Evolution is REAL

You mean the ones with "Britanica" on the cover?

It's mainly faith either way.

It is clear that you did not put much thought into your reply, but thanks for answering.

Perfect example.

That caterpillar CANNOT EVOLVE into a butterfly.

It is a marvelous example of the wonderous creation of the Creator and an explicit example of the ABSURDITY OF EVOLUTION.

And yet more proof that you have not given this adequate thought and consideration.

Will you quit so easily and already when your "clear" is my lifetime of thought?

Actually, metamorphosis and evolution have nothing to do with each other.

Yea, except one book can be questioned, with evidence that can be proven, written by men that never claimed it to be omnipotent, answers that can be tested with said evidence to proof its verifiability.
One doesn't
Yea its mainly faith alright.........

This earth is very much alive. Life does not stem from lifelessness. If this Earth were dead, you would not have life, for life cannot be sustained by that which is dead.

And yes of course, everything living on this earth could die and the earth yet exist, the Earth does not need us to sustain life but we do need Her to sustain ours.

My simple answer to you simple question is:

This earth is our provided host for life.

The earth itself is not alive. Everything living on this earth could die and the earth yet exist.

And to which you say?

Thread FAIL

I'm glad you understand that. I myself am a believer in science. However, I think the scientific establishment is remiss in automatically dismissing a supernatural explanation. A thing that can't be tested might still be true.

of course we have evolved, but only with a loving helping hand from a very nurturing GOD. But his patience has run out! Make peace with him.

You are confused.

And, incidentally, I'm already also certain you are female. Am I correct?

Nonsense.
Why would God waste umpteeen gazillion years in inadequate but progressive death?

Very true, but blind faith can be dangerous.
And there are many scientists that can be just as bad as the religious zealots, but while a scientist that uses absolutes, and dictates his finding as truth is an outcast of the scientific world, the OPPOSITE applies to the world of the relgious, where evidence is not needed, only blind faith and a belief.

Wrong. Who told you that and why do you willingly believe them, unless it is because you want to because it fits your prejudice?

I would never attempt to explain such important matters to a non-believer such as yourself.

You can put your faith in science, and see how far they get you into the next life.

Do you question those that wrote the bible?
Most religious zealots do not.
Hell, they may believe in chem-trails, the NWO and not believe a WORD their government says.
But when it comes to a heavily edited 2,000 year old book.
They believe every word.

Of course it is a wonderful creation of our Creator, but I disagree regarding it being a absurdity of evolution. That is a simple example of a form of evolving. Does that mean all creations evolve to another form in that manner, in that timeframe, no.

Evilution has been and will continue to be - in refute.


There isn't enough time even with billions of fictional years for evilution.

What does that mean?

What if I have questioned everything, found it reliable and therefore believe it?

Is there some virtue in the merely questioning or seeking answers and be willing and open to where they lead?

Be right back. I'm going to go find something by someone who does not believe in "Creationism" but who logically questions the assumptions evolutionary believers don't even consider.

Did you find it reliable based on evidence? Making an educated guess, any form of irrefutable scientific method of understanding?
Or because it was convenient?

Or consider caterpillars. A caterpillar has no obvious resemblance to a butterfly. The disparity in engineering is huge. The caterpillar has no legs, properly speaking, certainly no wings, no proboscis. How did a species that did not undergo metamorphosis evolve into one that did? Pupating looks like something you do well or not at all: If you don’t turn into something practical at the end, you don’t get another chance.

Think about this. The ancestor of a modern caterpillar necessarily was something that could reproduce already. To get to be a butterfly-producing sort of organism, it would have to evolve silk-extruding organs, since they are what you make a cocoon with. OK, maybe it did this to tie leaves together, or maybe the beast resembled a tent-caterpillar. (Again, plausibility over evidence.) Then some mutation caused it to wrap itself experimentally in silk. (What mutation? Are we serious?) It then died, wrapped, because it had no machinery to cause it to undergo the fantastically complex transformation into a butterfly. Death is almost always a discouragement to reproduction.

Tell me how the beast can gradually acquire, by accident, the capacity gradually to undergo all the formidably elaborate changes from worm to butterfly, so that each intermediate form is a practical organism that survives. If evolutionists cannot answer such questions, the theory fails.

Here the evolutionist will say, “Fred, caterpillars are soft, squashy things and don’t leave good fossils, so it’s unreasonable to expect us to find proof.” I see the problem. But it is unreasonable to expect me to accept something on the grounds that it can’t be proved. Yes, it is possible that an explanation exists and that we just haven’t found it. But you can say that of anything whatever. Is it good science to assume that evidence will be forthcoming because we sure would like it to be? I’ll gladly give you evidence Wednesday for a theory today?

Note that I am not asking evolutionists to give detailed mechanics for the evolution of everything that lives. If they gave convincing evidence for a few of the hard cases—proof of principle, so to speak—I would be inclined to believe that equally good evidence existed for the others. But they haven’t.

[link to www.fredoneverything.net]

Is this a rhetorical question?

Do you think anyone who disagrees with you or, more offensive to your head, is a Believer cannot have thought this through as thoroughly as you think you have?

What the hell does "convenient" mean?

Your second reply is unclear,. :) "Will you quit so easily"? Quit what? Replying, no offense again, but I'm multitasking, so your not the only person I'm speaking with online. And then "and already when your "clear" is my lifetime of thought?" Oh ok, alittle ego coming out here, eh. No problem, you can think as you wish regarding that one can't believe in God and evolution, that you must be rejecting God if you find God's work in everything, but your choice.

BTW, I'm going to eat dinner, so don't take it personally if I don't respond at the speed you desire. And don't get offended, it is true you did not put much thought into your reply to me regarding: your implying that one is rejecting God if they believe in evolution.

con⋅ven⋅ient
   /kənˈvinyənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhn-veen-yuhnt] Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. suitable or agreeable to the needs or purpose; well-suited with respect to facility or ease in use; favorable, easy, or comfortable for use.
2. at hand; easily accessible: Their house is convenient to all transportation.
3. Obsolete. fitting; suitable.

The Evidence for the veracity of the Bible is unsurpassed by any other text.

If you refuse it, you cannot accept any ancient texts, or any before your lifetime, whatsoever and be logically consistent.

I've dealt with your arguments countless times.
I am certain you have not dealt with mine.

I'll do it again if necessary...

Sorry, most ancient texts refuse you're BIBLE.

We are bacteria. The more evolved we are , the less likely we'll get sick.

Dude,
if you don't even know the difference between "your" and "you're"
guess where uyou can stick your BS...