all categorize as macro-evolution? In the OP, it explained how an insect scenario required the environmental hazards that were present to the ancestors to always be present in order to prevent the evidently cyclical process of micro-evolution from reversing. Humans are not able to live for hundreds of years; so the only thing we can do to attempt to prove evolution true through our scientific processes is to observe micro-evolution in action and point out that those results are substantiated evidence. However, the process is evidently cyclical. It is said by many evolutionists that the earth created a sundry array of gases to cool the earth so to make it prolific for bearing life. Scientifically, we know that organic and inorganic material alone can't have any reaction with each other in order to spawn or reproduce biological material of any kind. Then how did life begin, or better yet, where on Earth did an amoeba come from? Let's skip that question since all evolutionists appear to want to do is skip that fact. Alright, an amoeba is on Earth, somehow. Now, in order to either help stabilize the environment or the biological specimen itself, it must evolve. How? By going through a process that we call micro-evolution. Over millions to billions of years, that amoeba will genetically figure out to grow a limb. Then that second amoeba, who we know not where it came from, decides to help, or at least decides to either not exist and all biologically life as we know it was a hermaphrodite (possessing both sexes) in the first place, reproduces. This process repeatedly occurs over millions to billions of years in order for life to become stable on Earth. Correct? Question: If life was already at a state of environmental equilibrium, why would it need to evolve in the first place? To rid itself of mutations? Some evolutionists say that it is by this process micro-evolution drives macro-evolution on a profound scale, but by the dogma of "Natural Selection," that which is mutated is declined by its kind for procreation. Not to be at all offensive or conclusive on the welfare state of human choice, but I wish to ask every person individually: How many of you are willing to "fall in love" with a retarded human being? They are human and are given as much right as the next, but the lucky love life often bestowed upon such a person is rare and discouraged. It might by which the process of evolution uses to promote the biology of humans to a higher state up the evolutionary chain, which is strangely determined by nothing that evolutionists can explain. Environment? No. Mutations? We all know that it is by "Natural Selection" that we as a biological organisms "evolve" very slowly quench mutations one genetic step at a time. Then what? What in this bloody world could have ever jump started our existence in the first place?[spoiler]P.S., I hate the Shroud of Turin.[/spoiler]

Why do you spam the same reply over and over?

[quote]Why do you spam the same reply over and over?[/quote] Because he has nothing further to contribute to the discussion.

Okay. First. The story of life and how it began is a guess and really not a very good guess. As a genetic engineer I understand all this. So, truly what is life. Well that would take forever and a day to go over but I would gladly do it. So let us look at this a different way. Let us throw everything out the window and think with pure logic. If God existed, how did God come into being? That there has always been the stump for any answer. Not only that, but, there are cults/religions(as defined by law) that are older than God. So, how is this answered? Well, with the standard he is all and everything. Pffft. Lame answer. Okay so we know God is a belief of humans. Why would God place a creature on a planet, where everything but humans have a purpose? Even scientifically humans have no true reason to be on this planet. We are a plague. So, why? Ugh. Such a hard question to answer. Well, now let's move on. How did we evolve. Mmmm, tough one. I have no answer as even science only has an answer of mathematical guesses. Which any person can look up. So, I will take it I don't need to relieve my education into you on this point. But, we do know for fact that most life on this planet has the same DNA structure. That is somewhat weird... So, truly what is human? Humans are not the smartest creature as dolphins are far smarter and rats have been shown to have higher brain functions. At last, it is a debate that is tough, how to make a point yet not use a "impossible to counter" answer. I believe that we need to stop looking at God. Start looking at a further study of life. God does not take into account for many many creatures from millions of years ago. God is to single minded. Much like science. So, what, is it we seek. What truly is the answer? Well, I am open to all thoughts and beliefs. But, God (a super being) well, I think is a little far fetched. Remember, humans have always said something is Devine when it couldn't be understood. More to follow. But it is 10 minutes to 2am and I seeing double. Should you wish to carry on, please, do let me know.

[quote]If God existed, how did God come into being? That there has always been the stump for any answer.[/quote]God, being eternal, is obviously not a test subject to observe. You then ask, "Then what evidence do you have of God even existing?" Naturally, we know that evolution itself has no explanation as to the origin of organic life manifesting from non-organic material (even Britton stated to me, "The study of abiogenesis has no explanation as to how yet."). Evolution also has no explanation as to the origin of why nature would ever need to breed intelligence in only one species, and how (no matter how much time) evolution breeds species to evolve into a new form of species without as many as having even 1,000 of transitional fossils per species . Then I assume, "God possibly?" since we know that life on Earth needed a cause, and God has no cause because, by definition, He is eternal. Then you may ask, "What justifies this fact?" and I'll respond by saying, "The Bible," and then you would arrogantly respond by saying, "What makes the Bible authentic and not a book just written by man?" to which I would respond, "It's content." to which you would say, "Well that's stupid. You can't source yourself." and then I'll explain by saying, "The Bible itself states that it was written by men endowed by the Holy Spirit of God. If anything was written by man and man alone, would there not be a perfidious motive for man? The Bible promotes God and only God, and it states that there is no other God except Him. "The Book of Moroni teaches polygamy is legal, God was once a man like us, works promote our salvation, and we will eventually be a god of our own planet and have an infinite amount of sex with our loved one(s), like God did when He had Jesus Christ. This is a highly damnable fallacy. The Catholic Church promoted the Apocrypha about 30 years after Martin Luther debunked it with the Ninety-five Thesis explaining their fallacy since the Catholic Church promoted salvation by works, the forgiveness of sins by priests, the celibacy of the Catholic priesthood, the deistic homage toward Mary, the holiness of the Pope, and more. This is a highly damnable fallacy, and how one can determine a faith to be not legit is to find whether it possesses a perfidious motive which would usually be through monetary or physical gain (The Catholic Church) or psychological self-appeasement to one's state in their version of the acclaimed after-life (The Doctrine of Mormonism). "The Bible alone, without all that additive crap, which was added to change the canon, is the [b]only[/b] text in the world that does not call one to a state of self-fulfillment, but to a state of self-denial; and so, it could not have been written by man since it didn't have the intent in the first place to appease men, but instead, it promotes throughout the entire text an individual who you believe to be our Flying Spaghetti Monster, God. If it was written by man alone, it would have at least provided some gain to an individual on Earth (e.g., The Pope or The Catholic Church) or a well-appeasing infinite carnality desire (e.g., spiritual sex or earthly polygamy in Mormonism). "To summarize, evolution has no origin so God must exist in order for life to begin to have complexity, intelligence, and organic life. [spoiler]Note: Darwin doubted the origin of complexity even in his studies written in chapter 6 of [i]On the Origin of Species[/i][/spoiler]Everything has a cause but God doesn't since He's eternal. The Bible is true because it was evidently not written by man with the intent of appeasing men, and it promotes only God and exhibits every human, even the prophets as flawed creatures that were justified for eternal damnation."

Okay. I need time to give you a proper answer. It will take forever to type on my phone. But I will give you a response as I really do appreciate a polite and in depth discussion.

[quote]Christianity is a very young cult. Still nothing more than a flicker in the life span of this planet.[/quote]Christianity is not a cult.

You so do not know the definitions....