5 For the living are conscious that they will die; but as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all, neither do they anymore have wages, because the remembrance of them has been forgotten. ⁶ Also, their love and their hate and their jealousy have already perished, and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun.

Yet another contradiction.  Do we live forever in heaven/hell?  Or do we cease to exist?

see? simple and sweet.

WHAT?!?  WHAT WAS THAT, YOU TAINT LICKING PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL?!?  You think you're gonna prove a point to the faithful with ONE little scripture?  As I've said, the bible is FULL of such fodder.  Quoting a single passage will do exactly DICK to make people take this rant seriously.  If this was a joke, well done.  If you were serious, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to ask you to put your head in the stove and turn the gas on.

and yet some bibles have anootations saying that solomon was not speaking the truth... uh huh.. these assholes dont know what they are talking about. 

Neither do you.

no wonder the world starts to heave their bibles out of the window in exchange for a breath of fresh air...

Yeah, when has THIS ever happened?!?  The piecemeal enlightenment of the masses has only taken place, in earnest, within the last century.  The majority are still as medieval-minded and superstitious as their great, great, great, great, great, great grandparents.  Are you honestly trying to say that we're in the midst of some kind of anti-god revolution?  Yes, the accessibility of more and more knowledge is making headway, but that's happening within a very intellectually elite, very educationally privileged, segment of the population.  I can't believe you said this.  My wolverine minions are on their way to your house right now.  They will destroy you, Flounder, only to spare your younger sister for the game of hide-and-go-fuck I mentioned earlier.

okay... now that the relegeous people have been given the abbreviated form of my asswhupin

Uh, huh...  You really laid the smack down, tiger.

(i can issue more beatings later if you would like to learn more about the origin of your doctrines)

It's hard to imagine that anyone could take such another beating, but, I'm game.  Please, send me your resources.

it is time to give evolutionists the EXPANDED form of it.

Oh crap...  Not the EXPANDED form...  I think I could endure the regular brand, but no one said anything about it being EXPANDED...  I quit.

listen carefully, mr. biologist mike... i know a thing or too myself.

You know exactly shit, Flounder...  Well, not EXACTLY shit, because such knowledge would only come with a firm grasp on the biological mechanics of defecation.  Hmmm...  Okay, assuming you've actually taken a dump before, I'll say you know exactly as much as the corn-laden turds that plummet from your rectum.

On one side of the issue are some learned scientists and academics, often using very technical language, who insist that if you are educated and intelligent,  you must accept the theory of evolution as fact. 

First of all, learned scientists and academics don't INSIST on jack fucking crap.  If they're truly learned, then- when asked- they'll merely present the mechanics as they exist, and then back them up with the evidence, AS IT EXISTS.  Science never has to be forced down your throat because the data speaks for itself.  You don't have to be intelligent to understand it, but you DO have to be educated.  Try explaining DNA to a primal tribesman from jungles of South America, and you'll start to understand the correlation.  You have to have a base education in the way science works, to understand it.  You, Flounder, do not understand it. 

On the other hand are some equally overbearing religeonists who use emotionally charged rhetoric to say that if you have genuine "faith", you must agree with their brand of creationism.

This statement is true, but you're a fucktard to compare the two.  Empirically based evidence is the separating factor between the factions you've outlined, and while scientists believe because the data forces them too, the religious believe because they need to on account of faith.

Such extremist vewipoints alienate many reasonable people.

Neither is extremist, Flounder.  Both are the norm for their respective tools.  The true difference lies in said tools, and you don't know the difference.

the question of god's existence deserves much better than smug, dogmatic assertions.

