Creation vs. Evolution

Mr.Spinkles believe in modern evolutionist faith is laughable.

Mutation happens as an accident and not in organized manner, so evolution had no purpose if it’s based upon mutations. The evolutionist of the century (according to Stephen Jay Gould) was Dr. Dobzhansky who experimented with flies. Mutations is lethal. Are unknown the perfected mutants. The flies which were resistant to DDT are in fact weaker and take more time to develop normally, they are less skilled. Bacteria which are more resistant …due to plasmids (pieces of circular DNA), not because of DNA mutation. The genes don’t change to resist the antibiotic, the solution is already ready from outside. The bacteria resistant to antibiotics in fact are less skilled. Almost 60% of the mutant Echeria Coli resistant to Streptomicine are DEPENDING on it, they don’t grow in areas free from the antibiotic. That means they are destroyed in environment in which required food ain’t available. There are near 6000 genetic diseases set in correspondent genes but no mutation increased the efficacy of a human protein. I won’t use Creationist arguments neither amateur “evolucionist faith”, you need to read Nobel prize winner, biologist researching penicillin , Ernst Chain in his “Was Darwin Wrong?”, 1982, page 50 or let’s say, Dr. Lee Spetner, scientist and professor in John Hopkins University. Not by chance he says “IN ALL READINGS I DID IN SCIENTIFIC BIOLOGY I NEVER FOUND A SINGLE MUTATION WHICH ADDED INFORMATION”, or perhaps you need urgently to read Pierre-Paul-Grasse who thinks pretty much the same. Errors in copies can’t increase information. Graham Cannon in his “The Evolution of Living Things” can help you too.
About 2500 genes form an eye and not by accident, casual in a chain of happy coincidences in the laws scientists trust without Law Giver (!). in 4,5 billion years. In Basel University, 1995, it was proved a gene of a rat was able to produce eyes in flies, therefore there’s a MASTER GENE which commands all the process in arthropods, squids, mammals, etc. But, how was it possible a gene was in the common ancestral of those animals if the own ancestral didn’t have any eyes???? It was a pre-Cambrian bacteria! It didn’t exist even the complex genetic system. Mutations are rare in a single gene, it’s even worst in various genes simultaneously.
A Professor in Massachussetts University, Lynn Margulis (respected by the theory of mitochondria once was independent cell) always asks in the conferences to molecular biologists an unmistakable example of a new specie created by accumulation of mutations. ABSOLUTE SILENCE is the response of the collegues. According to biologist George Gaylord, even in favorable conditions of evolution the po-si-bi-li-ty or pro-ba-bi-li-ty (attention attention, theory not fact) of 5 mutations in the same nucleus is 1 in 1022. In a 100 million human beings and the rate of 1 mutation per day for each generation, such “favorable” event it would be expected once every 247 billion years or 100 times the age of the Earth. Such process never existed in nature. Check G.G.Simpson “The Major Features in Evolution”, page 96. You can also read the genetic yoke according to H.J Muller (Radiation Damage to Genetic Material), Christopher Willis, (Genetic Load), Scientific American, Volume 222, March 1970, page 98. Murray Eden in “Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution”, Moorhead & Kaplan, 1967, page 71. Encyclopedia Britannica , 1976 (Mutations).
Perhaps to 99.9 % of the readers swallowing without checking, you can convince them about evolution and Darwinism, etc, etc. I’ll rather use my photographic memory and the files I keep on accumulating to “digest” before swallowing. I don’t wanna throw up after. Ignorance ain’t a sin. Sinner is someone who in spite of being ignorant grabs to its orthodox dogmas repeated in books after books and refuses to learn and to think. Refuses to be curious and asks the ones who think they know. All of us are ignorant in different degrees.
www.sitchin.com/adam.htm
www.sitchin.com/images/adam1.jpg
www.sitchin.com/primate.htm
www.sitchin.com
(specially the last part of the latter)

www.s8int.com/adamsrib.html
www.s8int.com/giants1.html
www.s8int.com/giants2.html
www.s8int.com/giants3.html
www.s8int.com/giants4.html
www.s8int.com/giants5.html
www.s8int.com/giants6.html
www.s8int.com/giants7.html
www.s8int.com/giants8.html

For the ones who like to post but really they don't like to know and really study but just repeat the superficial themes books after books and who "jump" the information in the internet, I suggest you to check the posting I did in the previous page, May 06, 5:39 pm. Check the couple of links. Everyone can stand afford or against something, everyone has an opinion like a butt, but how many people do really know what they are talking about, whether science or religion?

