I caught D. James Kennedy's televised sermon on the evils of evolution today. Beautifully delivered and astounding in its inaccuracy. I wonder if preachers go to hell for lying if they think it's in a good cause. He even chortled over the prospect of Stephen Gould meeting his maker given his recent demise. I thought that was rather un-Christian of Dr. Kennedy. There may be a lttle touch of envy there given that, unlike the Rev. Kennedy, Dr. Gould has actually done something to expand the sum total of human knowlege.

I never heard to these people.

One thing that a "devout" fundamentalist "christian" taught me was that you can do anything you want to whomever you want....

you just have to ask for the "Lord's" forgiveness....

...and you will be forgiven....

Marco, you can choose to believe your religion and he can choose to believe his. If you think evolution is anything but a religion, you are the ignorant one.

In science you're only as good as your evidence. You should know that. The topic was a request for a better idea that speaks to the evidence, not some lame comparison of evolutionary biology to religion. Just be glad your beliefs don't have to meet the rigors of a scientific theory. Try to contribute something useful. Explain the distribution of the fossil record by some mechanism other than change through time.



D. James Kennedy is senior minister of the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church. The recently deceased Stephen J. Gould is a famed (even had a spot on the Simpsons) Harvard professor of Paleontology, populizer of aspects of Evolutionary Theory and co-founder of the Theory of Puctuated Equlilibria.

http://www.audible.com/adbl/site/products/...p;redirectFlag=

Try this book -- have not read it yet but basically a super brainy scientist argues for the existence of God.

A lot of people have that opinion about Catholics, because of the whole Confession thing.

But it's a lot more complicated than that. God doesn't forgive unless 1) you truly repent, and mean it, and 2) you intend to go forth and sin no more.

You can't go out carousing and screwing people over one weekend, and go to church and ask for forgiveness with every intention of doing it again the next weekend.

Anti-evolution forces lose power in state primary By Carey Gillam
Wed Aug 2, 2:36 AM ET



OVERLAND PARK, Kansas (Reuters) - Conservative Republicans who pushed for criticism of evolution in Kansas classrooms lost control of the state school board as moderates scored a narrow victory in a primary election on Tuesday.

ADVERTISEMENT

The shake-up came after the Kansas State Board of Education voted 6-4 in November to approve new science standards that local and national science groups charged were a product of religious zealotry because they challenged Darwin's theory.

Teachers and scientists joined with moderate and liberal political action groups to campaign for the ouster of the conservatives and return to teaching what they consider conventional science.

The Kansas standards, meant to be guidelines for teachers across the state, were seen as a victory for the "intelligent design" movement, which holds that the world is so complex that a higher authority -- God -- must have created it.

With more than 90 percent of the votes counted early on Wednesday, moderates had gained two seats and secured a third on the 10-member board, pushing conservatives -- two held their seats -- into the minority.

"We're going to have a new majority on the school board," said Boo Tyson, executive director of the MAINstream Coalition, which helped fund the campaign against the conservatives. "The people of Kansas have said they want their school board focused on something else than this hot-button issue."

The moderate challengers in the Republican primary gained the advantage by unseating one conservative on the board and giving a fourth open seat to a grandmother and teacher who has been highly critical of the board's anti-evolution actions.

Democrat Janet Waugh also held her seat against a challenger who had been dubbed anti-evolution.

The Kansas vote is the latest development in a renewed U.S. debate over evolution, which has simmered before and since the famed Scopes "monkey trial" in Tennessee 80 years ago.

The Kansas standards say there is a lack of evidence or natural explanation for the genetic code, charge that fossil records are inconsistent with evolutionary theory, and say certain evolutionary explanations "often reflect ... inferences from indirect or circumstantial evidence."

Kansas' school board has shifted repeatedly on the issue. It pushed through anti-evolution standards in 1999, prompting moderates to oust conservatives in 2000. But the conservatives regained power and pushed through the latest anti-evolution standards last year.

In February, the Ohio Board of Education reversed a 2002 mandate requiring critical analysis of evolution in science classes. That followed a federal judge's ruling that teaching intelligent design to Dover, Pennsylvania, students was unconstitutional.

The controversy made Kansas a focus of international attention and the butt of jokes by late-night television hosts, who portrayed the state as ignorant and backward.

You can't?

I don't believe it. That's not what Father O'Banion said.

