# Charles Darwin and the "Tree of Life"



## rdean

Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life

I was watching this special on BBC.  

It's totally amazing.  Especially when it comes to the development of the "eye".  

The examples are great and compelling.

Now, what's "odd", BBC listed the program under "religion".

What is especially wonderful is the enormous amount of evidence backing up the "theory".


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Why shouldn't they list it under religion?


----------



## blu

Quantum Windbag said:


> Why shouldn't they list it under religion?



its science


----------



## rdean

blu said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't they list it under religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its science
Click to expand...


Shhh, don't distract it from it's journey.  It has a ring to protect.


----------



## Emeraldgreen

that was a very interesting special.


----------



## JBeukema

Wait.. wrong tree of life


----------



## Quantum Windbag

blu said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't they list it under religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its science
Click to expand...


Is it? The idea behind the tree of life is based entirely on speculation.


----------



## JBeukema

Quantum Windbag said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't they list it under religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it? The idea behind the tree of life is based entirely on speculation.
Click to expand...


----------



## Old Rocks

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6IrUUDboZo[/ame]


----------



## rdean

​


Old Rocks said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6IrUUDboZo



The religious will tell you because all life was shimmered into being by the same Gawd.


----------



## FA_Q2

Quantum Windbag said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't they list it under religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it? The idea behind the tree of life is based entirely on speculation.
Click to expand...


Is it?  As far as I can tell there is science there.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

FA_Q2 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> its science
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? The idea behind the tree of life is based entirely on speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it?  As far as I can tell there is science there.
Click to expand...


Darwin speculated on a primogenitor that is the source of all life on Earth. Since we know less than nothing about abiogenesis, the entire foundation of the tree of life is speculation. Additionally, most biologists look at life more like a vine than a tree, because the interrelationship between species is a lot more complicated and intertwined than a tree can accurately depict. Would you prefer outdated and obsolete to speculation?


----------



## JBeukema

Yes... DNA is speculation...


----------



## Old Rocks

Quantum Windbag said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? The idea behind the tree of life is based entirely on speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it?  As far as I can tell there is science there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwin speculated on a primogenitor that is the source of all life on Earth. Since we know less than nothing about abiogenesis, the entire foundation of the tree of life is speculation. Additionally, most biologists look at life more like a vine than a tree, because the interrelationship between species is a lot more complicated and intertwined than a tree can accurately depict. Would you prefer outdated and obsolete to speculation?
Click to expand...


Darwin speculated on the origin of life, a speculation backed up with the most profound understanding of life in existance at that time. Today we know a great deal more having built on the foundation that Darwin provided.

We know quite a bit more concerning abiogenisis than you state. From Fox's protocells to the building of complex molecules, even the source of the chirality in the molecules of life, a great deal has been discovered in the last few decades. Of course, we have much yet to discover, but the work is advancing rapidly. And it looks like the question is not what the path was, but which path was taken.

Yes, more like a vine or a bush than a tree. However, that takes absolutely nothing away from the speculations of Charles Darwin. He was far ahead of his time, and his work was absolutely wonderful, whether on finches or worms.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Old Rocks said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it?  As far as I can tell there is science there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin speculated on a primogenitor that is the source of all life on Earth. Since we know less than nothing about abiogenesis, the entire foundation of the tree of life is speculation. Additionally, most biologists look at life more like a vine than a tree, because the interrelationship between species is a lot more complicated and intertwined than a tree can accurately depict. Would you prefer outdated and obsolete to speculation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwin speculated on the origin of life, a speculation backed up with the most profound understanding of life in existance at that time. Today we know a great deal more having built on the foundation that Darwin provided.
> 
> We know quite a bit more concerning abiogenisis than you state. From Fox's protocells to the building of complex molecules, even the source of the chirality in the molecules of life, a great deal has been discovered in the last few decades. Of course, we have much yet to discover, but the work is advancing rapidly. And it looks like the question is not what the path was, but which path was taken.
> 
> Yes, more like a vine or a bush than a tree. However, that takes absolutely nothing away from the speculations of Charles Darwin. He was far ahead of his time, and his work was absolutely wonderful, whether on finches or worms.
Click to expand...


You know what amazes me?

The fact that people who think they know about science can be so completely wrong. Like your assertion that hypermilage techniques only work for ICE, you are demonstrating a complete ignorance of basic science here. There is a significant difference between organic chemistry, which you correctly point out we are making progress in understanding, and abiogenesis. We have solid theories to explain how all the building blocks came to exist, but we have no idea how life started. All we can state for certain is that it did, and that might be nothing more than an illusion.


----------



## JBeukema

Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms...


----------



## FA_Q2

I still fail to understand why this completely negates this concept.  You question the ORIGINAL starting point but the actual tree itself is a valid description of the path of life.  Then again, you also fail to give an alternate starting point.


----------



## u2scram

the most astonishing thing about darwins theory of evolution is that no-one else had ever thought of something so obvious. farmers for example, had been breeding cattle to improve stock for centuries.

if it wasnt for wallace informing him of his thoughts on the topic darwin, who once trained for the church, would not have released his findings until after his death. he was aware of the controversy that would arise.


----------



## Old Rocks

Actually Darwin's grandfather had some interesting thoughts on the subject, but did not do the research to gather evidence for his ideas. However, Darwin started out a creationist, but what he saw in nature changed his mind.


----------



## Old Rocks

Quantum Windbag said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin speculated on a primogenitor that is the source of all life on Earth. Since we know less than nothing about abiogenesis, the entire foundation of the tree of life is speculation. Additionally, most biologists look at life more like a vine than a tree, because the interrelationship between species is a lot more complicated and intertwined than a tree can accurately depict. Would you prefer outdated and obsolete to speculation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin speculated on the origin of life, a speculation backed up with the most profound understanding of life in existance at that time. Today we know a great deal more having built on the foundation that Darwin provided.
> 
> We know quite a bit more concerning abiogenisis than you state. From Fox's protocells to the building of complex molecules, even the source of the chirality in the molecules of life, a great deal has been discovered in the last few decades. Of course, we have much yet to discover, but the work is advancing rapidly. And it looks like the question is not what the path was, but which path was taken.
> 
> Yes, more like a vine or a bush than a tree. However, that takes absolutely nothing away from the speculations of Charles Darwin. He was far ahead of his time, and his work was absolutely wonderful, whether on finches or worms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what amazes me?
> 
> The fact that people who think they know about science can be so completely wrong. Like your assertion that hypermilage techniques only work for ICE, you are demonstrating a complete ignorance of basic science here. There is a significant difference between organic chemistry, which you correctly point out we are making progress in understanding, and abiogenesis. We have solid theories to explain how all the building blocks came to exist, but we have no idea how life started. All we can state for certain is that it did, and that might be nothing more than an illusion.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you should take a basic course in electricity, and how an electric motor reacts to load, compared to an ICE.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Old Rocks said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin speculated on the origin of life, a speculation backed up with the most profound understanding of life in existance at that time. Today we know a great deal more having built on the foundation that Darwin provided.
> 
> We know quite a bit more concerning abiogenisis than you state. From Fox's protocells to the building of complex molecules, even the source of the chirality in the molecules of life, a great deal has been discovered in the last few decades. Of course, we have much yet to discover, but the work is advancing rapidly. And it looks like the question is not what the path was, but which path was taken.
> 
> Yes, more like a vine or a bush than a tree. However, that takes absolutely nothing away from the speculations of Charles Darwin. He was far ahead of his time, and his work was absolutely wonderful, whether on finches or worms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what amazes me?
> 
> The fact that people who think they know about science can be so completely wrong. Like your assertion that hypermilage techniques only work for ICE, you are demonstrating a complete ignorance of basic science here. There is a significant difference between organic chemistry, which you correctly point out we are making progress in understanding, and abiogenesis. We have solid theories to explain how all the building blocks came to exist, but we have no idea how life started. All we can state for certain is that it did, and that might be nothing more than an illusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should take a basic course in electricity, and how an electric motor reacts to load, compared to an ICE.
Click to expand...


Then, just perhaps, you can explain why hypermileage works on hybrids that do not use their ICE under 15 miles an hour.

Basic physics is basic physics, but feel free to make yourself look dumber if you want. One thing you could do is spell out exactly which of these tips would not work on an EV.

100+ Hypermiling / ecodriving tips & tactics for better mpg - EcoModder.com


----------



## rdean

JBeukema said:


> Yes... DNA is speculation...



Do not ask


----------



## Tony Skanda

rdean said:


> I was watching this special on BBC.
> 
> It's totally amazing.  Especially when it comes to the development of the "eye".
> 
> The examples are great and compelling.
> 
> Now, what's "odd", BBC listed the program under "religion".
> 
> What is especially wonderful is the enormous amount of evidence backing up the "theory".



There is a lot of evidence backing up the theory. But there is room for other opinions, still.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

Tony Skanda said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was watching this special on BBC.
> 
> It's totally amazing.  Especially when it comes to the development of the "eye".
> 
> The examples are great and compelling.
> 
> Now, what's "odd", BBC listed the program under "religion".
> 
> What is especially wonderful is the enormous amount of evidence backing up the "theory".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot of evidence backing up the theory. But there is room for other opinions, still.
Click to expand...


What evidence backs up the "Tree of life?"


----------



## JBeukema

Quantum Windbag said:


> Tony Skanda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was watching this special on BBC.
> 
> It's totally amazing.  Especially when it comes to the development of the "eye".
> 
> The examples are great and compelling.
> 
> Now, what's "odd", BBC listed the program under "religion".
> 
> What is especially wonderful is the enormous amount of evidence backing up the "theory".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot of evidence backing up the theory. But there is room for other opinions, still.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence backs up the "Tree of life?"
Click to expand...


SNPs


----------



## JBeukema

Windbag doesn't believe DNA can identify a murder victim or baby's daddy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JBeukema said:


> Windbag doesn't believe DNA can identify a murder victim or baby's daddy.



I actually do believe that. I also believe that DNA may one day prove that all life on Earth has a single common ancestor. The diffference between my knowledge about DNA and yours is that I know that DNA has not yet proved any such thing. I also know that the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of humans lived about 5000 years ago, something that leaves most theories about human dispersal looking for answers. 

Please have fun mocking the positions you think I have though, it is much easier for you than actually learning. Or admitting that you have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## JBeukema

SNPs


----------



## Dante

rdean said:


> ---Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life[/url]
> 
> I was watching this special on BBC.
> 
> It's totally amazing.  Especially when it comes to the development of the "eye".
> 
> The examples are great and compelling.
> 
> Now, what's "odd", BBC listed the program under "religion".
> 
> What is especially wonderful is the enormous amount of evidence backing up the "theory".




We're sorry, but this video may not be available.


----------



## Dante

rdean said:


> Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life
> 
> I was watching this special on BBC.
> 
> It's totally amazing.  Especially when it comes to the development of the "eye".
> 
> The examples are great and compelling.
> 
> Now, what's "odd", BBC listed the program under "religion".
> 
> What is especially wonderful is the enormous amount of evidence backing up the "theory".



[youtube]QhKDjI49KfA[/youtube]


----------



## California Girl

mikeangels123 said:


> Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life is a 2009 television documentary about Charles Darwin and his revolutionary theory of evolution through natural selection, produced by the BBC to mark the bicentenary of Darwin's birth. It is part of the BBC Darwin Season. The presenter, David Attenborough, outlines the development of the theory by Darwin through his observations of animals and plants in nature and in the domesticated state, visiting sites important in Darwin's own life, including Down House, Cambridge University and the Natural History Museum, and using archive footage from Attenborough's many nature documentaries for the BBC. He reviews the development of the theory since its beginnings, and its revolutionary impact on the way in which humans view themselves - not as having dominion over the animals as The Bible says, but as part of the natural world and subject to the same controlling forces that govern all life on Earth.



Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've added the link for you. It's against the rules of the board to cut and paste shit without providing a link..... I assume you weren't trying to pretend that you wrote that yourself?


----------



## antagon

Quantum Windbag said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? The idea behind the tree of life is based entirely on speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it?  As far as I can tell there is science there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwin speculated on a primogenitor that is the source of all life on Earth. Since we know less than nothing about abiogenesis, the entire foundation of the tree of life is speculation. Additionally, most biologists look at life more like a vine than a tree, because the interrelationship between species is a lot more complicated and intertwined than a tree can accurately depict. Would you prefer outdated and obsolete to speculation?
Click to expand...

speculation does not disqualify a theory from being scientific if the theory is based in empirical observation.  i think evidence and experience does guide darwin's inference and those which are maintained at the cutting edge of issues like abiogenesis.

isn't your 'less than nothing' speculation?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

antagon said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it?  As far as I can tell there is science there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin speculated on a primogenitor that is the source of all life on Earth. Since we know less than nothing about abiogenesis, the entire foundation of the tree of life is speculation. Additionally, most biologists look at life more like a vine than a tree, because the interrelationship between species is a lot more complicated and intertwined than a tree can accurately depict. Would you prefer outdated and obsolete to speculation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> speculation does not disqualify a theory from being scientific if the theory is based in empirical observation.  i think evidence and experience does guide darwin's inference and those which are maintained at the cutting edge of issues like abiogenesis.
> 
> isn't your 'less than nothing' speculation?
Click to expand...


Speculation is not based on empirical evidence. Darwin knew less than we do about DNA, and had nothing more than conjecture to base his primogenitor on. The fact that we have discovered life in places where life as Darwin understood it could not exist, like deep sea volcanic vents, actually adds empirical evidence against a single primogenitor. It does not disprove it, but it does weaken Darwin's theory.

Less than nothing is me looking back on this particular part of Darwin's theory and realizing how little he understood. If you want to call that speculation, feel free, but is based on knowledge that Darwin did not have.


----------



## antagon

darwin considered heredity in divining his theories.  he used what he did know to inform an idea of where life came from, rather than total biblical conjecture.  obviously such is scientific, as there certainly isnt an onus on full understanding of a matter to qualify arguing possibilities concerning it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

antagon said:


> darwin considered heredity in divining his theories.  he used what he did know to inform an idea of where life came from, rather than total biblical conjecture.  obviously such is scientific, as there certainly isnt an onus on full understanding of a matter to qualify arguing possibilities concerning it.



Really?

Please point to what Darwin said about abiogenesis that is anything like what is known today. Just because I point out that Darwin got some things wrong does not mean I reject everything he said. Your problem is that you, like Dawkins, assume that every person who disagrees with anything you way is ignorant.


----------



## Urbanguerrilla

rdean said:


> Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life
> 
> I was watching this special on BBC.
> 
> It's totally amazing.  Especially when it comes to the development of the "eye".
> 
> The examples are great and compelling.
> 
> Now, what's "odd", BBC listed the program under "religion".
> 
> What is especially wonderful is the enormous amount of evidence backing up the "theory".



I haven't been able to see the program as listed under 'religion' and I would be surprised if it was, the BBC are fairly progressive on that score and are fully up to speed on the difference of science as opposed to religious programs. if it was listed by Fox or some other US station as religion I wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Let me google that for you



Quantum Windbag said:


> Darwin knew less than we do about DNA, and had nothing more than conjecture to base his primogenitor on.



And yet we have genetics today that shows he was right.  We can construct genetic trees to determine lineage and branching points.


----------



## JBeukema

Quantum Windbag said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> darwin considered heredity in divining his theories.  he used what he did know to inform an idea of where life came from, rather than total biblical conjecture.  obviously such is scientific, as there certainly isnt an onus on full understanding of a matter to qualify arguing possibilities concerning it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Please point to what Darwin said about abiogenesis that is anything like what is known today.
Click to expand...


evolution and abiogenesis are two different things


----------



## Quantum Windbag

SmarterThanHick said:


> Let me google that for you
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin knew less than we do about DNA, and had nothing more than conjecture to base his primogenitor on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet we have genetics today that shows he was right.  We can construct genetic trees to determine lineage and branching points.
Click to expand...


No we do not.

What we have is an entrenched philosophy that has spent so much time battling religion that it has left scientific advances behind. You have spent so much time appealing to Darwin, just like creationists have appealed to God, that you are forced to cram data that does not fit into his theory. If we actually examined Darwinism with unbiased eyes we would toss it out in favor of a more comprehensive, and accurate, theory. You yourself have argued against core principles of Neo-Darwinism in this forum, and you are now trying to argue with me that it is right.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JBeukema said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> darwin considered heredity in divining his theories.  he used what he did know to inform an idea of where life came from, rather than total biblical conjecture.  obviously such is scientific, as there certainly isnt an onus on full understanding of a matter to qualify arguing possibilities concerning it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Please point to what Darwin said about abiogenesis that is anything like what is known today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> evolution and abiogenesis are two different things
Click to expand...


Which is exactly why Darwin's Tree of Life is wrong.


----------



## JBeukema

Quantum Windbag said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me google that for you
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin knew less than we do about DNA, and had nothing more than conjecture to base his primogenitor on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet we have genetics today that shows he was right.  We can construct genetic trees to determine lineage and branching points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No we do not.
Click to expand...


google:
pseudogenes
Single nucleotide polymorphsms


> What we have is an entrenched philosophy that has spent so much time battling religion that it has left scientific advances behind. You have spent so much time appealing to Darwin



Actually, only you loons do. People who know anything about the subject realize that much has been learned since the time of Darwin.



> If we actually examined Darwinism


There's no such science or phenomenon as 'Darwinism'. 'Darwinism' or, as it quickly morphed into, 'Social Darwinism', was an ideology/philosophy that was popular in Germany and the United States for some time before WWII. Many of its thinkers and leaders would also be major characters in the story of the Eugenics movement.

 with unbiased eyes we would toss it out in favor of a more comprehensive, and accurate, theory. You yourself have argued against core principles of Neo-Darwinism in this forum, and you are now trying to argue with me that it is right.[/quote]


----------



## JBeukema

Quantum Windbag said:


> JBeukema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Please point to what Darwin said about abiogenesis that is anything like what is known today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> evolution and abiogenesis are two different things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is exactly why Darwin's Tree of Life is wrong.
Click to expand...



Just what, exactly, do you think 'Darwin's Tree of Life' is?


----------



## Quantum Windbag

JBeukema said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me google that for you
> 
> 
> 
> And yet we have genetics today that shows he was right.  We can construct genetic trees to determine lineage and branching points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No we do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> google:
> pseudogenes
> Single nucleotide polymorphsms
> 
> 
> 
> What we have is an entrenched philosophy that has spent so much time battling religion that it has left scientific advances behind. You have spent so much time appealing to Darwin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, only you loons do. People who know anything about the subject realize that much has been learned since the time of Darwin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we actually examined Darwinism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no such science or phenomenon as 'Darwinism'. 'Darwinism' or, as it quickly morphed into, 'Social Darwinism', was an ideology/philosophy that was popular in Germany and the United States for some time before WWII. Many of its thinkers and leaders would also be major characters in the story of the Eugenics movement.
> 
> with unbiased eyes we would toss it out in favor of a more comprehensive, and accurate, theory. You yourself have argued against core principles of Neo-Darwinism in this forum, and you are now trying to argue with me that it is right.
Click to expand...

[/quote]

Why should I google anything?

Adaptive mutations: a challenge to neo-Darwinism? | Science Progress | Find Articles at BNET
JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
Lynn Margulis challenges neo-Darwinists and teaches somewhere now &#8211; but she has interesting ideas | Uncommon Descent

If you catch up with where the science is, instead of clinging to outdated ideas, you might not look so silly when you attempt to talk about things.


----------



## JBeukema

You're the one babbling about 'darwinism' and you accuse someone else of not being up to date on where the science is?



google: nylonase


----------



## JBeukema

and you linked a text from Nov, 1970?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Quantum Windbag said:


> No we do not.
> 
> What we have is an entrenched philosophy that has spent so much time battling religion that it has left scientific advances behind. You have spent so much time appealing to Darwin, just like creationists have appealed to God, that you are forced to cram data that does not fit into his theory. If we actually examined Darwinism with unbiased eyes we would toss it out in favor of a more comprehensive, and accurate, theory. You yourself have argued against core principles of Neo-Darwinism in this forum, and you are now trying to argue with me that it is right.


There's so much of that which is incorrect.  First, science does not actually care about battling religion.  It certainly did back in Darwin's time and earlier, but today we simply publish in reputable journals, and put things into action, without caring what religion says. I don't know what century you're envisioning here, but the epic Galileo vs church fight has been over for some time now.  With that being said, your "conclusion" that science has left advances behind is just foolish.

Second, I do not appeal to Darwin whatsoever.  If you look at anything I've said, you'd quickly notice that yourself. Your second "conclusion" that data is coerced therefore holds no weight either. 

Third, you are right in stating we need to toss out parts of Darwinism for a more comprehensive and accurate theory.  The insight you seem to lack is that such has already happened!  That's what both JBeukemia and I have been saying from the start of this thread.  YOU are the only one here arguing for Darwin, and then disagreeing with him.  I have tried to explain that his theories have been trumped for a long time now with modern genetics, which itself has confirmed a genetic tree of life you seem to ignore for some unknown reason. 

I suggest you either do some homework, or start your next post by asking questions to help you better understand the actual topic, instead of the outdated and otherwise fabricated rendition you appear to be conveying.  I'm happy to teach, but let's start by having you ask some specific questions.


----------



## antagon

Quantum Windbag said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> darwin considered heredity in divining his theories.  he used what he did know to inform an idea of where life came from, rather than total biblical conjecture.  obviously such is scientific, as there certainly isnt an onus on full understanding of a matter to qualify arguing possibilities concerning it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
Click to expand...

 yes


> Please point to what Darwin said about abiogenesis that is anything like what is known today. Just because I point out that Darwin got some things wrong does not mean I reject everything he said. Your problem is that you, like Dawkins, assume that every person who disagrees with anything you way is ignorant.


darwin's claim re: biogenesis was based on protein evolution, like from ammonia.  in turn, that was based in an understanding of the significance of protein to life.  observing that there was no spontaneous generation, and that all life seemed to derive from a prior generation, the whole idea that life came from a single ancestor came through an understanding of heredity.  all of this is 'anything like' most modern perspectives on evolution or abiogenesis and reproduction.

notwithstanding the more intimate understanding that we have now with regard to how life works, i dont see how your statement that darwin's theories were conjecture is based in reality itself.

about me thinking that you are an ignoramus, could you be projecting an appraisal of yourself on to me?  i havent said you were ignorant.  you've eagerly put that forward.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

SmarterThanHick said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we do not.
> 
> What we have is an entrenched philosophy that has spent so much time battling religion that it has left scientific advances behind. You have spent so much time appealing to Darwin, just like creationists have appealed to God, that you are forced to cram data that does not fit into his theory. If we actually examined Darwinism with unbiased eyes we would toss it out in favor of a more comprehensive, and accurate, theory. You yourself have argued against core principles of Neo-Darwinism in this forum, and you are now trying to argue with me that it is right.
> 
> 
> 
> There's so much of that which is incorrect.  First, science does not actually care about battling religion.  It certainly did back in Darwin's time and earlier, but today we simply publish in reputable journals, and put things into action, without caring what religion says. I don't know what century you're envisioning here, but the epic Galileo vs church fight has been over for some time now.  With that being said, your "conclusion" that science has left advances behind is just foolish.
> 
> Second, I do not appeal to Darwin whatsoever.  If you look at anything I've said, you'd quickly notice that yourself. Your second "conclusion" that data is coerced therefore holds no weight either.
> 
> Third, you are right in stating we need to toss out parts of Darwinism for a more comprehensive and accurate theory.  The insight you seem to lack is that such has already happened!  That's what both JBeukemia and I have been saying from the start of this thread.  YOU are the only one here arguing for Darwin, and then disagreeing with him.  I have tried to explain that his theories have been trumped for a long time now with modern genetics, which itself has confirmed a genetic tree of life you seem to ignore for some unknown reason.
> 
> I suggest you either do some homework, or start your next post by asking questions to help you better understand the actual topic, instead of the outdated and otherwise fabricated rendition you appear to be conveying.  I'm happy to teach, but let's start by having you ask some specific questions.
Click to expand...


First, I did not say science cares about battling religion. I said that the entrenched philosophy of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism only cares about battling religion. This explains why Dawkins is viewed as an imbecile by scientists, yet still cited extensively whenever anyone talks about evolution. If you wish to argue about that, feel free, but please stop setting up strawmen and expecting me to fold. 

I actually did the same thing I just pointed out you are doing, and forgot that you are actually capable of articulating an argument without an appeal to authority. My apologies. That said, data is coerced by the very people that the general public turns to for information. Unless, that is, you think that Dawkins and his ilk are credible sources. 

JB is not attempting to point out anything but random facts. He is not making a coherent argument because he does not understand the science. You might be able to string those random facts together and add in your knowledge to reach a conclusion, but that does not prove he knows what he is talking about. I would suggest that before you defend him and his ability to make an argument you approach his posts the same way a teacher would, and then tell me that he understands enough to prove me wrong.

He has consistently argued that Darwin is completely correct, and refused to accept that a challenge to Darwin is based on anything other than a belief in creation. If you want to defend him, feel free, but you will receive nothing but scorn from me if you do. I might not understand all the complexities surrounding the science, but I know that I do not understand. He, on the other hand, thinks he understands because he read abook about it at some point, and still has it on his shelf.


----------



## Quantum Windbag

antagon said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> darwin considered heredity in divining his theories.  he used what he did know to inform an idea of where life came from, rather than total biblical conjecture.  obviously such is scientific, as there certainly isnt an onus on full understanding of a matter to qualify arguing possibilities concerning it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes
> 
> 
> 
> Please point to what Darwin said about abiogenesis that is anything like what is known today. Just because I point out that Darwin got some things wrong does not mean I reject everything he said. Your problem is that you, like Dawkins, assume that every person who disagrees with anything you way is ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> darwin's claim re: biogenesis was based on protein evolution, like from ammonia.  in turn, that was based in an understanding of the significance of protein to life.  observing that there was no spontaneous generation, and that all life seemed to derive from a prior generation, the whole idea that life came from a single ancestor came through an understanding of heredity.  all of this is 'anything like' most modern perspectives on evolution or abiogenesis and reproduction.
> 
> notwithstanding the more intimate understanding that we have now with regard to how life works, i dont see how your statement that darwin's theories were conjecture is based in reality itself.
> 
> about me thinking that you are an ignoramus, could you be projecting an appraisal of yourself on to me?  i havent said you were ignorant.  you've eagerly put that forward.
Click to expand...


What did Darwin base his theory on? He looked around, and made conclusions based on observed data, without doing any experimentation. Mendel was a contemporary, but he did not publish his work on heredity until after Darwin publish Origins. That, like it or not, is conjecture. Fairly solid conjecture, but still conjecture.


----------



## geauxtohell

Quantum Windbag said:


> First, I did not say science cares about battling religion. I said that the entrenched philosophy of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism only cares about battling religion. This explains why Dawkins is viewed as an imbecile by scientists, yet still cited extensively whenever anyone talks about evolution. If you wish to argue about that, feel free, but please stop setting up strawmen and expecting me to fold.
> 
> I actually did the same thing I just pointed out you are doing, and forgot that you are actually capable of articulating an argument without an appeal to authority. My apologies. That said, data is coerced by the very people that the general public turns to for information. Unless, that is, you think that Dawkins and his ilk are credible sources.
> 
> JB is not attempting to point out anything but random facts. He is not making a coherent argument because he does not understand the science. You might be able to string those random facts together and add in your knowledge to reach a conclusion, but that does not prove he knows what he is talking about. I would suggest that before you defend him and his ability to make an argument you approach his posts the same way a teacher would, and then tell me that he understands enough to prove me wrong.
> 
> He has consistently argued that Darwin is completely correct, and refused to accept that a challenge to Darwin is based on anything other than a belief in creation. If you want to defend him, feel free, but you will receive nothing but scorn from me if you do. I might not understand all the complexities surrounding the science, but I know that I do not understand. He, on the other hand, thinks he understands because he read abook about it at some point, and still has it on his shelf.



Dawkins is a scientist.  He's done some very good scientific work.  That doesn't mean we have to accept his *opinions* to cite the scientific work he has done on evolution.   

Also, I have my doubts that Dawkins ever claimed that Darwin is "completely correct".  Darwin had no mechanism for genetics.  

It's hard to be completely correct and ignore genetics.


----------



## antagon

you dont have to run experiments.  one can just observe nature; one can still observe cause and effect in this manner.  in fact, laboratory experiments dont always prove natural plausability, while natural observations will always do so. for the purposes of darwin's framework, i say that's sufficient to elevate them above mere conjecture.


----------



## JBeukema

Quantum Windbag said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we do not.
> 
> What we have is an entrenched philosophy that has spent so much time battling religion that it has left scientific advances behind. You have spent so much time appealing to Darwin, just like creationists have appealed to God, that you are forced to cram data that does not fit into his theory. If we actually examined Darwinism with unbiased eyes we would toss it out in favor of a more comprehensive, and accurate, theory. You yourself have argued against core principles of Neo-Darwinism in this forum, and you are now trying to argue with me that it is right.
> 
> 
> 
> There's so much of that which is incorrect.  First, science does not actually care about battling religion.  It certainly did back in Darwin's time and earlier, but today we simply publish in reputable journals, and put things into action, without caring what religion says. I don't know what century you're envisioning here, but the epic Galileo vs church fight has been over for some time now.  With that being said, your "conclusion" that science has left advances behind is just foolish.
> 
> Second, I do not appeal to Darwin whatsoever.  If you look at anything I've said, you'd quickly notice that yourself. Your second "conclusion" that data is coerced therefore holds no weight either.
> 
> Third, you are right in stating we need to toss out parts of Darwinism for a more comprehensive and accurate theory.  The insight you seem to lack is that such has already happened!  That's what both JBeukemia and I have been saying from the start of this thread.  YOU are the only one here arguing for Darwin, and then disagreeing with him.  I have tried to explain that his theories have been trumped for a long time now with modern genetics, which itself has confirmed a genetic tree of life you seem to ignore for some unknown reason.
> 
> I suggest you either do some homework, or start your next post by asking questions to help you better understand the actual topic, instead of the outdated and otherwise fabricated rendition you appear to be conveying.  I'm happy to teach, but let's start by having you ask some specific questions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, I did not say science cares about battling religion. I said that the entrenched philosophy of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism only cares about battling religion. This explains why Dawkins is viewed as an imbecile by scientists, yet still cited extensively whenever anyone talks about evolution. If you wish to argue about that, feel free, but please stop setting up strawmen and expecting me to fold.
> 
> I actually did the same thing I just pointed out you are doing, and forgot that you are actually capable of articulating an argument without an appeal to authority. My apologies. That said, data is coerced by the very people that the general public turns to for information. Unless, that is, you think that Dawkins and his ilk are credible sources.
> 
> JB is not attempting to point out anything but random facts. He is not making a coherent argument because he does not understand the science. You might be able to string those random facts together and add in your knowledge to reach a conclusion, but that does not prove he knows what he is talking about. I would suggest that before you defend him and his ability to make an argument you approach his posts the same way a teacher would, and then tell me that he understands enough to prove me wrong.
> 
> He has consistently argued that Darwin is completely correct, and refused to accept that a challenge to Darwin is based on anything other than a belief in creation. If you want to defend him, feel free, but you will receive nothing but scorn from me if you do. I might not understand all the complexities surrounding the science, but I know that I do not understand. He, on the other hand, thinks he understands because he read abook about it at some point, and still has it on his shelf.
Click to expand...





You accuse me of not understanding the science while you're babbling on about 'Darwinism'?


----------



## JBeukema

Quantum Windbag said:


> He has consistently argued that Darwin is completely correct



Who has?

Why do you lie?


----------



## JBeukema

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mendel was a contemporary, but he did not publish his work on heredity until after Darwin publish Origins.




fail


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Quantum Windbag said:


> First, I did not say science cares about battling religion. I said that the entrenched philosophy of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism only cares about battling religion. This explains why Dawkins is viewed as an imbecile by scientists, yet still cited extensively whenever anyone talks about evolution. If you wish to argue about that, feel free, but please stop setting up strawmen and expecting me to fold.


Ah, I thought you were making a point about science, not the meta-philosophy of science.  Sure you could say the philosophy of any subject cares about other philosophies, but we must clarify that it has little to do with the actual topic, being real science.  



			
				wuantum said:
			
		

> JB is not attempting to point out anything but random facts. He is not making a coherent argument because he does not understand the science. You might be able to string those random facts together and add in your knowledge to reach a conclusion, but that does not prove he knows what he is talking about. I would suggest that before you defend him and his ability to make an argument you approach his posts the same way a teacher would, and then tell me that he understands enough to prove me wrong.


OK that's true.  Looking back, he is just pointing out random facts and I already knew how to connect the dots.  Saying "SNPs" over and over again isn't helpful for someone who doesn't have a genetics background.  Basically, we can map the genetic tree based on changes in genes over time.  

I can't speak to the past, but it doesn't appear too many people here are using Darwin's contribution to science as supporting evidence of the genetic tree. With that being said however, observation can produce legitimate scientific knowledge.  All of astronomy is based on observation, as we have no way to experiment on celestial bodies.


----------



## Old Rocks

*Indeed, Darwin did do some experimental work in evolution.*

Darwin's Pigeons

In early 1855 Charles and his family spent several weeks in London in what was to become one of the coldest winters in living memory, parts of the Thames froze at Richmond  at low tide. It was at this time that Charles maybe on one of his regular walks noticed common pigeons foraging for oats from spilt horse feed.  Later at home by the fire reading the Illustrated London News, where fancy pigeons featured on the front page, perhaps an idea came to Charles to prove that all fancy pigeons are descended from the common pigeon known as Columba Livia or Rock Dove. This particular research, in turn, would help him with his theories towards the 'Origin of Species'.He finally made up his mind when Yarrell the well known ornithologist persuaded him to try. 

So in March 1855 Charles Darwin was to become a pigeon fancier and set up a breeding loft at his home in the village of Downe, Kent. 
This site is intended to celebrate the pigeons which played such an important part in Darwin's work. Last year, 2009, was the 150th anniversary since the publication of the 'Origin of  Species' and also the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth. I hope to give you some insight into the variety of fancy pigeon breeds that Darwin worked with.
More pages will be added during the year particularly the breeds that Darwin studied. 

*A book that demonstrated Darwin's wide range of interests, and ability to grasp, ahead of his time, the interconnectivness of life.*

Darwin Online: Vegetable Mould and Worms

This last book is outside the main stream of Darwin's work, and reverts to his earlier geological interests. He had indeed published papers on mould in 1838 and in 1840 (Nos 1648 & 1655). The original 'large flat stone' known as the 'worm-stone' was used by Darwin to measure the movement of soil due to earthworms. The stone now at Down House was reconstructed by Horace Darwin's Cambridge Instrument Company. The book was remarkably successful, selling 6,000 copies within a year, and 13,000 before the end of the century. To begin with it sold far faster than The origin of species had.

The first edition went to press on May 1, 1881, and was published on October 10. The issue was said to have been of 2,000 copies, but this cannot be entirely correct because copies of the second thousand have this printed on the title page. However these two are otherwise identical. The binding was standard with the word 'Earthworms' in the spine title, although this does not occur on the title page. The price was 9s. The third, fourth and fifth thousands were printed before the end of 1881, and each states its thousand on its title page. The third has a two item errata slip inserted before page _, but the second erratum is itself wrong, attempting to correct 1° 49' to 2° 45', whereas the text reads 2° 4'. 1° 49' is however the figure given in the first two issues. In the fourth thousand these two errata have been corrected; in the fifth there are textual changes which do not affect the collation_


----------



## Old Rocks

SmarterThanHick said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, I did not say science cares about battling religion. I said that the entrenched philosophy of Darwinism and Neo-Darwinism only cares about battling religion. This explains why Dawkins is viewed as an imbecile by scientists, yet still cited extensively whenever anyone talks about evolution. If you wish to argue about that, feel free, but please stop setting up strawmen and expecting me to fold.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I thought you were making a point about science, not the meta-philosophy of science.  Sure you could say the philosophy of any subject cares about other philosophies, but we must clarify that it has little to do with the actual topic, being real science.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wuantum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JB is not attempting to point out anything but random facts. He is not making a coherent argument because he does not understand the science. You might be able to string those random facts together and add in your knowledge to reach a conclusion, but that does not prove he knows what he is talking about. I would suggest that before you defend him and his ability to make an argument you approach his posts the same way a teacher would, and then tell me that he understands enough to prove me wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK that's true.  Looking back, he is just pointing out random facts and I already knew how to connect the dots.  Saying "SNPs" over and over again isn't helpful for someone who doesn't have a genetics background.  Basically, we can map the genetic tree based on changes in genes over time.
> 
> I can't speak to the past, but it doesn't appear too many people here are using Darwin's contribution to science as supporting evidence of the genetic tree. With that being said however, observation can produce legitimate scientific knowledge.  All of astronomy is based on observation, as we have no way to experiment on celestial bodies.
Click to expand...


Same goes for geology.


----------



## JBeukema

SmarterThanHick said:


> Saying "SNPs" over and over again isn't helpful for someone who doesn't have a genetics background.  Basically, we can map the genetic tree based on changes in genes over time.



Someone not familiar with genetics should stfu and claim there's no evidence for evolution until they've taken the time to learn about the subject.


----------



## Youwerecreated

blu said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't they list it under religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its science
Click to expand...



Evolution is built on imagination and faith it's not science.


----------



## Youwerecreated

rdean said:


> ​
> The religious will tell you because all life was shimmered into being by the same Gawd.



The secularlist will say all life began from a bowl of soup.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Old Rocks said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it?  As far as I can tell there is science there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin speculated on a primogenitor that is the source of all life on Earth. Since we know less than nothing about abiogenesis, the entire foundation of the tree of life is speculation. Additionally, most biologists look at life more like a vine than a tree, because the interrelationship between species is a lot more complicated and intertwined than a tree can accurately depict. Would you prefer outdated and obsolete to speculation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Darwin speculated on the origin of life, a speculation backed up with the most profound understanding of life in existance at that time. Today we know a great deal more having built on the foundation that Darwin provided.
> 
> We know quite a bit more concerning abiogenisis than you state. From Fox's protocells to the building of complex molecules, even the source of the chirality in the molecules of life, a great deal has been discovered in the last few decades. Of course, we have much yet to discover, but the work is advancing rapidly. And it looks like the question is not what the path was, but which path was taken.
> 
> Yes, more like a vine or a bush than a tree. However, that takes absolutely nothing away from the speculations of Charles Darwin. He was far ahead of his time, and his work was absolutely wonderful, whether on finches or worms.
Click to expand...


I always am amused at the thought of living organisms are created from nonliving matter.

This is purely using ones imagination and showing the faith needed to believe such a thing.


----------



## antagon

hint: living organisms are made from non-living matter.


----------



## editec

Quantum Windbag said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't they list it under religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it? The idea behind the tree of life is based entirely on speculation.
Click to expand...

 
Speculation supported by enormous amounts of supporting evidence and logical inference and deduction.

Aside from countless volumes of scientific method, of course, it is merely a theory.

Much like gravity is_ merely_ a theory.


----------



## Youwerecreated

I have some questions for you guys,why would a natural process to life think to create gender and sex organs ? Where did blood come from ? Why did only one organism wind up with the gift of speech and intelligence to reason ? Why does only one organism seem to have a conscience ? why does only one organism have the ability to speak fluently more than one language ?

Why is it that humans did not end up with animals superior eye sight ,sense of smell and their superior land speed ? oh don't forget the strength in some animals.

Simple answer is everything was created to be what they are.


----------



## Youwerecreated

antagon said:


> hint: living organisms are made from non-living matter.



So you say, are blood cells non-living matter ?

The hair on your body is that non-living matter ?

The skin that holds everything together is that non-living matter ?

Is the heart made of non-living matter ?

What you have to ask yourself is what caused things to have the ability to adapt and or have a function.


----------



## JBeukema

Youwerecreated said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't they list it under religion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its science
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is built on imagination and faith it's not science.
Click to expand...

SNPs


----------



## JBeukema

Youwerecreated said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> The religious will tell you because all life was shimmered into being by the same Gawd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The secularlist will say all life began from a bowl of soup.
Click to expand...

American Trolling League 
*Rejected*​

We regret to inform you that your submission has been rejected. Your  trolling is simply not up to ATL standards. USMB requires all trolls to  be registered with the ATL and to have current ATL certification to  ensure quality. In accordance with the Terms of Use and applicable  rules, regulations, and standards, you are ordered to CEASE AND DESIST  your activities until you are able to meet ATL standards and acquire  certification.

Sincerely

_James Beukema_
Master Poe, American Trolling League


----------



## JBeukema

Youwerecreated said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin speculated on a primogenitor that is the source of all life on Earth. Since we know less than nothing about abiogenesis, the entire foundation of the tree of life is speculation. Additionally, most biologists look at life more like a vine than a tree, because the interrelationship between species is a lot more complicated and intertwined than a tree can accurately depict. Would you prefer outdated and obsolete to speculation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darwin speculated on the origin of life, a speculation backed up with the most profound understanding of life in existance at that time. Today we know a great deal more having built on the foundation that Darwin provided.
> 
> We know quite a bit more concerning abiogenisis than you state. From Fox's protocells to the building of complex molecules, even the source of the chirality in the molecules of life, a great deal has been discovered in the last few decades. Of course, we have much yet to discover, but the work is advancing rapidly. And it looks like the question is not what the path was, but which path was taken.
> 
> Yes, more like a vine or a bush than a tree. However, that takes absolutely nothing away from the speculations of Charles Darwin. He was far ahead of his time, and his work was absolutely wonderful, whether on finches or worms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always am amused at the thought of living organisms are created from nonliving matter.
> 
> This is purely using ones imagination and showing the faith needed to believe such a thing.
Click to expand...



the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed  into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.


----------



## antagon

Youwerecreated said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> hint: living organisms are made from non-living matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you say, are blood cells non-living matter ?
> 
> The hair on your body is that non-living matter ?
> 
> The skin that holds everything together is that non-living matter ?
> 
> Is the heart made of non-living matter ?
> 
> What you have to ask yourself is what caused things to have the ability to adapt and or have a function.
Click to expand...


"By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."  genesis 3:19

yes to your questions, each and severally.  educate yourself.


----------



## Youwerecreated

antagon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> hint: living organisms are made from non-living matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you say, are blood cells non-living matter ?
> 
> The hair on your body is that non-living matter ?
> 
> The skin that holds everything together is that non-living matter ?
> 
> Is the heart made of non-living matter ?
> 
> What you have to ask yourself is what caused things to have the ability to adapt and or have a function.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."  genesis 3:19
> 
> yes to your questions, each and severally.  educate yourself.
Click to expand...


All living organisms are made up of cells,are cells living matter ?

Oh i don't need to educate myself if that education is gonna teach me a natural process thought of all those things mentioned ,and not to mention it developed genders and sex organs for reproduction to keep its creation from dying off.

Everything is made up of matter, but how did non-living matter become living matter ?

How can this natural process assign functions to its creations ? example white blood cells.

Everything i mentioned shows design not a natural process.


----------



## Youwerecreated

antagon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> hint: living organisms are made from non-living matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you say, are blood cells non-living matter ?
> 
> The hair on your body is that non-living matter ?
> 
> The skin that holds everything together is that non-living matter ?
> 
> Is the heart made of non-living matter ?
> 
> What you have to ask yourself is what caused things to have the ability to adapt and or have a function.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."  genesis 3:19
> 
> yes to your questions, each and severally.  educate yourself.
Click to expand...


I find your sarcasm entertaining.

Did all life come from ingredients of the earth or no ?


----------



## antagon

Youwerecreated said:


> All living organisms are made up of cells,are cells living matter ?
> 
> Oh i don't need to educate myself if that education is gonna teach me a natural process thought of all those things mentioned


 this is a problem.  willful ignorance i'd call it.

do natural processes think in the first place?  have you come to realize that we are made up from the matter that we ingest, and that whether it is alive or dead has little bearing on that facility?


----------



## JBeukema

Youwerecreated said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you say, are blood cells non-living matter ?
> 
> The hair on your body is that non-living matter ?
> 
> The skin that holds everything together is that non-living matter ?
> 
> Is the heart made of non-living matter ?
> 
> What you have to ask yourself is what caused things to have the ability to adapt and or have a function.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return."  genesis 3:19
> 
> yes to your questions, each and severally.  educate yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find your sarcasm entertaining.
> 
> Did all life come from ingredients of the earth or no ?
Click to expand...

A lot of it came from stars, actually.

Moby was right

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qdb4NyHdFfE[/ame]


----------



## Sheldon

Complexity of an organism doesn't automatically imply a creator. One of the amazing things about life on earth is the time scale. I think the oldest living organism is dated to ~3,500,000,000 years ago. That is a long ass time for things to develop. 3b years is incomprehensible.


----------



## JBeukema

Emergence is beyond their comprehension, Sheldon


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> The secularlist will say all life began from a bowl of soup.


False.  No one believes life came from a bowl of Campell's thick and chunky.  



Youwerecreated said:


> Why is it that humans did not end up with animals superior eye sight ,sense of smell and their superior land speed ? oh don't forget the strength in some animals.


Because you don't understand evolution?  Lack of education will do that.



Youwerecreated said:


> So you say, are blood cells non-living matter ?


Actually no, they're not.  They have lost their nucleus.  They can't divide or do anything else living cells do.  They are sacks of protein that carry oxygen.  



Youwerecreated said:


> The hair on your body is that non-living matter ?


Also not living.  It's simply protein.



Youwerecreated said:


> The skin that holds everything together is that non-living matter ?


Top most layer is still not living matter.  You're pretty good at this game of stabbing yourself in the foot.



Youwerecreated said:


> Is the heart made of non-living matter ?


Ah you finally found something that is comprised of living tissue.  Good job!



Youwerecreated said:


> What you have to ask yourself is what caused things to have the ability to adapt and or have a function.


And you have to ask yourself what caused things to lose their ability and function.  So why is it that you seem to have a complete deficiency in knowledge on this topic?



Youwerecreated said:


> Oh i don't need to educate myself


Ah, I see you already answered my question.  You don't need education, and yet you think your opinion has some value.


----------



## Youwerecreated

antagon said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> All living organisms are made up of cells,are cells living matter ?
> 
> Oh i don't need to educate myself if that education is gonna teach me a natural process thought of all those things mentioned
> 
> 
> 
> this is a problem.  willful ignorance i'd call it.
> 
> do natural processes think in the first place?  have you come to realize that we are made up from the matter that we ingest, and that whether it is alive or dead has little bearing on that facility?
Click to expand...


I would say if we are the product of a natural process then yes the natural process for life would have to be a thinker.

Examples, it had to think to create blood to sustain life. It had to think to create red and white blood cells. It had to think to create the brain. It had to think to create genders and sex organs to keep life going. It had to think to create eyes that dilate because of light.

Yeah the natural process sounds like it was an intelligent designer.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The secularlist will say all life began from a bowl of soup.
> 
> 
> 
> False.  No one believes life came from a bowl of Campell's thick and chunky.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that humans did not end up with animals superior eye sight ,sense of smell and their superior land speed ? oh don't forget the strength in some animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you don't understand evolution?  Lack of education will do that.
> 
> 
> Actually no, they're not.  They have lost their nucleus.  They can't divide or do anything else living cells do.  They are sacks of protein that carry oxygen.
> 
> 
> Also not living.  It's simply protein.
> 
> 
> Top most layer is still not living matter.  You're pretty good at this game of stabbing yourself in the foot.
> 
> 
> Ah you finally found something that is comprised of living tissue.  Good job!
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you have to ask yourself is what caused things to have the ability to adapt and or have a function.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you have to ask yourself what caused things to lose their ability and function.  So why is it that you seem to have a complete deficiency in knowledge on this topic?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh i don't need to educate myself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, I see you already answered my question.  You don't need education, and yet you think your opinion has some value.
Click to expand...


When did i say i wasn't educated ? you might want to check the depth of the water before you jump in.


----------



## antagon

Youwerecreated said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> All living organisms are made up of cells,are cells living matter ?
> 
> Oh i don't need to educate myself if that education is gonna teach me a natural process thought of all those things mentioned
> 
> 
> 
> this is a problem.  willful ignorance i'd call it.
> 
> do natural processes think in the first place?  have you come to realize that we are made up from the matter that we ingest, and that whether it is alive or dead has little bearing on that facility?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say if we are the product of a natural process then yes the natural process for life would have to be a thinker.
> 
> Examples, it had to think to create blood to sustain life. It had to think to create red and white blood cells. It had to think to create the brain. It had to think to create genders and sex organs to keep life going. It had to think to create eyes that dilate because of light.
> 
> Yeah the natural process sounds like it was an intelligent designer.
Click to expand...


i think you've attributed a concept of human contemplation to the parts of nature which you find fascinating.  this doesn't mean, however, that such projections of humanity on to other elements of nature are accurate.

examples, the movie antz is not a representation of the way ants socially interact, despite the ostensible plausability of their being english-speaking social organisms.

similarly, your attribution of human-like thought and design to processes in nature defies actual support on closer inspection.  such inspection leads us to the conclusion that ants dont actually function like antz. similarly, the natural process which you describe as a designer in itself, is not a thinker or designer per sa.


----------



## Sunni Man

rdean said:


> Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life
> 
> Now, what's "odd", BBC listed the program under "religion".


That's because it takes way more "Faith" to believe in the Theory of Evolution.

Than it takes to believe in even the most far out religion.


----------



## Marc39

Sunni Man said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life
> 
> Now, what's "odd", BBC listed the program under "religion".
> 
> 
> 
> That's because it takes way more "Faith" to believe in the Theory of Evolution.
> 
> Than it takes to believe in even the most far out religion.
Click to expand...


Muzzies believe mankind evolved from a blood clot.


----------



## JBeukema

Youwerecreated said:


> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> All living organisms are made up of cells,are cells living matter ?
> 
> Oh i don't need to educate myself if that education is gonna teach me a natural process thought of all those things mentioned
> 
> 
> 
> this is a problem.  willful ignorance i'd call it.
> 
> do natural processes think in the first place?  have you come to realize that we are made up from the matter that we ingest, and that whether it is alive or dead has little bearing on that facility?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would say if we are the product of a natural process then yes the natural process for life would have to be a thinker.
> 
> Examples, it had to think to create blood to sustain life. It had to think to create red and white blood cells. It had to think to create the brain. It had to think to create genders and sex organs to keep life going. It had to think to create eyes that dilate because of light.
> 
> Yeah the natural process sounds like it was an intelligent designer.
Click to expand...



You must be trying to get your Poe certification with the ATL....


it's not working


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> When did i say i wasn't educated ? you might want to check the depth of the water before you jump in.



Somewhere between saying you didn't need to educate yourself on the matter on which you are speaking, and insinuating that red blood cells and hair are living tissues.  That's where you showed you weren't educated.  By all means, tell me you really have a biology major.


----------



## Urbanguerrilla

Sunni Man said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life
> 
> Now, what's "odd", BBC listed the program under "religion".
> 
> 
> 
> That's because it takes way more "Faith" to believe in the Theory of Evolution.
> 
> Than it takes to believe in even the most far out religion.
Click to expand...


Thats ridiculous sm, evolution deals with reality, religion is purely mythical...


----------



## Urbanguerrilla

Marc39 said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life
> 
> Now, what's "odd", BBC listed the program under "religion".
> 
> 
> 
> That's because it takes way more "Faith" to believe in the Theory of Evolution.
> 
> Than it takes to believe in even the most far out religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Muzzies believe mankind evolved from a blood clot.
Click to expand...


As good a religious myth as any, jews wrap things round their arms, put little boxes on their heads, wear little caps, put big blankies over themselves and rock back and forth...glass houses etc


----------



## JBeukema




----------



## Youwerecreated

JBeukema said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antagon said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is a problem.  willful ignorance i'd call it.
> 
> do natural processes think in the first place?  have you come to realize that we are made up from the matter that we ingest, and that whether it is alive or dead has little bearing on that facility?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say if we are the product of a natural process then yes the natural process for life would have to be a thinker.
> 
> Examples, it had to think to create blood to sustain life. It had to think to create red and white blood cells. It had to think to create the brain. It had to think to create genders and sex organs to keep life going. It had to think to create eyes that dilate because of light.
> 
> Yeah the natural process sounds like it was an intelligent designer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You must be trying to get your Poe certification with the ATL....
> 
> 
> it's not working
Click to expand...


Nope ,just pointing out the obvious products of design and see if people on your side can be honest enough to admit to intelligence being involved with the creation of life.

Talk about irony,non-intelligence created the brain.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did i say i wasn't educated ? you might want to check the depth of the water before you jump in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somewhere between saying you didn't need to educate yourself on the matter on which you are speaking, and insinuating that red blood cells and hair are living tissues.  That's where you showed you weren't educated.  By all means, tell me you really have a biology major.
Click to expand...


Poor choice of words on my part because all people who attend school there was an attempt to brainwash in believing such an absurd opinion. Just some of us could see evidence all around us to say no way to the many theories that make up the biggest and most outrageous theory of them all.

I have studied and educated myself on this theory and it is even more rediculous then it was when i was in middle school many moons ago.

Mutations producung new information that brings about a new destinct organism,now that is funny.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Urbanguerrilla said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life
> 
> Now, what's "odd", BBC listed the program under "religion".
> 
> 
> 
> That's because it takes way more "Faith" to believe in the Theory of Evolution.
> 
> Than it takes to believe in even the most far out religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats ridiculous sm, evolution deals with reality, religion is purely mythical...
Click to expand...


What reality ? you mean opinions.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Urbanguerrilla said:


> As good a religious myth as any, jews wrap things round their arms, put little boxes on their heads, wear little caps, put big blankies over themselves and rock back and forth...glass houses etc


And yet none of those things appear to demand that evolution is wrong. Did you have some other point to make, or did you just want to lash out at another religion for no particular reason?



Youwerecreated said:


> Poor choice of words on my part because all people who attend school there was an attempt to brainwash in believing such an absurd opinion. Just some of us could see evidence all around us to say no way to the many theories that make up the biggest and most outrageous theory of them all.
> 
> I have studied and educated myself on this theory and it is even more rediculous then it was when i was in middle school many moons ago.
> 
> Mutations producung new information that brings about a new destinct organism,now that is funny.


Once again you show yourself to lack education on the matter.  You have not educated yourself on the topic in the least, seeing as you continue to repeatedly make mistakes regarding basic reproducible biologic fact.  Here's an easy way to show that you are completely clueless on the topic, and don't understand what evolution is all about: just tell me what the term natural selection means.  Surely if you know that certain scientific knowledge on this is wrong, you must know the actual knowledge itself. So share with the class what the simple term natural selection means. 

Until then, let's take this time to recap: you have absolutely no education in the matter.  You heard a middle school simplification of it years ago, and think that gave you comprehension.  You have repeatedly made errors regarding basic biology, and are incapable of actually differentiating living from non-living tissue. You don't understand what the term "scientific theory" actually means.  You don't understand what evolution is.  And yet despite this gaping void of knowledge on the topic, you think you were truly intelligent enough, knowing absolutely nothing about it, to conclude evolution is a lie.


----------



## Urbanguerrilla

Youwerecreated said:


> Urbanguerrilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because it takes way more "Faith" to believe in the Theory of Evolution.
> 
> Than it takes to believe in even the most far out religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats ridiculous sm, evolution deals with reality, religion is purely mythical...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What reality ? you mean opinions.
Click to expand...


No, I was contrasting myth with reality, thanx


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Urbanguerrilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> As good a religious myth as any, jews wrap things round their arms, put little boxes on their heads, wear little caps, put big blankies over themselves and rock back and forth...glass houses etc
> 
> 
> 
> And yet none of those things appear to demand that evolution is wrong. Did you have some other point to make, or did you just want to lash out at another religion for no particular reason?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor choice of words on my part because all people who attend school there was an attempt to brainwash in believing such an absurd opinion. Just some of us could see evidence all around us to say no way to the many theories that make up the biggest and most outrageous theory of them all.
> 
> I have studied and educated myself on this theory and it is even more rediculous then it was when i was in middle school many moons ago.
> 
> Mutations producung new information that brings about a new destinct organism,now that is funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you show yourself to lack education on the matter.  You have not educated yourself on the topic in the least, seeing as you continue to repeatedly make mistakes regarding basic reproducible biologic fact.  Here's an easy way to show that you are completely clueless on the topic, and don't understand what evolution is all about: just tell me what the term natural selection means.  Surely if you know that certain scientific knowledge on this is wrong, you must know the actual knowledge itself. So share with the class what the simple term natural selection means.
> 
> Until then, let's take this time to recap: you have absolutely no education in the matter.  You heard a middle school simplification of it years ago, and think that gave you comprehension.  You have repeatedly made errors regarding basic biology, and are incapable of actually differentiating living from non-living tissue. You don't understand what the term "scientific theory" actually means.  You don't understand what evolution is.  And yet despite this gaping void of knowledge on the topic, you think you were truly intelligent enough, knowing absolutely nothing about it, to conclude evolution is a lie.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the question,but I notice you avoid the points I make,why ? It's a natural process where the organisms better adapted to their environment survive and the ones not adapted well die off. Example, Darwins finches. The longer beaked finch flourished during timed of drought where the shorter beaked finches did not do to well during times of drought . The interesting thing though was when the drought was over the shorter beaked finch made a comeback . O am out of town now so when I return I will introduce an article dealing with the faulty claims of evolitionists that evolution is the result of natural selection.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Urbanguerrilla said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Urbanguerrilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats ridiculous sm, evolution deals with reality, religion is purely mythical...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What reality ? you mean opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I was contrasting myth with reality, thanx
Click to expand...


Reality,hmm,so someone was around to see the evolution process or is it based on opinion and explanations of the evidence ? Your process sounds like it could be a myth to. The answer is ,which one actually took place.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> Urbanguerrilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What reality ? you mean opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I was contrasting myth with reality, thanx
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality,hmm,so someone was around to see the evolution process or is it based on opinion and explanations of the evidence ? Your process sounds like it could be a myth to. The answer is ,which one actually took place.
Click to expand...


So do you accept the mechanism of evolution?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

If you feel I overlooked one of your claims, point it out instead of making vague references.  Oh and you appeared to miss the "selection" part of natural selection in your explanation.  Dare I ask if you understand how evolution works at the genetic level?


----------



## Urbanguerrilla

Youwerecreated said:


> Urbanguerrilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What reality ? you mean opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I was contrasting myth with reality, thanx
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reality,hmm,so someone was around to see the evolution process or is it based on opinion and explanations of the evidence ? Your process sounds like it could be a myth to. The answer is ,which one actually took place.
Click to expand...


Yes, evolution is based on EVIDENCE, it deals with 'reality' in contrast to religion which deals with magic stuff such as parting sea to let 'chosen people' pass, allowing blind people to see again, allowing the lame to walk and having 'spirits' fly around, appear and disappear - IOW unreality.


----------



## frazzledgear

rdean said:


> ​
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6IrUUDboZo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The religious will tell you because all life was shimmered into being by the same Gawd.
Click to expand...


And the left will tell you that our planet once had magical properties to create living, conscience organisms out of nonliving materials -only to immediately lose that property, something that has never once been seen to ever occur anywhere in the known universe and even though man has spent nearly his entire existence trying to force nonliving chemicals to make a living organism -they will still insist to their last breath that it is actually a "natural" event.  In spite of the fact in order for something to be "natural", it must be seen to occur in nature!  What a dilemma.  You people are actually making the greater leap of "faith" believing in magical properties of nonliving materials as being something "natural" than I am by insisting that if nonliving materials ever produced a living organism there would be nothing "natural" about such an event!  Which is why the left really does treat the theory as a religion in the first place -demanding we all worship at that altar or be labeled heretics!  But the best evidence about whether it is or is not a natural event for nonliving materials to produce a living organism -doesn't favor your side.   

The theory that an unknown alien life form seeded our planet makes more sense biologically than pretending nonliving materials used to have magical properties to create living, conscience life but now no longer has that property anywhere in the known universe.  Real "natural", huh.  Get real.


----------



## Youwerecreated

frazzledgear said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6IrUUDboZo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The religious will tell you because all life was shimmered into being by the same Gawd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the left will tell you that our planet once had magical properties to create living, conscience organisms out of nonliving materials -only to immediately lose that property, something that has never once been seen to ever occur anywhere in the known universe and even though man has spent nearly his entire existence trying to force nonliving chemicals to make a living organism -they will still insist to their last breath that it is actually a "natural" event.  In spite of the fact in order for something to be "natural", it must be seen to occur in nature!  What a dilemma.  You people are actually making the greater leap of "faith" believing in magical properties of nonliving materials as being something "natural" than I am by insisting that if nonliving materials ever produced a living organism there would be nothing "natural" about such an event!  Which is why the left really does treat the theory as a religion in the first place -demanding we all worship at that altar or be labeled heretics!  But the best evidence about whether it is or is not a natural event for nonliving materials to produce a living organism -doesn't favor your side.
> 
> The theory that an unknown alien life form seeded our planet makes more sense biologically than pretending nonliving materials used to have magical properties to create living, conscience life but now no longer has that property anywhere in the known universe.  Real "natural", huh.  Get real.
Click to expand...


Well said. I intend to address genetics evolution not sure why he brought that up because that one of the most solid arguments against macroevolution. They claim their theory is supported by the evidence but its not,its supported opinions and speculation of the evidence .


----------



## rdean

Urbanguerrilla said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Urbanguerrilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I was contrasting myth with reality, thanx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality,hmm,so someone was around to see the evolution process or is it based on opinion and explanations of the evidence ? Your process sounds like it could be a myth to. The answer is ,which one actually took place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, evolution is based on EVIDENCE, it deals with 'reality' in contrast to religion which deals with magic stuff such as parting sea to let 'chosen people' pass, allowing blind people to see again, allowing the lame to walk and having 'spirits' fly around, appear and disappear - IOW unreality.
Click to expand...


Except for replacing "severed limbs".  I don't remember reading that in the Bible.  Everything else, I've watched "Binny Henn" do on the religion channel.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

frazzledgear said:


> And the left will tell you that our planet once had magical properties to create living, conscience organisms out of nonliving materials


No.  No educated biologist will ever say that.  EVEN IF such a thing were true, it would be equal between science and religion, meaning you'd pretty much agree with it anyway.  Nonetheless, evolution has nothing to do with how life first came to be on this planet.  Regardless of what you believe in as the cause, evolution, something separate from that, has been extensively studied and proven.  

Unfortunately, you have zero education in the matter, which is not only the underlying reason behind you making so many mistakes as to what you think educated people do know, but also is the reason why you are clueless on the topic.



> -demanding we all worship at that altar or be labeled heretics!


Well no.  This is you projecting religious practices onto an educated group.  The educated group demands every single person look at the reproducible evidence for themselves and draw the most logical conclusion, or come to some alternate conclusion based on that evidence.  That is how smart people think.  Given X, what are the possibilities?  

Once again, you lack of education precludes you from producing such logic.  This is seen by your inability to produce alternate conclusions from the genetic evidence supporting evolution, to instead just complain "it's wrong".  



> The theory that an unknown alien life form seeded our planet makes more sense biologically than pretending nonliving materials used to have magical properties to create living


Sure, if you think that is a more logical conclusion from the evidence, go for it.  It still doesn't contradict evolution in any other way.  Whether a deity, aliens or a natural event from primordial earth created the first life, the basis of evolution is still unchanged and fully supported.

So again your task comes back to: do you want to continue misunderstanding what all the smart people know, remain unable to actually analyze the evidence yourself, and generally stay in your ignorant state?  Or will you drop the unsupported blind belief of "no it's wrong because I don't understand it" to adopt something more logical and mature?



Youwerecreated said:


> Well said. I intend to address genetics evolution not sure why he brought that up because that one of the most solid arguments against macroevolution. They claim their theory is supported by the evidence but its not,its supported opinions and speculation of the evidence .


In my last post, I asked you to stop making vague claims.  I see you can't help yourself sometimes.  If you want to make a point, make it.  Otherwise, these hand waived references of "there's no evidence" is just immature.  The equivalent would be me saying "the bible says you're wrong".  It's just inane.


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Urbanguerrilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I was contrasting myth with reality, thanx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality,hmm,so someone was around to see the evolution process or is it based on opinion and explanations of the evidence ? Your process sounds like it could be a myth to. The answer is ,which one actually took place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So do you accept the mechanism of evolution?
Click to expand...


No.

I believe what we see is adaptations and it comes from recombination of genes and the information was always there to help with the adaptations and the adaptations are limited.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> If you feel I overlooked one of your claims, point it out instead of making vague references.  Oh and you appeared to miss the "selection" part of natural selection in your explanation.  Dare I ask if you understand how evolution works at the genetic level?



