Microevolution: FACT. Creationism being taught as science while banning "evilution" is teaching kids blind obediance without bothering with knowledge

actual there is no proof what so ever of evoultion, there is theory and observation, that lead to opinions that evoultion is the way that life works.

ill say right from the Start that im a Christian. i believe in God and Jesus Christ as my personel savior. but im also a well educated person. i spent eh first 25 years or so of my life looking for reasons not to believe in God, i was sucked in by all the 'science' swill of evoultion being a 'fact' untill i relized that there is no way to prove it. you cant prove that man evolved from slime any more than you can that man was created by the hand of God. for every 'fact' of evoultion i can (if needed) provide a 'fact' to counter it.

as far as good en evil *shrug* to my thinking its a personel thing, its 1 part intent, its 1 part world view, its 1 part an individuals relationship with their fellow humans. good and evil is a relitave choice that can only be truly understood by the people effected by it.

there is no doubt in my mind that Hitler was evil. there is also no doubt in my mind that he did NOT start out that way, but the choices and events of his life eventualy made him thus.

good and evil is a moment by moment choice. its an individual choice and it is the very core of all human desputes. it cant be measured, it has to be felt, you cant add numbers up on a chalk board and draw hard binding conclusions. good and evil need to be experienced on an ongoing basis, not religated to dry debates and a quotation of past 'examples'

WAS hitler evil? yes, i think so for many reasons, but the first being that he was the one who actualy started the war. he was the one who made the choice to go from talking to killing. that is my OWN personel moral line. and i fully expect that others wont agree.

is G. W. Bush evil? i say yes for the same reasons. he stoped talking and started shooting. is Bush God sent? not MY God. vengance is MINE saith the Lord, and im quite sure he didnt deligate that decisions to Bush. president or not. im anti abortion in any form. but its not MY decision to control anothers choices. im for the separation of Church and state, but for it in the way that our founders intended. not to have the government advocate a religion but not to suppress them either. EVERY person has the fredom of religious expression and if that means a judge wants to post the 10 comandments outside his court room so be it. that judge will ACT on his beliefs wether or not those comandments are allowed to be there or not. if anything i think it surves a purpose to 'warn' anyone going into his court what to expect from him. in short its far more effectave to remove the Judge than remove the comandments

good and evil is only relitave in the context of a persons individual experiences. its between them and their God (be that God science, or a more 'normal' God) its a choice that every person has to decide for themselves.

It's easy to tell who is good and who is evil.

The good side is the side that wins because they get to write the history books.

actual there is no proof what so ever of evoultion, there is theory and observation, that lead to opinions that evoultion is the way that life works.

You know nothing about science I'm sorry to say.

Anyway, the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe and everything else is a lie. Come on, prove me wrong!

actual there is no proof what so ever of evoultion, there is theory and observation, that lead to opinions that evoultion is the way that life works..

You're wrong. I said that evolution in the sense of amino acids + 6 billion years = human was kind of blurry. But the fact we evolve on a day to day basis is proven. For one thing, we have dogs, foxes, wolves, coyotes, dingoes, etc. All of them are canine, from a single ancestor group. You can make new breeds of dogs by crossing them, which is evolving canines as a species. We have races of people, we aren't all the same, since we all evolved in different environments. Evolution, on the small scale, that individual species evolve, isn't debatable unless you have proof against it.

Wow!

I started this tread to talk about how the good races were harder to get along with than the evil races. The tangent that it took was a little unexpected.

It is amazing how Hitler is the ultimate example people use to explain their points.

My point was a good natured race would be logically a little easier to get along with than an evil.

Instead we got. George Bush = Hitler, Jesus vs evolution, etc.

Jesus vs evolution,

That isn't my point. Religion and Evolution can mix fine, and all major european churches have long since accepted that evolution is my God's way of doing things.

And as said, Hitler is only viewed as evil because he lost. If he'd won, well, he'd have been right all along. Along that line of thought, it is possible to deny the Holocaust as being English propaganda to get America to join the fight (And no, I don't believe this for a second, I'm talking strictly hypothetically)

But seriously, what did you expect when you talk about good and evil?

