One question for Christians

[Esquilax]

If you intend to argue against what scripture depicts, then you'll need to use scripture whether you believe in it or not, there is no other sources to go to unless you've been holding out on the world.

Oh no, there's one other source, though I'm not surprised you're unfamiliar with it.

It's called reality.

Seems you're reading other post than mine, I've given plenty of scriptural support for my argument. I do agree though God's divine plan rules the day every day all day long.

And then you've reinterpreted the words of the scripture so they agree with what you want them to say, without providing any evidence that yours is the correct interpretation.

Dude, I'm already familiar with theist operating procedure, you don't need to explain it!

Words from a big man, in the eyes of who?

Everyone who sees me, I'm quite tall.

I understand how evolution is suppose to work, thing is there is no truly reliable indication it ever has, there is no proof that it ever has happened. Yes I know there are changes within species, changes so they can adapt to their environment, not to become another specie. I've seen that in just four generations and I can assure you my great nephews are very much human beings.

Okay, I'm not going to be kind here, because now you're being fucking ignorant. It's become clear that you don't understand evolution at all, despite your assertions to the contrary. The thing is, your inability to understand simple concepts, and your preference for arguing against strawmen, does not mean that you're right. It's means you're ignorant.

Go and do some research. Look at what evolution actually is. What it actually means. Not what you think it means, but what scientists do. Then come back and argue like a rational adult.

See, this is what staggers me about evolution deniers like you: it's so very clear that you haven't done a single moment of study on the topic you think you're qualified enough to deny by fiat, to the point where you don't even know what it is, and yet you arrogantly strut around declaring that it doesn't exist. How can you possibly think you can deny this stuff, when you aren't even familiar with the basics? It could be one hundred percent correct or one hundred percent wrong, and right now you still have no rational basis for declaring it to be either.

You know you're not doing well when you could be absolutely right and still be an irrational bag of dicks.

Okay I'll agree wolves are of the canine specie, just as the domesticated dogs are a canine. Humans and apes are genetically similar, last I heard man and apes can't make mapes.

No, and nobody is asserting that they could, not even evolutionary biologists. Because man and ape are separate species, that happen to share a common ancestor. The "man don't come from no monkey!" canard is an old stalwart of the ill informed and the liar alike. I wonder which you are?

Only an idiot would believe they are anything other than canines, they all can interbreed and still only canines come out of the breeding, canine is a species period. There is no proof what you purpose is true, I nor the many people I know have ever seen this.

What I propose? Have you even paid attention to what I've proposed? Go back and look; I think you'll find that all along I've been saying that evolution never states that one animal would suddenly give birth to a different animal, but that the changes would be gradual and cumulative. The fact is, you agree with what evolution actually says, which is that all of those canine breeds are genetically similar yet still diverse, you're just... well, kind of dumb about this subject.

What I also like is that you're so bad at arguing evolution that you can't even argue against the arguments I, and the theory, are making. Only your own fallacious strawmen.

Have you had some kind of seizure?

Or do you actually think that three emoticons invalidates the actual proof I gave you a few pages back? Because it's still there, for anyone to see. Do you think that they'll read that, then come here and see what passes for a rebuttal from you, and then think you've come out ahead?

I do not have to lie about things that are unproven, there are no living organisms alive today that have evolved from another specie.

All living creatures evolved from another species. Your ignorance of the actual science at work here is not an argument, just another monument for your inability and unwillingness to learn anything that doesn't have a cross on the front of it.

You will not read the Bible passages that are relevant to the discussion and you dismiss it without ever considering it valid to the argument. So you are not one to point fingers.

There is no such thing as a relevant bible passage in a discussion of factual matters.

They are not evolved from a completely different specie. There is no proof of evolution. Except maybe in your deluded mind.

Seriously, go and study. This stuff is incredibly fascinating. Here, I'll even get you started.

Yep, keep changeing things because of the challenges from Christian and non Christian scientist.

Or, alternately, keep changing things to reflect additional information. Incidentally, would you mind linking to mainstream, peer reviewed papers from christian scientists that confirm these challenges to evolution? Or can't you, because those things don't exist?

Also, did you even look up the term macroevolution before you felt educated enough to post about it? Because I did; that's why I actually knew what I was talking about, and you did not.

