259 replies to this topic

[Aegist]

I could say your belief in evolution without a creator God being involved is narrow minded as well - if not more so considering the facts of the matter. You say you can back up your assertions with evidence. I would like to see this evidence you have. All I see so far is an emotional response with ridicule as so frequently happens when a person can't prove their point.

Scientists generally admit that they can't prove or disprove the existence of God. In the World News and Prophecy article I quoted from above, Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, stated: "The pre-eminent mystery is why anything exists at all. What breathes life into the equations; and actualized them in a real cosmos. Such questions lie beyond science, however; they are the province of philosophers and theologians" (The Sunday Times, Dec. 24, 2006).

Mwahahaha, thats jsut because I have done this for too long too many times with too many people who I can back into a corner, have them conceed to every point and still wriggle out in the end by simply saying "I just believe it is that way". Religious beliefs are empty hollow thoughtless crutches.

Evidence of evolution?
I will start with the two most basic forms of evidence for evolution: Logical evidence, observed evidence.

Logical Evidence
Evolution most simply, is the consequence of replication, with rare errors, subjected to a selective pressure.
If you can abstract this idea mathematically for a moment, just forget all about biological evolution, and look at what is described here, you have to admit, logically (in the strictest mathematical sense) the concept of evolution is factual. And I don't mean that flippantly, it is as true as 1+1 = 2, because that is the nature of thing I am talking about here. Replication (hereditary information), with errors produces variation, which is then selected, is creative.

I think of evolution as 'Guess and Check', and that is exactly what it is.

Here is a demonstration of exactly this principle and how it can be used to create something:
http://www.youtube.c...related&search=



Observed Evidence
The fact that the theory of evolution is mathematically proven (and simulated everyday in computers, thus further prving the concept beyond all doubt), that doesn't mean it applies to the real world.

So here are some real world examples of evolution which have been recorded. (not to mention the fossil record support for it, the genetic diversity support for it, and the relatedness of species according to geographic distance and locality)

In the 1970s a group of Japanese scientists were hanging around a chemical factory where there was a big waste dump of plastic waste and they noticed that growing on the surface was what looked like a lawn of bacteria.
This made no sense to them because what was being dumped in there was nylon polymer waste, which is synthetic and bacteria can't grow on it. Nonetheless there they were.
They took the bacteria and cultured it in the laboratory and they discovered that these were pseudomonas bacteria that had evolved an entirely new enzyme called nylonase and it breaks down nylon.
This enzyme actually evolved from junk DNA - from repetitive DNA - into which there had been a little flipping around of the genetic code so a promoter popped up, transcribed it and then evolved an enzyme with more and more activity.
How long did it take for this entirely new protein to evolve, and obviously it presents very great selective advantage because now the bacteria can grow where it couldn't before? Less than 65 years, and the reason we can say that with some degree of certainty is that it was only 65 years ago that nylon was synthesized for the first time.

Another example is a seven-step pathway - with seven different enzymes - that breaks down 2,4-dinitrotoluene, this is one of the components of TNT, it's an explosive. This too was first synthesized in the 1930s and 2 years ago an Air Force laboratory in Florida was able to show that the soil bacteria in the grounds of Air Force bases that had soil contaminated with this explosive residue had evolved the seven-step pathway by co-opting enzymes from other bio-chemical pathways that served different purposes to break this down, and this clearly and also happened since the 1930s.

Another one (made originally by Phinnly Slash Buster):
At Three Mile Island the damaged reactor was contained and let to sit for a while before a cleanup was attempted. Since the vessel had extremely high radio-activity readings caution was well advised. When they were finally able to poke around in the damaged vessel using robots, they found an algae bloom growing in the very radioactive, hot water still puddled in the container.
Some how the algae had evolved, very quickly, to adapt to this toxic environment to everyone's amazement.

Each of these can be easily found on Google if you doubt their source, they are well documented and well studied.

The evidence for evolution is strong an undeniable. The evidence for God is circumstancial wishful thinking (ie: Non-evidence)

[Live Forever]

Scientists generally admit that they can't prove or disprove the existence of God.