I learned about creationism, or intelligent design whichever you prefer, in catechism class at a catholic elementary school. I learned about Darwin's theory of evolution in a biology and human anatomy class in college. I learned 3 things about both subjects:

1. You can learn all there is to know about both subjects in a few hours.

2. There is no way to ever prove that either idea is the truth.

3. It makes absolutely no difference in my life either way.

I have to agree with Idiot. Except that it really makes a big difference in my life believing in an Intelligent Designer. Doesn't matter to me which way He created things, .... in seven days, over billions of years, or in the blink of an eye. I really could care less. But, I honestly wonder how life makes any sense what so ever if you think this earth is all there is.

In my opinion, it takes a much greater amount of faith and trust in man to believe in evolution. And, yes, it takes faith. No scientific proof can convince me of it. Actually, the more I learn of it, the more outrageous it seems. I just can not buy that the life as we know it formed by chance chemical reactions. And no one yet has been able to tell me where those original chemicals came from anyway.

How can that explain love. How can it explain that one person can love someone so much that they would willingly give up their life for that person. If we all go in the ground and that's the end of us, where is the hope? Why not end it all now..... We can't, because we love too many people. I do not see how humans can acquire something like that , sacrifically love, without a designer.

But, again, I live my life finding alot of joy in knowing my Creator. But, if, by chance, I am wrong, I lose nothing. I just go in the ground. But, on the other hand, if it is true, that there is a Creator, what do you lose in the end?
I would consider all the benefits of what I believe is a restoration.......being joined again to our Creator ( who by the way, has the exact type of unconditional love for US. ) Sounds like a good deal to me. Just my opinion.

I've always felt the two ideas could come together as one, if people opened their minds a little bit.

Maybe God did create the world in seven 'days.' But perhaps, from God's perspective, a 'day' isn't actually a 24-hour period. Maybe a 'day' is actually a gazillion years, or whatever.

To me, the two separate ideas could actually be similar... but every fundamentalist Christian I know won't hear of it.

"No, no, no. A day means 24-hours. Sunrise to sunrise. There's no other possible explanation."

But you find that a supreme being creating life in 7 days is more believable?

1. Comparative anatomy, molecular genetics, geology, paleontology, statistics, information theory, evolutionary developmental biology, radiometric dating, embryology, organic chemistry all in a few hours? Who are you, Mr. Spock?

2. Proof doesn't enter into it. Proof is for mathematics. One fits the available evidence as shown in all the above disciplines. The other is based on belief. Which do you think should be taught in biology class?

3. Thanks for participating, anyway. I thought my thread would fade away and it made me sad.

I don't believe in creationism, or religion for that matter. If I'm wrong, then I guess I'm screwed when my time comes.
I just can't bring myself to believe some almighty entity flipped a switch and started everything. It just doesn't seem logical to me.

Unless you're wedded to a literal reading of Genesis I can't see where the belief in evolutionary processes and an ultimate creator are incompatible. It's obvious that the planet is old, that life has been here a long time and has changed during that time. That's a close to a fact as you can get. Plenty of Christian thinkers have managed to accept the findings of science without it weakening their faith. Polkinghorne, Davies, Miller, etc.

Also, if you look into it, I believe that you will find much more than just chance operating.

Yeah, apparently so. Lots of people do. If you're not ridiculed for your belief, don't ridicule others.

One thing humans have a hard time comprehending is the very idea of a supreme being. It may be literally too hard for even the smartest human to totally grasp. Just stop and ponder it for 5 minutes what a being with infinite power could possibly do. Slow down or speed up time. Create a planet with a "history" of a few billion years in a few days as easy as a human writing a book with a historical background. Create millions or trillions of parallel universes? Unimaginable things.

Wow, no wonder the Kansas school board doesn't want to teach the theory of evolution in their schools. No one would ever graduate.



Ok, so only the educated elite can understand Darwin's monkey chart and only mathmeticians have a right to expect proof of something. What about my number 3? Maybe you can educate me as I seem to be trapped among the ignorant masses. How does any of this make the slightest bit of difference in my life?

Oh Snoopy please. Get off your moral soapbox, as you are one of the biggest offendors of ridiculing people for their beliefs. If you need an example, please reference the topic starter for the people protesting in Chambersburg for their beliefs.

Besides, I didn't ridicule Checkingin. I didn't call her a name, or say anything about what she believes. I simply asked a question because I do not understand, or comprehend, how she can find altering chemical reactions more unbelievable than a supreme being.

