Need Your Help

[Rsnbl Faith]

Deppfan Teague

Kain1334

Deppfan Teague

Kain1334

Deppfan Teague

Wow, you know what??? I'm NOT an equal when it comes to talking about the bible. I never read further than a few pages in. Why? It was contradictory and made no sense. All I know is, from what I have heard that is written in the bible, I want nothing to do with it.

Everything you say about the Bible I can't take seriously, so when you say it is contradictory, how can I take it seriously, if you refuse to actually look at it? You can rarely make sense of any story when you have only read a page or two, it takes more than that to understand it, heck some of those 'contradictions' might have just been unexplained accurences that are explained later.

Also you only take things by hearsay? That is not something you do if you are searching for truth, you have to look into it yourself, or you will never actually understand. But enough of this, I know very well you won't listen to a single word about this from me.

You seem to enjoy evolution though, it used to be one of my favorite subjects,(well Intelligent Design vs. Evolution) until it became a bore to me, though genetics I still love!
Now quick question, would you say that evolution can succeed and fail?

I will give you one contradiction as an example. It says that God created man and woman together, and then a few passages later, it says that Adam was created first, then needed a mate, so Eve was created from his rib. How could we have been created, then created again? Did God screw up and have to start over? Is it a remnant of the original story of Lillith (still inlcuded in the Hebrew bible)?

To answer your question, I do not believe that Evolution can succeed and fail, because it has no end goal. Evolution is just change over time.

Quote:

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I believe you are talking about this verse + the verses talking about God using the rib of Adam to make woman. Realize this that, when Genesis 1:17 is talking, it is merely explaining the creation of well...creation, not the same as later on when it is explaining what happened during/after. It is confusing at times, but thats because this is not English literature per-say, but Hebrew. Its like me saying "I wrote 2 poems", then saying "but I wrote this one first than this one second" there isn't really any contradiction at all, it just appears at first glance to be a contradiction.

Now I'm glad you answered it that way, because I've heard way to often people saying it failed here or there. Now another question, How did we get here?

Through a long series of random chances and adaptations due to environmental pressures, chemicals formed into life, which diverged into many different forms. As far as humans specifically, we evolved from a creature that was also a ancestor of modern apes. It bothers me when people say we came from apes. We actually didn't.

Now I have 3 questions:
1. Would you say that we are amazingly lucky beyond belief?
2. Is any of that provable?
3. Since we are nothing more than a product of mere chance, does does this say about how are brain works, wouldn't it go to show that our brains work just the way they were made, randomly?  

[Deppfan]

Kain1334

Deppfan Teague

Kain1334

Deppfan Teague

Kain1334

Everything you say about the Bible I can't take seriously, so when you say it is contradictory, how can I take it seriously, if you refuse to actually look at it? You can rarely make sense of any story when you have only read a page or two, it takes more than that to understand it, heck some of those 'contradictions' might have just been unexplained accurences that are explained later.

Also you only take things by hearsay? That is not something you do if you are searching for truth, you have to look into it yourself, or you will never actually understand. But enough of this, I know very well you won't listen to a single word about this from me.

You seem to enjoy evolution though, it used to be one of my favorite subjects,(well Intelligent Design vs. Evolution) until it became a bore to me, though genetics I still love!
Now quick question, would you say that evolution can succeed and fail?

I will give you one contradiction as an example. It says that God created man and woman together, and then a few passages later, it says that Adam was created first, then needed a mate, so Eve was created from his rib. How could we have been created, then created again? Did God screw up and have to start over? Is it a remnant of the original story of Lillith (still inlcuded in the Hebrew bible)?

To answer your question, I do not believe that Evolution can succeed and fail, because it has no end goal. Evolution is just change over time.