RIGHT HERE!!!  RIGHT HERE!!!  THIS IS WHERE YOU SHOW YOUR TRUE COLORS!!!  Flounder, you ass, science (evolution included) has nothing to do with the existence of god.  (Oh, and which "god" is that, you Christian-centric moron?  There are as many gods as there are people who worship them.)  Science deals with the natural world, not the supernatural world.  That's what people like you have so hard a time understanding.  Science has NEVER sought to disprove the existence of deities.  Why?  Because deities dwell beyond the realm of science.  We deal with empirical evidence, PERIOD!!!  There's no evidence of the divine, thus, there's nothing to examine nor test.   

Remember, the question involves more than a subject for debate, more than an intellectual excersise.... it involves the entire world.

Fuck you, you fucking child!  This statement is unworthy of my time.  This is not a question science asks, this is a question religion asks.

As we have seen, there are much more than a few reputable, educated scientists who sat that evidence points to the existence of an intelligent creator.

Yeah?  Like who?  Who has evidence for such?  Not pseudo-science- there's plenty of that.  But real data, data that can be tested.  Site you sources, dipshit.  That's what reputable, educated scientists do.

A few still go further. they question the scientific integrity of their collegues who dogmatically dismiss the existence of god.  case in point--- geophysicist John R Baumgardner notes : " In the face of such stunningly unfavorable odds, how could any scientist  with a sense of honesty appeal to chance interactions as the explanation for the complexity we observe in living systems? To do so, with conscious awareness of these numbers, it represents a severe breach of scientific integrity."

Again, nobody dismisses the existance of the supernatrual.  There's just no evidence for it, and thus, it lies beyond the strict and self-correcting paramaters of the scientific method.  Quote starry-eyed fence-straddlers to your heart's content, but such men are merely reaching for a supernatural explaination for that which is not, at present, definable.  Always keep in mind, Flounder, people WANT to believe in gods and unicorns and loch ness monsters and extrasterials, and humanity is the biggest obstacle to the scientific method.  The method itself, however, is beyond such things.  I said it before and I'll say it again, you do not understand science.  Science has no problem saying that something is "unknown."  The other camp has no problem assigning a supernatural value to the same.  See the difference?

Now thats coming from a man with about 15 years of college behind him, not an overzealous church-goin no-alchohol no-pleasure bible-thumper.

Foolish boy.  Find your own answers.  Don't quote those you think are greater men.  Have you ever met John R. Baumgartner?

i also find it interesting that you poke fun at people who accept fairy tale saying that anything supernatural is possible, yet when faced with staggering scientifically calculated odds against the solidity of evolution (which i will reasearch in a second) you would blindly beleive perforated, unsubstantiated ideas for the sake of "science"... yep. thats real scientific. ok...

I don't "blindly" accept anything.  I, like most scientists, go with the evidence.  We don't have a choice.  We don't get to choose what we believe.  Whether we like it or not, if we can't back it up, it isn't reliable.

lets take the evolutionary theory of reproduction... Complexity  is especially evident when living organisms have complex parts that would be usless without other complex parts.

As is apparent in the paragraphs that follow, you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about.

According to evolutionaty theories, living things continued to reproduce as they became ever more complex. 

Huh?  This is not an evolutionary theory.

At some stage, though, the female of a number of species  had to develop  reproductive cells  requiring fertilization by a male with complemetary reproductive cells.

Nope, not even close.  And what's horribly frustrating for me, as the teacher here, is that you don't know enough for me to explain WHY you're not even close.  Keep in mind though, there are hundreds of thousands of asexual species on this planet, hundreds of thousands that are neither male, nor female.

In order to suppply the proper number of chromosones to the offspring, each parent's reproductive cells undergo a remarkable process called meiosis, whereby cells from each parent are left half the usual number of chromosones. this prevents the offspring from having too many chromosones.

Again, this statement applies only to sexually reproducing organisms.  Regardless, there's no such thing as too many chromosomes, at least not in the context of the point your trying to make. 

Of course, the same process would have been needed  for other species. How, then, did the "first mother" of each species become capable of reproducing wuth a fully developed "first father?"

