Creationist: Before you start debating evolutionists..

Greetings:Here are a few questions from a "poor ignorant creationist".Does evolution teach that the "origin of species" started in the oceans with single-celled organisms? If so, can these single-celled organisms be considered "simple". If single-celled organisms can be considered "simple" how does that relate to your statement #6 above? If single-celled organisms cannot be considered "simple" how do you define the word "simple".Robert

Greetings:Thank you all for your kind responses.First, I never sought to imply that evolution answers the question as to how the first living cell came into existence. The question I have is that can this cell be considered "simple".Percey seems to be saying what I think in that the first original cell was probably incredibbly complex (if evolution is true) but it would be considered "simple" in regards to cells we have today.This puts into mind question #7 above. It seems to me that the first single-celled organism was far less complex than a human being. Such an observation would suggest that life evolved (that is if evolution is true) from "simple" to "complex"? No?If I answer "yes" to #7 in the fashion above then should I start banging my head?Robert

Greetings:You may take it that I have banged my head and taken my asprin. After re-reading the above points I have to say that there is a lot of Creationist literature bent on proving those very points concerning evolutionary theory. Fortunately, I am not one of those who have used any of the above points to "disprove" evolution. However, one can see the temptation to do such a thing.On points 10-12 it was Nitzsche who used evolutionary theory in his book "The Geneology of Morals" - thus opening the evolution/morals can of worms.Socialists use the term "social darwinism" in order to spread their political agendas. Hitler actually used darwinism as a defense of Germans as the "master race". This also brings in the idea of racism. If white people are more evolved than black people because they don't look like apes, then wouldn't it be logical to claim black people as less evolved and less human?I know that the above statements are not consistent with evolutionary theory, and that it is not the fault of the theory that it is being misused. But there needs to be some clear denunciations from evolutionists that these things are NOT TRUE of the theory of evolution. Silence in the face of these accusations (which have never been made by me because I know better) may be considered a subtle admission of complicity with these ideas.I only write this because I can see why Creationists would make such accusations against evolution.Robert

Greetings:Like I said before I have never accused evolutionists of these things so I do not feel a need to defend the accusations. This was just simply a thought that I had as I read your above questions.Secondly, a person who is silent in the face of a crime is considered an accessory. Yassar Arafat has been enjoined by the whole world to condemn the terrorist bombings - when he has failed to do so it is thought that he approves of them himself. His silence is considered tacit approval of the terrorist acts.Another thought - Richard Dawkins in his book The Blind Watchmaker tries very hard to make an argument that random processes alone can account for the complexity of the universe rather than an intelligent designer. In attempting to do this he writes a program which he entitles "Evolution". This famous evolutionist is apparently violating your question #1 (I believe it is #1) concerning evolution and random processes? Any thoughts from you guys on this?I understand your arguments against the "linear" growth accusations concerning "lower" to "higher" development of species in evolutionary theory, but they seem to me to be rather weak. In reading Darwin's Origin of Species it seems to me that "improvement" is always uppermost in his mind. A less adapted species will die out - thus it will not evolve. Even a subtraction in its genetic code can be considered an "improvement" in the species if the subtraction actually helps the species to survive. Of course, this is all assuming that evolution is true.Robert