Blind faith is ignorance and in saying that i'm ignoring nothing! At some point you have to stop hugging the knees of religion and rationalise the hidden messages within scripture, because at the end of the day religion is based on what is not understood. evolution is based on science - whether that knowledge is yet to be proved false is a different matter, but at least it has SOME basis in fact.

there indeed some like that loge....



an apt description of many (independant of worldview)

Regardless of his believes,Loge has showed a great deal of intelligence ,so he can t be that opposed to education can he?
Anyway , I might not ´share his belief , but I share his opinion about atheists.

Some basis in fact?

Intellectual theories and beliefs have totally failed; this is being demonstrated to satiety by the catastrophic state which this world is in... Atheists and Believers, there you have your world, the chaotic and miserable world that you have created with your theories and beliefs! The facts are speaking for themselves. You proud Atheists and Believers, you have failed!

AWAKE YOUR INNER SENSES!

And see, hear, smell, taste and touch the truth by itself!

Has he? I have seen many opinions, postulates and speculation. Perhaps some wisdom, if one wishes to think of him as a philosopher (which I do not, but that is my opinion).

But no, only average intelligence.

Aww... looks like I got here too late for the real debate... =(

Well, someone let me know if Ashley/Saucy/TaintedDoughnuts ever get back... I could really go for some scientific/religious sparring.

Some people cannot recognize intelligence out of their narrow reasoning.

A few centuries ago when Europeans first sailed to the coast of America, they did not recognize the Natives as belonging to the same human species or as intelligent beings. Spaniards spread the rumor that Natives believed that the horse and the person riding it were one and the same being.

A short time ago, when questioning an old Mayan Native sage about this matter of evolution, he said, this is why we still think they are one and the same being!

I'll stick with my given statement.

could the answer not lie somewhere science and religion?
if we read genesis chapter 1, there really isn't much diffenence betweeen that and the evolution order. chapter 2 says something a little different, but that is a different thread.maybe the pro-science and pro-creationists need to get off their high horses and just admit that just maybe, god created the universe by a long drawn out process? i see lots of bible types saying that, for instance, the "weeks" of daniel mean years or periods of seven yearsz. if this is possible, why not just admit that the hebrew ford "yom" might have more than just the meaning "day", and mean a veryy long period. it does say in the scriptures that a second is a thousand yearfs? can we apply logic, instead of blind faith or blind belief in science?the answer is that neither is correct.

yet science never claims (nor should anyone) to have absolute answers. the theories of evolution evolve.

religious dogma on the other hand does not change. it insists that it must be absolutely right, and believers of this dogma will warp all facts and figures to make them fit their belief structure.

yes, there is knowledge in the ancient texts. however, there is also quite a bit of superstitious bunk. the job is to separate out what is valuable from what is bunk. we do that with the knowledge we gain from science.

thus the two do work together.

nobody who is a scientist and is openminded has declared 'there is no god', or 'all ancient texts are rubbish'. we only dismiss that which is proven to be false.

the funny thing with loge is he comes across as a close-minded absolutist while telling people to have an open mind. (but that is just the way with loge. it is good to have his posts around this place.)

Interesting statement.

I never claimed that it did prove thus. I was just pointing out to Whoa that just because he has books at home that support his belief does not automatically guarantee that they are correct.

Most of us here (creationists that is) have always said that creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive!

have you not got anything intelligent to say at all !

I find you really closed minded

Another one bite the dust , and another one , and another one !

It might, however the same requirements would apply. The thing is that science is not done by compromise, or to keep the peace. Evolution did not come to pass because some people wanted to do away with creatiuonism, nor is creationism rejected by science merely because it is religious in nature. In order to be considered a scientific theory, an idea must meet the pre-requisites of scientific methodology, and pass the protocols of verification, such as peer review and publication. If a theory cannot meet those requirements, its status as a scientific theory is suspect.



And completely accurate. Evolutionary theory is in no way, shape, or form involved in theorizing about life origins; evolution is strictly limited to the mutation of the genome throughout generations.



Yes, but as he pointed out, you are providing support for something that isn't in question. No one doubts that religion exists. What we question is the validity of that religion's ideas.



Average intelligence.

Evolutionist expanding intelligence!

Loge showing contempt for education.

Rather: Loge showing an open disrespect or willful disobedience of the authority of Learned Ignoramuses!

My Webpage

Has he? I have seen many opinions, postulates and speculation. Perhaps some wisdom, if one wishes to think of him as a philosopher (which I do not, but that is my opinion).

I propably wouldn t call it wisdom.But he has incredible knowledge of psychology,as I see it.That is enough for me to respect him to some degree.He isn t dumb.

Enough of the petty bickering please.

Loge altho you may find those cartoons and comments very funny I'm sure you would have something to say if they were aimed at believers, tolerance works both ways or not at all.


Now unless you have something relevant to say, please think twice about posting.

I found this article at crystalinks:


Also:


Also I seen this tidbit:


Contrary to the first part of my post....this:


Source: CRYSTALINKS.COM

The "missing link" argument has got to be my biggest pet peeve. People who use this argument claiming that such a beast hasn't been found are completely clueless as to what the term represents.

Like what?



Where?



Elaborate.



Depends on how much you've twisted the meanings.



Let me ask you something before getting into more detail about this... Could there have been an advanced race of humans that went back into a darkage or destroyed themselves and such? Im just asking if its possible...



Except for the fact that macro-evolution is micro-evolution on a large scale.



That shows that you are misleading everyone. It says mountains... what authorises you to change the meaning?



You do know that fire, especially in the past, was considered a destroyer, correct? I wish I could assign some prophetic meaning to the passage but I really cant...



Funny you say that, seeing as evolution, when it is taught, is taught in its entireness as a *theory*... hell, the chapter of the biology books is clearly titled "The Theory of Evolution"

However, looking back at your post... you're not clearly identifying your belief as a belief, you're talking in absolutes as if it WAS a fact.



It is still about observing... and nowhere does it claim to have all the answers! Dont make me laugh!



Thats when it was strictly controlled by religion and anything contradictory to it was burned and kept secret, alla dark ages.



It always accepts the possibilities.



Its been answered before... but you never quit associating that with evolution (its not evolution!) so we've quit trying to explain anything to you because you dont seem to read what we write.



Exactly. What do you think we are? We ARE just a bunch of other chemical molecules in the end.

indeed. a hard fought battle to defend one's belief structure it is.

you know, the "devil" in me really, really, really wants to stir the pot up by bringing in the dynamic nature of systems... (i am pretty sure you know what i am talking about)


ok. "pot stirring time":

the irony in some of these science vs religion debates is that some of scientific side cling to its metaphysical belief in universal laws while attacking the religious for belief in universal laws.....

This whole thing leads me to wonder:
Does a factual existence of "evolution" inherently disprove the "spiritual" component of life?

It would, of course, depend on the definition of "spirit", but off-hand, I can't think of any reason why it would.

funny how so much the modern world accepts as atheistic science is based on the philosphies and theoretical teachings of people that incorporated "god structures" into their models.

not that i support their god constructs (as i see them as faulty as well), but it is non-the-less very interesting. everything comes from something else. that is OUR evolution (animals evolove, thought evolves, constructs evolve, society evolves, nature (as a system) evolves, the universe evolves). it is the "absolutes" that are false.

I wish I had a dollar for every time one of these topics pops up.

In the end, atheists can't convince the creationists that what they believe is right and vice versa. It usually ends up being one big mess where everyone just kinda gets peeved off with each other.

*sigh*

...What am I even doing here anyway? Talk to you guys later. Cya

You obviously STILL don't understand what hearsay is. Obviously your googled attempt failed. The only one making assumptions here is YOU. Don't put the ASS in ASSunmption, it's not becoming. And errrrrh WRONG! I'm not American. Unless of course you count the fact that my grandfather on my mother's side was an American citizen. But, that STILL does not make me American as I don't live anywhere near the country, let alone the entire continent of the United States of America. Like I said, finish school and come back to play with the big guys. Even Stellar, of whom I can NEVER agree with, and it may pain me to say this, is more mature than you are. Grow up.

Now, onto Stellar, ahh round 3,457,000



Where should I start? Eyeliner, astrology, astromony, jewellery, even the Pyramids themselves, etc.



Dead Sea Scrolls (Book of Giants/Watchers), Book of Enoch.



For the 50 millionth time I've had to go through this here, I would have thought people would at least follow what's been said. It gives - and is almost IDENTICAL to the scientific account of their cause of extinction - in order the events which caused their (dinosaurs) extinction (AND the fact that before this extinction they were eating each other almost to extinction which in the late Cretaceous Period is scientifcally verified to have happened) in this order. Asteroid hits into the ocean (several places) of which again is scientifically verified as there is an asteroid crater in the ocean dating back to the late Cretaceous Period, causing several tsunamis (this BEGINS the flooding) then there is a global climate change which causes flooding (as in rain), which then, later turns into an Ice Age. The cause of these events was to WIPE OUT (i.e. cause the extinction of) these Nephilim, and animal hybrid 'great monsters' which reached 45ft in height, turned the Earth into a bloodbath eating every other animal from mammals to reptiles, birds, humans and each other. Their extinction for humanity's survival.



