Evolution Explained

[rhocam]

I did ask on the previous page that you state, in your own words, what you believe the ToE is.  I want to repeat that request to help me work out exactly where your understanding is flawed.

may I quote outside sources? I want to show that I have not made up natural selection.

No, you may not - you misunderstand what I'm asking of you.

It doesn't matter whether you believe what you will type in your response.
It doesn't matter if what you type is supported by every scientist under the sun, or if you just dreamed it last night.

What matters is that you tell us exactly what you think the theory of evolution is.  Because I have yet to be convinced that what YOU think it is bears any relation to what anyone ELSE thinks it is.

I just want to be absolutely clear on what you think you are objecting to, since most of your posts seem to show no real understanding of the subject.

So I want it all in your own words, NOT copy and pasted, please.  Any teacher will tell you that one of the best ways of understanding a subject is to put it in your own words.

Theory of evolution as defined by cam

there was nothing, then there was something, oh, wait that's abiogeneisi

there was nothing biological, then biology happened
then some biological things bumped into some more biological things and they bonded
Then they became alive. and the cell? organism? biomass? learned how to reproduce
then they reproduced more, then some of the cells that reproduced started to stick to each other
and made a multicellular structure. then the cells made more cells and then some of the cells became something else
and over millions of years became a fish. then an amphibian, then a reprile, then a mammal,
the whole time with no plan, no force behind it, just by doing what they do.

[One Above All]

rhocam's understanding of the theory of evolution fixed by Lucifer.

there was nothing, then there was something, oh, wait that's abiogeneisi

The term is "abiogenesis", but that is not abiogenesis. It's not even science. It's a strawman created by creationists.

there was nothing biological, then biology happened

Last I checked, biology is a subject taught in schools. As for "nothing biological", there most certainly were organic components. There are organic components everywhere. In the stars, in/on other planets and various space debris.

then some biological things bumped into some more biological things and they bonded

That's what molecules do - they bond. Chemistry 101.

Then they became alive. and the cell? organism? biomass? learned how to reproduce

They didn't "learn" a damned thing. They just reproduced. Bacteria know nothing.
EDIT: Note that everything before "reproduced" is not evolution. It's abiogenesis.

then they reproduced more, then some of the cells that reproduced started to stick to each other
and made a multicellular structure.

That is one of the explanations for multicellularity, yes.

then the cells made more cells and then some of the cells became something else

If by "something else" you mean "different species", then yes. It was necessary[1] after the first great extinction event. The first lifeforms were photosynthetic, so they poisoned themselves with too much oxygen. Thankfully some were already able to use oxygen (id est: they had evolved to utilize oxygen and were probably no longer photosynthetic), so they didn't all die.

and over millions of years became a fish. then an amphibian, then a reprile, then a mammal,

That seems to be the timeline, with a few mistakes:
Reptilians were the dominant species on the planet, but they were wiped out by a cataclysmic event. Some evolved into birds, but I know of none that evolved into mammals. Mammals already existed.
Also note that fish and amphibians didn't "disappear". They also existed alongside the other species.

the whole time with no plan, no force behind it, just by doing what they do.

Pretty much.

1.	By this I do not mean that it happened because of the necessity; it was just dumb luck.

[velkyn]

Theory of evolution as defined by cam

there was nothing, then there was something, oh, wait that's abiogeneisi

there was nothing biological, then biology happened
then some biological things bumped into some more biological things and they bonded
Then they became alive. and the cell? organism? biomass? learned how to reproduce
then they reproduced more, then some of the cells that reproduced started to stick to each other
and made a multicellular structure. then the cells made more cells and then some of the cells became something else
and over millions of years became a fish. then an amphibian, then a reprile, then a mammal,
the whole time with no plan, no force behind it, just by doing what they do.

as usual, a creationist depends on their willful ignorance to attack something that they don't like.    Rhocam, you have no idea what evolutionary theory is at all.     Evolutionary theory postulates that living beings are acted upon by their environments.  I see not one mention of that very essential fact in your nonsense.  You seem to think evolutionary theory postulates a nonsense world like Dr. Seuss, and indeed that's all your claims seem to rest on.   You are wrong.