There are lots of things that you can't prove or disprove. I can't disprove that there is a unicorn that lives on Pluto. I can't disprove that all of reality is just an incredibly complex computer program. I can't disprove that many of the thousands of religions throughout human history are completely false in every aspect. I can't disprove that there is a giant invisible jelly monster that lives in your garage. To say that you can't disprove something is a weak reason for believing in that thing.

[Aegist]

  More basic and personal questions that only God can answer would
  be best asked of God.
===============================================
  God are you real?
  God if you're real, please do whatever you have to do to make
  sure I know you're real.
===============================================

  I know God is real but I can't transfer this knowledge to anyone.

-Stephen

After all of that setup, 'god' enters the picture as if 'god' was justified to enter the picture. God had nothing to do with anything you said, other than you wanted to say god exists.

A grain of salt has billions of atoms in it, and we can't understand it, therefore the flying spaghetti monster exists.

The logic is identical: a complete non-sequitor.

[Aegist]

To say that you can't disprove something is a weak reason for believing in that thing.

And that is putting it lightly.

If you are reduced to believeing in God because 'Science can't prove it wrong' then I suggest you reevaluate your belief system.

I, as a scientists, don't even base my beliefs on whether Science can or cannot prove things wrong or right.

[stephenszpak]

   More basic and personal questions that only God can answer would
   be best asked of God.
===============================================
   God are you real?
   God if you're real, please do whatever you have to do to make
   sure I know you're real.
===============================================

   I know God is real but I can't transfer this knowledge to anyone.

-Stephen

After all of that setup, 'god' enters the picture as if 'god' was justified to enter the picture. God had nothing to do with anything you said, other than you wanted to say god exists.

A grain of salt has billions of atoms in it, and we can't understand it, therefore the flying spaghetti monster exists.

The logic is identical: a complete non-sequitor.

Sometimes it seems (not you necessarily) some people have this grand idea that
they understand it all. From the book of James:

God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.

(This was my point in the other post.)

-Stephen

[Aegist]

Sometimes it seems (not you necessarily) some people have this grand idea that
  they understand it all. From the book of James:

  God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.

  (This was my point in the other post.)

-Stephen

Your point is lost entirely on people (like me) who have a deep sense of understanding about exactly how ignorant they are, and just how much is unknown. especially when those people (like me) don't think the book of James is anything other than a fictional story, and think God is make believe (so i don't much care what he is opposed to).

Again, as usual, I have supported my assertions that evolution is without a doubt true, and almost certainly responsible for the variation we see around us in life. And the religious beliefs are 'supported' by self-referential emotional arguments from incredulity.

There is no evidence for God, and there is in fact substantial amounts of evidence against Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Mormonism.
(thats another tip for the christians out there, even if there was proof of God, its not proof of your beliefs...they are probably still going to be wrong)

[stephenszpak]

The Virgo Supercluster existed before there was evidence of it. I just hope
people here that don't know God will keep an open mind.

-Stephen

[Aegist]

The Virgo Supercluster existed before there was evidence of it.

What a maxim to live by!

Just believe anything first, then expect the evidence to come!

You'd be a wonderful cult member!

"Its OK guys, the aliens who are constantly watching us and judging us will be coming to grant us all imortality any day now. Just believe me, and when they come you will see that it was true!"

I just hope
  people here that don't know God will keep an open mind.

-Stephen

Don't worry about that. Those who 'dont know God' are the ones with the open minds, its the one's who do think they know God who have the closed mind. Didn't you see the diagram above? it is the people who admit that they don't know how things works and don't know why everythings here etc who keep looking for answers and keep trying to find new evidence and reevaluating their theories in light of new evidence. It is the religious people, the Jews, The christians, the muslims, the mormons and all of the other major religions and minor religions who think they have exclusive access to the truth (the mutually exclusive to each other and all other possible truths truth), and will never relinquesh that belief regardless of the amount of contrary evidence.

Which makes me wonder, do you also 'hope' that the muslims have an open mind too? because your sentence actually implies that only peopel who don't know God should have an open mind... What about the ancient greeks? The aztecs? The hindus? etc etc. They can shut down their mental faculties too?