Quote:

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I believe you are talking about this verse + the verses talking about God using the rib of Adam to make woman. Realize this that, when Genesis 1:17 is talking, it is merely explaining the creation of well...creation, not the same as later on when it is explaining what happened during/after. It is confusing at times, but thats because this is not English literature per-say, but Hebrew. Its like me saying "I wrote 2 poems", then saying "but I wrote this one first than this one second" there isn't really any contradiction at all, it just appears at first glance to be a contradiction.

Now I'm glad you answered it that way, because I've heard way to often people saying it failed here or there. Now another question, How did we get here?

Through a long series of random chances and adaptations due to environmental pressures, chemicals formed into life, which diverged into many different forms. As far as humans specifically, we evolved from a creature that was also a ancestor of modern apes. It bothers me when people say we came from apes. We actually didn't.

Now I have 3 questions:
1. Would you say that we are amazingly lucky beyond belief?
2. Is any of that provable?
3. Since we are nothing more than a product of mere chance, what does this say about how our brain works, wouldn't it go to show that our brains work just the way they were made, randomly?

1. To exist the way we do today? Yeah. There are so many things that could have happened differently, that could have changed how we evolved, or even wiped us out completely.
2. Not 100%, beyond any shadow of a doubt, no. Science isn't to the point of proving it that way YET.
3. Our brains work the way they do, because brains that worked differently didn't fit in with the way the world was at the time, and the creatures they belonged to, did not pass on their genetic material. So, our brains work the best they can, given how we've evolved. I'm no psychologist, so I couldn't really go into all of it. It's not my area of study.  

[Rsnbl Faith]

Deppfan Teague

Kain1334

Deppfan Teague

Kain1334

Deppfan Teague

I will give you one contradiction as an example. It says that God created man and woman together, and then a few passages later, it says that Adam was created first, then needed a mate, so Eve was created from his rib. How could we have been created, then created again? Did God screw up and have to start over? Is it a remnant of the original story of Lillith (still inlcuded in the Hebrew bible)?

To answer your question, I do not believe that Evolution can succeed and fail, because it has no end goal. Evolution is just change over time.

Quote:

27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

I believe you are talking about this verse + the verses talking about God using the rib of Adam to make woman. Realize this that, when Genesis 1:17 is talking, it is merely explaining the creation of well...creation, not the same as later on when it is explaining what happened during/after. It is confusing at times, but thats because this is not English literature per-say, but Hebrew. Its like me saying "I wrote 2 poems", then saying "but I wrote this one first than this one second" there isn't really any contradiction at all, it just appears at first glance to be a contradiction.

Now I'm glad you answered it that way, because I've heard way to often people saying it failed here or there. Now another question, How did we get here?

Through a long series of random chances and adaptations due to environmental pressures, chemicals formed into life, which diverged into many different forms. As far as humans specifically, we evolved from a creature that was also a ancestor of modern apes. It bothers me when people say we came from apes. We actually didn't.

Now I have 3 questions:
1. Would you say that we are amazingly lucky beyond belief?
2. Is any of that provable?
3. Since we are nothing more than a product of mere chance, what does this say about how our brain works, wouldn't it go to show that our brains work just the way they were made, randomly?

1. To exist the way we do today? Yeah. There are so many things that could have happened differently, that could have changed how we evolved, or even wiped us out completely.
2. Not 100%, beyond any shadow of a doubt, no. Science isn't to the point of proving it that way YET.
3. Our brains work the way they do, because brains that worked differently didn't fit in with the way the world was at the time, and the creatures they belonged to, did not pass on their genetic material. So, our brains work the best they can, given how we've evolved. I'm no psychologist, so I couldn't really go into all of it. It's not my area of study.

Ok, would you agree with this quote: Only science can show truth?

and, do you believe evolution to be proven, and if so why?  

[Deppfan]

Kain1334

Deppfan Teague

Kain1334

Deppfan Teague

Kain1334

I believe you are talking about this verse + the verses talking about God using the rib of Adam to make woman. Realize this that, when Genesis 1:17 is talking, it is merely explaining the creation of well...creation, not the same as later on when it is explaining what happened during/after. It is confusing at times, but thats because this is not English literature per-say, but Hebrew. Its like me saying "I wrote 2 poems", then saying "but I wrote this one first than this one second" there isn't really any contradiction at all, it just appears at first glance to be a contradiction.