Blimey what a complete lack of detail of British history you lot have.

Firstly King arthur is a legend, he was probably a romano british king fighting invading saxons, friesens danes / germans. but there is only conjecture as evidence and a victorian story.

Nobody lopped james 1st's head off that was Charles 1st James son.

Anyway I agree with the sentiments above what is good or evil? whichever side your on you don't think your evil, as far as your concerned your in the right whatever you do, other wise you would'nt do it. would you? Do the Iranian's think their the evil ones? Do palestinian suicide bombers think wahey this will be evil? course not, same as us persons of "western values" think we are right to launch pre emptive wars, or not as the case may be.

regards stodge

Anyway, the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe and everything else is a lie. Come on, prove me wrong!

All hail the flying spagetthi monster.


(And don't start speaking about creationism vs. evolution. One being a science theory and the other being a religious believe, so they can't be compared.

Hitler winning does not make him good. He could write history in his favor because with victory comes the spoils. However, the effort to annihilate different races, the unprovoked aggression, and his demonic mind could not have been covered up if he won. You all are very naive if you think he could.

Ghengis Khan - Won - we still know how brutal he was.
Atilla - Won - we still know how brutal he was.
Stalin - Won - we still know how btutal he was
Pol Pot - Won - we still know his story.

There will be many examples of this. You may be able to hide your deeds for a while but the truth will make its way out eventually. Currently, North Korea is a closed society. Once it opens up and it will, their history will be re-written.

We know how brutal Ghengis Kahn was but I've never heard him called evil.
Stalin didn't win, we're still a capitalist society.

In fact the only "winner" at the moment (assuming you live in Europe/America) is western society (Bush/Blair in the short term) every other society has lost at some point. The truth only comes out when one society "loses" (be it culturally, military might, superior technology or by alliegence ) In Nazi Germany Hiter was "good" he overturned the embarrasing versailles treaty completely and took Germany from a massive depression into a world power. The holocaust was turned into a "good deed" by demonising the jews beforehand.

In a more modern example think of animal rights protesters, from many peoples point of view they do "evil" deeds to prevent animal testing but from their point of view these same deeds are "good" as they are fighting for the animals. In the end, if the animal rights protesters are stopped then they are stopped from doing "evil" deeds if we stop animal testing then people will assume that the animal rights protesters were doing the right thing.

Hitler winning does not make him good. He could write history in his favor because with victory comes the spoils. However, the effort to annihilate different races, the unprovoked aggression, and his demonic mind could not have been covered up if he won. You all are very naive if you think he could.

You are completely naive. "He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future". Most Germans had no idea what Hitler was doing. If he had won, anyone with knowledge of the holocaust (which WASN'T widespread then) would have been killed. Most of the evidence was already gone when we found the camps.

Sorry, but if you think Hitler could have got away with it you're a fool. Maybe we'd know today, maybe we wouldn't. But knowledge is power: and lack of something like the internet coupled with propoganda, all traces of the Holocaust would have gone.

Nobody lopped james 1st's head off that was Charles 1st James son.

I swear I'd typed Charles. Bang goes my history GCSE...

If Stalin did not win, then nobody has ever won. All empires fall eventually.

Rome, Eygpt, Greek, British, or whomever, they all go down.

I will concede this about Hitler. Overturning the treaty of versailles was a good thing for Germany. His Military spending ended the great depression in Germany. He restored the pride of the German people.

Then he proceded to hang his people by meat hooks and piano wire. The leader of the SA becomes a threat...he kills him. He needs "living space" so he decides to exterminate the slavs and poles. He leaves his own troops to stand and die. (ie every battle from Stalingrad on).

I am really starting to lose my faith in others to tell right from wrong and good from evil. Of course, the most dangerous person is the person who thinks God is on his side.

One final note about Germany. It still amazes me to this day how close they did come to winning. How this one country, with few quality allies stood up to the world for as long as they did. Absolutely stunning. The United States alone had three times their industrial might. What would have happened if Germany would have waited for peace with England before taking on the USSR? Even so, what would have happened had Germany would have gone for Moscow instead of the Caucauss(sp)? What if....Hitler would have delayed the entry of the US by not declaring war first? So you could say, Germany defeated herself.

Anyway....wrong place for this post.

Ghengis Khan - Won - we still know how brutal he was. Atilla - Won - we still know how brutal he was. Stalin - Won - we still know how btutal he was Pol Pot - Won - we still know his story.

The idea that history is written by the winners has some merit, but it hinges on the assumption that there is no outsider to observe or care. And we also have to assume the winners were intent on spending their resources wiping out all evidence so future generations couldn't dig for evidence. But of those you listed only Stalin and maybe Pol Pot tried to do that...

If Htiler won world war II and took over the *whole* world, yes, the history of the world (Earth) would probably list Hitler has a hero. But if there were h Aliens looking on providing an independent record, they could and probably would provide a different opinion.

It's the same with all the other 'winners' you recorded, they only won in their part of the world, and there were always existing independent outsiders who had their own independent viewpoints to contradict the official history.

Then again, when 90% of the population is Christian (7% atheistic, 3% 'other' ), and when 95% know who Bart Simpson's sister is (Lisa, for those who don't live in the United States or watch The Simpsons ) and 50% believe dinosaurs walked the Earth side by side with humans (I mean no offense to anyone who believes this because of their religion) it is surprising the election was so close.

BZZZZT! Wrong. Census puts best estimate at 65% to 70% Christian in the USA.
Fastest growing religion: Islam, the "religion of peace."

Now you're in for it richrf

If Htiler won world war II and took over the *whole* world, yes, the history of the world (Earth) would probably list Hitler has a hero. But if there were h Aliens looking on providing an independent record, they could and probably would provide a different opinion.

I'm open to the idea of another intelligent species in the universe. Come on, it's frigging huge. It might happen.
But stand back for a moment, and think what the human race have done to the planet, not just individuals like Hitler.
Do you really think a more intelligent, space faring race would EVER consider most humans good or neutral? Obviously there are exceptions like Mandela, who's words to stop the fight in South Africa helped the end of Apartheid. But he began his career as a terrorist. Mother Theresa, while not evil, did nothing to stop the problem of huge families in Africa. I don't think any other intelligent race would judge us worth the time.

As a galactic standpoint, present-day humans are horrifically cruel. But maybe we shall change. We can only hope.

Seriously, why do you expect a more intelligent, space-faring race to have been so much nicer in it's growth then us humans?
I would expect that most intelligent species would evolve somewhat similar to the human race with lots of wars, idiotic religions, genocide etc. You don't get to become an enlighted race without some hardships.

But the fact we evolve on a day to day basis is proven. For one thing, we have dogs, foxes, wolves, coyotes, dingoes, etc. All of them are canine, from a single ancestor group.

prove that, show me the records of the original dog that all other dogs evolved from. and i want actual proof too not someones theory. i want to see the bones of the original Dog that started them all.

see it cant be done. once you get outside the first hand records of an event nothing can be proven its all speculation and HIGHLY dependant on the opinions and preconceved notions of those viewing what little data exists. (more in a moment)

You can make new breeds of dogs by crossing them, which is evolving canines as a species. We have races of people, we aren't all the same, since we all evolved in different environments

and THAT is were you faulter in your assumptions. you draw a random line on the overall map of life and call that 'proof' of evoution.

there is a world of difference between change and evoultion. if a black person and a white person cross breed do they create a 'new species'? if that offspring then breeds with an asian is that yet ANOTHER new species? why it seems to me your theory would have to have each individual person ever bourn conciderd a 'new species'

can you see certian trends in the difference in races? such as dark skin or light, larger muscles, or smaller? average height taller or shorter? sure you can. are they different species? no. are they proof of evoultion TOTALY not.

if the 'adaptation to enviroment' is to be concided proof of evoultion then since the Russians used big giant fuzzy hats and us Americans dont , then why we are two totaly different races. those hats were evolved due to the differences in enviroment.

that must mean that hats are now conciderd a race

why i do believe your right. evoultion is prooved, all you need to believe it is to look at a giant fuzzy russian hat.