Don't worry, I'll be sure to keep an open mind...I'll avoid religion all my life. Last thing I want to do it forskae the gift of intelligence which 'god gave me'

[william7]

The evidence for evolution is strong an undeniable. The evidence for God is circumstancial wishful thinking (ie: Non-evidence)

I read everything in your post. I don't dispute that there is evidence that evolution has occurred. My argument is that God caused or causes it to occur. I believe God programmed the bacteria, you mention, with the ability to change or adapt to the new circumstances in its environment. Because the bacteria could adapt, does not disprove the existence of God. In fact, the opposite is true.

My belief in God rests on the great wisdom of the Scriptures shown to me as a result of intensive study over a lengthy period of time. I found that God has the best program for solving the world's problems if His instructions found in the Bible are applied correctly.

I can't prove the existence of God to you with direct, incontrovertible evidence as stephenszpak points out. But I believe more than circumstantial evidence supports His existence. There is a preponderance of evidence for God if you look at it and weigh it carefully.

[subjunk]

Woohoo being quoted on another forum! Cheers.
It seems the creationists on here are the same as on scam in the way that once you present evidence they run for the hills
Just to clear it up for all of you, I have no problem with the idea of a god. I don't believe in one (or more) personally but I also don't think you're wrong.
There's just no conclusive evidence one way or another for a god.

There is, however, conclusive evidence of evolution, so either evolution is part of a god's plan, or god doesn't exist.
The evidence that evolution has happened and been observed over the last 100 years lends support to the fact it has been happening for millions and billions of years.
This has nothing to do with the origin of life, because before life existed there was no life to evolve from.
To address evolution is not the same as addressing abiogenesis.

Also I'll just add to this by saying what has been said many times before, by Aegist and hundreds of others on both forums:

Creationism is an idea, not a theory.

[william7]

Scientists generally admit that they can't prove or disprove the existence of God.

There are lots of things that you can't prove or disprove. I can't disprove that there is a unicorn that lives on Pluto. I can't disprove that all of reality is just an incredibly complex computer program. I can't disprove that many of the thousands of religions throughout human history are completely false in every aspect. I can't disprove that there is a giant invisible jelly monster that lives in your garage. To say that you can't disprove something is a weak reason for believing in that thing.

I made that statement because I thought Aegist was going to show me evidence of evolution without God that would disprove the existence of God once and for all. If you'll notice in my post in response to his evidence, I have much better reasons for believing in God and the Bible than just a mere inability to disprove His existence.

[subjunk]

I can without a doubt say that evolution is fact, and it almost certainly created the variety we see in life all around us.

But this a leap of faith without any solid proof isn't it?

Without solid proof it would be, yes, but it's lucky we have it

What if a religious understanding of God as the master of evolution is an absolute necessity for obtaining long life and immortality as the Scriptures say? You could lose out because your focus on what is necessary to obtain long life was directed by a false theory of evolution without a God. If I was you, I would give God and the Scriptures a fair hearing as many a scientist and philosopher has done. You want to be in the right position to catch the next big evolutionary wave don't you?

What ifs hold no sway with me. What if you get into your car and die? What if you get stabbed walking to the store? What if there is no god and you've wasted hours, days, weeks, or more of your life believing in one and preaching when you could've been spending your time more productively by helping in some way on this Earth?

I'm sure these what ifs contribute nothing to the debate either, which is my point.

[william7]

Creationism is an idea, not a theory

Creationism is in the eye of the beholder just like beauty. And, a theory is no better or stronger than an idea. Notice Webster's definitions of a theory below.

Theory

1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4 a: a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances — often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/theory

[Aegist]

The evidence for evolution is strong an undeniable. The evidence for God is circumstancial wishful thinking (ie: Non-evidence)

I read everything in your post. I don't dispute that there is evidence that evolution has occurred. My argument is that God caused or causes it to occur. I believe God programmed the bacteria, you mention, with the ability to change or adapt to the new circumstances in its environment. Because the bacteria could adapt, does not disprove the existence of God. In fact, the opposite is true.

Um, your last sentence... "In fact, the opposite is true". No. It isn't. What that sentence says is that 'evolution doesn't disprove God, but evolution does prove God.' No. no it doesn't.

