Throwing shots are we? Name calling is not nice!  As usual this is becoming a name throwing contest rather than a debate.

Didn't I already state this isn't a debate? You have not brought any logical, scientific, rational argument to the table yet, and until you do, this can't be considered a debate.

Retroviruses are one example of DNA evidence of evolution. We can find these retrogenes in the same place in humans as we can in our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. Those who diverge prior to being infected by this retrovirus don't have these retrogenes. We can follow this pattern through the entire tree of life.

Facts Of Evolution: Retroviruses And Pseudogenes

Didn't I already state this isn't a debate? You have not brought any logical, scientific, rational argument to the table yet, and until you do, this can't be considered a debate

Seriously? Because we have differing opinions doesn't mean mine is unscientific/logical/rational.  I have stated how the gaps in the fossils disprove marcoevolution.  Is that unlogical?

Throwing shots are we? Name calling is not nice!  As usual this is becoming a name throwing contest rather than a debate.

ignorance; a state of being uninformed, lack of knowledge. This suites you well with the subject of science and evolution. This means I think you have the potential to learn, but haven't. I think you need to work on your critical thinking skills quite a bit, something that seems to often be stunted with religion.

Is wikipedia now a supported source?

Quite often it is. You can click on those little numbers next information provided and follow to where they got the information from.

So it doesn't deal with things before life began.

That's the big bang theory, right?

Is wikipedia now a supported source?

I think everyone saw at the top that no expert source had checked it...

Do you even understand what evolution is?

mm, I don't think I recall...

Retroviruses are one example of DNA evidence of evolution. We can find these retrogenes in the same place in humans as we can in our closest relatives in the animal kingdom. Those who diverge prior to being infected by this retrovirus don't have these retrogenes. We can follow this pattern through the entire tree of life.

Yeah... I was talking about before life and Evolution, not after. My mind is not comprehending anything right now, so don't expect for me to understand what you said (even worse than usual).

Seriously? Because we have differing opinions doesn't mean mine is unscientific/logical/rational.

In some cases, it does. Challenging evolution is no different from challenging gravity, it is impossible to bring any rational, scientific, or logical reasoning to debate a fact.

I have stated how the gaps in the fossils disprove marcoevolution

That may work, if there where any significant gaps. Care to name a few, from a non biased source?

Is that unlogical?

No more logical than claiming gravity isn't real, do to the fact that it isn't working all the time. If you use false information, you are not being scientific, rational, or logical.

That's the big bang theory, right?

Wrong again. The Big bang is how the universe began. The theory of how life was formed is called abiogenisis.

mm, I don't think I recall...

Then go look it up.

Yeah... I was talking about before life and Evolution, not after. My mind is not comprehending anything right now, so don't expect for me to understand what you said (even worse than usual).

Then you are talking about abiogenisis, which has absolutely nothing to do with evolution.

I think you need to work on your critical thinking skills quite a bit, something that seems to often be stunted with religion.

They say that lots of knowledge stunts the ability to believe things... It may be useful, but you start to turn into a person who thinks that Evolution (macro) is 'true and factitious', since it is 'scientific'.

Wrong again. The Big bang is how the universe began. The theory of how life was formed is called abiogenisis.

See? I'm still learning!

They say that lots of knowledge stunts the ability to believe things... It may be useful, but you start to turn into a person who thinks that Evolution (macro) is 'true and factitious', since it is 'scientific'.

Your finding once again that reason, logic, and science are enemies of your religion?

See? I'm still learning!

Now you just have to pull the wool from over your eyes and see that I am right...

That's the big bang theory, right?

The Big Bang deals with how the universe began. (No it doesn't deal with what was "before" the Big Bang, and no it doesn't deal with planetary formation)

How life began is abiogenesis.

mm, I don't think I recall...

I have to wonder why are you arguing against and call it wrong, when you don't even understand what you're arguing against and think is wrong?