There's was no "first" mother or "first" father.  Evolution is slow, taking millions upon millions of years.  Like any other trait, sexual reproduction occured gradually, natural selection favoring it over asexual reproduction through countless generations.  There are still organisms on this planet right that utilize both.  You are making simplistic, layman argeuments for an incredibly complex process that you don't understand. 

How could both of them have suddenly been able to halve the number of chromosones in their reproductive cells in a manner needed to produce  a healthy offspring with some characteristics of both parents?

They couldn't- it wasn't "sudden" at all.  There was no Adam and Eve amoeba.  FUCK!!!  I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.  Individuals do not evolve, populations do.

And if these reproductive features developed graduallly, how would the male  and female of each species have survived while such vital features were still only partially formed?

Because, initially, they weren't vital.  The survival requisites of a species change over time with respect to its environment, which is why all higher organisms have residual organs.  You don't need your tonsils, nor your appendix, but you still have 'em.  Why?  Because your ancestors farther down the evolutionary chain needed them.  By that same token, early, single-celled organisms might have been able to reproduce sexually, but they didn't necessarily HAVE TO because they could still reproduce asexually as well.  Again, there are species that still do this.

I'm giving a first-grade-level analogy here because I don't think you could follow anything else.

In even a single species, the odds against this reproductive interdependance coming about by chance  are beyond measuring. The chance that it arose in one species after another (trillions!) defies reasonable explanation.

This is an amazingly unfounded statement.  Please site the source of this statistical data.  Moreover, what variables are examined to formulate the "odds" you're talking about?  You have not idea, do you?

Evolutionists trying to explain that little hole will simply ask for you to give them alittle more time to go back to the drawing table and imagine up an explanation.... kinda like a preist explaining the trinity.

This "little hole" is one of your own design, Flounder.  This is what happens when you build point after point on nothing, which is EXACTLY what priests explaining the trinity do.  They start out with an unproven, baseless paragon, and then articulate arguments for it.  This is not science.  While evolution itself is an overwhelmingly established certainty, any gaps in its specie-specific mechanics are classified as "unknown".  Scientists don't try to "explain away" these unknowns, they simply forge on with the scientific method until sufficient knowledge is gained to change "unknown" into "known".  By the way, I'm not aware of any gaps in evolutionary theory.  Give specific examples if you have them.

back to the point,

So far, you have no point whatsoever.  You don't know enough basic biology to have one.

can a theoretical process of evolution explain such complexity? how could accidental, random  purposless events  result in such intricatley interrelated sysytems?

The occurrence of a global ecosystem is easily explained.  You see, THAT'S THE ONLY WAY IT COULD HAPPEN!  Yes, randomness plays a huge part, (at least in the formation of the planets), but we've carried out experiments that yield life from no life, or at least, the formation of amino acid chains from inert compounds.  If it wasn't as random as it is, ours wouldn't be the only planet with life, (so far).

Living things are full of characteristics  that show evidence of foresight and planning--- pointing to an intelligent planner. 

HORSESHIT!!!  Living things are full of unneeded characteristics, things called "neutral" manifestations that are neither beneficial nor harmful to the survival of the organism.  More than 90% of the DNA in the nuclei of each of your cells is "junk" DNA.  It doesn't code for anything, it doesn't direct protein synthesis.  The reason?  Because we (and I'm talking about humans here) have leftover crap from all the varied and uncountable ancestral species we evolved from.  And guess what, every other species on the planet shares this distinction. 

Besides, we're not put together that well.  Constant mutation, (which is the key to adaptive change), occurs all the time, and mostly with either neutral or HARMFUL results.  Our cellular mechanisms are always fucking up, which is why we're so relatively frail.  We are the way we are because of the absolute LEAST amount of beneficial traits.  Anything below that line, dies by natural selection.  Technology has changed this certainty somewhat, (thanks, Science!), but the truth is right there.  If we WERE designed by an omnipotent creator, then he did a piss poor job.

in fact many scholars have come to such a conclusion. For example, mathematician William A. Dembski wrote that the "intelligent design" evident in "observable features of the natural world... can be adequatley explained only by recourse to intelligent causes." Molecular biochemist Michaek Behe sums up the evidence this way: "You can be a good catholic and beleive in darwanism. Biochemistry has made it increasingly difficult, however, to be a thoughtful scientist and beleive in it."