[jaimehlers]

No offense, rhocam, but your understanding is deficient to a great degree.  This is why people asked you to define it in your own words, because that's how you show that you really understand something.  Anyone can copy and paste someone else's words, but you don't really learn anything when you do that.  It would do me no good, for example, to be able to say E = mc^2 unless I understood what it meant well enough to be able to explain it (this formula allows us to determine the total amount of energy bound up in a fixed amount of matter; the total energy is equal to the mass involved times the square of the speed of light).

Please show us that you are willing to at least listen to what we're saying.  You don't have to accept it blindly; in fact, that defeats the purpose.  But you do have to be willing to think seriously about it and not simply reject it because it doesn't fit what you already know.  Knowledge isn't just about learning things that match what you expect, it's about resolving the inevitable situations where the things you learn contradict what you expect.

For example, I expect wood to burn when I light it on fire.  If I take a piece of wood and discover that it doesn't burn when I try to light it on fire, that's a contradiction.  At that point, I need to figure out why.  Maybe the wood was soaking wet, and thus can't burn unless it dries out first.  Or maybe it wasn't actually wood and thus wouldn't burn.  Perhaps it's a kind of wood which is highly resistant to being burned.  Or perhaps it's something else entirely.  Once I figure out which of those is accurate (by testing them), I can then tell other people what I found out and let them check my findings.  If they run the same tests and find that it works the same way, then we can be reasonably sure that it's accurate.

That is the scientific method in action.  That is the process evolutionary theory went through.  And that is why statements that it's faked up or simply wrong don't fly without results that people can actually investigate.  If those results are repeatable, then there's something to what those people are saying.  If nobody else can come up with the same results, following the same process of testing, then those statements can't be accepted.

[One Above All]

<snip>

I assumed that he had left out the actual process for simplicity's sake, but now I see I shouldn't have.

[velkyn]

I assumed that he had left out the actual process for simplicity's sake, but now I see I shouldn't have.

that's what I figured you must have thought when I read your post.  alas, I'm pretty sure he didn't. 

[Aaron123]

Theory of evolution as defined by cam

there was nothing, then there was something, oh, wait that's abiogeneisi

there was nothing biological, then biology happened
then some biological things bumped into some more biological things and they bonded
Then they became alive. and the cell? organism? biomass? learned how to reproduce
then they reproduced more, then some of the cells that reproduced started to stick to each other
and made a multicellular structure. then the cells made more cells and then some of the cells became something else
and over millions of years became a fish. then an amphibian, then a reprile, then a mammal,
the whole time with no plan, no force behind it, just by doing what they do.

rhocam, I have one simple suggestion for you.  Go to a library or bookstore, pick up a book on evolution done by actual scientists, and read it cover-to-cover.  After all, if you're going to argue something, you're suppose to know what you're talking about.  Going from the above quote, you've obviously have no idea what evolution is. 

That, or your only "education" on the subject came from Ray Comfort.

[rhocam]

Theory of evolution as defined by cam

there was nothing, then there was something, oh, wait that's abiogeneisi

there was nothing biological, then biology happened
then some biological things bumped into some more biological things and they bonded
Then they became alive. and the cell? organism? biomass? learned how to reproduce
then they reproduced more, then some of the cells that reproduced started to stick to each other
and made a multicellular structure. then the cells made more cells and then some of the cells became something else
and over millions of years became a fish. then an amphibian, then a reprile, then a mammal,
the whole time with no plan, no force behind it, just by doing what they do.

as usual, a creationist depends on their willful ignorance to attack something that they don't like.    Rhocam, you have no idea what evolutionary theory is at all.     Evolutionary theory postulates that living beings are acted upon by their environments.  I see not one mention of that very essential fact in your nonsense.  You seem to think evolutionary theory postulates a nonsense world like Dr. Seuss, and indeed that's all your claims seem to rest on.   You are wrong.

how? its not my theory. Postulate

Theory of evolution as defined by cam

there was nothing, then there was something, oh, wait that's abiogeneisi

there was nothing biological, then biology happened
then some biological things bumped into some more biological things and they bonded
Then they became alive. and the cell? organism? biomass? learned how to reproduce
then they reproduced more, then some of the cells that reproduced started to stick to each other
and made a multicellular structure. then the cells made more cells and then some of the cells became something else
and over millions of years became a fish. then an amphibian, then a reprile, then a mammal,
the whole time with no plan, no force behind it, just by doing what they do.

rhocam, I have one simple suggestion for you.  Go to a library or bookstore, pick up a book on evolution done by actual scientists, and read it cover-to-cover.  After all, if you're going to argue something, you're suppose to know what you're talking about.  Going from the above quote, you've obviously have no idea what evolution is. 