Now I'm glad you answered it that way, because I've heard way to often people saying it failed here or there. Now another question, How did we get here?

Through a long series of random chances and adaptations due to environmental pressures, chemicals formed into life, which diverged into many different forms. As far as humans specifically, we evolved from a creature that was also a ancestor of modern apes. It bothers me when people say we came from apes. We actually didn't.

Now I have 3 questions:
1. Would you say that we are amazingly lucky beyond belief?
2. Is any of that provable?
3. Since we are nothing more than a product of mere chance, what does this say about how our brain works, wouldn't it go to show that our brains work just the way they were made, randomly?

1. To exist the way we do today? Yeah. There are so many things that could have happened differently, that could have changed how we evolved, or even wiped us out completely.
2. Not 100%, beyond any shadow of a doubt, no. Science isn't to the point of proving it that way YET.
3. Our brains work the way they do, because brains that worked differently didn't fit in with the way the world was at the time, and the creatures they belonged to, did not pass on their genetic material. So, our brains work the best they can, given how we've evolved. I'm no psychologist, so I couldn't really go into all of it. It's not my area of study.

Ok, would you agree with this quote: Only science can show truth?

and, do you believe evolution to be proven, and if so why?

Yes. Because, with anything you want to prove, you need to use the scientific method.

I don't see how someone could not believe that evolution has been proven. We can look at the cross-breeding of different kinds of animals and see it. Dogs, for example. Yes, we have set it in motion, but it's change. That's all evolution is. Genetic mutation that causes an outward change.  

[Umbral Epoch]

Personally, I'm agnostic. I believe that if humans were capable of knowing if there was a god/pantheon, then the majority of people would believe in that god/pantheon.  

[Rsnbl Faith]

Deppfan Teague

Kain1334

Deppfan Teague

Kain1334

Deppfan Teague

Kain1334

I believe you are talking about this verse + the verses talking about God using the rib of Adam to make woman. Realize this that, when Genesis 1:17 is talking, it is merely explaining the creation of well...creation, not the same as later on when it is explaining what happened during/after. It is confusing at times, but thats because this is not English literature per-say, but Hebrew. Its like me saying "I wrote 2 poems", then saying "but I wrote this one first than this one second" there isn't really any contradiction at all, it just appears at first glance to be a contradiction.

Now I'm glad you answered it that way, because I've heard way to often people saying it failed here or there. Now another question, How did we get here?

Through a long series of random chances and adaptations due to environmental pressures, chemicals formed into life, which diverged into many different forms. As far as humans specifically, we evolved from a creature that was also a ancestor of modern apes. It bothers me when people say we came from apes. We actually didn't.

Now I have 3 questions:
1. Would you say that we are amazingly lucky beyond belief?
2. Is any of that provable?
3. Since we are nothing more than a product of mere chance, what does this say about how our brain works, wouldn't it go to show that our brains work just the way they were made, randomly?

1. To exist the way we do today? Yeah. There are so many things that could have happened differently, that could have changed how we evolved, or even wiped us out completely.
2. Not 100%, beyond any shadow of a doubt, no. Science isn't to the point of proving it that way YET.
3. Our brains work the way they do, because brains that worked differently didn't fit in with the way the world was at the time, and the creatures they belonged to, did not pass on their genetic material. So, our brains work the best they can, given how we've evolved. I'm no psychologist, so I couldn't really go into all of it. It's not my area of study.

Ok, would you agree with this quote: Only science can show truth?

and, do you believe evolution to be proven, and if so why?

Yes. Because, with anything you want to prove, you need to use the scientific method.

I don't see how someone could not believe that evolution has been proven. We can look at the cross-breeding of different kinds of animals and see it. Dogs, for example. Yes, we have set it in motion, but it's change. That's all evolution is. Genetic mutation that causes an outward change.

