I listened to this and despaired that we let characters like this teach. That evolution is still disputed by ther God squad is frankly frightening.

Hi, both evolutionists and creationists are partially wrong and partially right, here is really nice explanation:
http://www.j-lorber.de/kee/0-eggen.htm
Part V: Evolution or Creation by God?
Does Evolutionism Have a Scientific Foundation?
1 The Origin of Man in the Light of Evolutionism and of New Revelation
2 Doubts in Evolution Theory Expressed by Scientists

@edcba

lololol. um... no.

@edcba Jeezus Fuckin' Christ! That was one hilarious link you provided! The best laugh I've had in weeks. Thanks

Rosie, the evolution is empirical theory and is also only a belief, but partial incorrect one. The saying, that animals live to evolve physical bodies is nonsense, the life is a way or opportunity to evolve better souls. Similar like at people, life is the opportunity for us to learn to live folksy etc. (Sorry for my poor english, english is not my native language.)

Sheesh, ecbda, why do all these self-proclaimed "prophets" always have lousy websites?

they have lousy web sites because theyer just as ignorant about web design as they are about science.

Yeah, that website's design is really amateurish, but I haven't found a better description and explanation for the reason of creation anywhere. Creationists' belief in literal interpretation of the biblical creation is as wrong, the earth and universe is really billions years old as scientist has discovered. But on the other side is wrong belief in accomodations and evolution of body, there is no need for it, here I believe they are right, that Adam and Eve were the first people, created 7000 years ago independently of other animal/vegetable species. The similar problem as "Chicken or the egg causality dilemma".

Oh evolution's answered the chicken/egg edcba. It was the egg (of a not-quite-chicken yet). Next question?

Great "you believe it". Unfortunately, people believe all sorts of zany ludicrous stuff. That's why we use science as a tool to sort the fantasy from the reality as best we can. Keeping one foot on to reality only helps if you can tell which foot is which.

No, that's wrong answer bulbous, a not-quite-chicken is just your delusion, the first one was perfect hen :-) The soul of individual animal, herb, tree, rock, everything that's living in a mass, is improved while lifetime from bad to better, this is the only process that can be called 'evolution'. But a theory of fight for survive and evolution of animal/herb species is just a mistaken conclusion from observation of the nature and this is the wrong assumption of the science for evol.theory /unfortunately we can hear this big mistake in tv-series of BBC about nature/. Everything is nicely (&briefly) described in the book linked in my previous post. But you can believe in dark evolution and stay mistaken, just like Dawkins. I am for science, but not in this case. Just like when astronomers observate universe and makes decisions about its shape. If they see it from outside, would be very surprised. /once again, sorry for my not professional english translation/ Bye.

Evolution is a fact. Anyone that would say otherwise can only be ignorant of how evolution works, or purposely blocks it out. Most atheists are familiar with the Genesis myth of creation and dismiss it because it is unverifiable fairy tale. It wouldn't be anything more than a fun little fairy tale if there wasn't people who took an archaic desert scribbling seriously.