For ToErs Eyes Only

As I saw in the original post, the person talked as if evolution is a universal truth and said that ToErs should not sink to the creationists level. What do you mean by level? Do you mean that creationists are unaware of science and are totally ignorant?
Well if you see so than that is because your not realy understanding their arguments realy well. A beliver in God doesnot mean an ignorant, but unfortuately, evolutionists see it this way. I can see that you are unaware of the knowledge that many creationists have. Did you know that Newton, Galileo, Cuvier, Comprinicus, Linnaeious, and Enstein were strong belivers in God? Did you know that Eistein have once quoted: "science without religion is lame"? Is Einstein or the other scientists ignorants?By the way, about those Data that you said that you show to creationists in order to prove evolution, do you know why they dont believe in them? That is simply because thse so called data and evidences are no more than imaginary evolutionary scenarios with no logic, details, or evidence.

How many times I heard this phrase: "overwhelmin evidence for evolution"? So many times. But, where is that evidence? If I ask any evolutionist to explain to me how a certain organism evolved, all I hear is imaginary tales of evolution and with no evidence.

About the dating, if you think I believe in young Earth, than thats not true because I believe in ancient Earth.About evolution simplified, i did check this thread but still, how do you call this an evidence? This is in fact a typical exiplanations of evolutionary mechanisms but that does not mean they are evidences.Just the hypothesis that living organisms evolve is just an imaginary theory that was never actually obsereved. (If you observed natural selection than that is not evolution because i mean evolution as in how a species turns to another species).I need to know, for example, how can a cell can be formed by chance? Without the use of the usual evolutionary imagination.Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.

[We dont know how life on Earth arose!]Good! now evolutionist admit this because they initially believed that the first cell emerged by chance. Admitting this fact means that evolutionist realized the lack of logic in using chance to explain the emergence of life on Earth.So if it is not Chance, than it must be the concious divine intervention.(Im not saying that this is evidence for creation but this is just basic logic).

Actually mutations is on the other forum. This one is about evolution. I know it is confusing a little to talk to the same person in two forums cuz u lose which topic is where.

NO look! the "dunno" philosophy is not the absolute base of my faith. Im just showing you how a cell being formed by chance is as impossible as randomly throwing letters on a paper to form a beautiful poem by "Chance".

Well...expalin to me how can a cell be formed by chance since you "know" more than me as you think!

Look! a cell being formed by chance is like the basic belief of an athiest evolutionist. If you say that no one suggested that a cell can be formed by chance than what is your belief about the emergance of the first cell? Are you willing to believe in chance?

Each time I engage in a talk with evolutionists they start to talk about natural selection and speciation. But they fail to explain how it all started. Now, almost everyone realizes that believing in a cell emerging by chance is not in agreement with logic. Here I'd like to talk about abiogenesis. Posting essays about evolution of populations is not enough to prove evolution. Most important is to show how it all started. Otherwise evolution will fail to reach its sole purpose: The Denial of God!By the way, just like how any machine needs an intellegent dsigner, so is the cell needs an even more intelligent designer.Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.

Ok then no need for me to further post. As long as you have no clue about the origin of life than I dont care about populations' evolution (although we dont know for sure if it exists, other than natural selection).AS long as evolutionist fail to explain how evolution can account for the begining (not evolution) of life, then athiests failed to deny God.[It is likely that the first self-replicating "life" was far simpler than the simplest cells existing today.]---> Your saying maybe here, well maybe not, what if it was not simple. The layer of the first unicellular organisms clearly show their complexity that is just like modern day cells. YOur quote above is an example of how evolutionists create imaginary scenarios to satisfy their lack of evidence regarding the origin of life.Edited by mr_matrix, : No reason given.

Hypothesis are accepted, but as long as your hypothesy is not proven, then you have to take into account the opposite hypothesies.By the way, their is enough evidence against your so called hypothesis. The sediment layers tell us that the first unicellular life forms were no different from todays cells and bacteria in complexity.AS I said, I dont have to worry myself since athiests are unable to fully deny or disprove the existance of God.