this is a chicken and egg argument or perhaps we could also ask who (or what) created the creator. i am reminded that every time a new fossil in the human family is found creationists demand that the "gap" between the new fossil sequences be filled and won't be satisfied until there is a complete unbroken chain to demonstrate human evolution. Science aint like that. Theories are changable as soon as better evidence comes along. Faith id set in concrete no matter what comes at it. They are different and irreconcilable.

Dear PTP,

What a marvellous post!

How on earth can any one of us top that?

Brilliant!

Dear OUG,

Quoting from my postings in another thread
on this topic ...

Most evolutionary changes occur too slowly to
be observed directly.

However, scientists in a number of fields have
found much evidence to support the theory
of evolution.

This evidence comes from five principal
sources: 1) fossils, 2) adaptations in
organisms, 3) geographic distribution of species
4) comparative studies of species and 5) embryology.

It's very understandable that many people don't
accept the theory of evolution because it conflicts
with their religious beliefs.

However, many people accept the basic principles of
evolution within the framework of their religious
beliefs.

Some Biblical scholars interpret the story of the Creation
as symbolic, rather than literal, account of the origin
of human beings and other living things.

They don't find this symbolic interpretation incompatible with
the findings of evolutionary biologists.

What I don't understand is - if you have a strong faith,
and no matter what anyone says you're not going to
listen anyway, - why do you insist on being provided with
proof for the theory of evolution?

What's the point to it all

A botanist’s perspective:

Take the eucalypts - Australia’s most dominant and well-known trees. There are more than 800 species.

Within any species you can see differences in the basic characters such as the flowers and leaves between individuals in the same population. Sometimes they are immediately obvious, sometimes you have to look a bit harder. It is easy to envisage how these different traits could advantage or disadvantage individuals in the game of survival and reproduction.

You’ll also see differences in many species over distance within their natural distribution, as they extend across the rainfall gradient for example. Leaf width and greenness versus greyness are classic differences of this sort. It is easy to envisage how these differences have resulted from the selection of traits from within the natural variation found within populations that work best for the trees in a given set of environmental circumstances.

And you’ll see whole populations that are somewhat different, which are often called different varieties or subspecies. It is easy to envisage how these have arisen from the previous step.

Then you’ll notice distinct species that are very similar and obviously related.

Whole groups of species can be seen to be related to other groups.

The larger groups clearly fit together as the genus Eucalyptus.

The relationships of Eucalyptus with other genera is such that its position within the family Myrtaceae is unambiguous.

The Myrtaceae clearly fits within the flowering plants.

The further back you go, the less clear the relationships are. But then you’d expect that to be the case. The same applies with all manner of things, where details are obliterated or hidden in the mists of time.

The evolutionary process is blindingly obvious within the eucalypts…..and across the spectrum of the Earth’s biota, for anyone who wants to see it.

Evolution stopped being a theory and moved into the realm of scientific fact many decades ago.

we may never know for sure. .
Posted by Fractelle,

Posted by PTP
You are asking a question that cannot be answered

[then goes on for 4 pages with off topic distraction[ie]

'quote';>>..what you mean by god. .
Then specify what you mean by creation ..<<

discuss scientific EVOLUTION [not theism]
.. I don't find ANYTHING disturbing.

then;>>..Perhaps you can convince me?..>>
thats not the question bro
its for you try to prove your theory is a science
,

PTP>>..PART 2
.. a 'scaffold' of clay in order to have a go at getting better at reproducing themselves. Interesting don't you think? ..<<

(no]
[its off topic]

>>..I *am* a critical thinker.So, when you're ready,let me know what your question actually *is* and what you mean by god. ..>>

[irrelivant to YOUR explaining YOUR theory]

IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION
dont try to create distractions way from the answer [lol]

THEN

>>..PTP gave you a lucid post.

Why don't you reply to the questions he asks?..<<
Posted by Foxy,

[reply]he is supposed to be replying[answering] the topic
not distracting the debate to god/creation definition

but he has more of topic [clever] distraction;QUESTIONS
but seemingly little reply

>>..PART 3 &..I will assume you mean that life spontaneously arose..>>
[NO DO YOU?]
>>..Also- wanted to ask.Are you saying that;
life is too complex to be explained ..<<

[NO im asking you to explain YOUR belief in evolution
[and ambiogenesis]

ptp please explain the causal
ambiogenesis and other points raised at q1;for REPLY

>>>and YOUR other reasonable explanations?<<
Take a scientific, FACTUAL basis
based on the true sciences
you claim to underpin YOUR theory

[noting other questions are all still you
trying to reshape the question into my opinion about god]

explain YOUR theory pleas

Dear OUG,

I thought I had explained things to you in my last post.
Did you miss reading it?

I did tell you that most evolutionary changes occur too
slowly to be observed directly. However, scientists
have found much evidence to support the theory of
evolution from five principal sources which are:
1)fossils, 2) adaptations in organisms 3) geographic
distribution of species 4) comparative studies of the
various species and finally 5) embryology.

This is merely a brief listing, if you want more
information on each of these categories - you'd have
to google it yourself. I can't do it here for you
due to the word limit.

Others on this thread have also answered your questions,
but it seems to me that you're not interested in anything
any one of us has to say.

That's why I can see that any further discussion is a
waste of time.

In leaving this thread, I wish that:

"May your eyes continue
to see beautiful and significant things,
may you keep your spirit smiling,
and may your soul always dance to good music..."

Grace and Peace...

the topic is mute

NO ONE can scientificly[definativly]describe the begining
nor has science'evolved 'a single new species[via naTURAL SELECTION]

[thousands of generations of UNNATURAL accelorated fruitfly mutation has ONLY produced fruitflies][duh]

we have a theory called a science][it IS ONLY a theory ]
the truth is the debate is still going

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00CXYc

if evolution can be proven PROOVE IT
links prove nothing
pictures ARNT SCIENCE

same with god creation[like it or not athiests are made and sustained by a godless theory[allowing them to blaspheme against god]

as no one is even trying,to explain their evolutionary theory in full
it is clear we dont have the full facts
[thus cant have a valid science]

and many clever people claiming to not even know the question?
and many are trying to rephrase the question into one they can reply

thing is i was taught evolution as a child
as many of you were
[i was told there is no god
,as many of you were as well

well the thing is science has not any replicatable answer

it hasnt made any mutation
hasnt made its own cell

i speculates[thus isnt science]

it dosnt reveal faulsifiable facts[thus isnt science]

we have art and philosophy
pretty pictures revealing the LOOKS LIKE
that looks like evolutionary progression [evolution]
but looks like isnt science

darwins finches were all finches
look like has decieved science many times

but science told us the sun turned arround the earth
[till one nutter created the true[verifyably true; science]
by proving it the other way round

; till then science was decieved
[as evolutionists may be now]

till they prove their theory fact
[ie get a man
using pure science
to breed [to evolve from an ape]

learned people can get decieved
limited knowledge is a dangerouse thing
a respondants 800 eucalypts[ARE ALL EUCALYPTS]

and so the numbers reveal
finches breed finches
fruitfly breeds fruit fly
apes breed apes
humans breed humans

science method has NEVER recorded nor evolved an evolution

thus is only the equivelent of a freshman
[to the science of over 2000 years that religion has]