Creation science

"God's hand is in EVERYTHING. He doesn't let anything go.
Sure, he gave us free will, but he didn't do this to see what
would happen. He knew what would happen. That's the way God works"

Then your god's hands are quite bloodied...


"You either believe in God or evolution, the two CANNOT co-exist"

Then you should talk to those who believe in the two. I can't help
you here unfortunately.
Your categoric denial I guess does come from a literal reading of
your bible. We may have to adress the consequences of this later...


"Are you a Nihilist?"

No.
What would make you say that? Because I find impossible mathematically
to calculate some complex event?
I'm not a nihilist. But I am a mathematician. This is my field, this
is my turf. If one want to step in and propose anything touching
mathematics, including probability theory, then be sure that I know
how to evaluate this or that argument.


"you linked to an article that makes me sick"

I am glad you are of that opinion; made me sick too.
And I do respect your position where you say that these opinions from
these people may (or are) not related to their "scientific" articles
(quotes mine).
One could, indeed, consider their model only by itself, independently
from the purient filth they expurgate in their other "non-scientific"
articles. That does take some strength of will.
But do consider (by reading again?) that my counter-arguments given
in this thread are based on the content of their model, not the content
of their other articles.


"There is a lot of evidence of change within species, but there is
no evidence that we came from bacteria, apes, etc."

There is not, and never will be, any direct evidence that will
point a common descendant between bacteria, apes, man, x-man, etc...
However, to sustain a theory, scientists try to gather a batterie of
evidences.
Common building blocks is one such evidence. It is not a sufficient
evidence, but it is one of many that scientists/evolutionists build up
in support of what they claim. These common building blocks are the
nucleic acids that make what is called the dna. Every living being
has its own dna, made with the same building blocks. Moreover, when
studying this dna from different species, apart from the differences
seen, there are striking similarities... especially in closely related
species. And even in what evolutionists claim as distant species from
the same "branch", incredible similarities can be seen in some of the
enzymes (wich depend on the dna to be made). But from species in
different "branches", there are no such similrities in these enzymes.
Now, what a coincidence!
And how does evolutionists try to explain that? Genetical inheritance that
spread across species from common ancestors.
And how does creationists explain that? The Matrix... Heu... God made it
that way from the begining...
But why would god make it so that closely related species (eg apes and
man, according to evolutionists) have so much similarities that are not
shared with unrelated species (eg birds in this example)? Well, I'll
let Tater and MrQB answer that.

There are so much of these "coincidences" and marvels that we find in
nature, that do point to close relations between species; marvels hidden
deep inside each cells, in the molecules that are in us.
Complexities in different species that point to each other...
And how does evolutionists try to explain that? Common ancestries,
inherited traits, evolution.
And how does creationists explain that? Same old story: god did it
that way, and god does work in mysterious ways, so there's no point
of trying to understand how and why it was done that way.

I, personally, cannot accept that kind of answer from creationists.


"And how can we have a debate if you won't accept that I am discussing
a science?"

That, Tater, is part of the debate.


"You're Matrix idea is flawed. Only you believe in it."

Is that your argument? A theory is flawed because only one person believes
in it?
Show me the flaw(s). Bring down that Matrix scenario. Proved me that it
isn't true. You'll be surprised at the arguments that I'll come up with to
defend it; it will probably be a song you have heard already.


"so how'd you come up with you're religion?"

I explained that in my description already. I'll repeat it here:
It was Revealed to me.


"It's illogical, my religion isn't."

What exactly is illogical in it? And what is logical in virgin birth,
for example?


"I truely believe that denial of God's existance comes from insecurity,
not from science"

You yourself said "If I was desended from an ape that would mean
there was no God, no heaven, no hell. So who gives a damn if I go splat,
I don't matter anyways." So, from this, it would rather seem that it
is insecurity that generates acceptance of god...


"Any of you formiliar with this clown [Kant]?"

I haven't read much Kant, so I can't comment on him.
But what if some person did like Kant a lot, supported his opinions?
If Kant is a clown, what would this make that person?
When above you said: "QB and juntel, you've both moved dangeriously
close to this...", let me tell you Tater that there are subtile
way to get "dangerously close to this", and your way about
Kant was one. When I get "dangerously close" to something,
I do it directly... with a touch of sarcasm, yes (this is a flaw of mine,
I know... mea culpa, mea ultima culpa...).