MICRO AND MACRO EVOLUTION, the difference between them

There are problems with evolution theory that scientists and laymen can't explain, but the problems are nowhere near as simplified, wrong, illogical and retarded as the christians teach. Also the problems don't rule-out natural selection, since natural selection is an undeniable fact. They just point to problems in natural selection being effective enough to account for the evolution we've seen to date. Natural selection shouldn't show major, multiple-gene-mutations in ridiculously short time spans, as we see on the human evolutionary scale.

But just because that doesn't explain it, some magical fairy floating in the sky doesn't either.

One modern theory involves the role of quantum mechanics in evolution, suggesting that cells actually experience multiple-mutations at once, the smaller you go in scale (e.g. down to the size of dna acids, but not as large as an entire apoptosis mechanism). Explaining why there isn't necessarily every-conceivable mutation before the most effective is 'chosen' and 'carried on'.

anyways, christians are fucking morons.

Quotes from you. "macro are scientific facts", "Show proof for MICRO if you can". You aren't even getting the points of your own arguement straight.

You comment show you have not proof just the dogma of evolution

Well that comment was proof that you don't even know what you are argueing.

macro are scientific facts.

Show proof for MICRO if you can.

proof not Theory

Both micro AND macro evolution are scientific facts. It seems hard to believe if you imagine a rock spontaneously turning into a dog or a rose, but evolution is a GRADUAL process, not an immediate jump from one thing to another. It started with tiny proteins, not rocks, and over millions and millions of years, various mutations created the creatures we have today.

Creationists talk about "teaching the controversy" of evolution vs. creationism in schools, but the "controversy" only exists among laypeople like us. Among scientists (i.e. the people who are knowledgeable such things), there is no controversy and evolution is an established fact. If you'd prefer to believe some dude on a pornographic website instead, that's your business.

Where is there any proof that inteligence has ever created any life? Check out your local welfare lines, and you will see that it takes absolutely no intelligence at all, and more often than not is by "chance".

Uh, a rock isn't an ancestor. You have committed a fallacy known to logicians as a "Straw Man" fallacy.

No Chance of Life by Chance

Author: Bruce Malone

In the 1700's many scientists believed that life spontaneously generated from non-living matter (such as raw meat or sewage). In the 1800's, using careful experimentation, Louis Pasteur proved this concept wrong and verified that life only comes from previously existing life. Ironically, many scientists have once again returned to the belief that life came from non-life. . . in spite of the fact that there is no experimental evidence to show how that could have happened. The reason this unsupported belief has returned is that science has been defined as to eliminate the consideration of the only other alternative-the creation of life by an intelligent designer.

Search for the Truth This article is one of many found within Mr. Malone's excellent book, Search for the Truth.

Even the simplest living cell is an incredibly complex machine. It must be capable of detecting malfunctions, repairing itself, and making copies of itself. Man has never succeeded in building a machine capable of these same functions. Yet most scientists accept the belief that life arose from non-life (in spite of the evidence clearly indicating that it did not and could not happen). This incredible belief is as absurd as finding a complex chemical manufacturing facility on Mars and assuming that it built itself.

One classic experiment which is used to support the belief that life "built itself" is an experiment by Stanley Miller in 1953. In this experiment sparks were discharged into an apparatus which was circulating common gases. These gases reacted to form various organic products which were collected and analyzed. The experiment succeeded in producing only a few of the 20 amino acids required by itself. Furthermore, the dozens of major problems with this experiment as an explanation for the formation of life are seldom reported.

For instance, our early atmosphere was assumed to have no oxygen because this would stop amino acid formation. Ho

Regarding comment #231, apparently this guy is so ignorant he thinks "macroevolution" includes the origin of the earth's spin. Nuff said.

Chezz you don't have to be smart blah blah... But you do have to be stupid to argue with an idiot! You admit your “dim” but complain about someone pointing that out to you. DROP IT!

you guys need to get laid

<---Fuck you! Who let the retard on here?

we maybe something else like pure light. Or green slime! Only God knows. My final words for you are here;http://snaps.snapsoid.com/~Evolutionists_CIRCULAR_REASONING

Some think that “God created man in his likeness” means what we see here today. Maybe God has no likeness and all likenesses and what we see here today is just that; just what God wants us to be today and in ten million more years,

You can’t convince me one way or the other because I don’t share your faith in your theories. I think science supports evolution and I think that God created the vehicle of evolution to support life on this planet.

Now throw out “by chance” I was deliberately created in the likeness of God; my faith tells me that. “Created” of course we were created. How else are we here, a grand illusion? How were we created?

beyond faith one thing or another holds true. But on the theories of our existence I think we will never be sure because each method of creation theories may have been Gods plan. We will not know until we are in the presence of God and can ask him.

Looking at it that simply requires faith in something like God or like science, or a combination maybe; and that is fine. Faith is a good thing and helps support hope until theories can be proven by experimenting…

No chezz I think you will find that beliefs in false gods regardless of their form IS the majority of the worlds problems. You said, “There are only 2 ways we are here, either we came here by chance or we were created”

or we could just read some of your lies, chezz.

But I know this, fundamental religious extremism and mans’ interpretations of Gods words is at least responsible for most of all the worlds problems today in one form or another. Give it a rest and stop and smell the flowers!

Good ones but only theories because there is no way to prove or disprove Gods plan but through faith. Again you are preaching to yourself, not me, I am to humble to say for certain where it came from or where it is all going….

Or if he wanted to create everything in existence now or forever will be in an instant or six days HE COULD DO IT. I don’t, you don’t, no one knows for certain but for some theories on its existence….

Ok chezz the plant analogy one more time; If God wanted a rose to grow at the center of the earth HE WOULD DO IT. No sun, no water, no nutrients; nothing! If he wanted man to be created in his likeness but use the vehicle of evolution HE COULD DO IT.

“(+ or - a few hours”) who said chezz? You’re defining your own creation beliefs. If God wanted a rose to grow from a rock beneath the earth he would have it. “Literally 6 days” Says who? Why? How could you know we were not there? Or were we...