Sorry i confused you with someone else in another thread. Yes i have read many articles on evolution at the genetic level and for me genetics is the greatest argument against macroevolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> frazzledgear said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the left will tell you that our planet once had magical properties to create living, conscience organisms out of nonliving materials
> 
> 
> 
> No.  No educated biologist will ever say that.  EVEN IF such a thing were true, it would be equal between science and religion, meaning you'd pretty much agree with it anyway.  Nonetheless, evolution has nothing to do with how life first came to be on this planet.  Regardless of what you believe in as the cause, evolution, something separate from that, has been extensively studied and proven.
> 
> Unfortunately, you have zero education in the matter, which is not only the underlying reason behind you making so many mistakes as to what you think educated people do know, but also is the reason why you are clueless on the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -demanding we all worship at that altar or be labeled heretics!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well no.  This is you projecting religious practices onto an educated group.  The educated group demands every single person look at the reproducible evidence for themselves and draw the most logical conclusion, or come to some alternate conclusion based on that evidence.  That is how smart people think.  Given X, what are the possibilities?
> 
> Once again, you lack of education precludes you from producing such logic.  This is seen by your inability to produce alternate conclusions from the genetic evidence supporting evolution, to instead just complain "it's wrong".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The theory that an unknown alien life form seeded our planet makes more sense biologically than pretending nonliving materials used to have magical properties to create living
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, if you think that is a more logical conclusion from the evidence, go for it.  It still doesn't contradict evolution in any other way.  Whether a deity, aliens or a natural event from primordial earth created the first life, the basis of evolution is still unchanged and fully supported.
> 
> So again your task comes back to: do you want to continue misunderstanding what all the smart people know, remain unable to actually analyze the evidence yourself, and generally stay in your ignorant state?  Or will you drop the unsupported blind belief of "no it's wrong because I don't understand it" to adopt something more logical and mature?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well said. I intend to address genetics evolution not sure why he brought that up because that one of the most solid arguments against macroevolution. They claim their theory is supported by the evidence but its not,its supported opinions and speculation of the evidence .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In my last post, I asked you to stop making vague claims.  I see you can't help yourself sometimes.  If you want to make a point, make it.  Otherwise, these hand waived references of "there's no evidence" is just immature.  The equivalent would be me saying "the bible says you're wrong".  It's just inane.
Click to expand...


If you truly understood genetics and how they are passed on from earlier generations you would know that it is an impossibility for new information to arise through mutations that would cause evolution as you view it. All the testing done on the fruit fly should show you that the mutations on the fruit fly did not present new information it only produced deformed and weakened fruit flies.

You are so wrong about the origins question they only gave it up when their explanations were so illogical and rediculous they could not believe it ,they had to admit ignorance on the subject.

The real situation was summed up rather well by Klaus Dose: 

"More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance." [From Interdisciplinary Science Review 13(1988):348-56.] 


Now can you give me your view on evolution at the genetic level ?

I need to know which explanation you are gonna try and pass as proven evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> frazzledgear said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the left will tell you that our planet once had magical properties to create living, conscience organisms out of nonliving materials
> 
> 
> 
> No.  No educated biologist will ever say that.  EVEN IF such a thing were true, it would be equal between science and religion, meaning you'd pretty much agree with it anyway.  Nonetheless, evolution has nothing to do with how life first came to be on this planet.  Regardless of what you believe in as the cause, evolution, something separate from that, has been extensively studied and proven.
> 
> Unfortunately, you have zero education in the matter, which is not only the underlying reason behind you making so many mistakes as to what you think educated people do know, but also is the reason why you are clueless on the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -demanding we all worship at that altar or be labeled heretics!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well no.  This is you projecting religious practices onto an educated group.  The educated group demands every single person look at the reproducible evidence for themselves and draw the most logical conclusion, or come to some alternate conclusion based on that evidence.  That is how smart people think.  Given X, what are the possibilities?
> 
> Once again, you lack of education precludes you from producing such logic.  This is seen by your inability to produce alternate conclusions from the genetic evidence supporting evolution, to instead just complain "it's wrong".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The theory that an unknown alien life form seeded our planet makes more sense biologically than pretending nonliving materials used to have magical properties to create living
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, if you think that is a more logical conclusion from the evidence, go for it.  It still doesn't contradict evolution in any other way.  Whether a deity, aliens or a natural event from primordial earth created the first life, the basis of evolution is still unchanged and fully supported.
> 
> So again your task comes back to: do you want to continue misunderstanding what all the smart people know, remain unable to actually analyze the evidence yourself, and generally stay in your ignorant state?  Or will you drop the unsupported blind belief of "no it's wrong because I don't understand it" to adopt something more logical and mature?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well said. I intend to address genetics evolution not sure why he brought that up because that one of the most solid arguments against macroevolution. They claim their theory is supported by the evidence but its not,its supported opinions and speculation of the evidence .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In my last post, I asked you to stop making vague claims.  I see you can't help yourself sometimes.  If you want to make a point, make it.  Otherwise, these hand waived references of "there's no evidence" is just immature.  The equivalent would be me saying "the bible says you're wrong".  It's just inane.
Click to expand...


While we are at it, can you give me an answer to Haldane&#8217;s dilemma ?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> If you truly understood genetics and how they are passed on from earlier generations you would know that it is an impossibility for new information to arise through mutations that would cause evolution as you view it. All the testing done on the fruit fly should show you that the mutations on the fruit fly did not present new information it only produced deformed and weakened fruit flies.


Ah I see.  You think by reading the propaganda of other uneducated Christians who lack biology training that you understand the topic?  Well, "if YOU truly understood genetics and how they are passed on from earlier generations you would know that" it is not only possible for new information to arise through mutations, but propagated in subsequent generations. I have worked with fruit flies before.  You clearly have not.  

But let's put bugs aside, and use a very easily visualized case in humans.  Common dwarfism can be passed down in a dominant manner, meaning a single copy of the gene from a dwarf parent will produce dwarf offspring.  There is no hidden carrier state for dwarfism, so it's well known whether a person has the gene or not.  However, the large majority of these people acquire the gene from a completely new mutation that happened in the egg or sperm of their parent.  It's a new gene not possessed by either parent, acquired by their offspring, and passed on in a dominant fashion. How do you explain this inheritable "new information" coming from "nothing"?

While that example is a very clear cut in the outcome, such de novo mutations account for a myriad of subtle changes and variation within and between species. In fact, we can examine genes between species and see exactly how they changed over time.  The closer two species are on the tree of life, the more their genes share in common.  That's why a human liver enzyme has large similarity to the corresponding dog liver enzyme, and less similarity than a lizard's liver enzyme, even though they all look the same.  Now you can either look at that evidence and say God designed all these proteins so appear "AS IF" they are related, trying to trick us by creating lots of similar proteins that all do the exact same thing but are structurally different, or you could come to the logical conclusion.

Here's another:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk[/ame]
How can you even begin to explain these findings?

I've already proven you wrong about new information arising and getting passed down to offspring.  Perhaps you should rethink your understanding of genetics.



> You are so wrong about the origins question they only gave it up when their explanations were so illogical and rediculous they could not believe it ,they had to admit ignorance on the subject.


This still has nothing to do with evolution.  You do understand that, don't you?


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you truly understood genetics and how they are passed on from earlier generations you would know that it is an impossibility for new information to arise through mutations that would cause evolution as you view it. All the testing done on the fruit fly should show you that the mutations on the fruit fly did not present new information it only produced deformed and weakened fruit flies.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah I see.  You think by reading the propaganda of other uneducated Christians who lack biology training that you understand the topic?  Well, "if YOU truly understood genetics and how they are passed on from earlier generations you would know that" it is not only possible for new information to arise through mutations, but propagated in subsequent generations. I have worked with fruit flies before.  You clearly have not.
> 
> But let's put bugs aside, and use a very easily visualized case in humans.  Common dwarfism can be passed down in a dominant manner, meaning a single copy of the gene from a dwarf parent will produce dwarf offspring.  There is no hidden carrier state for dwarfism, so it's well known whether a person has the gene or not.  However, the large majority of these people acquire the gene from a completely new mutation that happened in the egg or sperm of their parent.  It's a new gene not possessed by either parent, acquired by their offspring, and passed on in a dominant fashion. How do you explain this inheritable "new information" coming from "nothing"?
> 
> While that example is a very clear cut in the outcome, such de novo mutations account for a myriad of subtle changes and variation within and between species. In fact, we can examine genes between species and see exactly how they changed over time.  The closer two species are on the tree of life, the more their genes share in common.  That's why a human liver enzyme has large similarity to the corresponding dog liver enzyme, and less similarity than a lizard's liver enzyme, even though they all look the same.  Now you can either look at that evidence and say God designed all these proteins so appear "AS IF" they are related, trying to trick us by creating lots of similar proteins that all do the exact same thing but are structurally different, or you could come to the logical conclusion.
> 
> Here's another:
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk[/ame]
> How can you even begin to explain these findings?
> 
> I've already proven you wrong about new information arising and getting passed down to offspring.  Perhaps you should rethink your understanding of genetics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so wrong about the origins question they only gave it up when their explanations were so illogical and rediculous they could not believe it ,they had to admit ignorance on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This still has nothing to do with evolution.  You do understand that, don't you?
Click to expand...


If you worked with fruit flies please provide the new information that was produced through mutations ?

If you can't understand how non-living matter produced living organisms how can you fully explain the process of evolution.

Clearly you do not understand Haldanes dilemma,if you do provide an answer to the problem for evolutionists concerning his dilemma.

I have seen many times people from your side of the argument point to similarity as proof for evolution.

How bout Dissimilarities
If similarity is evidence for common ancestry, then does its opposite dissimilarity  provide evidence against common ancestry? 


There is, of course, much dissimilarity between living organisms, some of these at a very fundamental level. For example, the standard system of genetic code used by humans is not universal. Eighteen different genetic codes have been found in various species. Many scientists see this as evidence that all life does not come from a single common ancestor.


Similar genes and proteins in organisms are taken as evidence for common ancestry. But as we sequence more and more genomes, we repeatedly find genes which are unique to organisms. These are known as ORFans, and provide a real conundrum for evolutionists.


The DNA sequences of humans and chimpanzees are 96% similar, but the 4% difference represents 40 million individual differences at the nucleotide level.


When genes and proteins are used to try to reconstruct the ancestry of different organisms, and how they are linked in a tree-like pattern, different sources of evidence give different results. Different genes and proteins have conflicting patterns of similarity and difference between organisms. Evolutionists can only get round this problem by working out the most efficient way in which evolution could have worked. When they do this, they have to come up with scenarios where some similarities between organisms are not due to common ancestry, but to convergent evolution. This raises another problem, if similarities are not always due to common ancestry, how can they be evidence for common ancestry?


If the living world is designed, the patterns of similarity and difference we see in the living world could be due to selective use of designed modules to produce different combinations of features.


Comparative biochemistry and cell biology does not give clear evidence for macroevolution. In fact, recent discoveries such as the non-universality of the genetic code are strong arguments against common ancestry. The patterns of similarity and difference in living organisms are fully consistent with design.


----------



## amrchaos

Well, Well, well!!

People wish to talk about the "tree of life" and why modern creationists raise hell about Darwin and his "naturalistic views" on how life came about!

Let us ask a very religious question--What do you think the story of eden is actually about.

It is about how man gained sentience and seperated from the animals.  When man took from the tree of knowledge, he took a step towards godhood!! Man gained the ability to understand and use knowledge!  Now if man would have taken from the tree of life, he would have gained the second aspect of godhood--immortality(yep--the very thing promised to christians upon their death.  Also known as everlasting life, salvation, the reason that their god died!)

The last thing is total power, which man is trying to harvest though his first step to godhood, but is somewhat hindered by mans ability to forget.

Darwins theory asserts a theological concept that many Christian creationists hate to talk about--man exist between god and beast.  Man differs from beast through his level of sentients but differs from god due to his lack of immortality.  If man gains immortality, then what is the true difference between man and god??

See, sometimes it is good to read mythology, it helps you sort out theological truths.

And Please JB, do not  post "What theological Truths?"


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> If you worked with fruit flies please provide the new information that was produced through mutations ?


I just gave you an undeniable example of new information produced in humans.  Which you apparently are pretending doesn't exist.



Youwerecreated said:


> If you can't understand how non-living matter produced living organisms how can you fully explain the process of evolution.


Evolution has nothing to do with how living matter first came to earth.  What you are referring to is a process known as abiogenesis.  It has nothing to do with evolution.  The fact that you can't distinguish between these two very separate concepts once again shows how clueless you are on this topic. You don't even know what evolution is but you're convinced it's wrong somehow. 

The fact still remains that evolution describes how genetic information changes over time.  Think of it this way: You don't know how cars are made, and yet you are still able to understand how to drive one. Evolution has nothing to do with the original life "manufacturing".  Just how how we genetically drive from point A to point B.  

If you're still having trouble understanding what evolution is, perhaps you should do more homework before saying it's wrong.



Youwerecreated said:


> I have seen many times people from your side of the argument point to similarity as proof for evolution.
> 
> How bout Dissimilarities
> If similarity is evidence for common ancestry, then does its opposite dissimilarity  provide evidence against common ancestry?


Again, this is poor reasoning.  You are trying to compare the presence of evidence supporting something as equal to lack of evidence proving it wrong.  That's not how logic works.  It is impossible to prove something DOESN'T exist by lack of evidence.  This is why no one can "prove" god doesn't exist, or Harry Potter for that matter. Lack of evidence does not disprove existence. 

NONETHELESS, the similarity that I mentioned is not one or two genes.  It comprises the large majority of genes.  We are over 98% similar to our closest relatives.  The farther away we get, the more differences appear. 



Youwerecreated said:


> There is, of course, much dissimilarity between living organisms, some of these at a very fundamental level. For example, the standard system of genetic code used by humans is not universal. Eighteen different genetic codes have been found in various species. Many scientists see this as evidence that all life does not come from a single common ancestor.


18 you say?  And which species are they?  Can you name one?  Let alone 18?  How related are those species to humans?  Any other primates have a different genetic code?  Well, no.  How about other mammals?  No, they have the same genetic code.  Well surely there must be a vertebrate with a different code?  Nope.  Any animal?  No again.  What about plants?  No again. 

So, which species do you know of that has something different, and how similar are they to us?



Youwerecreated said:


> Similar genes and proteins in organisms are taken as evidence for common ancestry. But as we sequence more and more genomes, we repeatedly find genes which are unique to organisms. These are known as ORFans, and provide a real conundrum for evolutionists.


Oh?  Could you name some ORFans for us?  Do you even know what ORFan stands for?  Open Reading Frame.  You're talking about bacteria, which readily mutate and produce a large number of changes.  Or are you dumb enough to deny what you refer to as "microevolution" as well, even though it is exactly the same thing as macroevolution?



Youwerecreated said:


> The DNA sequences of humans and chimpanzees are 96% similar, but the 4% difference represents 40 million individual differences at the nucleotide level.


And yet they're still >98% similar, not 96.  Yes, 2% of a very large number is still higher than you can count.  But it's still 2%.  We tax based on percentages for a reason.  Teachers grade tests based on percentages for the same reason.



Youwerecreated said:


> When genes and proteins are used to try to reconstruct the ancestry of different organisms, and how they are linked in a tree-like pattern, different sources of evidence give different results. Different genes and proteins have conflicting patterns of similarity and difference between organisms. Evolutionists can only get round this problem by working out the most efficient way in which evolution could have worked. When they do this, they have to come up with scenarios where some similarities between organisms are not due to common ancestry, but to convergent evolution. This raises another problem, if similarities are not always due to common ancestry, how can they be evidence for common ancestry?


Physical similarities not due to common ancestry do not have genetic similarity.  The remainder of your paragraph regarding differences in genes is not a conundrum.  Entire government databases are established to show similarities between sequences.  



Youwerecreated said:


> If the living world is designed, the patterns of similarity and difference we see in the living world could be due to selective use of designed modules to produce different combinations of features.


If the living world was designed, we wouldn't need to have similar yet slightly different "modules" to do the exact same thing between species. Again, your liver and a dog's liver and a monkey liver need to be able to do the exact same thing. There is zero reason to change the "module".  Furthermore, there wouldn't be so many useless areas of DNA.  If things were designed, we wouldn't have vestigiality at the anatomic, physiologic, proteomic, and genetic levels.  But we do.  



I can't help but noticed you completely ignored the video of Ken Miller.  How do you explain that one of our chromosomes has the same genes as two ape chromosomes, and appears as if it is the fusion of those two chromosomes, with pieces that are otherwise only found on the end of chromosomes in the center, and two centromeres?  How do you explain that reproducible evidence?

How do you explain dwarfs from non-dwarf parents if you believe no new information can ever be produced?  What about genes that migrate and in the process create new genes?  What about vestigiality?  Why do you believe that a designer would need slightly different "modules" that all do the exact same thing?  Why do you think some genetic sequences are different yet produce the exact same protein?

At this point, I've shot down every one of your claims and you have yet to even question mine.  Here's some homework for you, seeing as you probably don't understand a lot of what I'm saying because you are completely uneducated in this topic.  Look up the following terms:
vestigiality
de novo mutation
transposon mutagenesis
silent mutation
evolution
heterozygote advantage


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you worked with fruit flies please provide the new information that was produced through mutations ?
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you an undeniable example of new information produced in humans.  Which you apparently are pretending doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't understand how non-living matter produced living organisms how can you fully explain the process of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution has nothing to do with how living matter first came to earth.  What you are referring to is a process known as abiogenesis.  It has nothing to do with evolution.  The fact that you can't distinguish between these two very separate concepts once again shows how clueless you are on this topic. You don't even know what evolution is but you're convinced it's wrong somehow.
> 
> The fact still remains that evolution describes how genetic information changes over time.  Think of it this way: You don't know how cars are made, and yet you are still able to understand how to drive one. Evolution has nothing to do with the original life "manufacturing".  Just how how we genetically drive from point A to point B.
> 
> If you're still having trouble understanding what evolution is, perhaps you should do more homework before saying it's wrong.
> 
> 
> Again, this is poor reasoning.  You are trying to compare the presence of evidence supporting something as equal to lack of evidence proving it wrong.  That's not how logic works.  It is impossible to prove something DOESN'T exist by lack of evidence.  This is why no one can "prove" god doesn't exist, or Harry Potter for that matter. Lack of evidence does not disprove existence.
> 
> NONETHELESS, the similarity that I mentioned is not one or two genes.  It comprises the large majority of genes.  We are over 98% similar to our closest relatives.  The farther away we get, the more differences appear.
> 
> 
> 18 you say?  And which species are they?  Can you name one?  Let alone 18?  How related are those species to humans?  Any other primates have a different genetic code?  Well, no.  How about other mammals?  No, they have the same genetic code.  Well surely there must be a vertebrate with a different code?  Nope.  Any animal?  No again.  What about plants?  No again.
> 
> So, which species do you know of that has something different, and how similar are they to us?
> 
> 
> Oh?  Could you name some ORFans for us?  Do you even know what ORFan stands for?  Open Reading Frame.  You're talking about bacteria, which readily mutate and produce a large number of changes.  Or are you dumb enough to deny what you refer to as "microevolution" as well, even though it is exactly the same thing as macroevolution?
> 
> 
> And yet they're still >98% similar, not 96.  Yes, 2% of a very large number is still higher than you can count.  But it's still 2%.  We tax based on percentages for a reason.  Teachers grade tests based on percentages for the same reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When genes and proteins are used to try to reconstruct the ancestry of different organisms, and how they are linked in a tree-like pattern, different sources of evidence give different results. Different genes and proteins have conflicting patterns of similarity and difference between organisms. Evolutionists can only get round this problem by working out the most efficient way in which evolution could have worked. When they do this, they have to come up with scenarios where some similarities between organisms are not due to common ancestry, but to convergent evolution. This raises another problem, if similarities are not always due to common ancestry, how can they be evidence for common ancestry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Physical similarities not due to common ancestry do not have genetic similarity.  The remainder of your paragraph regarding differences in genes is not a conundrum.  Entire government databases are established to show similarities between sequences.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the living world is designed, the patterns of similarity and difference we see in the living world could be due to selective use of designed modules to produce different combinations of features.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the living world was designed, we wouldn't need to have similar yet slightly different "modules" to do the exact same thing between species. Again, your liver and a dog's liver and a monkey liver need to be able to do the exact same thing. There is zero reason to change the "module".  Furthermore, there wouldn't be so many useless areas of DNA.  If things were designed, we wouldn't have vestigiality at the anatomic, physiologic, proteomic, and genetic levels.  But we do.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help but noticed you completely ignored the video of Ken Miller.  How do you explain that one of our chromosomes has the same genes as two ape chromosomes, and appears as if it is the fusion of those two chromosomes, with pieces that are otherwise only found on the end of chromosomes in the center, and two centromeres?  How do you explain that reproducible evidence?
> 
> How do you explain dwarfs from non-dwarf parents if you believe no new information can ever be produced?  What about genes that migrate and in the process create new genes?  What about vestigiality?  Why do you believe that a designer would need slightly different "modules" that all do the exact same thing?  Why do you think some genetic sequences are different yet produce the exact same protein?
> 
> At this point, I've shot down every one of your claims and you have yet to even question mine.  Here's some homework for you, seeing as you probably don't understand a lot of what I'm saying because you are completely uneducated in this topic.  Look up the following terms:
> vestigiality
> de novo mutation
> transposon mutagenesis
> silent mutation
> evolution
> heterozygote advantage
Click to expand...


Simple, genetic defects or loss or copying errors in the genetic information.

It's what you can prove not what you think you can explain.

Similarity in GENES does not prove evolution it shows the designer could cause a different result from a similar substance.


----------



## amrchaos

Youwerecreated said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you worked with fruit flies please provide the new information that was produced through mutations ?
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you an undeniable example of new information produced in humans.  Which you apparently are pretending doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> Evolution has nothing to do with how living matter first came to earth.  What you are referring to is a process known as abiogenesis.  It has nothing to do with evolution.  The fact that you can't distinguish between these two very separate concepts once again shows how clueless you are on this topic. You don't even know what evolution is but you're convinced it's wrong somehow.
> 
> The fact still remains that evolution describes how genetic information changes over time.  Think of it this way: You don't know how cars are made, and yet you are still able to understand how to drive one. Evolution has nothing to do with the original life "manufacturing".  Just how how we genetically drive from point A to point B.
> 
> If you're still having trouble understanding what evolution is, perhaps you should do more homework before saying it's wrong.
> 
> 
> Again, this is poor reasoning.  You are trying to compare the presence of evidence supporting something as equal to lack of evidence proving it wrong.  That's not how logic works.  It is impossible to prove something DOESN'T exist by lack of evidence.  This is why no one can "prove" god doesn't exist, or Harry Potter for that matter. Lack of evidence does not disprove existence.
> 
> NONETHELESS, the similarity that I mentioned is not one or two genes.  It comprises the large majority of genes.  We are over 98% similar to our closest relatives.  The farther away we get, the more differences appear.
> 
> 
> 18 you say?  And which species are they?  Can you name one?  Let alone 18?  How related are those species to humans?  Any other primates have a different genetic code?  Well, no.  How about other mammals?  No, they have the same genetic code.  Well surely there must be a vertebrate with a different code?  Nope.  Any animal?  No again.  What about plants?  No again.
> 
> So, which species do you know of that has something different, and how similar are they to us?
> 
> 
> Oh?  Could you name some ORFans for us?  Do you even know what ORFan stands for?  Open Reading Frame.  You're talking about bacteria, which readily mutate and produce a large number of changes.  Or are you dumb enough to deny what you refer to as "microevolution" as well, even though it is exactly the same thing as macroevolution?
> 
> 
> And yet they're still >98% similar, not 96.  Yes, 2% of a very large number is still higher than you can count.  But it's still 2%.  We tax based on percentages for a reason.  Teachers grade tests based on percentages for the same reason.
> 
> 
> Physical similarities not due to common ancestry do not have genetic similarity.  The remainder of your paragraph regarding differences in genes is not a conundrum.  Entire government databases are established to show similarities between sequences.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the living world is designed, the patterns of similarity and difference we see in the living world could be due to selective use of designed modules to produce different combinations of features.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the living world was designed, we wouldn't need to have similar yet slightly different "modules" to do the exact same thing between species. Again, your liver and a dog's liver and a monkey liver need to be able to do the exact same thing. There is zero reason to change the "module".  Furthermore, there wouldn't be so many useless areas of DNA.  If things were designed, we wouldn't have vestigiality at the anatomic, physiologic, proteomic, and genetic levels.  But we do.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help but noticed you completely ignored the video of Ken Miller.  How do you explain that one of our chromosomes has the same genes as two ape chromosomes, and appears as if it is the fusion of those two chromosomes, with pieces that are otherwise only found on the end of chromosomes in the center, and two centromeres?  How do you explain that reproducible evidence?
> 
> How do you explain dwarfs from non-dwarf parents if you believe no new information can ever be produced?  What about genes that migrate and in the process create new genes?  What about vestigiality?  Why do you believe that a designer would need slightly different "modules" that all do the exact same thing?  Why do you think some genetic sequences are different yet produce the exact same protein?
> 
> At this point, I've shot down every one of your claims and you have yet to even question mine.  Here's some homework for you, seeing as you probably don't understand a lot of what I'm saying because you are completely uneducated in this topic.  Look up the following terms:
> vestigiality
> de novo mutation
> transposon mutagenesis
> silent mutation
> evolution
> heterozygote advantage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simple, genetic defects or loss or copying errors in the genetic information.
> 
> It's what you can prove not what you think you can explain.
> 
> Similarity in GENES does not prove evolution it shows the designer could cause a different result from a similar substance.
Click to expand...


Come to think about it

It is possible that God created life, cause it to evolve, and created man from gods own experiments with life.

Using this framework, evolution itself could not disprove god created man, but only outline how man was created.  So what is the problem with the creationists when it comes to evolution? 

That is right--God shaped man out of clay and woman out of man's ribs!  Anything else would cause people to suggest that the Bible is not 100% literal.  Some "elaborations" and "artistic creativity" is used in Genesis.

Huh buddy, most people think that anyway, so what are you arguing about?


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> [NONETHELESS, the similarity that I mentioned is not one or two genes.  It comprises the large majority of genes.  We are over 98% similar to our closest relatives.  The farther away we get, the more differences appear.
> 
> 
> And yet they're still >98% similar, not 96.  Yes, 2% of a very large number is still higher than you can count.  But it's still 2%.  We tax based on percentages for a reason.  Teachers grade tests based on percentages for the same reason.



New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims 
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D., & Brian Thomas, M.S. *
A recent high-profile article in the journal Nature released the results of a study with implications that shocked the scientific community because they contradict long-held claims of human-chimp DNA similarity.1 A previous Acts & Facts article showed that much of the research surrounding the often touted claims of 98 percent (or higher) DNA similarity between chimps and humans has been based on flawed and biased research.2 The problem is that the similarity has been uncertain because no one has performed an unbiased and comprehensive DNA similarity study until now. And the results are not good news for the story of human evolution.

One of the main deficiencies with the original chimpanzee genome sequence published in 2005 was that it was a draft sequence and only represented a 3.6-fold random coverage of the 21 chimpanzee autosomes, and a 1.8-fold redundancy of the X and Y sex chromosomes. In a draft coverage, very small fragments of the genome are sequenced in millions of individual reactions using high-throughput robotics equipment. This produces individual sequence fragments of about 500 to 1,200 bases in length. Based on overlapping reads, these individual sequences are assembled into contiguous clusters of sequence called sequencing contigs. In the case of a chimpanzee, an organism with a genome size of about 3 billion bases, a 3.6-fold coverage means that approximately 10.8 billion bases of DNA were sequenced (3.6 x 3.0). The result is a data set consisting of thousands of random sequencing contigs, or islands of contiguous sequence that need to be oriented and placed in position on their respective chromosomes. 

In the 2005 chimpanzee genome project and resulting Nature journal publication, the sequence contigs4 were not assembled and oriented based on a map of the chimpanzee genome, but rather on a map of the human genome. Given the fact that the chimpanzee genome is at least 10 percent larger5 overall than the human genome, this method of assembly was not only biased toward an evolutionary presupposition of human-chimp similarity, but was also inherently flawed. 

The title of the recent journal article accurately sums up the research findings: "Chimpanzee and Human Y Chromosomes are Remarkably Divergent in Structure and Gene Content." Before getting into the details of their results, it is important to understand that for the first time, the chimpanzee DNA sequence for a chromosome was assembled and oriented based on a Y chromosome map/framework built for chimpanzee and not human. As a result, the chimpanzee DNA sequence could then be more accurately compared to the human Y chromosome because it was standing on its own merit. 

The Y chromosome is found only in males and contains many genes that specify male features, as well as genetic and regulatory information that is expressed throughout the whole body. Because of the recent outcome comparing the chimp and human Y chromosomes in a more objective assessment, it is possible that major discrepancies will be revealed among the other chromosomes that are claimed to be so similar.

From a large-scale perspective, the human and chimp Y chromosomes were constructed entirely differently. On the human Y chromosome, there were found four major categories of DNA sequence that occupy specific regions. One can think of this in terms of geography. Just as a continent like Europe is divided into countries because of different people groups, so are chromosomes with different categories of DNA sequence. 

Not only were the locations of DNA categories completely different between human and chimp, but so were their proportions. One sequence class, or category containing DNA with a characteristic sequence, within the chimpanzee Y chromosome had less than 10 percent similarity with the same class in the human Y chromosome, and vice versa. Another large class shared only half the similarities of the other species, and vice versa. One differed by as much as 3.3-fold (330 percent), and a class specific to human "has no counterpart in the chimpanzee MSY [male-specific Y chromosome]."1 

As far as looking at specific genes, the chimp and human Y chromosomes had a dramatic difference in gene content of 53 percent. In other words, the chimp was lacking approximately half of the genes found on a human Y chromosome. Because genes occur in families or similarity categories, the researchers also sought to determine if there was any difference in actual gene categories. They found a shocking 33 percent difference. The human Y chromosome contains a third more gene categories--entirely different classes of genes--compared to chimps. 

Under evolutionary assumptions of long and gradual genetic changes, the Y chromosome structures, layouts, genes, and other sequences should be much the same in both species, given the relatively short--according to the evolutionary timeline--six-million-year time span since chimpanzees and humans supposedly diverged from a common ancestor. Instead, the differences between the Y chromosomes are marked. R. Scott Hawley, a genetics researcher at the Stowers Institute in Kansas City who wasn't involved in the research, told the Associated Press, "That result is astounding."6

Because virtually every structural aspect of the human and chimp Y chromosomes was different, it was hard to arrive at an overall similarity estimate between the two. The researchers did postulate an overall 70 percent similarity, which did not take into account size differences or structural arrangement differences. This was done by concluding that only 70 percent of the chimp sequence could be aligned with the human sequence--not taking into account differences within the alignments. 

In other words, 70 percent was a conservative estimate, especially when considering that 50 percent of the human genes were missing from the chimp, and that the regions that did have some similarity were located in completely different patterns. When all aspects of non-similarity--sequence categories, genes, gene families, and gene position--are taken into account, it is safe to say that the overall similarity was lower than 70 percent. The Nature article expressed the discrepancy between this data and standard evolutionary interpretations in a rather intriguing way: "Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation."1 

So, the human Y chromosome looks just as different from a chimp as the other human chromosomes do from a chicken. And to explain where all these differences between humans and chimps came from, believers in big-picture evolution are forced to invent stories of major chromosomal rearrangements and rapid generation of vast amounts of many new genes, along with accompanying regulatory DNA.

However, since each respective Y chromosome appears fully integrated and interdependently stable with its host organism, the most logical inference from the Y chromosome data is that humans and chimpanzees were each specially created as distinct creatures

Source  New Chromosome Research Undermines Human-Chimp Similarity Claims


----------



## Youwerecreated

amrchaos said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you an undeniable example of new information produced in humans.  Which you apparently are pretending doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> Evolution has nothing to do with how living matter first came to earth.  What you are referring to is a process known as abiogenesis.  It has nothing to do with evolution.  The fact that you can't distinguish between these two very separate concepts once again shows how clueless you are on this topic. You don't even know what evolution is but you're convinced it's wrong somehow.
> 
> The fact still remains that evolution describes how genetic information changes over time.  Think of it this way: You don't know how cars are made, and yet you are still able to understand how to drive one. Evolution has nothing to do with the original life "manufacturing".  Just how how we genetically drive from point A to point B.
> 
> If you're still having trouble understanding what evolution is, perhaps you should do more homework before saying it's wrong.
> 
> 
> Again, this is poor reasoning.  You are trying to compare the presence of evidence supporting something as equal to lack of evidence proving it wrong.  That's not how logic works.  It is impossible to prove something DOESN'T exist by lack of evidence.  This is why no one can "prove" god doesn't exist, or Harry Potter for that matter. Lack of evidence does not disprove existence.
> 
> NONETHELESS, the similarity that I mentioned is not one or two genes.  It comprises the large majority of genes.  We are over 98% similar to our closest relatives.  The farther away we get, the more differences appear.
> 
> 
> 18 you say?  And which species are they?  Can you name one?  Let alone 18?  How related are those species to humans?  Any other primates have a different genetic code?  Well, no.  How about other mammals?  No, they have the same genetic code.  Well surely there must be a vertebrate with a different code?  Nope.  Any animal?  No again.  What about plants?  No again.
> 
> So, which species do you know of that has something different, and how similar are they to us?
> 
> 
> Oh?  Could you name some ORFans for us?  Do you even know what ORFan stands for?  Open Reading Frame.  You're talking about bacteria, which readily mutate and produce a large number of changes.  Or are you dumb enough to deny what you refer to as "microevolution" as well, even though it is exactly the same thing as macroevolution?
> 
> 
> And yet they're still >98% similar, not 96.  Yes, 2% of a very large number is still higher than you can count.  But it's still 2%.  We tax based on percentages for a reason.  Teachers grade tests based on percentages for the same reason.
> 
> 
> Physical similarities not due to common ancestry do not have genetic similarity.  The remainder of your paragraph regarding differences in genes is not a conundrum.  Entire government databases are established to show similarities between sequences.
> 
> 
> If the living world was designed, we wouldn't need to have similar yet slightly different "modules" to do the exact same thing between species. Again, your liver and a dog's liver and a monkey liver need to be able to do the exact same thing. There is zero reason to change the "module".  Furthermore, there wouldn't be so many useless areas of DNA.  If things were designed, we wouldn't have vestigiality at the anatomic, physiologic, proteomic, and genetic levels.  But we do.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help but noticed you completely ignored the video of Ken Miller.  How do you explain that one of our chromosomes has the same genes as two ape chromosomes, and appears as if it is the fusion of those two chromosomes, with pieces that are otherwise only found on the end of chromosomes in the center, and two centromeres?  How do you explain that reproducible evidence?
> 
> How do you explain dwarfs from non-dwarf parents if you believe no new information can ever be produced?  What about genes that migrate and in the process create new genes?  What about vestigiality?  Why do you believe that a designer would need slightly different "modules" that all do the exact same thing?  Why do you think some genetic sequences are different yet produce the exact same protein?
> 
> At this point, I've shot down every one of your claims and you have yet to even question mine.  Here's some homework for you, seeing as you probably don't understand a lot of what I'm saying because you are completely uneducated in this topic.  Look up the following terms:
> vestigiality
> de novo mutation
> transposon mutagenesis
> silent mutation
> evolution
> heterozygote advantage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple, genetic defects or loss or copying errors in the genetic information.
> 
> It's what you can prove not what you think you can explain.
> 
> Similarity in GENES does not prove evolution it shows the designer could cause a different result from a similar substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Come to think about it
> 
> It is possible that God created life, cause it to evolve, and created man from gods own experiments with life.
> 
> Using this framework, evolution itself could not disprove god created man, but only outline how man was created.  So what is the problem with the creationists when it comes to evolution?
> 
> That is right--God shaped man out of clay and woman out of man's ribs!  Anything else would cause people to suggest that the Bible is not 100% literal.  Some "elaborations" and "artistic creativity" is used in Genesis.
> 
> Huh buddy, most people think that anyway, so what are you arguing about?
Click to expand...


We are both going by faith buddy, no problem at all.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you worked with fruit flies please provide the new information that was produced through mutations ?
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you an undeniable example of new information produced in humans.  Which you apparently are pretending doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can't understand how non-living matter produced living organisms how can you fully explain the process of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution has nothing to do with how living matter first came to earth.  What you are referring to is a process known as abiogenesis.  It has nothing to do with evolution.  The fact that you can't distinguish between these two very separate concepts once again shows how clueless you are on this topic. You don't even know what evolution is but you're convinced it's wrong somehow.
> 
> The fact still remains that evolution describes how genetic information changes over time.  Think of it this way: You don't know how cars are made, and yet you are still able to understand how to drive one. Evolution has nothing to do with the original life "manufacturing".  Just how how we genetically drive from point A to point B.
> 
> If you're still having trouble understanding what evolution is, perhaps you should do more homework before saying it's wrong.
> 
> 
> Again, this is poor reasoning.  You are trying to compare the presence of evidence supporting something as equal to lack of evidence proving it wrong.  That's not how logic works.  It is impossible to prove something DOESN'T exist by lack of evidence.  This is why no one can "prove" god doesn't exist, or Harry Potter for that matter. Lack of evidence does not disprove existence.
> 
> NONETHELESS, the similarity that I mentioned is not one or two genes.  It comprises the large majority of genes.  We are over 98% similar to our closest relatives.  The farther away we get, the more differences appear.
> 
> 
> 18 you say?  And which species are they?  Can you name one?  Let alone 18?  How related are those species to humans?  Any other primates have a different genetic code?  Well, no.  How about other mammals?  No, they have the same genetic code.  Well surely there must be a vertebrate with a different code?  Nope.  Any animal?  No again.  What about plants?  No again.
> 
> So, which species do you know of that has something different, and how similar are they to us?
> 
> 
> Oh?  Could you name some ORFans for us?  Do you even know what ORFan stands for?  Open Reading Frame.  You're talking about bacteria, which readily mutate and produce a large number of changes.  Or are you dumb enough to deny what you refer to as "microevolution" as well, even though it is exactly the same thing as macroevolution?
> 
> 
> And yet they're still >98% similar, not 96.  Yes, 2% of a very large number is still higher than you can count.  But it's still 2%.  We tax based on percentages for a reason.  Teachers grade tests based on percentages for the same reason.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When genes and proteins are used to try to reconstruct the ancestry of different organisms, and how they are linked in a tree-like pattern, different sources of evidence give different results. Different genes and proteins have conflicting patterns of similarity and difference between organisms. Evolutionists can only get round this problem by working out the most efficient way in which evolution could have worked. When they do this, they have to come up with scenarios where some similarities between organisms are not due to common ancestry, but to convergent evolution. This raises another problem, if similarities are not always due to common ancestry, how can they be evidence for common ancestry?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Physical similarities not due to common ancestry do not have genetic similarity.  The remainder of your paragraph regarding differences in genes is not a conundrum.  Entire government databases are established to show similarities between sequences.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the living world is designed, the patterns of similarity and difference we see in the living world could be due to selective use of designed modules to produce different combinations of features.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the living world was designed, we wouldn't need to have similar yet slightly different "modules" to do the exact same thing between species. Again, your liver and a dog's liver and a monkey liver need to be able to do the exact same thing. There is zero reason to change the "module".  Furthermore, there wouldn't be so many useless areas of DNA.  If things were designed, we wouldn't have vestigiality at the anatomic, physiologic, proteomic, and genetic levels.  But we do.
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help but noticed you completely ignored the video of Ken Miller.  How do you explain that one of our chromosomes has the same genes as two ape chromosomes, and appears as if it is the fusion of those two chromosomes, with pieces that are otherwise only found on the end of chromosomes in the center, and two centromeres?  How do you explain that reproducible evidence?
> 
> How do you explain dwarfs from non-dwarf parents if you believe no new information can ever be produced?  What about genes that migrate and in the process create new genes?  What about vestigiality?  Why do you believe that a designer would need slightly different "modules" that all do the exact same thing?  Why do you think some genetic sequences are different yet produce the exact same protein?
> 
> At this point, I've shot down every one of your claims and you have yet to even question mine.  Here's some homework for you, seeing as you probably don't understand a lot of what I'm saying because you are completely uneducated in this topic.  Look up the following terms:
> vestigiality
> de novo mutation
> transposon mutagenesis
> silent mutation
> evolution
> heterozygote advantage
Click to expand...


You said in an earlier post that you worked with fruit flies and i was wrong in my comment,so back your claims, what new information arrived to the offspring from the mutations in the fruit flies ?


----------



## amrchaos

Youwerecreated said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple, genetic defects or loss or copying errors in the genetic information.
> 
> It's what you can prove not what you think you can explain.
> 
> Similarity in GENES does not prove evolution it shows the designer could cause a different result from a similar substance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come to think about it
> 
> It is possible that God created life, cause it to evolve, and created man from gods own experiments with life.
> 
> Using this framework, evolution itself could not disprove god created man, but only outline how man was created.  So what is the problem with the creationists when it comes to evolution?
> 
> That is right--God shaped man out of clay and woman out of man's ribs!  Anything else would cause people to suggest that the Bible is not 100% literal.  Some "elaborations" and "artistic creativity" is used in Genesis.
> 
> Huh buddy, most people think that anyway, so what are you arguing about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are both going by faith buddy, no problem at all.
Click to expand...


Faith is stating "God created man"
Science is the act of asking the question--Just how did God create man?

You continue make inference that the evidence leads to your theological statement, but it could also lead to assuming that there existed an early point when there weren't always two distinct species.


Think about it, if the genetic data was exact, creationists could then make the arguement that differentiation is dependant on gods will.  If there are distinctions, creationists would use your arguements.  Bottomline-creationist


----------



## Youwerecreated

amrchaos said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come to think about it
> 
> It is possible that God created life, cause it to evolve, and created man from gods own experiments with life.
> 
> Using this framework, evolution itself could not disprove god created man, but only outline how man was created.  So what is the problem with the creationists when it comes to evolution?
> 
> That is right--God shaped man out of clay and woman out of man's ribs!  Anything else would cause people to suggest that the Bible is not 100% literal.  Some "elaborations" and "artistic creativity" is used in Genesis.
> 
> Huh buddy, most people think that anyway, so what are you arguing about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are both going by faith buddy, no problem at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Faith is stating "God created man"
> Science is the act of asking the question--Just how did God create man?
> 
> You continue make inference that the evidence leads to your theological statement, but it could also lead to assuming that there existed an early point when there weren't always two distinct species.
> 
> 
> Think about it, if the genetic data was exact, creationists could then make the arguement that differentiation is dependant on gods will.  If there are distinctions, creationists would use your arguements.  Bottomline-creationist
Click to expand...


Most evolutionists subscribe to a natural process =without intelligent design ,rejecting obvious evidece of intelligent design.If evolutionists are truly trying to find out how God did it, they wouldn't be so quick to deny obvious evidence for intelligent design.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> Simple, genetic defects or loss or copying errors in the genetic information.


I asked you about 10 questions on different things, and you are only capable of answering one of them?  What do you think "COPYING ERRORS" are?  MUTATION!  New information!  What do you think evolution is based on if not "copying errors"?  Once again you show you are clueless on the topic.

Now, how do you explain our chromosomes appearing as if two ape chromosomes fused head to head?  Why do they look like that?  You continue to avoid this question.  You are incapable.  And so to avoid being exposed as a fraud, you just ignore simple questions like these and the others I asked that are still unanswered.  Would you like me to compile them for you?



amrchaos said:


> Come to think about it
> 
> It is possible that God created life, cause it to evolve, and created man from gods own experiments with life.
> 
> Using this framework, evolution itself could not disprove god created man, but only outline how man was created.  So what is the problem with the creationists when it comes to evolution?


If you believe that, it STILL doesn't affect evolution in any way.  Many people do believe that.  The problem creationists have with it is that they don't actually understand what evolution is, or how it works.  They believe it threatens something the bible says, and so therefore has to be proven inaccurate.  Despite years of trying, they have repeatedly failed.  



Youwerecreated said:


> You said in an earlier post that you worked with fruit flies and i was wrong in my comment,so back your claims, what new information arrived to the offspring from the mutations in the fruit flies ?


I have worked with fruit flies before, yes.  I gave you an example in humans of what you're asking because it's an undeniable change produced by new information.  Or are you so petty as to believe this somehow "doesn't count" because I am talking about a different species?  Is dwarfism inheritable new information from random mutation or not?  If yes, why do you need it in another species?  If no, how do you explain it?

Oh by the way, that long copied and pasted blurb you put up was not a research article.  It wasn't a published article at all.  In fact, it's just a single person on the internet posting something.  No credentials.  No peer review.  Laughable to any scientific mind, but great for gullible people who believe anything they read.  Did you even bother to read it or did you just paste it here?  He's grasping at straws, saying things weren't assembled correctly.  Both genomes have since been verified and re-verified.  You can go to the government-based genomics site now and verify it for yourself.  So he's done no research, is making guesses, and has already been proven wrong.  Did I mention that article is not actually published?  If you'd like a more thorough trashing of this crap, just read here.

Once again, I find myself openly responding to every single point you make, and you continuing to hide from most I make.  Here's a list of questions you have yet to answer:

How do you explain vestigiality?
How do you explain dwarfs being born to non-dwarf parents?
How do you explain the fact that one of our chromosomes has pieces that otherwise belong on the end in the middle?  Try using your own words.
How do you explain the fact that one of our chromosomes has two centromeres?  Your article doesn't even try to refute that one.
How do you explain de novo mutation?
How do you explain silent mutations?
How do you explain heterozygote advantage in select areas?
Which species have a different genetic code than humans?  You claimed 18 did, and yet you appear to be unable to name 1. 
Have you figured out what evolution is yet?
I look forward to you ignoring these again, seeing as creationism is incapable of producing valid conclusions given specific reproducible evidence because it all contradicts their unsupported reasoning.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple, genetic defects or loss or copying errors in the genetic information.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you about 10 questions on different things, and you are only capable of answering one of them?  What do you think "COPYING ERRORS" are?  MUTATION!  New information!  What do you think evolution is based on if not "copying errors"?  Once again you show you are clueless on the topic.
> 
> Now, how do you explain our chromosomes appearing as if two ape chromosomes fused head to head?  Why do they look like that?  You continue to avoid this question.  You are incapable.  And so to avoid being exposed as a fraud, you just ignore simple questions like these and the others I asked that are still unanswered.  Would you like me to compile them for you?
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come to think about it
> 
> It is possible that God created life, cause it to evolve, and created man from gods own experiments with life.
> 
> Using this framework, evolution itself could not disprove god created man, but only outline how man was created.  So what is the problem with the creationists when it comes to evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you believe that, it STILL doesn't affect evolution in any way.  Many people do believe that.  The problem creationists have with it is that they don't actually understand what evolution is, or how it works.  They believe it threatens something the bible says, and so therefore has to be proven inaccurate.  Despite years of trying, they have repeatedly failed.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said in an earlier post that you worked with fruit flies and i was wrong in my comment,so back your claims, what new information arrived to the offspring from the mutations in the fruit flies ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have worked with fruit flies before, yes.  I gave you an example in humans of what you're asking because it's an undeniable change produced by new information.  Or are you so petty as to believe this somehow "doesn't count" because I am talking about a different species?  Is dwarfism inheritable new information from random mutation or not?  If yes, why do you need it in another species?  If no, how do you explain it?
> 
> Oh by the way, that long copied and pasted blurb you put up was not a research article.  It wasn't a published article at all.  In fact, it's just a single person on the internet posting something.  No credentials.  No peer review.  Laughable to any scientific mind, but great for gullible people who believe anything they read.  Did you even bother to read it or did you just paste it here?  He's grasping at straws, saying things weren't assembled correctly.  Both genomes have since been verified and re-verified.  You can go to the government-based genomics site now and verify it for yourself.  So he's done no research, is making guesses, and has already been proven wrong.  Did I mention that article is not actually published?  If you'd like a more thorough trashing of this crap, just read here.
> 
> Once again, I find myself openly responding to every single point you make, and you continuing to hide from most I make.  Here's a list of questions you have yet to answer:
> 
> How do you explain vestigiality?
> How do you explain dwarfs being born to non-dwarf parents?
> How do you explain the fact that one of our chromosomes has pieces that otherwise belong on the end in the middle?  Try using your own words.
> How do you explain the fact that one of our chromosomes has two centromeres?  Your article doesn't even try to refute that one.
> How do you explain de novo mutation?
> How do you explain silent mutations?
> How do you explain heterozygote advantage in select areas?
> Which species have a different genetic code than humans?  You claimed 18 did, and yet you appear to be unable to name 1.
> Have you figured out what evolution is yet?
> I look forward to you ignoring these again, seeing as creationism is incapable of producing valid conclusions given specific reproducible evidence because it all contradicts their unsupported reasoning.
Click to expand...


There is no proof the chromosomes merged, none at all. You are trying to make a point with someones opinion.

So you pay no attention to the source that was quoted, typical.

Now you are avoiding my question about the new information that was the result of mutations in the fruit fly,why ?

The first thing you do wrong is assume similarity proves evolution.

Don't bate and swithch and try to change the discussion in the middle of the stream.

You have totally ignored Haldane&#8217;s dilemma that shows what you are presenting as fact is nothing but a stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simple, genetic defects or loss or copying errors in the genetic information.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you about 10 questions on different things, and you are only capable of answering one of them?  What do you think "COPYING ERRORS" are?  MUTATION!  New information!  What do you think evolution is based on if not "copying errors"?  Once again you show you are clueless on the topic.
> 
> Now, how do you explain our chromosomes appearing as if two ape chromosomes fused head to head?  Why do they look like that?  You continue to avoid this question.  You are incapable.  And so to avoid being exposed as a fraud, you just ignore simple questions like these and the others I asked that are still unanswered.  Would you like me to compile them for you?
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come to think about it
> 
> It is possible that God created life, cause it to evolve, and created man from gods own experiments with life.
> 
> Using this framework, evolution itself could not disprove god created man, but only outline how man was created.  So what is the problem with the creationists when it comes to evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you believe that, it STILL doesn't affect evolution in any way.  Many people do believe that.  The problem creationists have with it is that they don't actually understand what evolution is, or how it works.  They believe it threatens something the bible says, and so therefore has to be proven inaccurate.  Despite years of trying, they have repeatedly failed.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said in an earlier post that you worked with fruit flies and i was wrong in my comment,so back your claims, what new information arrived to the offspring from the mutations in the fruit flies ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have worked with fruit flies before, yes.  I gave you an example in humans of what you're asking because it's an undeniable change produced by new information.  Or are you so petty as to believe this somehow "doesn't count" because I am talking about a different species?  Is dwarfism inheritable new information from random mutation or not?  If yes, why do you need it in another species?  If no, how do you explain it?
> 
> Oh by the way, that long copied and pasted blurb you put up was not a research article.  It wasn't a published article at all.  In fact, it's just a single person on the internet posting something.  No credentials.  No peer review.  Laughable to any scientific mind, but great for gullible people who believe anything they read.  Did you even bother to read it or did you just paste it here?  He's grasping at straws, saying things weren't assembled correctly.  Both genomes have since been verified and re-verified.  You can go to the government-based genomics site now and verify it for yourself.  So he's done no research, is making guesses, and has already been proven wrong.  Did I mention that article is not actually published?  If you'd like a more thorough trashing of this crap, just read here.
> 
> Once again, I find myself openly responding to every single point you make, and you continuing to hide from most I make.  Here's a list of questions you have yet to answer:
> 
> How do you explain vestigiality?
> How do you explain dwarfs being born to non-dwarf parents?
> How do you explain the fact that one of our chromosomes has pieces that otherwise belong on the end in the middle?  Try using your own words.
> How do you explain the fact that one of our chromosomes has two centromeres?  Your article doesn't even try to refute that one.
> How do you explain de novo mutation?
> How do you explain silent mutations?
> How do you explain heterozygote advantage in select areas?
> Which species have a different genetic code than humans?  You claimed 18 did, and yet you appear to be unable to name 1.
> Have you figured out what evolution is yet?
> I look forward to you ignoring these again, seeing as creationism is incapable of producing valid conclusions given specific reproducible evidence because it all contradicts their unsupported reasoning.
Click to expand...


Don't you get it ! in the video you posted the guy admitted they had to come up with an explanation for the extra chromosome and thats what they did nevermind if it was fact or not and your side is running with it like the explanation is fact .But that is typical of your side ,only to be proven wrong later and then they reach into their imagination ONCE AGAIN TO KEEP THE THEORY ALIVE.

If you are still having a problem seeing the difference between chimps and humans just put a picture of one of your loved ones next to a chimp,get real.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> There is no proof the chromosomes merged, none at all. You are trying to make a point with someones opinion.


Let's throw out that conclusion then.  There is undeniable reproducible proof that one of our chromosomes has two centromeres in it, when each chromosome only needs one, with the extra one being inactivated.  There is also undeniable reproducible proof that the same chromosome contains structures that are only found at the end of every other chromosome in the middle.  This is fact.  The human genome has already been sequenced for years now, and any given finding can be easily confirmed.  I could pluck a hair from your head, take it to a biology lab, and reproduce the exact same results to find these odd additional centromeres and telomeres where they don't belong.  So EVEN IF you don't want to believe the genes on that human chromosome are the same genes on two ape chromosomes, which is also reproducible fact, how do you explain those odd centromeres and telomeres?  

This is not opinion.  This is reproducible evidence. What conclusions do you draw from it if you don't like the obvious one all the smart people have independently reached?  How do YOU explain it?



Youwerecreated said:


> So you pay no attention to the source that was quoted, typical.


I discredit your source because it lacks credentials.  Let's compare the information that each of us has provided thus far.  I have offered verifiable laboratory findings that can be reproduced, and therefore refuted, in any biology lab in the world. Important to note is that this factual information HAS NOT been refuted by anyone.  Ever. Not even by your sources. We have yet to find someone sequence our chromosomes and find something  different than the verified sequence we currently have.  Ever.  Researchers then took this information, and published it in a credible peer reviewed journal.  That means their competition and opponents in the field had to scrupulously examine their methods and conclusions, and were not able to find anything wrong it. Only then can it be published in one of this nation's top scientific publications. 

You provided a blog post. By someone who did no research on the topic. Which was verified by no one. And published no where. 

Are you starting to see how these sources are not equivalent?



Youwerecreated said:


> Now you are avoiding my question about the new information that was the result of mutations in the fruit fly,why ?


I've answered 'why' several times now.  I provided the exact information you requested in our own species instead of the fruit fly, because species doesn't matter. I did this because uneducated people such as yourself tend to hand waive changes in flies they don't understand.  It's much harder to do the same for noticeable undeniable changes in people. If you can provide a single reason why the exact same findings would be more valuable in fruit flies than humans, I'd be happy to go dig up a de novo mutation for you. But I've asked you that several times now, and you are still unable to provide an answer. 

On second thought, just to stop your distracting and otherwise illogical whining, here's a few de novo or novel mutations found in fruit flies I found on quick pubmed search:
Molecular Nature of 11 Spontaneous de Novo Mutations in Drosophila melanogaster -- Yang et al. 157 (3): 1285 -- Genetics
PLoS Genetics: Evidence that Adaptation in Drosophila Is Not Limited by Mutation at Single Sites
The history of the Drosophila TRP channel: the bir... [J Neurogenet. 2010] - PubMed result
The novel Drosophila tim(blind) mutation affects b... [Genetics. 2005] - PubMed result
A novel subfamily of mitochondrial dicarboxylate c... [Biochim Biophys Acta. 2010] - PubMed result
Regulation of mitochondrial single-stranded DNA-bi... [J Biol Chem. 2000] - PubMed result
Targeted gain-of-function screening in Drosophila ... [Genet Res. 2009] - PubMed result

Let me know if you want me to continue using the basic services of free search engines, since you seem to have trouble with it.

The remainder of your post is more whining, without actually trying to explain any of the reproducible verifiable factual evidence presented to you, let alone answer any of my questions.  As a reference, here is a list of questions you are still avoiding:

How do you explain vestigiality?
How do you explain dwarfs being born to non-dwarf parents?
How do you explain the fact that one of our chromosomes has pieces that otherwise belong on the end in the middle? Try using your own words.
How do you explain the fact that one of our chromosomes has two centromeres? Your article doesn't even try to refute that one.
How do you explain de novo mutation?
How do you explain silent mutations?
How do you explain heterozygote advantage in select areas?
 Which species have a different genetic code than humans? You claimed 18 did, and yet you appear to be unable to name 1.
Have you figured out what evolution is yet?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> Don't you get it ! in the video you posted the guy admitted they had to come up with an explanation for the extra chromosome and thats what they did nevermind if it was fact or not and your side is running with it like the explanation is fact .But that is typical of your side ,only to be proven wrong later and then they reach into their imagination ONCE AGAIN TO KEEP THE THEORY ALIVE.


Yes, that's how logic works.  You produce the best conclusion given the evidence.  That's how every doctor, scientist, and police officer in the country operates. If you disagree with the conclusion based on that evidence, all you need to do is provide an alternate conclusion from that evidence.  

But you haven't.  And you can't.  Because nothing else makes sense, given that evidence.  For your pre-conceived ideas to make sense, you in fact have to IGNORE the factual reproducible evidence, and pretend it doesn't exist.



Youwerecreated said:


> If you are still having a problem seeing the difference between chimps and humans just put a picture of one of your loved ones next to a chimp,get real.


If the only thing you are using as the basis of your understanding of this world is your eyes, you're a moron. We have stockpiles of technology to help us examine the natural world today, from microscopes that enhance your eyes to see things it previously couldn't see, to complex electronics that give us information at the anatomic structure.  If all you can do is hold two pictures of things up to each other and use that as the basis of your comparison, you're a complete moron.  By your reasoning, an ice cube and a glass of water are made of completely different things because they look different if you put them next to each other. "Get real."


----------



## Youwerecreated

Smaterthanhick for your reading pleasure,it's time for you to catch up.

REAL GENOMIC DIFFERENCES

One of the downfalls of previous molecular genetic studies has been the limit at which chimpanzees and humans could be compared accurately. Scientists often would use only 30 or 40 known proteins or nucleic acid sequences, and then from those extrapolate their results for the entire genome. Today, however, we have the majority of the human genome sequences, practically all of which have been released and made public. This allows scientists to compare every single nucleotide base pair between humans and primates&#8212;something that was not possible prior to the human genome project. In January 2002, a study was published in which scientists had constructed and analyzed a first-generation human chimpanzee comparative genomic map. This study compared the alignments of 77,461 chimpanzee bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) end sequences to human genomic sequences. Fujiyama and colleagues &#8220;detected candidate positions, including two clusters on human chromosome 21, that suggest large, nonrandom regions of differences between the two genomes&#8221; (2002, 295:131). In other words, the comparison revealed some &#8220;large&#8221; differences between the genomes of chimps and humans. 

Amazingly, the authors found that only 48.6% of the whole human genome matched chimpanzee nucleotide sequences. [Only 4.8% of the human Y chromosome could be matched to chimpanzee sequences.] This study compared the alignments of 77,461 chimpanzee sequences to human genomic sequences obtained from public databases. Of these, 36,940 end sequences were unable to be mapped to the human genome (295:131). Almost 15,000 of those sequences that did not match human sequences were speculated to &#8220;correspond to unsequenced human regions or are from chimpanzee regions that have diverged substantially from humans or did not match for other unknown reasons&#8221; (295:132). While the authors noted that the quality and usefulness of the map should &#8220;increasingly improve as the finishing of the human genome sequence proceeds&#8221; (295:134), the data already support what creationists have said for years&#8212;the 98-99% figure representing DNA similarity is grossly misleading, as revealed in a study carried out by Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology (see Britten, 2002). 

Exactly how misleading came to light in an article&#8212;&#8220;Jumbled DNA Separates Chimps and Humans&#8221;&#8212;published in the October 25, 2002 issue of Science. The first three sentences of the article, written by Elizabeth Pennisi (a staff writer for Science), represented a &#8220;that was then, this is now&#8221; type of admission of defeat. She wrote: 


For almost 30 years, researchers have asserted that the DNA of humans and chimps is at least 98.5% identical. Now research reported here last week at the American Society for Human Genetics meeting suggests that the two primate genomes might not be quite as similar after all. A closer look has uncovered nips and tucks of homologous sections of DNA that weren&#8217;t noticed in previous studies (298:719, emp. added).
Genomicists Kelly Frazer and David Cox of Perlegen Sciences in Mountain View, California, along with geneticists Evan Eichler and Devin Locke of Case Western University in Cleveland, Ohio, compared human and chimp DNA, and discovered a wide range of insertions and deletions (anywhere from between 200 bases to 10,000 bases). Cox commented: &#8220;The implications could be profound, because such genetic hiccups could disable entire genes, possibly explaining why our closest cousin seems so distant&#8221; (as quoted in Pennisi, 298:721). 

Britten analyzed chimp and human genomes with a customized computer program. To quote Pennisi&#8217;s article: 


He compared 779,000 bases of chimp DNA with the sequences of the human genome, both found in the public repository GenBank. Single-base changes accounted for 1.4% of the differences between the human and chimp genomes, and insertions and deletions accounted for an additional 3.4%, he reported in the 15 October [2002] Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Locke&#8217;s and Frazer&#8217;s groups didn&#8217;t commit to any new estimates of the similarity between the species, but both agree that the previously accepted 98.5% mark is too high (298:721, emp. added).
While Locke&#8217;s and Frazer&#8217;s team was unwilling to commit to any new estimate of the similarity between chimps and humans, Britten was not. In fact, he titled his article in the October 15, 2002 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, &#8220;Divergence between Samples of Chimpanzee and Human DNA Sequences is 5%&#8221; (Britten, 99:13633-13635). In the abstract accompanying the article, he wrote: &#8220;The conclusion is that the old saw that we share 98.5% of our DNA sequence with chimpanzee is probably in error. For this sample, a better estimate would be that 95% of the base pairs are exactly shared between chimpanzee and human DNA&#8221; (99:13633, emp. added). The news service at NewScientist.com reported the event as follows: 


It has long been held that we share 98.5 per cent of our genetic material with our closest relatives. That now appears to be wrong. In fact, we share less than 95 per cent of our genetic material, a three-fold increase in the variation between us and chimps. 
The new value came to light when Roy Britten of the California Institute of Technology became suspicious about the 98.5 per cent figure. Ironically, that number was originally derived from a technique that Britten himself developed decades ago at Caltech with colleague Dave Kohne. By measuring the temperature at which matching DNA of two species comes apart, you can work out how different they are. 

But the technique only picks up a particular type of variation, called a single base substitution. These occur whenever a single &#8220;letter&#8221; differs in corresponding strands of DNA from the two species. 

But there are two other major types of variation that the previous analyses ignored. &#8220;Insertions&#8221; occur whenever a whole section of DNA appears in one species but not in the corresponding strand of the other. Likewise, &#8220;deletions&#8221; mean that a piece of DNA is missing from one species. 

Together, they are termed &#8220;indels,&#8221; and Britten seized his chance to evaluate the true variation between the two species when stretches of chimp DNA were recently published on the internet by teams from the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, and from the University of Oklahoma. 

When Britten compared five stretches of chimp DNA with the corresponding pieces of human DNA, he found that single base substitutions accounted for a difference of 1.4 per cent, very close to the expected figure. 

But he also found that the DNA of both species was littered with indels. His comparisons revealed that they add around another 4.0 per cent to the genetic differences (see Coghlan, 2002, emp. added).

It seems that, as time passes and scientific studies increase, humans appear to be less like chimps after all. In a separate study, Barbulescu and colleagues also uncovered another major difference in the genomes of primates and humans. In their article &#8220;A HERV-K Provirus in Chimpanzees, Bonobos, and Gorillas, but not Humans,&#8221; the authors wrote: &#8220;These observations provide very strong evidence that, for some fraction of the genome, chimpanzees, bonobos, and gorillas are more closely related to each other than they are to humans&#8221; (2001, 11:779, emp. added). The data from these results go squarely against what evolutionists have contended for decades&#8212;that chimpanzees are closer genetically to humans than they are to gorillas. Another study using interspecies representational difference analysis (RDA) between humans and gorillas revealed gorilla-specific DNA sequences (Toder, et al., 2001)&#8212;that is, gorillas possess sequences of DNA that are not found in humans. The authors of this study suggested that sequences found in gorillas but not humans &#8220;could represent either ancient sequences that got lost in other species, such as human and orang-utan, or, more likely, recent sequences which evolved or originated specifically in the gorilla genome&#8221; (9:431). 