That, or your only "education" on the subject came from Ray Comfort.

You agrue against God on the same premise

No offense, rhocam, but your understanding is deficient to a great degree.  This is why people asked you to define it in your own words, because that's how you show that you really understand something.  Anyone can copy and paste someone else's words, but you don't really learn anything when you do that.  It would do me no good, for example, to be able to say E = mc^2 unless I understood what it meant well enough to be able to explain it (this formula allows us to determine the total amount of energy bound up in a fixed amount of matter; the total energy is equal to the mass involved times the square of the speed of light).

Please show us that you are willing to at least listen to what we're saying.  You don't have to accept it blindly; in fact, that defeats the purpose.  But you do have to be willing to think seriously about it and not simply reject it because it doesn't fit what you already know.  Knowledge isn't just about learning things that match what you expect, it's about resolving the inevitable situations where the things you learn contradict what you expect.

For example, I expect wood to burn when I light it on fire.  If I take a piece of wood and discover that it doesn't burn when I try to light it on fire, that's a contradiction.  At that point, I need to figure out why.  Maybe the wood was soaking wet, and thus can't burn unless it dries out first.  Or maybe it wasn't actually wood and thus wouldn't burn.  Perhaps it's a kind of wood which is highly resistant to being burned.  Or perhaps it's something else entirely.  Once I figure out which of those is accurate (by testing them), I can then tell other people what I found out and let them check my findings.  If they run the same tests and find that it works the same way, then we can be reasonably sure that it's accurate.

That is the scientific method in action.  That is the process evolutionary theory went through.  And that is why statements that it's faked up or simply wrong don't fly without results that people can actually investigate.  If those results are repeatable, then there's something to what those people are saying.  If nobody else can come up with the same results, following the same process of testing, then those statements can't be accepted.

emphasis mine

that is not the process. I have been on talk origins. Darwin proposed an idea and science ever since has been trying to confirm it. But with out appealing to a higher power.


To ask me to put my convictions and beliefs aside to see things your way is as impossible for me as it is to ask you to do the same when exploring God.

Theory of evolution as defined by cam

there was nothing, then there was something, oh, wait that's abiogeneisi

there was nothing biological, then biology happened
then some biological things bumped into some more biological things and they bonded
Then they became alive. and the cell? organism? biomass? learned how to reproduce
then they reproduced more, then some of the cells that reproduced started to stick to each other
and made a multicellular structure. then the cells made more cells and then some of the cells became something else
and over millions of years became a fish. then an amphibian, then a reprile, then a mammal,
the whole time with no plan, no force behind it, just by doing what they do.

rhocam, I have one simple suggestion for you.  Go to a library or bookstore, pick up a book on evolution done by actual scientists, and read it cover-to-cover.  After all, if you're going to argue something, you're suppose to know what you're talking about.  Going from the above quote, you've obviously have no idea what evolution is. 

That, or your only "education" on the subject came from Ray Comfort.

I will if you will read David Berlinski's book ,the Devil's Delusion : atheism and its scientific pretensions

You may suggest one now, I will get to it once I have finished Francis S. Collins book, The Language of God
Oh yeah and Shadows in Flight by my favorite fiction author Orson Scott Card. I love the Enderverse.
Then I will have time to read your science fiction.

[velkyn]

how? its not my theory. Postulate

  You claim you know the theory of evolution.  You have demonstrated you do not.  And poor thing, we know the theory of evolution is not yours.   The only think that is yours is your little strawman laid out for everyone to see.  Thank you for being one more ignorant Christian who shows that all he has are lies that he’s created for himself. 

Science has confirmed that Darwin’s basic idea, one you obviously have no clue about, is the process on how life changes.  Lying about it will not change the facts, Rhocam, nor will praying real hard to your invisible friend. 

