Does God exist

Hi Again, Thanks for your response! You said: "Species Without a Link Proves you Wrong The evolutionist will claim that the presence of many individual species proves evolution." A helpful note for you would be to in the context of a debate address the points which I personally raise, and not general points that you suppose I might raise. So I have not made this argument, but I will address your more specific statements below. You said: "This shallow statement is devoid of reason, logic and scientific proof. Evolutionists line up pictures of similar looking species and claim they evolved one to another. Humans are a great example. There are hundreds of species of extinct monkeys and apes. Petrified skulls and bones exist from these creatures. Evolutionists line up the most promising choices to present a gradual progression from monkey to modern man. They simply fill in the big gaps with make-believe creatures to fit the picture. This procedure can be done with humans only because there are many extinct monkey and ape species." Let's look at the evidence, without making observations when it comes to ancient human ancestors. We have the Australopithecus afarensis which we have dated via the Molecular genetic clock and Argon dating to about 3.9 and 2.9 million years ago. We also have the Homo erectus which came on the scene about 1.8 million years ago which we have dated using Argon and Paleomagnetism. And lastly (for the sake of brevity) we have the Homo neanderthalensis which we have dated as far out as 600,000 years ago and as soon as 33,000 years ago using Thermo-luminescence, Electron spin resonance, Carbon-14, as well as the Molecular genetic clock to date this period. It has thus been established that these species existed at different points, and are clearly now extinct and became extinct around the arrival of other species of similar makeup. Another fact that we can see here is that these bipedal primates were not always around in regards to the fossil record, and that their anatomy seemed to "improve" as time went on. For instance, Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis have a much bigger brain than these other species. This of course is not to mention the genetic evidence of our common ancestry with other primates especially of chimpanzee's which is conclusive to the vast majority of biologists and geneticists. What would be the more rational explanation? That seemingly related hominid species popped out of nowhere and then went extinct once the next species appeared? Or that these recent examples of speciation among bipedal primates evolving via natural selection over a period of about 4 million years? I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to go with the latter as the former makes no sense to me and would have to use all means possible to try and attack the dating methods (which there are many) that I hear noted. You said: "They never do this with giraffes and elephants. These pictures are placed in all evolutionists' text books to teach kids this nonsense. The picture is simply a grouping of individual species that does not prove evolution." In regards to fossils, we are constrained to what we have of course. And we of course have discovered more fossils of ancient hominids than we have of many other creatures. One should study how rare fossils are if they want to make such claims of course. However, we do know quite a bit about the Giraffidae and Elephantidae families and their evolution if you would like to learn about that? You said: "Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons." Well this is just a simple misunderstanding of natural selection, it is the environment that determines whether or not the heritable traits received from the mother and the corresponding mutations will be favored for survival and reproduction. Those that aren't, are not passed down, those that are.. are. Your statements about what evolutionists state and do not state is not accurate, I as an evolutionist have never heard such a wild claim before. This also fails to address the ultimate question of the debate, which is whether or not god exists, or if we can know it. Evolution is a question about science, and while it refutes your evidence from "design," one can still believe in god and hold to evolution. I hope that moving forward you can make the effort to address my remarks specifically, rather than providing outside arguments that I haven't made nor agree with to refute my position. Thank you for your time. Regards, TrueScotsman