I'm sorry, but as I said in an earlier post, either God is stupid or God is a sadist. Or of course God had nothing to do with it at all (I see no problem with God starting the process or something along those lines, hell the Pope is even fine with that).

An intelligent designer would not have designed the Koala to have a pouch that faces downwards when the creature spends the majority of time in the trees. The sheer suffering in the animal kingdom, the sheer inefficiency of a forest where all of the trees constantly attempt to outgrow the others to get more light shows me that nature clearly isn't planned by an intelligent designer.

Evolution via natural selection is the only thoery that I've ever read about that actually makes sense of these issues. I'm sure many aspects of the thoery will change (hence why scientests already call it neo-Darwinism as opposed to just Darwinism). But I'd rather put stock into a field where they can admit they're wrong, don't have texts that cannot change and rely on evidence as opposed to blind faith. Theology has lost out in every place that its come into contact with Science and I see no reason to think that theology will get any pionts this time.

Even if tomorrow Neo-Darwinism was proven wrong, that wouldn't mean that Creationism or any other theological ideas have the asnwers. I'm pretty confident that if Darwinism was knocked off tommorrow it'd be by another scientific theory, not by theology or theology attemping to parade as science.

I wont be presumptuous enough to say what people of faith should and shouldn't believe. But I think its a disservice to ones faith to put it constantly into an arena where it will mostly lose out (as it has in the courts and many other places). Why not just say its faith, I have faith in God/Gods/whatever and end it there?

Thankfully I'm not in such a position.

New genes are created all the time through gene duplications and gene mutuations.

If you really want to understand, read this:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/origins-of-new-genes-and-pseudogenes-835

I am going to take each point you said and edit it. I took off the first paragraph since it was irrelevent.

Natural Selection, as you said, selects genes that exist in an organism. Natural Selection never makes new information, but mutations do. Any bad mutations are removed since they do not help the probability of survival, might even hurt it's probability. Mutations that benefit the organisms are selected and passed on to the next generation. Mutations with Natural Selection adds new information, not just natural selection alone.

Well, think of it this way, some of those systems were not needed to survive in our primative past. For example, even today some single celled organisms do not use many of the systems we do. Some organisms have a couple have a couple of the systems we do, but since we evolved in a particular environment that does need all of them, only those with all the requirements can survive in that environment while some environments don't require of those systems.

Evolution does not explain the origin of life, only the diversity of life once life emerged. Scientists have created many of the early earth conditions and have made many compounds to the origin of life. Scientists have not yet done so since abiogenesis took a very long time so they are trying to find a way to speed up the process so we can observe that event in our lifetime.

Humans did not come from Bacteria. Bacteria and Humans shared a common ancestor that resembled more like bacteria than human but both organisms have evolved and specified to their environment. No scientist believes we evolved from current bacteria.

So anyway the book of Abraham if it was Abrahams book was all about creating a life form or homonculi, in it he links earth to being the closest example of a technical philosiphers stone or was it homonculi.

The book seemed to lead into a direction or explore a perception that life was created as a result of Earth and not exactly a heavenly spirit.  Either way creation was the absolute in the book, god or no god as the entire book(s) was about mimicing the creation process.

Some of the crude sketches depicting the texts were disgusting but effective in narrating what he intended to create... I got bored and never read the rest so I'm not sure if he did create one or not. It's been YEARS since I saw that book, maybe 17 years now.

Natural Selection, as you said, selects genes that exist in an organism. Natural Selection never makes new information, but mutations do. Any bad mutations are removed since they do not help the probability of survival, might even hurt it's probability. Mutations that benefit the organisms are selected and passed on to the next generation. Mutations with Natural Selection adds new information, not just natural selection alone.

Mutations do not create new genotypes. They can duplicate and play with them, but they still don't add new elements to it. And even if we use the data contained in the article mentioned in a previous post, these duplications that are assumed to add genotypes only happen a few times every million years, and that's including the ones that get killed off. Even with five thousand sets of a million years, there's still no way that single cells can find enough beneficial mutations to reach human status.

Well, think of it this way, some of those systems were not needed to survive in our primative past. For example, even today some single celled organisms do not use many of the systems we do. Some organisms have a couple have a couple of the systems we do, but since we evolved in a particular environment that does need all of them, only those with all the requirements can survive in that environment while some environments don't require of those systems.

That doesn't work either. Either the environment requires the system, or it doesn't. If it does, then how could the system evolve there? Nothing would live long enough to reproduce. If it doesn't, then at best the organism could evolve a system that's beneficial to it, but why would it evolve one that's required, as they all are now? It doesn't make sense for a sytem to begin as simply beneficial, and then become essential. And that doesn't even begin to answer the problem of meiosis.

Evolution does not explain the origin of life, only the diversity of life once life emerged. Scientists have created many of the early earth conditions and have made many compounds to the origin of life. Scientists have not yet done so since abiogenesis took a very long time so they are trying to find a way to speed up the process so we can observe that event in our lifetime.

If that's really the case, then what does explain the origin of life? I guess this point only applies to those evolutionists who believe in the natural origin of life. Then the rest of that paragraph seems to promote this idea, so I guess this applies to you too. If abiogenesis takes so long, I would have to believe that there couldn't have been too many "attempts" at sustaining a cell's life in the early earth. How many of them would evolve the process of reproduction in one generation? No matter how many early cells came to be, I can't assume they were similar in complexity to today's. So how did reproduction evolve... without reproduction?

Humans did not come from Bacteria. Bacteria and Humans shared a common ancestor that resembled more like bacteria than human but both organisms have evolved and specified to their environment. No scientist believes we evolved from current bacteria.

Okay. Then replace the word "bacteria" with "bacteria-like organisms". The essential difference between the two views is still the same.

I like your 'make stuff up' approach to debating, I'm going to have to start using that.

Everything you think you comprehend is mistified. Inc, not included.

Like I said, it's in the link that was already posted:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/origins-of-new-genes-and-pseudogenes-835

That's good...lol  I was worried that folks were looking for argument fodder so that was left unscathed...:D

Of course they do. But when you say morals you're thinking of the complex social rules of human society. Obviously animals have less complex social rules , but they nevertheless have a sense of what type of behaviour is acceptable or not acceptable within their primitive animal communities. And engaging in inappropriate behaviour draws negative consiquences from the rest of the group, just like in human society.Sound like morals to me. 

As for your comment regarding absolute morals, well real life pretty much proves you're wrong. An example of relative morals is people's attitude towards killing. It was not cosidered at all immoral for gladiators to be forced to kill eachother in the Roman Empire. During the Middle Ages it was not considered at all immoral in Europe to kill a non-christian, or someon who commited heresies. Even today people's attitude towards killing varies. For example in most European nations the death penalty is considered barbaric and highly immoral, while in Texas (for example) it's considered a perfectly acceptable practice.  There are some countries where honor killing is practiced. and of course let's not forget soldiers. No one calls soldiers ruthless killers and murderers, even though they kill others. Such words can only be used to describe soldier from rival nations, but never from your own (if that's not relative morality I don't know what is).