Oooh, the Devil’s Delusion, by Disco’tute “senior fellow” David Berlinski, who collaborates with the liars Behe and Dembski and tutored Ann Coulter for her lies in her books. It’s so cute that he attacks evolutionary theory but like every other creationist, can’t given a better and supported answer.  Oh and he claims, even as a supposed “secular Jew” that morality requires religion.     A funny little crank who can’t contribute to anyting himself so he just says that no one else knows anything either.  Hilarious.   That’s a great book for demonstrating on how someone can think they are clever for asking questions like this:

“Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here?
Not even close.”  oh the clever sheep, asking why questions, when there doesn’t need to be a why, just like there doesn’t need to be a god. 

oh and here’s another nice little lie about scientists “Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough.”  and another one “Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good? Not even close to being close.”  I do love people who claim such things. 

oh and this “Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close.” Actually quite close.  Since God is defined quite well in the bible, one can show that a god like that doesn’t exist.  We see no evidence of such a god.  Is he under the pile of firewood in my backyard?   


EDIT:  Had to add this.  From a Slate article about this idiot Berlinski: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/features/2008/the_paranoid_style_in_american_science/a_cranks_progress.html .  He's quite a jackass, happy to say we don't know anything, of course with no evidence of that nice lie and of course claiming that he somehow *knows* those who disagree with him are wrong.  Isn't that convneient, making no claims himself so no one can show that he's wrong, and ignoring evidence that others are right.   What a lying coward and pretty much indistinguisable from creationists everwhere. 

"the thing is a mystery, and if there is never to be a naturalistic explanation, I shall forever be content to keep on calling it a mystery." At the beginning of Black Mischief: Language, Life, Logic, Luck, he confesses, "I have never been particularly eager to know how it is that the universe was formed, or how a magnet works, or why, for that matter, water flows downhill. … There it is—a certain implacable lack of physical curiosity."

[rhocam]

My claim is that evolution, on its own. Is insufficient to explain life. I have tried to explain to you my reasons behind my thinking only to be mocked and belittled. Honestly I don't care what you think of me. Who are you?

Evolution is impossible. The presumption that we come from nothing is just that,a presumption.

Try Adding God to your theory and suddenly it can make sense.

I have greatly enjoyed this discussion. It has challenged me and I hope you can with me be able to think of each other has allies not enemies.
There is no reason for evolution to hurt my faith. I can see how to make it work. The question is, can you make room for God in yours?
I am NOT asking you to become Christian or even to read any Holy text. Just to look at it ALL and see the truth.

I am not capitulating, If you continue to claim evolution without a God is possible I will continue to argue that it is not.
In show of my willingsenn to make it work I propose:
A different Explaination of evolution

Acknowledging the Obvious (there is design therefore a designer)
through exploring the curious (how does it all work)
To reveal the Glorious (Live IS wonderful)

Its an easy fix in my own mind. An acknowledgment of each side and the validity of such as viable and possible.

[Ambassador Pony]

Rhocam,

Common ground: everyone agrees that what you call evolution is retarded. Fortunately, that is not the thing they apply the label "evolution" to.

Now it's time to decide if you would like to discuss that, or discuss evolution.

If you persist in pasting your fallacious understanding of evolution onto what some members are trying to explain to you, then you might as well be talking to yourself, and you're wasting your time. But, if you would like to engage in a discussion, you must actually read and understand what others are saying, and reply to that.

Show some humility, integrity and some honesty and you'll earn respect. Keep going like you're going and you'll be in a box, with other adults having to teach you the basics. 

[rhocam]

Rhocam,

Common ground: everyone agrees that what you call evolution is retarded. Fortunately, that is not the thing they apply the label "evolution" to.

Now it's time to decide if you would like to discuss that, or discuss evolution.

If you persist in pasting your fallacious understanding of evolution onto what some members are trying to explain to you, then you might as well be talking to yourself, and you're wasting your time. But, if you would like to engage in a discussion, you must actually read and understand what others are saying, and reply to that.

Show some humility, integrity and some honesty and you'll earn respect. Keep going like you're going and you'll be in a box, with other adults having to teach you the basics.

if we were in a newsgroup I would "Plonk" you

[jaimehlers]

emphasis mine

that is not the process. I have been on talk origins. Darwin proposed an idea and science ever since has been trying to confirm it. But with out appealing to a higher power.