Evolution proves nothing really. It is really just a theoretical description of how things work based on observations of things working. The subjective conclusions we reach from that theory are precisely that, subjective.

That being said though, let me remind you of something I said earlier:

I have no problem with a religious person believing that, but it is along the same lines as believing that I received my email because God guided the processes involved. Sure, believe that if you want, but the simple fact is that the mechanisms involved are enough to result in me receiving my email, with or without God. Similarly the mechanisms involved in evolution (hereditary information, small error rate, natural selection) are enough to give the results we have with or without God.

Do you understand? Evolution ALONE is enough to explain things. Your assumption that God guides evolution is unfounded, and can thus be written off as purely wishful thinking.

My belief in God rests on the great wisdom of the Scriptures shown to me as a result of intensive study over a lengthy period of time. I found that God has the best program for solving the world's problems if His instructions found in the Bible are applied correctly.

I can't prove the existence of God to you with direct, incontrovertible evidence as stephenszpak points out. But I believe more than circumstantial evidence supports His existence. There is a preponderance of evidence for God if you look at it and weigh it carefully.

Well, its your turn then... where is that preponderence of evidence? name one thing which isn't of the form: "everyting exists, therefore God exists" which I am certain you can understand is not an argument for anything. Please show us one piece of evidence for God.

[Aegist]

I made that statement because I thought Aegist was going to show me evidence of evolution without God that would disprove the existence of God once and for all.

Oh I showed evidence for evolution without god (that film clip of the pixels is evolution without God), but not even I think that evidence of something without need of god disproves god. It simply disproves the assumption that God is needed in that particular field.

If you'll notice in my post in response to his evidence, I have much better reasons for believing in God and the Bible than just a mere inability to disprove His existence.

i'm sorry, i missed them... what reasons?

[william7]

Without solid proof it would be, yes, but it's lucky we have it.

You have no proof of an evolution without the existence of God as the architect of it as I've pointed out previously. Science frequently admits this.

You should checkout Martin Rees video entitled 'What We Still Don't Know: "Are We Real?"', at http://video.google......ll Don't Know. I don't see how atheists can maintain their absolute no possibility of a God position in the face of the logic presented in this video.

[Aegist]

You have no proof of an evolution without the existence of God as the architect of it as I've pointed out previously. Science frequently admits this.

You should checkout Martin Rees video entitled 'What We Still Don't Know: "Are We Real?"', at http://video.google......ll Don't Know. I don't see how atheists can maintain their absolute no possibility of a God position in the face of the logic presented in this video.

*sigh*

[william7]

Um, your last sentence... "In fact, the opposite is true". No. It isn't. What that sentence says is that 'evolution doesn't disprove God, but evolution does prove God.' No. no it doesn't.

Evolution proves nothing really. It is really just a theoretical description of how things work based on observations of things working. The subjective conclusions we reach from that theory are precisely that, subjective.

The level of sophistication involved in the evolution of life forms tells me there is a Creator behind the process. This is a very substantial piece of evidence I can't logically deny.

Do you understand? Evolution ALONE is enough to explain things. Your assumption that God guides evolution is unfounded, and can thus be written off as purely wishful thinking.

Evolution alone is not adequate enough to explain the creation process. You, nor any scientist, can fully explain the inner workings of evolution. You can only cite evidence that it is occurring.

That God guides and controls evolution is pretty obvious after giving it careful thought. In no way can it be considered wishful thinking. Wishful thinking would be when one believes that "the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinary creature" as professor Flew so aptly points out. Actually, this is more than wishful thinking, it's great faith in the absence of any reasonable evidence.

Well, its your turn then... where is that preponderence of evidence? name one thing which isn't of the form: "everyting exists, therefore God exists" which I am certain you can understand is not an argument for anything. Please show us one piece of evidence for God.Well, its your turn then... where is that preponderence of evidence? name one thing which isn't of the form: "everyting exists, therefore God exists" which I am certain you can understand is not an argument for anything. Please show us one piece of evidence for God.

The sheer complexity of the creation itself and the sophisticated processes involved is ample evidence. It certainly wasn't scientists that started the evolutionary process going eons ago.

[william7]

i'm sorry, i missed them... what reasons?

I said:

My belief in God rests on the great wisdom of the Scriptures shown to me as a result of intensive study over a lengthy period of time. I found that God has the best program for solving the world's problems if His instructions found in the Bible are applied correctly.

*sigh*

Does this mean I win and get all the marbles?

[stephenszpak]

It always will go back to this:

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him;

Jesus speaking (Gospel of John Chapter 6)

http://www.biblegate...er=6&version=49

A million men could post here on how God saved them by His grace.
They could even tell how God helped them financially, in their marriages,
and at work.
But if the Father doesn't move, those that don't know God here will
regard such posts as crazy stories.


I don't know if this will surprise anyone or not, but it isn't the Father's will
to save everyone.

For He says to Moses, "I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION."

http://www.biblegate...er=9&version=49

-Stephen

[biknut]

  One thing I can remember is how we cant prove that an animal has ever morphed or evolved or changed into another animal, and that there arent even bones found that could prove even one instance of this.

This statement gets my attention. True or false? If the answer is true then that's a problem.

[Aegist]

Um, your last sentence... "In fact, the opposite is true". No. It isn't. What that sentence says is that 'evolution doesn't disprove God, but evolution does prove God.' No. no it doesn't.

Evolution proves nothing really. It is really just a theoretical description of how things work based on observations of things working. The subjective conclusions we reach from that theory are precisely that, subjective.

The level of sophistication involved in the evolution of life forms tells me there is a Creator behind the process. This is a very substantial piece of evidence I can't logically deny.

The level of sophistication is a simple logical consequence of the way the universe works. The sophistication that you see, the complexity of biology, is the consequence of incredible simplicity. Replication, error and selection. Your God spends all of his time 'controlling' something which doesn't need to be controlled!!!

I don't know how else have you understand the simplicity that is evolution, which results in the vast amounts of apparent complexity.... A + B + C = evolution. Such simple rules, such abundant results. No god required.

If you still disagree, please tell me exactly what it is that God does with this equation to fulfill his role as 'creator and oversee of life'.

Evolution alone is not adequate enough to explain the creation process. You, nor any scientist, can fully explain the inner workings of evolution. You can only cite evidence that it is occurring.

Correct. You, nor any human, can fully explain the inner working of anything. Why do you seperate scientists from everyone else to assert their lack of knowledge. Scientists are likely the MOST aware on earth about their lack of knowledge. Shit, just ask someone on the street what they know about stem cells, genetic engineering or cloning...they know EVERYTHING. It's amazing. But ask a scientists and all they talk about is all the things they don't understand, and aren't sure of.....

Is this statement trying to say that your God sits there changing things in the evolutionary process? You actually think God actively controls insignificant chemical reactions? Wow. I thought he was all powerful. I thought he could create things at will. but no, apparently your God hides in the shadows slightly altering things so that they don't show up on the 'against the laws of the universe-o-meter' just incase someone catches him!

You have such a narrow perception of the powers of this God you supposedly believe in.

That God guides and controls evolution is pretty obvious after giving it careful thought. In no way can it be considered wishful thinking. Wishful thinking would be when one believes that "the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinary creature" as professor Flew so aptly points out. Actually, this is more than wishful thinking, it's great faith in the absence of any reasonable evidence.

The sheer complexity of the creation itself and the sophisticated processes involved is ample evidence. It certainly wasn't scientists that started the evolutionary process going eons ago.

Wow. State the blatently obvious award nomination coming up!

Scientists didn't start evolution? LOL.

it is pointless talking to you about evolution, abiogenesis and biology when you clearly lack any knowledge of the subject. try finding out how evolution works, and then assert that it is wishful thinking that "the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinary creature". Not only is evolution a seperate theory from biogenesis, but there is nothing wishful about it. Frustratingly I have given you case after case which shows you how it is possible (A + B + C = evolution, the application of that theory to pixels to create a picture, and the 3 examples of CURRENT evolution, just apply those principles to 3 BILLION YEARS).