I'm not twisting meanings. Even as said above what was taught is shown in Egypt.



That's the whole point. Man WAS primitive before this event. They WERE an advanced civillization/s as a result of this influence. But not advanced enough to be able to know the contents of Pluto from Earth (icy wasteland) from technology alone.



That's a matter of opinion. Micro-evolution can be seen everyday, like I've said, macro cannot.



Ice glaciers ARE 'mountains' made of ice. Now, like I said it could very well be literal mountains.



It said the changing of seasons will cause this, not fire specifically. The prediction that the Earth will turn into an inferno, and literrally melt mountains is a scientific prediction, which will one day occur, when the sun dies and turns into a red 'demon sun' eventually destroying all life on Earth.



There are many that believe Evolution as fact and not a theory. I said mine was a THEORY, but it's a theory with evidenvce to back it up. There's evidence for Evolution, MICRO-evolution, but there's nowhere near enough for macro.



Again, many people, quite religiously believe science has all the answers.



Religion in the Dark Ages was a dark age for everyone, religious people included where they were subjected to rules which didn't even exist scriptually, and when books which they didn't understand nor want to accept where shunned. Neither Judaism, nor Christianity began in the Dark Ages, however.



I'd love to see that in action.

Now as I've said before, if Enoch IS historically accurate, so what? What have you got to lose from it? No one can force to you to believe just because Evolution had a timing error, just like Evolutionists can't force people to disbelieve because of their theory of Evolution. It would however, if that was accepted, give people middle ground and maybe there would be less people at each other's throats.

It doesn't even say the Earth was created in 7 literal days, it say those 'days' are equal to 1000 Earth years, which equals a 7000 year creation. Dinosaurs and man DIDN'T happily co-exist, nor were dinosaurs an originally created species which were always there, they arrived as a result of hybridization (even the Evolutionary timeline doesn't claim dinosaurs where here form the beginning) which were wiped out for the survival of man. It brings into light the fact that there WAS a time when man was more advanced (which Evolution can't account for) and then lost alot of it's knowledge. It also accounts for the Big Bang being the cause of the creation of the Universe. It doesn't however, say it happened on it's own, God was directing it. And that 'Big Bang' account happened BEFORE the creation of Earth.

Evolution is a theory that is backed by observable evidence such as transitional fossils of animals from forms to forms. It is backed by observation of micro evolution in short lived animals such as insects. Observation of mutation in cockroaches and bacterias agree that mutation is one of the mechanism for evolution. Theory of Evolution is an established one. Scientists may argue on rates of evolution in a species, punctuated or continous, different adaptation traits acquired. But in main the Theory is unlikely to be dethroned.

The theory of Evolution doesn't postulate a theory for the origin of life, so I will not comment on that.

Transitional fossils of animals is about the only macro evolution part of your post, and there is a great lack of these 'missing link' fossils.

The great ape-man himself was found in a myriad of tiny fragments stuck together. You call this evidence? And, as I don't doubt such a beast existed, I also don't doubt that it was a result of the mixing of humans with primates. Like I said before, many early tribes where not unknown to engage in such activities.

Of course the world is a big place and not every skeleton survived fossilisation. Under punctauted evolution, an organism can drastically change its appearance therefore negating a missing link form. This is also substantaited by recent findings that small changes in DNA can bring on a great change in appearance and form. Evolution is a wide ranging theory.

Macro evolution is conducted and proven by scads of biology students every semester. You, however, are unable to known this because you are uanable to define what a species is, and therefore cannot tell when one species becomes another.



It's the reverse. Macro-evolution is what all the evidence (including observed experiments and simulation) points to. Micro-evolution is is the claim made by creationists, who are unable to explain how macro-evolution is hamstrung. The question for micro-evolution has always been: How does micro-evolution explain that genome mutations accumulate to cause changes in creatures, however do not accumulate to the point of speciation (but again, Ashley does not know what a species is defined as).



Science is not done by compromise. Nor is it done by public opinion. The only way anything can be accepted as scientific is to meet the exact same requirements as everything else that claims the authority of science (or give a damn good reason why not, an event that has yet to occur).