Except what I said is true.  Evolutionary theory has been through that process; it has been examined, and tested, and verified for a century and a half, and has never been found to be demonstrably wrong.  You have failed, every time you've tried, to prove otherwise.  All you can do is make an assertion, you cannot actually provide real evidence, and when you've tried, such as quoting biologists, it's been easy to show that the quotations are way out of context and do not say what you think they say.  When you've tried to explain why evolutionary theory is wrong, it's been clear that you don't really have a good understanding of it.

To ask me to put my convictions and beliefs aside to see things your way is as impossible for me as it is to ask you to do the same when exploring God.

Then it's a good thing I'm not asking you to put your convictions and beliefs aside, now isn't it?  What I asked you to do is to think seriously about it and not simply assume it's wrong, which is what you've been doing.  You have to be willing to consider that you might be wrong.  That doesn't mean to go in and assume that you're wrong, because that's just as bad as assuming the other guy is wrong, but you have to be open to the idea that he might have something worthwhile to say.

[Ambassador Pony]

if we were in a newsgroup I would "Plonk" you

In the newsgroup of your life, you've plonked reality.

[One Above All]

rhocam, I have corrected what you think is evolution. It's still not perfect, as was pointed out by velkyn, but my correction should give you a better understanding of what evolution actually is. You ignored it. Care to explain why?

[Astreja]

Evolution is impossible. The presumption that we come from nothing is just that,a presumption.

Epic fail.  Evolution is not "the presumption that we all come from nothing."  (Neither is abiogenesis, for that matter -- Abiogenesis depends on the existence of chemical elements, which are definitely not "nothing.")

Evolution is the study of how already-living entities change over multiple generations.

There is no reason for evolution to hurt my faith. I can see how to make it work. The question is, can you make room for God in yours?

Show Me this god of yours, in person, in physical form, in My own home.  That is the absolute minimum evidence I will accept.  I will then decide for Myself if I want to get to know this god better, or ship it off to Proxima Centauri to stand trial on charges of attempted geocide.

[HAL]

Show Me this god of yours, in person, in physical form, in My own home.

I've asked theists to do that since the previous WWGHA forum, over the span of years. I've said every "prayer" they've asked me to say. Taken every challenge seriously.

Nothing at all ever happened.

[Ambassador Pony]

Russia has a veto at proxima centauri. Just saying.

[ParkingPlaces]

rhocam, why is it that your lack of a working knowledge of evolution, the very theory you are very busy dissing, is okay? If you don't understand it in any way, shape or form, how is it you know it is wrong?

Your short summary shows only that you find it so disgusting that you won't go near the subject. If you were at all interested, you could have done stuff like, oh I dunno, read some of our posts. Or take an hour with your buddy Google and look at a few online sources that have overviews written for ten year olds. You could still disagree with it after that. But at least you would know what you are disagreeing with. Personally, I've always found that to be advantageous.

I find it difficult to believe that you can be this ignorant and still reading a book like The Language of God by Collins. While there rest of us have never been all that influenced by three waterfalls side by side, at least the dude is a legitimate scientist, and I assume he writes intelligently. Doesn't that throw you off?

[jaimehlers]

My claim is that evolution, on its own. Is insufficient to explain life. I have tried to explain to you my reasons behind my thinking only to be mocked and belittled. Honestly I don't care what you think of me. Who are you?

The problem is, your reasoning is insufficient to contradict the tremendous evidence in favor of evolution.  Especially given your inability to explain evolution in a way that is actually consistent.

Quit saying it's impossible.  Either prove it, with strong evidence that we can verify, or acknowledge that you don't have that evidence and can't prove it.  This is not about what you personally think, this is about what you can legitimately prove.  Or else you're doing exactly what you decry and changing or ignoring the evidence to fit what you believe.

Evolution is impossible. The presumption that we come from nothing is just that,a presumption.

Wrong, and wrong.  You keep saying "evolution is impossible", "evolution is a fraud", etc, but you have shown and keep showing that you aren't actually talking about evolutionary theory, you're talking about some strange idea you have which you call evolution, which has things pop out of nowhere, dramatically new species born from old ones in a matter of a few generations, and who knows what else.  Come to think of it, if things did happen like that, it'd be pretty good circumstantial evidence that something was making these strange things happen that can't be explained by the actual theory of evolution.