The differences between chimpanzees and humans are not limited to genomic variances. In 1998, a structural difference between the cell surfaces of humans and apes was detected. After studying tissues and blood samples from the great apes, and sixty humans from various ethnic groups, Muchmore and colleagues discovered that human cells are missing a particular form of sialic acid (a type of sugar) found in all other mammals (1998, 107[2]:187). This sialic acid molecule is found on the surface of every cell in the body, and is thought to carry out multiple cellular tasks. This seemingly &#8220;miniscule&#8221; difference can have far-reaching effects, and might explain why surgeons were unable to transplant chimp organs into humans in the 1960s. With this in mind, we never should declare, with a simple wave of the hand, &#8220;chimps are almost identical to us&#8221; simply because of a large genetic overlap. 


CONCLUSION

Homology (or similarity) does not prove common ancestry. The entire genome of the tiny nematode (Caenorhabditis elegans) also has been sequenced as a tangential study to the human genome project. Of the 5,000 best-known human genes, 75% have matches in the worm (see &#8220;A Tiny Worm Challenges Evolution&#8221. Does this mean that we are 75% identical to a nematode worm? Just because living creatures share some genes with humans does not mean there is a linear ancestry. Biologist John Randall admitted this when he wrote: 


The older textbooks on evolution make much of the idea of homology, pointing out the obvious resemblances between the skeletons of the limbs of different animals. Thus the &#8220;pentadactyl&#8221; [five bone&#8212;BH/BT] limb pattern is found in the arm of a man, the wing of a bird, and flipper of a whale&#8212;and this is held to indicate their common origin. Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene couples, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down... (as quoted in Fix, 1984, p.189).
Yet textbooks and teachers still continue to proclaim that humans and chimps are 98% genetically identical. The evidence clearly demonstrates vast molecular differences&#8212;differences that can be attributed to the fact that humans, unlike animals, were created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; see Lyons and Thompson, 2002a, 2002b). Elaine Morgan commented on this difference. 


Considering the very close genetic relationship that has been established by comparison of biochemical properties of blood proteins, protein structure and DNA and immunological responses, the differences between a man and a chimpanzee are more astonishing than the resemblances. They include structural differences in the skeleton, the muscles, the skin, and the brain; differences in posture associated with a unique method of locomotion; differences in social organization; and finally the acquisition of speech and tool-using, together with the dramatic increase in intellectual ability which has led scientists to name their own species Homo sapiens sapiens&#8212;wise wise man. During the period when these remarkable evolutionary changes were taking place, other closely related ape-like species changed only very slowly, and with far less remarkable results. It is hard to resist the conclusion that something must have happened to the ancestors of Homo sapiens which did not happen to the ancestors of gorillas and chimpanzees (1989, pp. 17-18, emp. added).

Apologetics Press - Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

In the future, I recommend you read things for yourself and make points using your own words instead of copying and pasting things from the internet, as it makes you look like a moron, especially in light of the fact that I have already addressed the points in this paper in a link I offered you, and you clearly didn't read, about 4 posts ago.  

But to take my own advice and paraphrase for you: genomes are filled with large amounts of junk which undergo lots of random mutation.  Alterations to these areas produce no actual changes to the organism, so they are unnoticed.  When a scientist says we are 98% similar to apes, the verifiable fact is referring to genes that are actually used.  For example, I just looked up the human enzyme called lipase, searched the US government's chimpanzee genome database, and found a match that was 98% identical.  You can do the same, if you were actually interested in learning about this topic.  But you're not.  You're an uneducated and gullible hick who needs to stay ignorant.  If you actually learned anything about biology, it may fracture your fragile faith.

But let's go back to the idea of credentials.  This article you offer now is yet again unpublished.  It's pasted from a blog that has other such articles as "The Laws of Thermodynamics Dont Apply to the Universe" and "How Long Were Adam and Eve in the Garden?".  Again, the author has done no actual research, did not have his article reviewed by anyone, and could not actually get this article published.

Here's that list of things you are avoiding, still including things you yourself said were true but can in no way support.  This once again shows that educated people such as myself have no trouble fielding all questions, whereas creationists continue to scratch their heads in stupidity and pretend verifiable evidence doesn't exist.  My kind fosters transparency and education.  Your type hides in the shadows, knows little, and nips at heels when convenient.


 How do you explain vestigiality?
 How do you explain dwarfs being born to non-dwarf parents?
 How do you explain the fact that one of our chromosomes has pieces that otherwise belong on the end in the middle? Try using your own words.
 How do you explain the fact that one of our chromosomes has two centromeres? Your article doesn't even try to refute that one.
 How do you explain de novo mutation?
 How do you explain silent mutations?
 How do you explain heterozygote advantage in select areas?
 Which species have a different genetic code than humans? You claimed 18 did, and yet you appear to be unable to name 1.
 Have you figured out what evolution is yet?


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> No.
> 
> I believe what we see is adaptations and it comes from recombination of genes and the information was always there to help with the adaptations and the adaptations are limited.



Then surely you reject intelligent design, which does accept the mechanics of evolution to describe speciation.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> Most evolutionists subscribe to a natural process =without intelligent design ,rejecting obvious evidece of intelligent design.If evolutionists are truly trying to find out how God did it, they wouldn't be so quick to deny obvious evidence for intelligent design.



What is "intelligent" about autoimmune pathologies, cancer, and joints that wear out before their time?


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most evolutionists subscribe to a natural process =without intelligent design ,rejecting obvious evidece of intelligent design.If evolutionists are truly trying to find out how God did it, they wouldn't be so quick to deny obvious evidence for intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is "intelligent" about autoimmune pathologies, cancer, and joints that wear out before their time?
Click to expand...


I believe aging was the process in which God handed down the punishment for sin. He also struck many with bacteria that over time changes and adapts and proves to be harmful to all living things.

Evidence for intelliget design would be things like red and white blood cells. How eyes dilate according to the amount of light. To continue the creations production ,gender and sex organs. Can you honestly think an unintelligent process was capable of producing the brain ?

That is just a few.


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> I believe what we see is adaptations and it comes from recombination of genes and the information was always there to help with the adaptations and the adaptations are limited.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then surely you reject intelligent design, which does accept the mechanics of evolution to describe speciation.
Click to expand...


Speciation within a kind i accept not outside the kind. I believe speciation is a result of recombination of gene,information that was always present.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> In the future, I recommend you read things for yourself and make points using your own words instead of copying and pasting things from the internet, as it makes you look like a moron, especially in light of the fact that I have already addressed the points in this paper in a link I offered you, and you clearly didn't read, about 4 posts ago.
> 
> But to take my own advice and paraphrase for you: genomes are filled with large amounts of junk which undergo lots of random mutation.  Alterations to these areas produce no actual changes to the organism, so they are unnoticed.  When a scientist says we are 98% similar to apes, the verifiable fact is referring to genes that are actually used.  For example, I just looked up the human enzyme called lipase, searched the US government's chimpanzee genome database, and found a match that was 98% identical.  You can do the same, if you were actually interested in learning about this topic.  But you're not.  You're an uneducated and gullible hick who needs to stay ignorant.  If you actually learned anything about biology, it may fracture your fragile faith.
> 
> But let's go back to the idea of credentials.  This article you offer now is yet again unpublished.  It's pasted from a blog that has other such articles as "The Laws of Thermodynamics Dont Apply to the Universe" and "How Long Were Adam and Eve in the Garden?".  Again, the author has done no actual research, did not have his article reviewed by anyone, and could not actually get this article published.
> 
> Here's that list of things you are avoiding, still including things you yourself said were true but can in no way support.  This once again shows that educated people such as myself have no trouble fielding all questions, whereas creationists continue to scratch their heads in stupidity and pretend verifiable evidence doesn't exist.  My kind fosters transparency and education.  Your type hides in the shadows, knows little, and nips at heels when convenient.
> 
> 
> How do you explain vestigiality?
> How do you explain dwarfs being born to non-dwarf parents?
> How do you explain the fact that one of our chromosomes has pieces that otherwise belong on the end in the middle? Try using your own words.
> How do you explain the fact that one of our chromosomes has two centromeres? Your article doesn't even try to refute that one.
> How do you explain de novo mutation?
> How do you explain silent mutations?
> How do you explain heterozygote advantage in select areas?
> Which species have a different genetic code than humans? You claimed 18 did, and yet you appear to be unable to name 1.
> Have you figured out what evolution is yet?



You are making this entirely to personal for my taste. But just a reminder i believe you were the one to turn to outside sources first. Oh and one more thing all that work was done and my source provided the article with who said and did what was quoted.

As far as your questions are concerned there would have to be an answer to Haldanes dilemma before spending more time chasing fairytales.




Nature 282, 189 - 194 (08 November 1979); doi:10.1038/282189a0 



A different genetic code in human mitochondria


B. G. Barrell, A. T. Bankier & J. Drouin*


MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Hills Road, Cambridge, UK
*Present address: Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco, California 94143.





Comparison of the human mitochrondrial DNA sequence of the cytochrome oxidase subunit II gene and the sequence of the corresponding beef heart protein shows that UGA is used as a tryptophan codon and not as a termination codon and suggests that AU A may be a methionine and not an isoleucine codon. The cytochrome oxidase II gene is contiguous at its 5' end with a tRNAAsp gene and there are only 25 bases at its 3' end before a tRNALys gene. These tRNAs are different from all other known tRNA sequences.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most evolutionists subscribe to a natural process =without intelligent design ,rejecting obvious evidece of intelligent design.If evolutionists are truly trying to find out how God did it, they wouldn't be so quick to deny obvious evidence for intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is "intelligent" about autoimmune pathologies, cancer, and joints that wear out before their time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe aging was the process in which God handed down the punishment for sin. He also struck many with bacteria that over time changes and adapts and proves to be harmful to all living things.
> 
> Evidence for intelliget design would be things like red and white blood cells. How eyes dilate according to the amount of light. To continue the creations production ,gender and sex organs. Can you honestly think an unintelligent process was capable of producing the brain ?
> 
> That is just a few.
Click to expand...


Obviously I think an "unntelligent process" was capable of creating the the human body.  I could also point out some un-intelligent facets of red and white blood cells.  For example, hemoglobin binds carbon monoxide, a toxin, with 200 times the affinity that it binds oxygen.  Also, if the 2+ iron becomes oxidized to 3+, which occurs with many medications we take, it generally causes problems too.  That's not to mention all the leukemias and myelomas (neoplasms of white blood cells) and the generally bad idea to put the brain in an non-expansive cranial vault so that even a minor bruise can cause instant death.

If you want to believe that God created pathology to punish us for wickedness, that is your prerogative.  Again, using your criteria of WBCs, I won't ask you to reconcile why ALL generally strikes children, who I have a hard time believing that God wants to punish.

I won't ask you to reconcile it, because the religious have been struggling with the basic question of "Why would a good God allow people to suffer" since the dawn of time.  The Judeo-Christian religion even has the parable of Job to account for it (BTW, I thought God promised never to personally inflict harm on mankind after that?).

However, in the eyes of science, none of these philosophic, esoteric issues are relevant.  Science makes no provisions for the supernatural as the supernatural can't be accounted for in the scientific method.

If you want to argue "God did this", that is your obvious right.  It's just not a scientific arguement.  It's a theological one.  

Therefore, trying to argue a scientific theory (evolution) with a religious one (creation) isn't merely apples and oranges.

It's apples and footballs.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> Speciation within a kind i accept not outside the kind. I believe speciation is a result of recombination of gene,information that was always present.



In the end, it doesn't really matter what you accept.  You are entitled to your beliefs.  You are not entitled to call your personal beliefs "scientific".  

Only creationists get wrapped up on the concept of macro and micro-evolution.  To people who actually understand evolutionary theory, it's like claiming 25 pennies is not quantitatively the same as a quarter.  

Furthermore, your notion that the same genetic information has always been present is just wrong.  Base insertion mutations are a well recognized and studied fact of genetics.  

To use your red blood cell example: There is a distinct set of three base pair codes that code for all the proteins that make up the beta subgroup of hemoglobin.  For most people, it's the same genetic information.  However, for some African Americans, a single base is changed, which causes a substitution of a single (but different) amino acid, which causes the hemoglobin to form a certain configuration under periods of low oxygen and stress, which causes them to polymerize.  When you sum that up, the entire Red Blood Cell sickles and we have the disease known as sickle cell anemia.  

That genetic information was not always in the gene pool from the dawn of time.  It's a mutation that gave rise to a novel phenotype and pathology.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> I believe aging was the process in which God handed down the punishment for sin. He also struck many with bacteria that over time changes and adapts and proves to be harmful to all living things.


That's because you don't understand either aging or bacteria.  Whatever you don't understand, which is a lot, gets turned into magical thinking. 

Irreducible complexity has been shot down time after time.  We need only look towards embryology for answers on development. Again, this is a topic you don't understand, and attribute to magic. 




> Nature 282, 189 - 194 (08 November 1979); doi:10.1038/282189a0
> A different genetic code in human mitochondria


Good job! You found one very well known and studied area that uses a different genetic code.  You said there were 18 SPECIES that use a different code though.  Human mitochondria are not really different species from humans though.  We're well aware that mitochondria have a different genetic code, because they are in fact ancient symbiotes in every one of our cells.  Think of them like old bacteria that just melded into the scenery.  It's why they replicate separately from the rest of the cell and its organelles. They also undergo independent mutations, which is what produces heteroplasmy: large differences in mitochondria within a single organism, not to mention within and between species, even though they all started out relatively the same at conception. Unfortunately for you, the evidence provided by mitochondria only support evolution. I'd ask you what other conclusion you could draw from the additional knowledge about mitochondria I just offered you, but you have yet to do this for ANY of the evidence you've been presented with to date. 



Youwerecreated said:


> You are making this entirely to personal for my taste. But just a reminder i believe you were the one to turn to outside sources first. Oh and one more thing all that work was done and my source provided the article with who said and did what was quoted.


I'm making it personal?  Half the questions are things YOU brought up and can't support.  Did you or did you not state 18 species use a different genetic code than humans?  And yet you've provided zero. Did you or did you not ask for an example of "new information" in genes, which I provided examples of not only in human dwarfism but in several fruit fly genes as well, and you then pretended didn't exist?  These are YOUR issues, and now you're running away because you can't support a lick of what you say.  

Sure I can understand how my point regarding chromosomal fusion is above your head and something you don't want to deal with because you didn't bring it up, but the rest of the questions are your own issues you now run from; you now make excuses to ignore.  How cowardly.  How shameful.  But this is the total extent of the creationist argument.  Perhaps you should take some accountability for your claims next time. 


Here's the list of questions you can't answer and must pretend doesn't exist to maintain your fragile faith:

 How do you explain dwarfs being born to non-dwarf parents?
 How do you explain de novo mutation?
 How do you explain silent mutations?
 How do you explain heterozygote advantage in select areas?
 How do you explain heteroplasmy?
 How do you explain vestigiality?
 Which species have a different autosomal genetic code than humans? You claimed 18 did, and yet you appear to be unable to name 1.


----------



## Old Rocks

Youwerecreated said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most evolutionists subscribe to a natural process =without intelligent design ,rejecting obvious evidece of intelligent design.If evolutionists are truly trying to find out how God did it, they wouldn't be so quick to deny obvious evidence for intelligent design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is "intelligent" about autoimmune pathologies, cancer, and joints that wear out before their time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe aging was the process in which God handed down the punishment for sin. He also struck many with bacteria that over time changes and adapts and proves to be harmful to all living things.
> 
> Evidence for intelliget design would be things like red and white blood cells. How eyes dilate according to the amount of light. To continue the creations production ,gender and sex organs. Can you honestly think an unintelligent process was capable of producing the brain ?
> 
> That is just a few.
Click to expand...


LOL. Then your kind God is really some sort of monster. He creates us as we are, then punishes us for being that way. 

No, there is only evidence for intelligent design in the minds of very unintelligent people.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Old Rocks said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is "intelligent" about autoimmune pathologies, cancer, and joints that wear out before their time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe aging was the process in which God handed down the punishment for sin. He also struck many with bacteria that over time changes and adapts and proves to be harmful to all living things.
> 
> Evidence for intelliget design would be things like red and white blood cells. How eyes dilate according to the amount of light. To continue the creations production ,gender and sex organs. Can you honestly think an unintelligent process was capable of producing the brain ?
> 
> That is just a few.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL. Then your kind God is really some sort of monster. He creates us as we are, then punishes us for being that way.
> 
> No, there is only evidence for intelligent design in the minds of very unintelligent people.
Click to expand...


I often wonder why today so called educated have a problem with law that lives in a society that is based on the rule of law. That's right ,there should be no punishment for law breakers right ? Because god did not provide all the answers you believe its illogical to believe an unseen force. God is like the wind you can't see the wind but you can see its effects. It's even funny to see so many can believe a natural process can create obvious products of design. You people come here for the wrong reason, you are evidently impressed with your education to the point you wish to show it off . I will give you learning your theory produces a strong vocabulary but outside of that there is not much mind power involved in what you believe to be true. Anyone with a strong imagination can create such a theory and then purposely bend explanations of the evidence to make it fit the the theory. Unfortunately I see the same things from fellow Christians,they wish to believe certain things and twist scripture to fit their doctrine. In the end I guess it just comes down to whatever floats your boat. But I can't help worrying about many of you because I have read about the end and where god said the intelligent are cunning and they will try to mislead many but will fail and they shall pray for the mountains to cover them up and them from the one seated on the white horse. They will die because of their intelligence. Now maybe you can understand why I am here.


----------



## Youwerecreated

I read about both sides of the argument and that is what most of you do,over very few here are actually researching the evidence but because you have bought into the theory you repeat maybe in your own words what you have read. I am still waiting for smaterthanhick to provide the new information that arose from mutations of the offspring of the fruit fly. He still has not addressed the dilemma concerning mutations.


----------



## eagleseven

SmarterThanHick said:


> How do you explain vestigiality?
> How do you explain dwarfs being born to non-dwarf parents?
> How do you explain the fact that one of our chromosomes has pieces that otherwise belong on the end in the middle? Try using your own words.
> How do you explain the fact that one of our chromosomes has two centromeres? Your article doesn't even try to refute that one.
> How do you explain de novo mutation?
> How do you explain silent mutations?
> How do you explain heterozygote advantage in select areas?
> Which species have a different genetic code than humans? You claimed 18 did, and yet you appear to be unable to name 1.
> Have you figured out what evolution is yet?


*God did it!*


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> God is like the wind you can't see the wind but you can see its effects.


Correct, we can't see the wind, but we can quantify it's effects reproducibly.  You similarly can't see the oxygen you breath, yet when you go to the hospital, doctors can treat breathing problems with effective precision.  We know this information from drawing conclusions from reproducible evidence by studying the effects of these things on the physical world.  You can't compare God to the wind because God has NO effects on the physical world, let alone reproducible effects that can produce any evidence whatsoever.  If you want to liken God to something in the world you can't see, the better analogy is Santa Claus, ghosts, and invisible unicorns. 

Evolution is not a very good designer.  If you knew much about the topic, you'd see it just sticks things in and hopes it works.  That's why things break down.  You're foolish if you think any part of the natural world works so well as to be designed at the genetic level.  Genetics shows us that is not the case, but you don't understand genetics, and you think no one else does because the words are unfamiliar to you.



Youwerecreated said:


> You people come here for the wrong reason, you are evidently impressed with your education to the point you wish to show it off . I will give you learning your theory produces a strong vocabulary but outside of that there is not much mind power involved in what you believe to be true. Anyone with a strong imagination can create such a theory and then purposely bend explanations of the evidence to make it fit the the theory.


You are evidently impressed with your lack of education to the point you wish to show it off.  It's interesting you use the word "imagination".  I offer you reproducible verified evidence and ask you to use your own imagination or reasoning ability to come up with a conclusion as to how it all makes sense.  You avoid such scenarios time and time again.  You can't even IMAGINE a story that explains the facts.  It's a good thing you're not a detective!  



Youwerecreated said:


> They will die because of their intelligence. Now maybe you can understand why I am here.


And you will die too. Your mortality has nothing to do with intelligence.  Only your insecurity about that mortality does. 



Youwerecreated said:


> I read about both sides of the argument and that is what most of you do,over very few here are actually researching the evidence but because you have bought into the theory you repeat maybe in your own words what you have read. I am still waiting for smaterthanhick to provide the new information that arose from mutations of the offspring of the fruit fly. He still has not addressed the dilemma concerning mutations.


I have provided the new information that arose from mutations in fruit flies. 

Every bit of primary literature has been from direct biological research.  You may not like or agree with the conclusions drawn from the factual evidence of that research, but upon asking you to provide your own explanation, you are continually at a loss.  You pretend it doesn't exist.  You claim I haven't provided anything about the fruit fly when in fact I gave you a LIST of direct research articles, click here for them,  which explain multiple new genes and "new information" in that species.  I have also given you examples of "new information" in humans.  

You can't even say why the evidence is incorrect because doing so would ACKNOWLEDGE it exists, and doing THAT would obliterate your frail understanding of the topic. That's why I have continually asked the same questions at the end of my posts.  To get you to explain how this undeniable "new information" can possibly exist.  How dwarfs can come from non-dwarf parents.  How fruit flies can produce new information.  You have yet to offer any explanation, and you never will.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> I read about both sides of the argument and that is what most of you do,over very few here are actually researching the evidence but because you have bought into the theory you repeat maybe in your own words what you have read. I am still waiting for smaterthanhick to provide the new information that arose from mutations of the offspring of the fruit fly. He still has not addressed the dilemma concerning mutations.



If you want to chalk it all up to God, it basically becomes a circular argument.  The main point is this, you can overlay the supernatural on a scientific theory.

You are entitled to your own belief system, you just aren't entitled to call it a "scientific theory".

This is the fundamental problem the ID crew ran into in court and why they got shellacked at the Dover trial.


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read about both sides of the argument and that is what most of you do,over very few here are actually researching the evidence but because you have bought into the theory you repeat maybe in your own words what you have read. I am still waiting for smaterthanhick to provide the new information that arose from mutations of the offspring of the fruit fly. He still has not addressed the dilemma concerning mutations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to chalk it all up to God, it basically becomes a circular argument.  The main point is this, you can overlay the supernatural on a scientific theory.
> 
> You are entitled to your own belief system, you just aren't entitled to call it a "scientific theory".
> 
> This is the fundamental problem the ID crew ran into in court and why they got shellacked at the Dover trial.
Click to expand...


I will when I get the chance present the arguement that mutations is not the mechanism to macro-evolution. Macro-evolution and micro-evolution are independent of each other. One actually takes place while the other does not. Your side in their opinions is going way beyond the adaptations that is observed.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

I'd ask you why you think they are at all different, but you have yet to answer a single question that prompts you to support your own claims yet. 

The fact still remains that bacteria adapt and gain antibiotic resistance through random mutation, creating "new information".  The mechanisms behind bacteria producing these random mutations are the EXACT same mechanisms behind mutation in every other species.  No creationist has even figured out a way to explain why mutation somehow just stops after one celled organisms.  Mutation happens all the time, even in you right now.  Cancer is the unfortunate side effect of unwanted mutations giving cells enhanced abilities.  I doubt you'd deny that cancer exists, but I take it you will ignore this point like you do all the others that show you to be incorrect.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> I'd ask you why you think they are at all different, but you have yet to answer a single question that prompts you to support your own claims yet.
> 
> The fact still remains that bacteria adapt and gain antibiotic resistance through random mutation, creating "new information".  The mechanisms behind bacteria producing these random mutations are the EXACT same mechanisms behind mutation in every other species.  No creationist has even figured out a way to explain why mutation somehow just stops after one celled organisms.  Mutation happens all the time, even in you right now.  Cancer is the unfortunate side effect of unwanted mutations giving cells enhanced abilities.  I doubt you'd deny that cancer exists, but I take it you will ignore this point like you do all the others that show you to be incorrect.



Macroevolution is change from one kind of life to a distinct new kind of life. Microevolution is small changes within a group. Talk origins site which is pro macroevolution gives the definitions of the terms. The argument I will make concerning mutations is the conditions needed for mutations to promote macroevolution,I will be pointing out the contradictions of the conditions and show the contradictions make the theory an impossibility .


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Yes, it's easy to define a made up term.  Nonetheless, what you and even some scientists foolishly refer to as macroevolution utilizes the exact same mechanism of "microevolution": new mutation producing changes in an organism. Now you already know this is proven fact, as bacteria gain antibiotic resistance.  So given that fact, why is it that you think mutation cannot occur in larger organisms like fruit flies or humans?  

Oh, right.  That's a question about your own beliefs again: those things you try so hard to avoid.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> I will when I get the chance present the arguement that mutations is not the mechanism to macro-evolution. Macro-evolution and micro-evolution are independent of each other. One actually takes place while the other does not. Your side in their opinions is going way beyond the adaptations that is observed.



Macroevolution and microevolution are "different" only to people who are desperate to try and come up with some sort of intelligent-sounding argument against evolution.  For people who have actually formally studied evolution, it's a lame semantics argument that is too asinine to argue.  As I said before, it's like saying you believe in a penny but not a quarter.  

Again, all this is aside the point.  You are entitled to believe whatever you want.  You aren't entitled to call it a valid scientific point.

So, feel free to propose a scientifically valid alternative to evolution and argue it until your heart is content.  However, you should know that the scientific method refuses to entertain supernatural powers as an explanation for anything.


----------



## Ropey

G-d Known and Trusted with Belief  =  Science Known and Tested with Neutrality

A rose by any other name.

I agree that they are inclusive. 

Just as a magnetic bar has a positive pole, a negative pole, and a point of nullity.

Nullity can be considered the equivalence of operation in stasis. Potential positive, potential negative along with their nexus of nullity.  

Hmm...  3 into 1? I love mathematics.

One is quantified with mathematics, the other with faith. Both can be argued. Just not to each other as they quantify differently. 

Christian Faith says they exclusive. Science says there is only one so how can there be anything to exclude. 

That's why it is so enjoyable for me to sit and discuss with the learned men. Of any faith, or science...



geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will when I get the chance present the arguement that mutations is not the mechanism to macro-evolution. Macro-evolution and micro-evolution are independent of each other. One actually takes place while the other does not. Your side in their opinions is going way beyond the adaptations that is observed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Macroevolution and microevolution are "different" only to people who are desperate to try and come up with some sort of intelligent-sounding argument against evolution.  For people who have actually formally studied evolution, it's a lame semantics argument that is too asinine to argue.  As I said before, it's like saying you believe in a penny but not a quarter.
> 
> Again, all this is aside the point.  You are entitled to believe whatever you want.  You aren't entitled to call it a valid scientific point.
> 
> So, feel free to propose a scientifically valid alternative to evolution and argue it until your heart is content.  However, you should know that the scientific method refuses to entertain supernatural powers as an explanation for anything.
Click to expand...


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Ropey said:


> G-d Known and Trusted with Belief  =  Science Known and Tested with Neutrality
> 
> A rose by any other name.
> 
> I agree that they are inclusive.
> 
> Just as a magnetic bar has a positive pole, a negative pole, and a point of nullity.
> 
> Nullity can be considered the equivalence of operation in stasis. Potential positive, potential negative along with their nexus of nullity.
> 
> Hmm...  3 into 1? I love mathematics.
> 
> One is quantified with mathematics, the other with faith. Both can be argued. Just not to each other as they quantify differently.
> 
> Christian Faith says they exclusive. Science says there is only one so how can there be anything to exclude.
> 
> That's why it is so enjoyable for me to sit and discuss with the learned men. Of any faith, or science...



Sense:  that makes none.


----------



## Ropey

I just found it interesting that:


The Scientific communities explanations yield three extension, and proofs of those extensions.
The Christian communities explanations yield one extension, demands faith to extend it.

Turn that around and here's the irony.


The Christian community believes in the father, son and holy spirit. All three powers of one.
The Scientific commuinity believes in one proposal, and proofs of that proposal. There can be only one...
And I found and still find it interesting. Possibly no one else did. What it tells me is that they are simply different aspects of the same power and extension. 

And I like that elegance...


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Ah, that makes a bit more sense.

I think your comparison is far reaching and incompatible.  Yes, when limited to talking of things like magnetism that has three "states", the number happens to correspond with a specific religion.  But that number of three is neither inherent to science nor defining of a comparison.  An apple and a car can both be red but that doesn't mean one can draw any further similarities, let alone irony. 

Regarding science holding one proposal: that's how answering questions work.  There's only one right answer, and a lot of unsupported answers.  Doesn't matter how you look at it, there is only one correct answer for 2+2. You can manipulate it and say the answer is "10-6" but inherently the way you get to the answer still uses the exact same "rules". So science looks for the right answer to a given problem.  And while many ideas may be presented, generally one has a better understanding and predictive value than all the others.


----------



## Ropey

It's simply an extension from the mundane to the unexplained and more questions...

Simply a mental exercise and likely not the correct place to post it...



SmarterThanHick said:


> Ah, that makes a bit more sense.
> 
> I think your comparison is far reaching and incompatible.  Yes, when limited to talking of things like magnetism that has three "states", the number happens to correspond with a specific religion.  But that number of three is neither inherent to science nor defining of a comparison.  An apple and a car can both be red but that doesn't mean one can draw any further similarities, let alone irony.
> 
> Regarding science holding one proposal: that's how answering questions work.  There's only one right answer, and a lot of unsupported answers.  Doesn't matter how you look at it, there is only one correct answer for 2+2. You can manipulate it and say the answer is "10-6" but inherently the way you get to the answer still uses the exact same "rules". So science looks for the right answer to a given problem.  And while many ideas may be presented, generally one has a better understanding and predictive value than all the others.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Yes, it's easy to define a made up term.  Nonetheless, what you and even some scientists foolishly refer to as macroevolution utilizes the exact same mechanism of "microevolution": new mutation producing changes in an organism. Now you already know this is proven fact, as bacteria gain antibiotic resistance.  So given that fact, why is it that you think mutation cannot occur in larger organisms like fruit flies or humans?
> 
> Oh, right.  That's a question about your own beliefs again: those things you try so hard to avoid.



Made up terms yes,but both terms were made up by evolutionists. They are two totally different processes . One is clearly seen and is not in dispute. The other however is why we are having this discussion. I never said mutations do not occur in animals and humans. What I believe is they do not produce new information that allows the process of macroevolution. There is nine conditions that have to happen for mutations to be the cause of macroevolution . With these nine conditions having to take place you will see the high probability that mutations cannot be the cause of macroevolution. When I get back home I will present the full argument or hopefully I can find an article that explains it very clearly. Sorry I have not been able to respond u am out of town on business and have not had enough time to respond.


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will when I get the chance present the arguement that mutations is not the mechanism to macro-evolution. Macro-evolution and micro-evolution are independent of each other. One actually takes place while the other does not. Your side in their opinions is going way beyond the adaptations that is observed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Macroevolution and microevolution are "different" only to people who are desperate to try and come up with some sort of intelligent-sounding argument against evolution.  For people who have actually formally studied evolution, it's a lame semantics argument that is too asinine to argue.  As I said before, it's like saying you believe in a penny but not a quarter.
> 
> Again, all this is aside the point.  You are entitled to believe whatever you want.  You aren't entitled to call it a valid scientific point.
> 
> So, feel free to propose a scientifically valid alternative to evolution and argue it until your heart is content.  However, you should know that the scientific method refuses to entertain supernatural powers as an explanation for anything.
Click to expand...


There is nothing magical about the argument that will be presented. This argument is supported by the facts. The dilemma I brought up earlier adds further support to this argument. Talk to you guys soon.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> There is nothing magical about the argument that will be presented. This argument is supported by the facts. The dilemma I brought up earlier adds further support to this argument. Talk to you guys soon.



I have to laugh when you creationists tell me about your brilliant argument that "will be presented".

I laugh because I know it's bullshit.  Your argument, in the end, is going to center on your own personal religious beliefs.  There is nothing wrong with that per se, with this major exception:  you religious beliefs are not scientific.  

I will eagerly await your "facts".  I doubt it will be anything I haven't seen a thousand times before already and have deemed as "too stupid to reply too".

It must be tough for you now that Kent Hovind is a felon, huh?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> Made up terms yes,but both terms were made up by evolutionists. They are two totally different processes . One is clearly seen and is not in dispute.


Well, no not really.  The only difference between the two is that religious zealots don't like acknowledging one but can't possibly refute the other.  There is fundamentally no biological difference between micro and macroevolution.  Both stem from new information coming from mutations.  Simpler organisms, being simpler and with smaller genomes, need fewer such mutations to produce a noticeable effect, while organisms with larger genomes need more mutations on average to produce a noticeable effect.  The biology for mutation is exactly the same between the two. 

I agree with GTH in that I look forward to yet another likely copied and pasted response from someone else's unpublished work you don't actually understand to see what coerced reasoning a creationist has to say that mutations in bacteria are believable but mutations in humans somehow aren't.



Youwerecreated said:


> I never said mutations do not occur in animals and humans. What I believe is they do not produce new information that allows the process of macroevolution.


Mutations are new information, by the very nature of the change in information.  So you agree that mutations occur in humans, and yet you don't seem to understand how that is new information, just as you can't explain the new fruit fly genes I presented, or dwarf mutations. 

I look forward to the copying and pasting when you get back from your school vacation.


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing magical about the argument that will be presented. This argument is supported by the facts. The dilemma I brought up earlier adds further support to this argument. Talk to you guys soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to laugh when you creationists tell me about your brilliant argument that "will be presented".
> 
> I laugh because I know it's bullshit.  Your argument, in the end, is going to center on your own personal religious beliefs.  There is nothing wrong with that per se, with this major exception:  you religious beliefs are not scientific.
> 
> I will eagerly await your "facts".  I doubt it will be anything I haven't seen a thousand times before already and have deemed as "too stupid to reply too".
> 
> It must be tough for you now that Kent Hovind is a felon, huh?
Click to expand...


Kent don't know the guy would he be like the evolutionist that tried to pass part of a jaw  bone of a pig as a primate ?  This has nothing to do with my religious beliefs and these nine conditions come from a fellow evolutionist which will make it tougher for you to argue against. To be fair I will give you the nine conditions and I will explain later.1. Natural environment 2. No structural change 3. Net effect must be directional 4. High mutation rate 5. Large population  6. Selective neutrality of polygenes 7. Little hybridzation 8. Necessity of high penetrance 9. High heritability. Now if you fully understand these conditions you know where I'm going with this and the problems these conditions present for your theory.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> Kent don't know the guy would he be like the evolutionist that tried to pass part of a jaw  bone of a pig as a primate ?  This has nothing to do with my religious beliefs and these nine conditions come from a fellow evolutionist which will make it tougher for you to argue against. To be fair I will give you the nine conditions and I will explain later.1. Natural environment 2. No structural change 3. Net effect must be directional 4. High mutation rate 5. Large population  6. Selective neutrality of polygenes 7. Little hybridzation 8. Necessity of high penetrance 9. High heritability. Now if you fully understand these conditions you know where I'm going with this and the problems these conditions present for your theory.



Another funny thing about your creationists.  You are always so quick to point out the errors/hoaxes that have been made (in this case:  Piltdown Man.  What's next, Haeckles wood carvings?) and yet you never point out that it was other scientists that exposed these matters and corrected them.  

As science is a man made construct to explain the natural world, it is prone to all the foibles and flaws of mankind, just as the law is.  That doesn't invalidate the entire field.  "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater".  And even if you want to get hung up on issues like Piltdown Man, you would have no idea that it was a  hoax if some other person in the profession hadn't of pointed it out to you.  Of course, you guys don't have to be burdened with the details as everytime you run into a dead end, you can play the "God did it" card.  As I said before, it's fine for your own personal beliefs.  However, it's the anti-thesis of the scientific method.  

Also funny:  your insistence that evolution is a religion and that those of us who accept it are all like-minded cultists.  Unless your friend is a respected and published authority in the field, I have no idea who he is, nor do I care about his "nine points" though it will be interesting to see you try to tell me why I should care.

If you don't know who Hovind is, I won't introduce him into the issue now.  He's basically comic relief.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

We can go into what you think each of those mean when you finally copy and paste someone else's unpublished work, but high mutation rate is not a necessity for evolution.  Any mutation rate can do it, but clearly slower rates take more time. 

The other thing you need to realize as you continually make STILL UNSUPPORTED claims of "well this one evolutionist said this" is that no one person in science determines our knowledge base.  Individual opinions are of no value in science, unlike religion.  One scientist believing something does not make it true.  This is why I continually come back to the credentials behind scientific publication.  It takes experts in the field to scrutinize the conclusions drawn from reproducible evidence before it is published.  If the research is not reproducible, the conclusions are invalid.  If the research is reproducible but the conclusion is not supported by the data, it is still invalid.  Therefore we have a built in method of finding hoaxes, where religion does not.

Keep that in mind when we scrutinize your opinions, and the points you make.  We provide support based on these principles, and readily shoot you down when you construct sentences with "this one guy with a PhD in theology said this about evolution on his blog."


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> We can go into what you think each of those mean when you finally copy and paste someone else's unpublished work, but high mutation rate is not a necessity for evolution.  Any mutation rate can do it, but clearly slower rates take more time.
> 
> The other thing you need to realize as you continually make STILL UNSUPPORTED claims of "well this one evolutionist said this" is that no one person in science determines our knowledge base.  Individual opinions are of no value in science, unlike religion.  One scientist believing something does not make it true.  This is why I continually come back to the credentials behind scientific publication.  It takes experts in the field to scrutinize the conclusions drawn from reproducible evidence before it is published.  If the research is not reproducible, the conclusions are invalid.  If the research is reproducible but the conclusion is not supported by the data, it is still invalid.  Therefore we have a built in method of finding hoaxes, where religion does not.
> 
> Keep that in mind when we scrutinize your opinions, and the points you make.  We provide support based on these principles, and readily shoot you down when you construct sentences with "this one guy with a PhD in theology said this about evolution on his blog."



These nine conditions come from one who believes in evolution that shoots down the idea that mutations being the engine that drives macroevolution. This guy is a geneticist ,I believe he  is qualified to educate the ignorant.


----------



## Youwerecreated

You guys are already judging something before seeing the explanation,yeah you guys are really concerned with being right.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> We can go into what you think each of those mean when you finally copy and paste someone else's unpublished work, but high mutation rate is not a necessity for evolution.  Any mutation rate can do it, but clearly slower rates take more time.
> 
> The other thing you need to realize as you continually make STILL UNSUPPORTED claims of "well this one evolutionist said this" is that no one person in science determines our knowledge base.  Individual opinions are of no value in science, unlike religion.  One scientist believing something does not make it true.  This is why I continually come back to the credentials behind scientific publication.  It takes experts in the field to scrutinize the conclusions drawn from reproducible evidence before it is published.  If the research is not reproducible, the conclusions are invalid.  If the research is reproducible but the conclusion is not supported by the data, it is still invalid.  Therefore we have a built in method of finding hoaxes, where religion does not.
> 
> Keep that in mind when we scrutinize your opinions, and the points you make.  We provide support based on these principles, and readily shoot you down when you construct sentences with "this one guy with a PhD in theology said this about evolution on his blog."



This explanation is not the one i was looking for but this article will do. High mutation rate well lets see.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution 
by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A. 
Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.

NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION 
Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject. 1

1. Natural Environment

Byles's first condition is: "Natural selection must be inconsequential at the locus or loci under investigation." This is because natural selection tends to work against fixation of mutations--in other words, it tends to prevent their becoming a permanent part of the gene pool of a population. Natural selection keeps things stable rather than helping them to change. B. Clarke points out that even so-called advantageous mutations are harmful in that, because of increased competition, they can reduce population size, making their fixation nearly impossible. He adds that they will almost certainly lead to extinction of the mutant gene or organism, and possibly even the entire population. 2

The effect of Byles's first condition is that the environment must be selectively neutral, or else the mutant gene will never be retained in the population, preventing even slight change. But according to J.T. Giesel, most locations are almost certainly not selectively neutral. 3 Thus, in the vast majority of cases, Byles's first condition will not be met.

2. No Structural Change

Byles's second condition is: "There must be no pleiotropic effect involved with the locus or loci, or, if such effect exists, all the phenotypic structures involved must be selectively neutral." This means that there either must be no changes in physical structure involved, or they must be selectively neutral. If none are involved, then of course evolution does not occur. But if only those occur that are selectively neutral, then they are of no advantage to the mutant and survival of the fittest does not affect it or its non-mutant relatives; again, no evolution.

Not only would mutations that met this condition appear to contribute little or nothing to evolution, but also they would appear never to happen--or nearly never, anyway. G. Ledyard Stebbins tells us that within the gene there is no such thing as an inactive site at which a mutation will not affect the adaptive properties of the gene. 4 "Every character of an organism is affected by all genes," writes Ernst Mayr, "and every gene affects all characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole." 5

In other words, there may well be no such thing as a mutation having no structural change in the organism. Yet Byles says that a requirement for the fixation of a mutation is that it have none, or that the effect it has must be selectively neutral. Neither case appears ever to happen, and even if the latter did, it would not lead to macro-evolution since it would leave the mutant no more "fit" than any of its relatives. Indeed it would probably be less "fit" because of the tendency of natural selection to weed out rather than preserve mutations in a gene pool.

3. Net Effect Must be Unidirectional

Byles's third condition is: ". . . the mutational event must be recurrent and, furthermore, the rate of back mutation must be so small as to be irrelevant." Byles himself admits, though, that even recurrent mutations are almost never retained in the population: ". . . non-recurrent mutations have a very low probability of remaining in the genepool at all . . . the odds against a recurrent mutation being retained in the gene pool for any significant number of generations are very high." And even "most recurrent mutations have been observed to retain the potential for back mutation." It seems that neither part of his third condition will be fulfilled; yet Byles makes it clear in his article that all the conditions must be fulfilled in order for mutations to be fixed in a population.

4. High Mutation Rate

Byles's fourth condition is: "The mutation rate at the relevant locus or loci must be very large." Yet Francisco Ayala says, "It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations in higher organisms between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation." 6

Byles himself comments on Lerner's estimate of one hundred mutations per one million gametes (one in ten thousand). "Obviously, a mutation rate this small, even given a complete absence of back mutation (which appears never to occur), would result in a very small change in a given gene pool, even given large numbers of generations. This has long been considered one of the major stumbling blocks to the [Probably Mutation Effect] . . . In order for the P.M.E. to be effective, very high mutation rates are clearly necessary."

So it appears that this condition, too, is likely never met in nature.

5. Large Population

Byles's fifth condition is that the population involved must be large. He stipulates this because small populations can easily be destroyed by a mutation. And, as population size decreases, the probability that a mutation will be eliminated increases.

Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steers, however, postulate that a small population with much inbreeding is important: ". . . the ideal conditions for rapid evolution . . . are provided by a species which is divided into a number of small local sub-populations that are nearly but not completely isolated and small enough so that a moderate degree of inbreeding takes place. . . . The division of a species into two or more subspecies is of course dependent on complete isolation being achieved in some way." 7

It seems that evolutionists themselves have realized a great problem but are unable to deal with it. In a small population, a mutation will almost certainly be eliminated. Yet a small population is needed for evolution to occur. Here indeed is an impasse. But the problem gets worse.

Byles adds (in contradiction of Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steere), "If the investigator is dealing with a population which is undergoing contact with genetically dissimilar neighbors, the effect of the mutation is inevitably so minor as to be undetectable. Therefore, to argue that mutation is the cause of change in the population's genetic structure, one must also of necessity argue that this population is not undergoing a process of hybridization." In other words, if the population is large, the effect of the mutation is almost nil. Even when Byles's condition is met, then, the effects of the mutations are almost zero on the entire population. And, furthermore, while Dobzhansky, Hecht, and Steere say some interbreeding between dissimilar populations is necessary, Byles says it is death to evolutionary change.

6. Selective Neutrality of Polygenes

Byles's sixth condition is: "Polygenes are not relevant to this argument, unless the entire anatomical complex is itself selectively neutral." This means that for organisms of many genes, the mutation cannot be fixed unless the whole anatomical structure of the organism is selectively neutral relative to the gene which mutates. That this does not occur was shown in our discussion of the second condition.

7. Little Hybridization

Byles's seventh condition is: "There must be little or no hybridizing admixture." This of course is to avoid making the mutation itself insignificant. But if the effect is actually significant, then this contradicts his second condition, which was that the mutation must cause no significant structural change (see under point 2 above). Furthermore, the only way in which to have no hybridizing admixture is to have a small population that is isolated from others of the same kind. This contradicts his fifth condition. If the population is small, the probability of a mutant gene's being eliminated rises steeply.

This seventh condition, if fulfilled, makes evolution impossible because the mutation would not be retained due to the necessarily small population. But if unfulfilled, it leaves evolution impossible due to the insignificance of the effect of the mutation.

8. Necessity of High Penetrance

Byles's eighth condition is: "The genetic structures involved must have high 'penetrance.'" Put simply, this means that the genes must be highly susceptible to mutation. It thus means almost the same as Condition Four.

Yet it occasions another problem. As soon as the structure becomes highly susceptible to mutation, it must also become highly susceptible to back mutation. But his third condition states that the rate of back mutation must be irrelevant. Again there is contradiction: fulfill Condition Eight and you can't fulfill Condition Three. Fulfill Condition Three and you can't fulfill Condition Eight. Yet Byles says that all of the conditions must be fulfilled for mutation fixation to occur; and without mutation fixation there is no macro-evolution.

9. High Heritability

Byles's ninth condition is: "The phenotype must have high heritability." This condition is almost never met for mutational phenotypes. Byles himself told us that the probability of retaining even a recurring mutation is "very low."

TALLYING THE SCORE 
It appears that the probability of meeting any one of these conditions in nature is extremely low, if not non-existent. Recall now that the fifth and seventh conditions effectively cancel each other out, as do the third and eighth, and we are forced to the conclusion that it is impossible to meet all the conditions. Mutation cannot be the mechanism for macro-evolution.

REFERENCES 
1 R.H. Byles, "Limiting Conditions for the Operation of the Probable Mutation Effect" Social Biology, 19 (March, 1972):29-34. All citations from Byles in this article are from this source. 
2 B. Clarke, "Mutation and Population Size," Heredity, 31 (Dec. 1973):367-79. 
3 J.T. Giesel, "Maintenance of Genetic Variability in Natural Populations; Alternative Implications of the Charlesworth-Giesel Hypothesis," American Naturalist, 106 (May, 1972): 412-14, p. 412. 
4 G. Ledyard Stebbins, "Building Bridges Between Evolutionary Disciplines" Taxon 23(I) (Feb. 1974):11-20, p. 14. 
5 Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species and Evolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970), p. 103. 
6 Francisco J. Ayala, "Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology," Philosophy of Science, 37 (March, 1970), p. 3. Cited in Henry M. Morris, ed., Scientific Creationism (San Diego, Calif.: Creation-Life, 1974), p. 55. 
7 Theodosius Dobzhansky, et al., Evolutionary Biology, vol. 2 (N.Y.: Appleton-Century-Croft, 1968), p. 259.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution


----------



## Youwerecreated

Haldane's dilemma that neither of you addressed. To be fair this is the attempt at explaining away the dilemma for evolutionist.

What is Haldane's Dilemma? 

Haldane claimed that in a fixed population (a population that is neither growing nor shrinking in the number of its member animals) of relatively slowly reproducing mammals, no more than 1 gene could be fixed per 300 generations due to the cost of substitution. Haldane assumed that the deaths caused by the newly disadvantageous gene's lower fitness (possibly due to a change in environment) would be over and above the "background" death rate - the naturally occurring deaths due to all reasons other than the lowered fitness of the gene. Haldane estimated that the substitution cost (for a diploid) would require the deaths of 30 times the population size for a single gene fixation from a very rare mutation to homozygous for the entire population. Since he claimed that the intensity of selection rarely exceeded 10%, Haldane believed a cost of 30 times the population size for the substitution would require 300 generations (30 / 0.1) to fix a single gene. 

Haldane seemed satisfied that this rate of substitution was sufficient to explain theorized substitution rates at the time (see pg. 521 of "The Cost..."), but other scientists  felt this rate was  too low. The first mention of the term "Haldane's Dilemma" appears to come from paleontologist Leigh Van Valen in his 1963 paper "Haldane's Dilemma, Evolutionary Rates, and Heterosis" (Van Valen, 1963). Van Valen saw the dilemma as the observation that "for most organisms, rapid turnover in a few genes precludes rapid turnover in the others." Haldane's dilemma has come to mean this limit upon the rate of evolution. 


What is the Substitution Cost? 

Very simply, the substitution cost (or cost of natural selection) as defined by Haldane is the number of deaths (normalized to the population size) required for a substitution to occur. Thus, when Haldane states that a substitution cost of 30 is typical for a substitution for a diploid organism, he is saying that such a substitution would require the deaths of 30 times the population size. Therefore, if the population size was 100,000, 30 * 100,000 or 3 million deaths would be required for the substitution to occur. I have assembled a series of quotes from Haldane from "The Cost of Natural Selection" to document this definition. The fact that the substitution cost represents the number of deaths required for the substitution to occur should also be apparent from the derivations for the cost that are linked below. 

 A (Somewhat) Non-Technical Description of the Substitution Cost 


What Does ReMine Say About Haldane's Dilemma? 

ReMine claims that Haldane's Dilemma shows that not "enough" genes could have substituted in the human species since the last common ancestor with other apes. I shall illustrate each of these by quotes from ReMine "The Biotic Message" and from the thread "Haldane's Cost of Natural Selection" in sci.bio.evolution. 

From page 209 of "The Biotic Message": 
With these clarifications, let us return to the example. Take an ape-like creature from 10 million years ago, substitute a maximum of 500,000 selectively significant nucleotides and would you have a poet philosopher? How much information can be packed into 500,000 nucleotides? It is roughly one-hundredth of one percent of the nucleotide sites in each human ovum. 

Is this enough to account for the significantly improved skull, jaws,teeth, feet, upright posture, abstract thought, and appreciation of music, to name just a few? If you find it doubtful, then you are beginning to understand why this is important. It sets a limit on the number of traits that can be substituted by differential survival in the available time. 


This quote is taken from ReMine's post to the usenet discussion group sci.bio.evolution on 01/28/1998, Message-ID: <6anste$qd6$1@nntp6.u.washington.edu>. Here he lays out his claim that Haldane's Dilemma allows only 1,667 substitutions to occur in the last ten million years of evolution leading to the human lineage. ReMine's quote follows: 

As an example my book focuses on human evolution from its presumed ancestor (whatever it might be) from, say, ten million years ago. That is twice as old as the alleged split between gorilla, chimpanzee, and man. My book cites evolutionists such as Dawkins, Stebbins, Kimura and Ohta for an estimate of the effective generation time during that era -- twenty years. That makes for 500,000 generations. Then apply the Haldane limit of one substitution per 300 generations, and apply the evolutionary model exactly as taught in the textbooks. The result: In ten million years the population could substitute no more than 1,667 beneficial nucleotides. That is not remotely enough to explain human evolution. 

ReMine also implies that Haldane's Dilemma is a problem for the genetic differences seen between humans and chimpanzees in this statement attributed to ReMine  on a page maintained by creationist Ted Holden: 


Imagine a population of 100,000 of those organisms quietly evolving their way to humanity.  For easy visualization, I'll have you imagine a scenario that favors rapid evolution.  Imagine evolution happens like this.  Every generation, one male and one female receive a beneficial mutation so advantageous that the 999,998 others die off immediately, and the population is then replenished in one generation by the surviving couple.  Imagine evolution happens like this, generation after generation, for ten million years.  How many beneficial mutations could be substituted at this crashing pace?   One per generation -- or 500,000 nucleotides.  That's 0.014 percent of the genome. (That is a minuscule fraction of the 2 to 3 percent that separates us from chimpanzees).
I have read "The Biotic Message", and I am aware that ReMine does not stress the issue of the "2 to 3 percent" difference that separates humans and chimps in that book. However, unless Holden has incorrectly attributed the passage above to ReMine, ReMine does try to make an issue of those differences.  Furthermore, this form of the argument is often seen on the Internet and also was printed in the creationist publication Creation Ex Nihlio 19(1):21-22, Dec. 1996-Feb. 1997.- see Does the DNA similarity between chimps and humans prove a common ancestry?. In item 6 of the essay, Batten refers to the 120 million differences between humans and chimps (because he used a difference of 4%). In footnote 7 of the article, Batten specifically refers to "The Biotic Message" and its treatment of Haldane's Dilemma as evidence that the number of differences seen between humans and chimps is impossible to explain. So even though ReMine does not stress this issue in "The Biotic Message", because creationists are in fact using the argument that a  "2 to 3 percent" genetic difference between chimps and humans is a problem for evolution because of Haldane's Dilemma, it is very important that these arguments are addressed. One important thing ignored by these claims of ReMine and other creationists is the simple fact that neutral substitutions do not add to Haldane's substitution cost and are not part of Haldane's Dilemma. 

You can read the rest of the explanation for Haldane's dilemma here.

Haldane's Dilemma

Now here is the problem for that explanation.

Answering Evolutionist Attempts to Dismiss "Haldane's Dilemma"

 Fred Williams
October 2000

[Author's note: see update at end of article]

Introduction
In 1993 Walter ReMine&#8217;s book "The Biotic Message"1 hit the street, bringing with it several devastating arguments against evolution that are still clamoring through the halls and smoke rooms of the evolutionary faithful. One of these arguments is based on a paper by J. B. S Haldane in 19572 that showed the reproductive capacity of vertebrates was way too low to pay the costs needed to account for large-scale evolution. This problem is referred to as &#8220;Haldane&#8217;s Dilemma&#8221; (go here for an online discussion of the problem by Walter ReMine). 


Refuting Robert Williams
So far I have only encountered one attack against Haldane&#8217;s Dilemma that offers any kind of sophistication, one posted on the internet by Robert Williams. It regularly shows up early in search engines when searching on &#8220;Haldane&#8217;s Dilemma&#8221;, so evolutionists often cite it or copy from it.  

There are many, many problems with Robert Williams&#8217; article. When I first read it, I became very suspicious that he had never read ReMine's book since ReMine deals with most of Williams&#8217; arguments in his book. I contacted Mr. ReMine, and he confirmed that Williams eventually admitted on the newsgroup sci.bio.evolution to not having read the book. On several occasions I attempted to contact Williams about this, but he did not reply. It is very unfortunate that Williams refuses to do the right thing and properly review ReMine&#8217;s book before posting a rebuttal. 

Nevertheless, since so many evolutionists refer to Williams' tenuous paper, I thought I would address its arguments. Robert Williams&#8217; comments appear in italic green.

ReMine neglects the fact that humans did not evolve from chimpanzees, rather humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor. Therefor we have actually had two different branches each evolving independently, thus allowing for twice as many gene substitutions (3300 vs. 1700) as ReMine has allowed, even if all of the above is true. 

His insinuation that ReMine believes humans evolved from chimpanzees is completely unsubstantiated (this was the first sign he had not read ReMine's book). This is a very common ploy of evolutionists, to claim that creationists don&#8217;t understand that evolutionary theory posits common decent from a shared ancestor. Regardless, this does not double the amount of substitutions that can occur from point A (man/ape ancestor) to point B (man), and this is the context of ReMine&#8217;s (and Haldane&#8217;s) argument.

ReMine assumes that all the differences between the human and chimp genomes are due to selection. 

Remine makes no such assumption in his book.

This can't possibly be the case because many of the differences are known to occur at the 3rd triplet of gene codons and thus usually do not change the amino acid coded and can't affect fitness. Furthermore, since 95% of the genome is not transcribed (although that does not mean it is all non-functional ), most point mutations will not affect fitness. This reduces the number of selected substitutions by 5 x 2/3 % or from 4.8 x 107 substitutions to 1.6 x 106. Please remember that changes in the genome due to drift and other "random" processes do not add to the cost of substitution. I should add that Haldane's Dilemma has been viewed by scientists as possible evidence for the importance of Neutral Evolution as proposed by Kimura in 1967. 

At this point I was very certain Williams had not read ReMine&#8217;s book, since ReMine has an entire chapter dedicated to Neutral Evolution and its inability to solve Haldane&#8217;s Dilemma. If Williams had read ReMines&#8217; book, or even just thought about the problem logically, he would have discovered that neutral substitutions also must be substituted in! If a neutral trait (or substitution) becomes fixed, all alternative alleles at the same locus must still be removed. 

In fact, neutral mutations incur a greater cost, since they will have a greater propensity to drift back and forth in frequency since they have no selective value. Every time the frequency goes down, it negates any previous payment made by reproductive excess to get it to that frequency; when it drifts back up, a new payment via excess reproduction is needed, hence net cost is increased. According to ReMine, Haldane showed that cost is minimized only when fixation moves steadily upward3.

ReMine neglects the fact that there are only 23 pairs of human chromosomes. Thus, when there are any favorable genes on the same chromosome, their substitution cost would only have to be paid one time for the chromosome as a whole, not one time for each favorable gene. This alone could falsify ReMine's whole argument if many genes are approaching fixation on a few chromosomes. 

Again, ReMine's book correctly addresses this. If Williams had read it he would have been reminded of Mendelian genetics, recombination and crossover, and that humans reproduce sexually, not asexually. Diploid offspring do not inherit completely intact chromosomes from their parents. Does Williams submit that Haldane, a distinguished evolutionist, also &#8220;neglected the fact that there are only 23 pairs of human chromosomes&#8221;?

ReMine ignores the possibility of gene hitchhiking - the concept that even though some mutations are neutral, they will be carried to fixation because they are physically close to a gene that is beneficial. 

ReMine does not ignore this possibility, he discusses it in the book Williams pretended to read4. ReMine also cites Haldane as addressing this possibility and that Haldane also dismissed it as very negligible5.

For linkage to pay the cost of two for the price of one, the following must occur: 

a) The neutral mutation must occur about the same time as the beneficial mutation it is linked to. If it occurs say 50% into the fixation cycle of the beneficial mutation, it can&#8217;t just magically appear on all the other chromosomes in the population. It has to begin its own payment cycle when it first appears. All those without the mutation, which would be the entire population plus all descendants without the mutation, must eventually be removed.

b) the two would have to remain very tightly coupled through at least half the fixation process to give the neutral mutation an even chance to reach fixation6.

c) gene hitchhiking is very rarely found in sexually reproducing populations7.

I hope it is now quite apparent why linkage effects have negligible impact on cost evaluations.

Finally, ReMine ignores the fact that due to non-point mutations (deletions and insertions due to non-equal crossing over), a single mutation can affect many more than one DNA base pair. In fact, what has to be by far and away the most common mutation is the change in DNA due to the alignment mismatch mutations in mini-satellites. These mutations can affect some multiple of between 5 and 15 base pairs and have been observed in as many as 1 in 6 human sperm!

This is a completely bogus argument for several reasons. First, the must common mutations are point mutations (base pair substitutions)8. Second, even when multiple mutations occur, the harmful ones will incur an immediate reproductive cost, and any remaining neutral or &#8220;beneficial&#8221; ones must still pay their own cost if they are to reach fixation!!!  Also, it appears  Williams again forgot that humans reproduce sexually, not asexually. If multiple mutations occur, they will be divided among the offspring, and only so many of these will reproduce on to the next generation. Hence only a handful will remain, only to face the same shredding machine the next generation. Because sex continually scrambles genes every generation, population geneticist Ronald Fisher (1930) estimated that a &#8220;beneficial&#8221; mutation will have at best only a 1 in 50 chance of ever reaching fixation in a population 9. 

Haldane assumed that the cost of substitution had to be paid on top of the "natural" death rate! In other words, it didn't matter that 90% of a mammal's offspring died without reproducing - any death that resulted from the substitution of one gene for another had to be additional death that the animal would not "normally" have suffered. This is known as hard selection and we can now easily see why Haldane only allowed an excess fertility of 10% to go towards the cost of substitution. However, most Biologists today consider all or some selection to occur as soft selection. In this scenario, the cost of substitution is "paid" in the natural death rate of the animal. That is, a disproportionate number of the individuals that die without reproducing in any generation are the ones that have lower fitness due to their genes. The Biologist Bruce Wallace has been the champion of soft selection, and you can learn more about this topic in his book "Fifty Years of Genetic Load - An Odyssey". 

Let me bring in another Williams to refute Williams! Highly regarded evolutionist George C. Williams wrote the following regarding Wallace and soft selection:

 &#8220;...the problem [of Haldane's dilemma] was never solved, by Wallace [soft selection] or anyone else. It merely faded away, because people got interested in other things. They must have assumed that the true resolution lay somewhere in the welter of suggestions made by one or more of the distinguished population geneticists who had participated in the discussion." 10

As we can see, Robert Williams&#8217; last effort to soften the blow of Haldane&#8217;s Dilemma is disputed by an evolutionist of considerably more standing.


Conclusion
Despite various attempts by evolutionists over the last 40 years to soften the impact of Haldane&#8217;s Dilemma, it still remains an enormous problem for their theory. It is worth noting that Haldane's analysis even used very favorable assumptions for the evolutionary theory, such as assuming the mutations are dominant (recessive mutations pay an exponentially higher cost). Regardless, the numbers do not bode well for the evolutionists, and is very likely why the problem stays buried in back-room discussions and does not see the light of day in evolutionary textbooks. 

Current molecular data is making matters even worse for the evolutionist faithful, because it makes the problem easier to see for the layman. I document this in my article Monkey-Man Hypothesis Thwarted by Mutation Rates. This article stands on its own and does not rely on the validity of Haldane&#8217;s calculations. Using a conservative estimate of mutation rates based on current studies, it shows that the ape/human line would have required at least 40 offspring per mating pair just to maintain equilibrium! This forcefully argues that the Monkey-Man shared ancestor hypothesis is simply implausible.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update: Several months after I wrote this, Robert Williams to his credit removed most of the arguments I addressed above from his web page! (he keeps a copy of the original here). His first line of defense in his latest installment is his claim that 1667 beneficial substitutions may be enough to account for human evolution from our alleged simian ancestor! As far as I'm concerned this is a complete capitulation of the issue! Remember that this is not just a problem for human evolution, but for mammalian evolution in general. 

Robert  also still defends gene hitchhiking as a cost reducer, and gives an example of it occurring in nature. I have not had a chance to confirm his example, but it doesn't really matter. It is still a rare phenomenon, as Futuyma points out in his Evolutionary Biology testbook7. A blind squirrel, well, you know the story. 

Finally, Robert mentions that Haldane did address the issue of "multiple simultaneous substitutions". Haldane did indeed, but Robert's citation from Haldane's paper is completely inaccurate. In the paragraph Robert referred to, Haldane is not addressing the impact on cost of "multiple simultaneous substitutions". Where Haldane does address this is the 4th paragraph on page 522, where he explains "[for three mutants]...since the cost of selection is proportional to the negative logarithm of the initial frequency, the mean cost...would be the same as that of selection for the three mutants in series..."




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Walter ReMine, The Biotic Message,  1993, St Paul Science

2. JBS Haldane, The Cost of Natural Selection, Journal of Genetics 55, pp 511-524 (1957)

3. ReMine, The Biotic Message, p 500

4. Ibid. pp 245, 503

5. Haldane, 1957, p 522

6. Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 1998, p 300

7. Ibid. p 245 (gene hitchhiking is technically referred to as linkage disequilibrium)

8. Personal correspondence with Professor James Crow

9. Futuyma, p 298

10. George C. Williams, Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, and Challenges, 1992, p 143-148

Answering Evolutionist Attempts to Dismiss "Haldane's Dilemma"

Haldane's dilemma still a problem for evolutionists.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> Haldane's dilemma that neither of you addressed. To be fair this is the attempt at explaining away the dilemma for evolutionist.



Shocking.  "Haldane's Dilemma".  



> Haldane's paper was published in 1957, and Haldane himself said, "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision" (Haldane 1957, 523). It is irresponsible not to consider the revision that has occurred in the forty years since his paper was published.



CB121: Haldane's Dilemma

Here's your revision:

http://www.sekj.org/PDF/anz40-free/anz40-185.pdf

(I'll spare you a copy and paste job like you have done).