History books are mere records of events, not proof in and of themselves. This means that the only way in which Enoch could be shown to be historically accurate is to independantly verify it. In other words, The aim here is to find support for the accuracy of Enoch (using proper scientific methodology), not to believe in the accuracy of Enoch, and find a means of supporting it (by whatever means possible).



And yet, they exist nonetheless, and their lack is completly expected and not unusual in the slightest.



It is physically impossible, by definition (which you still do not know), for two seperate species to mate.

You answered Stellar's post. Do you intend to answer the post I previously made?

Not according to any palaeontological or geological tome I've ever read.....



Not bad. The Chicxulub impact was in the sea, even though the site is now part of S Mexico. You do realise it was 65 million years ago though



Whilst we don't know the course of events, there is no evidence of an Ice Age. Within 10 million year the climate was even warmer. And over the next few million years mammals every bit as big as the dinosaurs had evolved.......

The ice age finally started around 35 million years ago in the S Hemisphere and 2 million years ago in the N Hemisphere.



Well that's the whole point! Macro is a result of lots of micro over a long time. Unless you're a few hundred thousand years old you're unlikely ever to see macro occuring before your eyes......



Glaciers may be described as 'ice rivers'. No-one could ever describe them as mountains........



Indeed But others have interpreted it very differently to you. It could refer to historical events. And dinosaurs could still have become extinct 65 million years before it was written....

Of course I know what a species is. And there is no way in hell that 'all the evidence points to macro-evolution'. Where is it now? Micro happens every day, macro does not. And as for inter-species breeding, like I said before, the modern dog is the result of many different species of canids from wolves to foxes to jackals, and do they now all create mixed breeds under a new species? Yes, they do.

Science doesn't compromise on it's own beliefs, I'll grant that, but Evolutionists do a great deal to gain 'public opinion'. Public opinion can change.

It shouldn't matter which came first, evidence is evidence, and I've argued this with you before. When evidence backs up an historical account it damn well is relevant.

There is a great lack of 'missing links', and yet mountains of articulated dinosaurs fossils turn up. There was also a skull and pelvis found of a 16 ft human being. Where exactly does Evolution fit that one in? And it wasn't an 'ape-man' skull either, it was human, found near Mt Aravat where this Ark is said to lie. Coincidence? I think not. Pet peeve it may be, but that doesn't change the fact that it's greatly lacking.

You haven't made any responses to my post prior to the ones above.

You mean it is impossible because you don't understand it? macro evolution is micro evolution on a longet timescale. Your lack of knowledge is impeding your understanding of this thread.

Dogs in main are descendence of Wolves, canis lupus. I do not mean they cannot interbreed with other canine groups but dogs may be loosely to be said to be wolves, they are genetically identical afterall. People of different ethnic groups are genetically identical despite physical differences, same concept applies here.

The bible is not a historic document, many other historic documents relating to other cultures dispute the historic fact of the Bible. The Scientific evidence that you consistently bring up is usually rubbish, you cannot use a biblical passage to prove the acuracy of itself.

Some of the "rubbish" that I mention, bring more consistent evidence, this are highly doubtful claims. Btw this thread is to prove evolution not creationism. Methinks that you are abit defensive.

1. There are plenty of transitional fossils. Reptiles to birds, apes to humans, fish to amphibians... it's all a matter of actually LOOKING. Aditionally, less than 0.1% of all the organisms that have ever lived actually end up as fossils. It's amazing that we've found what we have thus far.

2. If you took all the hominid fossils that have ever been discovered and kept for scientific study, you could fit them all in the back of a pick-up truck if you didn't mind how jumbled they'd become. It's not exactly hard to see why there's so much controversy with so little material to work from.

3. Because Macro-Evolution doesn't happen every day, that means it can't be correct? That's some of the flimsiest reasoning I've ever heard, especially when science tells us that it takes thousands, if not millions, of years to occur.

4. Your 16-foot tall human... where exactly did you get this information? Links would be appreciated, specifically ones from Scientific sites.

5. I still want to hear a creationist answer the question about viruses...


P.S: Ash, before you continue in this debate, I would reccomend that you read "A Short History of Nearly Everything", by Bill Bryson, in particular the chapters on evolution. Even if you don't agree with what he's saying, it's an entertaining book.

No. You do not. But you can prove me wrong quite easily. By all means, please give us the meaning of the word "species", as defined by evolutionary theory.



Yes. It does. Micro-evolution didn't even exist until evolution was bastardized by creationists with thier own agenda to advance.