Ok the first one I must cover right away, I was hoping for an 'of course not' because the idea is the only thing that can show truth, is rather self defeating for the fact, science cannot prove that statement, that statement in itself is a philosophical statement not one of science.

The second one is one is also one I shall cover to a small extent, Evolution cannot be proven. Now let me explain. I hope you understand there are two different types of evolution, macro and micro. Macro is from one species to another, micro is the one you have just described. Micro, yes has been proven, though Macro is unprovable. To prove it we would need millions of years, to which no one can live. Macro is and always will remain an unprovable analysis. A hypothesis. I have let many slip by without arguments though I could easily debate them, but these 2 are of the utmost importance, and I feel, cannot be ignored.  

[Rsnbl Faith]

Umbral Epoch

Personally, I'm agnostic. I believe that if humans were capable of knowing if there was a god/pantheon, then the majority of people would believe in that god/pantheon.

Why do you feel this is the reason?  

[Deppfan]

Kain1334

Deppfan Teague

Kain1334

Deppfan Teague

Kain1334

Now I have 3 questions:
1. Would you say that we are amazingly lucky beyond belief?
2. Is any of that provable?
3. Since we are nothing more than a product of mere chance, what does this say about how our brain works, wouldn't it go to show that our brains work just the way they were made, randomly?

1. To exist the way we do today? Yeah. There are so many things that could have happened differently, that could have changed how we evolved, or even wiped us out completely.
2. Not 100%, beyond any shadow of a doubt, no. Science isn't to the point of proving it that way YET.
3. Our brains work the way they do, because brains that worked differently didn't fit in with the way the world was at the time, and the creatures they belonged to, did not pass on their genetic material. So, our brains work the best they can, given how we've evolved. I'm no psychologist, so I couldn't really go into all of it. It's not my area of study.

Ok, would you agree with this quote: Only science can show truth?

and, do you believe evolution to be proven, and if so why?

Yes. Because, with anything you want to prove, you need to use the scientific method.

I don't see how someone could not believe that evolution has been proven. We can look at the cross-breeding of different kinds of animals and see it. Dogs, for example. Yes, we have set it in motion, but it's change. That's all evolution is. Genetic mutation that causes an outward change.

Ok the first one I must cover right away, I was hoping for an 'of course not' because the idea is the only thing that can show truth, is rather self defeating for the fact, science cannot prove that statement, that statement in itself is a philosophical statement not one of science.

The second one is one is also one I shall cover to a small extent, Evolution cannot be proven. Now let me explain. I hope you understand there are two different types of evolution, macro and micro. Macro is from one species to another, micro is the one you have just described. Micro, yes has been proven, though Macro is unprovable. To prove it we would need millions of years, to which no one can live. Macro is and always will remain an unprovable analysis. A hypothesis. I have let many slip by without arguments though I could easily debate them, but these 2 are of the utmost importance, and I feel, cannot be ignored.

Yeah, as if I didn't know both kinds existed. You didn't say which kind I thought could be proven. And, you're wrong on how long we need to prove macro evolution. Look at the finches Darwin studied in the Galapagos islands. They prove the diversity that results from evolution. They are all different species, with specialized beaks to consume the different types of food available. Different species=macro evolution.  

[Umbral Epoch]

Kain1334

Umbral Epoch

Personally, I'm agnostic. I believe that if humans were capable of knowing if there was a god/pantheon, then the majority of people would believe in that god/pantheon.

Why do you feel this is the reason?

I'm sorry, I don't quite know what you're asking. Could you rephrase, please?  

[Rsnbl Faith]

Deppfan Teague

Kain1334

Deppfan Teague

Kain1334

Deppfan Teague

Kain1334

Now I have 3 questions:
1. Would you say that we are amazingly lucky beyond belief?
2. Is any of that provable?
3. Since we are nothing more than a product of mere chance, what does this say about how our brain works, wouldn't it go to show that our brains work just the way they were made, randomly?

1. To exist the way we do today? Yeah. There are so many things that could have happened differently, that could have changed how we evolved, or even wiped us out completely.
2. Not 100%, beyond any shadow of a doubt, no. Science isn't to the point of proving it that way YET.
3. Our brains work the way they do, because brains that worked differently didn't fit in with the way the world was at the time, and the creatures they belonged to, did not pass on their genetic material. So, our brains work the best they can, given how we've evolved. I'm no psychologist, so I couldn't really go into all of it. It's not my area of study.

Ok, would you agree with this quote: Only science can show truth?

and, do you believe evolution to be proven, and if so why?

Yes. Because, with anything you want to prove, you need to use the scientific method.

I don't see how someone could not believe that evolution has been proven. We can look at the cross-breeding of different kinds of animals and see it. Dogs, for example. Yes, we have set it in motion, but it's change. That's all evolution is. Genetic mutation that causes an outward change.

Ok the first one I must cover right away, I was hoping for an 'of course not' because the idea is the only thing that can show truth, is rather self defeating for the fact, science cannot prove that statement, that statement in itself is a philosophical statement not one of science.

The second one is one is also one I shall cover to a small extent, Evolution cannot be proven. Now let me explain. I hope you understand there are two different types of evolution, macro and micro. Macro is from one species to another, micro is the one you have just described. Micro, yes has been proven, though Macro is unprovable. To prove it we would need millions of years, to which no one can live. Macro is and always will remain an unprovable analysis. A hypothesis. I have let many slip by without arguments though I could easily debate them, but these 2 are of the utmost importance, and I feel, cannot be ignored.

Yeah, as if I didn't know both kinds existed. You didn't say which kind I thought could be proven. And, you're wrong on how long we need to prove macro evolution. Look at the finches Darwin studied in the Galapagos islands. They prove the diversity that results from evolution. They are all different species, with specialized beaks to consume the different types of food available. Different species=macro evolution.

Your right on that fact, but the most proper answer is to separate the two before hand. Now it could also be speciation at work, which is part of evolution. Same with Natural Selection(it bothers me when people say natural selection is evolution, when it is merely the removal of genetic info rather then the addition which is need for evolution to work). To explain speciation(which I'm sure I'm spelling wrong) take two different types of dogs, one long haired, and one short. Then put them both into a cold environment. Obviously the long haired dogs are going to survive because their genetics are more suitable to survive the conditioning of the environment. This is speciation. Which could explain the Galapagos.  

[Rsnbl Faith]

Umbral Epoch

Kain1334

Umbral Epoch

Personally, I'm agnostic. I believe that if humans were capable of knowing if there was a god/pantheon, then the majority of people would believe in that god/pantheon.

Why do you feel this is the reason?

I'm sorry, I don't quite know what you're asking. Could you rephrase, please?

Ok, how about this, How did you get to the conclusion that "if there was a god/pantheon, then the majority of people would believe in that god/pantheon.?"  

[Deppfan]

Kain1334

Deppfan Teague

Kain1334

Deppfan Teague

Kain1334

Ok, would you agree with this quote: Only science can show truth?

and, do you believe evolution to be proven, and if so why?

Yes. Because, with anything you want to prove, you need to use the scientific method.

I don't see how someone could not believe that evolution has been proven. We can look at the cross-breeding of different kinds of animals and see it. Dogs, for example. Yes, we have set it in motion, but it's change. That's all evolution is. Genetic mutation that causes an outward change.

Ok the first one I must cover right away, I was hoping for an 'of course not' because the idea is the only thing that can show truth, is rather self defeating for the fact, science cannot prove that statement, that statement in itself is a philosophical statement not one of science.

