[loser]

Taking in consideration that the world is 6,000 years old and that there was a deluge which killed everybody exept Noah and a core of every species (let suppose we can put 2 representant of a few million species in a boat), how did we succeed to breed enough to get 50,000,000 humans 1000 Before Jezz? And how did animals? Archeological and even historic facts didn't mention that peoples had 120 kids each. What about inbreeding? It a little dirty to think about it, but Adam and Eve child copulating with each other until everybody dies and Noah's child doing the same perhaps 2,000 years later wouldn't give any surviving feotus after four or five genrerations...nor very bright ones after 2 or 3. We could cite dinosaurs as a valuable interrogation too: what does a 30 feets skeleton doing under 50 feets of mud, without any relating of them in the Bible? Questions, questions...just questions for you creationists!

Not very well thought out questions, however. My four year old grandson asks tougher questions than those.

I'll ignore your numbers because they are too confused. Starting after the flood, the world was populated by Noah and his wife and his three daughters and their three husbands...a total of eight beings or four couples.

The inbreeding that you refer to is not as extreme as you are making it and, as the population increased, marriage partners became less related.

As far as 'dinosaurs' or "30 feets skeleton", they are indeed accounted for in the Bible.

Nothing you said poses a problem for the reality of life as we know it (and as recorded in the Bible).

Creationists don't believe in science silly.

Of course we do. In fact, it's what we base our understanding on.

As for stupid people, how do you know Adam and Eve weren't uber Mensas and we're all retards?

Well, that's a lot closer to the truth than what is taught in schools.

It's not like a hummingbird woke up one morning and said, "Hey, what's that on my tongue?"

No, it's more like it was there from the very beginning when it was created.

What? Did man create an automobile without a gas tank and say, "I'll just let a gas tank evolve onto the car"?

Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.

Give 'em an e for effort.

Not 'agruments', actually. What you really have is a serious of incredulous statements that seem to be based on extreme ignorance.

Or responded to by the extremest ignorance known to man.

Of course, since the concept of god is a supernatural idea, and since science is the pursuit of methodological naturalism, the concept of god is not scientific. It is a matter of simple definition.

I'll pretend that you are trying to be intelligent here and grace you with a reply. If God is supernatural then mankind is supernatural. However, both are very natural and real and can be explored scientifically. Instead of pathetic protests, start using some science in your exploration of the Creator and His creation.

The problem I see with the design concept is that "design" is a purely human perception. What may look well designed to one person may look chaotic to another. The universe shows no consistent design. Other than the fact that thanks to the effects of gravity the predominant shape of most things in the universe is round, I don't see anything that would suggest a consistency of design. Where's the object standard for universal design? Why should we expect there to be one?

You're not looking very well, then. Design is NOT a human perception. It is a human observance of nature. Good grief! Everything man has come up with, from airplanes to rain coats, has been from observing the various designs of nature. Sure, you may think that the frog was poorly designed, that if he had wings he wouldn't bump his butt every time he hops. No matter. Design ideas come from nature.

As far as consistency of design, it is infinite variance that is consistent. Infiniteness seems to be the marker for all creation...space, time, color, fingerprints, snow flakes, Baskin-Robbins...the list is...endless.

If there's evidence of design that can be scientifically examined

What does that mean? Evidence of design is everywhere. Scientifically examining it is what we do on a daily basis...it's what science is all about.

D and creation pushers forget to notice that the design is natural, called natural selection. The design is still taking place... its called evolution. Did you or did you not watch the "Nova special on ID on trial" Zee? How do you feel about the "flagellan motor argument"? Irreducible complexity is a joke.

The joke is the inane attempts by the ungodly to rewrite science in order to mollify their discomfort at the realization of the Creator.

There's your joke...ha ha.

The constant thread that I see running among all of the non-believing (in God) evolutionists is their attempt to dismiss God as being supernatural. The implication is that He isn't 'real' so science can't address Him.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

If God made His presence (existence) known tomorrow, would your thinking change?