When the deck is stacked, well it's easy to win.

What was the name of the christian scientist in the case who lost, GC? What was the argument that he proposed as a counter to evolution? Why did it lose out? Can you tell me what the case was about? Can you summarize the main ways which the deck was stacked in this case?

The first four questions I already know the answer to: I just thought it would be interesting to see if you had a passing familiarity with the case before you saw fit to comment on it, or if you would let your ignorance rule the day yet again. Of course, it's easy to look these things up before you post back, so I expect you'll have the answer then anyway, hence the last question. Perhaps the first four will inform you enough to actually argue back, though since you've been lying from top to bottom here, I wouldn't be surprised if what you came back with was a load of tripe.

Micro is nothing more than adaptation within a specie, the specie never changes. Macro has no proof whatsoever, only those who want to imagine some magic force has come along to make one specie from another.

Please, do look up what evolution actually entails. I know you won't admit you were wrong here, but I do hope you'll at least squirm a little in embarrassment right there in your chair before you continue your dishonest tirade.

Like mules. Or this+=

Did you look at the link before you decided it was wrong, GC?

[Godscreated]

If you intend to argue against what scripture depicts, then you'll need to use scripture whether you believe in it or not, there is no other sources to go to unless you've been holding out on the world.

Oh no, there's one other source, though I'm not surprised you're unfamiliar with it.

It's called reality.

Which is not something you're familiar with. You seem to be quite irritated I don't know why you're being treated the same as you treat Christians and you just laugh at what you try to do to them.

Seems you're reading other post than mine, I've given plenty of scriptural support for my argument. I do agree though God's divine plan rules the day every day all day long.

And then you've reinterpreted the words of the scripture so they agree with what you want them to say, without providing any evidence that yours is the correct interpretation.

Dude, I'm already familiar with theist operating procedure, you don't need to explain it!

I've provided plenty of scriptural evidence, you're not able to see it because you want to be blind to the truth, that is a pitiful thing, you know less about the scriptures than most here.

Words from a big man, in the eyes of who?

Everyone who sees me, I'm quite tall.

Now you're coming down to size.

I understand how evolution is suppose to work, thing is there is no truly reliable indication it ever has, there is no proof that it ever has happened. Yes I know there are changes within species, changes so they can adapt to their environment, not to become another specie. I've seen that in just four generations and I can assure you my great nephews are very much human beings.

Okay, I'm not going to be kind here, because now you're being fucking ignorant. It's become clear that you don't understand evolution at all, despite your assertions to the contrary. The thing is, your inability to understand simple concepts, and your preference for arguing against strawmen, does not mean that you're right. It's means you're ignorant.

You're hardly ever kind why would I expect you to change. I understand that the theory has never shown us a transitional form of any kind, oh I know people have opinions on fossils, but they are just that opinion, no evidence, no proof. You show me a specie in change, I need to see it to believe it, not some magical unseen force that makes one specie another.

Go and do some research. Look at what evolution actually is. What it actually means. Not what you think it means, but what scientists do. Then come back and argue like a rational adult.

I have with some very intelligent professors and scientist, I've spent time looking into evolution and find it impossible. Just because you can be fooled by those who want anything to be true just so they can dismiss God... well it ain't my fault.

See, this is what staggers me about evolution deniers like you: it's so very clear that you haven't done a single moment of study on the topic you think you're qualified enough to deny by fiat, to the point where you don't even know what it is, and yet you arrogantly strut around declaring that it doesn't exist. How can you possibly think you can deny this stuff, when you aren't even familiar with the basics? It could be one hundred percent correct or one hundred percent wrong, and right now you still have no rational basis for declaring it to be either.

Why you are describing your actions toward scripture and God.

You know you're not doing well when you could be absolutely right and still be an irrational bag of dicks.

At least I have enough confidence in what I say and believe that I do not have to revert to the practice in ignorance of name calling.

Okay I'll agree wolves are of the canine specie, just as the domesticated dogs are a canine. Humans and apes are genetically similar, last I heard man and apes can't make mapes.

No, and nobody is asserting that they could, not even evolutionary biologists. Because man and ape are separate species, that happen to share a common ancestor. The "man don't come from no monkey!" canard is an old stalwart of the ill informed and the liar alike. I wonder which you are?