The second one is one is also one I shall cover to a small extent, Evolution cannot be proven. Now let me explain. I hope you understand there are two different types of evolution, macro and micro. Macro is from one species to another, micro is the one you have just described. Micro, yes has been proven, though Macro is unprovable. To prove it we would need millions of years, to which no one can live. Macro is and always will remain an unprovable analysis. A hypothesis. I have let many slip by without arguments though I could easily debate them, but these 2 are of the utmost importance, and I feel, cannot be ignored.

Yeah, as if I didn't know both kinds existed. You didn't say which kind I thought could be proven. And, you're wrong on how long we need to prove macro evolution. Look at the finches Darwin studied in the Galapagos islands. They prove the diversity that results from evolution. They are all different species, with specialized beaks to consume the different types of food available. Different species=macro evolution.

Your right on that fact, but the most proper answer is to separate the two before hand. Now it could also be speciation at work, which is part of evolution. Same with Natural Selection(it bothers me when people say natural selection is evolution, when it is merely the removal of genetic info rather then the addition which is need for evolution to work). To explain speciation(which I'm sure I'm spelling wrong) take two different types of dogs, one long haired, and one short. Then put them both into a cold environment. Obviously the long haired dogs are going to survive because their genetics are more suitable to survive the conditioning of the environment. This is speciation. Which could explain the Galapagos.

Ok, I will give you that.... speciation (yes, you did spell it right biggrin ) and natural selection are not themselves evolution, but they are the means of the process.  

[Rsnbl Faith]

Deppfan Teague

Kain1334

Deppfan Teague

Kain1334

Deppfan Teague

Kain1334

Ok, would you agree with this quote: Only science can show truth?

and, do you believe evolution to be proven, and if so why?

Yes. Because, with anything you want to prove, you need to use the scientific method.

I don't see how someone could not believe that evolution has been proven. We can look at the cross-breeding of different kinds of animals and see it. Dogs, for example. Yes, we have set it in motion, but it's change. That's all evolution is. Genetic mutation that causes an outward change.

Ok the first one I must cover right away, I was hoping for an 'of course not' because the idea is the only thing that can show truth, is rather self defeating for the fact, science cannot prove that statement, that statement in itself is a philosophical statement not one of science.

The second one is one is also one I shall cover to a small extent, Evolution cannot be proven. Now let me explain. I hope you understand there are two different types of evolution, macro and micro. Macro is from one species to another, micro is the one you have just described. Micro, yes has been proven, though Macro is unprovable. To prove it we would need millions of years, to which no one can live. Macro is and always will remain an unprovable analysis. A hypothesis. I have let many slip by without arguments though I could easily debate them, but these 2 are of the utmost importance, and I feel, cannot be ignored.

Yeah, as if I didn't know both kinds existed. You didn't say which kind I thought could be proven. And, you're wrong on how long we need to prove macro evolution. Look at the finches Darwin studied in the Galapagos islands. They prove the diversity that results from evolution. They are all different species, with specialized beaks to consume the different types of food available. Different species=macro evolution.

Your right on that fact, but the most proper answer is to separate the two before hand. Now it could also be speciation at work, which is part of evolution. Same with Natural Selection(it bothers me when people say natural selection is evolution, when it is merely the removal of genetic info rather then the addition which is need for evolution to work). To explain speciation(which I'm sure I'm spelling wrong) take two different types of dogs, one long haired, and one short. Then put them both into a cold environment. Obviously the long haired dogs are going to survive because their genetics are more suitable to survive the conditioning of the environment. This is speciation. Which could explain the Galapagos.

Ok, I will give you that.... speciation (yes, you did spell it right biggrin ) and natural selection are not themselves evolution, but they are the means of the process.

Now I must go back and cover a very important one, what is the difference between an atheists luck, and a (in this case) Christians faith?

Edit: Meant to thank you for easing my worry over the spelling of speciation.  

[Deppfan]

Kain1334

Deppfan Teague

Kain1334

Deppfan Teague

Kain1334

Ok the first one I must cover right away, I was hoping for an 'of course not' because the idea is the only thing that can show truth, is rather self defeating for the fact, science cannot prove that statement, that statement in itself is a philosophical statement not one of science.

The second one is one is also one I shall cover to a small extent, Evolution cannot be proven. Now let me explain. I hope you understand there are two different types of evolution, macro and micro. Macro is from one species to another, micro is the one you have just described. Micro, yes has been proven, though Macro is unprovable. To prove it we would need millions of years, to which no one can live. Macro is and always will remain an unprovable analysis. A hypothesis. I have let many slip by without arguments though I could easily debate them, but these 2 are of the utmost importance, and I feel, cannot be ignored.

Yeah, as if I didn't know both kinds existed. You didn't say which kind I thought could be proven. And, you're wrong on how long we need to prove macro evolution. Look at the finches Darwin studied in the Galapagos islands. They prove the diversity that results from evolution. They are all different species, with specialized beaks to consume the different types of food available. Different species=macro evolution.

Your right on that fact, but the most proper answer is to separate the two before hand. Now it could also be speciation at work, which is part of evolution. Same with Natural Selection(it bothers me when people say natural selection is evolution, when it is merely the removal of genetic info rather then the addition which is need for evolution to work). To explain speciation(which I'm sure I'm spelling wrong) take two different types of dogs, one long haired, and one short. Then put them both into a cold environment. Obviously the long haired dogs are going to survive because their genetics are more suitable to survive the conditioning of the environment. This is speciation. Which could explain the Galapagos.

Ok, I will give you that.... speciation (yes, you did spell it right biggrin ) and natural selection are not themselves evolution, but they are the means of the process.

Now I must go back and cover a very important one, what is the difference between an atheists luck, and a (in this case) Christians faith?

Edit: Meant to thank you for easing my worry over the spelling of speciation.

The Christian's belief in the omnipotent being that set everything into action.  

[Rsnbl Faith]

Deppfan Teague

Kain1334

Deppfan Teague

Kain1334

Deppfan Teague

Kain1334

Ok the first one I must cover right away, I was hoping for an 'of course not' because the idea is the only thing that can show truth, is rather self defeating for the fact, science cannot prove that statement, that statement in itself is a philosophical statement not one of science.

The second one is one is also one I shall cover to a small extent, Evolution cannot be proven. Now let me explain. I hope you understand there are two different types of evolution, macro and micro. Macro is from one species to another, micro is the one you have just described. Micro, yes has been proven, though Macro is unprovable. To prove it we would need millions of years, to which no one can live. Macro is and always will remain an unprovable analysis. A hypothesis. I have let many slip by without arguments though I could easily debate them, but these 2 are of the utmost importance, and I feel, cannot be ignored.

Yeah, as if I didn't know both kinds existed. You didn't say which kind I thought could be proven. And, you're wrong on how long we need to prove macro evolution. Look at the finches Darwin studied in the Galapagos islands. They prove the diversity that results from evolution. They are all different species, with specialized beaks to consume the different types of food available. Different species=macro evolution.

Your right on that fact, but the most proper answer is to separate the two before hand. Now it could also be speciation at work, which is part of evolution. Same with Natural Selection(it bothers me when people say natural selection is evolution, when it is merely the removal of genetic info rather then the addition which is need for evolution to work). To explain speciation(which I'm sure I'm spelling wrong) take two different types of dogs, one long haired, and one short. Then put them both into a cold environment. Obviously the long haired dogs are going to survive because their genetics are more suitable to survive the conditioning of the environment. This is speciation. Which could explain the Galapagos.

Ok, I will give you that.... speciation (yes, you did spell it right biggrin ) and natural selection are not themselves evolution, but they are the means of the process.

Now I must go back and cover a very important one, what is the difference between an atheists luck, and a (in this case) Christians faith?

Edit: Meant to thank you for easing my worry over the spelling of speciation.

The Christian's belief in the omnipotent being that set everything into action.

No, thats what a Christians faith is being put in. Not the faith itself. So my question still stands.