Not only Sumerian and Biblical account (and other myths) reveal the scientific aspect about the use of clay and a case of genetic endogamy (incest) in the case of Adam & Eve (bone and flesh of the same relative avoid inmunity rejection when a marrow transplant) but the detail about the rib (with the marrow creating blood and Adam is a name linked to blood, red and soul-live allowing breathing, nephesh and neshama in Hebrew) is astonishing. Rib is more irrigated by blood and have more cartilage. There's a lot the science is discovering NOW:
www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4145.asp
www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/medicine_health/report-13412.html
www.hon.ch/News/HSN/514201.html

That statement 'look at the fossils at the museum' is an example of ignorance beyond imaginable. Wherever you check you'll see the parts of those creatures were already formed, no intermediary thing changing one thing into another specie in a hocus pocus magic imagined by Darwin before he knew what genetic has provided. Hence, what before was alleguedly done by daddy Chronus-Time in a deaf and dumb slow-motion evolution ...lacking evidence was changed into another -and convenient- formula called "macroevolution", that is, an evolution so fast that didn't require the evidence of specific fossils CHANGING one thing into another. In other words, since that happened so quick it wasn't required those fossils and we have to believe in such "gaps" or "missing links" without evidence. That's faith disguised as "science". As I explained before, mutations was the magic solution but it didn't help either cos 99% of the mutants are not the best example of survival of the most skilled, in fact are leftovers, things to be replaced and died. An albino, a giant, a being with two heads, leporine lips, Dawn syndrome repeating chromosome 21, hermafrodite poliploid with 6 fingers (probably black and giant and retarded) are mutants. Check 2 Samuel 21:18-22 as an example of a mutant.
Adaptation was confused with evolution but some idiotic people can't know the difference between one thing and another, they don't know the limits of the hybridation EVEN IN SIMILAR SPECIES (like lions and tigers or horses and donkeys producing tiglons or ligrons in the first case and mules in the second or the combinations between wolves and dogs and llamas and camels, etc) are limited by sterilization. So, Darwin's imbecility went saying the changes or "adaptations" would be so great that would jump the limits of DNA plan. That is ridiculous. Experiences bombing flies with gamma rays didn't change them into scorpions or spiders. They added eyes, set eyes on the wings, added a couple of feet or wings but by atavic law they got back to what they were in the next generations. So even with GENETIC ENGINEERING AND MANIPULATION TO DO SOMETHING NATURE NEVER DID WITH A DISTANT METEOR OR COMET, and continuous experiences, the beings didn't change as much as it was expected! Imagine the changing of an anphibious to a reptil or bird and then mammal and then getting back to square one, and then taking the same old path again or different course of evolution.... Ridiculous! Adaptation is something already PROGRAMMED in genetic. Antibiotic would never change an Echeria Coli into Shigella or Salmonella or Streptococus. People who believe in such fantasy are just part of the how-to-make-an-idiotic-to-believe-what-we-say with designs of bowed apes transforming into a tall man without that much hair (specially female). There was someone who wanted even to compare the hirsute and thick hair of animal with human female! The comparision between embryos would say we're closer to pigs, rabbits and chicken than chimps! But at the same time they show the photographs and the same old designs as an old fashioned leftover argument, they say similarities really don't prove evolution! Hypocresy all over the place, food for ignorant who don't have the slightest clue what is mutation. I defy any paleonthologist or biologist to defy the words quoted by Nobel Prize winner and those scientists I mentioned by name in my posting above. Who will be the moron who dares to defy what genetic has prove?