You were by giving your assumptions that things like that are possible. You may be an ape man, however I have a creator in the living God, loved enough to bring me into this world and offer to me salvation. Sorry you god of evolution can only offer you death, what a sad way to live.

Only an idiot would believe they are anything other than canines, they all can interbreed and still only canines come out of the breeding, canine is a species period. There is no proof what you purpose is true, I nor the many people I know have ever seen this.

What I propose? Have you even paid attention to what I've proposed? Go back and look; I think you'll find that all along I've been saying that evolution never states that one animal would suddenly give birth to a different animal, but that the changes would be gradual and cumulative. The fact is, you agree with what evolution actually says, which is that all of those canine breeds are genetically similar yet still diverse, you're just... well, kind of dumb about this subject.

You purpose a bunch of worthless junk, all the money spent to tell lies when it could have been used to help the needy, at least the church doesn't through good money into dirt holes, we us some of our money to help the needy.
Canine is a species and you can not change that, the wolf, fox, wild dogs and domesticated dogs all belong to it. Some may be small, some may be large, fur of different lengths and color, different eye colors, yet they are all canines. They will always be canines and they show no evidence they will ever be anything else, if this is dumb, then what does it make you.

What I also like is that you're so bad at arguing evolution that you can't even argue against the arguments I, and the theory, are making. Only your own fallacious strawmen.

You are not making arguments, how is it that you can make an argument about such fairy tales, that use some magical action to poof new species from other species. There is no argument against a fairy tale, nor is there an argument for such.

Have you had some kind of seizure?

Or do you actually think that three emoticons invalidates the actual proof I gave you a few pages back? Because it's still there, for anyone to see. Do you think that they'll read that, then come here and see what passes for a rebuttal from you, and then think you've come out ahead?

I nearly did laughing at your assertions, you have presented no proof, you post biased material, you can't even defend it with your own words.

I do not have to lie about things that are unproven, there are no living organisms alive today that have evolved from another specie.

All living creatures evolved from another species. Your ignorance of the actual science at work here is not an argument, just another monument for your inability and unwillingness to learn anything that doesn't have a cross on the front of it.

I learn a lot about many things that are not religious, I've learned from professors and scientist about the lie of evolution, I do not need you biased opinions on the matter.

You will not read the Bible passages that are relevant to the discussion and you dismiss it without ever considering it valid to the argument. So you are not one to point fingers.

There is no such thing as a relevant bible passage in a discussion of factual matters.

You have never offered proof against any passages I've quoted. You want this whole thing to be your side.

They are not evolved from a completely different specie. There is no proof of evolution. Except maybe in your deluded mind.

Seriously, go and study. This stuff is incredibly fascinating. Here, I'll even get you started.

Seriously you think I would be fascinated by your fairy tale of delusion.

Yep, keep changeing things because of the challenges from Christian and non Christian scientist.

Or, alternately, keep changing things to reflect additional information. Incidentally, would you mind linking to mainstream, peer reviewed papers from christian scientists that confirm these challenges to evolution? Or can't you, because those things don't exist?

Now you are saying you do not know that which you claimed to know, how do you expect to learn if you are not willing to look at the counters against your belief. At least the Christians here take on the challenge of from our critics.

Also, did you even look up the term macroevolution before you felt educated enough to post about it? Because I did; that's why I actually knew what I was talking about, and you did not.

I learned about macro a long time ago by people that are very well educated and know more about the theory than you will ever know.

Micro is nothing more than adaptation within a specie, the specie never changes. Macro has no proof whatsoever, only those who want to imagine some magic force has come along to make one specie from another.

Please, do look up what evolution actually entails. I know you won't admit you were wrong here, but I do hope you'll at least squirm a little in embarrassment right there in your chair before you continue your dishonest tirade.

I want squirm over a lie, I do not admit to being wrong when I know you are the one who is wrong. Frankly I'm over this, you have no proof, the science you rely on is biased and you're gullible enough to belie[/quote]ve it.

[Mystical]

Name them. Name those "highly qualified and well educated" professors you claim to know fact from. Cuz buddy, evolution is what's taught in College sorry to burst your bubble. All you're doing is appealing to some unknown source claiming you are right and its intellectually dishonest. I would think that if your god was real you wouldn't have to lie to anyone including yourself, about the reality he supposedly made and threw you the challenge of having to explai n to us heathens how life is all about him. Whats happening is these heathens are schooling your ass and you're complacent in your ignorance. No? Tell me I'm wrong and bring up one Single concept that you feel confident enough to debate outside the bibles words (here in reality) that backs up your belief in the interpretation of your bible. That interpretation that evolution ain't factual fact and is anti bible. See You're even becoming a minority in your own faith, denying it, so why not give us your reasoning as to why you're right and evolution isnt fact or biblically wrong? Oh You can't. Thats why.

[Insert dodging tactics here]

[Godscreated]

Name them. Name those "highly qualified and well educated" professors you claim to know fact from. Cuz buddy, evolution is what's taught in College sorry to burst your bubble. All you're doing is appealing to some unknown source claiming you are right and its intellectually dishonest. I would think that if your god was real you wouldn't have to lie to anyone including yourself, about the reality he supposedly made and threw you the challenge of having to explai n to us heathens how life is all about him. Whats happening is these heathens are schooling your ass and you're complacent in your ignorance. No? Tell me I'm wrong and bring up one Single concept that you feel confident enough to debate outside the bibles words (here in reality) that backs up your belief in the interpretation of your bible. That interpretation that evolution ain't factual fact and is anti bible. See You're even becoming a minority in your own faith, denying it, so why not give us your reasoning as to why you're right and evolution isnt fact or biblically wrong? Oh You can't. Thats why.

[Insert dodging tactics here]

Evolution has no factual stance, only stuff made up by those who refuse to acknowledge God. Show me the photo history of an animal that went through a specie change, surely you would demand the same from your religion that you expect from Christianity, proof you can see. Yes that is the statement most common from atheists mouths, when I can see God I will believe, you should not expect any difference from me about your religion.
As far as naming professionals on a forum like this and not using written papers is not ethical, you need to grow up little missy.

[Esquilax]

Which is not something you're familiar with. You seem to be quite irritated I don't know why you're being treated the same as you treat Christians and you just laugh at what you try to do to them.

Yawn.

I've provided plenty of scriptural evidence, you're not able to see it because you want to be blind to the truth, that is a pitiful thing, you know less about the scriptures than most here.

You've done what you usually do: make by fiat assertions as to what plainly written english really means, and then when you're questioned even a little you get all haughty and start guffawing about how uneducated the questioner is. But that's not an argument, and "evidence" is very different from "whatever godschild says."

You're hardly ever kind why would I expect you to change.

I'm rarely kind to ignorance.

I understand that the theory has never shown us a transitional form of any kind,

Did you do any research before you opted to declare that? Because, once again, all this is is more proof that you don't understand what evolution even is: all organisms are transitional forms, according to evolution. We are all steps in the process of evolution, additional branches on the tree. Not that I expected you to know this; for someone so eager to get us to study the bible, you're remarkably unwilling to open a biology textbook.

oh I know people have opinions on fossils, but they are just that opinion, no evidence, no proof.

I can't even parse this, it frustrates me so. So, the genetic evidence means nothing to you? The predictive power of evolution, such that we can use it to predict in advance of a fossil dig what kind of creature we'd find in a specific stratographic layer- and be dead on every time- means nothing to you? The constant stream of fossils that confirm the evolutionary lineage of organic life- and the total lack of the same for creationism- means nothing? The living creatures, actually evolving, that I showed to you? All of that's just opinion?

But the shit you spout daily, you want us all to accept that as fact, huh?

You show me a specie in change, I need to see it to believe it, not some magical unseen force that makes one specie another.

I feel like I already know the answer, but did you take up my offer to study what evolution actually is, GC?

I have with some very intelligent professors and scientist

Name them.

I've spent time looking into evolution and find it impossible.

Care to give us all a definition of what evolution is, real quick?

Hey gc, what's an allele?

Just because you can be fooled by those who want anything to be true just so they can dismiss God... well it ain't my fault.

Simply untrue! There are plenty of scientists who still believe in god while fully accepting the fact of evolution. So do numerous ordinary believers. Here's a list.

You've fallen into the trap of the false dichotomy, here: it's not a binary proposition at all. You can be an evolutionist without denying god. However, there is one binary choice at play here: you can be a christian evolutionist, but you can't be a creationist who cares about facts.

Why you are describing your actions toward scripture and God.

I've read the bible, GC. I just disagree with you as to what it means. That doesn't mean I'm ill-educated, but it does mean you're a pompous twat with a huge ego who thinks his word is the only one there is.

How many times have you seriously looked at what mainstream, peer reviewed scientists have to say about evolution?

At least I have enough confidence in what I say and believe that I do not have to revert to the practice in ignorance of name calling.

Nor do I. The name calling is a free seasoning I provide atop the logical smackdown you've been getting all thread.

You were by giving your assumptions that things like that are possible.

Did I? Prove it. I rather think I've been arguing for what evolution actually is, rather than your grotesque strawmen, all this time.

You may be an ape man, however I have a creator in the living God, loved enough to bring me into this world and offer to me salvation.

Funny how your religion treats everyone as fallen sinners destined for hell, then.

Sorry you god of evolution can only offer you death, what a sad way to live.

Now I'll resort to just pure name calling: you're a goddamn idiot, GC.

You purpose a bunch of worthless junk, all the money spent to tell lies when it could have been used to help the needy, at least the church doesn't through good money into dirt holes, we us some of our money to help the needy.

Did you look at my links before you declared my position to be wrong, gc? Did you do some research?

By the way, do you perhaps know about the advances in, say, medicine that our knowledge of evolution has brought about? Know anything about evolutionary algorithms and their uses? Or did you just decide that the theory gives nothing of value without even looking?

Canine is a species and you can not change that, the wolf, fox, wild dogs and domesticated dogs all belong to it. Some may be small, some may be large, fur of different lengths and color, different eye colors, yet they are all canines. They will always be canines and they show no evidence they will ever be anything else, if this is dumb, then what does it make you.

And here, we see an inability to comprehend basic biology: canine isn't a species, you dolt. Canidae, of which the member species are called Canids, is a family classification, two orders above the level of species. You'd still need to drill down through the genus level before you hit a biological definition of a species.

Incidentally, the Canidae family splits into two tribes- Canini for wolf-relations and Vulpini for fox-relations- which shows just how wrong you are. That's why there are different species of wolf; wolf isn't a species on its own, but rather part of a larger taxonomic classification, an umbrella that encompasses numerous species within it.

You are not making arguments, how is it that you can make an argument about such fairy tales, that use some magical action to poof new species from other species. There is no argument against a fairy tale, nor is there an argument for such.

So why keep arguing for the bible?

There's no magic involved here, genius. Just natural selection, winnowing down successful- or at least non harmful- genetic traits over time. Did you even know that? Seriously: how much study have you done into this theory that you're declaring to be false? Do you have a degree in biology?

I nearly did laughing at your assertions, you have presented no proof, you post biased material, you can't even defend it with your own words.

So, the five links I provided you a few pages back are...?

And if you actually went and looked in a biology text book, or an online resource, you'd see it back me up, while giving no credence to your idiocy.

I learn a lot about many things that are not religious, I've learned from professors and scientist about the lie of evolution, I do not need you biased opinions on the matter.

Name them, and watch me tear apart their qualifications bit by freaking bit, because if you show me a scientist that denies evolution, then I will show you a scientist with fake credentials.

You have never offered proof against any passages I've quoted. You want this whole thing to be your side.

The facts are on my side.

Seriously you think I would be fascinated by your fairy tale of delusion.

So are you admitting that you've decided it was wrong before you even looked at what the scientists who believe it say it is? You presupposed it?

Now you are saying you do not know that which you claimed to know, how do you expect to learn if you are not willing to look at the counters against your belief. At least the Christians here take on the challenge of from our critics.

I asked you straight out to link me to the mainstream, peer reviewed papers that you used to come to the conclusion that evolution is wrong. How else can I show a willingness to learn? Since you're clearly well informed about this subject, I'm sure you have numerous real studies and documents showing how evolution is incorrect, I figured you'd be willing to share them.

Why haven't you?

I learned about macro a long time ago by people that are very well educated and know more about the theory than you will ever know.

Name them. And hey, real quick: who coined the term?

I want squirm over a lie, I do not admit to being wrong when I know you are the one who is wrong. Frankly I'm over this, you have no proof, the science you rely on is biased and you're gullible enough to believe it.

How is it biased, gc? Since you've clearly not even read any of it, how do you know?

Additionally, I noticed you skipped over a number of my pertinent questions, like the ones I had about your determination that the Dover trial was biased. Why didn't you answer those? Is it because you didn't have the answers to the basic questions I asked, but the few minutes of research it would have taken to save face and give me the correct ones after the fact was too much work? Is it because you're intellectually lazy, and when you're called on it your favored option was to pile more dishonesty on top of that? Shall I just take it as an admission you were lying out your ass?

Happily, your response here more than clears up the other question I asked, about whether you'd even bothered to check the link I sent you before deciding it was wrong.

You're a liar and a hypocrite, godschild. And now everyone can read and see it for themselves.

Again.

---

As far as naming professionals on a forum like this and not using written papers is not ethical, you need to grow up little missy.

So link us to the papers, dimwit. Even just the abstracts. Enough for us to see you're not just talking out your ass.

But you won't do that, because that would require those experts and their papers to, you know, exist.

[Mystical]

I love it when people call me lil missy and think its a low blow. Missy is my name, after all. Hey GC how do you like being schooled by someone half your age? Follow those link Esqui gave you and you'll get what you're asking for. Irrefuteable proof. Its called that because its irrefuteable. And its proof. You know I started up a thread at reasonablefaith.org and asked who believed in evolution and last I checked: NO ONE voted that evolution isn't fact. You're behind in the times, old dude. Even in your faith circle. Time to man up and do some research.

[DeistPaladin]

Evolution has no factual stance, only stuff made up by those who refuse to acknowledge God.

To those who deny evolution, I'd like to know which part you dispute. By my layman's understanding, there are two parts:

1. Life changes over time.
2. In said changes, traits that are better suited to a given environment are favored over ones that aren't.

That's it, by the way. It's not about how the universe got started. It's not about how life got started. It's not about political ideology, social ideology, moral philosophy, worldviews, etc. It doesn't deny the existence of any god. It doesn't address the question of whether or not or to what degree any god might be involved in the process. It's also not about "better" or "worse" (as commonly thought in our language when we use the term "evolved" in conversation) but rather what suits a given environment.

Evolution is simply the observation that life changes over time in a way that adapts to a given environment.

Creationism disputes point #1. Creationism is not just the belief that a creator got the ball rolling on life but that these beings remained static, in their current form. And yet, we know this isn't true. We need a new flu shot every year because the virus mutates. Scientists can observe changes in micro-organisms because the life cycles are so brief. We've bred dogs from wolves (thus creating a new species). Horse breeding is a big pastime in my state. The Kentucky Derby features horses bred for speed.

The last two examples are what are called "artificial selection", where humans manipulate the process to modify living beings through controlling their environment and breeding. "Natural selection" works the same way but it takes longer. Both are examples of how life changes over time.

Even your own children, if you have any, are not carbon copies of you. They may share traits. There may be a lot of resemblance. But there will also be some differences. Over a very long period of time, these changes will add up. If you can walk a block, you can walk across the country given enough time.

Point #2 is much harder to dispute. It's kind of a no-brainer. Traits that are better suited to a given environment are more likely to survive and get passed on than ones that aren't. Duh.

And the reason all biology scientists accept evolution, and have for almost 100 years, is because the entire field makes no sense without it. It would be like if you could prove Germ Theory (also "just a theory" as some use the expression) to be wrong, most of the field of medical science would make no sense.

[Ryantology]

Everybody knows that germ theory is just a secular lie made up so that we can deny the existence of God by pretending that plagues aren't the righteous justice of God against sinners and people who didn't have the good sense to be born in parts of the world with top-notch medical and sanitation facilities. They actually want us to believe that very tiny microbes cause illness even though this is obviously impossible. What a load of claptrap. Did God ask Adam to name germs when tasked to name the beasts of the world? Did he tell Noah to save two of every "bacteria"? Have you ever even seen a germ? I know I haven't, and I refuse to be led atsray by Satan and his scientists.

Do you think it was vaccines and antiviral treatments which cured my buffalo herpes? Hell no, son. It was three doses of Praise Jesus taken daily.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Post like the four above this one is what derails an OP, people parroting the same ol' tired things, why can't you go to scripture and try to disprove what Christians believe. You expect us to go to science to disprove what you believe about evolution, are we asking anything differently than you are, NO we are not. Many atheist have said to me in the last few days they read and study scripture, if that is so then prove it in conversations you have with Christians.

I don't think anyone is attempting to "disprove" what Christians believe. I don't know that such a thing is possible. Christian beliefs don't seem vulnerable to being empirically disproved, nor do they have any potential of being confirmed by any human faculty. Since this appears to be the situation that Christianity finds itself in, it is inevitable to expect others to simpy point out the absurdities that accompany such beliefs. If I worshiped the Sun, you couldn't prove the claims I make about it wrong, but you would probably find it quite easy to throw out little quips that would draw attention to what you think to be foolish. You can believe whatever you want! I also don't know if asking people to refer to your bible for valid objections is at all a reasonable request. Anymore than I could expect you to refer to my magic sunglasses that allow me to see the Sun's omnipotent state.

From a naturalistic standpoint, it seems quite ridiculous to me that you think the bible to be on equal footing with empirical claims of the observable. The observable and confirmable are there to be seen and do not make pretend to be answers for anything that cannot be confirmed. You believe God to be the answer for the things that science has not yet proved. Why exactly should anyone who rejects your theories to fill gaps of ignorance with God be expected to do anything at all to help you prove what you have not been able to prove with your own claims? That seems quite unreasonable. We reject your Bible as a circular support for your God. If you think that there is merit to your God or your Bible you must establish truth in one or the other before you can expect anyone else to acknowledge them as credible sources of truth. My question to you is quite simple:
How do you know that anything the bible says about things not yet proved by science, are true?

I'm asking you a direct question. Before you can expect me to open your book and even read a sentence of it, you will need to provide a good answer to this question with a solid logical foundation.

[Godscreated]

Evolution has no factual stance, only stuff made up by those who refuse to acknowledge God.

To those who deny evolution, I'd like to know which part you dispute. By my layman's understanding, there are two parts:

1. Life changes over time.
2. In said changes, traits that are better suited to a given environment are favored over ones that aren't.

That's it, by the way. It's not about how the universe got started. It's not about how life got started. It's not about political ideology, social ideology, moral philosophy, worldviews, etc. It doesn't deny the existence of any god. It doesn't address the question of whether or not or to what degree any god might be involved in the process. It's also not about "better" or "worse" (as commonly thought in our language when we use the term "evolved" in conversation) but rather what suits a given environment.

Evolution is simply the observation that life changes over time in a way that adapts to a given environment.

Creationism disputes point #1. Creationism is not just the belief that a creator got the ball rolling on life but that these beings remained static, in their current form. And yet, we know this isn't true. We need a new flu shot every year because the virus mutates. Scientists can observe changes in micro-organisms because the life cycles are so brief. We've bred dogs from wolves (thus creating a new species). Horse breeding is a big pastime in my state. The Kentucky Derby features horses bred for speed.

The last two examples are what are called "artificial selection", where humans manipulate the process to modify living beings through controlling their environment and breeding. "Natural selection" works the same way but it takes longer. Both are examples of how life changes over time.

Even your own children, if you have any, are not carbon copies of you. They may share traits. There may be a lot of resemblance. But there will also be some differences. Over a very long period of time, these changes will add up. If you can walk a block, you can walk across the country given enough time.

Point #2 is much harder to dispute. It's kind of a no-brainer. Traits that are better suited to a given environment are more likely to survive and get passed on than ones that aren't. Duh.

And the reason all biology scientists accept evolution, and have for almost 100 years, is because the entire field makes no sense without it. It would be like if you could prove Germ Theory (also "just a theory" as some use the expression) to be wrong, most of the field of medical science would make no sense.

In all that I did not see where you said one specie changes into a different one, the flu virus adapted to a vaccine, yet it is still a flu virus. domesticated dogs came from wolves yet both are still canines. Natural selection is obvious, it's there so a specie can survive in it's environment, it doesn't need to change into another specie it only needs to adapt to it's changing environment.