I know the concept is too much for some people to comprehend but there are people in this world who do not buy the Adam and Eve story, and who want nothing to do with religion, but who still believe that there is a supreme being to be honored and glorified. They may even actually believe in and try to follow the teachings of Jesus.

Just take my word for it Snoopy.

You won't be alone. It also seems illogical to me that God gave me a gift as powerful as a brain with the ability to reason, but then expects me to put my faith and trust in someone whose reasoning so contradicts my own. Am I to assume that someone else's brain is better than mine?

Btw, you've given me an idea in case we find that God won't let us in the pearly gates. We'll get Johnnie Cochran, I'm sure he talked his way in, to put on a Chewbacca Defense for us for old time's sake. I mean c'mon, how could he resist an Idiot and a Wookiee. After all, he did it for Cartman and Chef.

If the brain isn't fit, you must admit!

I don't think the concept of natural selection and the fact that life has changed over time is too difficult to understand. What I meant was that none of the various disciplines I mentioned have provided any information to falsify evolution or to justify creationism or intelligent design.

As far as practical applications, I imagine understanding the evolution of parasites and disease causing organism and our immune reactions could be of benefit. I can also imagine developments in embryology as it relates to genetic switches that regulate growth of certain tissues could be of benefit if you or yours is suffering from a physical defect.

I think we're in big trouble if these religiously driven political ideas impact education and funding for the real sciences. I'm sure Soviet peasants in the last century didn't think their government's support of Lysenko's ideas in place of established genetics would make the slightest bit of difference in their lives either.

I didn't say that our government's support of the idea of creationism wouldn't make any difference in my life. Believe me, I've already seen plenty of negative impact on all of society caused by religious whackos in the government.

Yeah, Phish, I do. I believe He is the one who created everything.....meaning the complete universe where He knows every star in the sky. So creating an earth and all the lives on it, no sweat! He can surely decide how many days or years it will take Him. I couldn't care less (got that from SMan!)

There are many arguments against evolution. I studied it vs. Creationism in college. My father was a scientist and very big on believing in evolution. We talked about it alot. But, no matter what arguments I present to you in favor of Creationism, it is all garbage to someone who is atheist. You believe the way you do for a reason.

Phish, I didn't take your comment as a ridicule. Even if it was, it wouldn't matter to me. I am not for religion. Religion is a law and set of rules. I'm not into that. I can not live up to any rules. If getting to heaven depended on how good I am at keeping the rules, I'm doomed. I don't even want to try. I am motivated to become all God wants me to be, because He loves me just the way I am and wants good things for me. I believe many so called Christians today, have no clue about the truth and only try to be self-righteous and judgemental. That literally makes me sick. And it is sad because it is a terrible picture of the God I know and love.

So, back to evolution. Again, I don't really care if we evolved from monkey-like creatures.
If I were to set aside my belief in a Creator and just look at the facts, evolution still is based on assumptions. You say there is plenty of proof, but there is plenty of proof for Creationism also. Read up on it before you make a case against it. It is fascinating. And scientific. But, both are based on beliefs with proof to back them up. But, everybody has to decide for themselves. I just encourage you to study Creationism before dismissing it altogether. If you want to believe in evolution, fine. But, don't assume everyone who believes in a Creator is an airhead or fool. That just aint true.

One more idea....

Here is a challenge.....

There's a great book out called "Blue like Jazz. Nonreligious thoughts on Christian Spirituality."
Go to Borders and just read the chapter called "Confessions". The author is a graduate from Reed College and it is really good reading. Funny too. But, many Christians say it is heresy. I say it is a picture of the heart of God. It's divided into alot of short stories and anybody in this culture can find themselves in there somewhere. It's good for a belly laugh too.

Proofs for Creationism? Name one. I have looked into it. So far I have found nothing but ill informed attacks on aspects of evolutionary theory. Even if these "problems" were true, it does nothing to strengthen the case for special creation. To say evolution and creation are equal scientifically is flat out wrong.

Marco,

If you really are interested in learning more about the scientific proof, there is alot out there. I have found many people just want to put it down as a fairy tale instead of really researching.

Here's a start. http://www.amport.com/creation-geology.html

For choices from the biological side, just substitute biology for geology, above, and you'll get a lot more choices. Like I said, there is more than ample evidence if you research. But, it still boils down to making a decision about a Creator. And many at not willing to do that. So, it's a tough debate.