----------



## Gadawg73

There is always a community college somewhere with open enrollment that teaches Biology 101.
Out of the tens of thousands of colleges, universities and schools of higher learning there are 2 or 3 that do not teach evolution as fact.
Intelligent design was shot down as a fraud by a conservative Bush appointed Republican Federal jidge in the Dover case. The witnessesand school Board members there lied in open court and were almost charged with perjury.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Gadawg73 said:


> There is always a community college somewhere with open enrollment that teaches Biology 101.
> Out of the tens of thousands of colleges, universities and schools of higher learning there are 2 or 3 that do not teach evolution as fact.
> Intelligent design was shot down as a fraud by a conservative Bush appointed Republican Federal jidge in the Dover case. The witnessesand school Board members there lied in open court and were almost charged with perjury.



Really,impressive post.


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haldane's dilemma that neither of you addressed. To be fair this is the attempt at explaining away the dilemma for evolutionist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shocking.  "Haldane's Dilemma".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haldane's paper was published in 1957, and Haldane himself said, "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision" (Haldane 1957, 523). It is irresponsible not to consider the revision that has occurred in the forty years since his paper was published.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> CB121: Haldane's Dilemma
> 
> Here's your revision:
> 
> http://www.sekj.org/PDF/anz40-free/anz40-185.pdf
> 
> (I'll spare you a copy and paste job like you have done).
Click to expand...


Your side has an opinion as well as mine, but which one is truly supported by the evidence ?

Are you reading up on the conditions needed for mutations being the mechanism for macroevolution ? or are you just ignoring it.

Funny,your side copies and paste as well. the only time you guys have a problem with it is when you can't argue whats posted. I'm not here to impress anyone, i am here to show the fallacy of the so called factual theory.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> Your side has an opinion as well as mine, but which one is truly supported by the evidence ?



The one that was conducted in 2003 (and not 1957) and used a supercomputer for the computations.  Even Haldane acknowledged that he had probably missed something in his calculations. Haldane also never claimed his theory invalidated evolution.  



> Are you reading up on the conditions needed for mutations being the mechanism for macroevolution ? or are you just ignoring it.



I'll get to it eventually.  It took you about three days to drop you a massive cut and paste job on us, so I'll assume you can have some patience in this matter.



> Funny,your side copies and paste as well. the only time you guys have a problem with it is when you can't argue whats posted. I'm not here to impress anyone, i am here to show the fallacy of the so called factual theory.



I cite.  I don't wholesale copy and paste other people's work on here.  I don't need too.  I understand evolutionary theory enough to argue it in my own words.  

BTW, if you can invalidate evolution, you are wasting your time here.  Go and publish.  Your Nobel Prize will await you.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> This explanation is not the one i was looking for but this article will do. High mutation rate well lets see.





> Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
> by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.



Here is the first place you guys screw up.  Credentials count.  At the time that Calvin Beisner published this for you to cut and paste from the "institute for Creation Research", he didn't possess a Doctoral Degree.  He didn't even possess a graduate degree in the field of science.  

Beisner received his Ph.D. in Scottish Studies from St. Andrews.  He got his M.A. in "Society with an emphasis in Economic Ethics" (whatever that is) from International College (Whatever that is) and a B.A. in Religion from USC.

In that capacity, it is not beyond the scope of reality that Dr. Beisner has never taken a college biology course.  I highly doubt he has done any post-graduate work in any scientific field. 

If this matter were being debated in serious academic circles.  Not only would Dr. Beisner's opinion not be valued.  He wouldn't even have a seat at the table.   

http://www.ecalvinbeisner.com/bio.pdf

Again, this is a pointless exercise, as those of us who argue in favor of evolutionary theory don't delineate between macro and microevolution but I'll read what (then) Mr. Beisner has to say.



> Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.
> 
> Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.



Evidence "against evolution" is not evidence "in favor of creation".  Creationism is not a scientific theory.  Something Mr. Beisner would know if he knew anything about the scientific method.  Most likely, this article was written prior to the landmark SCOTUS case against teaching creationism in school when some people would still try and argue (with a straight face) that creation was the other side of the argument against evolution.  

Beisners statement is about as absurd a saying:  "provides excellent evidence against the moon being made out of rock and in favor of it being made out of blue cheese."



> NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION
> Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject. 1
> 
> <I just decided to snip out the quote mining and spurious conclusions and get to the conclusion.>
> 
> TALLYING THE SCORE
> It appears that the probability of meeting any one of these conditions in nature is extremely low, if not non-existent. Recall now that the fifth and seventh conditions effectively cancel each other out, as do the third and eighth, and we are forced to the conclusion that it is impossible to meet all the conditions. Mutation cannot be the mechanism for macro-evolution.



This is basically the typical creationist  line:  "This is all too complicated to have just happened!".  That is not a terribly intellectual argument.  It certainly isn't a scientific one.  Beisner can conclude was he wants.  In fact as he is (as his website points out):  

"spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and is also an author and speaker on the application of the Biblical world view to economics, government, and environmental policy."

I suspect he reached his conclusion before he ever penned this article.  Coaching his religious bias in pseudo-academic jargon doesn't suddenly make it a logical scientific argument.


----------



## Gadawg73

Youwerecreated said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is always a community college somewhere with open enrollment that teaches Biology 101.
> Out of the tens of thousands of colleges, universities and schools of higher learning there are 2 or 3 that do not teach evolution as fact.
> Intelligent design was shot down as a fraud by a conservative Bush appointed Republican Federal jidge in the Dover case. The witnessesand school Board members there lied in open court and were almost charged with perjury.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really,impressive post.
Click to expand...


Tell me what is false in it and that would really be impressive.
Good luck Moe.


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your side has an opinion as well as mine, but which one is truly supported by the evidence ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one that was conducted in 2003 (and not 1957) and used a supercomputer for the computations.  Even Haldane acknowledged that he had probably missed something in his calculations. Haldane also never claimed his theory invalidated evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you reading up on the conditions needed for mutations being the mechanism for macroevolution ? or are you just ignoring it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll get to it eventually.  It took you about three days to drop you a massive cut and paste job on us, so I'll assume you can have some patience in this matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny,your side copies and paste as well. the only time you guys have a problem with it is when you can't argue whats posted. I'm not here to impress anyone, i am here to show the fallacy of the so called factual theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I cite.  I don't wholesale copy and paste other people's work on here.  I don't need too.  I understand evolutionary theory enough to argue it in my own words.
> 
> BTW, if you can invalidate evolution, you are wasting your time here.  Go and publish.  Your Nobel Prize will await you.
Click to expand...


I did say Haldane was an evolutionist.

Supercomputer to me just means it is faster than the normal computer,but that being said i believe that the computer can only do what it was programmed to do. I am a firm believer that what is created is not greater than the creator.

Let me correct you on something,i believe in evolution but its only through adaptations and small changes within a species. Just don't buy Neo darwinism and macroevolution. You might be surprised by the amount people that share my views.

From all my reading on the subject, it is clear to me there is such a lack of evidence for macroevolution that its now taught by some that there is no difference between micro and macro that is clearly false. Yes there is plenty of evidence for microevolution and its not even a dispute. Maybe that is the mistake you're making like so many others.

I can't believe how many evolutionists i come across that put micro and macro together not discerning the difference between the two.


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This explanation is not the one i was looking for but this article will do. High mutation rate well lets see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
> by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the first place you guys screw up.  Credentials count.  At the time that Calvin Beisner published this for you to cut and paste from the "institute for Creation Research", he didn't possess a Doctoral Degree.  He didn't even possess a graduate degree in the field of science.
> 
> Beisner received his Ph.D. in Scottish Studies from St. Andrews.  He got his M.A. in "Society with an emphasis in Economic Ethics" (whatever that is) from International College (Whatever that is) and a B.A. in Religion from USC.
> 
> In that capacity, it is not beyond the scope of reality that Dr. Beisner has never taken a college biology course.  I highly doubt he has done any post-graduate work in any scientific field.
> 
> If this matter were being debated in serious academic circles.  Not only would Dr. Beisner's opinion not be valued.  He wouldn't even have a seat at the table.
> 
> http://www.ecalvinbeisner.com/bio.pdf
> 
> Again, this is a pointless exercise, as those of us who argue in favor of evolutionary theory don't delineate between macro and microevolution but I'll read what (then) Mr. Beisner has to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.
> 
> Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence "against evolution" is not evidence "in favor of creation".  Creationism is not a scientific theory.  Something Mr. Beisner would know if he knew anything about the scientific method.  Most likely, this article was written prior to the landmark SCOTUS case against teaching creationism in school when some people would still try and argue (with a straight face) that creation was the other side of the argument against evolution.
> 
> Beisners statement is about as absurd a saying:  "provides excellent evidence against the moon being made out of rock and in favor of it being made out of blue cheese."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION
> Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject. 1
> 
> <I just decided to snip out the quote mining and spurious conclusions and get to the conclusion.>
> 
> TALLYING THE SCORE
> It appears that the probability of meeting any one of these conditions in nature is extremely low, if not non-existent. Recall now that the fifth and seventh conditions effectively cancel each other out, as do the third and eighth, and we are forced to the conclusion that it is impossible to meet all the conditions. Mutation cannot be the mechanism for macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is basically the typical creationist  line:  "This is all too complicated to have just happened!".  That is not a terribly intellectual argument.  It certainly isn't a scientific one.  Beisner can conclude was he wants.  In fact as he is (as his website points out):
> 
> "spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and is also an author and speaker on the application of the Biblical world view to economics, government, and environmental policy."
> 
> I suspect he reached his conclusion before he ever penned this article.  Coaching his religious bias in pseudo-academic jargon doesn't suddenly make it a logical scientific argument.
Click to expand...


You see the biggest fallacy with Neo Darwinism is they assume and they have no doubt that macroevolution is the mehanism to the diversity of species. They will claim it is fact and that is what their explanations is based on. They never stop to think it through on whether its even a possibility.

They have no mechanism for the origins of life and they quicly rule out the thought of God did it, even though they can't prove how life began. They deny obvious evidence of intelligent design and say a natural process can do it even when it defies logic.

The evolutionists are seeing Gods work and giving credit to an unintelligent process. Evolutionists are observing Gods once perfect creation and saying he did a poor job if he exists. All the greatest minds in science and all the technology that is in their posssessions cannnot produce what God produced without any help.

You're dealing with an intelligence beyond our comprehension ,evolutionists are just not intelligent enough to see it. God took non-living matter and created living organisms and mans science still don't know how its possible.


----------



## Gadawg73

New Gallup poll:
40% of Americans believe the earth is no more than 10,000 years old.
At least that is a start. The Creation Museum in Ky teaches hundreds of thousands of Sunday schoolkids each year that it is only 6,000 years old and that man walked with dinosaurs.
We are fast becoming a nation of village idiots.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Gadawg73 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is always a community college somewhere with open enrollment that teaches Biology 101.
> Out of the tens of thousands of colleges, universities and schools of higher learning there are 2 or 3 that do not teach evolution as fact.
> Intelligent design was shot down as a fraud by a conservative Bush appointed Republican Federal jidge in the Dover case. The witnessesand school Board members there lied in open court and were almost charged with perjury.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really,impressive post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me what is false in it and that would really be impressive.
> Good luck Moe.
Click to expand...


We are well beyond the 101 level.

You do not need to attend college to be educated on the theory of evolution that is your first mistake. I have been reading and learning most of what i know about the subject through scholarly writings. I have been doing so for ten years . I have come across many graduated students who believe they are gonna set the world on fire with their new found knowledge. All they have been taught is fact in their eyes they have been so indoctrinated to the theory they seem to lose reason and logic.

After all these years the evolutionists strongest evidence is bacteria having the ability to adapt . all organisms have the ability to adapt but it is limited on how much the organism can adapt. Natural selection would work against macroevolution that is why it is an impossibility. Natural selection would work against mutations as presented earlier.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Gadawg73 said:


> New Gallup poll:
> 40% of Americans believe the earth is no more than 10,000 years old.
> At least that is a start. The Creation Museum in Ky teaches hundreds of thousands of Sunday schoolkids each year that it is only 6,000 years old and that man walked with dinosaurs.
> We are fast becoming a nation of village idiots.



So how do you explain the petroglyphs of man accurately drawing dinosaurs  that supposedly went extinct long before the existence of man ? how could they draw something that was never seen ? they uncovered a creature that had lines like a zebra and that was in the petroglyp drawings. Maybe dragons was the term used for dinosaurs which is also used in the bible.

There is writings from many cultures concerning dragons and even Alexander the great spoke of his encounters with the dragons. Village of idiots yes, maybe because we don't fully understand the past.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Gadawg73 said:


> New Gallup poll:
> 40% of Americans believe the earth is no more than 10,000 years old.
> At least that is a start. The Creation Museum in Ky teaches hundreds of thousands of Sunday schoolkids each year that it is only 6,000 years old and that man walked with dinosaurs.
> We are fast becoming a nation of village idiots.



And you base your view of the earth being much older off of flawed dating systems.

Presuppositions also is a reason for your view that the earth is 4 or 5 billion years old.


----------



## Youwerecreated

This is my theory. Neanderthals were 100 % human.Neanderthals did not share a common ancestor with an apelike creature.Neanderthals were the product of inbreeding and eventually their communities were so small they could not survive all the bad genes that was being passed onto the offspring, and Eventually went extinct.

But that would explain their appearence being different from modern humans. The different features in the neanderthals was the reason the evolutionists believe they were a product of macroevolution and has since tried to connect them to apelike creatures or the chimp.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> You see the biggest fallacy with Neo Darwinism is they assume and they have no doubt that macroevolution is the mehanism to the diversity of species. They will claim it is fact and that is what their explanations is based on. They never stop to think it through on whether its even a possibility.



First off, we don't adhere to the magical term "Macroevolution" to make a semantics debate.  When you consider the the concept of species is a man-made definition anyways, it's pretty retarded to get wrapped around the axle on it.  Microevolution and macroevolution are the same basic mechanism and concept.  

We accept mutations and novel phenotypes adding up to make new species as it is currently the best scientific explanation for speciation.  We are not "wed" to the concept if a better and scientifically sound explanation comes forth.  

Currently there are no other legitimate alternatives to consider.  Even intelligent design bastardizes the concept of natural selection to explain their "theory", they just claim the process was guided by a supernatural power.  

So we don't consider other alternatives because they currently don't exist.  If you have something better, then knock yourself out.  



> They have no mechanism for the origins of life and they quicly rule out the thought of God did it, even though they can't prove how life began. They deny obvious evidence of intelligent design and say a natural process can do it even when it defies logic.



As you have been told countless times already, evolution is not concerned with the origin of life.  That is a separate field.  Are you running out of talking points?



> The evolutionists are seeing Gods work and giving credit to an unintelligent process. Evolutionists are observing Gods once perfect creation and saying he did a poor job if he exists. All the greatest minds in science and all the technology that is in their posssessions cannnot produce what God produced without any help.



Which is the basic fallacy of introducing an all powerful supernatural force into a scientific theory.  Before you can introduce God into scientific theory, you would have to concede the existence of God can be falsified.  

Man has been struggling with the concept of the existence of God since he developed rational thought.  I have my doubts that you are going to prove that God exists.  As Bonhoeffer said:  "Any God that allows his existence to be proven is an idol."

You are more than entitled to believe that God created everything.  That is an article of faith.  It is not a scientific theory.  As such, it is not an alternate theory to evolution.  



> You're dealing with an intelligence beyond our comprehension ,evolutionists are just not intelligent enough to see it. God took non-living matter and created living organisms and mans science still don't know how its possible.



No, we are intelligent enough to understand the limitations of the scientific method and see that it is applied properly.

It's too bad that you blew off the lecture by Dr. Ken Miller.  He does an excellent job of explaining this.  Dr. Miller is also a Roman Catholic and believes in God.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> I did say Haldane was an evolutionist.



So, if Haldane himself didn't claim that his own findings invalidated evolution, why would you?  Do you understand the work better than the author?  I doubt it.  

You are just eager to grasp at any straw to make an argument.  



> Supercomputer to me just means it is faster than the normal computer,but that being said i believe that the computer can only do what it was programmed to do. I am a firm believer that what is created is not greater than the creator.



Faster and more accurate.



> Let me correct you on something,i believe in evolution but its only through adaptations and small changes within a species. Just don't buy Neo darwinism and macroevolution. You might be surprised by the amount people that share my views.



Most people haven't taken the time and discipline to actually study evolutionary theory and what it does and does not say.  Thus, they keep repeating stupid things like "Macroevolution, blah, blah blah" and thus demonstrating that they are completely ignorant of what they are arguing about.  This is why science is not a matter of democracy vote.  Therefore, the opinions of the masses are irrelevant as far as the scientific community is concerned.  



> From all my reading on the subject, it is clear to me there is such a lack of evidence for macroevolution that its now taught by some that there is no difference between micro and macro that is clearly false. Yes there is plenty of evidence for microevolution and its not even a dispute. Maybe that is the mistake you're making like so many others.



I am not making the mistakes here.  You are.  Again, saying you believe in microevolution but not macroevolution is analogous to saying you believe in a penny but not a quarter.  

This becomes further idiotic when you realize that man has defined the concept of species (which is still a point of debate).  If we wanted too, we could re-define the concept of species to call everyone with blond hair one species, black another, and etc.  

Therefore, your point of contention is purely semantics and not really relevant to the larger concept of evolution.  



> I can't believe how many evolutionists i come across that put micro and macro together not discerning the difference between the two.



Because we understand that there really isn't a difference (because we have actually studied the theory from a neutral source - in other words NOT the "Institute for Creation Research (what a crock of shit.  What research have they done in the last ten years?)).

There is no discrete biological event that is "macroevolution" that differs from "microevolution".  Rather, the accumulation of multiple small mutations leads to a novel phenotype.  The accumulation of novel phenotypes leads to new species.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> This is my theory. Neanderthals were 100 % human.Neanderthals did not share a common ancestor with an apelike creature.Neanderthals were the product of inbreeding and eventually their communities were so small they could not survive all the bad genes that was being passed onto the offspring, and Eventually went extinct.
> 
> But that would explain their appearence being different from modern humans. The different features in the neanderthals was the reason the evolutionists believe they were a product of macroevolution and has since tried to connect them to apelike creatures or the chimp.



"Theory" in the loosest form of the word..........

Thanks for not dumping any more crap from a creationist with an MA on us.


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You see the biggest fallacy with Neo Darwinism is they assume and they have no doubt that macroevolution is the mehanism to the diversity of species. They will claim it is fact and that is what their explanations is based on. They never stop to think it through on whether its even a possibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, we don't adhere to the magical term "Macroevolution" to make a semantics debate.  When you consider the the concept of species is a man-made definition anyways, it's pretty retarded to get wrapped around the axle on it.  Microevolution and macroevolution are the same basic mechanism and concept.
> 
> We accept mutations and novel phenotypes adding up to make new species as it is currently the best scientific explanation for speciation.  We are not "wed" to the concept if a better and scientifically sound explanation comes forth.
> 
> Currently there are no other legitimate alternatives to consider.  Even intelligent design bastardizes the concept of natural selection to explain their "theory", they just claim the process was guided by a supernatural power.
> 
> So we don't consider other alternatives because they currently don't exist.  If you have something better, then knock yourself out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have no mechanism for the origins of life and they quicly rule out the thought of God did it, even though they can't prove how life began. They deny obvious evidence of intelligent design and say a natural process can do it even when it defies logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you have been told countless times already, evolution is not concerned with the origin of life.  That is a separate field.  Are you running out of talking points?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evolutionists are seeing Gods work and giving credit to an unintelligent process. Evolutionists are observing Gods once perfect creation and saying he did a poor job if he exists. All the greatest minds in science and all the technology that is in their posssessions cannnot produce what God produced without any help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which is the basic fallacy of introducing an all powerful supernatural force into a scientific theory.  Before you can introduce God into scientific theory, you would have to concede the existence of God can be falsified.
> 
> Man has been struggling with the concept of the existence of God since he developed rational thought.  I have my doubts that you are going to prove that God exists.  As Bonhoeffer said:  "Any God that allows his existence to be proven is an idol."
> 
> You are more than entitled to believe that God created everything.  That is an article of faith.  It is not a scientific theory.  As such, it is not an alternate theory to evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're dealing with an intelligence beyond our comprehension ,evolutionists are just not intelligent enough to see it. God took non-living matter and created living organisms and mans science still don't know how its possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, we are intelligent enough to understand the limitations of the scientific method and see that it is applied properly.
> 
> It's too bad that you blew off the lecture by Dr. Ken Miller.  He does an excellent job of explaining this.  Dr. Miller is also a Roman Catholic and believes in God.
Click to expand...


Macro and micro terms were coined by evolutionists, if they are the same why create the two different terms ? Why are evolutionists so concerned with reducing macro to micro-evolution ? Let me offer an explanation. It really is simple as i said earlier, there is mountains of evidence for micro-evolution and very little evidence for macro-evolution.


If you're not wed to the theory that mutations are the mechanism for Macro-evolution than why defend it so when there is so much evidence against the theory ? I have to compliment you,you seem to be a very honest person by admitting that you're not wed to the explanation. I have had many discussions on this subject with evolutionists who were not willing to admit what you did.

You see,the only difference between creationists and evolutionists are there presuppositions and their explanations of the evidence. They are educated in the same fields ,and look at the same evidence, they just draw different conclusions of the evidence.

I understand evolutionists do not concern themselves with the origins of life as you say, But why do they no longer claim they no longer concern themselves with the origins of life ? it is simple,because they could not come up with a falsifiable answer. They even admitted ignorance after 50 years researching the origins of life. You have to admit there is no explanation for non-living matter being converted into living organisms. But really thats not true because they are trying to create life in the labs.

Bastardizes, that's kinda of a strong term to use is it not  for your fellow scientists ? You do realize many early scientists subscribed to creation as the answer for all life and many still do ?

As for Mr. Miller,him being a catholic means he must subscribe to the Holy bible as the word of God. I am not impressed when i hear that admission from one who promotes a theory that is contradictory to the word of God.


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did say Haldane was an evolutionist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, if Haldane himself didn't claim that his own findings invalidated evolution, why would you?  Do you understand the work better than the author?  I doubt it.
> 
> You are just eager to grasp at any straw to make an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supercomputer to me just means it is faster than the normal computer,but that being said i believe that the computer can only do what it was programmed to do. I am a firm believer that what is created is not greater than the creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Faster and more accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> Most people haven't taken the time and discipline to actually study evolutionary theory and what it does and does not say.  Thus, they keep repeating stupid things like "Macroevolution, blah, blah blah" and thus demonstrating that they are completely ignorant of what they are arguing about.  This is why science is not a matter of democracy vote.  Therefore, the opinions of the masses are irrelevant as far as the scientific community is concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From all my reading on the subject, it is clear to me there is such a lack of evidence for macroevolution that its now taught by some that there is no difference between micro and macro that is clearly false. Yes there is plenty of evidence for microevolution and its not even a dispute. Maybe that is the mistake you're making like so many others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not making the mistakes here.  You are.  Again, saying you believe in microevolution but not macroevolution is analogous to saying you believe in a penny but not a quarter.
> 
> This becomes further idiotic when you realize that man has defined the concept of species (which is still a point of debate).  If we wanted too, we could re-define the concept of species to call everyone with blond hair one species, black another, and etc.
> 
> Therefore, your point of contention is purely semantics and not really relevant to the larger concept of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe how many evolutionists i come across that put micro and macro together not discerning the difference between the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because we understand that there really isn't a difference (because we have actually studied the theory from a neutral source - in other words NOT the "Institute for Creation Research (what a crock of shit.  What research have they done in the last ten years?)).
> 
> There is no discrete biological event that is "macroevolution" that differs from "microevolution".  Rather, the accumulation of multiple small mutations leads to a novel phenotype.  The accumulation of novel phenotypes leads to new species.
Click to expand...


But still the supercomputer was a product of design is the super computer smarter then the ones who programmed it ?

Creationists are looking at the same data as evolutionists just drawing a different conclusion. There are creationists at evolutionists side so they are working on the same things as the evolutionists. They just go a different direction with their explanations.


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is my theory. Neanderthals were 100 % human.Neanderthals did not share a common ancestor with an apelike creature.Neanderthals were the product of inbreeding and eventually their communities were so small they could not survive all the bad genes that was being passed onto the offspring, and Eventually went extinct.
> 
> But that would explain their appearence being different from modern humans. The different features in the neanderthals was the reason the evolutionists believe they were a product of macroevolution and has since tried to connect them to apelike creatures or the chimp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Theory" in the loosest form of the word..........
> 
> Thanks for not dumping any more crap from a creationist with an MA on us.
Click to expand...


Why do you seem to contain such contempt for people of science having a different view from yours ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did say Haldane was an evolutionist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, if Haldane himself didn't claim that his own findings invalidated evolution, why would you?  Do you understand the work better than the author?  I doubt it.
> 
> You are just eager to grasp at any straw to make an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supercomputer to me just means it is faster than the normal computer,but that being said i believe that the computer can only do what it was programmed to do. I am a firm believer that what is created is not greater than the creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Faster and more accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> Most people haven't taken the time and discipline to actually study evolutionary theory and what it does and does not say.  Thus, they keep repeating stupid things like "Macroevolution, blah, blah blah" and thus demonstrating that they are completely ignorant of what they are arguing about.  This is why science is not a matter of democracy vote.  Therefore, the opinions of the masses are irrelevant as far as the scientific community is concerned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From all my reading on the subject, it is clear to me there is such a lack of evidence for macroevolution that its now taught by some that there is no difference between micro and macro that is clearly false. Yes there is plenty of evidence for microevolution and its not even a dispute. Maybe that is the mistake you're making like so many others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not making the mistakes here.  You are.  Again, saying you believe in microevolution but not macroevolution is analogous to saying you believe in a penny but not a quarter.
> 
> This becomes further idiotic when you realize that man has defined the concept of species (which is still a point of debate).  If we wanted too, we could re-define the concept of species to call everyone with blond hair one species, black another, and etc.
> 
> Therefore, your point of contention is purely semantics and not really relevant to the larger concept of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe how many evolutionists i come across that put micro and macro together not discerning the difference between the two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because we understand that there really isn't a difference (because we have actually studied the theory from a neutral source - in other words NOT the "Institute for Creation Research (what a crock of shit.  What research have they done in the last ten years?)).
> 
> There is no discrete biological event that is "macroevolution" that differs from "microevolution".  Rather, the accumulation of multiple small mutations leads to a novel phenotype.  The accumulation of novel phenotypes leads to new species.
Click to expand...


Why would Haldane make such an admission,he is an evolutionist.  

If you put Haldane's dilemma with the conditions that geneticist R.H. Byles brought out, it shows the impossibilty that mutations are the source of new and beneficial information to produce Macro-evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> "Theory" in the loosest form of the word..........
> 
> Thanks for not dumping any more crap from a creationist with an MA on us.



You seem to be concerned with credentials here is some interesting reading.



Do real scientists believe in Creation?



 "I have seen anti-creationists claim that all true scientists support Evolution, and that those who support Creation are not really scientists and that their credentials are less than legitimate. Is this true?"
      -Frank

It is true that during the 20th century, many scientists accepted Evolutionism, in part or in whole. As secular science writer Richard Milton recently observed:

"An important factor in bringing about the universal dominance and acceptance of Darwinian evolution has been that virtually every eminent professional scientist appointed to posts in the life sciences in the last 40 or 50 years, in the English-speaking world, has been a convinced Darwinist. These men, as well as occupying powerful and important academic teaching positions, were also prolific and important writers whose influence has been widespread in forming the consensus." 1 
These names include such men as Gavin de Beer, Julian Huxley, J.B.S. Haldane, C.H. Waddington, Ernst Mayr, Theodosius Dobzhansky and George Simpson.

Despite strong pressure to accept evolutionism, many intelligent and experienced scientists either openly or secretly dismiss Evolution as highly unlikely or impossible. In the 1980s, researcher and lecturer David Watson noted an increasing trend that continues today, disturbing those who want evolutionism to be perceived as the accepted scientific consensus: 

"A tidal wave of new books threaten to shatter that confidence - titles like Darwin Retried (1971), Macbeth; The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), Hitching; The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), Taylor; The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution (1984), Fix; Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities (1984), Cohen; Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (1987), Lovtrup; and Adam and Evolution (1984), Pitman. Not one of these books was written from a Christian-apologetic point of view: they are concerned only with scientific truth - as was Sir Ernst Chain when he called evolution 'a fairy tale'." 2


As Science Digest reported:

"Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science." 3

One example is the late Dr. Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, an honored scientist with an amazing three earned doctorates. He held many distinguished positions. 4 A former Evolutionist, Dr. Wilder-Smith debated various leading scientists on the subject throughout the world. In his opinion, the Evolution model did not fit as well with the established facts of science as did the Creation model of intelligent design.

"The Evolutionary model says that it is not necessary to assume the existence of anything, besides matter and energy, to produce life. That proposition is unscientific. We know perfectly well that if you leave matter to itself, it does not organize itself - in spite of all the efforts in recent years to prove that it does." 5 
Secular researcher Richard Milton summarized the current world situation: "Darwinism has never had much appeal for science outside of the English-speaking world, and has never appealed much to the American public (although popular with the U.S. scientific establishment in the past). However, its ascendancy in science, in both Britain and America, has been waning for several decades as its grip has weakened in successive areas: geology; paleontology; embryology; comparative anatomy. Now even geneticists are beginning to have doubts. It is only in mainstream molecular biology and zoology that Darwinism retains serious enthusiastic supporters. As growing numbers of scientists begin to drift away from neo-Darwinist ideas, the revision of Darwinism at the public level is long overdue, and is a process that I believe has already started." 6


Partial list of Creationist scientists
(past and present)
&#9632;600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science). 

&#9632;150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys. 

(Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)


&#9632;Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating) 
&#9632;Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology) 

&#9632;Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info] 

&#9632;Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info] 

&#9632;Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine) 

&#9632;Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method) 

&#9632;Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info] 

&#9632;Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics) 

&#9632;Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration) 

&#9632;David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy) 

&#9632;Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info] 

&#9632;Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info] 

&#9632;Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology) 

&#9632;Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics) 

&#9632;Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info] 

&#9632;Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology) 

&#9632;Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator) 

&#9632;Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info] 

&#9632;Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve) 

&#9632;Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info] 

&#9632;Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info] 

&#9632;John Grebe (chemist) [more info] 

&#9632;Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction) 

&#9632;William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog) 

&#9632;George F. Howe (botanist) [more info] 

&#9632;D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info] 

&#9632;James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics) 

&#9632;Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables) 

&#9632;John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info] 

&#9632;Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info] 

&#9632;Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info] 

&#9632;Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System) 

&#9632;Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery) 

&#9632;Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info] 

&#9632;Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography) 

&#9632;James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics) 

&#9632;Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics) 

&#9632;Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph) 

&#9632;Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope) 

&#9632;Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info] 

&#9632;Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer) 

&#9632;Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations) 

&#9632;William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases) 

&#9632;John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science) 

&#9632;Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis) 

&#9632;Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry) 

&#9632;James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform) 

&#9632;Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy) 

&#9632;George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics) 

&#9632;Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info] 

&#9632;William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable) 

&#9632;Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info] 

&#9632;Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics) 

&#9632;Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology) 

&#9632;A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info] 

&#9632;A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info] 

&#9632;John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology) 

A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See our partial list of Creation-scientists with earned doctorates in science - Go

Partial list of Creation-science organizations and addresses
&#9632;Institute for Creation Research, P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, California 92021, U.S.A. - The Institute for Creation Research 

&#9632;Creation Research Society, P.O. Box 969, Ashland, Ohio 44805-0969, U.S.A. E-mail: wolfrom@aol.com 

&#9632;Geoscience Research Institute, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California 92350, U.S.A. 

&#9632;Access Research Network, P.O. Box 38069, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80937-8069, U.S.A. 

&#9632;Answers in Genesis, Australia (formerly Creation Science Foundation), P.O. Box 6302, Acacia Ridge DC, Queensland 4110, AUSTRALIA. 

&#9632;Answers in Genesis, P.O. Box 6330, Florence, Kentucky 41022-9937, U.S.A. - Answers in Genesis - Creation, Evolution, Christian Apologetics 

&#9632;Creation Science Association, P.O. Box 821, Station A, Scarborough, Ontario M1K 5C8, CANADA. 

&#9632;Creation Magazine UK, Ltd., P.O. Box 770, Highworth, Wiltshire SN6 7TU, UNITED KINGDOM. 

&#9632;Korea Association for Creation Research, Olympian Building, Room 811, 196-7 Jamilbou-dorg, Songpua-Ku, Seoul, SOUTH KOREA. 

&#9632;Bible and Science of Japan, c/o Dr. Masami Usami, 1-4-41 Kamimito, Mito-Shi, Ibaraki-Ken 310, JAPAN. 

&#9632;Christian Center for Science and Apologetics, ul. Gogolia 33-8, Simferopol, 95011, Crimea, UKRAINE - http://west.crimea.com/~creation/ 

Do real scientists believe in Creation? - ChristianAnswers.Net


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> Macro and micro terms were coined by evolutionists, if they are the same why create the two different terms ? Why are evolutionists so concerned with reducing macro to micro-evolution ? Let me offer an explanation. It really is simple as i said earlier, there is mountains of evidence for micro-evolution and very little evidence for macro-evolution.



Who exactly coined them?  Who were these "evolutionists".  As they are used in biological sciences, it's understood that they are intricately connected and not abstractly different things.  

As creationists have disingenuously tried to create a semantics debate to cloud the larger issue (as they do with the term "theory") the concept of "micro" and "macro" evolution are not anything that people who understand the theory split hairs about.   



> If you're not wed to the theory that mutations are the mechanism for Macro-evolution than why defend it so when there is so much evidence against the theory ? I have to compliment you,you seem to be a very honest person by admitting that you're not wed to the explanation. I have had many discussions on this subject with evolutionists who were not willing to admit what you did.



Because, as I said before, there is not scientifically valid alternative.  That is aside from the fact that the evidence against it is scant and the evidence for it is massive.  My point was this:  the scientific approach is to consider any other valid possibility and not to adhere to something like religious doctrine.  As new ideas and issues come up, the larger theory changes.  Case in point:  Darwin had no mechanism for inheritance (well, he did, but it was silly).  Modern genetics has neatly explained at the molecular level what Darwin was able to observe with his eyes.  

As it stands, the theory is always open to be altered and has been many, many times.  At this point, there is no scientific theory or thought out there that would counter evolution.   



> You see,the only difference between creationists and evolutionists are there presuppositions and their explanations of the evidence. They are educated in the same fields ,and look at the same evidence, they just draw different conclusions of the evidence.



That's not true.  There is a massive difference.  Once side adheres to religion to explain the natural world and the other side adheres to the scientific method.  



> I understand evolutionists do not concern themselves with the origins of life as you say, But why do they no longer claim they no longer concern themselves with the origins of life ? it is simple,because they could not come up with a falsifiable answer. They even admitted ignorance after 50 years researching the origins of life. You have to admit there is no explanation for non-living matter being converted into living organisms. But really thats not true because they are trying to create life in the labs.



There are multiple good explanations.  At this point, it's just which explanation is more plausible.  "Evolutionists" didn't "give up" on the issue of the origin of life.  Rather, it's so complex that it warrants it's own specialized field of biology.   



> Bastardizes, that's kinda of a strong term to use is it not  for your fellow scientists ? You do realize many early scientists subscribed to creation as the answer for all life and many still do ?



The verb form of the word doesn't have the same connotation as the noun form:
Bastardize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

"Many"?  That is being exceedingly generous.  If you post the list from the Discovery Institute of scientists who believe in "Intelligent Design" (which is not the same thing as creationism) prepare to get smacked down.  It's been discredited.  As for "early scientists", why would I fault people for going with the faith based explanation when there was a lack of scientific evidence?  That's just silly.  I certainly fault any scientist who today choose to be ignorant.  



> As for Mr. Miller,him being a catholic means he must subscribe to the Holy bible as the word of God. I am not impressed when i hear that admission from one who promotes a theory that is contradictory to the word of God.



And I am not impressed that you can't grasp the crucial issue at stake here (though it is funny that you would lash out a Dr. Miller who obviously does).

Whether God exists or not (and thus created the world) is a question that is outside the scope of science to answer.  

Therefore, you can be a scientist and believe in God and evolution and admit that you don't have to reconcile those two beliefs.  At the same time, you acknowledge that it is outside the standards of your profession to introduce theology into the scientific method.  

It's a simple matter of professional competence and not religious conviction.  

An easier example would be of a Mormon Police Officer who acknowledges that he can't arrest people for drinking caffeine. 

In fact, in every other profession but the field of science, we expect people to keep their religion out of their professional work.  And yet, for some reason, you all expect scientists to be different and vilify them for trying to maintain the standards of the profession.

You say you are well read on this matter.  I have my doubts.  I suggest you buy a biology textbook and simply study the scientific method and how basic science works.  

This is not a complicated issue.  You are missing the forrest for the trees.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> But still the supercomputer was a product of design is the super computer smarter then the ones who programmed it ?
> 
> Creationists are looking at the same data as evolutionists just drawing a different conclusion. There are creationists at evolutionists side so they are working on the same things as the evolutionists. They just go a different direction with their explanations.



Not smarter.  More precise and accurate.  This is only relevant to explain why "Haldane's Delimma" isn't really a delimma at all.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> Why do you seem to contain such contempt for people of science having a different view from yours ?



I don't.  I've told you about five times now that you are entitled to your personal beliefs.  

I only develop contempt when people like you want to impose your personal religious beliefs on the scientific method as the larger implications of doing so would completely retard the field.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> Why would Haldane make such an admission,he is an evolutionist.



Of course.  It must be a conspiracy, right?  

Then why did Haldane even publish to begin with?

D'oh! 



> If you put Haldane's dilemma with the conditions that geneticist R.H. Byles brought out, it shows the impossibilty that mutations are the source of new and beneficial information to produce Macro-evolution.



Not really, but nice try.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> (Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)
> 
> &#9632;Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
> 
> &#9632;Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
> 
> &#9632;Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
> 
> &#9632;Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
> 
> &#9632;James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
> 
> &#9632;Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
> 
> &#9632;Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
> 
> &#9632;Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
> 
> &#9632;Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
> 
> &#9632;Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)



I've obviously truncated your list to make the following statement:

Are you fucking kidding me?


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But still the supercomputer was a product of design is the super computer smarter then the ones who programmed it ?
> 
> Creationists are looking at the same data as evolutionists just drawing a different conclusion. There are creationists at evolutionists side so they are working on the same things as the evolutionists. They just go a different direction with their explanations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not smarter.  More precise and accurate.  This is only relevant to explain why "Haldane's Delimma" isn't really a delimma at all.
Click to expand...


Ok let's try this again. The supercomputer is only as precise as the one who programmed it ,right ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you seem to contain such contempt for people of science having a different view from yours ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't.  I've told you about five times now that you are entitled to your personal beliefs.
> 
> I only develop contempt when people like you want to impose your personal religious beliefs on the scientific method as the larger implications of doing so would completely retard the field.
Click to expand...


How did i impose my religous beliefs on you ?

As often as you use the term "retard" you are causing me to question your maturity level.


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would Haldane make such an admission,he is an evolutionist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  It must be a conspiracy, right?
> 
> Then why did Haldane even publish to begin with?
> 
> D'oh!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you put Haldane's dilemma with the conditions that geneticist R.H. Byles brought out, it shows the impossibilty that mutations are the source of new and beneficial information to produce Macro-evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really, but nice try.
Click to expand...


No conspiracy,he was being honest in showing how little the chance was for mutations to be the answer.

Many surpass you in experience in the field disagree with you ,but, believe as you must.


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> (Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)
> 
> &#9632;Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
> 
> &#9632;Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
> 
> &#9632;Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
> 
> &#9632;Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
> 
> &#9632;James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
> 
> &#9632;Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
> 
> &#9632;Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
> 
> &#9632;Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
> 
> &#9632;Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
> 
> &#9632;Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've obviously truncated your list to make the following statement:
> 
> Are you fucking kidding me?
Click to expand...


You mind letting me in on the joke ? 

I see you did not bother posting the rest of the scientists that subscribe to creation as the means of life.

Many are picking your little theory apart.


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Macro and micro terms were coined by evolutionists, if they are the same why create the two different terms ? Why are evolutionists so concerned with reducing macro to micro-evolution ? Let me offer an explanation. It really is simple as i said earlier, there is mountains of evidence for micro-evolution and very little evidence for macro-evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who exactly coined them?  Who were these "evolutionists".  As they are used in biological sciences, it's understood that they are intricately connected and not abstractly different things.
> 
> As creationists have disingenuously tried to create a semantics debate to cloud the larger issue (as they do with the term "theory") the concept of "micro" and "macro" evolution are not anything that people who understand the theory split hairs about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not wed to the theory that mutations are the mechanism for Macro-evolution than why defend it so when there is so much evidence against the theory ? I have to compliment you,you seem to be a very honest person by admitting that you're not wed to the explanation. I have had many discussions on this subject with evolutionists who were not willing to admit what you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, as I said before, there is not scientifically valid alternative.  That is aside from the fact that the evidence against it is scant and the evidence for it is massive.  My point was this:  the scientific approach is to consider any other valid possibility and not to adhere to something like religious doctrine.  As new ideas and issues come up, the larger theory changes.  Case in point:  Darwin had no mechanism for inheritance (well, he did, but it was silly).  Modern genetics has neatly explained at the molecular level what Darwin was able to observe with his eyes.
> 
> As it stands, the theory is always open to be altered and has been many, many times.  At this point, there is no scientific theory or thought out there that would counter evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not true.  There is a massive difference.  Once side adheres to religion to explain the natural world and the other side adheres to the scientific method.
> 
> 
> 
> There are multiple good explanations.  At this point, it's just which explanation is more plausible.  "Evolutionists" didn't "give up" on the issue of the origin of life.  Rather, it's so complex that it warrants it's own specialized field of biology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bastardizes, that's kinda of a strong term to use is it not  for your fellow scientists ? You do realize many early scientists subscribed to creation as the answer for all life and many still do ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The verb form of the word doesn't have the same connotation as the noun form:
> Bastardize - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> 
> "Many"?  That is being exceedingly generous.  If you post the list from the Discovery Institute of scientists who believe in "Intelligent Design" (which is not the same thing as creationism) prepare to get smacked down.  It's been discredited.  As for "early scientists", why would I fault people for going with the faith based explanation when there was a lack of scientific evidence?  That's just silly.  I certainly fault any scientist who today choose to be ignorant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for Mr. Miller,him being a catholic means he must subscribe to the Holy bible as the word of God. I am not impressed when i hear that admission from one who promotes a theory that is contradictory to the word of God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I am not impressed that you can't grasp the crucial issue at stake here (though it is funny that you would lash out a Dr. Miller who obviously does).
> 
> Whether God exists or not (and thus created the world) is a question that is outside the scope of science to answer.
> 
> Therefore, you can be a scientist and believe in God and evolution and admit that you don't have to reconcile those two beliefs.  At the same time, you acknowledge that it is outside the standards of your profession to introduce theology into the scientific method.
> 
> It's a simple matter of professional competence and not religious conviction.
> 
> An easier example would be of a Mormon Police Officer who acknowledges that he can't arrest people for drinking caffeine.
> 
> In fact, in every other profession but the field of science, we expect people to keep their religion out of their professional work.  And yet, for some reason, you all expect scientists to be different and vilify them for trying to maintain the standards of the profession.
> 
> You say you are well read on this matter.  I have my doubts.  I suggest you buy a biology textbook and simply study the scientific method and how basic science works.
> 
> This is not a complicated issue.  You are missing the forrest for the trees.
Click to expand...


Why do you have the army ranger logo as your avatar ? i doubt you're old enough to be in the military by your vocabulary, with impressive terms such as Duh and retard.

I was an army ranger in the 101st you don't strike me as a Ranger.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> Why do you have the army ranger logo as your avatar ? i doubt you're old enough to be in the military by your vocabulary, with impressive terms such as Duh and retard.
> 
> I was an army ranger in the 101st you don't strike me as a Ranger.



I obviously have the logo because I completed Ranger School.  Class 4-02.

It's irrelevant what I strike you as.


----------



## rdean

Evolution is the foundation science for botany, biology and physiology.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> (Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)
> 
> &#9632;Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
> 
> &#9632;Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
> 
> &#9632;Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
> 
> &#9632;Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
> 
> &#9632;James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
> 
> &#9632;Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
> 
> &#9632;Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
> 
> &#9632;Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
> 
> &#9632;Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
> 
> &#9632;Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've obviously truncated your list to make the following statement:
> 
> Are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mind letting me in on the joke ?
> 
> I see you did not bother posting the rest of the scientists that subscribe to creation as the means of life.
> 
> Many are picking your little theory apart.
Click to expand...


That most of the names on your list came were dead before Darwin published his list.  The rest can't really be counted on to fall in line with the creationists in this debate.  You don't know what Louis Pasteur would have said on this debate. 

Of the ones that are living and actively contributing to scientific research, I don't see many, if any, biologists.

Even guys like Dr. Richard Behe, who is Intelligent Design's "go-to" academic (he is a biochemist), accepts evolution (to include "Macro-evolution"), he just thinks it was guided by an "intelligent" process.

Why do you guys have to resort to blatant dishonesty to try and make your side seem legitimate?  

Intelligent Design was bad enough.

Creation is even worse.

In fact, I often see you using those two terms interchangeably.  They are not the same thing.  What exactly do you believe?


----------



## geauxtohell

rdean said:


> Evolution is the foundation science for botany, biology and physiology.



And genetics, biochemistry, pathology, ecology, etc.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> No conspiracy,he was being honest in showing how little the chance was for mutations to be the answer.



Again, the "this is too complicated to have happened on it's own!" is not a scientific argument.  Over a long enough time frame, anything that doesn't violate the basic rules of nature can happen.  



> Many surpass you in experience in the field disagree with you ,but, believe as you must.



Many, many, many, many more who surpass me (and way surpass you) agree with me.  If you want to go that route, you are going to lose.   Your point is, again, irrelevant.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> How did i impose my religous beliefs on you ?



That's not what I claimed at all.  I suspect you are smart enough to know it.  



> As often as you use the term "retard" you are causing me to question your maturity level.



In the above context, it was used in the literal and not the pejorative sense.  You either lack reading comprehension skills or are being intentionally obtuse to try and divert this topic to a referendum on my "maturity level".  I suspect the latter, and again, I suspect you are smart enough to know it.



> Ok let's try this again. The supercomputer is only as precise as the one who programmed it ,right ?



Sure.  Now go ahead and make your "See, this is a good example of the majesty of creation!  Just as God created us all!  It couldn't have just happened de novo!"  point that you are so dying to make.  I've never seen that one tossed out before.

What's next, the "it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics!  You don't see airplanes self assembling themselves in a junkyard!" talking point?


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've obviously truncated your list to make the following statement:
> 
> Are you fucking kidding me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mind letting me in on the joke ?
> 
> I see you did not bother posting the rest of the scientists that subscribe to creation as the means of life.
> 
> Many are picking your little theory apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That most of the names on your list came were dead before Darwin published his list.  The rest can't really be counted on to fall in line with the creationists in this debate.  You don't know what Louis Pasteur would have said on this debate.
> 
> Of the ones that are living and actively contributing to scientific research, I don't see many, if any, biologists.
> 
> Even guys like Dr. Richard Behe, who is Intelligent Design's "go-to" academic (he is a biochemist), accepts evolution (to include "Macro-evolution"), he just thinks it was guided by an "intelligent" process.
> 
> Why do you guys have to resort to blatant dishonesty to try and make your side seem legitimate?
> 
> Intelligent Design was bad enough.
> 
> Creation is even worse.
> 
> In fact, I often see you using those two terms interchangeably.  They are not the same thing.  What exactly do you believe?
Click to expand...


I don't really subscribe to either theory. I just flat out believe all life is a result of creation. I don't think man has the ability to answer all questions pertaining to life from either view whether it you believe in a creator or a natural process.

As for Mr.Behe accepting macroevolution you will have to point it out to me.Everything i have read from the guy is anti macroevolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No conspiracy,he was being honest in showing how little the chance was for mutations to be the answer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the "this is too complicated to have happened on it's own!" is not a scientific argument.  Over a long enough time frame, anything that doesn't violate the basic rules of nature can happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many surpass you in experience in the field disagree with you ,but, believe as you must.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many, many, many, many more who surpass me (and way surpass you) agree with me.  If you want to go that route, you are going to lose.   Your point is, again, irrelevant.
Click to expand...


If i am right about God ,it won't matter who thinks what soon.

I do believe that many of evolutions best minds are moving to the side of God-did-it. The numbers are growing and the financial backing is as well.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> I don't really subscribe to either theory. I just flat out believe all life is a result of creation. I don't think man has the ability to answer all questions pertaining to life from either view whether it you believe in a creator or a natural process.
> 
> As for Mr.Behe accepting macroevolution you will have to point it out to me.Everything i have read from the guy is anti macroevolution.



So, you really don't have scientifically valid theory that is defensible on this matter?  That's fine, but you are not an anomaly.  Most people on all sides of the debate acknowledge that they don't have all the answers.  In fact, you basically describe what Dr. Miller believes.  Too bad you couldn't be troubled to actually listen to what he had to say.  Instead, you castigated him because he wasn't (in your view) sufficiently religious.

Intelligent Design accepts the mechanics of evolution to explain speciation (i.e. "macroevolution" as you put it).  They just think the process was helped by a supernatural force. 

"Creationism" is the belief that God created everything in 7 days as literally put forth in the bible.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> If i am right about God ,it won't matter who thinks what soon.



Pascale's Wager.  Again, not a terribly inspiring scientific argument.  

BTW, I don't recall Christ saying that salvation is dependent upon a literal reading of Genesis.



> I do believe that many of evolutions best are moving to the side of God-did-it. The numbers are growing and the financial backing is as well.



You believe wrong.

The high water mark for this latest fad was the trial at Dover, where the Intelligent Design crew was completely thrashed and exposed as the dishonest frauds that they were.  The judge ( a conservative Bush appointee) almost sanctioned some of the ID people for their actions on the stand.  

Since that time, you see "Intelligent Design" referenced as an alternative theory to evolution less and less.  

It doesn't help when your star witness (Behe) is beaten to a pulp on scientific matters by an attorney.


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How did i impose my religous beliefs on you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what I claimed at all.  I suspect you are smart enough to know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As often as you use the term "retard" you are causing me to question your maturity level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the above context, it was used in the literal and not the pejorative sense.  You either lack reading comprehension skills or are being intentionally obtuse to try and divert this topic to a referendum on my "maturity level".  I suspect the latter, and again, I suspect you are smart enough to know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok let's try this again. The supercomputer is only as precise as the one who programmed it ,right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  Now go ahead and make your "See, this is a good example of the majesty of creation!  Just as God created us all!  It couldn't have just happened de novo!"  point that you are so dying to make.  I've never seen that one tossed out before.
> 
> What's next, the "it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics!  You don't see airplanes self assembling themselves in a junkyard!" talking point?
Click to expand...


I think it is a great argument, houses and cars and that supercomputer is a product of design. Those things are a product of design. Medicine designed. There is enormous amounts of evidence for design, very few products that happen through a natural process.

Everyone knows that matter left to itself does nothing. It has to have an outside influence to bring about action.


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really subscribe to either theory. I just flat out believe all life is a result of creation. I don't think man has the ability to answer all questions pertaining to life from either view whether it you believe in a creator or a natural process.
> 
> As for Mr.Behe accepting macroevolution you will have to point it out to me.Everything i have read from the guy is anti macroevolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you really don't have scientifically valid theory that is defensible on this matter?  That's fine, but you are not an anomaly.  Most people on all sides of the debate acknowledge that they don't have all the answers.  In fact, you basically describe what Dr. Miller believes.  Too bad you couldn't be troubled to actually listen to what he had to say.  Instead, you castigated him because he wasn't (in your view) sufficiently religious.
> 
> Intelligent Design accepts the mechanics of evolution to explain speciation (i.e. "macroevolution" as you put it).  They just think the process was helped by a supernatural force.
> 
> "Creationism" is the belief that God created everything in 7 days as literally put forth in the bible.
Click to expand...


I would fall under the theory of creation, I believe in the 7 day creation. Can't prove it,but i don't feel i need to because my views are based out of faith.

Through reason, i feel my mind is in agreement that life did not happen by chance.

The bible mentions that things were crteated according to kind not species.

I think its hard to define a species. Lions and tigers are considered diffent species but yet they can cross breed and produce offspring. So how can they be a different species and yet cross breed and produce offspring.

We see the same things in dogs, and horses. to me why not keep it simple ? just call them the same kind or the same species just different breeds.

And i guess i am ok with that part of macro-evolution if thats what it truly is. but for me speciation is better described as micro evolution according to their definitions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If i am right about God ,it won't matter who thinks what soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pascale's Wager.  Again, not a terribly inspiring scientific argument.
> 
> BTW, I don't recall Christ saying that salvation is dependent upon a literal reading of Genesis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe that many of evolutions best are moving to the side of God-did-it. The numbers are growing and the financial backing is as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe wrong.
> 
> The high water mark for this latest fad was the trial at Dover, where the Intelligent Design crew was completely thrashed and exposed as the dishonest frauds that they were.  The judge ( a conservative Bush appointee) almost sanctioned some of the ID people for their actions on the stand.
> 
> Since that time, you see "Intelligent Design" referenced as an alternative theory to evolution less and less.
> 
> It doesn't help when your star witness (Behe) is beaten to a pulp on scientific matters by an attorney.
Click to expand...


The chronology of the bible gives timelines to deny that you deny the word of God and if the bible  can't be relied on what would ones views be based on ?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> Your side has an opinion as well as mine, but which one is truly supported by the evidence ?


That's a good question.  "My side" has educated and trained doctoral scientists analyze the physical world, producing reproducible experiments and data to directly draw a logical conclusion which is then highly scrutinized by other educated and trained doctoral scientists before it is published in a highly reputable scientific journal.  Not only do they tell you HOW the research was exactly performed, but details right down to what companies supplied the materials needed to run it.

"Your side" uses people with masters degrees in completely unrelated fields that do zero research and procure zero evidence about the physical world but still post their unsupported opinion, usually based on largely outdated, purposely misleading, or otherwise inaccurate information onto random websites.  What company does "your side" get their research supplies from?

Given that setup, which one do you now think is more likely to be "truly supported by the evidence"?



Youwerecreated said:


> Funny,your side copies and paste as well. the only time you guys have a problem with it is when you can't argue whats posted. I'm not here to impress anyone, i am here to show the fallacy of the so called factual theory.


As GTH pointed out: we cite.  We have the understanding and insight to make points using our own words like the big boys and girls we are.  When asked to "prove" our points, we can in fact cite actual research.  People who must resort to blanket copying and pasting of topics and are incapable of paraphrasing do so because they lack such understanding.  Which method do you use?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> Let me correct you on something,i believe in evolution but its only through adaptations and small changes within a species. Just don't buy Neo darwinism and macroevolution. You might be surprised by the amount people that share my views.


Evolution, micro or "macro", does not happen from adaptations within an organism.  When bacteria that were previously susceptible to an antibiotic comes in contact with it, 0% survive. ZERO. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a susceptible bacteria to come in contact with an antiobiotic and then adapt to survive. 

If you actually do understand how bacterial antibiotic resistance and thus "microevolution" does work, which I'm highly doubting at this time, please explain why you believe there is any difference in that method compared to "macroevolution?"

Oh that's right: you don't answer questioned aimed at disclosing your own beliefs, and this post much like many others will be "overlooked" repeatedly.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> They have no mechanism for the origins of life and they quicly rule out the thought of God did it, even though they can't prove how life began. They deny obvious evidence of intelligent design and say a natural process can do it even when it defies logic.


Evolution has nothing to do with how life began. Similarly, you have no clue how your computer reads and processes information yet you're still able to turn it on and use it.  Lack of knowledge in one related but separate area does not mandate ignorance in another.



Youwerecreated said:


> You do not need to attend college to be educated on the theory of evolution that is your first mistake. I have been reading and learning most of what i know about the subject through scholarly writings. I have been doing so for ten years .


This is an excuse.  It's why people get thrown in jail for practicing medicine despite no actual medical education.  No, reading propaganda on the internet does not make you a learned reader. You have repeatedly shown your incapacity to scrutinize the credentials of authors and the non-scientific non-evidence-based opinions they present.  Unsupported "scholarly writings" are not a substitute for first hand data acquisition and analysis from the physical world.  You have repeatedly shown yourself to be ignorant to the basic tenants and understandings of this topic, including not knowing what evolution is and ignoring all questions about it.  What I just quoted is nothing more than an excuse to make yourself think you are on even footing or understanding with us.  I'm sorry, but it's laughable.



Youwerecreated said:


> This is my theory. Neanderthals were 100 % human.Neanderthals did not share a common ancestor with an apelike creature.Neanderthals were the product of inbreeding and eventually their communities were so small they could not survive all the bad genes that was being passed onto the offspring, and Eventually went extinct.


And that's a perfectly fine "theory" to have, so long as you realize it is not a scientific theory, and that it is not supported by any physical evidence in this world.  That is better known as an unsupported belief.  Now, are you still questioning which side you believe holds the evidence?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> It really is simple as i said earlier, there is mountains of evidence for micro-evolution and very little evidence for macro-evolution.


You keep saying things like this, and yet when asked what is fundamentally different between the two on a molecular or genetic level, you seem incapable of providing any answer whatsoever.  While I realize this is in line with your usual avoidance of such questions, it should go to show you that you have NO CLUE what you're talking about, and there actually isn't a difference. How else do you explain your unwavering avoidance of answering these simple questions?  Oops, that's another question!



Youwerecreated said:


> If you're not wed to the theory that mutations are the mechanism for Macro-evolution than why defend it so when there is so much evidence against the theory ? I have to compliment you,you seem to be a very honest person by admitting that you're not wed to the explanation.


All true scientists are the same way.  If new evidence were to present itself, we can actually change our worldview based on new information. You can't.  Ignorance demands you ignore all new information and evidence for self-preservation.




Youwerecreated said:


> But still the supercomputer was a product of design is the super computer smarter then the ones who programmed it ?


Well, it crunches information faster, and in fact it can process information in ways that humans cannot so depending on how you define "smarter", yes.



Youwerecreated said:


> Creationists are looking at the same data as evolutionists just drawing a different conclusion.


No.  No they're not.  I don't quite think that's really sunk in with you yet.  If they were, you'd be able to address many of the questions I've asked previously.  But seeing as you can't find answers to copy in paste, it should be clear to you that they, much like you, are incapable of actually acknowledging the same data as evolutionists, let alone producing explanations for it.

If you need a reminder, I can go get a copy of the list of terms you were incapable of explaining.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> Why do you seem to contain such contempt for people of science having a different view from yours ?


I don't know about him, but I have contempt for people that have ZERO education or training in a topic, who have done ZERO actual experimentation or data analysis in that topic, who essentially possess no credentials, and yet still write as if their unsupported opinion holds as much weight as anyone else.  This is the definition of ignorance.  This is what crushes human progress and innovation.



Youwerecreated said:


> Everyone knows that matter left to itself does nothing. It has to have an outside influence to bring about action.


What makes you think life has no outside forces acting on it?  Matter can produce complex structures easily if "left to itself".  How do you think snow is formed?  Is each flake "designed" to be unique?  What about when chemical reactions occur?  The idea that NOTHING happens is just silly.



Youwerecreated said:


> I would fall under the theory of creation, I believe in the 7 day creation. Can't prove it,but i don't feel i need to because my views are based out of faith.
> 
> Through reason, i feel my mind is in agreement that life did not happen by chance.


And again, that's fine.  But it means you are presenting an opinion with ZERO evidence, and therefore has nothing to do with science.  "I feel it deep down" is not a substitute for actual evidence.  People believe "through reason" as you do that ghosts and aliens living among us and flying spaghetti monsters are real.  So if these other things are ridiculous without evidence, why do you think your blind belief is any better?  Oops, there's that question thing again.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your side has an opinion as well as mine, but which one is truly supported by the evidence ?
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good question.  "My side" has educated and trained doctoral scientists analyze the physical world, producing reproducible experiments and data to directly draw a logical conclusion which is then highly scrutinized by other educated and trained doctoral scientists before it is published in a highly reputable scientific journal.  Not only do they tell you HOW the research was exactly performed, but details right down to what companies supplied the materials needed to run it.
> 
> "Your side" uses people with masters degrees in completely unrelated fields that do zero research and procure zero evidence about the physical world but still post their unsupported opinion, usually based on largely outdated, purposely misleading, or otherwise inaccurate information onto random websites.  What company does "your side" get their research supplies from?
> 
> Given that setup, which one do you now think is more likely to be "truly supported by the evidence"?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny,your side copies and paste as well. the only time you guys have a problem with it is when you can't argue whats posted. I'm not here to impress anyone, i am here to show the fallacy of the so called factual theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As GTH pointed out: we cite.  We have the understanding and insight to make points using our own words like the big boys and girls we are.  When asked to "prove" our points, we can in fact cite actual research.  People who must resort to blanket copying and pasting of topics and are incapable of paraphrasing do so because they lack such understanding.  Which method do you use?
Click to expand...


Sorry please forgive me for this comment,that is down right ignorance to suggest creationists are less educated and did not have access to all data related to the theory.

Let me ask you something, does it matter if information i provide is in my own words over someone elses words ?

The thing is if i truly had the time i would put everything in my own words, and sometimes i do but when i get on here i am in a hurry.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me correct you on something,i believe in evolution but its only through adaptations and small changes within a species. Just don't buy Neo darwinism and macroevolution. You might be surprised by the amount people that share my views.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution, micro or "macro", does not happen from adaptations within an organism.  When bacteria that were previously susceptible to an antibiotic comes in contact with it, 0% survive. ZERO. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a susceptible bacteria to come in contact with an antiobiotic and then adapt to survive.
> 
> If you actually do understand how bacterial antibiotic resistance and thus "microevolution" does work, which I'm highly doubting at this time, please explain why you believe there is any difference in that method compared to "macroevolution?"
> 
> Oh that's right: you don't answer questioned aimed at disclosing your own beliefs, and this post much like many others will be "overlooked" repeatedly.
Click to expand...


 They react and ADAPT by stealing genetic information from other better adapted types of bacteria. Do you need me to explain Horizontal gene transfer to you ? This enables them to build resistence to antibiotics.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you seem to contain such contempt for people of science having a different view from yours ?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about him, but I have contempt for people that have ZERO education or training in a topic, who have done ZERO actual experimentation or data analysis in that topic, who essentially possess no credentials, and yet still write as if their unsupported opinion holds as much weight as anyone else.  This is the definition of ignorance.  This is what crushes human progress and innovation.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone knows that matter left to itself does nothing. It has to have an outside influence to bring about action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What makes you think life has no outside forces acting on it?  Matter can produce complex structures easily if "left to itself".  How do you think snow is formed?  Is each flake "designed" to be unique?  What about when chemical reactions occur?  The idea that NOTHING happens is just silly.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would fall under the theory of creation, I believe in the 7 day creation. Can't prove it,but i don't feel i need to because my views are based out of faith.
> 
> Through reason, i feel my mind is in agreement that life did not happen by chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again, that's fine.  But it means you are presenting an opinion with ZERO evidence, and therefore has nothing to do with science.  "I feel it deep down" is not a substitute for actual evidence.  People believe "through reason" as you do that ghosts and aliens living among us and flying spaghetti monsters are real.  So if these other things are ridiculous without evidence, why do you think your blind belief is any better?  Oops, there's that question thing again.
Click to expand...


I have taken classes in biology at the college level but to say one must attend college to learn the theory in the computer age is just wrong. My computer allows me to look at both sides of the argument and draw my own conclusions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It really is simple as i said earlier, there is mountains of evidence for micro-evolution and very little evidence for macro-evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying things like this, and yet when asked what is fundamentally different between the two on a molecular or genetic level, you seem incapable of providing any answer whatsoever.  While I realize this is in line with your usual avoidance of such questions, it should go to show you that you have NO CLUE what you're talking about, and there actually isn't a difference. How else do you explain your unwavering avoidance of answering these simple questions?  Oops, that's another question!
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not wed to the theory that mutations are the mechanism for Macro-evolution than why defend it so when there is so much evidence against the theory ? I have to compliment you,you seem to be a very honest person by admitting that you're not wed to the explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All true scientists are the same way.  If new evidence were to present itself, we can actually change our worldview based on new information. You can't.  Ignorance demands you ignore all new information and evidence for self-preservation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But still the supercomputer was a product of design is the super computer smarter then the ones who programmed it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, it crunches information faster, and in fact it can process information in ways that humans cannot so depending on how you define "smarter", yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationists are looking at the same data as evolutionists just drawing a different conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.  No they're not.  I don't quite think that's really sunk in with you yet.  If they were, you'd be able to address many of the questions I've asked previously.  But seeing as you can't find answers to copy in paste, it should be clear to you that they, much like you, are incapable of actually acknowledging the same data as evolutionists, let alone producing explanations for it.
> 
> If you need a reminder, I can go get a copy of the list of terms you were incapable of explaining.
Click to expand...


