[T3hDDRKid]

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

You know, I haven't been taking this thread seriously up until now... and I'm still not. I do have a semi-serious question for DDRKid, though:

If random mutation and natural selection aren't the backbone of evolution, what is? What caused single-celled organisms to evolve into such awesome creatures? I'm pretty sure you left that out of your analysis, eh? I mean, if you're going to dismiss one extremely accepted theory in the scientific field as bull****, you might as well state what you think is the thing that drives evolution.

I could go on for an hour on why I think that article is bull****, but working inversely and staying lax is so much more entertaining and easier 8)

Also, I forgot to say this but I love you Jewpin. Every time you bless CT with your presence, Jesus smiles.

That is precisely why I don't like posting in threads involving religious beliefs. While sometimes people will go to the trouble of backing up their posts with articles or something of that nature, too often people like Carbo will post a few things asking questions about what I said. I'll then write about it and five or six people will proceed to call me stupid for having a religion.

And as for random mutation and natural selection: I've said many times that DNA does not create new information, even though mutation. I've been searching through the internet, not only Christian sites, but through Wikipedia and Google search, and I haven't been able to find a mention that DNA can in fact add information to itself, only comments and studies that say it cannot.

Originally Posted by Squeek

The reasons why something felt like making the universe are impossible to study. The way they did it is impossible to study. All we can study is the end result of what we had and try to work our way backwards to find a source.

This makes the whole debate futile, at least for now. This debate cannot be "won", exactly. I cannot remember where I saw it, but I recall the quote "If everybody waited until they had all the relevant details, nobody would have an opinion." I may never be able to convince people like Jewpin and Carbo. They're firmly set in their beliefs. I choose, however, to continue stating the facts, because if I don't, then those who are on the threshold of deciding what to believe will only see the facts from one point of view. This way, they can choose what they think is more believable and make an informed decision.