I want to remind you some decades ago they said tonsils and other parts of the body were evolution leftovers. And after they removed thousands of organs they found out far from being leftovers they were very important in the defense of the organism against diseases. They discovered that cos thousands of people actually DIED OF CANCER cos that imbecility and scientific cocky attitude. Then they had to cover these areas of the body when there was irradiation in onchology treatment.
Even if those parts were what they were saying (and it was not), the argument was ridiculous cos evolution as the name indicates didn't have to provide leftovers but NEW ORGANS. So, the argument was upside down, that would evolution in reverse, involution, degeneration. In fact today at least 3% of our DNA is litter (acacaca... adenine-citosine rather than adenine-timine, citosine-guanine).
So, I LAUGH everytime someone picks a book of paleonthology filled with words in subjuntive way (perhaps, maybe, it's reasonable to believe, there's a chance, it may be) than any other science field and shows a fragment piece of a bone and in speculative interpretation says that little crack would mean the eventual transformation into an organ....that's palenthologist faith not demonstrated whatsoever by genetics. Even National Geographic everytime they show their "official" and superficial themes (don't ask me to inform details about why) they admited they hired several artists to represent hominids based upon the fragments of fossils. All the designs were completely different! That's Hollywood technique, not science, mere speculation. You can't know the amount of hair, the color of the skin nor the hair in most of the cases. Usually the posture they imagined after some time it's discovered has been a fiasco during years cos it was imposible such posture.
Indeed, I would recommend to see the works of Rebeca Cann, an expert in genetic field who says all those fantastic millions of years about homind pseudo evolution really can be reduced to an African "Eve" between 180.000 and 20.000 years ago. Even choosing the older date, depends on the number of partners of that "Eve" analyzing mithocondria DNA. The analysis included research about time when men could've taken care of cattle, etc.
You can print whatever you want about your faith in evolution. I'll stand with Nobel prizes and experts in biology, genetic, mutation. In other words, real science.
Moral aspects of our existence belongs to philosophy theme.

No one ever said evolution was organized or eaven intelligent... its a random process where good and bad things happin.... most mutation occures in the genes...

lets list some happy acciedents in mutation....
in humans... the include mutations of genes that give the carriers extra defences against diseases such as..
mutation of the QQ or H7H7 genotype had a decreased risk heart attack/stroke as the genotypes are involved with the clotting of blood.
mutation of the Gbeta3-s has enhanced immune cell function in humans. a similer mutation among HIV positive women in North Africa has enabled them to not develop AIDS and to have children without passing HIV on to them.
a mutation of the lipid and lippoprotein production genes confers beneficial lipid and lipoprotein profiles amongst an adult male population with regard to risk of Coronary Artery Disease...
those are just some of the mutations in the human geneome and many more positive mutations occure in bacteria giving them such things as immunities to anti-bacterial agents, environmental agents et cet...

funny thing is that when bad mutations occure they are spectacularly bad.. when good mutations occure they arn't really noticed... and why should they be? They don't harm the person with the mutation so we don't look for it...

if there is no evolution and aliens did it well... then who genetically engineered the lions and the Wolves and birds and the frogs? and who genetically engineered the aliens that engineered us?

wa:-do

as for fossils....

Who was Adam and Eve?
If they were the first humans then what about the neandertals? What about Homo erectus? What about all the other hominids? How do you explain them?

what about the origen of birds? Where did they come from?
Is Archeopteryx a bird or a dinosaur?
what about Confusicornis?
Sinosauropteryx?
Microrapor?
where do you draw the line? What is a bird?

wa:-do

Archy is a dinobird, though people tend to refer to it as a bird. Though it has several features unique to reptiles, rather than birds.

Mutations are nto inherently bad to the organism, as you'll notice, influenza, the common cold and HIV change rapidly and we've had no luck wiping them out.

Other mutation success stories would be flavobacteria and MRSA, and soon VRSA, and certain forms of entereococci. All the above mutations have been observed in recent times, within living memory.

There was a common ancestor of hominids, i think that's the "eve" you're referring to, if you mean one actual animal that suddenly spawned all the different hominids at the same time, i think you've got a severely wrong end of the stick.

Evolution isn't a "random" process, mutation effectively is, but mutation is only half the story. The other half is selection, and that's no more random than water rolling downhill.

The information argument is bunk since noone's stringently defined what information is, if they mean matter, it has observed being added, if they mean functionality, it has also been observed being added. Spetner is also a creationist.

Google "nylon bug." That pretty much refutes the whole information argument against evolution.

Inca:

I have a couple of questions for you.

First of all, if evolution is bull****, how did we get here? I mean really, there are no ancient fossils of modern man. If not from Cro-Magnon man and the like, where in the hell did we come from???

Secondly, to explain your fly vs. gamma ray analogy:
Did you ever think that if eyes on a fly's wings were particularly helpful to survival, they might not have gone away? We're not talking about immediate restructuring of DNA here. If the eyes proved to be a huge advancement for the flies, then eventually the ones who were not as predisposed to pass them on to their offspring, and that resulting offspring, would have dies, whereas the ones who were more susceptible to passing on the eyes, would have done so and the species would be changed. Eventually, only the flies who were the most predisposed to keepig and passing on the eyes would be left, and they would repopulate the species. In your situation, however, the eyes were not needed, and perhaps were even disruptive to survival. Because of the lack of need, it died out. Simple economics, really. Likewise, take the giraffe. At one time, the giraffe is thought to have been a realatively short creature. However, as food became scarce perhaps, only the tallest ones were able to reach the food, whereas the others died of starvation. The species kept growing and growing until it rechec the height that was appropriate for its chosen method of survival.