Come on now,you are suggesting something that is a creation of the human brain is superior then the person that created it,sorry but that is just silly. Because a conputer is faster does not suggest it's superior to the brain that designed it.

Earlier i asked you about new information found in the fruit fly experiments you said you worked on. When pushed you said a new gene was found can you provide the test done and can you be specific about the gene ? Because everything i have read on the issue there was no new information found just deformed and weakened fruit flies.

It's a common belief held by scientists that mutations show no change or if there is a change through mutations they are harmful to the organism.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> Sorry please forgive me for this comment,that is down right ignorance to suggest creationists are less educated and did not have access to all data related to the theory.


Creationists ARE less educated in these topics.  Religion and education are well known to be inversely proportional to one another, as is religion and socioeconomic status.  Creationists have access to the data of experiments produced by actual scientists, but they themselves do no experiments, and never cite or work with raw data from actual scientific experiments.  If you actually look at creationist literature, the underlying point that all authors return to is NOT identifying data that support creationism, but rather trying hopelessly to prove actual scientists incorrect.  



Youwerecreated said:


> Let me ask you something, does it matter if information i provide is in my own words over someone elses words ?


Well for one thing, you'd be able to highlight a point if you didn't just copy and paste paragraphs of other people's writings you probably didn't fully read or understand yourself.  For example, I can either make the point that a human chromosome appears like two other chromosomes fused head to head and provide supporting scientific experimentation if needed, OR I can just start by pasting pages of text and hope you pick out the point I'm trying to make.  The former is a superior form of communication that utilizes directed meaning, whereas the latter shows immaturity and lack of understanding.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> They react and ADAPT by stealing genetic information from other better adapted types of bacteria. Do you need me to explain Horizontal gene transfer to you ? This enables them to build resistence to antibiotics.


Seeing as you failed to pick this up in my last point, I'm going to try all caps: ORGANISMS DO NOT EVOLVE DUE TO REACTION.  

If you still don't get this point, then you still don't understand evolution whatsoever, micro or macro.  No susceptible bacteria encounters an antibiotic and then reacts by stealing genetic information to survive.  If a susceptible bacteria encounters an antibiotic, THEY DIE WITHOUT ANY CHANCE OF ADAPTATION. No bacteria is enabled to build a resistance to antibiotics after they see it. The reason some bacteria survive an antibiotic they see for the first time is because they already had resistance before they encountered it ever. 

FURTHERMORE, while one method of acquiring resistance involves "stealing genetic information from other better adapted types of bacteria", it is not the only or even the most common method.  If you isolate a single bacterium and grow it up away from all other bacteria or sources of genetic material, over time antibiotic resistance can be acquired through mutation.   *YES, THIS IS NEW INFORMATION BEING PRODUCED, and it is easily replicable in any lab anywhere in the world. *


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> I have taken classes in biology at the college level but to say one must attend college to learn the theory in the computer age is just wrong. My computer allows me to look at both sides of the argument and draw my own conclusions.


Your computer allows to take an undirected and poorly represented view at both sides of the argument.  Formal education offers the expertise of directed learning that gives a full picture to a concept.  See your short sighted problem is that you look at two articles, ignoring the fact that the credentials are drastically unequal and that one has done primary research while the other has just read other people's work, and you compare them as equal.  You have no clue how representative either side is, and ESPECIALLY overlook scientific issues that have hundreds if not THOUSANDS of experiments that support the same findings.  For example, you are the type of person who would discredit all forms of radiometric dating because you found a creationist article that dismisses carbon dating, even though carbon dating isn't used to find the age of old things.

So no, your self-"education" using your own computer is not substantial.  This is easily seen by the fact that you continually show both lacking knowledge and incorrect knowledge on this topic. When asked questions, you must ignore them to preserve your ignorance and poor "education" on evolution, as you continue to do even in this last set of posts.

Do you really deny the obvious fact that your knowledge on this topic is insignificant and of no close approximation to that of mine or GTH?




Youwerecreated said:


> Come on now,you are suggesting something that is a creation of the human brain is superior then the person that created it,sorry but that is just silly. Because a conputer is faster does not suggest it's superior to the brain that designed it.


Why does that seem so odd.  We build cars that are faster than humans, machines that are stronger than humans.  Computers can store more information and process that information faster than humans. Perhaps the thing you don't realize is that computers, much like scientific understanding, are not made by a single person.  But again, this is a philosophical point with no real weight in this conversation that also depends on how you define "superior"



Youwerecreated said:


> Earlier i asked you about new information found in the fruit fly experiments you said you worked on. When pushed you said a new gene was found can you provide the test done and can you be specific about the gene ? Because everything i have read on the issue there was no new information found just deformed and weakened fruit flies.
> 
> It's a common belief held by scientists that mutations show no change or if there is a change through mutations they are harmful to the organism.


Earlier you asked for proof regarding new information, and I provided it not only in fruit flies, but also in humans, right down to specific genes and chromosomal locations. Then you claimed I didn't provide it, so I cited my sources once again regarding a number of de novo mutations in fruit flies.  Now you claim I still haven't provided it?  You claim that everything you read states no new information was found, and yet I have proved you wrong several times in multiple species.  Perhaps it's time to realize that what you read is unsupported propaganda crap.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry please forgive me for this comment,that is down right ignorance to suggest creationists are less educated and did not have access to all data related to the theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Creationists ARE less educated in these topics.  Religion and education are well known to be inversely proportional to one another, as is religion and socioeconomic status.  Creationists have access to the data of experiments produced by actual scientists, but they themselves do no experiments, and never cite or work with raw data from actual scientific experiments.  If you actually look at creationist literature, the underlying point that all authors return to is NOT identifying data that support creationism, but rather trying hopelessly to prove actual scientists incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you something, does it matter if information i provide is in my own words over someone elses words ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well for one thing, you'd be able to highlight a point if you didn't just copy and paste paragraphs of other people's writings you probably didn't fully read or understand yourself.  For example, I can either make the point that a human chromosome appears like two other chromosomes fused head to head and provide supporting scientific experimentation if needed, OR I can just start by pasting pages of text and hope you pick out the point I'm trying to make.  The former is a superior form of communication that utilizes directed meaning, whereas the latter shows immaturity and lack of understanding.
Click to expand...


Did you notice the list of scientists that now reject macroevolution that i posted ? They were involved in many of the tests and experiments done. Not to mention had to keep their true views on the subject silent while working with the devout evolutionists.

When i have time i do point out things and discuss them with you. So i am a little confused with what you're saying.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They react and ADAPT by stealing genetic information from other better adapted types of bacteria. Do you need me to explain Horizontal gene transfer to you ? This enables them to build resistence to antibiotics.
> 
> 
> 
> Seeing as you failed to pick this up in my last point, I'm going to try all caps: ORGANISMS DO NOT EVOLVE DUE TO REACTION.
> 
> If you still don't get this point, then you still don't understand evolution whatsoever, micro or macro.  No susceptible bacteria encounters an antibiotic and then reacts by stealing genetic information to survive.  If a susceptible bacteria encounters an antibiotic, THEY DIE WITHOUT ANY CHANCE OF ADAPTATION. No bacteria is enabled to build a resistance to antibiotics after they see it. The reason some bacteria survive an antibiotic they see for the first time is because they already had resistance before they encountered it ever.
> 
> FURTHERMORE, while one method of acquiring resistance involves "stealing genetic information from other better adapted types of bacteria", it is not the only or even the most common method.  If you isolate a single bacterium and grow it up away from all other bacteria or sources of genetic material, over time antibiotic resistance can be acquired through mutation.   *YES, THIS IS NEW INFORMATION BEING PRODUCED, and it is easily replicable in any lab anywhere in the world. *
Click to expand...


Ok bacteria has the ability to adapt just like any other organism how do you know the information was not already present in the organism and it came through mutations ?

You're arguing and trying to prove a point with theories.

We know that better adapted organisms have a better chance of survival,this can be observed in nature.

We also know it is a fact that most mutations are neutral or are harmful to the organism with most being harmful.

Even if a mutation produced the chance for survival for bacteria how does that show macroevolution,the bacterium is still bacterium. Like i said earlier this evidence would be better described as microevolution according to its definition.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have taken classes in biology at the college level but to say one must attend college to learn the theory in the computer age is just wrong. My computer allows me to look at both sides of the argument and draw my own conclusions.
> 
> 
> 
> Your computer allows to take an undirected and poorly represented view at both sides of the argument.  Formal education offers the expertise of directed learning that gives a full picture to a concept.  See your short sighted problem is that you look at two articles, ignoring the fact that the credentials are drastically unequal and that one has done primary research while the other has just read other people's work, and you compare them as equal.  You have no clue how representative either side is, and ESPECIALLY overlook scientific issues that have hundreds if not THOUSANDS of experiments that support the same findings.  For example, you are the type of person who would discredit all forms of radiometric dating because you found a creationist article that dismisses carbon dating, even though carbon dating isn't used to find the age of old things.
> 
> So no, your self-"education" using your own computer is not substantial.  This is easily seen by the fact that you continually show both lacking knowledge and incorrect knowledge on this topic. When asked questions, you must ignore them to preserve your ignorance and poor "education" on evolution, as you continue to do even in this last set of posts.
> 
> Do you really deny the obvious fact that your knowledge on this topic is insignificant and of no close approximation to that of mine or GTH?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on now,you are suggesting something that is a creation of the human brain is superior then the person that created it,sorry but that is just silly. Because a conputer is faster does not suggest it's superior to the brain that designed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why does that seem so odd.  We build cars that are faster than humans, machines that are stronger than humans.  Computers can store more information and process that information faster than humans. Perhaps the thing you don't realize is that computers, much like scientific understanding, are not made by a single person.  But again, this is a philosophical point with no real weight in this conversation that also depends on how you define "superior"
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earlier i asked you about new information found in the fruit fly experiments you said you worked on. When pushed you said a new gene was found can you provide the test done and can you be specific about the gene ? Because everything i have read on the issue there was no new information found just deformed and weakened fruit flies.
> 
> It's a common belief held by scientists that mutations show no change or if there is a change through mutations they are harmful to the organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Earlier you asked for proof regarding new information, and I provided it not only in fruit flies, but also in humans, right down to specific genes and chromosomal locations. Then you claimed I didn't provide it, so I cited my sources once again regarding a number of de novo mutations in fruit flies.  Now you claim I still haven't provided it?  You claim that everything you read states no new information was found, and yet I have proved you wrong several times in multiple species.  Perhaps it's time to realize that what you read is unsupported propaganda crap.
Click to expand...


Novo mutations i have to read up on.

But how does anything you posted on the subject show macroevolution ?

large scale change in organisms resulting in new species.

Larger changes in evolution, such as when a new species is formed.

macro evolution - Evolution above the species level, as opposed to micro-evolution, which is evolution below the species level.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> Did you notice the list of scientists that now reject macroevolution that i posted ?


Did you notice GTH's response to them?  Are you not aware that the list you copied and pasted contains the list of names of people WHO WEREN'T ALIVE when the concept of evolution was first proposed, let alone the genetic evidence behind it?  That's like saying Jesus rejects the concept of the car.  It's moronic, and shows yet another reason why you should scrutinize the words you read before blindly copying and pasting them, lest you been seen to exhibit the same misleading stupidity as the author. 

But this is essentially the tactics of creationists, as I mentioned in this post: "Your side" uses unsupported opinion, usually based on *largely outdated, purposely misleading, or otherwise inaccurate information*.  In this case, you decided to combine all three.  Is it that you don't know better or you're purposely doing it?  This only shows lack of integrity on your part.  



Youwerecreated said:


> When i have time i do point out things and discuss them with you. So i am a little confused with what you're saying.


This is the second underhanded tactic you use: ignoring things. Whenever I completely obliterate one of your points, you tend to make this kind of claim and yet never actually come back to it.  I won't be holding my breath.  Again: lack of integrity.  Or do you now acknowledge that "your side" has significantly less education and training?



Youwerecreated said:


> Ok bacteria has the ability to adapt just like any other organism how do you know the information was not already present in the organism and it came through mutations ?


Again, the fact that you have to ask these childish questions tells me your "computer education" is rather poor.  

This is not theory, or concept, or guess.  This is easily proven fact that I can demonstrate to you in any lab in the country over the course of a few days.  Every biology major knows how to do this, which is yet another part that your "computer education" seemed to lack.

First, a single bacterium or colony of genetically identical bacteria is isolated.  Next, it is transferred to a sterilized growth medium, and left in an incubator at 39 degrees to grow.  This allows multiple colonies all coming from the same limited gene pool. Because all work is done under sterile conditions, no new organisms or genetic material is ever introduced. We can then take any of the young new colonies and place it in medium containing antibiotic, to later note that none survive.   We let the bacteria continue to replicate, as we continue to transfer samples to antibiotic containing media.  Without fail, growth is seen on the antibiotic media.  From where did that bacteria learn how to live on anbitiotics?  You tell me.  

This is not theory.  We can do this in any lab anywhere in the country at any time, and it extends to ANY gene in a bacteria, allowing for altered traits in mobility, food uptake, and replication, to name a few.  It has been demonstrated countless times, for every young biology major and scientist that has ever worked with microbiology. It is fact. 

How do you explain this easily reproducible evidence?  I will also ask this again: Do you really deny the obvious fact that your knowledge on this topic is insignificant and of no close approximation to that of mine or GTH?



Youwerecreated said:


> Novo mutations i have to read up on.
> 
> But how does anything you posted on the subject show macroevolution ?


If you did read up on DE novo mutation, you would realize the term describes that "new information" you said never exists. Even though it does. You once again ask how new information can show macroevolution, and I ONCE AGAIN ask you what the biological or molecular difference between the two.  You have provided creationist wordplay regarding the "species level", but seeing as this is a man-made and COMPLETELY ARBITRARY distinction, what BIOLOGICAL or MOLECULAR difference is there between the two?  Or to put the question in your own words: what biological or molecular difference is there when a new species is created?


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you notice the list of scientists that now reject macroevolution that i posted ?
> 
> 
> 
> Did you notice GTH's response to them?  Are you not aware that the list you copied and pasted contains the list of names of people WHO WEREN'T ALIVE when the concept of evolution was first proposed, let alone the genetic evidence behind it?  That's like saying Jesus rejects the concept of the car.  It's moronic, and shows yet another reason why you should scrutinize the words you read before blindly copying and pasting them, lest you been seen to exhibit the same misleading stupidity as the author.
> 
> But this is essentially the tactics of creationists, as I mentioned in this post: "Your side" uses unsupported opinion, usually based on *largely outdated, purposely misleading, or otherwise inaccurate information*.  In this case, you decided to combine all three.  Is it that you don't know better or you're purposely doing it?  This only shows lack of integrity on your part.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When i have time i do point out things and discuss them with you. So i am a little confused with what you're saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the second underhanded tactic you use: ignoring things. Whenever I completely obliterate one of your points, you tend to make this kind of claim and yet never actually come back to it.  I won't be holding my breath.  Again: lack of integrity.  Or do you now acknowledge that "your side" has significantly less education and training?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok bacteria has the ability to adapt just like any other organism how do you know the information was not already present in the organism and it came through mutations ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, the fact that you have to ask these childish questions tells me your "computer education" is rather poor.
> 
> This is not theory, or concept, or guess.  This is easily proven fact that I can demonstrate to you in any lab in the country over the course of a few days.  Every biology major knows how to do this, which is yet another part that your "computer education" seemed to lack.
> 
> First, a single bacterium or colony of genetically identical bacteria is isolated.  Next, it is transferred to a sterilized growth medium, and left in an incubator at 39 degrees to grow.  This allows multiple colonies all coming from the same limited gene pool. Because all work is done under sterile conditions, no new organisms or genetic material is ever introduced. We can then take any of the young new colonies and place it in medium containing antibiotic, to later note that none survive.   We let the bacteria continue to replicate, as we continue to transfer samples to antibiotic containing media.  Without fail, growth is seen on the antibiotic media.  From where did that bacteria learn how to live on anbitiotics?  You tell me.
> 
> This is not theory.  We can do this in any lab anywhere in the country at any time, and it extends to ANY gene in a bacteria, allowing for altered traits in mobility, food uptake, and replication, to name a few.  It has been demonstrated countless times, for every young biology major and scientist that has ever worked with microbiology. It is fact.
> 
> How do you explain this easily reproducible evidence?  I will also ask this again: Do you really deny the obvious fact that your knowledge on this topic is insignificant and of no close approximation to that of mine or GTH?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Novo mutations i have to read up on.
> 
> But how does anything you posted on the subject show macroevolution ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you did read up on DE novo mutation, you would realize the term describes that "new information" you said never exists. Even though it does. You once again ask how new information can show macroevolution, and I ONCE AGAIN ask you what the biological or molecular difference between the two.  You have provided creationist wordplay regarding the "species level", but seeing as this is a man-made and COMPLETELY ARBITRARY distinction, what BIOLOGICAL or MOLECULAR difference is there between the two?  Or to put the question in your own words: what biological or molecular difference is there when a new species is created?
Click to expand...


Yes ,he only cut out the ones that were before darwin, here are the rest.

Partial list of Creationist scientists
(past and present)
&#9632;600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science). 

&#9632;150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys. 

(Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)


&#9632;Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating) 
&#9632;Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology) 

&#9632;Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info] 

&#9632;Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info] 

&#9632;Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine) 

&#9632;Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method) 

&#9632;Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info] 

&#9632;Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics) 

&#9632;Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration) 

&#9632;David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy) 

&#9632;Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info] 

&#9632;Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info] 

&#9632;Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology) 

&#9632;Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics) 

&#9632;Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info] 

&#9632;Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology) 

&#9632;Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator) 

&#9632;Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info] 

&#9632;Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve) 

&#9632;Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info] 

&#9632;Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info] 

&#9632;John Grebe (chemist) [more info] 

&#9632;Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction) 

&#9632;William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog) 

&#9632;George F. Howe (botanist) [more info] 

&#9632;D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info] 

&#9632;James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics) 

&#9632;Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables) 

&#9632;John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info] 

&#9632;Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info] 

&#9632;Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info] 

&#9632;Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System) 

&#9632;Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery) 

&#9632;Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info] 

&#9632;Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography) 

&#9632;James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics) 

&#9632;Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics) 

&#9632;Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph) 

&#9632;Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope) 

&#9632;Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info] 

&#9632;Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer) 

&#9632;Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations) 

&#9632;William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases) 

&#9632;John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science) 

&#9632;Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis) 

&#9632;Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry) 

&#9632;James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform) 

&#9632;Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy) 

&#9632;George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics) 

&#9632;Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info] 

&#9632;William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable) 

&#9632;Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info] 

&#9632;Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics) 

&#9632;Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology) 

&#9632;A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info] 

&#9632;A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info] 

&#9632;John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology) 

A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you notice the list of scientists that now reject macroevolution that i posted ?
> 
> 
> 
> Did you notice GTH's response to them?  Are you not aware that the list you copied and pasted contains the list of names of people WHO WEREN'T ALIVE when the concept of evolution was first proposed, let alone the genetic evidence behind it?  That's like saying Jesus rejects the concept of the car.  It's moronic, and shows yet another reason why you should scrutinize the words you read before blindly copying and pasting them, lest you been seen to exhibit the same misleading stupidity as the author.
> 
> But this is essentially the tactics of creationists, as I mentioned in this post: "Your side" uses unsupported opinion, usually based on *largely outdated, purposely misleading, or otherwise inaccurate information*.  In this case, you decided to combine all three.  Is it that you don't know better or you're purposely doing it?  This only shows lack of integrity on your part.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When i have time i do point out things and discuss them with you. So i am a little confused with what you're saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the second underhanded tactic you use: ignoring things. Whenever I completely obliterate one of your points, you tend to make this kind of claim and yet never actually come back to it.  I won't be holding my breath.  Again: lack of integrity.  Or do you now acknowledge that "your side" has significantly less education and training?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok bacteria has the ability to adapt just like any other organism how do you know the information was not already present in the organism and it came through mutations ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, the fact that you have to ask these childish questions tells me your "computer education" is rather poor.
> 
> This is not theory, or concept, or guess.  This is easily proven fact that I can demonstrate to you in any lab in the country over the course of a few days.  Every biology major knows how to do this, which is yet another part that your "computer education" seemed to lack.
> 
> First, a single bacterium or colony of genetically identical bacteria is isolated.  Next, it is transferred to a sterilized growth medium, and left in an incubator at 39 degrees to grow.  This allows multiple colonies all coming from the same limited gene pool. Because all work is done under sterile conditions, no new organisms or genetic material is ever introduced. We can then take any of the young new colonies and place it in medium containing antibiotic, to later note that none survive.   We let the bacteria continue to replicate, as we continue to transfer samples to antibiotic containing media.  Without fail, growth is seen on the antibiotic media.  From where did that bacteria learn how to live on anbitiotics?  You tell me.
> 
> This is not theory.  We can do this in any lab anywhere in the country at any time, and it extends to ANY gene in a bacteria, allowing for altered traits in mobility, food uptake, and replication, to name a few.  It has been demonstrated countless times, for every young biology major and scientist that has ever worked with microbiology. It is fact.
> 
> How do you explain this easily reproducible evidence?  I will also ask this again: Do you really deny the obvious fact that your knowledge on this topic is insignificant and of no close approximation to that of mine or GTH?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Novo mutations i have to read up on.
> 
> But how does anything you posted on the subject show macroevolution ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you did read up on DE novo mutation, you would realize the term describes that "new information" you said never exists. Even though it does. You once again ask how new information can show macroevolution, and I ONCE AGAIN ask you what the biological or molecular difference between the two.  You have provided creationist wordplay regarding the "species level", but seeing as this is a man-made and COMPLETELY ARBITRARY distinction, what BIOLOGICAL or MOLECULAR difference is there between the two?  Or to put the question in your own words: what biological or molecular difference is there when a new species is created?
Click to expand...


You're are either misunderstanding me or you refuse to show how this is macroevolution.

Because bacteria adapt does not show macroevolution.

The bacteria is still bacteria.

This is where the confusion comes in from your side by trying to define the newly adapted bacteria as a new species of bacteria and say here is macroevolution. They are of the same kind just with a different ability.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Novo mutations i have to read up on.
> 
> But how does anything you posted on the subject show macroevolution ?
> 
> 
> 
> If you did read up on DE novo mutation, you would realize the term describes that "new information" you said never exists. Even though it does. You once again ask how new information can show macroevolution, and I ONCE AGAIN ask you what the biological or molecular difference between the two.  You have provided creationist wordplay regarding the "species level", but seeing as this is a man-made and COMPLETELY ARBITRARY distinction, what BIOLOGICAL or MOLECULAR difference is there between the two?  Or to put the question in your own words: what biological or molecular difference is there when a new species is created?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Word play ? you really don't understand there is a difference between micro and macro evolution.
> 
> If there is no difference between the two then why would one focus on trying to produce evidence for macroevolution.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
> The Scientific Case for Common Descent
> Version 2.87
> 
> Copyright © 1999-2006 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
> [Last Update: June 19, 2007]
> Permission is granted to copy and print these pages in total for non-profit personal, educational, research, or critical purposes.
> 
> 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common Descent
> 
> Now look at the critique of those evidences.
> 
> - A Critique of ''29 Evidences for Macroevolution'' - Part 1 -
Click to expand...


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> Yes ,he only cut out the ones that were before darwin, here are the rest.
> 
> Partial list of Creationist scientists
> (past and present)
> &#9632;600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science).
> 
> &#9632;150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.
> 
> (Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)
> 
> 
> &#9632;Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
> &#9632;Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
> 
> &#9632;Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
> 
> &#9632;Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
> 
> &#9632;Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
> 
> &#9632;Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
> 
> &#9632;David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
> 
> &#9632;Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
> 
> &#9632;Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
> 
> &#9632;Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
> 
> &#9632;Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
> 
> &#9632;Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
> 
> &#9632;Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;John Grebe (chemist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
> 
> &#9632;William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
> 
> &#9632;George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
> 
> &#9632;Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)
> 
> &#9632;John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
> 
> &#9632;Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
> 
> &#9632;Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)
> 
> &#9632;James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)
> 
> &#9632;Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
> 
> &#9632;Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
> 
> &#9632;Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
> 
> &#9632;Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)
> 
> &#9632;Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
> 
> &#9632;William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)
> 
> &#9632;John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
> 
> &#9632;Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
> 
> &#9632;Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
> 
> &#9632;James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)
> 
> &#9632;Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
> 
> &#9632;George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)
> 
> &#9632;Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
> 
> &#9632;Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
> 
> &#9632;Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
> 
> &#9632;A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)
> 
> A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions.


Yes you did a very good job of blindly copying and pasting again.  Perhaps you missed GTH's response which definitively shot down this list.  Here's a video that points out why it's wrong:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM[/ame]

It's deceitful.  Dishonest.  And you are the same for propagating it.  If you disagree, just point out which of the people on that list are biologists who were alive since the structure of DNA was discovered 50 years ago. Your list, as the above video points out, contains people who were dead before the genetic evidence of evolution even came to light, or have nothing to do with the field of biology.  But hey, I'm so glad you think the opinion of an astrophysicist from the 1800s is meaningful in a discussion of evolution.

NEVERTHELESS, as GTH also pointed out, if you want to make this a match about who has more smart scientists supporting evolution, let alone trained and educated biologists in the actual field who are alive today, you will find you are greatly outnumbered.

But this little lesson greatly parallels your "computer education".  You read two articles, one for and one against evolution, and think they are representative.  Similarly you see a small list of people, regardless of credentials, and somehow believe they are equal to actual scientists who believe in evolution.  It's laughable.




Youwerecreated said:


> You're are either misunderstanding me or you refuse to show how this is macroevolution.
> 
> Because bacteria adapt does not show macroevolution.


The bacteria do not adapt.  You're still not getting this point.  You are making the connotation that bacteria genetically react to their environment, when such does not happen.  Not for any type of evolution.  Ever.  



Youwerecreated said:


> The bacteria is still bacteria.
> 
> This is where the confusion comes in from your side by trying to define the newly adapted bacteria as a new species of bacteria and say here is macroevolution. They are of the same kind just with a different ability.


And what would make it more than a bacteria?  The reason you are so confused is because you yourself cannot define the words you yourself propose.  What does "at the species level" mean?  What separates one species from another?  You make up these words like macroevolution, and contrive some arbitrary definition for them regarding changes in species, yet you can't actually tell me what separates one species from another, even though it is an integral if not the ONLY major aspect of your definition for macroevolution.  What would make a bacteria somehow be a different species?  There are countless species of bacteria.  You tell me what defines them as different, and therefore how one could become different from its parent. 

The term microevolution refers to a few mutations which create few changes in organisms.  The term macroevolution refers to LOTS of mutations which create lots of changes in organisms.  If you already agree that a few mutations can happen, then why do you think it impossible for lots of mutations to happen, given time?  In your usual fashion, you still haven't answered this fundamental tenant behind your own argument.

Not only are you uneducated in my side of this topic, but you seem to lack knowledge about your own points as well.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes ,he only cut out the ones that were before darwin, here are the rest.
> 
> Partial list of Creationist scientists
> (past and present)
> &#9632;600+ voting scientists of the Creation Research Society (voting membership requires at least an earned master's degree in a recognized area of science).
> 
> &#9632;150 Ph.D. scientists and 300 other scientists with masters degrees in science or engineering are members of the Korea Association of Creation Research. The President of KACR is the distinguished scientist and Professor Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.
> 
> (Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list is in no way an endorsement, nor does it necessarily indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)
> 
> 
> &#9632;Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
> &#9632;Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
> 
> &#9632;Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
> 
> &#9632;Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
> 
> &#9632;Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
> 
> &#9632;Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
> 
> &#9632;David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
> 
> &#9632;Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
> 
> &#9632;Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
> 
> &#9632;Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
> 
> &#9632;Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
> 
> &#9632;Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
> 
> &#9632;Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;John Grebe (chemist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
> 
> &#9632;William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
> 
> &#9632;George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
> 
> &#9632;Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)
> 
> &#9632;John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
> 
> &#9632;Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
> 
> &#9632;Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)
> 
> &#9632;James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)
> 
> &#9632;Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
> 
> &#9632;Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
> 
> &#9632;Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
> 
> &#9632;Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)
> 
> &#9632;Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
> 
> &#9632;William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)
> 
> &#9632;John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
> 
> &#9632;Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
> 
> &#9632;Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
> 
> &#9632;James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)
> 
> &#9632;Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
> 
> &#9632;George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)
> 
> &#9632;Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
> 
> &#9632;Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
> 
> &#9632;Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
> 
> &#9632;A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]
> 
> &#9632;John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)
> 
> A more thorough list of current (and past) Creationist scientists is not provided for two reasons: (1) A complete list would be extremely lengthy, and (2) Some scientists would rather not have their name made public due to justified fear of job discrimination and persecution in today's atmosphere of limited academic freedom in Evolutionist-controlled institutions.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did a very good job of blindly copying and pasting again.  Perhaps you missed GTH's response which definitively shot down this list.  Here's a video that points out why it's wrong:
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM[/ame]
> 
> It's deceitful.  Dishonest.  And you are the same for propagating it.  If you disagree, just point out which of the people on that list are biologists who were alive since the structure of DNA was discovered 50 years ago. Your list, as the above video points out, contains people who were dead before the genetic evidence of evolution even came to light, or have nothing to do with the field of biology.  But hey, I'm so glad you think the opinion of an astrophysicist from the 1800s is meaningful in a discussion of evolution.
> 
> NEVERTHELESS, as GTH also pointed out, if you want to make this a match about who has more smart scientists supporting evolution, let alone trained and educated biologists in the actual field who are alive today, you will find you are greatly outnumbered.
> 
> But this little lesson greatly parallels your "computer education".  You read two articles, one for and one against evolution, and think they are representative.  Similarly you see a small list of people, regardless of credentials, and somehow believe they are equal to actual scientists who believe in evolution.  It's laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're are either misunderstanding me or you refuse to show how this is macroevolution.
> 
> Because bacteria adapt does not show macroevolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The bacteria do not adapt.  You're still not getting this point.  You are making the connotation that bacteria genetically react to their environment, when such does not happen.  Not for any type of evolution.  Ever.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bacteria is still bacteria.
> 
> This is where the confusion comes in from your side by trying to define the newly adapted bacteria as a new species of bacteria and say here is macroevolution. They are of the same kind just with a different ability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And what would make it more than a bacteria?  The reason you are so confused is because you yourself cannot define the words you yourself propose.  What does "at the species level" mean?  What separates one species from another?  You make up these words like macroevolution, and contrive some arbitrary definition for them regarding changes in species, yet you can't actually tell me what separates one species from another, even though it is an integral if not the ONLY major aspect of your definition for macroevolution.  What would make a bacteria somehow be a different species?  There are countless species of bacteria.  You tell me what defines them as different, and therefore how one could become different from its parent.
> 
> The term microevolution refers to a few mutations which create few changes in organisms.  The term macroevolution refers to LOTS of mutations which create lots of changes in organisms.  If you already agree that a few mutations can happen, then why do you think it impossible for lots of mutations to happen, given time?  In your usual fashion, you still haven't answered this fundamental tenant behind your own argument.
> 
> Not only are you uneducated in my side of this topic, but you seem to lack knowledge about your own points as well.
Click to expand...


Bacteria do adapt to their enviornments in some cases correct ?

And what would make it more than a bacteria? 
You tell me you're the one who believes in the theory.

What does "at the species level" mean?  What separates one species from another?
populations of organisms that have a high level of genetic similarity. genus.

 Biologists classify species differently there is sometimes confusion on defining a new species. But you know that right ?


If you already agree that a few mutations can happen, then why do you think it impossible for lots of mutations to happen, given time?
Since beneficial mutations are so rare why do you believe enough would have happened to bring about macroevolutuion for every living organism ?
So what you're saying is because you can imagine how it happened it must of happened,right ? because the universe is so vast surely there must be life out there besides on earth ,right ? yeah you're a naturalist.


Oh no a propaganda video. Most scientist do believe in evolution just not the evolution you're are being indoctrinated with.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Merry Christmas one and all.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> Bacteria do adapt to their enviornments in some cases correct ?


Ah you're asking good questions now, which shows you're willing to learn.  Excellent.  The answer is no.  There are never times when any bacterium or any other organism can genetically react to its environment.  When I say genetically react, I am specifically referring to changing its genetic material in some way to give it an adaptive survival advantage.  It is impossible, and as such that is NOT how micro or macro evolution works. 

If you are wondering at this point how we get bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics, including newly man made antibiotics that no bacteria has seen before, you would be starting to think the right way, and need only ask the question. 



Youwerecreated said:


> And what would make it more than a bacteria?
> You tell me you're the one who believes in the theory.
> 
> What does "at the species level" mean?  What separates one species from another?
> populations of organisms that have a high level of genetic similarity. genus.
> 
> Biologists classify species differently there is sometimes confusion on defining a new species. But you know that right ?


People had historically classified animals into species based on appearance, and sometimes citing the ability to produce viable offspring as the cutoff between species.  As you can imagine, there were some gray areas like lions and tigers, or horses and donkeys, as these pairs can mate with each other to an imperfect degree.  As you can imagine, outward appearance should not define a species, else every different looking dog breed would be its own. 

When genetics came to humanity, we began to appreciate a deeper understanding of this topic.  What we found is that defining animals into different species was arbitrary.  So even though lions and tigers are still considered different species to this day, it's clear genetically that they're not too different, and can still mate.  Again, this goes back to lots of mutations.  The more differences, the "farther away" one organism is from another.  Many many mutations means the organisms are very far and it's easy to say "these are different species" but there's no actual cutoff as to how many differences there needs to be before we say they are different species.  

*I repeat:* there is no actual cutoff as to how many genetic differences there needs to be before they are classified as different species.  

So when I ask you about YOUR ideas regarding MACROevolution, a creationist concept, it does not surprise me that you are incapable of actually telling me what biological or genetic property actually differentiates things at the species level, and therefore what the actual difference is between micro and macro evolution.  The reason you can't is because there is no such property.  

The lines of speciation blur heavily in bacteria especially, as they do have the ability to pick up outside genetic material.  There are E. coli strains that act just like Shigella.  So we use terms like strains and breed instead of species.  Truth be told though, there's no real defined cutoff at the genetic level to distinguish between them.



Youwerecreated said:


> Since beneficial mutations are so rare why do you believe enough would have happened to bring about macroevolutuion for every living organism ?
> So what you're saying is because you can imagine how it happened it must of happened,right ? because the universe is so vast surely there must be life out there besides on earth ,right ? yeah you're a naturalist.


Your first question there is excellent.  The rest are misguided.  Beneficial mutation is not some distant but unlikely possibility.  It is not only possible, but probability.  

Take for example the mega-lottery of your state.  Odds of winning usually sit slightly over 1 in 100 MILLION.  Now just because it's POSSIBLE for you to win the lottery, doesn't mean you will.  It's highly unlikely. Improbable. Perhaps you could call it impossible.  So therefore no one would ever win the lottery, right?

Well, no.  That's silly.  Despite the ridiculous odds for any one person, millions of people play and SOMEONE always wins.  Even if no one wins today, someone will certainly hit the jackpot by next week.  Similarly, the odds for any one bacteria of hitting the "antibiotic resistance jackpot" are low, but one of them will still hit it because so many are "playing" the game. How many?  Well, the human body has more bacteria in it than human cells, weighing in at approximately 100 TRILLION bacteria per person.  That's 100,000 times more than the actual odds of winning the state lotto, and bacteria have the chance to play every 20 minutes. 

Still think beneficial mutations are impossible?


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> Sorry please forgive me for this comment,that is down right ignorance to suggest creationists are less educated and did not have access to all data related to the theory.
> 
> Let me ask you something, does it matter if information i provide is in my own words over someone elses words ?
> 
> The thing is if i truly had the time i would put everything in my own words, and sometimes i do but when i get on here i am in a hurry.



It's true though.  If you can look at the overwhelming mountain of evidence about the age of the earth (we don't even have to speak about evolution here) and conclude it is seven days you are uneducated and ignorant. 

You are either un-willingly ignorant, because you haven't been formally taught or taken the time to read up on the matter.

Or, you are willfully ignorant, because you have been taught but simply choose to ignore scientific evidence because the larger implications are inconvenient to your religious beliefs.  

Either way, it speaks to a lack of education.



> I think it is a great argument, houses and cars and that supercomputer is a product of design. Those things are a product of design. Medicine designed. There is enormous amounts of evidence for design, very few products that happen through a natural process.
> 
> Everyone knows that matter left to itself does nothing. It has to have an outside influence to bring about action.



Again, since none of the items you referenced self-replicate, it is a non-sequitur to try and use this to argue in favor of design.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> They react and ADAPT by stealing genetic information from other better adapted types of bacteria. Do you need me to explain Horizontal gene transfer to you ? This enables them to build resistence to antibiotics.



And where did the stolen genetic information come from?  Bacteria that had mutated and developed resistance.  You are jumping over the most crucial point.


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> They react and ADAPT by stealing genetic information from other better adapted types of bacteria. Do you need me to explain Horizontal gene transfer to you ? This enables them to build resistence to antibiotics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where did the stolen genetic information come from?  Bacteria that had mutated and developed resistance.  You are jumping over the most crucial point.
Click to expand...


You're assuming this. I assume that the information to adapt are merely adapted mutations as Dr Lee Spetner claims.


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry please forgive me for this comment,that is down right ignorance to suggest creationists are less educated and did not have access to all data related to the theory.
> 
> Let me ask you something, does it matter if information i provide is in my own words over someone elses words ?
> 
> The thing is if i truly had the time i would put everything in my own words, and sometimes i do but when i get on here i am in a hurry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's true though.  If you can look at the overwhelming mountain of evidence about the age of the earth (we don't even have to speak about evolution here) and conclude it is seven days you are uneducated and ignorant.
> 
> You are either un-willingly ignorant, because you haven't been formally taught or taken the time to read up on the matter.
> 
> Or, you are willfully ignorant, because you have been taught but simply choose to ignore scientific evidence because the larger implications are inconvenient to your religious beliefs.
> 
> Either way, it speaks to a lack of education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is a great argument, houses and cars and that supercomputer is a product of design. Those things are a product of design. Medicine designed. There is enormous amounts of evidence for design, very few products that happen through a natural process.
> 
> Everyone knows that matter left to itself does nothing. It has to have an outside influence to bring about action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, since none of the items you referenced self-replicate, it is a non-sequitur to try and use this to argue in favor of design.
Click to expand...


Let me point out 12 arguments you guys should avoid, but you have already used some of these arguments.

1. Evolution is a fact

2. Only the uneducated reject evolution

3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of Science supports evolution

4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity

5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat

6. It's here,so it must have evolved

7. Natural selection is evolution

8. common design means common ancesrty

9. sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity

10. Mutations drive evolution

11. The scopes trial

12. Science Vs. religion

You guys are so predictable and as this discussion goes on i am sure you will hit on these arguments.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> And where did the stolen genetic information come from?  Bacteria that had mutated and developed resistance.  You are jumping over the most crucial point.


And yet you once again ignore easy to prove facts that isolated bacteria grown in an otherwise sterile environment with no exogenous genetic information still acquire new traits.  How do you explain that?  You can't, so you pretend it doesn't exist.  Such is ignorance.



Youwerecreated said:


> Let me point out 12 arguments you guys should avoid, but you have already used some of these arguments.
> 
> 1. Evolution is a fact
> 
> 2. Only the uneducated reject evolution


Well, generally yes.  If you take a slice of all people educated in biology, less than 1% reject evolution.  When you expand that to any science related field outside of biology, data from 20 years ago showed it jumped to 5%.  Regardless it should be clear that the overwhelming majority of educated people find evolution to be correct, and that those most likely to find it incorrect are uneducated people.  



> . Overwhelming evidence in all fields of Science supports evolution


While there is evidence in many fields, genetics is the overwhelming one, and can offer the proof of evolution alone.



> 4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity


Both are scientific theories, meaning they have equal weight in their factual nature.  Make what you will of that.



> 7. Natural selection is evolution


You still don't understand natural selection.  Perhaps you should avoid making comments regarding its relation to evolution, which is another concept you don't understand.



> 9. sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity


Well, verification by several forms of radiometric dating methods verify aging.  



> 10. Mutations drive evolution


Yet another concept you don't understand. 



> You guys are so predictable and as this discussion goes on i am sure you will hit on these arguments.


You've already gotten most of those wrong, and have consistently shown yourself to not understand the basic concepts of mutation, evolution, and genetics, even in the microevolution that you believe exists.

You have two options at this point: You can either take the hint, acknowledging that you really don't understand where all those smart scientists are coming from, and try to learn a bit, or you can continue to cover your eyes and ears int he ignorant service of your religion, most likely ending with you leaving the thread under some childish excuse.

Education of what we're discussing, or ignorance.  The choice is yours, but know that in your current state, you do not understand these concepts.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> 10. Mutations drive evolution
> 
> 
> 
> Yet another concept you don't understand.
> 
> 
> Let's finish up here before we move on.
> 
> Almost all mutations show a loss of information, Consider the morse code.
> 
> If someone wanted to call for help using Morse code, for instance, he or she would send the letters SOS (which is the international distress signal). Morse code for SOS is:
> 
> S is dot dot dot [  ] or three short sounds.
> O is dash dash dash [  ] or three long sounds.
> S is dot dot dot [  ] or three short sounds.
> 
> Therefore, it would be [        ], or three short sounds followed by three long sounds, followed by three short sounds.
> 
> A mutation would be like changing a dot to a dash in Morse code. If we tried to spell SOS in Morse code, but changed the first dot to a dash, it would accidentally read:
> 
> [        ]
> 
> Dash dot dot is the sequence for D, not S; so it would now read:
> 
> D [  ]
> O [  ]
> S [  ]
> 
> So, because of the mistake (mutation), we now read DOS, instead of SOS. If you sent this, no one would think you needed help. This mutation was significant because it did two things to your message:
> 
> 1.The original word was lost.
> 2.The intent/meaning was lost.
> The DNA strand is similar to, but much more complicated than, Morse code. It uses four letters (G, A, T, C) instead of dashes and dots to make words and phrases. And like Morse code, mutations can affect the DNA strand and cause problems for the organism. These DNA mistakes are called genetic mutations.
> 
> Theoretically, genetic mutations (that are not static) can cause one of two things:
> 1.Loss of information1
> 2.Gain of new information
> Virtually all observed mutations are in the category of loss of information. This is different from loss or gain of function. Some mutations can cause an organism to lose genetic information and yet gain some type of function. This is rare but has happened. These types of mutations have a beneficial outcome. For example, if a beetle loses the information to make a wing on a windy island, the mutation is beneficial because the beetle doesnt get blown out to sea and killed. Genetically, the mutation caused a loss of information but was helpful to the beetle. Thus, it was a beneficial outcome.
> 
> 
> Besides mutations that cause information loss, in theory there could also be mutations that cause a gain of new information. There are only a few alleged cases of such mutations. However, if a mutated DNA strand were built up with a group of base pairs that didnt do anything, this strand wouldnt be useful. Therefore, to be useful to an organism, a mutation that has a gain of new information must also cause a gain of new function.
> 
> Chapter 7: Are Mutations Part of the ?Engine? of Evolution? - Answers in Genesis
> 
> How many positive mutations whould it take to make up the differences between our so called nearest ancester to what humans are today ? going against the fact that beneficial mutations are rare in nature. The majority of mutations show a loss and or are harmful to the organism.
Click to expand...


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry please forgive me for this comment,that is down right ignorance to suggest creationists are less educated and did not have access to all data related to the theory.
> 
> Let me ask you something, does it matter if information i provide is in my own words over someone elses words ?
> 
> The thing is if i truly had the time i would put everything in my own words, and sometimes i do but when i get on here i am in a hurry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's true though.  If you can look at the overwhelming mountain of evidence about the age of the earth (we don't even have to speak about evolution here) and conclude it is seven days you are uneducated and ignorant.
> 
> You are either un-willingly ignorant, because you haven't been formally taught or taken the time to read up on the matter.
> 
> Or, you are willfully ignorant, because you have been taught but simply choose to ignore scientific evidence because the larger implications are inconvenient to your religious beliefs.
> 
> Either way, it speaks to a lack of education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is a great argument, houses and cars and that supercomputer is a product of design. Those things are a product of design. Medicine designed. There is enormous amounts of evidence for design, very few products that happen through a natural process.
> 
> Everyone knows that matter left to itself does nothing. It has to have an outside influence to bring about action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, since none of the items you referenced self-replicate, it is a non-sequitur to try and use this to argue in favor of design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me point out 12 arguments you guys should avoid, but you have already used some of these arguments.
> 
> 1. Evolution is a fact
> 
> 2. Only the uneducated reject evolution
> 
> 3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of Science supports evolution
> 
> 4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity
> 
> 5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat
> 
> 6. It's here,so it must have evolved
> 
> 7. Natural selection is evolution
> 
> 8. common design means common ancesrty
> 
> 9. sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity
> 
> 10. Mutations drive evolution
> 
> 11. The scopes trial
> 
> 12. Science Vs. religion
> 
> You guys are so predictable and as this discussion goes on i am sure you will hit on these arguments.
Click to expand...


Why?  Because you have no valid answers for most of those questions?  If you're going to be a wuss about it, hit the road.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> 10. Mutations drive evolution


Yet another concept you don't understand. 

[/QUOTE]

This is a very interesting give and take on this issue.

Lee Spetner/Edward Max Dialogue
Dr. Lee Spetner
continuing an exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max 

© 2001 L.M. Spetner.  All Rights Reserved.  

After I posted my critique of Edward E. Max&#8217;s essay, Max posted our dialogue with additional comments to my responses.  The order of topics in his posting does not correspond exactly to the order of my posting, but both postings are fairly accurate representations of our dialogue.  The following is my latest response (23 May 2001) in a form that reproduces his posting into which I have inserted my comments.  I have identified each of our statements as he has reproduced them by putting our names in boldface followed by a colon.  My new comments are inserted into the text in small caps inside square brackets and identified by "LMS". 

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

Maybe you should take your own advice.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's true though.  If you can look at the overwhelming mountain of evidence about the age of the earth (we don't even have to speak about evolution here) and conclude it is seven days you are uneducated and ignorant.
> 
> You are either un-willingly ignorant, because you haven't been formally taught or taken the time to read up on the matter.
> 
> Or, you are willfully ignorant, because you have been taught but simply choose to ignore scientific evidence because the larger implications are inconvenient to your religious beliefs.
> 
> Either way, it speaks to a lack of education.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, since none of the items you referenced self-replicate, it is a non-sequitur to try and use this to argue in favor of design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me point out 12 arguments you guys should avoid, but you have already used some of these arguments.
> 
> 1. Evolution is a fact
> 
> 2. Only the uneducated reject evolution
> 
> 3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of Science supports evolution
> 
> 4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity
> 
> 5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat
> 
> 6. It's here,so it must have evolved
> 
> 7. Natural selection is evolution
> 
> 8. common design means common ancesrty
> 
> 9. sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity
> 
> 10. Mutations drive evolution
> 
> 11. The scopes trial
> 
> 12. Science Vs. religion
> 
> You guys are so predictable and as this discussion goes on i am sure you will hit on these arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?  Because you have no valid answers for most of those questions?  If you're going to be a wuss about it, hit the road.
Click to expand...


Is this like your first post in this thread ?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Evolution vs. Creation: Origins

In the Evolution vs. Creation conflict, Evolutionists do quite well in terms of theoretical science, but fail to find empirical evidence. Evolutionists theorize that the universe, with all that it contains (space, time, matter and energy), exploded from nothing. This is contrary to the First Law of Thermodynamics. Where did space, time, matter and energy come from in the first place? Thus, for Evolutionists, the ultimate question of Origins remains unsolved. To complicate the Evolutionary position, this original explosion of everything from nothing is unable to explain all of the complexity and fine-tuning in the universe, including cosmic "voids" and "clumps", retrograde motion of the galaxies, etc. Despite numerous problems, this explosion from nothing has been dubbed the "Big Bang" and is the accepted theory among the majority of Evolutionists. Evolution is a very unique "science." Typically, scientists observe evidentiary data and then formulate their conclusions. Evolutionists have formulated their conclusion, and now look for the missing data. 



I only cut/pasted that because Rdean's article reminded me of it.


----------



## geauxtohell

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Evolution vs. Creation: Origins
> 
> In the Evolution vs. Creation conflict, Evolutionists do quite well in terms of theoretical science, but fail to find empirical evidence. Evolutionists theorize that the universe, with all that it contains (space, time, matter and energy), exploded from nothing. This is contrary to the First Law of Thermodynamics. Where did space, time, matter and energy come from in the first place? Thus, for Evolutionists, the ultimate question of Origins remains unsolved. To complicate the Evolutionary position, this original explosion of everything from nothing is unable to explain all of the complexity and fine-tuning in the universe, including cosmic "voids" and "clumps", retrograde motion of the galaxies, etc. Despite numerous problems, this explosion from nothing has been dubbed the "Big Bang" and is the accepted theory among the majority of Evolutionists. Evolution is a very unique "science." Typically, scientists observe evidentiary data and then formulate their conclusions. Evolutionists have formulated their conclusion, and now look for the missing data.
> 
> 
> 
> I only cut/pasted that because Rdean's article reminded me of it.



1.)  The theory of evolution is not concerned with the origin of the universe or life.  

2.)  While, admittedly, the debate about where matter originally came from can become so theoretical that it borders on the esoteric, no one here is talking about the big bang theory.  You aren't even in the right discipline (biological sciences) let alone the right argument.  

The basic screw-ups you guys make imply a vast lack of knowledge over the matter that makes talking about his issue generally frustrating.

But, by all means, keep telling us how screwed up we all are.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> Let me point out 12 arguments you guys should avoid, but you have already used some of these arguments.





> 2. Only the uneducated reject evolution.



I never said this.  Rejecting evolution doesn't equate to accepting creationism.  



> 3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of Science supports evolution.



This is a true statement.



> 9. sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity



Also true.  



> 11. The scopes trial



Why not?  It's a perfect example of how the legal system and public opinion can be 100% wrong on a scientific manner.  Again, this is why popular public opinion doesn't drive scientific consensus.  



> 12. Science Vs. religion



You should take your own advice as all of your objections to evolution are based on religious doctrines you believe in.  This debate is very much about science v. religion to you.  When pointed out that, this doesn't have to be the case and that many people who accept evolutionary theory are also religious, you reject that notion.   



> You guys are so predictable and as this discussion goes on i am sure you will hit on these arguments.



At least we are original.  Are you going to formulate your own thoughts and arguments on this matter, or are you going to just keep copy and pasting us to death?


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me point out 12 arguments you guys should avoid, but you have already used some of these arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Only the uneducated reject evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said this.  Rejecting evolution doesn't equate to accepting creationism.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a true statement.
> 
> 
> 
> Also true.
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?  It's a perfect example of how the legal system and public opinion can be 100% wrong on a scientific manner.  Again, this is why popular public opinion doesn't drive scientific consensus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 12. Science Vs. religion
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should take your own advice as all of your objections to evolution are based on religious doctrines you believe in.  This debate is very much about science v. religion to you.  When pointed out that, this doesn't have to be the case and that many people who accept evolutionary theory are also religious, you reject that notion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are so predictable and as this discussion goes on i am sure you will hit on these arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least we are original.  Are you going to formulate your own thoughts and arguments on this matter, or are you going to just keep copy and pasting us to death?
Click to expand...


I am off with the family, in the morning i will give my thoughts on each argument. In the meantime you should read this http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution vs. Creation: Origins
> 
> In the Evolution vs. Creation conflict, Evolutionists do quite well in terms of theoretical science, but fail to find empirical evidence. Evolutionists theorize that the universe, with all that it contains (space, time, matter and energy), exploded from nothing. This is contrary to the First Law of Thermodynamics. Where did space, time, matter and energy come from in the first place? Thus, for Evolutionists, the ultimate question of Origins remains unsolved. To complicate the Evolutionary position, this original explosion of everything from nothing is unable to explain all of the complexity and fine-tuning in the universe, including cosmic "voids" and "clumps", retrograde motion of the galaxies, etc. Despite numerous problems, this explosion from nothing has been dubbed the "Big Bang" and is the accepted theory among the majority of Evolutionists. Evolution is a very unique "science." Typically, scientists observe evidentiary data and then formulate their conclusions. Evolutionists have formulated their conclusion, and now look for the missing data.
> 
> 
> 
> I only cut/pasted that because Rdean's article reminded me of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.)  The theory of evolution is not concerned with the origin of the universe or life.
> 
> 2.)  While, admittedly, the debate about where matter originally came from can become so theoretical that it borders on the esoteric, no one here is talking about the big bang theory.  You aren't even in the right discipline (biological sciences) let alone the right argument.
> 
> The basic screw-ups you guys make imply a vast lack of knowledge over the matter that makes talking about his issue generally frustrating.
> 
> But, by all means, keep telling us how screwed up we all are.
Click to expand...


Most evolutionists believe the big bang was what caused the natural process.,it's just a matter of time before it comes up because they have no explanation for non-living matter resulting in living organisms.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> Let's finish up here before we move on.
> 
> Almost all mutations show a loss of information, Consider the morse code.


Let's NOT consider morse code, as it is a HORRIBLE analogy for evolution and misses most of the larger concepts you still don't understand.  In fact, why don't we avoid all misleading and otherwise inaccurate analogies used by creationists to confuse the topic instead of addressing the actual evidence of evolution. 



Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  Because you have no valid answers for most of those questions?  If you're going to be a wuss about it, hit the road.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this like your first post in this thread ?
Click to expand...

While it is his first post, it is spot on accurate.  You have ignored EVERY SINGLE QUESTION asked of you from me regarding irrefutable evidence supporting evolution.  You can't face it.  At all.  So you propose ridiculous non-congruent examples like morse code as a replacement because of your shortcomings.   He's right: if you aren't actually going to address the evidence supporting evolution, why are you still here?



PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Evolution vs. Creation: Origins
> 
> In the Evolution vs. Creation conflict, Evolutionists do quite well in terms of theoretical science, but fail to find empirical evidence. Evolutionists theorize that the universe, with all that it contains (space, time, matter and energy), exploded from nothing. This is contrary to the First Law of Thermodynamics. Where did space, time, matter and energy come from in the first place? Thus, for Evolutionists, the ultimate question of Origins remains unsolved. To complicate the Evolutionary position, this original explosion of everything from nothing is unable to explain all of the complexity and fine-tuning in the universe, including cosmic "voids" and "clumps", retrograde motion of the galaxies, etc. Despite numerous problems, this explosion from nothing has been dubbed the "Big Bang" and is the accepted theory among the majority of Evolutionists. Evolution is a very unique "science." Typically, scientists observe evidentiary data and then formulate their conclusions. Evolutionists have formulated their conclusion, and now look for the missing data.


No.  Wrong in so many ways.



Youwerecreated said:


> Most evolutionists believe the big bang was what caused the natural process.,it's just a matter of time before it comes up because they have no explanation for non-living matter resulting in living organisms.


Evolution STILL has nothing to do with the big bang.  It's sad that you still haven't figured out the scope of the concept despite being proven wrong so many times on that point.

Do you still question the value of education on this topic, or believe yours can compare to mine?


----------



## FA_Q2

Youwerecreated said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry please forgive me for this comment,that is down right ignorance to suggest creationists are less educated and did not have access to all data related to the theory.
> 
> Let me ask you something, does it matter if information i provide is in my own words over someone elses words ?
> 
> The thing is if i truly had the time i would put everything in my own words, and sometimes i do but when i get on here i am in a hurry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's true though.  If you can look at the overwhelming mountain of evidence about the age of the earth (we don't even have to speak about evolution here) and conclude it is seven days you are uneducated and ignorant.
> 
> You are either un-willingly ignorant, because you haven't been formally taught or taken the time to read up on the matter.
> 
> Or, you are willfully ignorant, because you have been taught but simply choose to ignore scientific evidence because the larger implications are inconvenient to your religious beliefs.
> 
> Either way, it speaks to a lack of education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is a great argument, houses and cars and that supercomputer is a product of design. Those things are a product of design. Medicine designed. There is enormous amounts of evidence for design, very few products that happen through a natural process.
> 
> Everyone knows that matter left to itself does nothing. It has to have an outside influence to bring about action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, since none of the items you referenced self-replicate, it is a non-sequitur to try and use this to argue in favor of design.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me point out 12 arguments you guys should avoid, but you have already used some of these arguments.
> 
> 1. Evolution is a fact
> 
> 2. Only the uneducated reject evolution
> 
> 3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of Science supports evolution
> 
> 4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity
> 
> 5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat
> 
> 6. It's here,so it must have evolved
> 
> 7. Natural selection is evolution
> 
> 8. common design means common ancesrty
> 
> 9. sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity
> 
> 10. Mutations drive evolution
> 
> 11. The scopes trial
> 
> 12. Science Vs. religion
> 
> You guys are so predictable and as this discussion goes on i am sure you will hit on these arguments.
Click to expand...

Why not simply truncate your list to one point:
1. All evidence that evolution is a valid and correct theory

That is essentially what you are trying to do here.  The fact remains that evolution is based in evidence and some of that evidence has already been presented to you by Geauxtohell all of which you have steadfastly ignored.  If you want to move this forward why have you not addressed any of it?  This argument has been rehashed a thousand times here on USMB and yet I have not seen ONE person leave anything that relates to creationism as a valid theory and very little that disputes evolution.  What it comes down to is that creationism is a product of FAITH and belongs in the realm of religion.  It has ZERO to do with science and should not form the basis of one's scientific theories.  Just look at your sources: evidence in GENESIS!!!  Just to let you know, the bible and those that are using it to form scientific theory ARE NOT VALID SOURCES.  PERIOD.  Evolution on the other hand, is a theory born out of scientific research and observation.  It has gone under countless years of tweaking and refining to come out with what we have today and been changed many times from new data.  Creationism remains the same and forces the DATA to fit into the concept rather than making the theory fit the data.  Using dating techniques is a stark example of this.  Where evolution uses the data gathered to refine the theory creationism takes that dating methods are incorrect and giving false numbers based NOT ON FACT BUT BECAUSE THE NUMBERS DO NOT AGREE WITH THE THEORY.  Science is NOT making data fit theories but making theories fit data.  BTW, ID is just another word for creationism so they can be used interchangeably.  

Again, mixing the big bang theory and the origin of life into evolution also shown the difference here from ID as a faith based answer from evolution as a science one.  You seem to think that a theory in one field must necessarily be able to explain all faucets within all fields that deal with it and that is most certainly NOT true.  One of the paramount bases in science is the need for the answer 'I do not know.'  Faith does not allow that because faith must have the answer ready made as there is no additions or changes allowed to the theory.  As such ID can simply state God made it for the origins of all things but science, with a lack of evidence for any theory, must default to I do not know and maybe we can find the answer later with more knowledge/experimentation.  There is nothing wrong with the belief in ID or that someday evolution may well turn out to be false but there is something massively wrong with turning ID into a pseudo science and trying to force evolution to be incorrect by misrepresenting data and basing it on faith.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FA_Q2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's true though.  If you can look at the overwhelming mountain of evidence about the age of the earth (we don't even have to speak about evolution here) and conclude it is seven days you are uneducated and ignorant.
> 
> You are either un-willingly ignorant, because you haven't been formally taught or taken the time to read up on the matter.
> 
> Or, you are willfully ignorant, because you have been taught but simply choose to ignore scientific evidence because the larger implications are inconvenient to your religious beliefs.
> 
> Either way, it speaks to a lack of education.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, since none of the items you referenced self-replicate, it is a non-sequitur to try and use this to argue in favor of design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me point out 12 arguments you guys should avoid, but you have already used some of these arguments.
> 
> 1. Evolution is a fact
> 
> 2. Only the uneducated reject evolution
> 
> 3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of Science supports evolution
> 
> 4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity
> 
> 5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat
> 
> 6. It's here,so it must have evolved
> 
> 7. Natural selection is evolution
> 
> 8. common design means common ancesrty
> 
> 9. sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity
> 
> 10. Mutations drive evolution
> 
> 11. The scopes trial
> 
> 12. Science Vs. religion
> 
> You guys are so predictable and as this discussion goes on i am sure you will hit on these arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not simply truncate your list to one point:
> 1. All evidence that evolution is a valid and correct theory
> 
> That is essentially what you are trying to do here.  The fact remains that evolution is based in evidence and some of that evidence has already been presented to you by Geauxtohell all of which you have steadfastly ignored.  If you want to move this forward why have you not addressed any of it?  This argument has been rehashed a thousand times here on USMB and yet I have not seen ONE person leave anything that relates to creationism as a valid theory and very little that disputes evolution.  What it comes down to is that creationism is a product of FAITH and belongs in the realm of religion.  It has ZERO to do with science and should not form the basis of one's scientific theories.  Just look at your sources: evidence in GENESIS!!!  Just to let you know, the bible and those that are using it to form scientific theory ARE NOT VALID SOURCES.  PERIOD.  Evolution on the other hand, is a theory born out of scientific research and observation.  It has gone under countless years of tweaking and refining to come out with what we have today and been changed many times from new data.  Creationism remains the same and forces the DATA to fit into the concept rather than making the theory fit the data.  Using dating techniques is a stark example of this.  Where evolution uses the data gathered to refine the theory creationism takes that dating methods are incorrect and giving false numbers based NOT ON FACT BUT BECAUSE THE NUMBERS DO NOT AGREE WITH THE THEORY.  Science is NOT making data fit theories but making theories fit data.  BTW, ID is just another word for creationism so they can be used interchangeably.
> 
> Again, mixing the big bang theory and the origin of life into evolution also shown the difference here from ID as a faith based answer from evolution as a science one.  You seem to think that a theory in one field must necessarily be able to explain all faucets within all fields that deal with it and that is most certainly NOT true.  One of the paramount bases in science is the need for the answer 'I do not know.'  Faith does not allow that because faith must have the answer ready made as there is no additions or changes allowed to the theory.  As such ID can simply state God made it for the origins of all things but science, with a lack of evidence for any theory, must default to I do not know and maybe we can find the answer later with more knowledge/experimentation.  There is nothing wrong with the belief in ID or that someday evolution may well turn out to be false but there is something massively wrong with turning ID into a pseudo science and trying to force evolution to be incorrect by misrepresenting data and basing it on faith.
Click to expand...


Does creation have to be a valid theory for you to reject the theory of evolution? I admit that no one was present to see the beginning of life so how can we know for sure whether it was God or a natural process at work ? The only evidence presented here in this thread is considered to be Micro-evolution not Macro-evolution. Now consider  Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max they seem to agree between the differences in Macro and Micro evolution.



I don't believe theories just because it's the only theory we have, heck ,hick said present a better argument and he would except it ,so i don't believe most evolutionist are convinced of this modern day theory that is taught at the present but give it time it will evolve.

A House Divided 
by Henry Morris, Ph.D. 


A fascinating new book1 has recently been published in England with the intriguing title, The Darwin Wars. The author, Andrew Brown, though himself an atheistic evolutionist, in 1995 won the Templeton Prize as the best religious affairs correspondent in Europe. 

The title of his book does not refer to the long warfare between evolutionists and creationists, as one might first suppose, but rather to the internecine battles between various groups of evolutionists against each other. Although they close ranks when doing battle with creationists, they wrangle bitterly among themselves. 

The most publicized battle at present is between the neo-Darwinians and the punctuationists. Richard Dawkins (of Cambridge University in England) is the best-known protagonist for the neo-Darwinists and Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University for the punctuationists. 

These two parties need names, and I propose to call them Gouldians and Dawkinsians.2 
Like the gingham dog and the calico cat, these two groups seem bent on eating each other up. The Gouldians argue vigorously that the fossil record proves that evolution did not occur slowly and gradually and progressively, as neo-Darwinianism requires. The Dawkinsians, on the other hand, insist vehemently that there is no possibility genetically that sudden evolution after long periods of "stasis" (i.e., no change) could ever happen at all, as the punctuationists allege. Both are right! 

One prominent Gouldian makes the following flat assertion that paleontology proves stasis, followed by wide extinction events, followed by rapid evolution of new kinds. 

I make the very strong claim that nothing much happens in biological evolutionary history until extinction claims what has come before.3 
This scenario then postulates that rapid evolution suddenly generates a new complex of flora and fauna to fill the vacant ecological niches. 