Evolution, on the small scale, that individual species evolve, isn't debatable unless you have proof against it.

its not up to me to disprove your theory its up too you to prove it. that IS how true science works. and so far you havent proven anything but your opinions.

the fact that dogs can cross breed im not sure how you find that proof of evoultion. would not dogs that were created by the hand of God ALSO be able to cross breed?

you can show me proof of evoultion when you can show me a dog that breeds with another dog, and the offspring are cats

i have a pretty much stock answer ive used over the years to these 'debates'. its something ive stumbled on years ago during my pre faith period. and it really did alot to open my eyes (once i thought about it) to the reality that science cant prove evoultion any more than religion can prove God.

" Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe poses a dilemma for evolutionists in his book "Darwins's black box". he calls it the 'irreducible complexity' the illustration he uses is a common mouse trap consisting of a platform, spring, holding bar, hammer, and catch. this is an irreducibly complex system because each of its several well-matched interacting parts contributes to its basic function. the removal of any 0ne of the parts causes the system to effectivaly cease functioning and the mouse gets a free lunch.

creation is filled with such systems wich could not have evolved piece by piece over long periods of time, with each piece useful to the organism (so thats its seleceted and passsed on) untill finaly the complete complex mechanism was produced.

examples include the eye, cilia and blood clotting to name a few. if the eye evolved, each piece oif the intricate 'eye sight' puzzle would have had to be useful in order to be selected and passed on to successive generations. of what advantage would a cornea or an optic nerve or a retina or even possessing most of the components of sight be to an organism if it was not a functioning organ? about as useful as a mouse trap without a spring.

such irreducibly complex systems had to be fully formed and in place in the beginning for the organism to survive. this could not happen by chance. a horse fly will never evolve into a horse.

now i fully admit there are things in this world that i dont know, there are puzzles that have no answers and only lead to more questions. im open minded enough to believe that there is a certian ammount of adaptation to the enviromets goin on and that different species adapt to their enviroments even through something as simple and making warm clothing, i also cant prove that creation is how the universe was formed.

my whole purpose in any creation vrs evoultion debate is to ultimatly get both sides to relize that NEITHER side has the whole 'truth'. greater minds than those here in this forum have been arguing this question for hundereds of years and for each and every 'fact' presented by EITHER side there is a counter 'fact'. if there was 100 questions that needed to be answered to prove either evoultion or creation than id say that both sides have answered at most 20 of them, and have had a further 20 answered totaly against them. that still leaves 60 questions that we just cant know the answers too yet.

im not anti science. hell the fact that im playing a space game that science made possable, debating on a forum that science gave to us, using a computer to do it that science created should tell you that im not a tourch wealding villager hell bent on burning DR Frankensten. on the other hand im not so simple minded that i can view anything that has had the term 'scientific proof' slaped on it and view it as the be all and end all answer to everything everwere either.

the debate isnt prooven for either side by a long shot. i dont think it CAN be proven. the more science looks the more questions they find, there are allready a huge body of questions that they cant answer now (my example being only one of thousands). on the other hand all that God requires is faith. but belief in God opens many more questions. ive seen fossils of dinosaurs and wonder how something that amazing could have no mention at all in the bible, while birds without number are described in detail. radio carbon dating that is based on sound theorys dates things as in some cases being billions of years old, yet the bible would seem to limit us to 10,000 years at most between creation and now.

but in the end, most people put their faith into either science or God and leave no room for the others views. its allways an either or proposition with neither side relizing that they dont have all the answers. i choose to believe in God but i can also see why others might not. God is a comfort to me, God has helped me in troubled times in my life, science has not.

all people need to place their faith in SOMETHING, some choose science, some choose God, but the faith is allways there. let us, as reasoning human beings, agree on this part and leave the rest open for debate shall we?

prove that, show me the records of the original dog that all other dogs evolved from. and i want actual proof too not someones theory. i want to see the bones of the original Dog that started them all.