[Aegist]

  One thing I can remember is how we cant prove that an animal has ever morphed or evolved or changed into another animal, and that there arent even bones found that could prove even one instance of this.

This statement gets my attention. True or false? If the answer is true then that's a problem.

Do you think that 99.99% of all biological scientists would continue to assert that evolution is a Fact if it wasn't true?

Although, i should clarify, of course we have never seen an animal 'Morph' into another animal, because evolution says nothing of the sort (that would be a strawman representation of the theory). What we do ahve evidence for, is the gradual change over the generations of a species. This can even be seen today in the massive amound of varieties within a species, and the massive numbers of species within a family. It is the same process the whole time.

http://www.talkorigi...ansitional.html
http://www.sciam.com...F3983414B7F0000
http://en.wikipedia....sitional_fossil

(edit significant typo: was should have been wasn't)

Edited by Aegist, 01 March 2007 - 01:21 PM.

[Aegist]

And just to add to the very first post in this thread, the 15 responses to the rubbish that creationists come up with, check this out:

http://www.talkorigi...dexcc/list.html

A complete list with all the things creationists have said, and why they are wrong, erroneous, based on faulty thinking, or show a deep misunderstanding of biology.

[biknut]

  One thing I can remember is how we cant prove that an animal has ever morphed or evolved or changed into another animal, and that there arent even bones found that could prove even one instance of this.

This statement gets my attention. True or false? If the answer is true then that's a problem.

Do you think that 99.99% of all biological scientists would continue to assert that evolution is a Fact if it was true?

Although, i should clarify, of course we have never seen an animal 'Morph' into another animal, because evolution says nothing of the sort (that would be a strawman representation of the theory). What we do ahve evidence for, is the gradual change over the generations of a species. This can even be seen today in the massive amound of varieties within a species, and the massive numbers of species within a family. It is the same process the whole time.

http://www.talkorigi...ansitional.html
http://www.sciam.com...F3983414B7F0000
http://en.wikipedia....sitional_fossil

Thanks for trying to answer my question, but the answer is either true of false to the this question, "we cant prove that an animal has ever morphed or evolved or changed into another animal, and that there arent even bones found that could prove even one instance of this."

So what is it? T or F I guess you say F

[Aegist]

Well, if you are going to be dogmatic about it, the answer is false.

luckily for me, I don't believe in a theory which says that 'AN animal' can morph. That's just ridiculous. That is the sort of thing which only religion could make up and actually have people believe.

No, I believe the diversity of life we see about us came about through very minor subtle changes from one generation to the next. Each individual change insignificant in itself, but piled upon each other resulting in drastic differences.

[niner]

Thanks for trying to answer my question, but the answer is either true of false to the this question, "we cant prove that an animal has ever morphed or evolved or changed into another animal, and that there arent even bones found that could prove even one instance of this."

So what is it? T or F I guess you say F

Since the question has nothing to do with evolution, whether the answer is T or F is irrelevant. It's like saying "we can't prove that trolls who live under bridges are green."

[niner]

No, I believe the diversity of life we see about us came about through very minor subtle changes from one generation to the next. Each individual change insignificant in itself, but piled upon each other resulting in drastic differences.

Some of the changes could have been dramatic. Sometimes a mutation of a single base can have a large effect. If the change results in better fitness, then it will tend to be propagated.

[Aegist]

btw, no question is 'either T or F'. That is a manipulative technique to try to back people into corners to quote them saying things out of context and I resent the fact that you would try something so underhanded.

particularly after I so clearly said that the question was worded wrongly and showed an absolute lack of understanding of evolution.

[biknut]

btw, no question is 'either T or F'. That is a manipulative technique to try to back people into corners to quote them saying things out of context and I resent the fact that you would try something so underhanded.

particularly after I so clearly said that the question was worded wrongly and showed an absolute lack of understanding of evolution.

btw, no question is 'either T or F'.

Perry Mason would disagree with this statement.

Not trying to be underhanded. It just seems strange to me that evolution can't be proved one way of the other with some kind of DNA test of something. BTW I'm not trying to say that I believe it has to be Evolution or Creationism. Maybe it's neither one if there's not absolute proof.