But there is no biological mechanism that can do such marvelous things. Dawkins had correctly pointed out the following fact: 

Complexity cannot spring up in a single stroke of chance. . . . Gradualness is of the essence. .  . . If you throw out gradualness, you throw out the very thing that makes evolution more plausible than creation.4 
And so Gouldians and Dawkinsians are actually (although unintentionally) helping to prove creationism, one disproving gradualism, the other disproving punctuationism. The house of evolution is badly, and eventually fatally, divided. 

Niles Eldredge, the partner of Gould in their notion of stasis and punctuated equilibrium, has acknowledged this internal warfare. 

Geneticists and paleontologists are still very much at each other's throats.5 
Since evolution and creation are really worldviews, these battles among biologists also involve sociological and psychological controversies. Modern sociobiology, for example, tends to correlate with neo-Darwinism and social Darwinism while Marxist movements with their penchant for revolution, tend to favor punctuationism. Edward O. Wilson, a colleague of Gould's at Harvard, is considered the world leader in sociobiology (the application of animal behaviors to human societies). His followers and those of Gould have been involved in serious clashes. 

One of these took place in the hallowed halls of Harvard University itself, involving a group of Gouldians in a Marxist club euphemistically named "Science for the People." 

The supporters of Science for the People were quite happy to intimidate their opponents. In the worst incident, a group of black student protestors mounted the platform at a scientific meeting where Gould and Wilson were debating and drenched Wilson (who had a broken leg at the time) with water. . . . They then chanted, "Wilson, you're wet!" for a while.6 
Remember that both Edward Wilson (along with most of his sociobiologist disciples) and Stephen Gould (with most other advocates of punctuated equilibrium) are doctrinaire atheists and anti-creationists. Although they can be bitter antagonists within evolutionism, they are of one mind in opposition to God and creation. 

A notorious comment by John Maynard Smith pointed this fact out beautifully. Smith is an eminent British neo-Darwinist, who was a mentor of Richard Dawkins. With respect to Gould, he had the following to say: 

Because of the excellence of his essays, he has come to be seen by non-geologists as the preeminent evolutionary theorist. In contrast, the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists.7 
Another notorious debate involving Gould was with Steven Pinker, an evolutionary linguist and sociobiologist at M.I.T. Science writer Martin Brookes gives us the background. 

The dispute over evolutionary psychology is just the latest incarnation of the nature/nurture debate . . . Pinker has joined the high-profile team of Dawkins and Daniel Dennett. . . . Gould stands on the opposite side of the ideological fence. . . .8 
The comments of Brookes about the debate itself are fascinating. 

For an argument about science, you would be hard pressed to find an exchange of views so full of hollow rhetoric, pompous quotations and insults. . . . The spat between Pinker and Gould . . . has no apparent function other than intellectual one-upmanship. It is precisely because there is so little evidence for either of their views that they can get away with so much speculation and disagreement.9 
Brookes seems to agree with us creationists (though he would probably be appalled at such a suggestion!) that there is "so little evidence" for either neo-Darwinism or punctuationism, that both have to rely on "hollow rhetoric, pompous quotations and insults" to defend their beliefs. 

Another combatant in the internal wars among evolutionary biologists is the growing body of evolutionary pantheists, who admit there is much evidence of intelligent design in living things, but then maintain that this is the result of Gaia, or cosmic consciousness, or Mother Nature, or anything other than a personal Creator. One of the most articulate leaders of this group is Lynn Margulis, who is especially critical of such neo-Darwinists as Richard Dawkins, John Maynard-Smith, and others of like faith. 

Neo-Darwinian language and conceptual structure itself ensures scientific failure. Major questions posed by zoologists cannot be answered from within the neo-Darwinist straitjacket.10 
Then quoting Gabriel Dover, she agrees that: 

The study of evolution should be removed from teleological computer simulations, thought experiments and wrong-headed juggling of probabilities . . . the neo-Darwinist synthesis should not be defended to death by blind watchmakers.11 
The last phrase is a reference to Richard Dawkins famous book, The Blind Watchmaker. 

If space permitted, these internal squabbles among biologists could be elaborated at great length. Similar bitter in-house arguments are common among evolutionary geologists and evolutionary astronomers. But they all stand united against creationism! Otherwise they would have to believe in God and a future judgment, and this they are all unwilling to face. 

We who do believe in God, creation, judgment, and redemption by Christ, can at least remind them of the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: "If a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand" (Mark 3:24,25). Some day, the House of Evolution will fall, "and great (shall be) the fall of it" (Matthew 7:27).

I have admitted my view is based on faith,and i admit evolutionist are seeing things but what i don't agree with is their explanations of the evidence. Evolutionists are truly trying to discredit the thought of God it's a movement and that is why they continue to explain the natural process as they do.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FA_Q2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's true though.  If you can look at the overwhelming mountain of evidence about the age of the earth (we don't even have to speak about evolution here) and conclude it is seven days you are uneducated and ignorant.
> 
> You are either un-willingly ignorant, because you haven't been formally taught or taken the time to read up on the matter.
> 
> Or, you are willfully ignorant, because you have been taught but simply choose to ignore scientific evidence because the larger implications are inconvenient to your religious beliefs.
> 
> Either way, it speaks to a lack of education.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, since none of the items you referenced self-replicate, it is a non-sequitur to try and use this to argue in favor of design.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me point out 12 arguments you guys should avoid, but you have already used some of these arguments.
> 
> 1. Evolution is a fact
> 
> 2. Only the uneducated reject evolution
> 
> 3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of Science supports evolution
> 
> 4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity
> 
> 5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat
> 
> 6. It's here,so it must have evolved
> 
> 7. Natural selection is evolution
> 
> 8. common design means common ancesrty
> 
> 9. sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity
> 
> 10. Mutations drive evolution
> 
> 11. The scopes trial
> 
> 12. Science Vs. religion
> 
> You guys are so predictable and as this discussion goes on i am sure you will hit on these arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not simply truncate your list to one point:
> 1. All evidence that evolution is a valid and correct theory
> 
> That is essentially what you are trying to do here.  The fact remains that evolution is based in evidence and some of that evidence has already been presented to you by Geauxtohell all of which you have steadfastly ignored.  If you want to move this forward why have you not addressed any of it?  This argument has been rehashed a thousand times here on USMB and yet I have not seen ONE person leave anything that relates to creationism as a valid theory and very little that disputes evolution.  What it comes down to is that creationism is a product of FAITH and belongs in the realm of religion.  It has ZERO to do with science and should not form the basis of one's scientific theories.  Just look at your sources: evidence in GENESIS!!!  Just to let you know, the bible and those that are using it to form scientific theory ARE NOT VALID SOURCES.  PERIOD.  Evolution on the other hand, is a theory born out of scientific research and observation.  It has gone under countless years of tweaking and refining to come out with what we have today and been changed many times from new data.  Creationism remains the same and forces the DATA to fit into the concept rather than making the theory fit the data.  Using dating techniques is a stark example of this.  Where evolution uses the data gathered to refine the theory creationism takes that dating methods are incorrect and giving false numbers based NOT ON FACT BUT BECAUSE THE NUMBERS DO NOT AGREE WITH THE THEORY.  Science is NOT making data fit theories but making theories fit data.  BTW, ID is just another word for creationism so they can be used interchangeably.
> 
> Again, mixing the big bang theory and the origin of life into evolution also shown the difference here from ID as a faith based answer from evolution as a science one.  You seem to think that a theory in one field must necessarily be able to explain all faucets within all fields that deal with it and that is most certainly NOT true.  One of the paramount bases in science is the need for the answer 'I do not know.'  Faith does not allow that because faith must have the answer ready made as there is no additions or changes allowed to the theory.  As such ID can simply state God made it for the origins of all things but science, with a lack of evidence for any theory, must default to I do not know and maybe we can find the answer later with more knowledge/experimentation.  There is nothing wrong with the belief in ID or that someday evolution may well turn out to be false but there is something massively wrong with turning ID into a pseudo science and trying to force evolution to be incorrect by misrepresenting data and basing it on faith.
Click to expand...


If what you say is true why the conflicting views between Neo-darwinism and Punctuated equilibrium ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> 1. Evolution is a fact
> 
> 2. Only the uneducated reject evolution
> 
> 3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of Science supports evolution
> 
> 4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity
> 
> 5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat
> 
> 6. It's here,so it must have evolved
> 
> 7. Natural selection is evolution
> 
> 8. common design means common ancesrty
> 
> 9. sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity
> 
> 10. Mutations drive evolution
> 
> 11. The scopes trial
> 
> 12. Science Vs. religion
> 
> 1. 1. Evolution is a fact
> 
> 2. Only the uneducated reject evolution
> 
> 3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of Science supports evolution
> 
> 4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity
> 
> 5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat
> 
> 6. It's here,so it must have evolved
> 
> 7. Natural selection is evolution
> 
> 8. common design means common ancesrty
> 
> 9. sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity
> 
> 10. Mutations drive evolution
> 
> 11. The scopes trial
> 
> 12. Science Vs. religion
> 
> 1.Evolution is a fact
> When our core beliefs are attacked, it&#8217;s often easy for humans to retreat to statements such as this: &#8220;My belief is a fact, and yours is wrong.&#8221; Man cannot be trusted with always providing truth when our emotions are at play, we have seen this in this thread.
> 
> 2. Only the uneducated reject evolution
> Besides the arrogance of such statements, this argument has no footing and should be cast off. Mainly, those who make this claim usually define &#8220;educated people&#8221; as those who accept evolution. Anyone who disagrees fails the test, no matter what their background , if we follow this ideology, Isaac Newton must have been uneducated. There are many lists of well educated creationists.
> 
> 3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of science supports evolution
> The irony, of course, is that for centuries prior to Darwin&#8217;s publication of On the Origin of Species, the majority of scientists found the opposite to be true the evidence supported creation. What changed? Not the evidence. Rather, the starting point changed moving from the Bible, God&#8217;s Word, to humanism, man&#8217;s word. Creationists continue to see everything in light of God&#8217;s Word and all evidence as supporting the biblical account. In reality, there is no &#8220;neutral&#8221; starting point, everyone&#8212;whether they acknowledge it or not interprets the &#8220;facts&#8221; according to a particular way of thinking in other words, worldview.
> 
> 4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity
> Why does this argument fail? I&#8217;ll show you. Take a pencil or pen. Hold it in the air. Then drop it to the floor. That&#8217;s gravity. Next, make a single-celled organism like an amoeba turn into a goat. Go ahead. We&#8217;ll wait. . . . No? As you can see, there&#8217;s a fundamental difference between operational science, which can be tested through repeatable experimentation, and historical science, which cannot.
> 
> 5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat
> Ironically, the Bible describes the earth as round and hanging in space long before this could have been directly observed Job 26:10; Isaiah 40:22. The appeal of this claim is that it stereotypes creationists as stuck in the past, since the common assumption is that people once universally believed the earth was flat before science &#8220;proved&#8221; otherwise which wasn&#8217;t the caseonly a few bought into the idea that the earth was flat.
> 
> 6. It&#8217;s here, so it must have evolved
> A conclusion does not prove the premises are true. That is, if the answer is four, we could arrive at that any number of ways: 2 + 2, 5 - 1, etc. In the same way, evolutionists often assume that since certain species or traits exist, this is proof of evolution because that&#8217;s how it must have happened. This argument, however, is self-reflexive and useless.
> 
> 7. Natural selection is evolution
> This is likely the most abused argument on the list and most in need of being scrapped. Often evolutionists bait people into showing them a change that is merely natural selection and then switch to say this proves molecules to man evolution. However, this is quite misleading. Natural selection, even according to evolutionists, does not have the power to generate anything &#8220;new.&#8221; The observable process can only act upon existing characteristics so that some members of a species are more likely to survive.
> 
> 8.  Common design means common ancestry
> Historical common descent is not and cannot be confirmed through observation. Rather, certain observations are explained by assumptions about the past. These observations, we might add, have alternative explanations. Common body plans homology, for example, do not prove common descent that&#8217;s an assumption. A common Designer fits the evidence just as well, if not better.
> 
> 9, Sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity
> Sedimentary layers show one thing, sedimentary layers. In other words, we can and should study the rocks, but the claim that rocks prove the earth must be billions of years old ignores one important point, such an interpretation is built upon a stack of assumptions.
> 
> 10. Mutations drive evolution
> Perhaps because of movies and fiction, the popular idea is that mutations make evolution go. Given enough time, shifts in the genetic code will produce all the variety of plants and animals on earth and beyond. The problem? Mutations cannot produce the types of changes evolution requires not even close. Some may benefit an organism , beetles on a windy island losing wings, but virtually every time mutations come with a cost. see give and take on this issue between Dr. Spetner and Dr. Max.
> 
> 11. The Scopes trial
> Misconceptions about the Scopes trial run rampant. Often, accounts sound something like this, Fundamentalist Christian bigots arrested an innocent biology teacher fighting for scientific freedom, and while they won the court case, they ultimately lost the public perception battle to the well reasoned presentation of the defense. Thanks to the play Inherit the Wind, this common though completely flawed perception of the event continues to be used against creationists. But real history presents a much different account.
> 
> 12. Science vs. religion
> News stories thrive on conflict and intrigue, and one common meme presents science and religion as opposing forces reason struggling to overcome draconian divine revelation. It grabs attention, but it&#8217;s bunk. Many atheists and humanists oppose biblical Christianity, but science does not. After all, the truth of a risen Savior and an inerrant Bible puts quite the damper on the belief that God cannot exist. However, science, as a tool for research, works quite well within and, in fact, requires a God created universe. Otherwise, there&#8217;d be no reason to do science in the first place.


----------



## Youwerecreated

The true problem is people who believe in a creator come from the view "God did it" and evolutionist come from a worldly view that "God didn't do it"  and because you can't explain God and he has not revealed himself to you,you turn to a natural process. You just can't admit it.


----------



## Youwerecreated

For those of you who have not had a chance to see a Dr. from both sides go at it, this is a must read.

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me point out 12 arguments you guys should avoid, but you have already used some of these arguments.
> 
> 1. Evolution is a fact
> 
> 2. Only the uneducated reject evolution
> 
> 3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of Science supports evolution
> 
> 4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity
> 
> 5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat
> 
> 6. It's here,so it must have evolved
> 
> 7. Natural selection is evolution
> 
> 8. common design means common ancesrty
> 
> 9. sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity
> 
> 10. Mutations drive evolution
> 
> 11. The scopes trial
> 
> 12. Science Vs. religion
> 
> You guys are so predictable and as this discussion goes on i am sure you will hit on these arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  Because you have no valid answers for most of those questions?  If you're going to be a wuss about it, hit the road.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this like your first post in this thread ?
Click to expand...


So what?  Scared?  You'd reached a level of foolishness that couldn't be ignored.  How's that?


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> The true problem is people who believe in a creator come from the view "God did it" and evolutionist come from a worldly view that "God didn't do it"  and because you can't explain God and he has not revealed himself to you,you turn to a natural process. You just can't admit it.



No it's because, if you don't believe in evolution, you have to explain why you don't find trilobite fossils in the same geological strata as dolphin fossils.  The fossil record shows evolution over time.  IMO, the only other explanation from the creatioist/ID perspective is that God messes with our minds.  Is that what you'd really have us believe?   I think you need to lay out exactly how the fossil record came about, if evolution wasn't the driving force before we can consider any of your other points valid..


----------



## FA_Q2

Youwerecreated said:


> If what you say is true why the conflicting views between Neo-darwinism and Punctuated equilibrium ?


Because that is the nature of science.  Unlike faith, science is ever changing and becoming more refined.  Unlike the faithful who claim to have all the answers at the get go science thrives in an atmosphere of conflicting ideas.  If evolution were a place where there could be no argument, experimentation or refinement it would be faith and not science.  It is science so that is not the case.


Youwerecreated said:


> The true problem is people who believe in a creator come from the view "God did it" and evolutionist come from a worldly view that "God didn't do it"  and because you can't explain God and he has not revealed himself to you,you turn to a natural process. You just can't admit it.


And therein lies your problem.  Because YOU prescribe to a view that 'god did it' you must project that a scientist has the same problem of a predisposition to a particular answer but fail to realize that IS NOT THE CASE.  Nowhere has anyone refuted that god did not do it anyway, it just happens that the process that it came to pass is most likely evolution and not grand design in a blink.  Science does not deal in the supernatural and does not refute or strive to prove it either way.  What science does do is try and find natural laws and occurrences to better understand our surroundings.  I have already gone over this but you seem to prefer to ignore it.  The evidence shows that evolution is the means that modern oganisms came to pass and just because you choose to ignore that evidence does not make evolution incorrect.  Address the evidence of you want to refute the theory.  This, you have failed to do.



Youwerecreated said:


> 3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of science supports evolution
> The irony, of course, is that for centuries prior to Darwins publication of On the Origin of Species, the majority of scientists found the opposite to be true the evidence supported creation. What changed? Not the evidence. Rather, the starting point changed moving from the Bible, Gods Word, to humanism, mans word. Creationists continue to see everything in light of Gods Word and all evidence as supporting the biblical account. In reality, there is no neutral starting point, everyonewhether they acknowledge it or not interprets the facts according to a particular way of thinking in other words, worldview.


Really?  You do not believe that there has been any new evidence in the last 100 years that shows evolution to be true?  It is ALL due to the shift of using the bible to using science?  the truth is, of course, you are right that there has been a shift from hiding behind the 'god did it and that is the way it is' to actually attempting to understand the world.  This is a good thing and has brought you wonders like refrigeration, medicine and cars.  Or you could just go back to lightning exists because Thor is angry and leave it at that.  That IS what ID'ers want.  A return to simply god did it and we are not to question the how or why.  That is not what science is all about though and not a good basis to set your beliefs on.


Youwerecreated said:


> 6. Its here, so it must have evolved
> A conclusion does not prove the premises are true. That is, if the answer is four, we could arrive at that any number of ways: 2 + 2, 5 - 1, etc. In the same way, evolutionists often assume that since certain species or traits exist, this is proof of evolution because thats how it must have happened. This argument, however, is self-reflexive and useless.


Funny enough, that is EXACTLY what ID states and the core of those beliefs.  On the other hand, evolution in no way resorts to that kind of asinine argument.  It uses EVIDENCE.  There is that annoying little word again.


Youwerecreated said:


> 8.  Common design means common ancestry
> Historical common descent is not and cannot be confirmed through observation. Rather, certain observations are explained by assumptions about the past. These observations, we might add, have alternative explanations. Common body plans homology, for example, do not prove common descent thats an assumption. A common Designer fits the evidence just as well, if not better.


That's where genetics fits in as it fits the common ancestry theory perfectly.  I would refer you back to the excellent video that Geauxtohell put up here and its reference to us and the great apes but you most likely did not watch it.


Youwerecreated said:


> 9, Sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity
> Sedimentary layers show one thing, sedimentary layers. In other words, we can and should study the rocks, but the claim that rocks prove the earth must be billions of years old ignores one important point, such an interpretation is built upon a stack of assumptions.


And then you opened your eyes and realized there are MANY ways to date things and they align with sedimentary dating and that there has been a lot of inquiry to this form of dating.  This is not some grand assumption that causes these methods to be used but rather it has been shown to be effective.  It has its problems but has been shown to be quite useful.  Simply dismissing it based on all the facts that you gave (none) is rather dumb.


Youwerecreated said:


> 11. The Scopes trial
> Misconceptions about the Scopes trial run rampant. Often, accounts sound something like this, Fundamentalist Christian bigots arrested an innocent biology teacher fighting for scientific freedom, and while they won the court case, they ultimately lost the public perception battle to the well reasoned presentation of the defense. Thanks to the play Inherit the Wind, this common though completely flawed perception of the event continues to be used against creationists. But real history presents a much different account.


Honestly, a law trial has no bearing on the case at hand anyway as law is not what defines scientific theory.  So, yes, it is valid to ignore this argument on your list.  


Youwerecreated said:


> 12. Science vs. religion
> News stories thrive on conflict and intrigue, and one common meme presents science and religion as opposing forces reason struggling to overcome draconian divine revelation. It grabs attention, but its bunk. Many atheists and humanists oppose biblical Christianity, but science does not. After all, the truth of a risen Savior and an inerrant Bible puts quite the damper on the belief that God cannot exist. However, science, as a tool for research, works quite well within and, in fact, requires a God created universe. Otherwise, thered be no reason to do science in the first place.


No, science does not require a god created universe and that is a rather dumb thing to say.  As it goes, science and religion have nothing to do with one another whatsoever.  Science is the study  of the natural and religion is the belief in the supernatural.  The realms are separate and as such there is no interaction between the two.  Science does not preclude religion nor does it rely on it.

A an aside, you may challenge evolution in science and say there is another route that life took and even go as far to say that is un unknown but you cannot replace evolution with ID from a scientific point of view.  As far as challenging it though, the evidence would be strongly against you.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> Does creation have to be a valid theory for you to reject the theory of evolution? I admit that no one was present to see the beginning of life so how can we know for sure whether it was God or a natural process at work ?


No one was around to witness the big bang, and yet there's still evidence of it.  You weren't around to witness meteors hitting the moon yet it still has all those craters.  You weren't around to see Mt. Rushmore being built, so surely you must attribute it to God?  Ridiculous.  If you are so limited on this earth to only believe the things you directly see and the things someone else tells you is true without evidence or scrutiny, you are ignorant. 



Youwerecreated said:


> I don't believe theories just because it's the only theory we have, heck ,hick said present a better argument and he would except it ,so i don't believe most evolutionist are convinced of this modern day theory that is taught at the present but give it time it will evolve.


Once again you warp an otherwise innocent remark.  Science has the capacity to change its worldview based on new evidence, whereas religion does not.  That DOES NOT mean that the theory of evolution is unsatisfactory or leaving anyone wanting more.  It simply means that it would be any logical person's obligation to follow truth and evidence rather than being stubborn and ignorant.

Can you truly not make an honest point on your own?  You are really starting to further tarnish your religion as a representative of it.  Have you no morals?



Youwerecreated said:


> The title of his book does not refer to the long warfare between evolutionists and creationists, as one might first suppose, but rather to the internecine battles between various groups of evolutionists against each other. Although they close ranks when doing battle with creationists, they wrangle bitterly among themselves.


More copied and pasted nonsense failing to show a disruption in the tenants of evolution because scientists argue about topics in the field.  Despite the disagreement, EVERYONE agrees that evolution is correct, and how it's correct.  It's like two Christians arguing whether the King James version or a newly translated version is a better bible.  It doesn't mean they disagree on Christianity. 



Youwerecreated said:


> I have admitted my view is based on faith,and i admit evolutionist are seeing things but what i don't agree with is their explanations of the evidence. Evolutionists are truly trying to discredit the thought of God it's a movement and that is why they continue to explain the natural process as they do.


Evolution has no purpose in addressing religion either way.  It's the creationists who bring that up.  Nonetheless you say you don't agree with the explanation for the evidence, yet it's clear you won't acknowledge the evidence exists, can't say WHY you disagree with the explanation of the evidence, and can't even propose some other explanation for the evidence.  How foolish.



Youwerecreated said:


> 1. Evolution is a fact
> 
> 2. Only the uneducated reject evolution
> 
> 3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of Science supports evolution
> 
> 4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity
> 
> 5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat
> 
> 6. It's here,so it must have evolved
> 
> 7. Natural selection is evolution
> 
> 8. common design means common ancesrty
> 
> 9. sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity
> 
> 10. Mutations drive evolution
> 
> 11. The scopes trial
> 
> 12. Science Vs. religion
> 
> 1. 1. Evolution is a fact
> 
> 2. Only the uneducated reject evolution
> 
> 3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of Science supports evolution
> 
> 4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity
> 
> 5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat
> 
> 6. It's here,so it must have evolved
> 
> 7. Natural selection is evolution
> 
> 8. common design means common ancesrty
> 
> 9. sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity
> 
> 10. Mutations drive evolution
> 
> 11. The scopes trial
> 
> 12. Science Vs. religion
> 
> 1.Evolution is a fact
> When our core beliefs are attacked, its often easy for humans to retreat to statements such as this: My belief is a fact, and yours is wrong. Man cannot be trusted with always providing truth when our emotions are at play, we have seen this in this thread.
> 
> 2. Only the uneducated reject evolution
> Besides the arrogance of such statements, this argument has no footing and should be cast off. Mainly, those who make this claim usually define educated people as those who accept evolution. Anyone who disagrees fails the test, no matter what their background , if we follow this ideology, Isaac Newton must have been uneducated. There are many lists of well educated creationists.
> 
> 3. Overwhelming evidence in all fields of science supports evolution
> The irony, of course, is that for centuries prior to Darwins publication of On the Origin of Species, the majority of scientists found the opposite to be true the evidence supported creation. What changed? Not the evidence. Rather, the starting point changed moving from the Bible, Gods Word, to humanism, mans word. Creationists continue to see everything in light of Gods Word and all evidence as supporting the biblical account. In reality, there is no neutral starting point, everyonewhether they acknowledge it or not interprets the facts according to a particular way of thinking in other words, worldview.
> 
> 4. Doubting evolution is like doubting gravity
> Why does this argument fail? Ill show you. Take a pencil or pen. Hold it in the air. Then drop it to the floor. Thats gravity. Next, make a single-celled organism like an amoeba turn into a goat. Go ahead. Well wait. . . . No? As you can see, theres a fundamental difference between operational science, which can be tested through repeatable experimentation, and historical science, which cannot.
> 
> 5. Doubting evolution is like believing the earth is flat
> Ironically, the Bible describes the earth as round and hanging in space long before this could have been directly observed Job 26:10; Isaiah 40:22. The appeal of this claim is that it stereotypes creationists as stuck in the past, since the common assumption is that people once universally believed the earth was flat before science proved otherwise which wasnt the caseonly a few bought into the idea that the earth was flat.
> 
> 6. Its here, so it must have evolved
> A conclusion does not prove the premises are true. That is, if the answer is four, we could arrive at that any number of ways: 2 + 2, 5 - 1, etc. In the same way, evolutionists often assume that since certain species or traits exist, this is proof of evolution because thats how it must have happened. This argument, however, is self-reflexive and useless.
> 
> 7. Natural selection is evolution
> This is likely the most abused argument on the list and most in need of being scrapped. Often evolutionists bait people into showing them a change that is merely natural selection and then switch to say this proves molecules to man evolution. However, this is quite misleading. Natural selection, even according to evolutionists, does not have the power to generate anything new. The observable process can only act upon existing characteristics so that some members of a species are more likely to survive.
> 
> 8.  Common design means common ancestry
> Historical common descent is not and cannot be confirmed through observation. Rather, certain observations are explained by assumptions about the past. These observations, we might add, have alternative explanations. Common body plans homology, for example, do not prove common descent thats an assumption. A common Designer fits the evidence just as well, if not better.
> 
> 9, Sedimentary layers show millions of years of geological activity
> Sedimentary layers show one thing, sedimentary layers. In other words, we can and should study the rocks, but the claim that rocks prove the earth must be billions of years old ignores one important point, such an interpretation is built upon a stack of assumptions.
> 
> 10. Mutations drive evolution
> Perhaps because of movies and fiction, the popular idea is that mutations make evolution go. Given enough time, shifts in the genetic code will produce all the variety of plants and animals on earth and beyond. The problem? Mutations cannot produce the types of changes evolution requires not even close. Some may benefit an organism , beetles on a windy island losing wings, but virtually every time mutations come with a cost. see give and take on this issue between Dr. Spetner and Dr. Max.
> 
> 11. The Scopes trial
> Misconceptions about the Scopes trial run rampant. Often, accounts sound something like this, Fundamentalist Christian bigots arrested an innocent biology teacher fighting for scientific freedom, and while they won the court case, they ultimately lost the public perception battle to the well reasoned presentation of the defense. Thanks to the play Inherit the Wind, this common though completely flawed perception of the event continues to be used against creationists. But real history presents a much different account.
> 
> 12. Science vs. religion
> News stories thrive on conflict and intrigue, and one common meme presents science and religion as opposing forces reason struggling to overcome draconian divine revelation. It grabs attention, but its bunk. Many atheists and humanists oppose biblical Christianity, but science does not. After all, the truth of a risen Savior and an inerrant Bible puts quite the damper on the belief that God cannot exist. However, science, as a tool for research, works quite well within and, in fact, requires a God created universe. Otherwise, thered be no reason to do science in the first place.


That's cute.  You set up our "claims" with copied and pasted outlines, and then filled in misleading remarks of things we didn't actually say.  This truly is a great example of Christian teachings.



Youwerecreated said:


> The true problem is people who believe in a creator come from the view "God did it" and evolutionist come from a worldly view that "God didn't do it"  and because you can't explain God and he has not revealed himself to you,you turn to a natural process. You just can't admit it.


Wrong once again.  God has nothing to do with evolution.  THAT DOES NOT MEAN "God didn't do it", it means no one is addressing the topic either way.  For example, if you come home and find dinner on the table and someone in the kitchen cleaning some cookware, do you evaluate the evidence as whether god did or did not make you dinner?  NO!  You just say that person cooked dinner.  Has nothing to do with religion, just the evidence presented before you.

You truly are uneducated and brain-washed, aren't you?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

geauxtohell said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution vs. Creation: Origins
> 
> In the Evolution vs. Creation conflict, Evolutionists do quite well in terms of theoretical science, but fail to find empirical evidence. Evolutionists theorize that the universe, with all that it contains (space, time, matter and energy), exploded from nothing. This is contrary to the First Law of Thermodynamics. Where did space, time, matter and energy come from in the first place? Thus, for Evolutionists, the ultimate question of Origins remains unsolved. To complicate the Evolutionary position, this original explosion of everything from nothing is unable to explain all of the complexity and fine-tuning in the universe, including cosmic "voids" and "clumps", retrograde motion of the galaxies, etc. Despite numerous problems, this explosion from nothing has been dubbed the "Big Bang" and is the accepted theory among the majority of Evolutionists. Evolution is a very unique "science." Typically, scientists observe evidentiary data and then formulate their conclusions. Evolutionists have formulated their conclusion, and now look for the missing data.
> 
> 
> 
> I only cut/pasted that because Rdean's article reminded me of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.)  The theory of evolution is not concerned with the origin of the universe or life.
> 
> 2.)  While, admittedly, the debate about where matter originally came from can become so theoretical that it borders on the esoteric, no one here is talking about the big bang theory.  You aren't even in the right discipline (biological sciences) let alone the right argument.
> 
> The basic screw-ups you guys make imply a vast lack of knowledge over the matter that makes talking about his issue generally frustrating.
> 
> But, by all means, keep telling us how screwed up we all are.
Click to expand...


Ok let me challenge you now.....

How did life come into existence on the earth?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Ok let me challenge you now.....
> 
> How did life come into existence on the earth?



The answer is irrelevant to the concept of evolution.  It doesn't matter whether the first life sprang from primordial ooze, or was created by god, or aliens came from another planet and manufactured it and left.  Evolution is still maintained, regardless of the starting point.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

SmarterThanHick said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok let me challenge you now.....
> 
> How did life come into existence on the earth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The answer is irrelevant to the concept of evolution.  It doesn't matter whether the first life sprang from primordial ooze, or was created by god, or aliens came from another planet and manufactured it and left.  Evolution is still maintained, regardless of the starting point.
Click to expand...


2 questions:

What did the first life evolve out of?   

And you are fine with people believing God created life and then that life evolves?  


And you might like this old thread http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...hat-if-evolution-was-part-of-creationism.html


----------



## SmarterThanHick

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> 2 questions:
> 
> What did the first life evolve out of?


The question is still irrelevant for the exact same reason.  Evolution is still maintained regardless of the starting point.  Even if you made the claim that the earth and all of its life was made 200 years ago, it still doesn't change evolution.



PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> And you are fine with people believing God created life and then that life evolves?


Fine with?  I'm not fine with the following things in descending order: ignorant people who try to force their misguided blind beliefs onto public policy including education, ignorant people who propagate their misguided and blind beliefs onto others, ignorant people who keep to themselves.  There is irrefutable reproducible evidence for evolution.  Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about abiogenesis.  Now it's your option to subscribe to the mindset of "everything I don't understand must be god."  People have been doing that since the dawn of man.  But I would find someone smarter who is interested in finding an answer instead of hand waiving magic.



PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> And you might like this old thread http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...hat-if-evolution-was-part-of-creationism.html


You might like reading that thread too.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

SmarterThanHick said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 questions:
> 
> What did the first life evolve out of?
> 
> 
> 
> The question is still irrelevant for the exact same reason.  Evolution is still maintained regardless of the starting point.  Even if you made the claim that the earth and all of its life was made 200 years ago, it still doesn't change evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are fine with people believing God created life and then that life evolves?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine with?  I'm not fine with the following things in descending order: ignorant people who try to force their misguided blind beliefs onto public policy including education, ignorant people who propagate their misguided and blind beliefs onto others, ignorant people who keep to themselves.  There is irrefutable reproducible evidence for evolution.  Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about abiogenesis.  Now it's your option to subscribe to the mindset of "everything I don't understand must be god."  People have been doing that since the dawn of man.  But I would find someone smarter who is interested in finding an answer instead of hand waiving magic.
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you might like this old thread http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...hat-if-evolution-was-part-of-creationism.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You might like reading that thread too.
Click to expand...


So you don't know what the first life evolved from but you have faith that it did and evolution explains how all life came to exist?

The question mark is my way of asking what your saying instead of trying to put words in your mouth (what you did to me)    I don't believe I stated on this forum that I believe in either creationism or evolution but merely have challenged those who believe in both with honest questions.

now can you answer me without going off on some rant that looks like its about me personally without actaully relating to anything I beleive or say?   The question, once again, is what did the first life on earth evolve from?


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true problem is people who believe in a creator come from the view "God did it" and evolutionist come from a worldly view that "God didn't do it"  and because you can't explain God and he has not revealed himself to you,you turn to a natural process. You just can't admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's because, if you don't believe in evolution, you have to explain why you don't find trilobite fossils in the same geological strata as dolphin fossils.  The fossil record shows evolution over time.  IMO, the only other explanation from the creatioist/ID perspective is that God messes with our minds.  Is that what you'd really have us believe?   I think you need to lay out exactly how the fossil record came about, if evolution wasn't the driving force before we can consider any of your other points valid..
Click to expand...


And you have to explain how whale fossils are found in inland places such as Michigan and the other inland places that is to far from the ocean. You also have to explain sea shells found on mountain tops.

The strata in the grand canyon disagrees with your views as well.

Oh this is where you will turn to plate tectonics as an explanation.

I don't say plate tectonics did not happen, i just think it happened during the global flood.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FA_Q2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If what you say is true why the conflicting views between Neo-darwinism and Punctuated equilibrium ?
> 
> 
> 
> Because that is the nature of science.  Unlike faith, science is ever changing and becoming more refined.  Unlike the faithful who claim to have all the answers at the get go science thrives in an atmosphere of conflicting ideas.  If evolution were a place where there could be no argument, experimentation or refinement it would be faith and not science.  It is science so that is not the case.
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true problem is people who believe in a creator come from the view "God did it" and evolutionist come from a worldly view that "God didn't do it"  and because you can't explain God and he has not revealed himself to you,you turn to a natural process. You just can't admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And therein lies your problem.  Because YOU prescribe to a view that 'god did it' you must project that a scientist has the same problem of a predisposition to a particular answer but fail to realize that IS NOT THE CASE.  Nowhere has anyone refuted that god did not do it anyway, it just happens that the process that it came to pass is most likely evolution and not grand design in a blink.  Science does not deal in the supernatural and does not refute or strive to prove it either way.  What science does do is try and find natural laws and occurrences to better understand our surroundings.  I have already gone over this but you seem to prefer to ignore it.  The evidence shows that evolution is the means that modern oganisms came to pass and just because you choose to ignore that evidence does not make evolution incorrect.  Address the evidence of you want to refute the theory.  This, you have failed to do.
> 
> 
> Really?  You do not believe that there has been any new evidence in the last 100 years that shows evolution to be true?  It is ALL due to the shift of using the bible to using science?  the truth is, of course, you are right that there has been a shift from hiding behind the 'god did it and that is the way it is' to actually attempting to understand the world.  This is a good thing and has brought you wonders like refrigeration, medicine and cars.  Or you could just go back to lightning exists because Thor is angry and leave it at that.  That IS what ID'ers want.  A return to simply god did it and we are not to question the how or why.  That is not what science is all about though and not a good basis to set your beliefs on.
> 
> Funny enough, that is EXACTLY what ID states and the core of those beliefs.  On the other hand, evolution in no way resorts to that kind of asinine argument.  It uses EVIDENCE.  There is that annoying little word again.
> 
> That's where genetics fits in as it fits the common ancestry theory perfectly.  I would refer you back to the excellent video that Geauxtohell put up here and its reference to us and the great apes but you most likely did not watch it.
> 
> And then you opened your eyes and realized there are MANY ways to date things and they align with sedimentary dating and that there has been a lot of inquiry to this form of dating.  This is not some grand assumption that causes these methods to be used but rather it has been shown to be effective.  It has its problems but has been shown to be quite useful.  Simply dismissing it based on all the facts that you gave (none) is rather dumb.
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 11. The Scopes trial
> Misconceptions about the Scopes trial run rampant. Often, accounts sound something like this, Fundamentalist Christian bigots arrested an innocent biology teacher fighting for scientific freedom, and while they won the court case, they ultimately lost the public perception battle to the well reasoned presentation of the defense. Thanks to the play Inherit the Wind, this common though completely flawed perception of the event continues to be used against creationists. But real history presents a much different account.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Honestly, a law trial has no bearing on the case at hand anyway as law is not what defines scientific theory.  So, yes, it is valid to ignore this argument on your list.
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 12. Science vs. religion
> News stories thrive on conflict and intrigue, and one common meme presents science and religion as opposing forces reason struggling to overcome draconian divine revelation. It grabs attention, but its bunk. Many atheists and humanists oppose biblical Christianity, but science does not. After all, the truth of a risen Savior and an inerrant Bible puts quite the damper on the belief that God cannot exist. However, science, as a tool for research, works quite well within and, in fact, requires a God created universe. Otherwise, thered be no reason to do science in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, science does not require a god created universe and that is a rather dumb thing to say.  As it goes, science and religion have nothing to do with one another whatsoever.  Science is the study  of the natural and religion is the belief in the supernatural.  The realms are separate and as such there is no interaction between the two.  Science does not preclude religion nor does it rely on it.
> 
> A an aside, you may challenge evolution in science and say there is another route that life took and even go as far to say that is un unknown but you cannot replace evolution with ID from a scientific point of view.  As far as challenging it though, the evidence would be strongly against you.
Click to expand...


So which theory do you believe in ?

No, just the extreme secularlist and the atheist want to say there is no creator.

I don't ignore evidence,i just disagree with the explanations from evolutionist and accept creationists explanations of that same evidence.

Yes, science has brought us many good things.

I have not seen any evidence to suggest macroevolution plenty to show microevolution.

If science don't need a Creator = God then they need to explain how non-living matter became living organisms. If you can't explain the beginning of life ,why do you think you can explain the process of life.

Since the theory is built on assumptions, a couple of wrong assumptions, and of course the theory is wrong.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hick,No one was around to witness the big bang, and yet there's still evidence of it.  You weren't around to witness meteors hitting the moon yet it still has all those craters.  You weren't around to see Mt. Rushmore being built, so surely you must attribute it to God?  Ridiculous.  If you are so limited on this earth to only believe the things you directly see and the things someone else tells you is true without evidence or scrutiny, you are ignorant. 



Hick,Evolution has no purpose in addressing religion either way.  It's the creationists who bring that up.  Nonetheless you say you don't agree with the explanation for the evidence, yet it's clear you won't acknowledge the evidence exists, can't say WHY you disagree with the explanation of the evidence, and can't even propose some other explanation for the evidence.  How foolish.



Hick,You truly are uneducated and brain-washed, aren't you?[/QUOTE]

If there was a big bang, can you explain why it is expanding and picking up speed ?

Well i see you ignored the give and take between Dr. spetner and Dr. Max. Dr. Spetner shows it was your guy max that brought God into the give and take. 

Oh, and in that give and take, Dr. Spetner addresses your questions put to me.

Do you really think i care what you think of me ? You're not my first exp with an evolutionist. I knew what people like you thought of creationists before my first post in this thread. And you being like the rest of the evolutionist i knew your arguments before this thread got serious. I will say the only thing you have brought up that i needed to read up on was Novo mutations.

But in that give and take you ignored, this was covered.


----------



## Youwerecreated

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution vs. Creation: Origins
> 
> In the Evolution vs. Creation conflict, Evolutionists do quite well in terms of theoretical science, but fail to find empirical evidence. Evolutionists theorize that the universe, with all that it contains (space, time, matter and energy), exploded from nothing. This is contrary to the First Law of Thermodynamics. Where did space, time, matter and energy come from in the first place? Thus, for Evolutionists, the ultimate question of Origins remains unsolved. To complicate the Evolutionary position, this original explosion of everything from nothing is unable to explain all of the complexity and fine-tuning in the universe, including cosmic "voids" and "clumps", retrograde motion of the galaxies, etc. Despite numerous problems, this explosion from nothing has been dubbed the "Big Bang" and is the accepted theory among the majority of Evolutionists. Evolution is a very unique "science." Typically, scientists observe evidentiary data and then formulate their conclusions. Evolutionists have formulated their conclusion, and now look for the missing data.
> 
> 
> 
> I only cut/pasted that because Rdean's article reminded me of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.)  The theory of evolution is not concerned with the origin of the universe or life.
> 
> 2.)  While, admittedly, the debate about where matter originally came from can become so theoretical that it borders on the esoteric, no one here is talking about the big bang theory.  You aren't even in the right discipline (biological sciences) let alone the right argument.
> 
> The basic screw-ups you guys make imply a vast lack of knowledge over the matter that makes talking about his issue generally frustrating.
> 
> But, by all means, keep telling us how screwed up we all are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok let me challenge you now.....
> 
> How did life come into existence on the earth?
Click to expand...


Oh they're not concerned with that. well i think that would be science too.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> So you don't know what the first life evolved from but you have faith that it did and evolution explains how all life came to exist?
> 
> The question mark is my way of asking what your saying instead of trying to put words in your mouth


If that is your method of asking a question, I recommend you re-evaluate your communication methods.  There's a difference between asking a question a question like "What do you think about ABC?" compared to "You don't know A but you must believe B?" But I thank you for clarifying afterwards that it is a question, as it was originally interpreted as an assertion. 

Regarding the question itself: no.  Religion has no middle ground.  Everything MUST be "known" or explained for the religion to work out.  Science has an alternate: not knowing.  The options in science are not "it's definitely true" or "it's faith that it's true."  It's either true, or not fully supported.  So even though there is a good working idea of how things came to be, the fact still remains that there is not compelling reproducible evidence that really proves it.  That does NOT mean I have faith that the working idea is correct, since it has not been proven to be correct. It is what it is: unknown for the time being.  And that's ok in science, but not religion. 

REGARDLESS, evolution is a separate process, just as learning how to drive is a separate knowledge set from building a car.  It doesn't matter how you get a car, whether you buy it, or your parents give it to you, or you steal it: you still know how to drive it. So too does evolution drive the change in life over time, REGARDLESS of where the life came from.



PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> The question, once again, is what did the first life on earth evolve from?


What you are describing is abiogenesis, not evolution.



Youwerecreated said:


> And you have to explain how whale fossils are found in inland places such as Michigan and the other inland places that is to far from the ocean. You also have to explain sea shells found on mountain tops.


No, that's not necessary.  

You seem to continually skip around from topic to topic.  Everytime you're proven wrong in one area, you leave it pretending it doesn't exist, to move onto your next poor excuse or copied and pasted outdated garbage. Why don't you pick one and stick to it?  

Here are a few topic suggestions:

The "new information" you said can never come about and I proved you wrong about
How you don't understand microevolution, let alone how it genetically differs from macroevolution
What genetics tells us about evolution
How bacteria gain antibiotic resistance without exogenous genetic information

Wait wait.  You pick a topic.  You generally lack the integrity to see it through to the end, but try your hardest.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the first life evolved from but you have faith that it did and evolution explains how all life came to exist?
> 
> The question mark is my way of asking what your saying instead of trying to put words in your mouth
> 
> 
> 
> If that is your method of asking a question, I recommend you re-evaluate your communication methods.  There's a difference between asking a question a question like "What do you think about ABC?" compared to "You don't know A but you must believe B?" But I thank you for clarifying afterwards that it is a question, as it was originally interpreted as an assertion.
> 
> Regarding the question itself: no.  Religion has no middle ground.  Everything MUST be "known" or explained for the religion to work out.  Science has an alternate: not knowing.  The options in science are not "it's definitely true" or "it's faith that it's true."  It's either true, or not fully supported.  So even though there is a good working idea of how things came to be, the fact still remains that there is not compelling reproducible evidence that really proves it.  That does NOT mean I have faith that the working idea is correct, since it has not been proven to be correct. It is what it is: unknown for the time being.  And that's ok in science, but not religion.
> 
> REGARDLESS, evolution is a separate process, just as learning how to drive is a separate knowledge set from building a car.  It doesn't matter how you get a car, whether you buy it, or your parents give it to you, or you steal it: you still know how to drive it. So too does evolution drive the change in life over time, REGARDLESS of where the life came from.
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question, once again, is what did the first life on earth evolve from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are describing is abiogenesis, not evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you have to explain how whale fossils are found in inland places such as Michigan and the other inland places that is to far from the ocean. You also have to explain sea shells found on mountain tops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that's not necessary.
> 
> You seem to continually skip around from topic to topic.  Everytime you're proven wrong in one area, you leave it pretending it doesn't exist, to move onto your next poor excuse or copied and pasted outdated garbage. Why don't you pick one and stick to it?
> 
> Here are a few topic suggestions:
> 
> The "new information" you said can never come about and I proved you wrong about
> How you don't understand microevolution, let alone how it genetically differs from macroevolution
> What genetics tells us about evolution
> How bacteria gain antibiotic resistance without exogenous genetic information
> 
> Wait wait.  You pick a topic.  You generally lack the integrity to see it through to the end, but try your hardest.
Click to expand...


So what do you think of adaptive mutations suggested by Dr. spetner ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the first life evolved from but you have faith that it did and evolution explains how all life came to exist?
> 
> The question mark is my way of asking what your saying instead of trying to put words in your mouth
> 
> 
> 
> If that is your method of asking a question, I recommend you re-evaluate your communication methods.  There's a difference between asking a question a question like "What do you think about ABC?" compared to "You don't know A but you must believe B?" But I thank you for clarifying afterwards that it is a question, as it was originally interpreted as an assertion.
> 
> Regarding the question itself: no.  Religion has no middle ground.  Everything MUST be "known" or explained for the religion to work out.  Science has an alternate: not knowing.  The options in science are not "it's definitely true" or "it's faith that it's true."  It's either true, or not fully supported.  So even though there is a good working idea of how things came to be, the fact still remains that there is not compelling reproducible evidence that really proves it.  That does NOT mean I have faith that the working idea is correct, since it has not been proven to be correct. It is what it is: unknown for the time being.  And that's ok in science, but not religion.
> 
> REGARDLESS, evolution is a separate process, just as learning how to drive is a separate knowledge set from building a car.  It doesn't matter how you get a car, whether you buy it, or your parents give it to you, or you steal it: you still know how to drive it. So too does evolution drive the change in life over time, REGARDLESS of where the life came from.
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question, once again, is what did the first life on earth evolve from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are describing is abiogenesis, not evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you have to explain how whale fossils are found in inland places such as Michigan and the other inland places that is to far from the ocean. You also have to explain sea shells found on mountain tops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that's not necessary.
> 
> You seem to continually skip around from topic to topic.  Everytime you're proven wrong in one area, you leave it pretending it doesn't exist, to move onto your next poor excuse or copied and pasted outdated garbage. Why don't you pick one and stick to it?
> 
> Here are a few topic suggestions:
> 
> The "new information" you said can never come about and I proved you wrong about
> How you don't understand microevolution, let alone how it genetically differs from macroevolution
> What genetics tells us about evolution
> How bacteria gain antibiotic resistance without exogenous genetic information
> 
> Wait wait.  You pick a topic.  You generally lack the integrity to see it through to the end, but try your hardest.
Click to expand...


I will admit there was more new information then i thought from mutations, but Dr. Spetner cleared that up for me. 

We can go here.

How bacteria gain antibiotic resistance without exogenous genetic information

Antibiotic Resistance as an Example of Evolution
Spetner: Continuing his effort to show the evolutionary efficacy of beneficial mutations, Max presented in his essay the acquisition of antibiotic resistance by microorganisms as an example of evolution.  He said one can demonstrate a beneficial mutation  with laboratory organisms that multiply rapidly, and indeed such experiments have shown that rare beneficial mutations can occur.  For instance, from a single bacterium one can grow a population in the presence of an antibiotic, and demonstrate that organisms surviving this culture have mutations in genes that confer antibiotic resistance.  Such an experiment shows that de novo beneficial mutations can arise.

My response to this is that I have shown in my book that mutations leading to antibiotic resistance fail the test of representing the mutations necessary for evolution.  I summarize that argument here. All antibiotics are derived from microorganisms.  Recall the story of the serendipitous discovery of penicillin by Alexander Fleming in 1928, when he noticed that his plate of Staphylococcus bacteria was clear in the vicinity of a bread-mold contaminant.  The mold was found to produce something that could lyse and kill the bacteria.  That something was a molecule later named penicillin.  Afterwards, other antibiotics were found to be produced by other microorganisms, such as soil bacteria.  Soil has long been recognized in folk medicine as a cure for infections.

The antibiotics produced by these microorganisms serve them as a defense against attack by other microorganisms.  Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics.  This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell.  Unfortunately for human health care, the organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well.  Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have, to our misfortune, succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics.

The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner qualifies as evolution only in the sense that it is an adaptive hereditary change.  It is an example only of Evolution B.  It is not the type of evolution that can make a baboon out of a bacterium.  The genetic change is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution A.  The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacteriums genome, they must add new information to the biocosm.  The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species.

It turns out, however, that a microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide, and this is the kind of example Max presented.  Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way.  But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT.  The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule.  This change in the surface of the microorganisms ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function.  It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information.  The main point is that Evolution A cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are.  Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity.

In the final paragraph of my original critique, I said the following: 

The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed.  No random mutations that could represent the mutations required by NDT that have been examined on the molecular level have added any information.  The question I address is:  Are the mutations that have been observed the kind the theory needs for support?  The answer turns out to be NO!  Many have lost information.  To support NDT one would have to show many examples of random mutations that add information.  Unless the aggregate results of the genetic experiments performed until now is a grossly biased sample, we can safely dismiss Neo-Darwinian theory as an explanation of how life developed from a single simple source. 
Max: You cite the fact that some bacteria grown under selective pressure of this antibiotic become resistant through a mutation that degrades the molecular match with the antibiotic molecule representing a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information.  Some streptomycin resistance mutations do, as you point out, reflect mutations of the ribosomal protein S12 which cause loss of binding of this antibiotic, which you interpret as loss of information.  However, you ignore other mutations of this protein that do not lead to loss of antibiotic binding (e.g.  Timms et al., Mol Gen Genet 232:89, 1992).  According to your formulation, these mutations would not represent a loss of information, yet they are represent natural mutations that are adaptive under conditions of exposure to streptomycin.  Would you accept that this kind of mutation is a good model for an adaptive evolutionary change consistent with Neo-Darwinian Theory?

Spetner: You misunderstood the paper by Timms et al., which you cited.  All of the adaptive mutations reported in that paper show reduced binding of the streptomycin molecule.  The 12 adaptive mutations reported in the S12 protein fall into two categories.  There was no example of what you claimed I ignored.  Five of those mutants are designated as streptomycin resistant (Smr), and seven are designated as streptomycin dependent (Smd).  All 12 of them, in the words of the authors reduce the affinity of the ribosome for streptomycin.  Perhaps you would like to point out to me where in that paper they mention mutations in S12 do not lead to reduced binding, and which you claim I have ignored.

Max: My citation of this paper was based on its description of the streptomycin-dependent mutants, which require streptomycin for growth as a result of mutations in the S12 protein.  Clearly such mutants have not lost streptomycin binding completely; however it is possible that they have reduced binding affinity, so that according to your criteria-which I do not accept as valid-they might have lost information.  However, your whole argument about streptomycin seems to be based on the misconception that streptomycin works by binding to the S12 protein.  In fact, as mentioned in the Timms paper, the binding is primarily to the 16S ribosomal RNA, not to S12, and the mutations in the S12 protein function to decrease streptomycin by stabilizing a specific conformation of the 16S rRNA that does not bind streptomycin well (Carter et al., Nature 407:  340, 2000; Moazed & Noller, Nature.  327:389, 1987; Gravel et al., Biochemistry.  26:6227, 1987; Montandon et al, EMBO J.  5:3705, 1986; Pinard et al, FASEB J.  7:173, 1993; Melancon et al., Nucleic Acids Res.  16:9631, 1988).
[LMS:  I DONT KNOW HOW MAX CAN CLAIM THAT MY WHOLE ARGUMENT IS BASED ON A MISCONCEPTION.  HE IS THE ONE THAT INITIALLY WROTE OF STREPTOMYCIN BINDING TO THE S12 PROTEIN.  HE SAID MOST S12 SEQUENCES BIND STREPTOMYCIN.  (SEE BELOW.) IF THERE IS ANY MISCONCEPTION, IT IS HIS.  I JUST WENT ALONG WITH HIM IN THAT BECAUSE I DONT THINK THE ARGUMENT HINGES ON EXACTLY WHERE THE BINDING SITE IS.  EXACTLY IN WHICH PROTEIN OF THE RIBOSOME THE BINDING TAKES PLACE IS IRRELEVANT TO THE ARGUMENT.] 
A mutation that causes a specific conformational change in another molecule that in turn prevents efficient binding of a third molecule does not necessarily suggest a loss of information to me, even if your protein information metric were valid.
[LMS:  IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT A SPECIFIC CONFORMATIONAL CHANGE PREVENTS EFFICIENT BINDING.  ITS THE OTHER WAY AROUND.  A SPECIFIC CONFORMATION IS REQUIRED FOR EFFICIENT BINDING.  CHANGE THAT CONFORMATION AND THE EFFICIENCY OF BINDING IS LOST (OR THERE MAY BE NO BINDING AT ALL).  THE LOSS OF SPECIFICITY IS A LOSS OF INFORMATION.  THE ABOVE STATEMENTS OF MAX SHOW THAT HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE RELATIONSHIP OF SPECIFICITY TO INFORMATION, AND THAT POINT IS PERHAPS THE SOURCE OF MUCH OF HIS DIFFICULTY.]

There are several other ways of considering how mutations affect information.  In my view, even if all S12 mutations that caused streptomycin resistance abolished antibiotic binding, a reasonable argument could still be made that such mutations represent a gain of information rather than a loss.  In the universe of all the possible S12 amino acid sequences that can function in the ribosome, essentially all S12 proteins found in wild-type bacteria (i.e., those grown in the absence of streptomycin) bind to this antibiotic.  The S12 sequences that allow bacterial growth in the presence of streptomycin represent a small subset of the universe of functional S12 sequences.  Therefore by growing bacteria in streptomycin we select for a specific and small subset of possible S12 sequences; thus it might be argued that we have forced a small increase the information content of the genome by narrowing the choice of S12 sequences.

Spetner: The set of S12 proteins that allow bacterial growth in streptomycin (i.e., that do not bind to the antibiotic) form a disparate subset of the universe of S12 proteins.  My intuition tells me that the set that binds (the susceptible set) is smaller, and therefore has a smaller entropy, than the set that does not bind (the resistant set).  Mutations that appear in the presence of the antibiotic convert one subset to the other.  A mutation that transfers the enzyme from a low-entropy set to a higher-entropy set loses information; it does not gain it.

Max: There are many sequences of S12 proteins in a variety of wild type bacteria.  Different species of Gram negative bacteria are commonly sensitive to streptomycin despite variations in S12 sequence; organisms with S12 mutations are very rarely found except under streptomycin selection.  Therefore, MY intuition tells me that most S12 sequences bind streptomycin and that the set of S12 sequences conferring streptomycin resistance is smaller than the set conferring sensitivity.  What supports your intuition that the susceptible set is smaller and therefore has smaller entropy?

[LMS:  MAXS INFERENCE THAT LEADS TO HIS INTUITION IS BASED ON A FLAWED ARGUMENT.  ONE CANNOT CONCLUDE FROM THE RARITY OF BACTERIA WITH S12 MUTATIONS THAT MOST SEQUENCES LEAD TO BONDING.  MOST BACTERIA HAVE THE SAME S12 SEQUENCE.  HE IS CONFUSING THE NUMBER OF ORGANISMS WITH THE NUMBER OF POSSIBLE AMINO-ACID SEQUENCDES.  MY INTUITION ON THIS POINT IS SO STRONGLY SUPPORTED BY THE NATURE OF MOLECULAR BONDING, THAT I AM AMAZED THAT MAXS INTUITION TELLS HIM THE OPPOSITE.  BEFORE I DESCRIBE THE RELEVANT FEATURES OF THE BONDING OF LARGE MOLECULES, LET ME SAY THAT THE BONDING HAS A SPECIFICITY MUCH LIKE THAT OF A KEY IN A LOCK.  THE SET OF KEYS THAT WILL OPEN A PARTICULAR LOCK IS MUCH SMALLER THAN THE SET OF KEYS THAT WILL NOT OPEN IT, AND THEREFORE, THE FORMER SET HAS A LOWER ENTROPY THAN THE LATTER SET.  THE KEY-LOCK ANALOGY IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING WELL-UNDERSTOOD MECHANISM FOR BONDING BETWEEN LARGE MOLECULES.  

NONCOVALENT BONDS, SUCH AS HYDROGEN BONDS, VAN DER WAALS ATTRACTIONS, AND IONIC BONDS ARE MUCH WEAKER THAN COVALENT BONDS, AND IT IS THEY THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR BINDING BETWEEN LARGE MOLECULES SUCH A PROTEINS.  IF THE CONFORMATIONAL SHAPES OF TWO MOLECULES DO NOT MATCH WELL, THEN NO MORE THAN A FEW SUCH BONDS CAN FORM BETWEEN THEM.  SINCE THESE BONDS ARE WEAK, THE FEW BONDS THAT FORM ARE EASILY BROKEN BY THERMAL MOTION, AND WE SAY THE MOLECULES DO NOT BIND TO EACH OTHER.  IF, HOWEVER, THE SHAPES OF TWO MOLECULES CONFORM TO EACH OTHER OVER A LARGE AREA, THEN MANY NONCOVALENT BONDS CAN FORM.  THE SUM TOTAL OF THESE MANY BONDS IS STRONG ENOUGH TO RESIST THE DISRUPTING FORCES OF THERMAL MOTION, AND WE SAY THE MOLECULES BIND TO EACH OTHER.  SINCE THE SHAPES OF LARGE MOLECULES ARE IRREGULAR, IT IS UNLIKELY THAT THE SHAPES OF TWO MOLECULES CHOSEN AT RANDOM WILL MATCH EACH OTHER OVER A WIDE AREA.  THEREFORE, IT IS ELEMENTARY THAT THE NUMBER OF DIFFERENT MOLECULES THAT FORM A GOOD MATCH TO ANY GIVEN MOLECULE IS MUCH SMALLER THAN THE NUMBER THAT FORM A POOR MATCH.] 

However, I want to make it clear that I dont buy your interpretation of certain specific mutations as reflecting a loss of information.  You state that the information content of an enzyme is the sum of many parts, among which are:  level of catalytic activity, specificity with respect to the substrate, strength [and specificity] of binding to cell structure, [and] specificity of the amino-acid sequence devoted to specifying the enzyme for degradation.  This formulation is vague, non-quantitative, not supported by clear logic, not accepted in the scientific literature (to the best of my knowledge; please educate me if I am wrong), and in my view not useful.

Spetner: Ed, the level of your argument here is quite low.  You have seen this entire section (above), and you took from the introduction my list of what characteristics can contribute to the information content of an enzyme and criticized it for being non-quantitative (followed by other pejorative epithets).  Is that supposed to be some sort of debating tactic?  In any case, the tactic is out of place in this discussion.  From the context of what I wrote, it should have been clear to you that this partial list of characteristics that can contribute to the information in an enzyme was an introduction to my quantitative estimate of one of the characteristics of specificity of an enzyme.  After I showed how one might calculate the information related to a type of specificity, I showed how a mutation that appeared to enhance activity on a new substrate actually reduced the information by about 50%.

It is elementary that specificity translates into information and vice versa.  Have you ever played 20 questions?  With the YES/NO answers to 20 judicious questions, one can discover a previously-chosen number between 1 and a million.  If the questions are well chosen, those YES/NO answers can be worth one bit of information each, and 20 bits can specify one object out of a million.  Twenty bit of information translates to specificity of one part in a million.  Ten bits - to one part in a thousand.

The Zip codes in the US also demonstrate that specificity and information are two sides of the same coin and go hand in hand.  An address in the United States can be completely specified by the nine-digit zip code.  One digit of information will narrow down the address from being anywhere in the United States to being in just a few states.  Thus if the first digit is a 6, the address is located somewhere in Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, or Nebraska.

A second digit of information will add specificity by narrowing down the address further.  A 3, 4, or 5 in the second digit puts the address in Missouri.  A 3 in the second digit puts it in the eastern portion of the state.  Two digits of information are more specific than one.

A third digit of information is still more specific, narrowing down the address even more, making it still more specific.  If the third digit is a 1, the address is specific to St.  Louis and its suburbs.  The next two digits of information pin down the address to within a few blocks.  The remaining 4 digits of information can locate a specific building.  Thus, it is clear that the information contained in the digits of the zip code translate into specificity.

There is no question about it:  SPECIFICITY = INFORMATION.

Not only have I made it clear above that my criterion for gain/loss of information is quantitative, and supported by logic and the conventional understanding of these notions in information theory, I included that section in my first critique of your posting.  You chose not to relate to it at all, and instead you made up the above criticism out of thin air.

Max: In my previous comments about your calculation of the information gain or loss in a mutation I made some criticisms which you called pejorative epithets and which you suggested were some sort of debating tactic or made out of thin air"; but you did not address any of the criticisms substantively, so I will repeat them with more detail in hopes that you will address them. 1. I suggested that your formulation is vague and non-quantitative and not supported by clear logic. You have stated:

Spetner: The information content of an enzyme is the sum of many parts, among which are:  

Level of catalytic activity 
Specificity with respect to the substrate 
Strength of binding to cell structure 
Specificity of binding to cell structure 
Specificity of the amino-acid sequence devoted to specifying the enzyme for degradation


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> I will admit there was more new information then i thought from mutations, but Dr. Spetner cleared that up for me.
> 
> We can go here.....for degradation



I'll get around to responding to your posts in the future.

In the meantime; it's getting damned silly watching you copy and paste other people's material into your posts.

Do you think anyone is actually reading any of this?

Here's a novel idea:  take other people's material, read it, educate yourself on it, then put it into your own words in 150 words or less.

I might be inclined to respond to you if I had the notion that you knew what the fuck "S12 Proteins" were and how they tied into the larger debate.  

I don't know what "S12 Proteins" are either, so I am not going to bastardize another person's academic work to sound smart or try and bury people that don't agree with me in bandwidth.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

geauxtohell said:


> I'll get around to responding to your posts in the future.
> 
> In the meantime; it's getting damned silly watching you copy and paste other people's material into your posts.
> 
> Do you think anyone is actually reading any of this?
> 
> Here's a novel idea:  take other people's material, read it, educate yourself on it, then put it into your own words in 150 words or less.
> 
> I might be inclined to respond to you if I had the notion that you knew what the fuck "S12 Proteins" were and how they tied into the larger debate.


Come now, GTH.  That would take academic integrity and thinking for oneself instead of being an unknowing pawn and vomiting up other people's writings!



Youwerecreated said:


> I will admit there was more new information then i thought from mutations, but Dr. Spetner cleared that up for me.
> 
> We can go here.


As GTH mentioned, C&P other people's dumb work makes you look dumb.  Let's point out some dumb things in his essay!



> My response to this is that I have shown in my book that mutations leading to antibiotic resistance fail the test of representing the mutations necessary for evolution.


This doesn't actually say anything.  Or make sense.  "Fail the test?"  What test?



> All antibiotics are derived from microorganisms.


Completely false.