No, but if you use google I'm sure you'll find DNA of variations of human such as neanderthal (we didn't evolve from them... we killed them all). Bones are so easy to forge, DNA isn't.

the fact that dogs can cross breed im not sure how you find that proof of evoultion. would not dogs that were created by the hand of God ALSO be able to cross breed?

As I said, I didn't say God didn't exist. Evolution and God can go hand in hand. Any intelligent creator would realise the need to adapt. Adaptation (which is cross breeding) IS a form of evolution. Not instead, they're basically the same thing. A species has adapted to create a new variety. Evolution. I don't care what you call it, that's it and that's enough proof of the point.

see it cant be done. once you get outside the first hand records of an event nothing can be proven its all speculation and HIGHLY dependant on the opinions and preconceved notions of those viewing what little data exists. (more in a moment)

WRONG! A hell of a lot of data exists. It's called DNA. You can fairly easily link canines to each other, and you can see they're related by looking at them. I'm not a genetic scientist, I study the theory as an amateur. However, these basic things I know, and that is you're talking crap saying you can't prove evolution. I JUST DID. Microevolution on the small scale is visible in the alteration of the genetic code in descendants of single-celled organisms such as amoeba and bacteria. Take bird flu: it's been around hundreds of years, and one of it's recent big strikes was after 1919, and it killed more people than WW1. They didn't cure it, it stopped. It kept evolving, and now and then strains appear that can be dangerous to humans (like the current one). So, what do you call that?

its not up to me to disprove your theory its up too you to prove it. that IS how true science works. and so far you havent proven anything but your opinions.

Yes, it is. This is what is both wonderful and awful about science: you can't say for definate. All I'm saying is this is FAR more likely than anything else, and it's happening. DNA exists, it's been seen. It changes, that's been seen. That is all microevolution is: a simple process of DNA changing and adapting. Some of it is useful for the survival of the species of the time, and through what is currently viewed of as natural selection (although humans have destroyed that with selective breeding and killing everything), those members who can, say, jump higher, control objects easier, learn quick, or anything that builds upon that species advantage, will survive longer and be more likely to breed. Evolution: tiny changes making something different over hundreds of thousands of years.

" Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe poses a dilemma for evolutionists in his book "Darwins's black box". he calls it the 'irreducible complexity' the illustration he uses is a common mouse trap consisting of a platform, spring, holding bar, hammer, and catch. this is an irreducibly complex system because each of its several well-matched interacting parts contributes to its basic function. the removal of any 0ne of the parts causes the system to effectivaly cease functioning and the mouse gets a free lunch.

Keep up. This was disproved as generically unnaceptable long ago. Because things evolve not to do what they do now, but often by accident. For example, the wing. It was originally believed to be a reptillian cooling system. Reptiles need to keep cool or die, so ones with it survived. It became more thin, powerful and complex over the years, until one day, reptiles where airborne. This was much safer, and so began the evolution of birds.

Or even a certain bacteria that has an AMAZINGLY powerful defence system. Remove any bit and it fails. However, the system is similar to a relative one designed for propulsion. One day, the inevitable statistic occured, and the bacteria got armed. Much harder to kill, it reproduced quickly.

The eye: many deep-sea fish have photo-sensitive patches designed for tracking. That's only one compartment. Some fall for the fake lights of the anglers, and so the ones who could distnguish between such lights were more liekly to survive. And so it evolved better and more complex, and through that method you get to an eye similar to ours.

That theory is completely wrong. Things are not compartmentalised, they merely become more sophisticated. You CAN desophisticate them and have them work, usually for something else. Please don't use out of date arguments.

No, it won't be proven. Once again, I'm not arguing against creationism. I believe SOMETHING kick started it all, just not God. Certainly nothing worth worshipping. But something. And evolution is an official theory. Which doesn't mean what you think. A theory is something which has undergone rigourous testing, and is acceptable. Newtonian gravity is nothing more than a theory. Yet NASA get by just fine with it.

Once again I repeat, I am not anti-creation or pro-1 cell to human. It would take about longer than current predictions of the earth's age, IMO. But macroevolution is simply undispitable. Yes, it's a theory. However, I'm not floating around, and I have the same hair colour as my parents, grandparents, and so on. My children will have my charicteristics. And some slight changes, otherwise people would look more or less the same. We evolve on a daily basis.

Wow...not expecting this kind of discussion in a game forum...especially one with a tongue-in-cheek morality like GC2.

anyway...my opinion
- I don't care what Hitler did for Germany. I don't think he starting a war is evil...he's just doing what he thought was best for Germany. BUT he ordered the murdur of millions of people. That's what make him evil for me.
- On the same note, a competant leader of a country must do things for the interests of that country. So it's difficult to say they are evil or good. Many people around the world condemn the US for invading Iraq, or western countries that they went hunting for colonies around the world. But suppose that the power are reversed, I doubt that Iraq will not invade US or those countries will not come and conquer/colonize Europe.
- That said, I don't put much in Bush saying that God sent him or US is the good guys. It's just interests of the country. Saying that you are good guys is an attempt at justification only.

"its not up to me to disprove your theory its up too you to prove it. that IS how true science works. and so far you havent proven anything but your opinions."

- actually, scientific theory works the other way. you come up with a hypothesis based on your observation. Then try to DISPROVE it by reasoning or more observations through testing. If you cannot, then your hypothesis becomes theory. In science, theory is valid until proven otherwise.

- microevolution is very obvious and very difficult to disprove. have you heard of strains of viruses, or if you use a lot of medicine on one type of viruses, the medicine will lose its potency over time and you have to use stronger medicine? This is because the virus evolves itself and be able to resist the medicine. That is why antibiotics must be used with care, and when you actually use it, you must make sure that all viruses in your body are killed.

- macroevolution, the idea that one species can change into another (versus microevolution, which is the change within that specie) is still debatable. human coming from ape or horsefly becoming horse is in this category. there are many evidences supporting it, but still not conclusive. one thing to remember is that macroevolution, if it's true, happens on a very large timescale. we are talking about 10,000 generations here.

- Dog evolved from wolf not so long ago. I remember that they are looking for a living first Dog too, not just a dead one. The living ones are just the offsprings of those first Dogs that doesn't evolve to become dogs we see nowaday. I saw it on national geography channel, if you are interested.

- about dinosaur and the bible. the obvious answer is that no human ever lived to see dinosaur walked the earth. it's no surprise that the bible doesn't talk about it. now IF the bible has reference to dinosuar, it will be extraordinary indeed.

human coming from ape

THIS is the part I despise. We evolved with apes from ancestors, and too often I hear "I aint no ape, that thing at the zoo is, so evolution is wrong!"

The theory being weird primates started evolving, monkeys etc leaving the branch a couple thousand decades ago. The others left like apes, orang-utans, and chimps (technically we do qualify as hairless chimps due to extreme DNA similarities, and a coxix that shows evidence of a evolution-removed tail). Then the "homo" species started splitting up into things like neanderthilis, erectus, and habilis (our ancestors). In the end sapiens killed neanderthalis, basically because we were better adapted to europe (all humans can swim, including babies, though they forget. Less fur, more upright etc), and thus homo sapiens sapiens was born.

The above is mostly hypothesis and speculation (some of it approved theory: neanderthals existed, we killed them among others).

Macroevolution may gain proof from the fact that animals can breed interspecies, creating hybrids like mules, ligers, zonkeys, and others.

we are talking about 10,000 generations here.

roughly 50,000 years ago (about 10,000 generations) we learned to stand upright. That was roughly 4 distinct phases ago (I think it's homo erectus, homo habilis, homo sapiens, and homo sapiens sapiens (might have missed some)). That's a conservative estimate, since we were pretty human then.

Macroevolution relies on all the evidence available which pits DNA and amino acids at being around a few billion years. Creationism relies on the bible's estimate which is the earth is 6,000 years old. The joke is, egyptian pyramids are nearer 7,000 years old. Which leaves intelligent design, the european standard. "God made us, and left us to it. Ineffable, eh?"

And finally

- I don't care what Hitler did for Germany. I don't think he starting a war is evil...he's just doing what he thought was best for Germany. BUT he ordered the murdur of millions of people. That's what make him evil for me.

True. But it boils down to a discussion of philosophy rather than hard boiled fact. Hitler was a supremacist, and probably mentally unstable. Nazi images, when you study them, are horrifying, and you can only hope some of the things they mean are purely coincidental, and thank that he lost because he cocked up.

The point made here is, you wouldn't know about what Hitler did, as it would have been "Evil American/British propoganda to demoralise the great Hitler". Propoganda is a horrible thing, because people believe it. If you ever go to Belgium, go to the few German cementaries. I went there once with my school, and walked into an enourmous room of names. None of my classmates knew what the words at the top meaned, and in the end I translated it into "hall of students". All the names (and there were thousands) on those walls were young people, mostly under 15, who fought and died for Hitler, because they believed in him.

If it was that easy to do that with one country, what if you controlled all the information in the world? No internet access, no newspapers, no radio. Not even education, because everything is propoganda which the teachers themselves believe. You wouldn't think Hitler evil. In England a while back, Winston Churchill was voted our "Greatest Briton" for what he did, and he is revered. Bad mouthing him will probably get you a verbal assault worthy of any forum, because he saved us.

What if Hitler had "saved" us? Would we revere him?

- macroevolution, the idea that one species can change into another (versus microevolution, which is the change within that specie) is still debatable. human coming from ape or horsefly becoming horse is in this category. there are many evidences supporting it, but still not conclusive. one thing to remember is that macroevolution, if it's true, happens on a very large timescale. we are talking about 10,000 generations here.

The only ones who find this so "debatable" as you do are non-scientists. The specifics of the methods through which it works are still being discovered (ie. "recently" it's been seen that retroviruses may possibly play a role in moving DNA around between species), but it's pretty obvious that organisms do evolve and speciate over time. If you want to disagree with DNA evidence, fossil records, and even the fact that your "microevolution" does happen, then go right ahead. I'd prefer to think God gave you a brain for a reason, such as exploring His universe and its laws rather than wasting it like a caveman and chocking everything up to magic.

Now evolution is still falsifiable like any scientific theory, but it's as accepted as the laws of thermodynamics (natural selection itself perhaps slightly less). You can use intelligent design / creationism to explain where everything came from, but there is no way to falsify either of these and they are, esentially, religious beliefs. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not a replacement for science.

is G. W. Bush evil? i say yes for the same reasons. he stoped talking and started shooting

So was Theodore Roosevelt evil for declaring war on the Japonese and then sending troops to fight Germany and Italy? Yes, I know of the Axis powers.
The war on terror is actually a war on "Islamo Facism" as termed by AM radio show host, Michael Savage.
The "western" civilizations, as defined by their culture have enemy cells and governmets every where because the freedoms provided do not fit into their religious paradise goals.

-Wade

Evil = Targeting civillians for terror purposes (busses, cafes, buildings)
Good = Targeting combatants for stopping terror (yes, it includes buildings such as factories)

-Wade

oh uh...I was not precise enough at got shredded yes...I know the theory that we and ape have common ancestors...not 'human comes from ape' as i stated. And yes 10,000 generations is a conservative estimate, but i think by then evolutions should at least be discernable eventhough the new specie may not be totally different.

Consumed Crustacean - I do believe in evolution and natural selection. I think natural selection is also very reasonable. But there are people (scientists too) who argue against macroevolution and i am still open for their ideas too. That's why i say it's debatable. Microevolution is very difficult to refute as I say.
- You are spot on though when saying that creationism is not a science, just a belief. I don't think the Bible is open for falsification.