As I said what was achieved setting eyes on the wings wasn't a natural process. Everything is already written and I have explained with detail the experiences in the past so I don't think I have to repeat it again. Same happens with adaptations, they can't go beyond certain limits. None of the things you have written have demonstrated "jumps" from species to others.
Even Darwin admit the stupidity of his own logic about the evolution of a complex organ like the eye. Imagine how come the species reproduced themselves until the sexual parts were ready and compatible to interact with each other. It just wouldn't work until each and every part is fully developed! So, if the system would take that time and effort to produce sexual organs, why to create them in first place? Yet, even now after alleguedly millions of years of evolution, we have the same chickens with eggs, the different kind of eggs of the reptiles, the feathers of the birds, the fin in sharks, etc. All kind of Russian salad. No evolution to transform into something else. No bull&%$# ! That story always sound fishy but is marvelous design and set in magazines and BBC specials on tv.All crap packed in golden packages.
All the strata evidence in geological layers demonstrate an explosion of life in different times, no half way process between one thing and another. I don't have the desire to mention each and every scientists (in a long list) admiting insects were insects since the beginning of their appearance into this planet, the same happens with birds, mammals, etc. I could and you can send them letters to respective universities for them (as experts) take you out of misery. But I won't. It's you the one who believes that litter. You do your homework. Mentioning 1% of "good" mutations won't lead you to new species. That's your dogma and I have already mentioned what scientists say. If you don't wanna believe them nothing that I say will change your mind. So let it be written,so let it be done.
Some animals may dissapear and had different shape, yet the dissapearence of some never explained how did they come in first place. That was always a tricky argument used by evolucionists. I can ask you how come spermatozoid appears or egg cell. It's already a program made by a law the scientists rely upon. More than million animal species have a singular program based upon the same "letters" in DNA with the proper alterations. It never meant they HAD to evolve one from another. Darwin , for example, set an imbecil argument about the peaks of some birds, since they were different they meant evolution. That was a huge mistake. That's just a simple adaptation in the same DNA plan. If you now go and say the same idiotic argument in a university talking about the differences of noses in human races they are gonna laugh at you and explain the superficial differences and the genotype and phenotype.
I have said the genetic experience was made upon those "hominids".
Whole life in the universe is something not even the biggest mind have unraveled. Probably you're aware some of the brightest minds are suggesting the whole universe is a hollogram based upon binary code (or other codes) information. Now, if a narrow minded archeologist and palenthologist finds a rudimentary sharp stone like an arrow point, there's no problem in admiting there was someone who did it. Sagan sent a message in code to be understood by alien inteligence. If we receive a code from outside we will recognize an entity, right? But when you see DNA code or marvelous laws in the universe and cosmo - experts talk about anthropic principle, how come the same people can't see evidence of a Law Giver? Is an arrow or Sagan's message something better than life? Therefore, that's my answer to you. God didn't make our life on Earth directly as we understand from Hebrew words in Genesis. There were other creatures created somehow in spiritual realms. These creatures sowed life on Earth. It was not an stupid deaf and dumb meteor in parmsperm theory. When different species created in different times (days in Hebrew is "yown" and indicates thousands of years or even millions, sorry Creationists!) were already existing. It was time to select some of the creatures (maybe Neanderthal) to make genetic experiences to forward "evolution" in short time.
By the way, I don't pretend to write here everything the people believe is usually what they are lead to "eat". I can start with the parallax calculations with trigonometry awfully applied to far away stars and ending in the ignorance about our own planet Earth and Moon formation, past rotation and spinning around the Sun , each one of the methods measuring activity on time RATHER THAN TIME, spilliting of Pangea (the cause is ignored) ,etc,etc,etc.

"The giraffe is THOUGHT to be a relative short creature". You see? That's a theory, no facts. If the relative was a lamb, well, we have different species of animals, some with horns and some without horns. Very close in Africa in the same environment we have very short people side by side to extremely tall people. What the f*$#*& does that mean? That one "evolved" from another? Welcome to the list of stupid arguments accepted by 99.9% of people who don't use the gray mass!!!