Try Adding God to your theory and suddenly it can make sense.

If you had life magically appearing out of nowhere and nothing, if you had crocoducks running around, you could make sense of it by adding God in.  But the actual theory of evolution has nothing to do with any of that, and you make things needlessly complicated and nonsensical by adding God in.

I have greatly enjoyed this discussion. It has challenged me and I hope you can with me be able to think of each other has allies not enemies.
There is no reason for evolution to hurt my faith. I can see how to make it work. The question is, can you make room for God in yours?
I am NOT asking you to become Christian or even to read any Holy text. Just to look at it ALL and see the truth.

It would be a lot easier to work with you if you'd stop insisting that your flawed idea of evolutionary theory had anything to do with the actual theory that the rest of us have been talking about.

I'm not asking you to become an atheist, or even an agnostic.  I'm just asking you to look at what the theory really says and judge it based on that.  There are Christians who have absolutely no problem accepting evolutionary theory as it currently stands, because they aren't insisting on trying to impose their theological beliefs on reality.  They understand that religion must accommodate reality because we live in the real world; we must understand the world we live in on its own empirical terms, not on what we believe it to be.

I am not capitulating, If you continue to claim evolution without a God is possible I will continue to argue that it is not.
In show of my willingsenn to make it work I propose:
A different Explaination of evolution

Acknowledging the Obvious (there is design therefore a designer)
through exploring the curious (how does it all work)
To reveal the Glorious (Live IS wonderful)

Its an easy fix in my own mind. An acknowledgment of each side and the validity of such as viable and possible.

No, what you're suggesting is a capitulation to your own particular belief - that there must have been a designer.  You are still trying to impose your religion on reality, instead of investigating reality on its own terms.

Let me ask you a hypothetical question.  If the god you believe in can do anything, why can he not have let things happen exactly the way that science is showing us did happen?  Think about it.  For an immortal being with limitless power, what would be more precious than observing the results of something he did not set in motion and thus did not know what to expect from it next?  Even for humans, with a finite and short lifespan, being pleasantly surprised by something unexpected can be a truly great gift.  Plus, why must your god have set things up in exactly the way you think he did?  Is your understanding so grand that you can truly say, "yes, God definitely did not allow life to develop on its own through the mechanisms of heredity, variation, and natural selection"?  If you think it is, then I feel sorry for you, because you're putting yourself above your god.

[Aaron123]

I will if you will read David Berlinski's book ,the Devil's Delusion : atheism and its scientific pretensions

You may suggest one now, I will get to it once I have finished Francis S. Collins book, The Language of God
Oh yeah and Shadows in Flight by my favorite fiction author Orson Scott Card. I love the Enderverse.

I've already read the bible.  I'd say that count for something.

It's funny you mentioned Francis Collins, as he's a christain, but also support evolution(albit a version guided by the hand of god).

Then I will have time to read your science fiction.

Nice try.  Calling it science fiction does not make it so.  Now read up on the subject, or else demostrate that evolution is untrue.  From the look of things you're unwilling to do either. 

[Astreja]

Russia has a veto at proxima centauri. Just saying.

ROTFLMAO!  Nothing that Mokosh and I can't solve with a samovar full of tea and vodka.

[velkyn]

My claim is that evolution, on its own. Is insufficient to explain life. I have tried to explain to you my reasons behind my thinking only to be mocked and belittled. Honestly I don't care what you think of me. Who are you?

Who am I?  I'm smarter and more educated than you.  You have yet to explain anything, Rhocam, since all of your explanations depend on your ignorance of what evolutionary theory really is.  Your reasons are worthless sinee they are only created to attack a strawman. 

Evolution is impossible. The presumption that we come from nothing is just that,a presumption.

Keep repeateing your lies, Rhocam.  Not impressed and i do love to watch the hypocrisy ooze from you as you benefit from the same science that supports evolution and shows that it is not only possible but that it does happen. 

Try Adding God to your theory and suddenly it can make sense.

  Nope, doesn'tn work that way. The real theory of evolution doesn't need your god or any god at all.  Now, one might need to add god to your little strawman, but that's the only way it could work since lies need miracles. 

I have greatly enjoyed this discussion. It has challenged me and I hope you can with me be able to think of each other has allies not enemies.

