MOLLY .. when we who seek to follow Christ descend into winning an argument, it does Christ no good, thats my point. In that mode, we don't really represent 'him'. There is a story in the Old Testament which is most instructive. Moses was told by God, to 'tap' a rock with his rod, and water would come out. He did this, but another time, his emotions got the better of him, and he berated the Israelites, and WHACKED the rock :) "I'll show you mob !" kind of thing.
There is a fine line between passionately and honestly arguing a point, and 'whacking' the opponent.

Giving up fertilized eggs ? well, u probably already know my feeling about that. But a fertilized egg is a person in waiting, who will one day DESPERATELY want to know his biological connections in this world, and for goodness sake, the thought that I would be confronted by a son or daughter who I'd given up as an 'egg' is quite scary. Personally, I don't think I'd really like that as my heritage.

LUIGI its a bit difficult to put a heap of complex science into 350 words mate. Ur too dismissive. Links can be helpful, but when u make comments like that, my mind goes immediately to some of the great minds of history, who began their quest to disprove the resurrection, and ended up as Christians. Malcolm Muggeridge, C.S. Lewis, Simon Greenleaf (Harvard Law school) to name a few 'oldies but goodies'.
You seem to assume that science 'rejects' God, but I suggest that science can neither confirm or deny God, because science is an ongoing work in progress.

NEO u asked my favorite question "Why is 'your' God the real deal" ?
May I refer you to this ? Have a read, then get back to me.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%2015;&version=64;

I'd like to pose a question or two to those good Christians here who decry 'moral relativism' as some reason to adhere to their particular arbirary supernatural dogma:

Aren't the Christian proponents of the war in Iraq engaging in 'moral relativism' when they decide to contravene one of their fundamental 'commandments' - "thou shall not kill" - as they drop bombs and shoot people in their efforts to assert control? Why is it OK to drop a bomb that you know will likely kill innocent civilians, no matter how just and noble you think your cause is? What don't you understand about "thou shall not kill"?

I think I might even be morally relativist enough to suggest that in that way at least I might be a better 'Christian' than one who goes to war and drops bombs on people or shoots them - despite the fact that I don't believe in god/s, except as constructs of the marvellous human imagination.

Ain't life grand?

Morgan

Good question and well put morganzola.

Of course the contradictions of Christians on these moral issues are endless, but their 'out' is always that they are imperfect beings, 'sinners' who strive more or less vainly for the light. Apparently their god tells them what to do or what not to do, but being mere selfish nasty humans, they find it impossible to obey god's teaching. This of course merely shows the wide gap betewwen humans and their god, and makes the god that much more eminently worthy of worship. Basically, they're worshipping their own impossible ideals - more egotism, in a roundabout way.

Someone mentioned Muggeridge as a great mind. I made a brief study of the fellow a while back - brief because he didn't repay extensive analysis. In none of his writings will you find anything remotely resembling an argument, there is nothing but opinion, and a certain amount of wit, if you think mouthing off at homosexuals, scientists, liberals and 'bluestockings' amusing. Read any few pages of him, and you'll soon have his measure - the rest is just repetition. He's deservedly forgotten today. Anyone who considers such a man 'a great mind' is badly in need of an education.

Kenny,

Let me assure you that I know far more about evolution than you will ever know.

Finally, you admit that scientists do not know how self-replicating organisms came into being.

You wrote: "The best scientist can do in this area is demonstrate how it might happen."

In other words, we'll dream up some "just...so" story. In fact, in the case of self-replicating organisms you can't even do that because the whole scenario is physically and logically impossible. Self-replicating organisms are irreducibly complex.

So tell me: how is this kind of explanation any different from saying "God did it"? At least saying "God did it" is logically coherent.

For a theory to be scientific it must have empirical evidence supporting it, it must explain relevant observations, it must make predictions, and it must be falsifiable.

However, no suggested evolutionary process can create new genetic information. No information creating mutation has been observed. Evoloution cannot explain the gaps in the fossil record or the suggested evolution of things like the avian lung or the human eye etc. Evolutionary processes cannot make predictions and is therefore not falsifiable. ie. evolution is not science - it is ideology. Indeed, it is a religious ideology because you need faith (and lots of it!) to believe it.

If you want to evaluate creation science then see the following:
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles_chron.htm
http://www.icr.org/research/
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/index.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/qa.asp

For a refutation of Ed Max's tripe see:
http://www.trueorigins.org/spetner2.asp

You ask: "what evidence for evolution would he consider conclusive proof?"

Well, you cannot conclusively prove evolution because it is not repeatable. However, to make it plausible you have to:
1. Explain/demonstrate how self-replicating organisms can come into being. Neither you nor any links posted have done this.
2. Point to a mutation that has caused a net increase in genetic information.

Luigi,

Thankyou for sharing your views on science and religion. However, since you have offered to argument or support for your view, I see no reason why we should pay any attention to it. Simply asserting one’s view does not make it true.

Aslan - none so blind as those who will not see. A number of links have been posted providing logical and reasonable proof of that which you ask regarding sexual evolution and mutation. I doubt you have bothered to read any of them and even if you have you clearly remain blind.
I honestly don't care what or whom you worship I do however, resent your dogmatic, judgemental and dismissive view of any who present a different point of view. For example the manner in which you dismissed Luigi "Thankyou for sharing your views on science and religion. However, since you have offered to argument or support for your view, I see no reason why we should pay any attention to it. Simply asserting one’s view does not make it true."

This is a forum of opinion - Intelligent well reasoned opinion such as Luigi's is valued but you won't be happy until everyone agrees with everything you have to say - well it ain't gonna happen.

I find formal religion rigid, arrogant and judgemental and you have demonstrated those negative qualities over and over on this forum. Rather than winning converts you are alienating further those who do not believe in your god.