I tell you something. You're 16. You are certainly someone who reads. That's good. Yet, I'm not gonna butter you up. I regret to say it's not enough memorizing data. You need to think. Try to do this. Keep a file about recent investigations and compare after some years and for once in your life try to be skeptical NOT ONLY IN RELIGION but in what you digest as "science" in order to harvest science from "science". And then after when you have doubts and enough unsolved questions, try studying ancient religions and compare each one of them. Who knows, there's always hope that cocky teenager mind who thinks he(she)knows truthalltruthandnothingbutthetruth... becomes a little less naïve. Don't worry, adults have been accepting the same excrement served as scientific supper and not even asked themselves anything in all this time. You can save yourself and be one of the few who escapes from common mediocrity. But beware! Don't say it aloud your doubts and whay you consider idiotic to your teachers at the university. They SHALL be angry with you. I tell you in advance. Go ahead and make your day. My part in this theme can be extended forever but I already wrote too much. Nobody wants a wise a...s!

Painted Wolf: If you took the time to read EVERY LINK that I posted you could well be aware of the question you ask me about who were Adam & Eve. The Genesis account hides things and there was a Sumerian influence. In fact there were several experiences with genetic engineering of the Annunaki. George Lucas probably figured the name ANAKIN from them or the Biblical giants children of Anac and the saber beam sword was inspired in Genesis 3:24 (although he probably ignores Judges 6:21, 22). If you have time and DESIRE to learn something, read again everything that I posted and don't "jump" information. You can take the spiderweb and dust out of your Bible and check those texts.
In the Sumerian account there were a lot of mutants including some modern diseases explicitly mentioned in the creation of the several Adamus or Adapas. The very name in Sumerian means "in their image". I recomend you to read Zecharia Sitchin's "Genesis Revisited", "Cosmic Code" and "12th Planet". Criticism always will come by the same people who hate reading and "jump" information. So go ahead, read and judge after and keep on studying until finding "nearer" to the truth. Truth is probably somewhere in the middle, between Creation and Evolution, something like an hybrid between 2001 Space Odysee & Planet of the Apes (the old versions and the new one). Then you can read the Popul Vuh of the Mayas and you will also read the same myths about monkey-men...but in inverse process! Don't make fun of Artur Clark, he was a friend of Carl Sagan who was a friend of Hoagland. Sitchin & Hoagland are Nasa's consultant. And as chimp Dr. S, says to astronaut interpreted by Charlton Heston: "don't look for it, Taylor, you may not like what you find".

...The wise ones will check the books, the pages, the authors..the stupid ones will grab to the same old leftover...

Inca,

First of all, I just want to say that if I seemed cocky to you, I am truly sorry for that was not my intention at all. I am up for being proven wrong any day of the week.

Against my better judgement, I didn't read through this entire thread before I wrote my post, but as you referred to your previous posts, I will give them a look.

I also just want to add that I try to never take anything at face value. I believe in evolution, not because it has been spoon fed to me, but because I feel it makes good logical sense. I have investigated creationism as well, but in the end evolution won the battle.

I'll check out more of your other posts and be back.

Inca-

Thanks for calling people with a different opinion than you stupid, dumb, ignorant, etc- all that name-calling really reflects on how intelligent you must be :roll:

First of all, the things you are pointing out here are debates that are ocurring within the scientific community about the different aspects of the theory of evolution. You seem to be very interested in, and knowledgeable about, science and various scientists. So I think we still agree that, if we want to find out where humans came from, we need to investigate the matter using scientific methods and not a literal translation of the Bible stories. Just like most theories, there are exceptions and gaps in our knowledge that we can't explain yet. However, I highly doubt many scientists would interpret the various problems with the theory of evolution as proof of Creationism, which is a religious belief.

At absolute most, your arguments suggest that the theory of evolution needs to be revised or added to, a statement with which some scientists agree. However, in no way do your arguments make the theory of evolution, which is based on science and logic, inferior to the theory of Creationism, which is based on religious stories written over a millennia ago. You yourself use science to illustrate holes in evolutionary theory. Surely you must agree that, just because the theory isn't perfect, we should throw scientific investigation into the subject out the door because the answers were there all along in stories contained in the Bible.

Inca-
>The so-called Eohippus, the ancestral of the horse was probably a daman, an animal who actually exists in Africa.<

ok, I'm going to give you the bennifit of the doubt in thinking you haven't actually compaired the two for yourself...