> Recall the story of the serendipitous discovery of penicillin by Alexander Fleming in 1928, when he noticed that his plate of Staphylococcus bacteria was clear in the vicinity of a bread-mold contaminant.


Yes, it was true in 1928, but in the last EIGHTY YEARS have gone on to develop manufactured antibiotics.  Once again, dumb creationists use outdated materials to mislead readers.  Dishonesty seems to not apply to good Christian morals, eh?



> The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner qualifies as evolution only in the sense that it is an adaptive hereditary change.  It is an example only of Evolution B.


This is a made up term.  "Evolution B" does not exist.  It's bad enough that you are incapable of discerning micro and macro evolution on the genetic level, so even more arbitrary made up jargon is not necessary.  The concept of one bacteria acquiring genetic material from another has a name: conjugation.  Note how that wikipedia article doesn't have the word evolution anywhere on it.  



> It is not the type of evolution that can make a baboon out of a bacterium.


No type of evolution can make a baboon out of a bacterium.  This is dumb. 



> The genetic change is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution A.  The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacteriums genome, they must add new information to the biocosm.


Evolution A also doesn't exist.  The author is correct in stating that evolution demands new information be "added" in the bacteria genome.  *In fact that is exactly what happens*, as I had previously described, as every single biology major in the world has seen first hand.



> *It turns out, however, that a microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide*.  Streptomycin is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way.


Huh it's almost as if *he just acknowledged that a bacteria can evolve in the exact same point I've made previously. *



> But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT.


Yay! Another made up term without explanation!  So he admits evolution occurs, but then says it doesn't count because it doesn't work for his made up term which he doesn't explain.  Fantastic!



> Max: You cite the fact that some bacteria grown under selective pressure of this antibiotic become resistant through a mutation that degrades the molecular match with the antibiotic molecule representing a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information.


Loss of specificity does not necessitate a loss of information.  This is dumb.  If I take your house key and attach a dictionary to the end of it, it has acquired a ton of information even though it is no longer specific to opening your front door. 

Furthermore, the author singles out that one antibiotic for a reason.  If he acknowledged any other antibiotic resistance mechanisms, his point would COMPLETELY fall apart.  Some mechanisms, for example, work by increasing the export of antibiotic, like bailing water out of a sinking ship. It's not only new information but a gain of function. 



The amusing parts near the beginning ran out, as the author turned towards a written temper tantrum.  Nonetheless, I've already demonstrated that his entire premise consists of made up terms, undefined terms, and also agrees with evolution.

At the end of the day, this goes to show that NEW INFORMATION is still attained from ISOLATED BACTERIA, supporting evolution. This is "microevolution" as you define it.  Now you're going against your own claim and the small amount of sense you initially presented?


----------



## FA_Q2

Youwerecreated said:


> So which theory do you believe in ?
> 
> No, just the extreme secularlist and the atheist want to say there is no creator.
> 
> I don't ignore evidence,i just disagree with the explanations from evolutionist and accept creationists explanations of that same evidence.
> 
> Yes, science has brought us many good things.
> 
> I have not seen any evidence to suggest macroevolution plenty to show microevolution.
> 
> If science don't need a Creator = God then they need to explain how non-living matter became living organisms. If you can't explain the beginning of life ,why do you think you can explain the process of life.
> 
> Since the theory is built on assumptions, a couple of wrong assumptions, and of course the theory is wrong.


Again, EVOLUTION DOES NOT SAY THERE IS NO CREATOR.  Stop falling back to that point as it does not exist.  You HAVE ignored the evidence as it CLEARLY points toward common ancestry and evolutionary methods of modern creatures existing.  You say you simply see a different answer for that evidence but this is a perfect example of FORCING the evidence to fit the theory in place of making a theory that fits the evidence.  Notwithstanding that you have failed to show how ANY of this fits into ID anyway.  Yes, HERE you have ignored the evidence and failed to post anything that shows a coherent scientific theory.  

1.  You still have failed to separate micro and macro evolution and Geauxtohell has very clearly called you out on this point.  Ignoring it does not make your point, it destroys it.

2.  Science does not need to explain abiogenesis.  I clearly stated the reason in my last post but again you feel that it is fine to ignore it.  Here it is again - EVOLUTION IS A THEORY ON HOW THINGS ARE CHANGING AND DEVELOPING FROM PREVIOUS FORMS.  IT DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE BEGINING.  IN SCIENCE, I DON'T KNOW IS A VALID ANSWER.  Is it so damn hard to accept I don't know.  You thing you know EVERYTHING?  Realize that people did not understand lightning at one time and so attributed the phenomenon to Thor and Zeus throwing bolts down from the mountains.  Today, we realize the enormity of that bullshit.  Today we have matured enough to not need an explination for EVERYTHING right NOW.

3.  Assumptions?  What assumptions?


----------



## Old Rocks

One very important point here.

There is no evidence that a Diety exists. None, nada, zip. So you are stating that something that there is no evidence for created everything as it is, in the face of evidence from every branch of science that evolution occured, is occuring at present, and will occur as long as life exists. We have the evidence in the rocks of this planet that life started out very simple and progressed to where it is today.

Note that I did not state that a Diety does not exist, but that there is no evidence for the existance of a Diety. If that is too nuanced for you, I suggest the conversation cease at this point.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know what the first life evolved from but you have faith that it did and evolution explains how all life came to exist?
> 
> The question mark is my way of asking what your saying instead of trying to put words in your mouth
> 
> 
> 
> If that is your method of asking a question, I recommend you re-evaluate your communication methods.  There's a difference between asking a question a question like "What do you think about ABC?" compared to "You don't know A but you must believe B?" But I thank you for clarifying afterwards that it is a question, as it was originally interpreted as an assertion.
> 
> Regarding the question itself: no.  Religion has no middle ground.  Everything MUST be "known" or explained for the religion to work out.  Science has an alternate: not knowing.  The options in science are not "it's definitely true" or "it's faith that it's true."  It's either true, or not fully supported.  So even though there is a good working idea of how things came to be, the fact still remains that there is not compelling reproducible evidence that really proves it.  That does NOT mean I have faith that the working idea is correct, since it has not been proven to be correct. It is what it is: unknown for the time being.  And that's ok in science, but not religion.
> 
> REGARDLESS, evolution is a separate process, just as learning how to drive is a separate knowledge set from building a car.  It doesn't matter how you get a car, whether you buy it, or your parents give it to you, or you steal it: you still know how to drive it. So too does evolution drive the change in life over time, REGARDLESS of where the life came from.
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question, once again, is what did the first life on earth evolve from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are describing is abiogenesis, not evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you have to explain how whale fossils are found in inland places such as Michigan and the other inland places that is to far from the ocean. You also have to explain sea shells found on mountain tops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that's not necessary.
> 
> You seem to continually skip around from topic to topic.  Everytime you're proven wrong in one area, you leave it pretending it doesn't exist, to move onto your next poor excuse or copied and pasted outdated garbage. Why don't you pick one and stick to it?
> 
> Here are a few topic suggestions:
> 
> The "new information" you said can never come about and I proved you wrong about
> How you don't understand microevolution, let alone how it genetically differs from macroevolution
> What genetics tells us about evolution
> How bacteria gain antibiotic resistance without exogenous genetic information
> 
> Wait wait.  You pick a topic.  You generally lack the integrity to see it through to the end, but try your hardest.
Click to expand...


You don't believe in abiogenesis do you ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will admit there was more new information then i thought from mutations, but Dr. Spetner cleared that up for me.
> 
> We can go here.....for degradation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll get around to responding to your posts in the future.
> 
> In the meantime; it's getting damned silly watching you copy and paste other people's material into your posts.
> 
> Do you think anyone is actually reading any of this?
> 
> Here's a novel idea:  take other people's material, read it, educate yourself on it, then put it into your own words in 150 words or less.
> 
> I might be inclined to respond to you if I had the notion that you knew what the fuck "S12 Proteins" were and how they tied into the larger debate.
> 
> I don't know what "S12 Proteins" are either, so I am not going to bastardize another person's academic work to sound smart or try and bury people that don't agree with me in bandwidth.
Click to expand...


First thing is, there are many things i am still learning as well. I'm not here trying to make a mockery of someone elses work. I am just showing there is two sides of the argument and there is nothing set in stone from your side. If evolutionist are really in search of truth and not trying to prove an ideology, then there is more info to consider then blindly being spoonfed theories with holes in it.

That is what i enjoy about both sides is they do work and make it available to the public that don't make these issues our lifes work. Without the creationist there would have been no way for me to have these discussions. I enjoy these give and takes from both sides,but it would not be possible without guys like Dr. Max and Dr. Spetner making their work and give and take available.

You guys accuse me of being underhanded and dishonest ,for what ? posting critiques of work done that contains obvious flaws. How can you call it science unless you truly question all explanations and assumptions and put it to the test. You guys do the same thing you come here and you present what you have learned whether from a book or by actual testing.

Even though Dr.Max and Dr. Spetrner disagree on things they still have respect for each other,Dr. Max showed that by admitting what Dr.Spetner brought up was interesting and said that Dr. Spetner is a good scientist. The thing is this is going on in all fields of science. But the important question is if it turns out there is no way for mutations to be the enigine of macroevolution then what ? because the fossil record failed to produce proof.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll get around to responding to your posts in the future.
> 
> In the meantime; it's getting damned silly watching you copy and paste other people's material into your posts.
> 
> Do you think anyone is actually reading any of this?
> 
> Here's a novel idea:  take other people's material, read it, educate yourself on it, then put it into your own words in 150 words or less.
> 
> I might be inclined to respond to you if I had the notion that you knew what the fuck "S12 Proteins" were and how they tied into the larger debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Come now, GTH.  That would take academic integrity and thinking for oneself instead of being an unknowing pawn and vomiting up other people's writings!
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will admit there was more new information then i thought from mutations, but Dr. Spetner cleared that up for me.
> 
> We can go here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As GTH mentioned, C&P other people's dumb work makes you look dumb.  Let's point out some dumb things in his essay!
> 
> 
> This doesn't actually say anything.  Or make sense.  "Fail the test?"  What test?
> 
> 
> Completely false.
> 
> 
> Yes, it was true in 1928, but in the last EIGHTY YEARS have gone on to develop manufactured antibiotics.  Once again, dumb creationists use outdated materials to mislead readers.  Dishonesty seems to not apply to good Christian morals, eh?
> 
> 
> This is a made up term.  "Evolution B" does not exist.  It's bad enough that you are incapable of discerning micro and macro evolution on the genetic level, so even more arbitrary made up jargon is not necessary.  The concept of one bacteria acquiring genetic material from another has a name: conjugation.  Note how that wikipedia article doesn't have the word evolution anywhere on it.
> 
> 
> No type of evolution can make a baboon out of a bacterium.  This is dumb.
> 
> 
> Evolution A also doesn't exist.  The author is correct in stating that evolution demands new information be "added" in the bacteria genome.  *In fact that is exactly what happens*, as I had previously described, as every single biology major in the world has seen first hand.
> 
> 
> Huh it's almost as if *he just acknowledged that a bacteria can evolve in the exact same point I've made previously. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yay! Another made up term without explanation!  So he admits evolution occurs, but then says it doesn't count because it doesn't work for his made up term which he doesn't explain.  Fantastic!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Max: You cite the fact that some bacteria grown under selective pressure of this antibiotic become resistant through a mutation that &#8220;degrades the molecular match with the antibiotic molecule&#8221; representing &#8220;a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information.&#8221;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Loss of specificity does not necessitate a loss of information.  This is dumb.  If I take your house key and attach a dictionary to the end of it, it has acquired a ton of information even though it is no longer specific to opening your front door.
> 
> Furthermore, the author singles out that one antibiotic for a reason.  If he acknowledged any other antibiotic resistance mechanisms, his point would COMPLETELY fall apart.  Some mechanisms, for example, work by increasing the export of antibiotic, like bailing water out of a sinking ship. It's not only new information but a gain of function.
> 
> 
> 
> The amusing parts near the beginning ran out, as the author turned towards a written temper tantrum.  Nonetheless, I've already demonstrated that his entire premise consists of made up terms, undefined terms, and also agrees with evolution.
> 
> At the end of the day, this goes to show that NEW INFORMATION is still attained from ISOLATED BACTERIA, supporting evolution. This is "microevolution" as you define it.  Now you're going against your own claim and the small amount of sense you initially presented?
Click to expand...


Get his book where she shows all the information.

Look i know you're disappointed by his comments,and hate the idea someone might know a little more then what you're taught but don't be such a tool.

You keep claiming everyone should have ideas of their own and should be able to reason the evidence on their own. So quit grandstanding, and produce these ideas that you have that was not a product of someone elses work.

You come across as a bitter person filled with hate and contempt for anyone who disagrees with you. Look with my many years on this planet ,i have found there is always someone bigger, tougher,and more intelligent then myself but i am humble enough to accept that fact .why don't you try it.

Learning is fun, but not through arrogance.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FA_Q2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So which theory do you believe in ?
> 
> No, just the extreme secularlist and the atheist want to say there is no creator.
> 
> I don't ignore evidence,i just disagree with the explanations from evolutionist and accept creationists explanations of that same evidence.
> 
> Yes, science has brought us many good things.
> 
> I have not seen any evidence to suggest macroevolution plenty to show microevolution.
> 
> If science don't need a Creator = God then they need to explain how non-living matter became living organisms. If you can't explain the beginning of life ,why do you think you can explain the process of life.
> 
> Since the theory is built on assumptions, a couple of wrong assumptions, and of course the theory is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, EVOLUTION DOES NOT SAY THERE IS NO CREATOR.  Stop falling back to that point as it does not exist.  You HAVE ignored the evidence as it CLEARLY points toward common ancestry and evolutionary methods of modern creatures existing.  You say you simply see a different answer for that evidence but this is a perfect example of FORCING the evidence to fit the theory in place of making a theory that fits the evidence.  Notwithstanding that you have failed to show how ANY of this fits into ID anyway.  Yes, HERE you have ignored the evidence and failed to post anything that shows a coherent scientific theory.
> 
> 1.  You still have failed to separate micro and macro evolution and Geauxtohell has very clearly called you out on this point.  Ignoring it does not make your point, it destroys it.
> 
> 2.  Science does not need to explain abiogenesis.  I clearly stated the reason in my last post but again you feel that it is fine to ignore it.  Here it is again - EVOLUTION IS A THEORY ON HOW THINGS ARE CHANGING AND DEVELOPING FROM PREVIOUS FORMS.  IT DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE BEGINING.  IN SCIENCE, I DON'T KNOW IS A VALID ANSWER.  Is it so damn hard to accept I don't know.  You thing you know EVERYTHING?  Realize that people did not understand lightning at one time and so attributed the phenomenon to Thor and Zeus throwing bolts down from the mountains.  Today, we realize the enormity of that bullshit.  Today we have matured enough to not need an explination for EVERYTHING right NOW.
> 
> 3.  Assumptions?  What assumptions?
Click to expand...


Assumptions such as mutations being the engine that drives macroevolution.

Or in other words ,the assumption that Microevolution leads to Macroevolution.

Now can you or Geauxtohell prove what Dr.Spetner said concerning Microevolution and Macroevolution wrong ? How did Geauxtohell destroy the facts ?

Dr. Spetner in his own words, I'll add from Dr. Max as well.

fter I posted my critique of Edward E. Max&#8217;s essay, Max posted our dialogue with additional comments to my responses.  The order of topics in his posting does not correspond exactly to the order of my posting, but both postings are fairly accurate representations of our dialogue.  The following is my latest response (23 May 2001) in a form that reproduces his posting into which I have inserted my comments.  I have identified each of our statements as he has reproduced them by putting our names in boldface followed by a colon.  My new comments are inserted into the text in small caps inside square brackets and identified by "LMS". 

Introduction
Spetner: I am writing this essay in response to a request from Edward E.  Max to comment on his posting The Evolution of Improved Fitness (updated July 12 1999).  His essay is an attempt to defend evolutionary theory against attacks by creationists.  Although Max scored some points against some alleged creationist arguments, he failed to defend Darwinian evolution against my attack on it in my book Not By Chance.  He did not mention my book in his posting, but he referred to my book in his request for my comments.  I shall also take this opportunity to clarify some issues in my book about which some readers have written me.

The principle message of evolution is that all life descended with modification from a putative single primitive source.  I call this the grand sweep of evolution.  The mechanism offered for the process of modification is basically the Darwinian one of a long series of steps of random variation, each followed by natural selection.  The variation is generally understood today to be random mutations in the DNA.

That primitive source of life is assumed to be sufficiently simple that it could have arisen from nonliving material by chance.  There is no theory today that can account for such an event, but I shall not address that issue here.  That is for another place and another time.  What is relevant to this discussion is that the requirement that life arose spontaneously sets, at the very least, a stringent upper limit on the complexity and information content of the putative first organism that could reproduce itself, and thus serve as a vehicle from which to launch Darwinian evolution.  The issue I address here is the alleged development of all life by the Neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection, starting from a sufficiently simple beginning.

Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story.  No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work.  Most evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so.  (Those few evolutionists who hold that macroevolution is really different from microevolution have changed their story several times since they first came out with it, and their mechanism is so fuzzy that I cannot tell what it is.  John Maynard Smith seems to be of a similar opinion.)

For the grand process of evolution to work, long sequences of &#8220;beneficial&#8221; mutations must be possible, each building on the previous one and conferring a selective advantage on the organism.  The process must be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of life today.  There must be a long series of possible mutations, each of which conferring a selective advantage on the organism so that natural selection can make it take over the population.  Moreover, there must be not just one, but a great many such series.

The chain must be continuous in that at each stage a change of a single base pair somewhere in the genome can lead to a more adaptive organism in some environmental context.  That is, it should be possible to continue to climb an &#8220;adaptive&#8221; hill, one base change after another, without getting hung up on a local adaptive maximum.  No one has ever shown this to be possible.

Now one might say that if evolution were hung up on a local Maximum, a large genetic change like a recombination or a transposition could bring it to another higher peak.  Large adaptive changes are, however, highly improbable.  They are orders of magnitude less probable than getting an adaptive change with a single nucleotide substitution, which is itself improbable.  No one has shown this to be possible either.

Moreover, as I have noted in my book, the large mutations such as recombinations and transpositions are mediated by special enzymes and are executed with precision - not the sort of doings one would expect of events that were supposed to be the products of chance.  Evolutionists chose the mechanism of randomness, by the way, because we can&#8217;t think of any other way beneficial mutations might occur in the absence of a law that might govern them.  Genetic rearrangements may not be really random at all.  They do not seem to qualify as the random mutations Neo-Darwinists can invoke whenever needed to escape from a local adaptive Maximum.

Evolutionists can argue, and rightly so, that we have no way of observing long series of mutations, since our observation time is limited to a relatively short interval.  Our genetic observations over the past 100 years are more like a snapshot of evolution rather than a representative interval in which we can search for the required long series of changes.  But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist. 

Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations.  And I agree with your further comment that &#8220;we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.&#8221;  But you go on to say that &#8220;our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.&#8221;  An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur. 

Spetner: Now Ed, that&#8217;s ridiculous!  Those two statements are not symmetrical.  I don&#8217;t have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT.  You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist.  You are obliged to show an existence.  I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
[LMS:  IN MAX&#8217;S POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE.  I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]

Max: In the absence of conclusive data defining such a series, if we want to distinguish between various hypotheses to explain the origin of species we must rely on other data, such as from various laboratory model systems that show adaptations in short enough timeframes that we can observe them.  Then we must extrapolate as best we can the information learned from these model systems to the questions of species origins.  This extrapolation from laboratory model systems to systems unobservable in the laboratory is the method of science common to medicine, astronomy, chemistry, meteorology, physics, etc.

I think there is some semantic confusion here about the word &#8220;justification&#8221; in Spetner&#8217;s sentence &#8220;But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.&#8221;  He is correct that acceptance of the NDT implies the belief that a series of successive mutations (including duplications and translocations) occurred in the evolution of an ancient primitive genome into the complex genome of a modern species.  Because we can access only genomes of modern (or very recent) species, we can never obtain the direct evidence&#8212;i.e., a complete list of those mutations&#8212;that some anti-evolutionists (e.g.  Behe) seem to think would be necessary to support NDT.
[LMS:  MAX&#8217;S STATEMENT HERE IS A DISTORTION OF MY ARGUMENT INTO AN EXTREME POSITION.  I NEITHER SAID NOR IMPLIED THAT EVOLUTIONISTS MUST &#8220;OBTAIN...A COMPLETE LIST OF THOSE MUTATIONS&#8221; REQUIRED FOR NDT.  I DO MAINTAIN, HOWEVER, THAT THEY SHOULD AT LEAST ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SHOWING THAT NDT IS REASONABLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.  THEY HAVE NOT DONE THAT.  THE MECHANISM OF NDT CONSISTS OF TWO BASIC STEPS.  AN ADAPTIVE MUTATION MUST BE ACHIEVED, AND THEN NATURAL SELECTION MUST OPERATE TO ENABLE IT TO TAKE OVER THE POPULATION.  EVOLUTIONISTS ARE OBLIGATED TO SHOW THAT BOTH THESE STEPS ARE REASONABLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE IF THEY ARE TO MAKE A CASE FOR NDT.  MOST OF THEIR EFFORTS ALONG THESE LINES HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO ARGUING FOR NATURAL SELECTION.  THEY USUALLY DO NOT DEAL WITH THE PROBABILITY OF ACHIEVING AN ADAPTIVE MUTATION.  THEY MERELY ASSUME ONE WILL BE AVAILABLE WHENEVER IT IS NEEDED.]

In the absence of such direct evidence, it seems pointless to argue which side is &#8220;obliged&#8221; to provide what indirect evidence; certainly neither side can hope for anything close to &#8220;proof.&#8221;  Although Spetner denies that he is &#8220;obliged to prove a non-existence&#8221; of such a chain of mutations, his whole effort in the correspondence seems to be directed to just that aim.  Evolutionists have the job of defending the reasonableness of such a series of mutations.  I believe that Spetner would agree with this.
[LMS:  RIGHT.  EVOLUTIONISTS DO HAVE THAT JOB AS AN OBLIGATION, AND THEY HAVE FAILED TO FULFILL IT.  I AM NOT OBLIGED TO PROVE A NON-EXISTENCE.  BUT IN MY BOOK, I HAVE MADE A GOOD CASE FOR THE UNREASONABLENESS OF THE EVOLUTIONISTS&#8217; TACIT ASSUMPTIONS OF THE UNIVERSAL AVAILABILITY OF ADAPTIVE MUTATIONS, AND I HAVE GIVEN SOME OF THOSE ARGUMENTS IN THIS DIALOGUE.]

Spetner: But the argument against Darwinian theory is considerably stronger than that.  The theory requires there be a vast number of possible point mutations which, coupled with natural selection, can produce the evolutionary advances that could produce the grand sweep of evolution.  Because there must be a large number of qualifying mutations, at least a few of them should have been observed in some of the many genetics laboratories around the world.  All the mutations in these long series must not only confer selective advantage on the organism but they must, on the average, also contribute to the information, or complexity, increase that surely distinguishes present-day life from the putative primitive organism. 

These mutations must have whatever characteristics are necessary for them to serve as elements of the grand sweep of evolution.  Thus, for a mutation to qualify as a representative member of the required multitude of long series that are supposed to produce evolution, it must bring new information not just to the genome of the organism, but the information must be new to the entire biocosm.  The horizontal transfer of a gene from one species to another is not information new to the biocosm.  To show evolution in action, one must at least demonstrate examples of a mutation that can serve as a prototype of those required by the theory.  Such a mutation must be one that could be a contributing member of a series of mutations that could lead to the vast increase in information required by the theory.  Thus, for example, a mutation that disables a repressor gene causing a constitutive synthesis of an enzyme might be advantageous to an organism under special circumstances, but the disabling of a gene does not represent the mutations required by the theory.

Max devotes a good portion of his essay to refuting what he calls the &#8220;creationist&#8221; argument against evolution.  Although some opponents of evolutionary theory may have advanced the arguments he attacks, those arguments are in large measure straw men that Max busies himself with refuting.  If some creationists have claimed that all mutations are harmful, they would be wrong, but Max&#8217;s observation that there are mutations that are beneficial, while true, is hardly a telling argument for evolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

You guys should read the reviews on Dr. Spetner's book "Not by chance"at amazon. It's amazing the crowd reading and responding to his book.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The true problem is people who believe in a creator come from the view "God did it" and evolutionist come from a worldly view that "God didn't do it"  and because you can't explain God and he has not revealed himself to you,you turn to a natural process. You just can't admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it's because, if you don't believe in evolution, you have to explain why you don't find trilobite fossils in the same geological strata as dolphin fossils.  The fossil record shows evolution over time.  IMO, the only other explanation from the creatioist/ID perspective is that God messes with our minds.  Is that what you'd really have us believe?   I think you need to lay out exactly how the fossil record came about, if evolution wasn't the driving force before we can consider any of your other points valid..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you have to explain how whale fossils are found in inland places such as Michigan and the other inland places that is to far from the ocean. You also have to explain sea shells found on mountain tops.
> 
> The strata in the grand canyon disagrees with your views as well.
> 
> Oh this is where you will turn to plate tectonics as an explanation.
> 
> I don't say plate tectonics did not happen, i just think it happened during the global flood.
Click to expand...


Why should we answer your questions, if you won't answer ours and answer your own for us?  I'll speak for myself, please.  You don't even have to use plate tectonics to explain why whales appear in Michigan, the central US used to be an inland sea.  That still doesn't address why you don't find trilobites and dolphins in the same strata.  Care to man-up and tackle that question, instead of tap-dancing around it?


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it's because, if you don't believe in evolution, you have to explain why you don't find trilobite fossils in the same geological strata as dolphin fossils.  The fossil record shows evolution over time.  IMO, the only other explanation from the creatioist/ID perspective is that God messes with our minds.  Is that what you'd really have us believe?   I think you need to lay out exactly how the fossil record came about, if evolution wasn't the driving force before we can consider any of your other points valid..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you have to explain how whale fossils are found in inland places such as Michigan and the other inland places that is to far from the ocean. You also have to explain sea shells found on mountain tops.
> 
> The strata in the grand canyon disagrees with your views as well.
> 
> Oh this is where you will turn to plate tectonics as an explanation.
> 
> I don't say plate tectonics did not happen, i just think it happened during the global flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should we answer your questions, if you won't answer ours and answer your own for us?  I'll speak for myself, please.  You don't even have to use plate tectonics to explain why whales appear in Michigan, the central US used to be an inland sea.  That still doesn't address why you don't find trilobites and dolphins in the same strata.  Care to man-up and tackle that question, instead of tap-dancing around it?
Click to expand...


I have no idea.

I would say a global flood that may have caused plate tectonics was a very catastrophic ordeal. No telling what evidence it would have produced roughly 5,200 years ago.

What is your view on polystrate trees ?

Interesting video here on Grand Canyon evidence.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aNlb3lFhFM&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> First thing is, there are many things i am still learning as well. I'm not here trying to make a mockery of someone elses work. I am just showing there is two sides of the argument and there is nothing set in stone from your side. If evolutionist are really in search of truth and not trying to prove an ideology, then there is more info to consider then blindly being spoonfed theories with holes in it.


You keep saying this, but you have yet to actually support it.  Now only are you unable to show where scientists refuse to consider any new ideas, but you can't even point to any new evidence or produce any explanation of that evidence yourself. So, no your point still sucks.



Youwerecreated said:


> That is what i enjoy about both sides is they do work and make it available to the public that don't make these issues our lifes work. Without the creationist there would have been no way for me to have these discussions. I enjoy these give and takes from both sides,but it would not be possible without guys like Dr. Max and Dr. Spetner making their work and give and take available.


Your problem is that you equate the sides as equal but opposite.  They're not.  Again, one side produced peer reviewed and scrutinized works where evidence does not refute their conclusions.  The other posts opinions to blogs, often times making things up entirely, or using misleading or inaccurate remarks.  If a creationist said "that point on evolution is wrong because the bill cosby particle was found in bacteria, thus proving them wrong," you'd not only blindly believe it because you lack education to realize things are completely fabricated, but you'd find it an equal point compared to evidence based science.  Even in the discussion you just pointed out, Dr. Spetner isn't even a biologist, and he still believes in evolution.  



Youwerecreated said:


> You guys accuse me of being underhanded and dishonest ,for what ? posting critiques of work done that contains obvious flaws.


No, you misinterpret the scope of why you are underhanded and dishonest.  Propagating misinformation under this ridiculously ignorant guise of "well I don't know better" is immature, certainly.  But what truly makes you underhanded and dishonest is your inability to actually discuss a topic outright.  As soon as the overwhelming evidence corners you, you pretend that part of the conversation never happened and just move on to something else.  It's why you are incapable of answering anyone's questions on this thread.  

Yes, science demands that new avenues are examined.  No, that does not mean made up evidence or information that is proven inaccurate.  It means someone presents the evidence, and people like you or I come up with ways to explain the evidence. I have offered you that opportunity in this thread countless time, and you turn away from it without fail.  THAT is what makes you underhanded and dishonest: pretending the evidence doesn't exist.  



Youwerecreated said:


> Even though Dr.Max and Dr. Spetrner disagree on things they still have respect for each other,Dr. Max showed that by admitting what Dr.Spetner brought up was interesting and said that Dr. Spetner is a good scientist. The thing is this is going on in all fields of science. But the important question is if it turns out there is no way for mutations to be the enigine of macroevolution then what ? because the fossil record failed to produce proof.


Dr. Spetner still agrees with evolution.  They're quibbling about details and the biologist is still right.  You have lost the opportunity to gain such respect because you repeatedly forgo the academic integrity demanded in such a discussion.  Even in this last paragraph, you return to a topic which we have already proven to be misleading: genetics can single-handedly provide all knowledge needed for evolution, regardless of fossils, and there is no biological difference between microevolution and macroevolution but you continue to insinuate there is.  That's lack of academic integrity, underhandedness, and dishonesty.  If you came here to learn, you're doing a very poor job at it. Let me know if you have questions, or are ready to actually think for yourself and address some of mine.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> Look i know you're disappointed by his comments,and hate the idea someone might know a little more then what you're taught but don't be such a tool.
> 
> You keep claiming everyone should have ideas of their own and should be able to reason the evidence on their own. So quit grandstanding, and produce these ideas that you have that was not a product of someone elses work.
> 
> You come across as a bitter person filled with hate and contempt for anyone who disagrees with you. Look with my many years on this planet ,i have found there is always someone bigger, tougher,and more intelligent then myself but i am humble enough to accept that fact .why don't you try it.
> 
> Learning is fun, but not through arrogance.


Generally when I completely demolish your ill-formed points, you just go to something else.  This time, you decided to make this weak ad hominem response? Perhaps you finally ran out of distracting topics? 

I come across that way because I indulge in squashing ignorance, such as the form you have exhibited here repeatedly.  It amuses me.  

Everyone SHOULD produce ideas of their own with respect to verified reproducible evidence.  I have presented that evidence to you countless times in this thread and you are repeatedly incapable of interpreting it to produce such independent ideas.  No, the evidence does not need to come from your own hands.  You can interpret other people's verified evidence too, and I have done a mix of the two.  But you seem incapable of doing either.  Do you not have a brain of your own or do you just choose not to use it?  You tell me why you avoid the evidence and everyone's questions here.

I think the thing you don't realize is that I have home-field advantage.  Science demands a standard that exceeds the folk stories and tall tales that religion produces.  It demands an academic integrity and honesty which you clearly lack.  It doesn't surprise me that you interpret me as believing I know it all and that no one is smarter than me.  That's not it.  The real issue is that I have that academic integrity.  I know the rules of the game, and I have home-field advantage.  You're coming into our house, and getting pretty heavily beaten around when you don't play by our rules, not because you don't know them, because I've told you how to discuss something academically, but because you continually choose to ignore them.  Your ignorance demands you do so.  It's why people like you are not found to be educated in these areas, as those qualities either prevent people like you from acquiring such education in the first place, or are quickly broken after starting it.

With that being said, I fully acknowledge there are people smarter than me in this world.  But if your authors lack the same academic integrity as you do, they will receive a similar response, and it has nothing to do with who is smarter. The flip side of that is that YOU should take responsibility for the crap you blindly copy and paste, to ensure you are actually propagating smart ideas by people who exhibit honesty.



Youwerecreated said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So which theory do you believe in ?
> 
> No, just the extreme secularlist and the atheist want to say there is no creator.
> 
> I don't ignore evidence,i just disagree with the explanations from evolutionist and accept creationists explanations of that same evidence.
> 
> Yes, science has brought us many good things.
> 
> I have not seen any evidence to suggest macroevolution plenty to show microevolution.
> 
> If science don't need a Creator = God then they need to explain how non-living matter became living organisms. If you can't explain the beginning of life ,why do you think you can explain the process of life.
> 
> Since the theory is built on assumptions, a couple of wrong assumptions, and of course the theory is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, EVOLUTION DOES NOT SAY THERE IS NO CREATOR.  Stop falling back to that point as it does not exist.  You HAVE ignored the evidence as it CLEARLY points toward common ancestry and evolutionary methods of modern creatures existing.  You say you simply see a different answer for that evidence but this is a perfect example of FORCING the evidence to fit the theory in place of making a theory that fits the evidence.  Notwithstanding that you have failed to show how ANY of this fits into ID anyway.  Yes, HERE you have ignored the evidence and failed to post anything that shows a coherent scientific theory.
> 
> 1.  You still have failed to separate micro and macro evolution and Geauxtohell has very clearly called you out on this point.  Ignoring it does not make your point, it destroys it.
> 
> 2.  Science does not need to explain abiogenesis.  I clearly stated the reason in my last post but again you feel that it is fine to ignore it.  Here it is again - EVOLUTION IS A THEORY ON HOW THINGS ARE CHANGING AND DEVELOPING FROM PREVIOUS FORMS.  IT DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE BEGINING.  IN SCIENCE, I DON'T KNOW IS A VALID ANSWER.  Is it so damn hard to accept I don't know.  You thing you know EVERYTHING?  Realize that people did not understand lightning at one time and so attributed the phenomenon to Thor and Zeus throwing bolts down from the mountains.  Today, we realize the enormity of that bullshit.  Today we have matured enough to not need an explination for EVERYTHING right NOW.
> 
> 3.  Assumptions?  What assumptions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Assumptions such as mutations being the engine that drives macroevolution.
> 
> Or in other words ,the assumption that Microevolution leads to Macroevolution.
> 
> Now can you or Geauxtohell prove what Dr.Spetner said concerning Microevolution and Macroevolution wrong ? How did Geauxtohell destroy the facts ?
> 
> Dr. Spetner in his own words, I'll add from Dr. Max as well.
> 
> fter I posted my critique of Edward E. Max&#8217;s essay, Max posted our dialogue with additional comments to my responses.  The order of topics in his posting does not correspond exactly to the order of my posting, but both postings are fairly accurate representations of our dialogue.  The following is my latest response (23 May 2001) in a form that reproduces his posting into which I have inserted my comments.  I have identified each of our statements as he has reproduced them by putting our names in boldface followed by a colon.  My new comments are inserted into the text in small caps inside square brackets and identified by "LMS".
> 
> Introduction
> Spetner: I am writing this essay in response to a request from Edward E.  Max to comment on his posting The Evolution of Improved Fitness (updated July 12 1999).  His essay is an attempt to defend evolutionary theory against attacks by creationists.  Although Max scored some points against some alleged creationist arguments, he failed to defend Darwinian evolution against my attack on it in my book Not By Chance.  He did not mention my book in his posting, but he referred to my book in his request for my comments.  I shall also take this opportunity to clarify some issues in my book about which some readers have written me.
> 
> The principle message of evolution is that all life descended with modification from a putative single primitive source.  I call this the grand sweep of evolution.  The mechanism offered for the process of modification is basically the Darwinian one of a long series of steps of random variation, each followed by natural selection.  The variation is generally understood today to be random mutations in the DNA.
> 
> That primitive source of life is assumed to be sufficiently simple that it could have arisen from nonliving material by chance.  There is no theory today that can account for such an event, but I shall not address that issue here.  That is for another place and another time.  What is relevant to this discussion is that the requirement that life arose spontaneously sets, at the very least, a stringent upper limit on the complexity and information content of the putative first organism that could reproduce itself, and thus serve as a vehicle from which to launch Darwinian evolution.  The issue I address here is the alleged development of all life by the Neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection, starting from a sufficiently simple beginning.
> 
> Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story.  No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work.  Most evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so.  (Those few evolutionists who hold that macroevolution is really different from microevolution have changed their story several times since they first came out with it, and their mechanism is so fuzzy that I cannot tell what it is.  John Maynard Smith seems to be of a similar opinion.)
> 
> For the grand process of evolution to work, long sequences of &#8220;beneficial&#8221; mutations must be possible, each building on the previous one and conferring a selective advantage on the organism.  The process must be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of life today.  There must be a long series of possible mutations, each of which conferring a selective advantage on the organism so that natural selection can make it take over the population.  Moreover, there must be not just one, but a great many such series.
> 
> The chain must be continuous in that at each stage a change of a single base pair somewhere in the genome can lead to a more adaptive organism in some environmental context.  That is, it should be possible to continue to climb an &#8220;adaptive&#8221; hill, one base change after another, without getting hung up on a local adaptive maximum.  No one has ever shown this to be possible.
> 
> Now one might say that if evolution were hung up on a local Maximum, a large genetic change like a recombination or a transposition could bring it to another higher peak.  Large adaptive changes are, however, highly improbable.  They are orders of magnitude less probable than getting an adaptive change with a single nucleotide substitution, which is itself improbable.  No one has shown this to be possible either.
> 
> Moreover, as I have noted in my book, the large mutations such as recombinations and transpositions are mediated by special enzymes and are executed with precision - not the sort of doings one would expect of events that were supposed to be the products of chance.  Evolutionists chose the mechanism of randomness, by the way, because we can&#8217;t think of any other way beneficial mutations might occur in the absence of a law that might govern them.  Genetic rearrangements may not be really random at all.  They do not seem to qualify as the random mutations Neo-Darwinists can invoke whenever needed to escape from a local adaptive Maximum.
> 
> Evolutionists can argue, and rightly so, that we have no way of observing long series of mutations, since our observation time is limited to a relatively short interval.  Our genetic observations over the past 100 years are more like a snapshot of evolution rather than a representative interval in which we can search for the required long series of changes.  But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.
> 
> Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations.  And I agree with your further comment that &#8220;we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.&#8221;  But you go on to say that &#8220;our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.&#8221;  An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur.
> 
> Spetner: Now Ed, that&#8217;s ridiculous!  Those two statements are not symmetrical.  I don&#8217;t have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT.  You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist.  You are obliged to show an existence.  I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
> [LMS:  IN MAX&#8217;S POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE.  I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]
> 
> Max: In the absence of conclusive data defining such a series, if we want to distinguish between various hypotheses to explain the origin of species we must rely on other data, such as from various laboratory model systems that show adaptations in short enough timeframes that we can observe them.  Then we must extrapolate as best we can the information learned from these model systems to the questions of species origins.  This extrapolation from laboratory model systems to systems unobservable in the laboratory is the method of science common to medicine, astronomy, chemistry, meteorology, physics, etc.
> 
> I think there is some semantic confusion here about the word &#8220;justification&#8221; in Spetner&#8217;s sentence &#8220;But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.&#8221;  He is correct that acceptance of the NDT implies the belief that a series of successive mutations (including duplications and translocations) occurred in the evolution of an ancient primitive genome into the complex genome of a modern species.  Because we can access only genomes of modern (or very recent) species, we can never obtain the direct evidence&#8212;i.e., a complete list of those mutations&#8212;that some anti-evolutionists (e.g.  Behe) seem to think would be necessary to support NDT.
> [LMS:  MAX&#8217;S STATEMENT HERE IS A DISTORTION OF MY ARGUMENT INTO AN EXTREME POSITION.  I NEITHER SAID NOR IMPLIED THAT EVOLUTIONISTS MUST &#8220;OBTAIN...A COMPLETE LIST OF THOSE MUTATIONS&#8221; REQUIRED FOR NDT.  I DO MAINTAIN, HOWEVER, THAT THEY SHOULD AT LEAST ACCEPT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SHOWING THAT NDT IS REASONABLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.  THEY HAVE NOT DONE THAT.  THE MECHANISM OF NDT CONSISTS OF TWO BASIC STEPS.  AN ADAPTIVE MUTATION MUST BE ACHIEVED, AND THEN NATURAL SELECTION MUST OPERATE TO ENABLE IT TO TAKE OVER THE POPULATION.  EVOLUTIONISTS ARE OBLIGATED TO SHOW THAT BOTH THESE STEPS ARE REASONABLY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE IF THEY ARE TO MAKE A CASE FOR NDT.  MOST OF THEIR EFFORTS ALONG THESE LINES HAVE BEEN LIMITED TO ARGUING FOR NATURAL SELECTION.  THEY USUALLY DO NOT DEAL WITH THE PROBABILITY OF ACHIEVING AN ADAPTIVE MUTATION.  THEY MERELY ASSUME ONE WILL BE AVAILABLE WHENEVER IT IS NEEDED.]
> 
> In the absence of such direct evidence, it seems pointless to argue which side is &#8220;obliged&#8221; to provide what indirect evidence; certainly neither side can hope for anything close to &#8220;proof.&#8221;  Although Spetner denies that he is &#8220;obliged to prove a non-existence&#8221; of such a chain of mutations, his whole effort in the correspondence seems to be directed to just that aim.  Evolutionists have the job of defending the reasonableness of such a series of mutations.  I believe that Spetner would agree with this.
> [LMS:  RIGHT.  EVOLUTIONISTS DO HAVE THAT JOB AS AN OBLIGATION, AND THEY HAVE FAILED TO FULFILL IT.  I AM NOT OBLIGED TO PROVE A NON-EXISTENCE.  BUT IN MY BOOK, I HAVE MADE A GOOD CASE FOR THE UNREASONABLENESS OF THE EVOLUTIONISTS&#8217; TACIT ASSUMPTIONS OF THE UNIVERSAL AVAILABILITY OF ADAPTIVE MUTATIONS, AND I HAVE GIVEN SOME OF THOSE ARGUMENTS IN THIS DIALOGUE.]
> 
> Spetner: But the argument against Darwinian theory is considerably stronger than that.  The theory requires there be a vast number of possible point mutations which, coupled with natural selection, can produce the evolutionary advances that could produce the grand sweep of evolution.  Because there must be a large number of qualifying mutations, at least a few of them should have been observed in some of the many genetics laboratories around the world.  All the mutations in these long series must not only confer selective advantage on the organism but they must, on the average, also contribute to the information, or complexity, increase that surely distinguishes present-day life from the putative primitive organism.
> 
> These mutations must have whatever characteristics are necessary for them to serve as elements of the grand sweep of evolution.  Thus, for a mutation to qualify as a representative member of the required multitude of long series that are supposed to produce evolution, it must bring new information not just to the genome of the organism, but the information must be new to the entire biocosm.  The horizontal transfer of a gene from one species to another is not information new to the biocosm.  To show evolution in action, one must at least demonstrate examples of a mutation that can serve as a prototype of those required by the theory.  Such a mutation must be one that could be a contributing member of a series of mutations that could lead to the vast increase in information required by the theory.  Thus, for example, a mutation that disables a repressor gene causing a constitutive synthesis of an enzyme might be advantageous to an organism under special circumstances, but the disabling of a gene does not represent the mutations required by the theory.
> 
> Max devotes a good portion of his essay to refuting what he calls the &#8220;creationist&#8221; argument against evolution.  Although some opponents of evolutionary theory may have advanced the arguments he attacks, those arguments are in large measure straw men that Max busies himself with refuting.  If some creationists have claimed that all mutations are harmful, they would be wrong, but Max&#8217;s observation that there are mutations that are beneficial, while true, is hardly a telling argument for evolution.
Click to expand...

no one is reading any of that.  Use your own words.



Youwerecreated said:


> You guys should read the reviews on Dr. Spetner's book "Not by chance"at amazon. It's amazing the crowd reading and responding to his book.


You should read a biology book. 

Alternately, if you actually were here to learn, I'd be happy to drop the disdainful remarks and actually teach you myself.  But let's be honest with each other: you're not here to learn.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> no one is reading any of that.  Use your own words.
> 
> 
> 
> You should read a biology book.
> 
> Alternately, if you actually were here to learn, I'd be happy to drop the disdainful remarks and actually teach you myself.  But let's be honest with each other: you're not here to learn.
Click to expand...


I hate to disappoint you but i am sure most here are reading Dr. Spetners writings.

I don't know where you're from but science was a requirement to graduate at my schools, so yes i read a biology book. Oh but wait a minute i am sure it has been revised since i have been in school.

By you not responding to what Dr. Spetner had to say i take it everything is good.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> I hate to disappoint you but i am sure most here are reading Dr. Spetners writings.


Is that why no one, yourself included, is producing any remarks on that block of text you just pasted?  Yeah, just keep thinking that.  In the meantime, perhaps you should use your own words.



Youwerecreated said:


> I don't know where you're from but science was a requirement to graduate at my schools, so yes i read a biology book. Oh but wait a minute i am sure it has been revised since i have been in school.


And yet you still seem to be clueless on the basic tenants of evolution.  So either you weren't a very good student, or you didn't go to a very good school.  I mean, you've gotten it wrong more times than I can count.  And I'm not talking about the finer points that you don't understand, I mean what the meaning of the word evolution is and what its boundaries are.  You haven't gotten ANYTHING correct. 



Youwerecreated said:


> By you not responding to what Dr. Spetner had to say i take it everything is good.


This is rather immature reasoning, don't you think?  Make a point, and I'll respond.  Meanwhile I can't help but point out how many topics in evolution you have not responded to or generally ignored, including the FACT that new information is produced in mutation, there is no difference between micro and macro evolution at the genetic level, and how all reproducible verifiable evidence all show evolution to be correct.  I guess since you continue to ignore all those points they're all correct?

Also, Dr. Spetner supports evolution.  Or did you miss that part while you were blindly copying and pasting?


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no one is reading any of that.  Use your own words.
> 
> 
> 
> You should read a biology book.
> 
> Alternately, if you actually were here to learn, I'd be happy to drop the disdainful remarks and actually teach you myself.  But let's be honest with each other: you're not here to learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate to disappoint you but i am sure most here are reading Dr. Spetners writings.
> 
> I don't know where you're from but science was a requirement to graduate at my schools, so yes i read a biology book. Oh but wait a minute i am sure it has been revised since i have been in school.
> 
> By you not responding to what Dr. Spetner had to say i take it everything is good.
Click to expand...


You are still having a hard time with this notion that nobody is readying your copy and paste jobs.  You could hide the combination to your safe in there and we'd never know it, because we aren't reading it.  I don't know what your intent is in posting that stuff, but my own perception is that, since you can't argue the issue on your own, you are simply trying to bury us in another person's words.

That's not going to work.  If there is something salient you want to reference, why not just pick that out and go with it?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Because that would be an honest and straight-forward means of communication, and show some academic integrity.  Then he wonders why he is underhanded and dishonest.


----------



## geauxtohell

SmarterThanHick said:


> Because that would be an honest and straight-forward means of communication, and show some academic integrity.  Then he wonders why he is underhanded and dishonest.



I think it is totally "academically dishonest" in the purest sense of the word (not to impugn his personal character, but to simply say that this is sub-par for any sort of academic discussion).


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to disappoint you but i am sure most here are reading Dr. Spetners writings.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why no one, yourself included, is producing any remarks on that block of text you just pasted?  Yeah, just keep thinking that.  In the meantime, perhaps you should use your own words.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where you're from but science was a requirement to graduate at my schools, so yes i read a biology book. Oh but wait a minute i am sure it has been revised since i have been in school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you still seem to be clueless on the basic tenants of evolution.  So either you weren't a very good student, or you didn't go to a very good school.  I mean, you've gotten it wrong more times than I can count.  And I'm not talking about the finer points that you don't understand, I mean what the meaning of the word evolution is and what its boundaries are.  You haven't gotten ANYTHING correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> By you not responding to what Dr. Spetner had to say i take it everything is good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is rather immature reasoning, don't you think?  Make a point, and I'll respond.  Meanwhile I can't help but point out how many topics in evolution you have not responded to or generally ignored, including the FACT that new information is produced in mutation, there is no difference between micro and macro evolution at the genetic level, and how all reproducible verifiable evidence all show evolution to be correct.  I guess since you continue to ignore all those points they're all correct?
> 
> Also, Dr. Spetner supports evolution.  Or did you miss that part while you were blindly copying and pasting?
Click to expand...


You're gonna have to show me where Dr. Spetner believes in Macroevolution.

But either way, he does not believe in Neo Darwinism nor does the Professor that schooled dawkins.


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should read a biology book.
> 
> Alternately, if you actually were here to learn, I'd be happy to drop the disdainful remarks and actually teach you myself.  But let's be honest with each other: you're not here to learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to disappoint you but i am sure most here are reading Dr. Spetners writings.
> 
> I don't know where you're from but science was a requirement to graduate at my schools, so yes i read a biology book. Oh but wait a minute i am sure it has been revised since i have been in school.
> 
> By you not responding to what Dr. Spetner had to say i take it everything is good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are still having a hard time with this notion that nobody is readying your copy and paste jobs.  You could hide the combination to your safe in there and we'd never know it, because we aren't reading it.  I don't know what your intent is in posting that stuff, but my own perception is that, since you can't argue the issue on your own, you are simply trying to bury us in another person's words.
> 
> That's not going to work.  If there is something salient you want to reference, why not just pick that out and go with it?
Click to expand...


Whats there to get lost in , Either mutations are the engine to macroevolution or not.

 Has ANYONE ever shown that macroevolution can work ? Why do evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events ? if no one has ever shown it to be so why do you believe it ?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> You're gonna have to show me where Dr. Spetner believes in Macroevolution.


Lee Spetner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Second sentence. It has a number of citations at the bottom if you desire original sources.



Youwerecreated said:


> But either way, he does not believe in Neo Darwinism nor does the Professor that schooled dawkins.


Who cares?  You don't even know what neo-darwinism is.  You don't even know what EVOLUTION is yet, or what genetically differentiates macro from micro evolution.  So, why do you care about the nitty gritty details that do not actually affect the greater concept, especially the genetics behind evolution?



Youwerecreated said:


> Has ANYONE ever shown that macroevolution can work ? Why do evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events ? if no one has ever shown it to be so why do you believe it ?


Because that is by definition what macroevolution is.  Again, you don't actually know what the term means, or how it's related to microevolution on a genetic level.  Seeing as you have been avoiding the question as to what the difference between the two is at the genetic level, why are you so surprised that people who don't draw actually draw a distinction between the two know that macroevolution is exactly the same as microevolution over time? 

Oops!  More questions you can't answer!  Looks like you're running out of sidetracking topics to throw us off from figuring out how misguided you are on this topic.  Hey you could always copy and paste the McDonalds menu, or maybe random unsupported opinions about other unrelated topics from some crazy fundamentalist website!


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're gonna have to show me where Dr. Spetner believes in Macroevolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Lee Spetner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Second sentence. It has a number of citations at the bottom if you desire original sources.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But either way, he does not believe in Neo Darwinism nor does the Professor that schooled dawkins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares?  You don't even know what neo-darwinism is.  You don't even know what EVOLUTION is yet, or what genetically differentiates macro from micro evolution.  So, why do you care about the nitty gritty details that do not actually affect the greater concept, especially the genetics behind evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has ANYONE ever shown that macroevolution can work ? Why do evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events ? if no one has ever shown it to be so why do you believe it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because that is by definition what macroevolution is.  Again, you don't actually know what the term means, or how it's related to microevolution on a genetic level.  Seeing as you have been avoiding the question as to what the difference between the two is at the genetic level, why are you so surprised that people who don't draw actually draw a distinction between the two know that macroevolution is exactly the same as microevolution over time?
> 
> Oops!  More questions you can't answer!  Looks like you're running out of sidetracking topics to throw us off from figuring out how misguided you are on this topic.  Hey you could always copy and paste the McDonalds menu, or maybe random unsupported opinions about other unrelated topics from some crazy fundamentalist website!
Click to expand...


Ok thank you.

Dr. spetner said macroevolution has never been observed,do you agree ?

Macroevolution leads to a destinct new kind of species. That new species cannot breed back into what it came from correct ?

What new trait has shown up in humans that you consider macroevolution ?

If two different breeds can reproduce they're of the same species but yet they are classified as different species sometimes,why ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're gonna have to show me where Dr. Spetner believes in Macroevolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Lee Spetner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Second sentence. It has a number of citations at the bottom if you desire original sources.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> But either way, he does not believe in Neo Darwinism nor does the Professor that schooled dawkins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who cares?  You don't even know what neo-darwinism is.  You don't even know what EVOLUTION is yet, or what genetically differentiates macro from micro evolution.  So, why do you care about the nitty gritty details that do not actually affect the greater concept, especially the genetics behind evolution?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has ANYONE ever shown that macroevolution can work ? Why do evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events ? if no one has ever shown it to be so why do you believe it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because that is by definition what macroevolution is.  Again, you don't actually know what the term means, or how it's related to microevolution on a genetic level.  Seeing as you have been avoiding the question as to what the difference between the two is at the genetic level, why are you so surprised that people who don't draw actually draw a distinction between the two know that macroevolution is exactly the same as microevolution over time?
> 
> Oops!  More questions you can't answer!  Looks like you're running out of sidetracking topics to throw us off from figuring out how misguided you are on this topic.  Hey you could always copy and paste the McDonalds menu, or maybe random unsupported opinions about other unrelated topics from some crazy fundamentalist website!
Click to expand...


No, you need to get the definition of both terms correct ,as Dr. Spetner explained in his essay.

Microevolution
evolution resulting from small specific genetic changes that can lead to a new subspecies
Subspecies are different species within a group that has been isolated . Example,lions and tigers.

Macroevolution
evolution on a large scale extending over geologic era and resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups. above the species level.

Spetner: At the outset, I shall establish an important and necessary guideline in this discussion of evolution.  The word evolution is generally used in at least two different senses, and the distinction between them is important.  On the one hand, the word evolution is used to denote the descent of all life from a putative single primitive source.  It is the grand sweep of evolution that is supposed to have led from a simple beginning, something perhaps simpler than a bacterium, to all organisms living today, including humans.  This descent is supposed to have occurred through purely natural means.  Neo-Darwinian theory (NDT), which is the prevailing theory of evolution, teaches that this development occurred through random heritable variations in the organisms followed by natural selection.  I shall denote the word evolution used in this sense as Evolution A.  When evolution is discussed for popular consumption, it is most often Evolution A.

The second sense in which the word evolution is used is to denote any kind of change of a population.  The change can sometimes occur in response to environmental pressure (artificial or natural selection), and sometimes it can just be random (genetic drift).  I shall denote the word used in this second sense as Evolution B.  Evolution B has been observed.  Evolution A is an inference, but is not observable.  The distinction between these two meanings of evolution parallels the distinction between macroevolution and microevolution, but the two pairs of terms are not identical.  Evolution A is certainly what is called macroevolution, but what is called macroevolution is not identical with Evolution A.  In any case, I prefer to use the A and B to avoid having to carry whatever baggage might go with the macro/micro distinction.

The distinction between these two meanings of evolution is often ignored by the defenders of Neo-Darwinian evolution.  But the distinction is critical.  The claim is made for Evolution A, but the proof offered is often limited to Evolution B.  The implication is that the observation of Evolution B is a substantiation of Evolution A.  But this is not so.  Since Evolution A is not an observable, it can only be substantiated by circumstantial evidence.  This circumstantial evidence is principally the fossil record, amino-acid-sequence comparisons, and comparative anatomy.  Circumstantial evidence must be accompanied by a theory of how it relates to what is to be proved.  NDT is generally accepted to be that theory.  The strength of the circumstantial evidence for Evolution A can therefore be no better than the strength of NDT


So with the two terms cleared up please answer my earlier questions.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you have to explain how whale fossils are found in inland places such as Michigan and the other inland places that is to far from the ocean. You also have to explain sea shells found on mountain tops.
> 
> The strata in the grand canyon disagrees with your views as well.
> 
> Oh this is where you will turn to plate tectonics as an explanation.
> 
> I don't say plate tectonics did not happen, i just think it happened during the global flood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we answer your questions, if you won't answer ours and answer your own for us?  I'll speak for myself, please.  You don't even have to use plate tectonics to explain why whales appear in Michigan, the central US used to be an inland sea.  That still doesn't address why you don't find trilobites and dolphins in the same strata.  Care to man-up and tackle that question, instead of tap-dancing around it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea.
> 
> I would say a global flood that may have caused plate tectonics was a very catastrophic ordeal. No telling what evidence it would have produced roughly 5,200 years ago.
> 
> What is your view on polystrate trees ?
> 
> Interesting video here on Grand Canyon evidence.
> 
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aNlb3lFhFM&feature=related[/ame]
Click to expand...


Evidence for "a flood", perhaps, but no proof of a global one.  It also doesn't explain why you don't find trilobite and dolphin fossils together.  NO, I haven't forgotten that you've been trying to avoid the question with distractions us about something irrelevant (a flood) in hopes that the real topic (evolution) will be forgotten.  Sounds like intellectual cowardice to me.


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> Whats there to get lost in , Either mutations are the engine to macroevolution or not.



About 5000 words on a computer screen.  



> Has ANYONE ever shown that macroevolution can work ? Why do evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events ? if no one has ever shown it to be so why do you believe it ?



Again, you mistakenly think that "macroevolution" is some sort of discrete event where once species goes "pop" like a kernal of corn and a novel species emerges due to a single mutation.

That's not how it happens.  It's is in fact a long sequence of microevolutionary events.  If you really understand genetics and how mutations function, I think you would get this (if you were truly interested in getting it). Since most mutations are deletarious, the more mutations an organism has during it's development increases the chances that it won't live to pass on any beneficial phenotypes it has.  

Again, since humans define the terms "microevolution", "macroevolution", and "species" this really becomes an asinine semantics debate.

The larger question, do species change in form and function over time is an irrefutable "yes".


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we answer your questions, if you won't answer ours and answer your own for us?  I'll speak for myself, please.  You don't even have to use plate tectonics to explain why whales appear in Michigan, the central US used to be an inland sea.  That still doesn't address why you don't find trilobites and dolphins in the same strata.  Care to man-up and tackle that question, instead of tap-dancing around it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea.
> 
> I would say a global flood that may have caused plate tectonics was a very catastrophic ordeal. No telling what evidence it would have produced roughly 5,200 years ago.
> 
> What is your view on polystrate trees ?
> 
> Interesting video here on Grand Canyon evidence.
> 
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aNlb3lFhFM&feature=related[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evidence for "a flood", perhaps, but no proof of a global one.  It also doesn't explain why you don't find trilobite and dolphin fossils together.  NO, I haven't forgotten that you've been trying to avoid the question with distractions us about something irrelevant (a flood) in hopes that the real topic (evolution) will be forgotten.  Sounds like intellectual cowardice to me.
Click to expand...


Well there is world wide evidence for the global flood and the person  in the video touched on that.

How could a flood 7,000 feet above sea level not affect the rest of the globe ?

What do you think it means that dolphin fossils and trilobite fossils are not found together ?

Fossils of dolphins have been found in limestone where trilobites have been found care to explain what point you're trying to make ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whats there to get lost in , Either mutations are the engine to macroevolution or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About 5000 words on a computer screen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has ANYONE ever shown that macroevolution can work ? Why do evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events ? if no one has ever shown it to be so why do you believe it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you mistakenly think that "macroevolution" is some sort of discrete event where once species goes "pop" like a kernal of corn and a novel species emerges due to a single mutation.
> 
> That's not how it happens.  It's is in fact a long sequence of microevolutionary events.  If you really understand genetics and how mutations function, I think you would get this (if you were truly interested in getting it). Since most mutations are deletarious, the more mutations an organism has during it's development increases the chances that it won't live to pass on any beneficial phenotypes it has.
> 
> Again, since humans define the terms "microevolution", "macroevolution", and "species" this really becomes an asinine semantics debate.
> 
> The larger question, do species change in form and function over time is an irrefutable "yes".
Click to expand...


How many times do i need to show the difference between the two terms for you guys to get it ?

If anything went poof i believe "God did it" you have not been able to show all life was the result of a long gradual natural process.

The fossil record even shows that was not how it happened according to  Niles Eldridge and Stephen Jay Gould.

If we find fossils that are dated to over 100 million years old, why do they show no change from current living organisims ?

http://www.living-fossils.com/2_1.php


----------



## konradv

_Fossils of dolphins have been found in limestone where trilobites have been found care to explain what point you're trying to make ? _
------------------------

Not without proof of your contention.  Any such juxtaposition has always been shown to be a result of disturbance of layers or uneven erosion, most famously known in the "footprint" picture that is purported to be proof of dinosaurs and humans living at the same time.  

Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks)

http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/paluxy.htm

Whatever you're citing is undoubtedly something of that nature.  Care to provide us with a link?


----------



## geauxtohell

Youwerecreated said:


> How many times do i need to show the difference between the two terms for you guys to get it ?



Don't give yourself any credit.  You haven't facilitated any sort of educational process here.  We both understand what the terms are and we both understand why "macroevolution" is a silly concept to get wrapped up on for the reasons I referenced above.  The fact that you don't makes it doubtful that you are going to educate either of us.    



> If anything went poof i believe "God did it" you have not been able to show all life was the result of a long gradual natural process.



Great.  You are entitled to your religious beliefs.  I won't even try to argue that with you, as they are personal.  As for all the rest, we've made our arguments.  You just ignore them.  Though the things we are saying can be found in any basic biology textbook if you really want a rehash.  We don't have to break new ground as we are arguing the status quo.  



> The fossil record even shows that was not how it happened according to  Niles Eldridge and Stephen Jay Gould.



Really?  I've got a feeling that whatever quotes you produce are the result of a famous "quote mining" operation that creationists are famous for.  By all means, post the quotes.  Jut know that there are groups that spend their time tracking this kind of B.S., so if you are going to try and pull some wazoo academically dishonest B.S., expect to get further smacked down and laughed at.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> Dr. spetner said macroevolution has never been observed,do you agree ?


No one has OBSERVED the sun being formed.  So by your logic the sun doesn't exist, right?  Clearly if no one has sat down and watched it like paint drying, it doesn't exist.  For that matter, the paint on your walls doesn't exist either, right?  Have you ever directly observed a person growing in a womb and being born?  How do you know people are real?!

Once again you make the unbelievably naive mistake in believing that if you don't directly observe something, it isn't real.  This is ridiculous, as the examples above point out.  There is insurmountable evidence that the sun exists, that people exist, and that evolution exists.  The above quote shows you still don't understand the things you blindly copy and paste.



Youwerecreated said:


> Macroevolution leads to a destinct new kind of species. That new species cannot breed back into what it came from correct ?


And again I ask and you ignore: what is the genetic difference?



Youwerecreated said:


> If two different breeds can reproduce they're of the same species but yet they are classified as different species sometimes,why ?


That's the question we've been asking you.  You can't explain why. There is no biological reason for it.  

As I've mentioned before and you ignored: species were initially defined based on how the organism looks, and sometimes whether they can mate with another organism.  When genetics came about, we were able to see into the underlying makeup of an organism, and found there actually isn't a definitive biological thing that differentiates species.  The only thing that matters is how close the DNA match to each other, and there is no set cutoff.  Thus lions and tigers, while different in their appearance, social habits, hunting habits, and many other aspects, genetically and thus evolutionarily have not diverged too far from one another, thus they can mate.  

Now, what's your answer for your own question?  Let's see if you also like to avoid your own.



Youwerecreated said:


> How many times do i need to show the difference between the two terms for you guys to get it ?


Until you get it right.  We're asking you for oranges and you keep bringing us apples.  No, it doesn't matter how many times you bring us an apple, you're still wrong. 

To reiterate why you're wrong on this topic: you continue failing to actually describe what makes one species genetically different from another, even though your definitions continually refer to it. Here's a hint: none exists, which is why the distinction in your definition doesn't actually separate the terms. "Species" is a man made term not inherent to biology. 

You then go on to produce some hand waiving by saying lions are tigers are really "sub-species."  OK, what's the genetic difference between a species and a "sub-species" then?  You see how ridiculous this is getting?  Your made up terms with vague definitions require more made up terms with no genetic definition just to sound mildly plausible.  Such is the dishonesty of creationists: no transparency, no reproducible evidence, completely unable to address verifiable evidence, and made up indistinct "definitions."