By the way, discounting evolution doesn't give evidence for a creator.  This is one of the great fallacies of religious people.  There's no evidence for supernatural beings.  Saying something is untrue, doesn't lend truth to something else. 

"but john!! fossils! fossils! fossils!!"

Of the three main evidence bases for evolution, the first two being observation and genetic comparison/embryology, the fossil record is the LEAST integral to the mechanics as we understand them.

fossils, eh? funny you mention that.

I find your smuggness akin to a five-year-old bragging about the existance of the tooth-fairy based on the fact that his recently lost molor was not under his pillow the next morning.  You make me sad, Flounder.  Not because you're ignorant, (most of the world is), but because you're so fucking arrogant about it. 

If evolution occured over aeons of time, we should expect to find a host of intermediate organisms, or links, between the major types of living things.

Wrong.  There's no such thing as an "intermediate" per say, because evolving organisms are in a CONSTANT state of transition.  It doesn't happen in readily definable stages, it happens gradually, and over eons.

However, countless fossils unearthed since darwins's time have proved dissapointing in that respect.

Name one.  Oh, you can't?  Well, allow me to retort.  The Piltdown man was exposed as a fake ONLY because it didn't fit into the GRADUAL transition I mentioned earlier.  It fit the bill (so to speak) with respect to your uneducated arguement, but it failed with respect to the rest of the evidence.

the missing links are not only missing, but noexistent.

This is true and false, because there are no "links".  I doesn't work that way.

A number of scientists have therefore concluded that the evidence for evolution is too weak and contradictory to prove that life evolved.

Aerospace engineer Luther D, Sutherland wrote in his book DARWINS ENIGMA:

"The scientific evidence shows that whenever any basically different type of life first appeared on earth, all the way from single celled protozoa to man, it was complete and its organs and structures were fully functional.

This statement by Sutherland is either a wanton lie, or just a gross misunderstanding.  It doesn't even resemble fact.  Organisms did not spring up complete.

The inescapable conclusion to be drawn from this fact is that there was some sort of pre-existing intelligence before life first appeared on earth."

Again, no.  Discounting evolution doesn't lend evidence to a creator.

On the other hand, the fossil record closley matches the general order of the appearance of living forms found in the bible book of genesis.

Wow!  What an remarkable bag of pig shit.  In Genesis, land animals were created together in a day, as were sea dwelling creatures. 

 Donald e. chittick, a physical chemist who earned a doctorate degree at oregon state university comments: " A direct look at the fossil record would lead one to conclude  that animals  reproduced after their own kind as genesis states. They did not change from one kind into another. The evidence now,  as in darwin's day, is in agreement with the genesis record of direct creation. Animals and plants CONTINUE to preproduce after their own kind. In fact, the conflict between paleontology and darwanism is so strong that some scientists are willing to beleive that the in-between forms will never be found."

This is simply not true.  Organisms still evolve, even to this day.  I can take you into a lab and SHOW YOU THIS with a fast reproducing species, such as the Fruit Fly.

That is an interesting point. if oragnisms did indeed involve, why have species of plants and animals continued to reproduce consistently and exactly the way they always have been since as long as man can remeber?

They DO continue to evolve, and so do we.  Oh, and as far back as man can remember is but a millisecond in the grand scheme of life on earth.  This is a child's arguement.

If they did evolve, what has caused them to suddenly stop? what stimulus is the difference between evolving and not evolving? im listening... you tell me.

Again, evolution continues as we speak.

The foregoing evidence represents just the tip of the iceburg of ananswered questions that puzzle  those who dismiss the evidence of a creator.

