And thanks Joozey.

I've yet to find ANY work of literature that doesn't use expressions, metaphors, and the likes. And the Bible definitely isn't an exception. We also lose a LOT in translations, and then have different sects wildly misinterpret the things they read. I don't belong to ANY sect of Christianity. Not Catholic, not Baptist, not Mormon... I'm just a plain old Christian. I read the Bible for myself, and often look at literary research about how things were translated from Hebrew, to get a better idea of what the original authors really meant. It's stunning how different that can be from what we consider the "standard" English Bible. For instance, it's believed by many scholars now that the "Red Sea" God parted during the Exodus is actually a mistranslation of the real name, "Reed Sea". It was actually a large lake full of reeds, not a "sea" as we think of it. Lots of interesting things like that.

I also do not, and will not, attend any church. I gave up on that years ago. Every church I've seen tends to be strongly oriented towards money. They constantly preach about how it is your "God ordained duty" to "tithe/donate" to the church. Total BS. I also don't feel like I need another person or organization between me and God. I don't need another man to interpret the Bible or "God's Will" for me. And virtually every religious sect has teachings and doctrines which are totally counter-biblical, or have nothing to do with the Bible.

"Indeed, but as we keep trying to point out, science is not done yet! We've just started to understand the genes and mechanics within micro-organisms. How can you judge science so fast, while not giving a chance to prove itself? Wouldn't that be only fair? Or are you afraid that we might discover how it all works in the near future? There's no need to deny anything, just adapt the God theory again. Eventually we'll find the answer together."

I'm not "judging science". I actually love science. The thing I have a problem with is theories which are still totally unproven are taken to be absolute fact. Especially evolution in its entirety. Evolution is a few concrete facts that act as the base for total speculation. Yet far too many people deem it "almighty truth", and attempt to belittle people of religious convictions when they too are relying upon faith in their own unproven beliefs. I must give you credit for being reasonable and respectful though.

"Totally rejectable, a plastic digital alarm clock will never spontaneously be created just by loose elements present in the universe. It can not happen in an infinite amount of time UNLESS, unless some higher form creates it."

You've hit the nail on the head! That's the point I meant to convey. But even the simplest of living organisms are infinitely more complex than anything mechanical, electrical, or digital. Our bodies are incomprehensibly more complex than the computers we're communicating with. And that was my point. We have no evidence that any form of life can be created without outside influence of a conscious being. And crazy as it sounds, it is statistically more likely a mechanical object could be created naturally than a single celled organism. Weird, but true.

"You seem to be making no point out of this one. First, frogs do not mutate in a bird, because they are both from a different branch of evolution going way way way back. And yes, mutations CAN BE bad. Albinism isn't a nice thing. Yet it only emphatizes how nature is NOT perfect, thus another evidence how it is NOT created by a perfect God."

I know exactly how the theory of evolution is said to work. I've had to study it before. I was just demonstrating a concept with a rather extreme example, using a little dry humor. However, the idea that "since the world isn't perfect, God doesn't exist" is way off. There would be no point in God creating a "perfect" world or any sort of perfection in nature. What would be the point of existence? A good way to relate it to something else would be games, tv/movies, and books. Would you play a game that had no "struggle" or "plot"? Watch such a movie/show? Or read such a book? Of course not! Virtually every religion is based upon the concept that this world and this life is a test or trial. If anything was meant to be perfect, this world would not exist. We would just be in heaven now, lol. I think life is a wonderful gift, no matter where you think it came from. It's the imperfection and "struggle" in our existence which makes it beautiful. I feel that without knowing the imperfection and troubles of this world, we could never appreciate the absolute perfection of heaven. We would almost be like those spoiled rich kids that annoyed you in grade school, with no appreciation of how fortunate they are.

