"You obviously haven't read all my posts, I am talking about a mathematical proof done by Stephen Hawking, which proves that time and matter had a beginning and that they were created by a causal agent(s) (I suppose this could be plural) outside of time."

No, I did. I just disagree. First of all, it proves nothing to me until I see it, so you might as well not talk about it at all until you explain it in detail, or give me a link. Secondly, if it does prove that time and matter were created... How do you prove a casual agent? I don't see how you prove god through math. I will keep an open mind, because I don't see how you can prove other dimensions exist through math, but they've done that. Really though, I do need something aside from you saying that you think his theory proves things.

My take on it would be that it's proof that time and space were created, yes, but by what, I don't think can be inferred from formulae. Maybe it was god, or maybe it's natural processes we don't yet understand.

"Micro-evolution does not prove macro-evolution period."

Well I don't see how you can say there's no evidence of that either. The fact that we can't observe it directly is irrelevant, it doesn't mean there's no evidence.

Like I said before: species change over time. A lot of time has passed. Species exist now that didn't before, and you can see gradients of special development in the past. Genetic evidence of changing genomes exist today. New species have poped up from old ones. Why is it so very ridiculous to think evolution could be right?

"Those are examples of micro-evolution. Apes changing into humans is a much larger change."

Macro-evolution is the sum of micro-evolutions. The sum of changes like what I listed over millions of years. I don't know what you mean by larger change. Do you mean one giant spontaneous genome change? That's not the mechanism evolution describes.

"Hmm, are you going to argue whether the laws of relativity hold now? That is the only leg you have to stand on. (unless I'm getting mixed up about the proof which I still have to read through)"

I was refering to where you said "it cannot be understood by science". Just because it isn't now doesn't mean it can't be.

"I was pretty sure they taught macro-evolution, (maybe they only teach it in some places) those inferences don't look so bad."

They tell us what I said and then say that the theory is that these changed accumulate over time to produce speciation. That's biology. Creation is not biology, and until it is, I don't think creation should be taught. I will say that my teacher did mention creation when she taught us evolution.

"Man I'm really overusing it, I better make sure I have it correct"

You should've done that before using it so zealously in this debate, but no matter. I'm itching to see what this thing says. Hell, if it's really that solid I'll become a theist. Proof is proof.

"but I still haven't heard of any mututations (these are the only actual changes that in species which are beneficial."

I just listed a bunch in my previous post. What are you looking for, and why aren't mine valid? Apes don't turn into humans. Big changes like that don't happen. That's not how it works. It's slow, and small. Little changes, like the ones we observe add up to big changes in the long run. Malaria and polydactylism. All the things I listed above were mutations that are beneficial in one way or another.

"Yes, it is, mutations are the only method of possible species change that we know of. (adapting to your environment does not equal species change)"

I meant the fact that you said people wouldn't want to trade malaria for sickle-cell anemia.