Then you believe in something that is impossible which is irrational.
No, I’m an atheist. ;).
You said that evolutionists assume that there is no God. This is incorrect.
Correct me if I’m wrong but evolutionary science does not operate under the premise that there is a god.
No worries. I just reread my post to you and it was…considerably snarkier sounding than I had intended, so I apologize for that.
The moth example is actually a very interesting one because it illustrates that shifting allele frequency, either through selection or genetic drift, is the underlying mechanism of evolution. Small shifts create population structure and eventually accumulate to the point of reproductive isolation. The moths were probably started down the road to speciation (I must admit that I don’t know what happened to them after the industrial revolution) - eventually the light moths would only breed with other light ones, and the dark with other dark.
The problem with this, as in so many examples, is the fundamental misunderstandings of evolution. A creationist will look at that example and say “there is no speciation - the variation already existed”, despite the fact that selection acts on variations that *are *present in the population (either they are already there or they appear by mutation).
This is a great illustration of the misunderstandings of evolution - there are no impossible leaps, that is an idea promoted by creationists as ‘irreducible complexity’ or The Watchmakers Paradox. But there is no paradox - tiny changes have added up over millions of years to form all the organisms on Earth. Creationists see all living things as perfectly formed by God, but the truth is that there may be lots of other forms that would excel in our environment but never appeared because the genetic variation or mutation never came up to allow them to exist.
To get back to the topic of the thread - creationists deny evolution either because they don’t understand the whole theory, resulting in misunderstandings, or because they listen to the very vocal creationists that exploit those common misunderstandings to convince others.
Yes. Neither does physics, chemistry or medicine. But none of them assume that there is no God. Are you ready to withdraw your accusation?
I am aware of the above and the counter theories, critical thinking would tell a person that they don’t hold water.
But to the above one thing I never heard satisfactorily explained in evolution theory is the development of gender where the same organs either become a ‘impregnation unit’ or a ‘unit to be impregnated’.
My argument is that evolution needs a god (because it need miracles) therefore if proven evolution becomes proof of a god.
But your accusation was that “evolutionists” (whatever they are) assume that there is no god. You’ve been given examples of people who accept evolution and don’t assume that there is no god, so please admit your error.
Why do you suppose we have knees and spines suited to four-legged locomotion, which almost inevitably end up causing us pain? Why do we have tailbones and occasionally rudimentary tails? Why do whales have rudimentary pelvic bones?
Why is it that when guppies are bred in one river, with predators, each generation becomes less colourful, while if they are bred in another river, without predators, they become more colourful (the Endler experiment, mentioned earlier)?
Evolutionary science has the premise that there is no god, and founded the theory of evolution and that aspect does support my premise.
If you include guided evolutionist along with evolutionists then I will admit that the correction and clarification is needed.
Say what? There’s good reasons for such a system to evolve. For example, specialization has its benefits; a hypothetical alternative human species that had the size & muscles of a male with the reproductive system of a female would require bigger internal organs to support both at once, and extra food to fuel it all. Another likely reason is to prevent the mixing of mitochondria; having a mitochondria providing gender and one that provides none prevents destructive competition between varying strains of mitochondria (IIRC a variety of slime mold has something like 5000 genders, all arranged in a hierarchy of which donates mitochondria, and which doesn’t). And of course, there’s simple chance; there are hermaphroditic and female only species after all.
No; it says nothing about whether gods of any kind exist or not. It does however make them unnecessary to explain the complexity of life, which is why the believers have always hasted it.
Can you find me a textbook that says “Before we start learning about evolution, you need to assume there’s no God?”
Why do Christians, Jews, and Muslims accept evolution, and you don’t? Is your God different from theirs?
Basic design. How often is computer code for a OS truly scrapped and totally re-written, instead of added on to.
Animal behavior mimics human behavior to help us see thing better, just as Jesus used parables ‘father’ God uses them also. It a situation where the people are not oppressed by others they can really shine and develop their talents. In a oppressive society people become dull slaves, never reaching their full potential.
Perhaps he’s talking about the imaginary theory of evolution in which women and men evolve seperately for millions of years, and just happen to be able to mate later on? (If you think I’m making up this nonsense, you’d be wrong - see here for an example of this http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/its_a_conspiracy_1.php)
Silly rabbit, god is not allowed in public schools anymore. 
Not sure about Muslims, but normally Christians and Jews believe in a God activate in this world and in total control of it. So if they accept evolution is would be a God designed system.
I see - you believe in a limited God that humans can restrict from particular places. Members of the Abrahamic religions don’t believe in such a limited deity, but I have no objection if you do.
So Christian and Jewish “evolutionists” do not assume that there is no God; therefore it’s untrue to claim that all evolutionists make this assumption. I accept your correction.
Evolution doesn’t work like that and I know you know better, it’s not like this will be better if we did it this way lets make the change, it whoops that was a mistake, lets see how it works. You are describing intelligently guided evolution, while trying to use that to defend unguided evolution.
Nonsense. People can pray and talk about gods on their own time; the schools just aren’t allowed to ram their favored religion down the kid’s throat. They could teach a comparative religions class, but the believers like yourselves would freak out at anything that wasn’t a one sided indoctrination for your particular One true Way; so the schools just dodge the matter.
There’s no intelligent guidance in anything I said.
I think a comparative religion class would be a great thing to offer, I wish they did.