]

You can repeat this as much as you like, but since you do not know what a species is, you will continue to be incorrect. By definition (Christ, how big a hint do you need?), inter-species breeding is not possible.

And, like I said, Macro-evolution (or speciation, as it is properly called) happens in the bio labs of colleges, universities, and even some exceptional high schools, on a semester by semester basis. Explaining it to you will be fruitless until you are able to understand what a species is, however.



The only interest evolutionists have in public interest is for the purpose of battling creationist. Science does not really give a fig how many believe or don't believe any given theory, only if it is properly supported and meets the demands of scientific methodology. Politics need not apply.



You cannot tell if an account is historical until you have the evidence to back it up. Even then you cannot accept the entire account as factual.

Tell me, do you believe the accounts of Alexander the Great are all factual?



And?

Incidentally, there are most definitly articulated fossils, but hardly mountains. And of course there will be missing links. We are talking about billions upon billions of animals through out history and a system of preservation that isn't all that efficient. Fossilation only preserves a small percentage. Not only are there missing links, there will be links that will never be found for the simple reason that none will have survived to this day.

And, having said all that, you probably still believe the missing link refers to a specific animal.



Hmm, let me respond in two manners: First as a skeptic, is there a source on this that doesn't, sooner or later, reference the existance of giants in the bible? If not have the bible suddenly become the central point of bringing up giants? If the only time you see a particular account is when it is brought up by a group with a specific agenda, don't you think that account merits a raised eyebrow?

Secondly, as a scientist, I would have to say: Cool. A sixteen foot human! Possibly. Great, so now what? Moving on, then...

Doubtless, such a find would make a wonderful research project for the lucky scientist, but ultimately, it would not change a whole lot. Why would it, after all? There is nothing in evolution that would prohibit the existance of a giant humanoid (although it would be somewhat unlikely).



What the heck are you on about? I haven't heard of any giants being found in Turkey.

So, again, what is lacking? Let's say there was a giant, heck, let's say there was an entire tribe of them...so what? What's the problem? Just another species of primate, most likely (elaboration would have to wait till the research is complete)




Sure I have. You just refuse to acknowledge them. But you are indeed one of the two on this forum that I tend to have blinders with, so let's put it to a vote:

Everyone, who has been more forthcoming with explanations and supported refutations, Ashley or I?

If it is indeed me, then I will happily go through all your posts and answer any question you wish?

Such as?

The only thing I can find about giants in Turkey is this article by an anonymous author and published on a Creationist based website:



Is this the source Ashley?


Giant Tale

And how are those evidence of your belief?



Again, same as above.



1. Do you realise that the time period you put fourth for this does not match that of the scientific evidence?
2. Care to identify the exact passages that say all this?



Sure you are. You clearly changed "Mountain" to "Ice glacier" have you not?



Why not? Why couldnt they have been? Hell, how much technology do you think is required to figure out "Hey, being outside in the sun is hotter than out of the sun! The closer you are to the sun, the hotter it must be!"



Thats not a matter of opinion, its a matter of definition. Macro evolution deals with the change of species and such, but how do the species change? Through continued microevolution.



Ahh, so you're saying that because of the vagueness, it could be anything, and even though its so vague, its still a valid prophecy? Heck, a "mountain of chocolate" just melted infront of me a few days ago!



The changing of seasons to the point of the mountains melting would be a direct result of the death of Sol.



Yes... as as I said, fire was seen as a common destroyer back then, hence a reason to say things would melt in the end.



There is much you talk about as fact which is not fact.



Yours is a laymans theory and your evidence is poor. You have talked about many things in absolutes, which are not absolutes.



More than for your "theory"



But we're not talking about people, we're talking about science.



No... but Christianity is what caused the dark ages. Things that didnt agree withi christianity were burnt in the darkages, hence whatever was left agreed with it.



You see it quite often... from the theory of gravity to the theory of Pythagoras to the theory of evolution.



Science isnt about compromise though and its not about making people happy, its about finding the truth.



What evidence is there of a highly unexplainable advanced human society existing in the past?



I dont think you understand what a transitional fossils are... define what you think a transitional fossil is.


Transitional fossils of animals is about the only macro evolution part of your post, and there is a great lack of these 'missing link' fossils.




As Aquatus said, impossible.

as much as i support science, some of you really have as much of a utopian view of it as ashley does of the book of talking dinosaurs.

there is far too much politics in science. science is VERY much influenced by society. it is only humans involved in science, the same species involved in promoting dinos as angel-reptile hybrids. don't forget it.

it is no where near the ideal search for truth you want to make it sound to be.

Ashley star wrote:

"But, that STILL does not make me American as I don't live anywhere near the country, let alone the entire continent of the United States of America. Like I said, finish school and come back to play with the big guys. "

now can anyone else see the irony in that statement .


I suggest before you start making claims of how intelligent or eductated you are, you read your past posts, and get someone to read and explain my posts to you, (as you are obviously incapable).

Your technique of debate is very poor indeed (with respect to our correspondance to myself), and I urge you to reconsider how you interpret information.


To everyone else, i would ask you to consider if intelligent reasoned debate is worthwhile regarding Ashley Star, as she does not respond to a highlighted flaw in her own process of conclusions (regarding my correspondance with her).

Its your call obviously, and your time.

Really? I have not heard of that. Where did you get that info. Please share.

I believe it was debunked....A fraud!

the 16 foot man-creatures:
that ties into the dome of water story, another fallacy.

the only thing we have really proven in this thread is how thick-headed humans can be!

that, and of course that humans don't think too logically "out of the box", just like their ancient counterparts. perhaps one thing evo related we have seen is how slowly "higher order" animals evolve. (well, at least half will get the truth in that, and the other half will take it as a wise-crack).

as much as i support science, some of you really have as much of a utopian view of it as ashley does of the book of talking dinosaurs.

there is far too much politics in science. science is VERY much influenced by society. it is only humans involved in science, the same species involved in promoting dinos as angel-reptile hybrids. don't forget it.

it is no where near the ideal search for truth you want to make it sound to be.

What do you call yourself?Open-minded sceptic?

after seeing the examples of believers and sceptics of all colours around here I am now just refering to myself as

(if my post you quoted sounds cynical it is because it is! i know first hand how it is to have to publish, to have to do things that draw funding, etc. it is worse in private research because the companies funding research are interested in their bottom line.)

Wow this is an intense thread and I loved every minute of reading all 10 pages. It seems that a lot of you have your crap together on science (evolution) vs religion. Being an evolutionist myself I have always wandered one question. If the bible is read, I don't think there is a mention of dinosaurs. Scientists (most) believe that dinosaurs existed and that there was a meteor, volcano, ice age or whatever that made them extinct. But there are a lot of people who believe in the bible and dinosaurs. I feel that is a contradiction in itself. Reason: God supposedly created Earth in 7 days (7000 years by biblical time) and Adam and Eve were created (which Eve came second after Adam and Lilith didn't get along, which is my belief of that theory) and there were no dinosaurs at all. But what proof do we have of anything in the bible. NOTHING. Yes we have artifacts created in that time, but NO Garden of Eden ( only whereabouts and where it could of been), ARK ( no need to explain that one) and other conspiracies that has been mentioned already in other threads. Back to my point... So if you believe in dinosaurs how can you believe in the bible? We DO HAVE FOSSILS OF DINOSAURS and a copy of a book called the bible that was translated and written by a man who thought he could translate the Hebrew/Arabic language. Dinosaurs existed for sure we know, unless the government made all this up and planted the bones for us to find (highly unlikely) which means caveman existed ( not sure on that theory I would have to do more research but I do believe there is evidence of cavemen/women) so as evolution continues on it's path more and more is changing. Think about how old our planet is. BILLIONS OF YEARS I believe. Evolution has had a chance to evolve into us. I don't know if anyone has watched this show on TV about the man with 6 fingers on each hand (extra pinky on both hands), I feel that is evolution working. Several have said that they wish that they had an extra finger, hand, arm, leg and so forth. Well if you want it bad enough you can trick the body into thinking it needs one and it can happen. For example, a woman who wants a baby really bad and pretends she is pregnant, she can trick her body into thinking she is pregnant. Therefore, she goes through all 9 months of pregnancy, but there is nothing there.

Sorry I might of gotten off subject. One movie that I liked that had a small clip of evolution in it was ICE AGE the cartoon movie. The sloth goes into the tunnel and looks into the ice and it shows several different levels of evolution that created him into what he was today.

As far as the biology and chemistry that is going on, I was impressed at what some replied. And they were correct. If we go into the biology of cells and free matter, there will be a lot of interesting things that arise, as we have seen so far.

Anyways thank all of you who replied because I got some good insight into my beliefs. And I do apologize if I got off topic, I just felt that the reply was purtanent in what was being discussed.