  Nope, I don't consider liars allies.

There is no reason for evolution to hurt my faith. I can see how to make it work. The question is, can you make room for God in yours?

  I love this too.  You certainly have gone out of your way to claim that evolution isn't true for it not to be scary for you and your faith.  You have no idea on how to make it work since you aren't actually addressing evolutionary theory. 

I am NOT asking you to become Christian or even to read any Holy text. Just to look at it ALL and see the truth.

ROFL. Great contradiction here and ah, the usual attempts by a Christian to say "looky at the universe my god did it" just like every other theist.  Rhocam, now its time for you to show that your god exists and that the other gods don't.  Otherwise, yuo are just making more baselses claims.

I am not capitulating, If you continue to claim evolution without a God is possible I will continue to argue that it is not.

Oh good, you’ll continue to lie.  How fun!

In show of my willingsenn to make it work I propose:
A different Explaination of evolution
Acknowledging the Obvious (there is design therefore a designer)
through exploring the curious (how does it all work)
To reveal the Glorious (Live IS wonderful)
Its an easy fix in my own mind. An acknowledgment of each side and the validity of such as viable and possible.

And more evidence that you haven’t a clue about evolution.  Keep on making nonsense up, Rhocam.  Keep on failing to show any “design”.  I’m sure it’s an easy fix in your own mind since you are invested in continually lying, but not in anyone else’s.

[rhocam]

I present for your reading several immutable laws of God that confirm His existence.

1. The Intrinsic value of Life
 2. The Intrinsic Belief that Man has purpose
 3. The Intrinsic difference between man and animals
 4. The Intrinsic ability to see Good and Evil
 5. The Intrinsic ability to Choose to do good or evil
 6. The Intrinsic Belief in "A Moral Code"
 

[One Above All]

1. The Intrinsic value of Life
 2. The Intrinsic Belief that Man has purpose
 3. The Intrinsic difference between man and animals
 4. The Intrinsic ability to see Good and Evil
 5. The Intrinsic ability to Choose to do good or evil
 6. The Intrinsic Belief in "A Moral Code"

1. False. Life gives life meaning.
2. False. See above.
3. False. Learn biology.
4. False. See psychopaths and sociopaths.
5. Proves nothing (and has not been proven).
6. False. See #4.

You were saying?

[velkyn]

so you've failed with your nonsense about evolution adn now try this nonsense.  How unsuprising.

I present for your reading several immutable laws of God that confirm His existence.
1. The Intrinsic value of Life

No evidence for this and certainly no evidence your god feels this way, considering that "flood" story and all of teh genocide he loves.

2. The Intrinsic Belief that Man has purpose

no evidence for this either.

3. The Intrinsic difference between man and animals

what would those be?

4. The Intrinsic ability to see Good and Evil

No evidence for this either.

5. The Intrinsic ability to Choose to do good or evil

no evidence

6. The Intrinsic Belief in "A Moral Code"

moral codes differ. 

[sun_king]

And I present for your reading several irrefutable facts that confirm the existence of Autobots (And Decepticons)

1) Internal combustion engines, vehicles have a purpose.
2) Chevy Beat, Volt, Camaro
3) The intrinsic difference between a truck and animals
4) The ability to identify Autobots and Decepticons
5) The intrinsic belief in Optimus Prime
6) You should really look into the Autobot moral code, not an innocent to be harmed.

[screwtape]

I present for your reading several immutable laws of God that confirm His existence.

In what way are those laws?  They look more like your dopey, unsupported opinions.  Anywhere you said "intrinsic" you could replace it with "evolutionary" and it would make more sense.

1. The Intrinsic value of Life
 2. The Intrinsic Belief that Man has purpose
 3. The Intrinsic difference between man and animals
 4. The Intrinsic ability to see Good and Evil
 5. The Intrinsic ability to Choose to do good or evil
 6. The Intrinsic Belief in "A Moral Code"

As for 6, frogs have A Moral Code, stated thusly: "Don't eat other frogs.  Unless you're hungry."

[One Above All]

rhocam, I have corrected what you think is evolution. It's still not perfect, as was pointed out by velkyn, but my correction should give you a better understanding of what evolution actually is. You ignored it. Care to explain why?