Grimber, is your scientific defense of 'science's' lies to attack christianity? I find that peculiar. Kind of a strange way to prove your theory. Your behavior is consistent with something like a faith vs. faith type debate, not science vs. faith. I've been trying to keep this scientific the whole time, and strangely enough the ones on the side of science have been having a hard time keeping focused on science itself.

I don't think I can stomach writing out another long post, but I'll respond to everything you've had to say at some point. Luckily, since most of it is just opinion it shouldn't take too long. I'll just have to avoid getting into the whole, "Oh yeah, well your side did these horrible things" kind of argument.

Quote:

---

evolution is nothing more then random reproduction in masses and sorting of the result. It has nothing to to with apes giving birth to humans.

---

I recommend you do some research into genetics before saying that.

No one has a problem with random changes within animals. That's observable, and its called micro evolution. However, creatures slowly sprouting wings is unprovable, and that's where the problem comes in. We see a lizard without wings, a lizard with wings, and then birds and we say that's evolution. All we've managed to discover are three kinds of distinct species. No record of change.

Quote:

---

white pairs get white babys, black ones black.
Put hundred white and hundred black pairs into a hot climate zone (desert). Let them make babies (huh, sounds like a new verhooven movie ).
If the impact of the sunrays is high enough and there is no other difference between black and white people as a logical consequence the white ones will have a much harder life and die sooner and get harmed by the conditions.
On the long run this means a lot less white people and a bigger percentage black ones.
In any extreme condition one group can die out.

---

This is why people believe evolution. They don't even know what it is.

You've pointed out what's called natural selection. In fact, on the genetic level you've argued against evolution. You start out with the genetics for white skin and the genetics for black skin, and at the end of your experiment you'll (according to you) end up with only black skin. That's called a loss of genetic data. We still have humans, there's no change to something radically different, except those humans just lost the genetic ability to have white skin. How is that evolution?

This is what I mean when I say public school science textbooks destroy critical thinking. I wasn't told how to figure that stuff out, I just know enough common sense to figure out that that's not evolution.

Believe me, though, if it was that easy to observe evolution, then there would be no point for a debate.

I'll be back soon, but until then...