Eohippus aka. Hyracotherium and daman aka the Hyrax are nothing alike... Lets compair....

here is a picture of the so called Eohippus
http://www.researchcasting.ca/hyracotherium_vasacciense.htm
and here is a picture of the skull of Hyrax and the body
http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/Hyrax_Skull.jpg
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/resources/mzm/heterohyrax_brucei.jpg/view.html

as you can see they are quite different...
1 the Hyrax has large rodent like insisors while eohipus does not... in fact it has horse dentition with nipping front teeth and a gap leading to the canine teeth and another larger gap leading to the molars... like horses...
2 eohipus' skull is longer and lower and not as short and wide as Hyrax
now on to the body....
1 Hyrax is plantigrade (it walks on the soles of its feet) Eohipus is ditigrade (it walks on the tips of its toes)
2 the legs of Eohipus are far longer and straiter than the legs of Hyrax... wich overall looks very rodent like...

and if your going on the number of toes then lets include other animals with the same arangement...
Rodents (wich look more like Hyrax than Hyrax looks like Eohipus)
- Agouti, Viscacha, and Cavy
Tapiers
and some prehistoric Rhinos...

as for building an animal based on a singel bone... I dislike that as well... fortunatly Eohippus/Hyracotherium is known from several nearly complete skelitions... including the skulls, hips, legs, feet, ribs and vertebra...

wa:-do

I think it deserves a better explanation of my points. I'm not a defender of all theories of Creationists. I'm not confusing religion with science. All my arguments so far have been using scientific data not religion. Theory of evolution has been around enough time to be proved. It just missed the target. How funny is I show the similarities between a daman with the so-called ancester of the horses and someone mentions the differences of the skulls. Yet, in the evolutionist books you find the design of a fish and then they explain the parts were the "ancestral" part of an organ in the mammals!!!!!! That's a typical example how come the arguments can be used only by them whenever they want but not against them! The existence of the daman until now, it doesn't mean the daman didn't change or did have "adaptations" in the past. My point was and is, the fact that you find a fossil doesn't mean we have to believe the lables they put on. All hominid fossil don't necessarily mean they were ancestrals of humans (in that sense the evolutionist doesn't care about differences, right???? Very oportunistic!), they could've been no missing link at all but species of apes. The survival of the most skilled has always been a fiasco. The less skilled survived (chimps, Rhesus, orangutangos, gorillas and in fact all kind of beings:reptiles,birds,sea mammals, fish, etc) altogether with us, the most "evolved" creature. Yet the most skilled than apes, the missing link dissapeared! First we have to demonstrate why on Earth those missing links dissapeared in first place. I repeat, dissapearence doesn't explain how come they came to existence and fossils are complete all over the place, no hocus pocus magic.

Mr. Spinkles :drink: when I use the adjectives I use them purposely cos I already read how the people disconsider or disregard the religious concepts as "ridiculous". What happens is that people are really ignorant both in science & religion but dare to talk and write. Of course, they feel ofended when the argument is thrown to their own faces since they believed they were writing "knowing" . So, your response doesn't surprise me. I regret evolution theory doesn't have holes. The whole theory is a superblack hole. Now, when the people make statments overlooking or diminushing the understanding of things , let's say 1000 years ago...it's also due to ignorance cos the books usually pay too much atention to Western civilization and what was understood from the Greeks. That hyper-value of Greek culture is subtly set in our days when science chooses Greek names to lable discoveries, animal or vegetable species, etc. The same happens with Latin culture. Hence, I won't discuss here about religion. If the understanding of science is not upgrade in the ones who make apology of evolution, how come would we expect them to know about religion? The things I have written here is just the top of the iceberg. My discussion here focused just in a couple of things. If I keep on digging the issue will certainly change and we would end taking about a comparision between the speed of an elephant compared with the speed of sauroposseidon or the explanation why the cockroaches were giant as well or birds the size of a horse and I will have to make -AGAIN- a long list of scientists and books, pages, etc, to point out so many items that in fact you're gonna be confused. Don't lable me as if I were something that you don't know. I'm just sharing with you a couple of things, I don't want you to believe in me. Nobody convinces anyone. Sometimes our understanding doesn't even depend on mind but heart attitude. I have seen this in medical congresses in cancer treatment and how do the scientists behave. They are just humans who can (and did) deceive the public with fossils like Hesperopitecus, Piltdown, Orce, Zijanthropus, etc. The people "swallow" the information but they are not skeptical enough. They trust too much without searching. A French guy discovered in Java island the fragments of an "hominid" (if my memory doesn't fail me cos I read that name 18 years ago, the name of the one who discovered the fossils was Dubois), well he discovered the fragments miles distance from other fragments. Yet he said ALL THE FRAGMENTS BELONGED TO THE SAME BEING!!!! Is that science? Just pullling my legs! It's an example.