"A fish can not become a bird, correct. But one, a genome has no property named flexibility. And two, if sufficient proper genes are hit by radiation or miscopied RNA, the animal will transform into a slightly different being. And animals don't live near as long as we do. A salamander lives about 7 years. Let's see, 488 million years ago life has exploded onto land, let's assume an ancestor of our salamander lived back then. So, 14 million generations, let's say one on four has undergone a slight mutation, visible or not. Then, 3.5 million mutations are not enough to make a four legged Cambrian being look like the salamander as we know it now? Then I think you do not realise how fast evolution CAN handle, if forced."

Genomes certainly do have a "flexibility" property. It's all too evident to people who breed animals. For instance, the canis genome is far more flexible than that of a cow or horse. Look at the diversity among canines; wolves, coyotes, foxes, and thousands of breeds of dogs taking radically different sizes, shapes, and properties. With something like a cow, we really only have control over color, a tiny degree of control over their size, and some other extremely minute differences. This is because the canis genome is very "flexible", receptive to changes, while the cow's (don't know scientific name) is not.

And yes, a salamander CAN become a new type of salamander. Given enough time, a tiny lizard could adapt into a gigantic, dinosaur-like reptile, provided it is in some way beneficial to its survival, or we have the time to breed them that way. Some scientists are actually planning experiments through gene manipulation to do just that, in hopes they can learn more about dinosaurs. However, NO amount of time and developmental stages can turn that little lizard into a mammal. It may be possible to make it bird-like, but you can't even produce a real bird from a reptile. We have no evidence that reptiles/dinosaurs "evolved" into birds. Now some people are going to shout, "What about Archaeopteryx!!!". But it was a primitive bird, NOT a 1/2 dino, 1/2 bird creature. The similarities are there, and it MAY be possible (to some extent), but we have no proof. But no matter what, you'll just never get a mammal. Maybe someday we'll discover things that show us the truth, but we currently have no facts to back such theories to this extremity. That's my whole point here.

"Laboratory may have simulated hundreds of years of generations with fruitflies (millions of years don't make sense. A fruitfly lives between 37 and 110 days. So that'd be 27 thousand years of research) but a fruitfly is already quite advanced. A fly has not been evolved much since the dawn of insects. It could very well be that the fly simply can not change anymore."

The actual lifespan is not what's important, but the speed of the reproductive cycle. The "house fly" has an even shorter lifespan, only 10-25days, and is also used commonly in experimentation. Yes, millions of years have been simulated, because we are artificially accelerating the process exponentially. We're keeping them in a confined area and artificially applying the changes we want on a small scale, which could take hundreds to thousands of years naturally. We're also physically manipulating the genes outside of natural reproduction, and even forcing mutations that are impossible naturally. If the current consensus on evolution is correct, ANY organism can change/evolve. There would be no such thing as an organism that "can't change anymore". And we can't forget, such experimentation is carried out on all kinds of creatures. Single celled organisms like bacteria offer an even further increased rate of "evolutionary simulation". Many have a reproductive cycles measured in minutes or hours. But, we can't produce anything radically different; just slight variations from our starting point.

"You keep thinking that dogs evolve into monkeys and fishes, but that's not how evolution works."

I know, it's an example. I know of all the stages that are supposed to be between things like this, but it would be impractical for me to list every one of them and all of the respective branches. Especially considering the fact that most of these "branches" are hypothetical, and no evidence supports the idea that they ever existed.

And well, you can say the universe having a beginning is unproven and this is just a cycle, but even this series of cycles has to have a beginning if anything we know about physics is true. If it doesn't, practically all physics become untrue, and we know nothing.

"Nicely put smile I can settle with that. But why were you fiddling with the "how" in this whole post? Why not just be content that God exists, and that we're here for a reason, but the reason has yet to be found? And let science filter all the truths and lies... because like you said, science explains the "how"."

I'm not fiddling with the how. I'm simply pointing out that we accept many things today as unquestionable scientific truth that indeed are unproven and only hypothetical. Therefore I'm hoping to emphasize the fact that the animosity and even hatred between many atheists and religious people is totally unnecessary, for we are more similar than we might want to believe.