I'm a fence sitter. I thoroughly believe in evolution, but at the same time the universe and all that is in it is so complex that I find it hard to believe that it just randomly came together from some big bang and steaming primordial soup of amino acids. In some ways I think I'm similar to checkingin and SamyO (his opinion in another thread). Raised Catholic, but not that into religion in general. I believe we are too incredible to be a hodgepodge of molecules, so there has to be a creator. What shape and form it takes is unknown. And as far as a timeline, I think our biblical descriptions were written by people who have no concept of our modern "time". Sorry, but I have a hard time dealing with people who lived to be 900 some years old, just as equally as I disagree that the world was created in seven days. All my humble opinion and not debatable or for use as pot stirrings.

C'mon. I've read that stuff. How about something that even a small minority of mainstream scientists can accept and that is printed in peer reviewed literature? You mean to tell me that the findings of the last 300 years of geology, physics, paleontology and cosmology are wrong and the earth is less than 10,000 years old? That observed rates of sedimentation and numerous independently confirmed radiometric dating methods are in error and this small cabal of fundamentalist "scientists" have found truths that 99% of rest of the scientists in the world are supressing in some sort of humanist atheist plot. You really need to check out talkorigins.org. The majority of these creationist arguments are answered there. Besides, as I said before, arguments against evolution do not default to arguments for creationism.

A simple question for you. One that I have not found an answer to in all the creationist web sites that I have visited. How can you account for the distribution of the fossil record? If all living things were created at the same time why are their remains not found together?

I notice one of the references you cite is "Dr." Kent "I don't have to pay taxes because I work for God" Hovind. He is as much of a Phd as I am a super model. Here's the lowdown on this flim flamming PT Barnum of creationism; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/. You need to do your research. There are far better apologists than this embarassment.

I think that's up for debate...

I like thinking back to the Star Trek TNG episode where Q takes Picard back in time on earth when life started and reaches into a primordial pool of oozz and says "Heres where it all started" but also said "do you think thats all"? We may have or have not evolved from simple cells but I like to think there is certainly more out there.




"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."

I asked for that one.

Marco, Marco, Marco,

sigh. I don't wanna argue. I wanna have fun! But, you know, this kind of stuff deserves lots and lots of solid studying and it is soooo involved that to make blanket statements won't do it justice. I learned all about evolution growing up and in high school and in college. Since my father was pro evolution, I never questioned it.

When I took biology in college, my professor could not teach it without mentioning all the errors. So, it got me thinking. This was 30 years ago. I read and studied and discussed creationism and made the decision that it was more credible to me than evolution. I haven't looked back since. Until today! Ha!

Well, I can pick my brain but I am no expert now. And really, my decision has never waivered and won't. But, I do remember that when Darwin wrote "Origins of the Species", he was worried about his credibility because he felt that fossils were the "weakest link." He saw that the fossils found seemed to indicate that life forms were created as separate entities, fully formed. He wanted to find a transitioning fossil to prove that matter did change into a form of life which changed into another form and on and on. Still, to this day, no geologist has ever found a transitional fossil. I believe they say something like the fossils were too fragile to survive. But, there are no fossils showing and "in between stage" of transition. Darwin, as I remember reading, was very upset about this and urged scientists to find some. If evolution of unlike matter evolved, there should be numerous fossils of the transition. I believe scientists can not even speculate as to what these transitional forms even would look like. Every stratum, filled with fossils, should have all different stages of the changes taking place. Nothing has been found like that at all. Even the more "hardy" forms of fossils that have been preserved near perfectly have no transitional changes. That's just one glitch. There are many others.

But, I do respect anyone who studies this. It is an expansive topic. And, my memory has lost alot of that detailed info. There is always the dilemna about matter. At first, evolutionist basically said that matter is eternal. It always was. But, that has been disproven. And evolutionist really pick up the ball on the assumption that there was matter and chemicals. Can't ever tell us where they originated. So, even there, you have an assumption that they can't explain, but base the whole theory on it.

So, for me, believing in God was always a "given". I just have no problem with believing that there is a Master Creator of all this vast and wholly separate forms of life and beauty to boot! Entropy is another issue that doesn't jive with evolution.

Well, Marco, I doubt if any of what I have said will change your mind either. So, to each his own! I respect that you have done your homework and came up with a solution. But, I don't respect that you continue to write as though believing in a Creator is non-sense.