WHAT EVIDENCE?!? 

when solid research and evidence flow right along with direct and purposeful creation, evolutionists put themselves through hell trying to disprove science itself. as more research is unveiled, old evolutionary theories fall to the wayside to new ones that have to constantly change;

This statement is, like most of your crap, simply untrue.

a perpetual cycle of lies that must be renewed to keep itself alive.

Science has no motivation to lie.  It is self-correcting.

Some scientists realize that the rejection of God is a path paved, not by hard evidence and careful logic, but by hopeful assumptions and conjectures.

Which "God" are we talking about again?

my point is that i see you consistantly using the doctrines of christendom as ammo to disprove the existence of god. however, that is like taking a pile of dog shit and using it to critisize the taste of cheescake.

Huh?

its easy as hell (forgive the pun) to pick on those self-righteous losers....

Like yourself?  Yes, it is.

but a little harder to agrue with scientists who are repeadedly showing you that the molecular, chemical, and biological sides of this good earth reveal a complexity and an order that cannot come about by chance. spontanious events produce chaos and disorder... not the intracatley fine-tuned universe that we live in.

The universe is far from fine tuned. 

so, on your homepage, you said that "unless you are a genius, i am smarter than you." although i see the IQ system as nothing but an ego-booster for  people, i will use this paper in my hand telling of my 130 to command some weight to my words.

Intelligence has no correlation with wisdom, young man.  You've repeatedly shown that you haven't the foggiest clue what you're talking about.  You WANT to believe in whatever God you follow, and so you seek out individuals with the same motivation- a motivation which utterly stifles objectivity- to back you up.   

i have carefully articulated my points,

WHAT?!?  You can't even form legible sentences, and you spell like a third grader.  If this is your idea of "careful articulation", you might wanna retake that IQ test you keep bragging about.  The points you've made wouldn't hold water with even a second year biology student, much less anyone with critical thinking skills.  You have to stop listening to other people with a set agenda, and gain the knowledge for yourself.  First, learn how to think, then learn how to LEARN.  Only then will you be ready to do research.  I've been where you are, in fact, I was just as proud of my ignorance.  But then I grew up, and something in me was forced to seek- truly and objectively seek.  I didn't become an atheist because I didn't wanna believe in God, I became an atheist because I went looking for him.  

and i look forward to a decent response to my words. please dont dissapoint me.

I can't disappoint you, Flounder.  I can only disappoint myself.  Regardless, I can see that yours is a questioning mind, but that's not enough.  Knowledge is the key that will set you free, but it's a hard key to find.  Never accept what anyone tells you at face value, (not even me), because most of them are as uneducated as you are.  If you wanna argue biology, LEARN BIOLOGY!!!  Go to school, find science, find logic, find critical thinking.  These are the maxims that keep us honest, these are the maxims that allow us to learn DESPITE our motive-driven humanity.

If you're truly as smart as you think you are, don't be one of the sheep.  Supernatual beings didn't create the civilized society you enjoy today- people like me did.  What has religion given to the world?  How has religion made it better?  What are the fruits of religion?  Think about that, and then ask the same questions of science...

***

I was somewhat heartbroken and frustrated when I finished this response last night, cheifly because Flounder suffers from the same affliction as so many others.  To give an anology, I can't tell you how many times I've walked into a martial arts dojo where people who've never been in a fight in their lives rush up to tell me all about combat.  They don't know shit, but they THINK they do, and always because other people TOLD them they do. 

Mine is a lonely existance sometimes, which is why most of my friends are critical thinkers as well.  My two best friends, Kyle and Richard, are very different people, yet, their beliefs are their own, and they've come to them on their own terms.  I loathe that the world is the way it is, but I think it's changing for the better, superstition gradually giving way to rationalization; truth gradually giving way to fact. 

Anyway, I had written Flounder off when I recieved the following email from him: