oops..that/last quote..was dr;etheridge..who also said..9/10 th's of the talk of evolutionists..is sheer non-sense...not founded in observation/and wholy..unsupported by the facts'..

aime/michael..quote..''the clasical-theory/of evolution..in a strict-sense..belongs-to the past...allmost-all french-specialiasts..hold today...strong mental reservations...as to the validity..of natural-selection''..

lord/zukkerman...'if/man..evolved from some/ape-like ancestor...it was..without leaving..any fossil-traces..of the steps of this transformation''..

further...'in the interpritation/of mans fossil-histry...where the faithfull..believe...anything..is possable...the ardent believer..is sometimes..able to believe...several contradictory/things...at the same time'...it seems/that every-time...a man/finds..a human-bone..he goes crazey on the spot...lol

dr;david pilbeam..''i know/that...at least in paleontoligy...data are still/so sparce,..that theory...heaveily influences;interpritations...theories/have..in the past..clearly reflected...our current/ideologies...instead/of the actual;data

louis aganassiz..'the links between/the species..are imagenary'.,..species sudenly appears and disappear...''

the geological record..tells us now,..that..what has been told from the beginning.../that the supposed-intermediate/forms..between the species..of different/geological periods...are imaginary beings...called upon..mearly to support..a fancifull-theory

dr/stephan.j.gould....the fossil record..with its abrupt-transitions...offers no support..for gradual change''..from one species..to another

in 500/million years..record..no transitional forms were found...except those now proved fraud

but i see im talking to the hand

the writing has long been upon the wall
its just the believers/decievers
are too blind..or biased to look at the facts

talk about the blind leading the blind
and so the athjiestic thoughtless-ness continues...

recall once/the deception seemed to be teaching creation..
needed to be balanced,,with science...

well now it yet again needs to be balanced,,with facts..they simply speaking are absent...thus now the children are coping athiestic deceptions...leading them further away..from the living/loving good..god really is

we been decieved..for so long
aint it time you asked..your peers to proove it?

this is some huge/joke on humanity

all the worse
with the deception of christians...forgiving..
yet not repenting/by works..

add-in the fact christ died..
to prove we all

TO PROVE../..ALL..GET BORN-again
even a thief on the cross

you can see why
the peers/decieved us..from child-hood

why cannot you think
because you got faith..in lue of fact

evolutionists..keep revitalising the same deceptions...like the fact...they claim..a progression..from non-life..to life..without trying to validate..their delusions

it was long-ago/accepted fact,...from aristotal...that life arose...'spontainiously'..that bugs/arose out of the slime..

then in the 17 th centuray..franchesco/redi...through controlled experiment..proved..it wasnt fact..only falicy..[he proved rotted meat..arose from living flies]..but his work..laid forgotten

till 1860/..lous pasteur..again refuted the deciete..
but it just wont stay dead...
pasteur demonstraited...each organism..requires parents...
[life from life]...this is a law-of bio-genesis

darwin/wrote..the first living-thing...[organism]..being present..in a ''warm/little pond'..yet never revealed..where this well-spring of life was situated...

in his second edition..he did admit..that the first lives..'may'..have had a primary-cause...[god]...lol

darwins last three-lines...'there is a grandeur/in this vieuw of life...with several-powers..having been origonally breathed/by the creator..into a few forms...or into one...'

..'but gradually decided/the subject..was..''beyond the scope of mans-intellect'..thus decided to remain agnostic'..

then yockey[phd]..wrote/quote..''evolution to the higher-forms..could not get started....geological evidence of a 'warm/little pond'..is missing'..

..'therefore..a belief...that proteins,,,basic for life..as we know it...appeared spontainiously...in the primitive milieu/on earth...based..on faith*

nobel/lauriote...ilya prigone..joined the choir...quote....

..'the idea of spontanious-generation..of life...in its present-form..is therefore..highly improbable..''

..''even on the scale-of..the billions of years...during which..prebiotic'-evolution'..is proposed to have occured

according to monford...the possability..of life spontainiously/occuring...'was virtually zero''..

dr/robert-jastrow..[an admitted agnostic]..admits both god/creation and spontanious-'evolution'..was a matter of faith*...;..

'what concrete evidence/supports
the remarkable/theory of origen of life...
there is none'..

as wrote previously..there is plenty of evidence/of no evidence

only faiths..let those who believe..believe..but dont call any belief any more true /...any more valid than any other belief

IF YOU GOT SCIENCE>>>PROVE IT
the silence alone..speaks volumes..to those with open minds

if you only got faith
dont be lying and say its science

because REAL/scientists..have looked at the science...
and called it fraud..the facts arnt in...SO WHY lie to your kids?

with one huge deciet..you give them santa/claws
not the messiahs birth

you give them the ester/rabbit
not that he died..to PROVE..we are all born again..after 'dying'

you filled their minds with deception..took the living/loving good
from their hearts..yet we who know the all loving..must forgive you

and if god can/forgive
then so must i

BUT*

..let the sleepers sleep...NO WAY...!

Actually Dan, the surprise is mine, in that for all your apparent mastery of language, you didn't spot a rhetorical device.