Checkingin, Checkingin, Checkingin,

Arguing can be fun. Here's some transitionals for Homo Sapiens. While it's hard to determine direct ancestry you can definately see a pattern developing. Skull size sure seems to get bigger as time goes on.



heres the url for the key

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html

If you care to look there are numerous transitionals from fish to amphibians, reptiles to mammals, etc. As a matter of fact a lobe finned fish was recently found that fits in nicely in the fossil record. These fossils have intermediate characteristics. Everything that is living or was living is transitional in a sense. The evolution of the horse, man and the whale are particularly well documented.

I pose the same question I did earlier. What explanation can you give for the fact that different creatures (most of them no longer in existance) are found in different layers of rock?

I am not deriding your belief in a Creator (although I don't share it). I don't think that can be proved one way or the other. I do think a belief in Creationism (and I'm talking about the Answers in Genesis kind) is flat out silly.

Marco,

Those skulls are the same species. I wanna see something between say, a bird and man.

But, anyway, thanks for the validation. I believe we now see through a dark glass, but someday we will see face to face. That's exciting to me.

Have a good one!

I just remembered something...

I think WV Dragon lady has a pic of the missing link!

I don't get it. Why should the acceptance of the science of evolution preclude the belief in God? No one assumes such a thing as a result of their acceptance of any of the other sciences. It seems obvious to me that neither scenario could be true without the existence of God.

What am I missing?






"Proof doesn't enter into it. Proof is for mathematics."

I stand corrected. Although since I don't see any concrete physical evidence of the existence of God, his existence or non-existence seems more along the lines of a logic problem than anything else.

If they are all the same species I'm a monkey's uncle. Look at the jaws and brain case sizes. That's well out of normal human range. It's a long way and a long time between a bird and a man, I'm not sure when the common ancestor there would be found but I can guarantee it wouldn't look like either.

How about between fish and land dwelling animals. This "fish" has the same skeletal structure inside its front fins as some primitive amphibians.

Hi Marco,
All the skulls can be considered primate mutations, or things on the skull that have changed due to adapting in the envionment. That is proven. But, if man did evolve from birds and it took a very long time, there should be ample evidence in fossils or bones located at some point. There are none. Plus, with natural selection, alot of testing has been done and shown that anytime the gene pool is changed slightly, it is a downgrade, less viable. Not made stronger. And there is still no evidence of cross species breeding. There are lots of variety and unique cases of change, but it is within the same species.
Take the sea turtle, for example. It has a special feature (i can't remember all the details) but whatever it has allows it to live in salt water. Any regular turtle would dehydrate and die in salt water. Turtles also are a breed that don't decomp as quickly as other reptiles. But, there are no transitional fossils/remains showing the evolution of this creature. Just remains of sea turtles and other turtles all with the very own unique parts. NOthing in transition. There was in the past, some geological finds that were supposed to be proof of like a man with wings or something like that. But, testing showed that the bones didn't even belong together.

As far as fossils in different layers of rock.....this is more complicated to explain without writing a book....but here's my take on it.......(man, my brain is hurting!) Let me think.... Ok, Yes, there is a difference between Evolutionists and Creationists as to the age of the earth. I can't remember all that stuff, something about radiocarbon testing and that electrons aren't cast off at the same rate so the testing is not accurate. But the Creationists believe that the earth was originally one large land mass....Europe being connected to our continent etc. And there was a greenhouse like canopy over the earth. No rain ever. Then came a deluge of rain and a major flood. The canopy effect was broken. Cut through rock at a fast rate. When the flood began to recede, there were layers of shale oil that settled on the bottom and then a huge deluge of "death" deposited all over the surface of the earth in the oil and became fossilized. However, it is believed that it happened quickly as the seas dried up compared to millions of years. So, you have a huge stratum of fossils layered depending on their weight and time taken for water to recede. But, all over the world, you can find trees growing and fossilized straight up through these layers. So, it could not have happened over millions of years. Scientist now believe that the Grand Canyon etc. was formed from a massive flood. Not a river running through it over millions of years. It's called the study of hydrology. Check it out. I am going by what I recall, so there is alot more that I don't remember and don't have time right now to research. Something to think on though. I still want my picture of a bird/man. Where are they??

