Hi Neil, First of all, my friend, you need to get a little air and cool down. Then, ask your scientist friends how it all started. Please don't simply say, "The Big Bang." What exploded? Don't try to convince me that it was a quantum dot. That still does not explain where the quantum dot came from. Don't try to convince me that it was a quantum dot that came from a black hole. Where was the black hole? And further more, regardless of whether it was a black hole, quantum dot, quantum flux, an infinite number of dimensions, quantum waves, etc., etc., where were these things? The problem with evolution is that when you trace it back as far as you can go, no one can give an answer as to how you can get something physical (the universe) out of nothing. Even the most brilliant scientist of our time cannot come up with that one, although several have tried to prove that nothing is actually something... At some point along the time line, you have to deal with eternity (or infinity, if you prefer). As soon as you hit the point of recognizing eternity, you then can accept the fact that the physical sits in eternity, which is something that science CANNOT observe. Eternity is not part of the physical world. The physical world sits in eternity and comes from eternity. The cause of the universe came from something that did not need a cause. Why do you then find it so difficult to accept the idea that a supreme intelligence could exist? You have no problem accepting the idea that the physical world could come into existence by itself, yet you balk at the idea that it could have had an eternal cause outside of itself. How do you explain something that is physical (the universe) creating itself? The very idea is preposterous, and deep down, many of these scientists that trumpet evolution know that, but they still deny it because they can't stand the idea of an eternal, supreme, omnipotent intelligence. What they then do is publish endless reams of print that supposedly examine and explain the evidence they have chosen to examine from their skewed point of view, while actually never offering any real proof, but instead, baffling the casual reader with the sheer weight of its volume. Very few of these scientists that so many people so blindly follow are even honest about why they do what they do. Stephen Hawking, a man of great brilliance and ability, is one of the very few who at least honestly admits that his goal is to prove that the universe does not need a supreme creator to exist. I would also have to remind you that the number of people that believe something to be true has nothing to do with whether or not it IS true. The masses have often been wrong, and when the masses are determined to prove to themselves that they are right, fooling themselves becomes much simpler. I personally do not care how many people disagree with me. I won't yell at them, either. God bless, Dave

Hi Patrick, What you have just posted is not only dishonest, it is also called spam. Please don't do that on one of my forums again, or you WILL be reported. Incidentally, the program you are marketing via that link is illegal, no matter what people tell you. I strongly suggest you change the page that link is pointing to to something that IS legal and on topic. God bless, Dave

Dear Dave,

as you know I am also a non-believer in all-powerful 'God' - mainly because if this is the case why do we see so many people suffering, so much cruelty to children, animals and even each other. However, I am not evangelical about it as although I do not accept any of the religions, I do believe that if we deny the value of a spiritual side to our existence - we deny ourselves a very basic part of why we live.  For example Art, Nature, Literature and even Life itself.

Man has always sought to validate his 'raison d'etre' - his reason 'to be', and will probably do so to the end of time.  In many ways this is arrogance as if we were the most important creatures on the planet and every other life form must bow to our greatness.  Maybe if we spent a little more time considering these others, we would enrich our own lives AND produce and save a marvellous world.

Finally although in many ways I come from the same side of the fence as Neil, I have yet to see any persuasive argument/discussion developed through trying to shout the other party down.  Respect for another's point of view is surely something we COULD aspire to?  Or is it?

Hi, Neil,

My, we are getting colourful!

HOWEVER

There is absolutely NO PROOF WHATSOEVER that the theory of evolution is any more than that.

A theory.

What somebody thinks might be happening. If it is ever proved, it will then be accepted as the Law of Evolution.

All that can be demonstrated, within reason, is that there is a process of selection within species. This can be amply demonstrated from fossil records and experiments on short life-span creatures.

What can not and has NEVER been proven is that there is a process by which one species becomes another.

Evolution believers have a full time job looking for the (missing) links between species. There are none. They are a fancy.

Because I can see that evolution is codswallop, by the way, don't assume that I am a creationist. This is far beneath you and I know that you are clever enough to realise how offensive such a knee jerk response is.

Maybe I am with the vast majority of scientists who do not support creationist thought - but don't assume that because a scientist does not support creationist thought, that he automatically supports evolution.

Incidentally, scientists do not agree with me. I agree with them! My training in the harsh realities of life has given me the ability to formulate my own beliefs and to seek support (if any exists) for those beliefs from those much wiser than I am.

As the truth, as scientists discover new things, changes, I often change my own view of things - given sufficient reason.

 Dr. James D. Watson was a genius who studied DNA and the cellular behaviour of cancer. He never studied evolution and his opinion that you quoted is, therefore, no more valid than anybody else's - yours or mine, for example.

Nobel prize winners are not necessarily better than anybody else - they simply have a very detailed knowledge of a rarified subject - they may not be bright enough, though, to understand a life insurance quotation.

The Old Coot

Old coot, YOU ARE EITHER TOO CLOSE MINDED OR JUST SO STUPID YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THE FACTS! BECAUSE FOOLS LIKE YOU REJECT THE PROOF DOES NOT MEAN IT IS NOT THERE. NOT YOU, OR ANY OF YOUR BRAIN DEAD ILK, CAN EVEN COME ANY WHERE CLOSE TO EITHER THE EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OR INTELLIGENCE OF THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW EVOLUTION IS BOTH A PROVEN THEORY AND A PROVEN FACT. YOU, AND THE REST OF YOUR TROGLODYE ILK ARE JUST LIKE THE FOOLS WHO GO ON THE TV SHOW AMERICAN IDOL WHO COULD NOT CARRY A TUNE IN A TRUCK AND STILL THINK THEY CAN SING! YOU ARE SO CLUELESS, YOU HAVE NO CLUE HOW CLUELESS YOU ARE!