Not that I don't appreciate your earnest and naive attempt at an answer. That you, and I presume most creationists also, suggest that the genetic diversity of the entire human race could be contained in just two individuals is adorable.

When you say that all people are descended from the same women, not just woman, you are correct. In fact, if you are of European descent you are related to English Royal family and quite probably have a common ancestor. You should realise that you are at a nexus in your lineage, you have two parents and they each had two parents (i.e. four grandparents) etc. so that your ancestry expands exponentially to be greater than the entire population of Europe within a thousand years. Thus we are of course all related and share common ancestors. But we aren't decended from only two solitary individuals. The biblical idea that only Noah and his family survived the great flood also puts the human race through a severe genetic bottleneck that also could not contain the genetic diversity of the human race.

The significance of the Mitochondrial Eve is lost on your lot. The Mitochondrial Eve is certainly not the biblical eve and is a product of the mode of inheritance of mitochondria. You don't understand it, please stop using it in the thought that it supports your viewpoint.

You and other creationists have made certain claims which can and have been assessed. They have been assessed to be objectively untrue and deserve to be put in the scientific dustbin along with the likes of Phlogiston. They may be retained as cultural and social historical artefacts, like Christmas and the Rainbow Serpent legends, but they aren't actual history. You can and do ignore these assessments and have shut your mind to the objective truth, possibly because it is too painful for your faith.

Dan,

Related to Bugsy's post please note my earlier comments on genetic Adam and genetic Eve. These good folk were born thousands of years apart. Their offspring mated.

Genetic Adam and Genetic Eve, thus, do not represent the origina of our species, which was much earlier. As Spencer Wells puts it, "... otherwise Eve would have been waiting a long time for Adam to show up". About 80,000 years.

The CERN particle physics is closing on the origins of the universe,and in the same way the National Geograghic Society is mapping DNA long before the dating of Genesis. Both are serious oranisations.

I readily accept that some theists could belief the scriptures to be allogical and still believe in their particluar divinity, accepting that books like the Bible were not textbooks.

Does Genesis have to be correct for God to exist? With my little survey some time ago I think I found only one Christian who believed the world was flat, which is the literal assertion of the Bible.

bugsy/quote...<<..that the genetic diversity/of the entire human race could be contained..in just two individuals..is adorable>>yeah..but is it believable.

i guess my point is..evilooonytrists...believe..that all living..was contained..in the first living cell...

i find that deceitfully/adorable

but lets revisit..that first...'life'
science cannot name

the tre of life has 3 roots/..possable first livings,,lol
in reality it hasnt a clue

dont know how
and cant replicate it at any rate

their basic theorum/is;..
first an assumption..then..a belief
next a hope...then a theory..next a postulate
then a hypothesis...and finally a sup-position

but they have done the math
sir-fred/doyle..and chandrawickramasinghe..found the odd's/..against the spark..of life..igniting..accidentally..on earth
was staggering..in mathimatical jargon,...

10 TO THE POWER of..40,000*
http://library.thinkquest.org/27407/creation/chances.htm
so as for the odds
thats a prime number PLUS..40,ooo.zeros..to one

hoyle/wickramassibghe..wrote<<;'no matter/how large..the environment..one considers...LIFE CANNOT HAVE HAD A random beginning'

even so lets hear carl/sagans..own words..;'the production..of/organic molicules..nessesary/for the origen of/life..is not the same as origonating life

or dr spiegalman[why sysnthesised rna...when asked if he created...life'..replied...;.'only god can create life'

but i see no one is rebutting/at any rate
so whats the deal

genesis need not be right
nor science be right
and got will still be cause/of causes
good will still be god

where the bible says earth is the center of the universe
does not treanslate to the earth beiung flat

IT WAS SCIENCE peers..who decreed..that lie as true
science has a histry of being wrong more times than it was right

as anyone traveling over 12 miles per hour can confirm

BAH/...peers...they are the root of the problem
and the biggest degree of simultude..between religions wrongs...
and sciences wrongs..peers doing the mates rate/thing..thats the root of the problem

that and govt funding..basic research
by controling the purse..they control the result
and just egsactly..what is allowed to be investigated

Dear OUG,

"where the bible says earth is the center of the universe
does not treanslate to the earth beiung flat"

The verses that refer to the earth being flat mention being so high that all the corners could been seen and the like. Normally, I would check these out and cite, but you can google.

Actually, the chances of forming the necessary amino chain is 10 to 41st power, if I recall. If you stay with classical biogenesis this can be overcome with assembly and an enoromous amount of time. Or QM was involved in which case the building of the replicator assembled without classical observation, yet decoherence occured when the peptite was functional.

The isssues for Life are; time (duration) and the second law of thermodymics, as I have said before. The long chance stuff is a bit of a furphy as science does not claim, metaphotically, the 747 self-assembled in one step. Non-classical assembly from superposition is a strong contender for an explanation. Cocooned from the second law of thermodymics and the effects of entropy and having muliple (infinite?) states of assembly; Life is highly plausible. If not QM, then some kind of physics not known to our science. Yet, today, QM is a contender.