P. S. Sorry, WVD, but I don't feel like doing a spell check. Put me on your pet peeve list!!

If the skulls are all mutations of an existing species it's strange that the oldest ones have the smallest brain cases. It is also strange that you think the rate of radioactive decay has changed. There is no evidence for that. No credible scientist believes the Grand Canyon was formed in a flood episode. I gave you several "transitional" fossils, there are hundreds more. Sediments can be deposited in deep layers in a flood.

Your explanation of the fossil record makes no sense. What kind of flood would sort out animals as they appear in the fossil record. Why aren't humans found with dinosaurs? Why are the remains of animal burrows and tracks found?

What's with the birdman? Why should there be any such thing?

Okay, okay.........heres your birdman

He's a cutie! And a suit to boot! I like him.

What got you interested in evolution?? Just curious.

The birdman is important. I am going back, according to evolution, to the time where we are evolving from reptiles to man. If we are in the constant state of evolving, then why are there not various staging of changes all over the world now. Why is it that "like" breeds "like" and we have baby humans, and reptiles have baby reptiles and down the line. There should still be things in transition regularly. Hope I am getting my meaning across.

Id,
I was just reading back and missed you question before. Sorry about that. I didn't read back far enough.

You asked why I thought that belief in evolution dismisses the belief in a Creator. Well, I guess it has just been my understanding that evolution has no room for a Creator. That this all happened by chance. That basically everything you see on this earth and in the entire universe came about by chance and change over the years. Most evolutionist don't buy the God thing. At least, that is what I thought. Give me some more ideas of what you mean, Id. Maybe, I am not understanding your question. It is a good one!

I never said I'm atheist, because I'm not. I would consider myself agnostic, and have a lot of questions about the creation of the universe to boot. I do not buy the adam and eve story. I'm not sure that I buy the theory of evolution either. I can't come to a conclusion, although I find it hard to believe that earth was created in 7 days by "the man above."

I do agree with you that many christians today are self-righteous and judgemental. I believe that we should live life according to what we feel is the right way to live. The great thing about this world is the diversity in religions, and the freedom to believe those religions. If everybody had the same beliefs (religion or otherwise), it surely would be a boring world.

Checkingin I've got to give you credit - you've got a lot more patience for this than I. I obviously agree with you on pretty much every point. I've studied Creation Science and read quite a bit that refutes macroevolution, and I have to agree there just isn't enough space and time available in a forum such as this to do the subject justice.

What we both know is that it really just boils down to which religion you believe: Evolution or Creation. Both are about equally "scientific" in that basically science doesn't support one over the other, when you put all of the facts together and attempt a truly UNBIASED evaluation. By the way, the reason for the stratigraphy marco keeps harping on is the Great Flood. Every one knows that after a flood, things settle to the bottom in layers. Even carbon dating is often highly questionable once you get beyond the most modern periods, and stratigraphic dating methods are total, absolute rubbish. Strata are of course evidence of the great flood, not the "old earth" hypothesis.

You can choose to believe whichever you wish, but there really is no one belief that is any more "scientific" than any other. I believe the bible because of my personal experience in my personal relationship with God. He has revealed Himself to me and I know Him by personal experience, which by the way is corroborated by millions upon millions of others over the past couple of millenia - which is about as firm a basis for any belief as you can get.

I don't have any more details to give you Checks. Like I said before I had been taught how God created man at a young age in Catholic school. I never bought it even then but I figured that God made us somehow so what difference does it make. Then in college I learned about evolution. Admittedly I didn't study it in the depth that marco's describing but I did learn the basic concepts. What I remember the most about it is thinking, yeah, that makes more sense than Adam and Eve. So I guess I've kind of leaned that way ever since. But I never for a second thought that it meant that there was no God. By the same token there were lots of things I learned about in catecism class that I didn't buy but they didn't make me think that there was no God either.

I guess I've seperated God from religion for so long that the thought never crossed my mind. Creationism is religion and I'm not religious. Evolution is science and I'm an engineer so I respect science. But God is God, He is the foundation of my life. I don't relate to God on the same level as religion or science. I don't know why but I don't think I ever have.

Sorry, I'm sure that doesn't answer your question.

Yeah, it does, Id.

That's what I thought you meant, but wanted to make sure I didn't misunderstand. There's alot of peace in not worrying over it!

Like I said, it is very interesting to me, but I haven't even thought about it for years. Most people I meet don't care one way or the other.

That's why I am interested to hear how Marco got involved and interested in evolution. How about it, Marco?

He has also revealed himself to me: