“..just explain to us creationist and intelligent designers..How did that first baby get its needs met?”

Oh boy, back to basics it appears. In evolution you have a group of species branching out to other descendants and therefore there is no instant part where an offspring would be without parent in the first place. You are totally misunderstanding what evolution suggests in the first place. Evolution never suggests that instantly life went from bacteria to humans in a single generation resulting in hapless babies.

Rather it suggests that life changes over time and thus all offspring are going to have parents.
Try to review the links I gave earlier on evidence for evolution and refute those accordingly.

jar1961,

“Irreducible complexity has scientifically refuted the concept of human "evolution"....”

REALLY, WHERE? Didn’t you know in Dover in 2005 all of Behe’s instances of IC were shown to have natural evolutionary means to explain them?

“that both the female and male of the species were created simulataneously in order for human procreation to have taken place within the same generation”

The emergence of Y chromosomal sexual recombination would have occurred looong before the first complex organisms orose over 600 million years ago. All those descendants from that point would have had sexual reproduction. Evolution never suggested that out of bacteria that instantly two humans were formed, know what you’re talking about.

“. I wont even touch on the Scopes monkey trial.. we all know how that turned out”

Ya, we do. Evolution was deemed science and creationism in all this time still hasn’t for lack of evidence. What’s your point?

“Evolution has been and will always be a theory...”

Major fail. Gravity is a theory, as is atomic matter, and germs is a theory, so is quantum mechanics. A ‘theory’ in science is supported by empirical facts and observation and tests, it doesn’t mean theory as a laymen would use the word.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

ShuckCreations: "But basically what I'm trying to say is you must look at all aspects of Christianity and Science when coming to a conclusion."

Why should I waste my limited time looking at all aspects of your death cult?

Do you think a scientist would say, after making a scientific discovery, "what would jesus say about this fossil?"

jar1961, you claim you're educated, but I have seen no evidence you graduated from First Grade. Even ShuckCreations pointed out how dumb your question was.

"FOR ALL THE EVOLUTIONISTS: We don't need to debate...just explain to us creationist and intelligent designers..How did that first baby get its needs met? "

Jar: While I appreciate your need to help, this just does exactly the opposite. If evolution were to have happened then it would've bee gradually. Whether the man or woman evolved faster is irrevalent. The answer to the question you asking is very simple. Just look at it logically:

There would be a point as to which we call "man" vs the apelikeman. Where that is...heh, it's fuzzy but there would've been a point to which it occured. Let's say the parents were both still ape-like beings but almost that of the common man. They mate and have an offspring and it's slightly evolved mutation would be man. It would then be cared for by the ape-like parents. The baby would not be on it's own as you claim.

I don't support this theory but I'm just trying to explain to you how your logic doesn't work.

FOR ALL THOSE OF FAITH: Going down the road of debate with the secular community is a waste of energy and distracts us from loving our adversaries.... My suggestion is... don't try to convince them... they will believe what they will....

If they can accept that a baby.. never mind 2 babies survived on premordial earth without adult parenting that takes more faith to believe than what we as Christians believe....

FOR ALL THE EVOLUTIONISTS: We don't need to debate...just explain to us creationist and intelligent designers..How did that first baby get its needs met?

Oldguy, like I said before I don't have my reference material here and when I do present it I'm sure it won't convince you otherwise. But for the sake of presenting both sides of an arguement I will post it later. Furthermore, I've discussed this on another article on this site in more detail (don't remember which one so don't ask) and really don't feel like getting into a debate about it.

Lastly, before you start claiming that I have no knowledge of science, and as some people around here would like to call me an "uneducated christian," I'd like to inform you that I have had an interest in science since I was in middle school. My degree is in electrical engineering and I've had quite a bit of education in scientific studies. I have no problem whatsoever in supporting a theory that God himself could use. However, I also view science as an unbiased observer and if there is any scientific evidence that contradicts other siencetific studies I must take that into consideration.

Science is a world that is heavily reliant on fact and even then is sometimes faith put into assumptions. Science is constantly changing as it is based on findings made by man. God's Word has been, is, & will always be unchanged. When I have to put faith into something I'd rather put it into something that I know is consistant.

Anywayz, I've gone off on a little of a rant here. But basically what I'm trying to say is you must look at all aspects of Christianity and Science when coming to a conclusion. Once you have read and debated your doubts you can come to a decision. I have made mine after several years of study and that is to trust in Christ. But that in no way means that I don't believe in science either. It just means that I put more faith in God than I do in the ever-altering discoveries of man.

FOR OLDGUY etals:

I assure you my education is at the post graduate level... now... putting oyur insults aside let's try this again:

1. Irreducible complexity has scientifically refuted the concept of human "evolution"....
2. The odds of the evolutionary process which you claim led to the creation of the first human being are incomprehensively impossible that both the female and male of the species were created simulataneously in order for human procreation to have taken place within the same generation
3. I wont even touch on the Scopes monkey trial.. we all know how that turned out
4. Evolution has been and will always be a theory...


But assuming you are far more intelligent than I .. I am still waiting for an explaination how that first baby survived......so please educate me...

"There has been no evidence of fossils where evolution has taken place."

sigh.

For your convenience, ShuckCreations, I created this tinyurl for you to look at.

http://tinyurl.com/2z7fhk

This website has amazon.com customer reviews of the book "Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters" by Donald R. Prothero. You could buy the book and read it, but it would be enough to read the customer reviews.

"There have been many hoaxes..."

In the future, before you insult the integrity of tens of thousands of scientists, please make some effort to educate yourself first. It's obvious you have no idea how many fossils of transitional species have been found. It's an interesting subject to study. Also interesting is how scientists can use their scientific knowledge to predict where to find the fossils they are looking for. I suggest you learn how Neil Shubin and his team were able to successfully predict where they could find Tiktaalik roseae on an island in the Canadian Arctic.

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/

"The Search For Tiktaalik: The Transitional Species"

http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html

The reason myself and others come here is because we are amazed there are still people who deny the facts of evolution. There could be nothing more interesting than the history of life, but millions of Americans ignore this fascinating history because they would rather believe in magical creation. I can't imagine anything more boring and more lazy than invoking God. Scientists have been learning about the history of life for more than a century. What they have found out is amazing and with every new discovery it becomes even more amazing. What a horrible waste to deny all this rapidly growing knowledge to defend an ancient religious idea like magical creation.

ShuckCreations,

On a side note, it appears Palu is resulting in more finds of the species homo florensis (the hobbit). http://scienceblogs.com/afarensis/2008/03/11/small_bodied_humans_from_palau/#more

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/16/10630/6201

Again like I said. If evolution is wrong, we shouldn't expect to fine any hominid fossils anywhere, but there sure were a LOT of hominids wandering around from 2 million years ago up till quite recently it appears.

oldguy,

I noticed it, they should notice it too, it's their service. However the link you mentioned from the creation/evolution section within Education was removed, so it seems the entire artilcle and link were removed, or lost (not likely) from the webserver as generally web servers are load balanced and for his reason missing links shouldn't occur. It also addressed bandwidth issues.

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080315/31533_Ben_Stein_Brings_'Star_Power'_to_Florida's_Evolution_Debate.htm

Our apologies... The page you requested could not be found.
If you got here by typing a URL into your browser's address bar, please make sure the spelling,
capitalization, and punctuation are correct, then try reloading the page.
If you are certain that this URL is valid, please send us feedback about the broken link.

Anyone else notice this problem? Anyone want to complain to the Christian Post about it?

ShuckCreations, in the meantime perhaps I could answer why those 3 or 4 reasons jar1961 listed earlier in no way negate the process of evolution.

'Punctuated equillibrium
First and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics
Law of Entropy
Law of Universal Planetary Motion"

ShuckCreations,

No problem. Copy them down to a text file and look them up later, be sure to look up the references and sources if you have questions and I look forward to your response. FYI, the genetic evidence requires a basic understanding of biology to understand their significance.

I'll respond later as I cannot view youtube at work and do not have access to my reference material here either.

ShuckCreations,

"Really? where? There has been no evidence of fossils were evolution has taken place"

Evidence for Evolution - Hominid Fossils Pt.1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc

Evidence for Evolution - Hominid Fossils Pt.2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM

www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ2WoHFc7eE

http://youtube.com/watch?v=UIijwkaqKzY

http://youtube.com/watch?v=O4GdZOlPrX8

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XUcB_HiCKnM

If evolution is wrong, then there were sure a lot of hominids roaming around 2 million+ years ago for it to be false. Here’s some genetic evidence for common ancestry and evolution. I am sure it’s all just a coincidence.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0

Do refer to all the sources and references to see they are supported and legit. How do you respond to these? And I bet you thought 'lucy' was the only one!

jar: Umm they are right in the aspect of the theory. If we were to have evolved the parents would have been some sort of apelike men raising the child.

orange: "Remember all those earlier less complex life forms that left fossils?"

Really? where? There has been no evidence of fossils were evolution has taken place. There have been many hoaxs and fragments of bone placed in such a way that one might believe there were such ape-men but if arranged correctly they actually more closely ressemble chimps. Sorry.

jar1961: "So i will take it you either have no sound scientifc response as to how the first man came into the world as a baby and took care of itself"

Ask an intelligent question and I might answer it. Think about why your question makes no sense. You are making an assumption that shows your total ignorance of science and your complete lack of common sense.

jar1961, with all due respect, it's obvious you are uneducated. There could be no other explanation for your incredibly dumb question. Why don't you spend a few months studying biology and the history of life, then get back to me. Don't be lazy and don't be afraid. Evolution is just science. It won't harm you if you study it.

jar1961,

“So i will take it you either have no sound scientifc response as to how the first man came into the world as a baby and took care of itself of the primordial beaches of earth, spewing with volcanoes, harsh elements and no supermarkets... I really do want to know how you explain how that baby took care of itself and survived.”

WOW, what a major misunderstanding of what evolutionary biology teaches. Jar, evolution in no way suggests that from the ancient eukaryotic bacteria cells instantly became a fully formed human baby, you've erected an entirely false statement (see strawman arguement) and are attempting to argue that, when it's not what evolution suggests in the lest.

Remember all those earlier less complex life forms that left fossils? This shows it wasn't some good to you instant causation.

“Punctuated equillibrium
First and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics
Law of Entropy
Law of Universal Planetary Motion”

I’d love to hear how these (somehow) refute evolution as a process. And by the way, the 2nd lawIS the law of entropy, so you’re already down to 3.

“The Apostle Paul warned Christians about those who would come preaching a false doctrine along time before the theory of evolution came into existence. HMMM> wonder how he knew that?”

Well, considering there are over 3000+ known recorded religions and many existed prior to the time of early Christianity it’s not hard to fathom that if Christianity were to survive it would have to, like all other religions, compete for devotees and thus the line by Paul is added as an obvious quip that indeed others will follow other religions in the future as they have in the past.

I don’t think he’s referring to evolution, as this is science and not theology, and more likely referring to other contemporary competing religions, in this case islam, hinduisim, etc. that have always been around. Paul pointed out the obvious.