Yes , Larry , I am familiar with your genetics algorith experiments with gamestudio , so I can see why you root for evolution , however , none of this explains the hardest part , the beggining , and the fact that it is proposed it takes millions of years for evolution to happen.

"It's a lot to ask for someone to make him believe that molecules HAPPENED to get combined in such a way that a fish was created"
I think it's a lot more to ask than that. Re-read my post about how we still cant combine those molecules you say combined themselves.

"and it so happened that there's smaller organisms in the sea that the fish can digest just fine and later lay EGGS to re-produce more fish"
Right , organisms that all created themselves right ?

"expecting that if we leave that monkey typing for a few billion years, eventually it will come up with a Shakespeare play. It's not going to happen"
A billion years , wouldnt he have evolved by then ? Written all of shake'spears plays , invented a camcorder , written and made movies , created a computer with artificial intelligence which could write plays for him , created a space ship and maybe ventured into the universe ?

"there is a very important rule that filters the random probability into meaningful results and 'flawless' designs. That rule is called 'survival of the fittest' which means that if a design is not 'fit' then it will be discarded"
None of this explains why an animal would evolve to another one , this would only work if you were talking about an animal refining itself over millions of years to be the most perfect animal it could be , but of course , of its kind. Why would an animal evolve to a different animal ? Shouldnt he evolve to perfect itself ? But this is not what we see ,we just see a TON of species everywhere , some related , some not. You cant just base your whole theory on the fact that humans and monkeys look similar.

"I read your post and your questions and I think that all of your objections to evolution seem to originate from the same root"
You might have missed a lot of my points , it wasnt that I dont buy evolution can do that , well I dont , but , the problems the scientists have failed to answer with the theory. And , you did not provide one answer to any of the points , you just repeated what the text books on evolution say.

"I ask from 5 people to guess what my first name"
Did this 5 people create themselves as well ?

You know , you take the most important and fact in the matter so lightly ,

"It's a lot to ask for someone to make him believe that molecules HAPPENED to get combined in such a way that a fish was created"

You say it like it's no big deal , well it just happened , who knows how but it happened , lets get on with the theory , LOL , well isnt that easy , that "somehow molecules just combined" isnt a small step in evolution , it is it's founnduation , a VERY important principle in evolution , one which bares the HUGE problem of us not being able to "combine" as you so lightly put it this molecules ourselves , and scientists HAVE tried , but can't do it , yet you say it like it's a fact but since you know there is no evidence or proof of it and it doesnt make sense you barely touch the subject then move on to your explanation of how this works. This "Evolution" CANNOT work if molecules cannot bind themselves to form living cells by themselves, and since we cannot bind them ourselves , scientific evidence is then pointing towards the fact that this cannot happen , which means evolution cannot be right.

Take note people reading , this is how they fool people , they briefly touch tha sensitive and most relevant aspects of evolution , and just say it happened somehow , and continue to their more complete explanation of how evolution works , but without that first block in place , the whole theory collapses , so they are smart to evade the subject.

Oxy , even though you kind of understand evolution , your answer is very very basic and doesn't even remotely try to answer any of the problems I mentioned with evolution , again , just restates the theory.

@fastlane

I know you are mocking me , but I will answer your question , there are already other theories out there, there is Intelligent Design and Creationism , they all teach our world through science but instead of teaching the big bang or evolution they teach creation .

As I said before , evolution should be taught side by side with intelligent design , or none should be taught , since they both are good theories , and of course they both have some problems with them , but none outweighs the other ( well actually ID outweighs evolution , but I'm being fair).