> If we find fossils that are dated to over 100 million years old, why do they show no change from current living organisims ?
> 
> Living-Fossils.com


Because you still don't understand the concept of evolution, as this example shows. 

I think the kicker in all of this is that you feel you must remain ignorant and uneducated on these topics because you think it somehow helps your soul to stay dumb.  That is, after all, the running theme of many religions.  Don't eat from the tree of knowledge, because knowledge is bad!  Don't ask too many questions.  If you find something you don't understand, then God did it and you can't question it!  The sun revolves around the Earth!


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> _Fossils of dolphins have been found in limestone where trilobites have been found care to explain what point you're trying to make ? _
> ------------------------
> 
> Not without proof of your contention.  Any such juxtaposition has always been shown to be a result of disturbance of layers or uneven erosion, most famously known in the "footprint" picture that is purported to be proof of dinosaurs and humans living at the same time.
> 
> Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" controversy, by Glen J. Kuban (Dinosaur & "Human" Footprints, Paluxy tracks)
> 
> http://www.huecotanks.com/debunk/paluxy.htm
> 
> Whatever you're citing is undoubtedly something of that nature.  Care to provide us with a link?



All i said was they were found in limestone ,did not say they were found together.

Soft Tissue Fossil Treasure Trove Found in China     12/22/2010     
Dec 22, 2010  Live Science announced a major new fossil find in China with some 20,000 fossils.  It was found in a 50-foot thick layer of limestone 

The fossils are exceptionally well-preserved, with more than half of them completely intact, including soft tissues.  Apparently they were protected across the ages by mats of microbes that rapidly sealed their bodies off from decay after death....
    Ninety percent of the fossils are bug-like creatures, such as crustaceans, millipedes and horseshoe crabs.  Fish make up 4 percent, including the living fossil known as the coelacanth, which is still alive today nearly 250 million years later.  Snails, bivalves (creatures including clams and oysters), squid-like belemnoids, nautilus-like ammonoids and other mollusks make up about 2 percent of the fossils. 
Other major fossils found include marine reptiles and dolphin-bodied ichthyosaurs (see photo accompanying the article with amazing detail evident).  Reporter Charles Q. Choi did not elaborate on whether the soft tissues included original material or, more likely, impressions of anatomical parts in rock.  The site, named the Luoping Site, is in southwest China. 
Once again, a fossil graveyard is found, indicating rapid burial and exquisite preservation.  What they didnt mention about coelacanth is that it is a classic living fossil that was thought to have gone extinct at the end of the Cretaceous (65 million years ago), only to be found in 1938 swimming comfortably off the coast of South Africa.  And thats not the only case of so-called Lazarus taxa, rising from the dead.  Who can really believe that (1) coelacanths never left another fossil for 65 million years, and (2) the soft tissues in these fossils were never disturbed for 250 million years?
    Evolutionists keep the fogma machines (05/14/2007) running to distract the real message of the bones.  They bring in imaginary dinosaur feathers, slowly migrating continents, mass extinctions and hundreds of millions of years.  If we had not been so brainwashed into accepting this weird stretched-out chronology founded by Sir Lyell Lot and his cronies, we would laugh at such notions.  Look past the Darwin promissory notes (06/26/2010, 02/24/2010) and reckless drafts on the bank of time (07/02/2007), and let the collateral earn its own interest. 

Creation-Evolution Headlines

Trilobite fossils

Trilobite Fossil Preparation

Trilobite fossils in the Grand Canyon red rock limestone.

Grand Canyon Rock Layers

In wyoming ?

Ichthyosaur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## SmarterThanHick

not reading copied and pasted blocks of text.  make a point or don't bother.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dr. spetner said macroevolution has never been observed,do you agree ?
> 
> 
> 
> No one has OBSERVED the sun being formed.  So by your logic the sun doesn't exist, right?  Clearly if no one has sat down and watched it like paint drying, it doesn't exist.  For that matter, the paint on your walls doesn't exist either, right?  Have you ever directly observed a person growing in a womb and being born?  How do you know people are real?!
> 
> Once again you make the unbelievably naive mistake in believing that if you don't directly observe something, it isn't real.  This is ridiculous, as the examples above point out.  There is insurmountable evidence that the sun exists, that people exist, and that evolution exists.  The above quote shows you still don't understand the things you blindly copy and paste.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Macroevolution leads to a destinct new kind of species. That new species cannot breed back into what it came from correct ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again I ask and you ignore: what is the genetic difference?
> 
> 
> That's the question we've been asking you.  You can't explain why. There is no biological reason for it.
> 
> As I've mentioned before and you ignored: species were initially defined based on how the organism looks, and sometimes whether they can mate with another organism.  When genetics came about, we were able to see into the underlying makeup of an organism, and found there actually isn't a definitive biological thing that differentiates species.  The only thing that matters is how close the DNA match to each other, and there is no set cutoff.  Thus lions and tigers, while different in their appearance, social habits, hunting habits, and many other aspects, genetically and thus evolutionarily have not diverged too far from one another, thus they can mate.
> 
> Now, what's your answer for your own question?  Let's see if you also like to avoid your own.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do i need to show the difference between the two terms for you guys to get it ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Until you get it right.  We're asking you for oranges and you keep bringing us apples.  No, it doesn't matter how many times you bring us an apple, you're still wrong.
> 
> To reiterate why you're wrong on this topic: you continue failing to actually describe what makes one species genetically different from another, even though your definitions continually refer to it. Here's a hint: none exists, which is why the distinction in your definition doesn't actually separate the terms. "Species" is a man made term not inherent to biology.
> 
> You then go on to produce some hand waiving by saying lions are tigers are really "sub-species."  OK, what's the genetic difference between a species and a "sub-species" then?  You see how ridiculous this is getting?  Your made up terms with vague definitions require more made up terms with no genetic definition just to sound mildly plausible.  Such is the dishonesty of creationists: no transparency, no reproducible evidence, completely unable to address verifiable evidence, and made up indistinct "definitions."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we find fossils that are dated to over 100 million years old, why do they show no change from current living organisims ?
> 
> Living-Fossils.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because you still don't understand the concept of evolution, as this example shows.
> 
> I think the kicker in all of this is that you feel you must remain ignorant and uneducated on these topics because you think it somehow helps your soul to stay dumb.  That is, after all, the running theme of many religions.  Don't eat from the tree of knowledge, because knowledge is bad!  Don't ask too many questions.  If you find something you don't understand, then God did it and you can't question it!  The sun revolves around the Earth!
Click to expand...


Yes my views are based on 3,500 year old writings, and these writings are supported by the evidence.

Your views are based on speculation, that is not supported by the evidence.

Ask all the questions you like but be real about the answers.

Should we now show all the problems with the dating methods to further show the fairytale of evolution ?

So what the difference in the DNA is similar from organism to organism, it just shows what the creator was capable of producing using similar substance to create life.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> not reading copied and pasted blocks of text.  make a point or don't bother.



I am trying to make a point showing that trilobite fossils are found in limestone the same as dolphin fossils. I am still trying to figure out why they need to be found together.

Did you bother to read about the graveyard of fossils found in limestone discovered in china containing many different marine organisms both small and large.

Both sides said it was due to a cataclysmic event. 

Yeah more evidence of the global flood.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> Yes my views are based on 3,500 year old writings, and these writings are supported by the evidence.


Wait did you SEE those texts originally being written?  NO!?  Wait how do you know they exist then?



Youwerecreated said:


> Your views are based on speculation, that is not supported by the evidence.
> 
> Should we now show all the problems with the dating methods to further show the fairytale of evolution ?


Oh you have the evidence.  Excluding the man-made writings, what evidence do you have?  You were the one who just pointed out how 100 million year old fossils resemble modern life.  But now you're claiming we can't even date that old.  Do you see how you are inconsistent?  How you pick and choose which logic or rules apply and ignore the same rules and logic when it's convenient?  This is why your argument has been demolished time and time again.  You lack integrity, and honesty.  Are these the morals you are taught by your religion?  To lie?  To mislead?  To promote ignorance and demote education?  To ignore evidence and simple questions?  Is this really the pinnacle of intelligent achievement of your religious teachings?  

Every bit of technological advancement around you, from the cars on the street to the very computer you are using to come here were developed from the application of verifiable evidence produced from the scientific method, exactly as our knowledge of evolution has been produced.  

In the end, you are incapable of refuting either the method or the evidence.  You can't even examine the evidence!  But you still think it's wrong for some unknown unexplained reason.  How sad.



Youwerecreated said:


> So what the difference in the DNA is similar from organism to organism, it just shows what the creator was capable of producing using similar substance to create life.


You're still missing the point.  It's not just that it's similar, it's that the less similar it is, the less compatible two organisms are, without a set cutoff.  You already agree with "microevolution" even though you still don't know what it is, which means you already agree that those differences are a result of mutation creating new information that separate organisms genetically.  

I look forward to you contradicting yourself further, and propagating misinformation and lack of education.  You truly are a great representative for your religion.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes my views are based on 3,500 year old writings, and these writings are supported by the evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait did you SEE those texts originally being written?  NO!?  Wait how do you know they exist then?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your views are based on speculation, that is not supported by the evidence.
> 
> Should we now show all the problems with the dating methods to further show the fairytale of evolution ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh you have the evidence.  Excluding the man-made writings, what evidence do you have?  You were the one who just pointed out how 100 million year old fossils resemble modern life.  But now you're claiming we can't even date that old.  Do you see how you are inconsistent?  How you pick and choose which logic or rules apply and ignore the same rules and logic when it's convenient?  This is why your argument has been demolished time and time again.  You lack integrity, and honesty.  Are these the morals you are taught by your religion?  To lie?  To mislead?  To promote ignorance and demote education?  To ignore evidence and simple questions?  Is this really the pinnacle of intelligent achievement of your religious teachings?
> 
> Every bit of technological advancement around you, from the cars on the street to the very computer you are using to come here were developed from the application of verifiable evidence produced from the scientific method, exactly as our knowledge of evolution has been produced.
> 
> In the end, you are incapable of refuting either the method or the evidence.  You can't even examine the evidence!  But you still think it's wrong for some unknown unexplained reason.  How sad.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what the difference in the DNA is similar from organism to organism, it just shows what the creator was capable of producing using similar substance to create life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're still missing the point.  It's not just that it's similar, it's that the less similar it is, the less compatible two organisms are, without a set cutoff.  You already agree with "microevolution" even though you still don't know what it is, which means you already agree that those differences are a result of mutation creating new information that separate organisms genetically.
> 
> I look forward to you contradicting yourself further, and propagating misinformation and lack of education.  You truly are a great representative for your religion.
Click to expand...


Historian Josephus wrote about Jewish history,Archeologists are confirming things recorded in the bible.They even had a calendar at those times,and the Jewish people were real good at recording their history there is no more thourough people on such matters. They were ordered by the prophets to record the lineage of each tribe of Israel.

Sorry but those dates are being established by guys that believe every fossil is older then it actually is. You could not detect the sarcasm ? The dating methods used has been shown to be unreliable. The point is the fossils do not show any change over time but i really don't believe the fossils are as old as presented by evolutionist and paleontologist.

Yes,science has been able to accomplish some amazing things through the scientific method, but what you forget is no science method has been able to test and prove macroevolution.

How sad is it to take away credit for creation from the one who created all things through a theory built on speculation that turns out to be nothing more then smoke and mirrors .

What i believe is God gave the ability to adapt not change from one kind of organism to another.I believe he protected his creation by putting forth limits to adapting. The proof is when the limit is reached the offspring are usually sterile or organisms cannot cross breed at all. What makes creatures travel with creatures of their same kind ? I believe that is the order that God put into every walk of life. I do believe in microevolution change within a kind or group but that is as far as it goes. Evolutionist can't prove otherwise so they offer only unfounded,and unobservable explanations which has never resulted in what evolutionist said happened.

When did i say i was against education ? education is a good thing. We have benefitted greatly from education. Teaching fairytales as fact i don't believe that is education we need.

Your rhetoric is actually funny.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> Sorry but those dates are being established by guys that believe every fossil is older then it actually is. You could not detect the sarcasm ? The dating methods used has been shown to be unreliable.


This is actually not true.  Things like this are said about people who are dumb enough to believe that we use carbon for dating.  We don't.  It IS an unreliable dating source thus it's not used.  That doesn't stop ignorant religious groups from claiming otherwise though.  Meanwhile the dating techniques that are verified as reliable even against other reliable dating techniques are never mentioned.  

This is the same story as evolution. The actual knowledge we have on evolution or dating isn't actually addressed by creationists.  Instead, false information and inaccurate statements are propagated to continue spreading the ignorance. 



Youwerecreated said:


> Yes,science has been able to accomplish some amazing things through the scientific method, but what you forget is no science method has been able to test and prove macroevolution.


Except it has.  You pretend it hasn't, just as you pretend that carbon dating is used to acquire the age of old rocks, when neither is actually the case.  



Youwerecreated said:


> How sad is it to take away credit for creation from the one who created all things through a theory built on speculation that turns out to be nothing more then smoke and mirrors .


I find it funny that dumb hicks like you talk about smoke and mirrors.  In your discussion in this thread you have used every evasion possible to mask the actual topics and evidence.  Science remains transparent and open in its findings, whereas creationists lurk in the shadows and spread false information.  Do you really want to talk about smoke and mirrors when you have so adamantly refused to answer simple questions regarding reproducible evidence?



Youwerecreated said:


> What i believe is God gave the ability to adapt not change from one kind of organism to another.I believe he protected his creation by putting forth limits to adapting. The proof is when the limit is reached the offspring are usually sterile or organisms cannot cross breed at all. What makes creatures travel with creatures of their same kind ? I believe that is the order that God put into every walk of life. I do believe in microevolution change within a kind or group but that is as far as it goes. Evolutionist can't prove otherwise so they offer only unfounded,and unobservable explanations which has never resulted in what evolutionist said happened.


Yes, this is known as blind faith.  It contradicts verifiable evidence, and defines ignorance.  It comes as no surprise that your sad excuse for an education on this topic leaves you with the inability to discuss it honestly and transparently. You've come to your conclusion, and it would be impossible to change it regardless of the evidence presented before you.  I mean, really think about that idea: what could possibly be found today that would make you reconsider your beliefs?  Nothing.  It's impossible to change when ignorance is your core.



Youwerecreated said:


> When did i say i was against education ? education is a good thing. We have benefitted greatly from education.


Somewhere around when you thought searching creationists websites was an equivalent education to a biology major, it dawned on me that you don't actually understand education or promote it freely.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but those dates are being established by guys that believe every fossil is older then it actually is. You could not detect the sarcasm ? The dating methods used has been shown to be unreliable.
> 
> 
> 
> This is actually not true.  Things like this are said about people who are dumb enough to believe that we use carbon for dating.  We don't.  It IS an unreliable dating source thus it's not used.  That doesn't stop ignorant religious groups from claiming otherwise though.  Meanwhile the dating techniques that are verified as reliable even against other reliable dating techniques are never mentioned.
> 
> This is the same story as evolution. The actual knowledge we have on evolution or dating isn't actually addressed by creationists.  Instead, false information and inaccurate statements are propagated to continue spreading the ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,science has been able to accomplish some amazing things through the scientific method, but what you forget is no science method has been able to test and prove macroevolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except it has.  You pretend it hasn't, just as you pretend that carbon dating is used to acquire the age of old rocks, when neither is actually the case.
> 
> 
> I find it funny that dumb hicks like you talk about smoke and mirrors.  In your discussion in this thread you have used every evasion possible to mask the actual topics and evidence.  Science remains transparent and open in its findings, whereas creationists lurk in the shadows and spread false information.  Do you really want to talk about smoke and mirrors when you have so adamantly refused to answer simple questions regarding reproducible evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What i believe is God gave the ability to adapt not change from one kind of organism to another.I believe he protected his creation by putting forth limits to adapting. The proof is when the limit is reached the offspring are usually sterile or organisms cannot cross breed at all. What makes creatures travel with creatures of their same kind ? I believe that is the order that God put into every walk of life. I do believe in microevolution change within a kind or group but that is as far as it goes. Evolutionist can't prove otherwise so they offer only unfounded,and unobservable explanations which has never resulted in what evolutionist said happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, this is known as blind faith.  It contradicts verifiable evidence, and defines ignorance.  It comes as no surprise that your sad excuse for an education on this topic leaves you with the inability to discuss it honestly and transparently. You've come to your conclusion, and it would be impossible to change it regardless of the evidence presented before you.  I mean, really think about that idea: what could possibly be found today that would make you reconsider your beliefs?  Nothing.  It's impossible to change when ignorance is your core.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did i say i was against education ? education is a good thing. We have benefitted greatly from education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Somewhere around when you thought searching creationists websites was an equivalent education to a biology major, it dawned on me that you don't actually understand education or promote it freely.
Click to expand...


All dating methods are reached by assumptions. You know what i find funny ? they rely on known flawed dating systems to agree with others to determine accuracy. 

Take a look at the various dating systems and their problems, Not just carbon dating.

Radiometric Dating Methods

What is this evidence of macroevoluition creationists are not discussing ?

My core beliefs have never been refuted. Evolutionist core beliefs are always being overhauled.

Hey now you're wrong. I am an honest person if there was evidence to prove you right i am a big enough person to admit to being wrong. But to throw everything i believe out the window over intelligent peoples vivid imagination,now that would be ignorance. When so many of your colleagues are also speaking out about the problems with your theory.

There is absolutely no way to look at the distant pass and accurately describe what it was like,what happened,and describe how it happened. Now whats really nice is we do have someone who was there, and passed on what happened, and what it was like. He just did not go into detail on how it happened.

Yes i have reached my conclusions,and i have no reason to doubt what i believe. Just weighing the evidence i see around me. Also having exp with unseen forces that can't be described, shows me we are surrounded by forces we can't explain, but the bible touches on who and what they are. I have heard and seen these entities with other witnesses present. I have had them move objects, throw things, and heard their voices. Trust me they're all around us you are just so busy you don't even notice them.

There is only one explanation for these entities,the bible calls them fallen angels ,and they're manipulating the entire planet. People need to wake up. I almost feel foolish for bringing it up, but i do believe it is my responsibility to make people aware of the situational irony that truly exists.


----------



## konradv

_All i said was they were found in limestone ,did not say they were found together._

I also said they weren't found together.  The question is , "Why not?"  Pleasde try and stick to one line of reasoning.  It sounds like you're trying to make MY point!!!


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> _All i said was they were found in limestone ,did not say they were found together._
> 
> I also said they weren't found together.  The question is , "Why not?"  Pleasde try and stick to one line of reasoning.  It sounds like you're trying to make MY point!!!



What is your point ?


----------



## rdean

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you have to explain how whale fossils are found in inland places such as Michigan and the other inland places that is to far from the ocean. You also have to explain sea shells found on mountain tops.
> 
> The strata in the grand canyon disagrees with your views as well.
> 
> Oh this is where you will turn to plate tectonics as an explanation.
> 
> I don't say plate tectonics did not happen, i just think it happened during the global flood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we answer your questions, if you won't answer ours and answer your own for us?  I'll speak for myself, please.  You don't even have to use plate tectonics to explain why whales appear in Michigan, the central US used to be an inland sea.  That still doesn't address why you don't find trilobites and dolphins in the same strata.  Care to man-up and tackle that question, instead of tap-dancing around it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea.
> 
> I would say a global flood that may have caused plate tectonics was a very catastrophic ordeal. No telling what evidence it would have produced roughly 5,200 years ago.
> 
> What is your view on polystrate trees ?
> 
> Interesting video here on Grand Canyon evidence.
> 
> [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aNlb3lFhFM&feature=related[/ame]
Click to expand...


I couldn't stand to watch it anymore.  It was just too dumb.  Sorry.

One thing we know about floods is they are messy.  The thing about the Grand Canyon is the layers are very neatly laid down with simple fossils at the bottom and the more complex at the top as you move up through the layers.  Depending on the layer, we can tell when it was under water and when it was dry.  Magic is fun to read about, but not to believe.

The Geology of the Grand Canyon


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> What is this evidence of macroevoluition creationists are not discussing ?


How about that list of questions I continually repeated at the end of every one of my posts in the first pages of this thread which you had to avoid every single time?  Why don't you start by addressing those findings, and then moving on to every other question myself or GTH has put forth and you have pretended doesn't exist.  Smoke and mirrors indeed.



Youwerecreated said:


> Also having exp with unseen forces that can't be described, shows me we are surrounded by forces we can't explain, but the bible touches on who and what they are. I have heard and seen these entities with other witnesses present. I have had them move objects, throw things, and heard their voices. Trust me they're all around us you are just so busy you don't even notice them.
> 
> There is only one explanation for these entities,the bible calls them fallen angels ,and they're manipulating the entire planet. People need to wake up. I almost feel foolish for bringing it up, but i do believe it is my responsibility to make people aware of the situational irony that truly exists.


OK so you're schizophrenic.  This actually explains a lot.  We have very good drugs you can take to stop these fallen angels so you don't hear the voices or see their actions.  The scientific method can help exorcise your demons.


----------



## rdean

Youwerecreated said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but those dates are being established by guys that believe every fossil is older then it actually is. You could not detect the sarcasm ? The dating methods used has been shown to be unreliable.
> 
> 
> 
> This is actually not true.  Things like this are said about people who are dumb enough to believe that we use carbon for dating.  We don't.  It IS an unreliable dating source thus it's not used.  That doesn't stop ignorant religious groups from claiming otherwise though.  Meanwhile the dating techniques that are verified as reliable even against other reliable dating techniques are never mentioned.
> 
> This is the same story as evolution. The actual knowledge we have on evolution or dating isn't actually addressed by creationists.  Instead, false information and inaccurate statements are propagated to continue spreading the ignorance.
> 
> 
> Except it has.  You pretend it hasn't, just as you pretend that carbon dating is used to acquire the age of old rocks, when neither is actually the case.
> 
> 
> I find it funny that dumb hicks like you talk about smoke and mirrors.  In your discussion in this thread you have used every evasion possible to mask the actual topics and evidence.  Science remains transparent and open in its findings, whereas creationists lurk in the shadows and spread false information.  Do you really want to talk about smoke and mirrors when you have so adamantly refused to answer simple questions regarding reproducible evidence?
> 
> 
> Yes, this is known as blind faith.  It contradicts verifiable evidence, and defines ignorance.  It comes as no surprise that your sad excuse for an education on this topic leaves you with the inability to discuss it honestly and transparently. You've come to your conclusion, and it would be impossible to change it regardless of the evidence presented before you.  I mean, really think about that idea: what could possibly be found today that would make you reconsider your beliefs?  Nothing.  It's impossible to change when ignorance is your core.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did i say i was against education ? education is a good thing. We have benefitted greatly from education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Somewhere around when you thought searching creationists websites was an equivalent education to a biology major, it dawned on me that you don't actually understand education or promote it freely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All dating methods are reached by assumptions. You know what i find funny ? they rely on known flawed dating systems to agree with others to determine accuracy.
> 
> Take a look at the various dating systems and their problems, Not just carbon dating.
> 
> Radiometric Dating Methods
> 
> What is this evidence of macroevoluition creationists are not discussing ?
> 
> My core beliefs have never been refuted.* Evolutionist core beliefs are always being overhauled.*
> 
> Hey now you're wrong. I am an honest person if there was evidence to prove you right i am a big enough person to admit to being wrong. But to throw everything i believe out the window over intelligent peoples vivid imagination,now that would be ignorance. When so many of your colleagues are also speaking out about the problems with your theory.
> 
> There is absolutely no way to look at the distant pass and accurately describe what it was like,what happened,and describe how it happened. Now whats really nice is we do have someone who was there, and passed on what happened, and what it was like. He just did not go into detail on how it happened.
> 
> Yes i have reached my conclusions,and i have no reason to doubt what i believe. Just weighing the evidence i see around me. Also having exp with unseen forces that can't be described, shows me we are surrounded by forces we can't explain, but the bible touches on who and what they are. I have heard and seen these entities with other witnesses present. I have had them move objects, throw things, and heard their voices. Trust me they're all around us you are just so busy you don't even notice them.
> 
> There is only one explanation for these entities,the bible calls them fallen angels ,and they're manipulating the entire planet. People need to wake up. I almost feel foolish for bringing it up, but i do believe it is my responsibility to make people aware of the situational irony that truly exists.
Click to expand...


*Evolutionist core beliefs are always being overhauled.*

Wrong.  Details are being "filled in", not "overhauled".

As far as those "spirit thingy's",  they have a name.  They are called "delusions".


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is this evidence of macroevoluition creationists are not discussing ?
> 
> 
> 
> How about that list of questions I continually repeated at the end of every one of my posts in the first pages of this thread which you had to avoid every single time?  Why don't you start by addressing those findings, and then moving on to every other question myself or GTH has put forth and you have pretended doesn't exist.  Smoke and mirrors indeed.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also having exp with unseen forces that can't be described, shows me we are surrounded by forces we can't explain, but the bible touches on who and what they are. I have heard and seen these entities with other witnesses present. I have had them move objects, throw things, and heard their voices. Trust me they're all around us you are just so busy you don't even notice them.
> 
> There is only one explanation for these entities,the bible calls them fallen angels ,and they're manipulating the entire planet. People need to wake up. I almost feel foolish for bringing it up, but i do believe it is my responsibility to make people aware of the situational irony that truly exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK so you're schizophrenic.  This actually explains a lot.  We have very good drugs you can take to stop these fallen angels so you don't hear the voices or see their actions.  The scientific method can help exorcise your demons.
Click to expand...


I asked you how what you were asking proves macroevolution and you did not attempt an answer, other then to say its possible to get new information through those mutations. Dr. Spetner said there is no way the mutations you cited can produce the information needed for macroevolution.

Have you ever seen one organism evolve into a destinct new organism ? if you have explain.

Amazing ! drugs for all 6 witnesses that saw the same thing,nice duck. Trust me i rather have no one see what i have seen, but if it means saving a life from ignorance then i hope you someday get that chance to exp what i have. You can think people are nuts if it makes you feel better, but they really exist. If they exist, God exists,it just only adds to my core beliefs.


----------



## Youwerecreated

rdean said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is actually not true.  Things like this are said about people who are dumb enough to believe that we use carbon for dating.  We don't.  It IS an unreliable dating source thus it's not used.  That doesn't stop ignorant religious groups from claiming otherwise though.  Meanwhile the dating techniques that are verified as reliable even against other reliable dating techniques are never mentioned.
> 
> This is the same story as evolution. The actual knowledge we have on evolution or dating isn't actually addressed by creationists.  Instead, false information and inaccurate statements are propagated to continue spreading the ignorance.
> 
> 
> Except it has.  You pretend it hasn't, just as you pretend that carbon dating is used to acquire the age of old rocks, when neither is actually the case.
> 
> 
> I find it funny that dumb hicks like you talk about smoke and mirrors.  In your discussion in this thread you have used every evasion possible to mask the actual topics and evidence.  Science remains transparent and open in its findings, whereas creationists lurk in the shadows and spread false information.  Do you really want to talk about smoke and mirrors when you have so adamantly refused to answer simple questions regarding reproducible evidence?
> 
> 
> Yes, this is known as blind faith.  It contradicts verifiable evidence, and defines ignorance.  It comes as no surprise that your sad excuse for an education on this topic leaves you with the inability to discuss it honestly and transparently. You've come to your conclusion, and it would be impossible to change it regardless of the evidence presented before you.  I mean, really think about that idea: what could possibly be found today that would make you reconsider your beliefs?  Nothing.  It's impossible to change when ignorance is your core.
> 
> 
> Somewhere around when you thought searching creationists websites was an equivalent education to a biology major, it dawned on me that you don't actually understand education or promote it freely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All dating methods are reached by assumptions. You know what i find funny ? they rely on known flawed dating systems to agree with others to determine accuracy.
> 
> Take a look at the various dating systems and their problems, Not just carbon dating.
> 
> Radiometric Dating Methods
> 
> What is this evidence of macroevoluition creationists are not discussing ?
> 
> My core beliefs have never been refuted.* Evolutionist core beliefs are always being overhauled.*
> 
> Hey now you're wrong. I am an honest person if there was evidence to prove you right i am a big enough person to admit to being wrong. But to throw everything i believe out the window over intelligent peoples vivid imagination,now that would be ignorance. When so many of your colleagues are also speaking out about the problems with your theory.
> 
> There is absolutely no way to look at the distant pass and accurately describe what it was like,what happened,and describe how it happened. Now whats really nice is we do have someone who was there, and passed on what happened, and what it was like. He just did not go into detail on how it happened.
> 
> Yes i have reached my conclusions,and i have no reason to doubt what i believe. Just weighing the evidence i see around me. Also having exp with unseen forces that can't be described, shows me we are surrounded by forces we can't explain, but the bible touches on who and what they are. I have heard and seen these entities with other witnesses present. I have had them move objects, throw things, and heard their voices. Trust me they're all around us you are just so busy you don't even notice them.
> 
> There is only one explanation for these entities,the bible calls them fallen angels ,and they're manipulating the entire planet. People need to wake up. I almost feel foolish for bringing it up, but i do believe it is my responsibility to make people aware of the situational irony that truly exists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Evolutionist core beliefs are always being overhauled.*
> 
> Wrong.  Details are being "filled in", not "overhauled".
> 
> As far as those "spirit thingy's",  they have a name.  They are called "delusions".
Click to expand...


Really ? like when evolutionist's say a fish went extinct 65 million years ago,and a few years ago they find one still living. There was another creature they said evolved into another creature and became a land animal, but wow it didn't show any change at all from the fossils they had of this creature and it was still a good swimmer before it supposedly evolved  i'm drawing a blank on the name of the fish or creature whatever it was. Yes they had to overhaul the story.

Delusions ,nope,but think what you like. Boy are you guys in for a shock someday.


----------



## rdean

Youwerecreated said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> All dating methods are reached by assumptions. You know what i find funny ? they rely on known flawed dating systems to agree with others to determine accuracy.
> 
> Take a look at the various dating systems and their problems, Not just carbon dating.
> 
> Radiometric Dating Methods
> 
> What is this evidence of macroevoluition creationists are not discussing ?
> 
> My core beliefs have never been refuted.* Evolutionist core beliefs are always being overhauled.*
> 
> Hey now you're wrong. I am an honest person if there was evidence to prove you right i am a big enough person to admit to being wrong. But to throw everything i believe out the window over intelligent peoples vivid imagination,now that would be ignorance. When so many of your colleagues are also speaking out about the problems with your theory.
> 
> There is absolutely no way to look at the distant pass and accurately describe what it was like,what happened,and describe how it happened. Now whats really nice is we do have someone who was there, and passed on what happened, and what it was like. He just did not go into detail on how it happened.
> 
> Yes i have reached my conclusions,and i have no reason to doubt what i believe. Just weighing the evidence i see around me. Also having exp with unseen forces that can't be described, shows me we are surrounded by forces we can't explain, but the bible touches on who and what they are. I have heard and seen these entities with other witnesses present. I have had them move objects, throw things, and heard their voices. Trust me they're all around us you are just so busy you don't even notice them.
> 
> There is only one explanation for these entities,the bible calls them fallen angels ,and they're manipulating the entire planet. People need to wake up. I almost feel foolish for bringing it up, but i do believe it is my responsibility to make people aware of the situational irony that truly exists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Evolutionist core beliefs are always being overhauled.*
> 
> Wrong.  Details are being "filled in", not "overhauled".
> 
> As far as those "spirit thingy's",  they have a name.  They are called "delusions".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really ? like when evolutionist's say a fish went extinct 65 million years ago,and a few years ago they find one still living. There was another creature they said evolved into another creature and became a land animal, but wow it didn't show any change at all from the fossils they had of this creature and it was still a good swimmer before it supposedly evolved  i'm drawing a blank on the name of the fish or creature whatever it was. Yes they had to overhaul the story.
> 
> Delusions ,nope,but think what you like. Boy are you guys in for a shock someday.
Click to expand...


Oops, you just showed you don't know anything.  Now aren't you sorry you opened your mouth?


----------



## Youwerecreated

rdean said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Evolutionist core beliefs are always being overhauled.*
> 
> Wrong.  Details are being "filled in", not "overhauled".
> 
> As far as those "spirit thingy's",  they have a name.  They are called "delusions".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really ? like when evolutionist's say a fish went extinct 65 million years ago,and a few years ago they find one still living. There was another creature they said evolved into another creature and became a land animal, but wow it didn't show any change at all from the fossils they had of this creature and it was still a good swimmer before it supposedly evolved  i'm drawing a blank on the name of the fish or creature whatever it was. Yes they had to overhaul the story.
> 
> Delusions ,nope,but think what you like. Boy are you guys in for a shock someday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oops, you just showed you don't know anything.  Now aren't you sorry you opened your mouth?
Click to expand...


You just showed you don't know much, and you will believe whatever evolutionist say.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Fairytales a many when dealing with the evolutionist.



Missing? or misinterpreted?

Walking fish.

Tiktaalik and the Fishy Story of Walking Fish - Answers in Genesis

Go into a dark room alone and summon the head of the fallen angels you can meet him if you like,but i wouldn't do it. They call him satan.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> _All i said was they were found in limestone ,did not say they were found together._
> 
> I also said they weren't found together.  The question is , "Why not?"  Pleasde try and stick to one line of reasoning.  It sounds like you're trying to make MY point!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point ?
Click to expand...


DUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!  Is your memory THAT bad.  I said trilobite and dolphin fossils are NEVER found in the same strata without there being some after-the -fact disturbance.  Do you think you can remember that long enough to tell us why that would be, if we were all created at about the same time?


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> _All i said was they were found in limestone ,did not say they were found together._
> 
> I also said they weren't found together.  The question is , "Why not?"  Pleasde try and stick to one line of reasoning.  It sounds like you're trying to make MY point!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!  Is your memory THAT bad.  I said trilobite and dolphin fossils are NEVER found in the same strata without there being some after-the -fact disturbance.  Do you think you can remember that long enough to tell us why that would be, if we were all created at about the same time?
Click to expand...


After the fact disturbance ? is this your attempt to answer why supposedly older evidence is found on top of younger evidence ? The explanation is you guys are wrong on whats older evidence and the evidence was distributed by the global flood but nice try.

Regurgitating theories will get you nowhere.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest your theory is wrong.

UPSIDE DOWN 
 The Distorted Theory of Evolution



Evolution stands exposed as a myth; a fanciful theory where so-called fact

is built upon assumption; where theory replaces data; where guesswork replaces

logic; where anti-supernaturalistic bias reigns supreme. Evolution is built on the

house of cards called The Geologic Succession Of Strata, which assumes

that the oldest rocks containing the simplest forms of fossil life are always

beneath younger rocks. Here, you will discover the astonishing truth about 

evolutions big lie!



By Garner Ted Armstrong   [printer-friendly]     [pdf format]

    There are literally thousands of proofs that a Creator God exists. The Bible says we can know much about our Creator by looking at the things He has made! Paul wrote, For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them [evident to them; plain to see, right before their eyes!] ; for God hath showed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world [by looking at the creation itself] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened (Romans 1:18-21).

We know a house had an architect and a builder. We know an automobile had a manufacturer. We know a child had parents. We know a watch had a maker. We know that an airplane was designed by aeronautical engineers, and that crystals form the same way every time, according to their properties. We know that mosquitos hatch from larvae, which were laid by adult mosquitos, which were hatched from larvae, just as we know chickens were hatched from eggs, which were laid by adult hens, which were hatched from eggs. We know that all life exists in a cycle, and that life comes only from pre-existing life. Further, life comes only from pre-existing life of the same kind.

These are absolutes. They are inexorable, immutable, unchanging.

It is important to remember, however, that there is such a thing as micro-evolution,  almost limitless variety within a Genesis kind; almost limitless adaptation. Hundreds of examples are instantly evident; moths which adapt to their environment, becoming virtually invisible as they take on the texture and color of plants and trees so as to conceal themselves from predators; the many hundreds of breeds of dogs (resulting, in the main, from mans selective breeding); the incredible variety within the human race, from pygmies in the Ituri Forest in Africa to a Swede who is seven feet tall; from tiny Shetlands and miniature horses to the huge Percheron and Clydesdale; the myriad species of birds.

Evolutionists are fond of pointing to micro-evolution, meaning the many varieties within a kind, and applying it to their theory that a kind evolved into a different kind!  This is utterly untrue. Whether pygmy or gigantic Swede, they are both human beings, and inter-fertile. A snowshoe rabbit, which is white in the winter and brown in the summer is still a snowshoe rabbit, and is not in process of becoming a whale, or a horse, or a monkey. A chameleon which is green on a green leaf and brown on a brown leaf is still a chameleon, and will give birth to other chameleons, not to a different species.  Actually, the very fact of such marvelous adaptation, such as the camouflage of certain birds, insects, animals and fish, is another proof of a Great Designer and Creator.  

All around us are proofs of God. The closer we look into the marvels of what men refer to as Mother Nature (interesting they refuse to call it Father), the more awesome, the more law-abiding, the more intricate, the more perfectly designed. 

We know much about the Creator by looking at His creation. Creation means all that is; all that exists. That means the entire universe; all the stars and their planetary systems; all laws, all energy, all matter.

     We know that matter is energy arranged in intricate, law&#8209;abiding ways. Matter is anything that has weight  and occupies space. Even air is "matter." Air consists of different kinds of gases, mostly oxygen, hydrogen and carbon dioxide, and suspended particulate matter. Where did it come from? What was before it? Oxygen in air is the result of the action of living plants and diatoms in the sea. Carbon dioxide results from humans and animalss extracting oxygen, and giving off carbon dioxide. There is no air on the moon, or the other plants. Some of the planets are surrounded by thick, gaseous mantles which would be poisonous to life.    

     Obviously, a study of only a part of creation would require enough books to fill a very large library. Every conceivable physical science would be involved: Astronomy, Biology,  Geology and all the subdivisions of such fields, such as historical and dynamic geology, microbiology and genetics&#8209;&#8209;a vast field of special disciplines involving every aspect of the material universe would be involved in such a  study. You should do yourself a favor, and, limiting your study to only one subject of the myriad number available, go to a public library, and study the articles in an encyclopedia about such mundane, taken-for-granted things as air, or water, or light. I  promise you, you will be fascinated for the simple reason that most quit studying such things the moment they graduated from high school.

                Terra Firma, The Rocks Beneath Our Feet

Nothing is more immediately obvious  when thinking of the creation, than the rocks beneath our feet. To illustrate only a few of these thousands of challenges to the vain theory of evolution, let's investigate the so&#8209;called geologic succession of strata. This phrase suggests there is an orderly succession in the rocks of our earth; that the most ancient rocks are always on the bottom, and that the younger rocks, containing much more recent forms of fossil life, are always on top. 

Are the oldest rocks always on the bottom? In a sense, this is an irrelevant question, for the geologic succession of strata, having used a false system of measurement, has labeled so-called older rocks which they claim are atop so-called younger rocks, and then tried to explain away this anomaly by devious means.

As you will see, according to their false system of labeling strata, evolutionists have erroneously labeled the rocks. The terms older and younger are applied, not because of the order of the rocks; the depth at which they are found, or which layer is atop another, but because of the kind of fossil life forms found within the rocks! 

As you will see, this is reasoning in a circle, and not true science at all. Evolutionary geology is built around the presupposition that our earth consists of layers of rock found in succession as they were deposited over aeons of time; that the very oldest rocks, containing no fossils, are at the bottom; that the Archeozoic and Proterozoic (before life) rocks contain no fossil remains; that the early Paleozoic rocks contain only simple life forms; that Mesozoic rocks contain ever more complex life forms until one arrives at the most recent strata, such as the ice ages (Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Recent), where one finds mammoths and man.

Further, evolutionary hypotheses are based upon the supposition that all these rocks were laid down over vast aeons of time; that the fossil record shows the passage of billions of years; that the fossils in the rocks were not laid down suddenly, as a result of great catastrophes, like a world&#8209;wide flood! Yet, the Bible not only asserts that the flood of Noah was global, but allows, in the first verses of Genesis, for any number of submergences of the continental land masses beneath the waters of the seas. Any geologist knows that fossil sea shells are found atop the highest mountains on earth; from the Rockies to the Himalayas, from the Atlas to the Alps.

Evolutionists are fond of arranging the fossils as they are allegedly found in the rocks in museums, and in illustrations in textbooks. Yet, most laymen have assumed that only the deepest, most ancient, strata contain these primitive fossil forms. This, in spite of the fact that fossil dinosaurs are found on or near the surface in places from China to Colorado. Evolutionists established a theory long ago, and have built an incredibly warped, shaky, unstable superstructure atop it. They date the strata by the fossils found in them, and then date the fossils by the supposed age of the strata.

As one collegiate&#8209;grade text asserts, All fossil evidence has some significance in determining the geologic time of deposition of strata. Thus in the case of man the correlation of artifacts with the bones of extinct Pleistocene mammals is the chief reliance in dating stone age man with regard to the various glacial and interglacial stages of that epoch.

Did you notice the important admission here? The author is asserting that stone age man is assigned a certain date because of correlation of artifacts with the bones of extinct Pleistocene mammals.

Once this false concept is assumed, it leads to incredible errors in dating fossil life. The author continued, Again, any strata that contain dinosaur bones must be Mesozoic; those with vertebrate remains must be later than Ordovician, and trilobite fossils mean Paleozoic time (Geology, by von Engeln and Caster, p. 435, emphasis mine). 

Talk about dogma. Note that well. Any strata that contain dinosaur bones must be Mesozoic.  While this is simply not so, it sounds like a pronouncement issued by an individual that claims infallibility.  A kind of evolutionary pope, speaking from the holy see of erudition and anti-God evolution, issuing an infallible edict which all are required to accept.

There are insurmountable difficulties with the so&#8209;called Geologic Succession of Strata, Lets take a look at some of them. 

                    The Geologic Succession Of Strata Is False!

First, there is no place on earth where the entire Geologic Succession of Strata can be found. Obviously, the concept of the earths sedimentary rocks being found in orderly form, from most ancient to most recent is impossible to begin with. Where did the rocks come from? Rocks are either sedimentary (water deposited), metamorphic (formed by changes caused by faulting and pressure) or igneous (volcanic). Since there are no fossils in igneous rocks, and since there are virtually no fossils in metamorphic rocks, scientists are limited to investigating the water&#8209;borne deposits, such as various kinds of marbles, sandstone, limestone and shale, to establish an age for the strata.

The strata are dated according to the fossils found in them. The fossils are dated according to the strata in which they are found. Does that sound rather arbitrary? It is. As we shall see, evolutionary geology immediately discards data; facts  evidence in the amount of billions of tons of rock; whole mountain ranges, mammoth regions of the earth, where the fossils found in the rocks contradict their theories.

True science always alters a given theory to admit proven facts. Not so with evolution. To illustrate this point, let's get right to one of the most poignant and embarrassing, proofs. An important one is the ridiculous attempt by geologists to claim that whenever the fossils are out of order according to their geologic succession of strata, there is something wrong with the rocks!  They say in many cases the rocks are upside down  completely out of order!

When you walk into your bedroom and see the bed made, you probably suppose your wife spread the sheet on the bed prior to the cover, and the cover prior to the bedspread. She would look a little silly putting the bedspread on first, and then burrowing beneath it, attempting to spread the sheet. If she had done so out of caprice, there would probably be evidence pointing to the fact, for it would be virtually impossible to do a neat job unless she once again straightened the bedspread.

When you view layers of rock as exposed in highway cuts, canyons (like the Grand Canyon of Arizona) and river banks, and you see massive layers, sometimes twenty, thirty feet thick, seemingly as smooth and cohesive as if they had been mixed in a blender, lying conformably atop each other in orderly succession, it is logical to assume the layers on the bottom (if no evidence of faulting, such as tilted, folded, or fractured strata: isoclines, synclines, etc., is present) were deposited first; then the ones immediately above them, and, lastly, the layer on the top, like a chef would make a layer cake.

You would be quite correct, of course. However, evolutionists often tell us we are wrong to assume the younger strata are always atop older strata. Why? Because the fossils found in so&#8209;called younger strata are often found beneath so&#8209;called older strata. 

When this occurs, as it quite frequently does, evolutionists become incredibly inventive. In order to tenaciously cling to their theories, in many regions, including large areas of significant mountain ranges, they seek to explain away the arrangement of millions of tons of rocks; miles upon miles of rocks where the fossils are out of proper order; sometimes upside down. Not that they are really upside own, please note, but that it appears older fossils are found in rocks above younger fossils, when these older fossils were supposedly extinct for millions of years! Yet, the layers appear undisturbed! 

Problem! The rocks appear to have been smoothly laid down; are conformable to each other, showing no evidence of massive faulting, overthrusts, or any other activity. What a headache! What a problem for evolutionists!  If they admit what their eyes plainly tell them, they would be admitting their entire scheme of the geologic succession of strata is wrong; admitting that the supposed younger fossils did not evolve from supposed older, simpler ones!

But such an admission would be disastrous to evolutionists!

So, presto!  Forget the evidence.  Claim the rocks are upside down! Those rocks just have no right to be sitting there, mute, weighing billions of tons, in a ridiculous posture, containing the wrong kind of fossils!  Like many a clever defense attorney, just because the defendant was standing there, holding the gun, with the smoke still issuing forth, doesnt mean he was the one who pulled the trigger!             

What kind of force would be required to superimpose massive layers of rock, weighing millions of tons, atop other layers? The kind of forces which caused mountain&#8209;building; overthrusts, isoclines, synclines and geosynclines. When one sees twisted, tilted, and folded strata, which is clearly visible throughout the Swiss Alps, many other major mountain ranges, and in highway cuts in Southern California, one is seeing evidence of massive earthquakes on a scale never experienced in the history of mankind. Whenever a younger layer of rock is allegedly found beneath an older layer of rock, there is inescapable physical evidence which demonstrates how such an unusual phenomenon could have occurred.

To be sure, there are cases where such things can and do occur.  Such vast movement of massive regions of land would cause grinding, crushing destruction of the rocks closest to the moving layers, reforming them into metamorphic rocks, destroying all fossils.  Certainly, there could not have survived such delicate fossil forms as worm tracks, ferns and leafs, ripple marks, and the like after such catastrophic crushing and grinding. Any layman can look at two layers of rock, and determine if slickensides, the polished rocks formed at the place where faulting and slippage of the rocks occurred, is present. But what if the layer of rock (stratum) containing the so&#8209;called older fossils, and the stratum containing the so&#8209;called younger fossils beneath it show absolutely no evidence of any twisting, faulting, or movement? What if there is perfect conformity between them? 

Obviously, they were deposited just as you view them. Therefore, assertions that  fossils beneath other fossils are younger than the fossils atop them--perhaps by countless millions of years--are simply false. Though evolutionists may claim they are somehow out of order, or that we are viewing deceptive conformity, we are actually seeing the fossils in their respective layers of rock reposing in the exact order in which they were deposited.

You and I know that when mud is deposited by flooding, then gradually hardens, it begins to crack. Then, it erodes. Animals walk about upon it. Wind blows. Summer storms come along. In other words, any deposits of alluvial soil, slowly drying as the water which carried it there recedes, will show obvious evidence of the passage of time.  Especially when that time is assumed to be measured in the millions or even billions of years!

When any two layers containing so&#8209;called upside down fossils record are lying perfectly, smoothly, uninterruptedly together, as if the tide of mud which had deposited the bottom layer had no sooner receded when another flow of different mud, containing different forms of life, came from another direction and was deposited immediately, it is obvious that the evolutionists have made a serious error in their dating theories.

 The rocks are not in error. Evolutionists are. When one cannot  slip a thin knife between two smoothly&#8209;mixed layers of sandstone; when there is absolutely no evidence of any erosion, or overthrust faulting (which would crush the rock, grind it, metamorphose it, and cause a completely different kind of rock structure), then one must assume the rocks were deposited exactly as they appear ---  the older on the bottom, and the younger on the top, like your sheet and your bedspread. 

Of course, what you are looking at when you see such strata piled atop each other so uniformly is in itself evidence of a massive catastrophe; floods on unimaginable scale which held vast amounts of silts and muds in dissolution, and which came flowing over the recently&#8209;deposited mud of a previous tide. That huge amounts of the rocks in the earth's surface were deposited suddenly is anathema to evolutionists, for they detest the word catastrophism, a word which means much of the geologic formations on the earth were the result of gigantic catastrophes, such as huge floods, giant earthquakes, and the unimaginable movement of the tectonic plates.  

Their false theories require vast amounts of time! Time for birds to evolve from dinosaurs; for four-footed quadrupeds to climb down from trees, enter the oceans, and gradually have their nostrils move from their nose to their foreheads; their hairy bodies become sleek skin, until they become toothed whales and dolphins!

Evolutionists simply will not admit that different layers of strata, containing vastly different species, could have lived contemporaneously. Once having insisted that their supposed geologic succession of strata is correct, they stolidly refuse to alter the theory to suit the facts.

   Rock Bottom  Where Is It? Which Layer Is On The Bottom?

Which stratum is the oldest of all fossil&#8209;bearing rock, and therefore (according to evolution) contains the earliest and simplest of all life forms?  Long ago, evolutionary theory accepted as fact that primitive, simple life forms are invariably found at the bottom of the layers of rocks; that, as one progresses through layer after layer toward the top, the life forms become ever more complex. This is a given. Virtually every high school graduate who has been introduced to only a little sample of geology, or history, or biology, has been told repeatedly that this is so. But it is not so. 

Long ago, evolutionists used the order of fossils found in a few regions in Western Europe and New York state to establish their evolutionary column. They have assumed that fossil forms of ancient life are invariably found in the same order all over the world. Such is not the case. In fact, evolutionary geologists have not yet determined, with any degree of certainty,  which layer of rock is the bottom insofar as the fossil record is concerned.

As one eminent geologist says, For any given limited locality, where stratigraphy can be followed out, the lowest beds are certainly the oldest. But we can make no progress by such a method when we come to deal with the world at large, for actual stratigraphical relationships can be proved over only very limited areas.

These beds may be the lowest in this locality, may rest on the granite or crystalline schists, and have every appearance of antiquity. But other beds containing very different fossils, are in precisely this position elsewhere, and where stratigraphical order can no more prove the relative age of their fossils than the overlap of scales on a fish proves those at the tail to be older than those at the head (Evolutionary Geology And The New Catastrophism, by Price: p. 78, emphasis mine).

Price goes on to show how ...any kind of fossiliferous rock whatever, even young Tertiary rocks, may rest upon the Archaean or Azoic series, or may themselves be almost wholly metamorphosed or crystalline, thus resembling in position and outward appearance the so&#8209;called oldest rocks (ibid. p. 79).

In his chapter on finding bottom, Price concludes, ...I see no escape from the acknowledgment that the doctrine of any particular fossils' being essentially older than others is a pure invention, with absolutely nothing in nature to support it (ibid. p. 87).

Evolutionary geology operates on a false assumption that the layers of rock on the earth are invariably found in the same order, like the layers of an onion. Obviously the whole world is not like an onion, with the oldest rocks on the bottom, progressing upward until arriving at the most recent rocks, for the earth is round, after all, and each layer of sedimentary rock was water borne, and had to come from some other area, where the materials the water carried were scoured by massive floods; tides, rivers, and so&#8209;on. Logically, the area so scoured is now absent the exact amount of materials which were deposited elsewhere.

Bottom, or the lowest rocks next to the liquid magma upon which the tectonic plates float is naturally where there are no fossils in evidence, according to evolutionary theory. Bottom means, usually, bedrock of granite and various schists; metamorphic rock, atop which one finds sedimentary rock, containing various fossil forms. But, as Price proves, Since the life&#8209;succession theory [evolution] rests logically and historically on the biological form of Werner's onion&#8209;coat notion that only certain kinds of rocks (fossils) are to be found at the bottom, or next to the Archaean, or Primitive, and it is now acknowledged everywhere that any kind of rocks whatever may be thus situated [including Tertiary rocks, containing fossils of mammoths and men!], it is as clear as sunlight that the life&#8209;succession theory rests logically and historically on a myth, and that there is no way of proving what kind of fossil was buried first(ibid. p. 87). 

In spite of such overwhelming evidence, evolutionists cling to their false theory. Students who intend entering the teaching field in the subjects of anthropology or paleontology are not taught from books such as those by Nelson, Price, Whitcomb and Morris, and a host of others. They are never told about such books, which are dismissed by evolutionary geologists; completely ignored.

Yet, there are many studious works which completely dismantle the evolutionary theory. Outstanding examples are "Darwin On Trial," by Phillip E. Johnson, published by Regnery Gateway, Washington, D.C., and "Evolution&#8209;&#8209;Possible or Impossible?" by James F. Coppedge, published by Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and "The Bone Peddlers&#8209;&#8209;Selling Evolution," by William R. Fix, published by Macmillan. Two excellent and very recent books are those by James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, published in 1999, and The Case Against Darwin, published in 2002. 

Price conclusively shows, most of the rocks of our earth prove great catastrophes occurred in the past; and most of the sedimentary rocks, including miles and miles of coal beds show very recent catastrophes, such as massive floods. Since God's word speaks of a global flood, and the rocks cry out in a great roaring voice that A massive flood caused this, only a fool would ignore the obvious message of the rocks. It requires on the average about a forty foot thick layer of vegetation ripped up, and water borne to then be crushed beneath subsequent layers of muds to form a seam of coal only one foot thick. Coal beds prove gargantuan catastrophes in the past, as do many, many other strata, such as marbles, which are sometimes formed from solid masses of sea bottom life.

All such evidence completely destroys the theory that it required vast aeons of time for various forms of life to evolve into other, remarkably different forms of life; that men eventually evolved from simple, one-celled animals like amoeba.  

To assume that our continents and islands; the massive mountain ranges of our earth, and all topographical features of the land are the result of uniformity; that we are viewing the results of a very slow, gradual process which required billions of years is sheer nonsense.

Our present river systems and deltas portray only a very recent development. In the North American continent are hundreds of dry lake beds, vast areas where ancient inland sea shores are clearly visible. The Great Salt Lake is but a tiny puddle remaining from massive Lake Bonneville, which was a massive inland sea at one time. The Mississippi River is but a tiny trickle when compared with the monstrous drainage basin that once surged toward the South, carrying untold amounts of silts and sediments that were deposited across many states. When the North American continent was thrust upward from the seas which covered it, the buckling of the tectonic plates beneath caused the massive mountain building that is evident by looking at the great Rocky Mountains; the Cascades, and the Sierra Madre mountains. In the river valleys one discovers deep layers of sedimentary rocks. Along the spines of the mountains, one sees the ancient granites and schists; upthrusts of bedrock that soar as high as 14,000 feet in the continental United States, and above 22,000 feet in Chile.

Here and there, at incredibly high elevations, one discovers fossils which could only have existed in the seas; fossils preserved, not through the process of gradual change, but uprooted, sorted by alluvial action, and deposited by the millions, suddenly. 

The vast San Juaquin Valley of California was once a gigantic bay, teeming with sea life. At its southern end, around Bakersfield, are supposedly some of the oldest mountains found on the North American continent. Why the so-called oldest? Because paleontologists have found fossilized sharks there, and, since the kinds of sharks found belong to a certain stratum found elsewhere, and therefore must be of a certain age, that same age is assigned to the hills around Bakersfield.

Among these rolling, yet steep and gravely hills is Shark Tooth Mountain. Actually, it is not just one mountain, but a number of ridges and ravines; smaller hills, which contain countless hundreds of thousands of sharks teeth and bones.

Many years ago, it proved one of the most exciting classes of the year when I would arrange a field trip for my college students to go to Sharks Tooth Mountain. We would take wire mesh baskets with wooden frames, into which we would shovel the gravely soil. By shaking the loose soil rapidly, like a winnowing process, the dirt and smaller pieces would fall through the mesh, and, with surprising regularity, we would discover sharks teeth of various sizes. Some were found right on the surface.

Our field trips proved to us that, at some time perhaps many thousands of years ago, a vast inland basin, or bay, had existed in central California, of which San Francisco Bay is but a tiny remnant. Further, that this shallow inland basin, or sea, contained countless fish and sharks. Further, that some great catastrophe had suddenly killed all that sea life. Further, that, due to the sorting action of water, and massive tides flowing this way and that as the former inland sea drained, the decaying bodies of millions of fish and sharks were mangled and torn; that there were so many of them, that hundreds of thousands of teeth were deposited in one small region. A study of specific gravity; the density of various bodies in water and how they are sorted by fluvial action is all that is necessary to understand the process.

Reading the rocks by noting the kinds of fossil forms found within them; the shape and texture of the rocks; the accompanying rocks above, below, and all around them, is not difficult. These rounded, yet steep hills had obviously been deposited by massive tides and waves which had sluiced back and forth for many years, as what had once been a salt water basin was being raised above the level of the Pacific, and the millions of creatures which lived in it were trapped, died, were torn apart; their remains being sorted so that they were deposited as we found them.

The entire journey was a fascinating study in paleontology and geology, for in the highway cuts between the mountains, we could see plain evidence of massive faulting, folding, twisting of the strata. Of course, we drove right through the famous San Andreas fault, where mind-boggling earthquakes have occurred in the past.

Perhaps those who live on the plains, or in farming states like Iowa or Illinois, are not quite so aware of how great catastrophes formed and shaped our continent. Yet, they have only to look at the  rich black soil of Iowa, note its depth, determine which kinds of rocks lie beneath it, and so-on, to appreciate how Americas richest soil was formed by the fluvial action of water, many thousands of years ago. It is ludicrous to assume, for example, that the Grand Canyon of Arizona is the result of the slow, gradual scouring action of todays Colorado River! One only has to journey downstream for a few hundred miles, to the dams along the Colorado River system along the border with California, to see conglomerates and other sedimentary deposits which show immediate evidence of massive river flows in the past. 

When you see huge stones, as large as automobiles, lying mixed among rocks of every conceivable size and shape, as well as gravels and sand--when those rocks, no matter how large, or how small, are rounded; many of them smoothed off, so as to have very few jagged edges, it means they were rolled and tumbled along for many, many miles together.

The operative word is together. It requires massive flows of water to tumble rocks that are as large as a house! Only by river flows that are hundreds of times larger than the present flow of the Colorado could those rocks have been deposited together, obviously at the same time.

Evolutionists may not like the word catastrophe being applied to geology and paleontology, but it is the only word applicable when one looks at the plain chapter and verse of the rocks themselves. Only a casual study of the Grand Canyon tells us of at least two of the most massive floods imaginable: the first, when the huge layers of sedimentary rock were deposited all over the southwest--layers which lie smoothly mixed, perfectly conformable to each other, for many, many miles. The second, when those water-deposited layers were scoured to the depth of one mile, carving out the most awesome, massive canyon on earth, and depositing billions of tons of rock in jumbled profusion for hundreds of miles.

Uniform flows of the Colorado did not deposit the gigantic layers of sandstone, many of them  60 to 80 feet thick, mixed as smoothly as if in a giant blender, which are visible along the rim of the Grand Canyon. Neither did uniform flow of the river, even including seasonal variations due to flooding, accomplish the scouring of the entire Grand Canyon.

Your eyes and camera which can record such awesome sights, and which does not lie, tell you, this was a massive catastrophe at some ancient time in the past, not the result of gradual processes; not the result of the deposition of sands and silts along a single river bank.        

Evolutionary Geology And The New Catastrophism, by George M. Price (Pacific Press) is a book I highly recommend to serious students of the question of whether evolution is true, or whether God exists. It is replete with examples from all over the world like that mentioned above; geologic evidence of catastrophes, which occurred suddenly which are simply irrefutable. Unfortunately, it may be out of print, although it might be possible for one of the large Internet book sellers to find a copy, or it might be found in a used book store.

As David said, The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God (Psalm 14:1).

There are many educated fools in this world.

"Upside Down" - The Distorted Theory Of Evolution


----------



## Youwerecreated

That is funny ,they date fossils by the strata they were found in and date the strata by the fossils found in it. Wow that is science ?


----------



## konradv

*After the fact disturbance ? is this your attempt to answer why supposedly older evidence is found on top of younger evidence ? *
------------------------------------
There are reasons why that could happen, which you know very well.  Per usual, you haven't answered the question asked.  Never mind the on-top-of or underneath part, that's plate tectonics at work.  Why are they NEVER found in the SAME strata?


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> That is funny ,they date fossils by the strata they were found in and date the strata by the fossils found in it. Wow that is science ?



That's total BS.  Fossils can be dated by atomic methods.  Once the age of a stratum is known, if you find that stratum in another area you can safely assume the fossils there are of the same age.  Your explanation of the method is circular and, therefore, ludicrous in that it in no way describes how scientists really go about determining age.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is funny ,they date fossils by the strata they were found in and date the strata by the fossils found in it. Wow that is science ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's total BS.  Fossils can be dated by atomic methods.  Once the age of a stratum is known, if you find that stratum in another area you can safely assume the fossils there are of the same age.  Your explanation of the method is circular and, therefore, ludicrous in that it in no way describes how scientists really go about determining age.
Click to expand...


Yes it is circular reasoning,the very thing evolutionist's accuse creationist's of doing.

This is not the only article i have read this about.

They jumped out there with their conclusions before all the evidence was uncovered,now they have to explain why older evidence is on top of younger evidence. And you used their explanation, that something happened "after the fact".

Yes they use many methods to put an age on something but first they use several methods of dating to try and get them to agree on the age even though they know they are flawed dating methods. And the date is affected by their presuppositions.

If you begin with the view that the earth is 4.5 billion years old that will have a different effect from the view the earth is only 6,000 years old. I don't blame you because that is what you have been taught.

How can you say exactly what the enviornment was like thousands of years ago ? to put an accurate date on something you need to know such things.

It still comes back to, no one was there to know these things. That is where they make their mistake by believing the enviornment then was the same as it is now.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is funny ,they date fossils by the strata they were found in and date the strata by the fossils found in it. Wow that is science ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's total BS.  Fossils can be dated by atomic methods.  Once the age of a stratum is known, if you find that stratum in another area you can safely assume the fossils there are of the same age.  Your explanation of the method is circular and, therefore, ludicrous in that it in no way describes how scientists really go about determining age.
Click to expand...


How is the age of stratum determined ?

So do you deny fossils are used to determine the age of strata ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> *After the fact disturbance ? is this your attempt to answer why supposedly older evidence is found on top of younger evidence ? *
> ------------------------------------
> There are reasons why that could happen, which you know very well.  Per usual, you haven't answered the question asked.  Never mind the on-top-of or underneath part, that's plate tectonics at work.  Why are they NEVER found in the SAME strata?



You said they were not found together unless  there was a disturbance after the fact,i am saying that disturbance was the flood. There is world wide evidence of the flood just do some research, And quit taking the words from people on your side as the absolute truth.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is funny ,they date fossils by the strata they were found in and date the strata by the fossils found in it. Wow that is science ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's total BS.  Fossils can be dated by atomic methods.  Once the age of a stratum is known, if you find that stratum in another area you can safely assume the fossils there are of the same age.  Your explanation of the method is circular and, therefore, ludicrous in that it in no way describes how scientists really go about determining age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is the age of stratum determined ?
> 
> So do you deny fossils are used to determine the age of strata ?
Click to expand...


Of course not.  If the fosssils found are a certain age, so is the stratum.  Strata can also be aged without fossils by atomic methods.  Once that's done strata found around the world that have the same pattern of strata are assumed to bew of the same age.  That's the way it works.  How does that have anything to do with creationism?  It would seem to throw that theory completely out the window.  Since things obviously weren't created at the same time and many species found today aren't found in the past, evolution would seem to be the answer.  The only way to reconcile those facts would be to backtrack and claim multiple creations over billions of years, which is totally unbiblical.  I really don't see where you have a logical leg to stand on in this discussion.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> I asked you how what you were asking proves macroevolution and you did not attempt an answer, other then to say its possible to get new information through those mutations. Dr. Spetner said there is no way the mutations you cited can produce the information needed for macroevolution.


Oh you don't like that I accidentally didn't answer a single question you put forth?  How many have you purposely avoided at this point?  Dr. Spetner over a decade ago wrote on a topic you STILL actually distinguish from microevolution at a genetic level.  You haven't even provided a creationist copied and pasted propaganda. Why is it that you think no creationist can actually differentiate the two at the molecular level?  Oh no! Another question!



Youwerecreated said:


> Have you ever seen one organism evolve into a destinct new organism ? if you have explain.


Well, actually yes speciation has been observed.  We have that knowledge now.  But I'm not getting into yet another topic with you for you to avoid, produce copied and pasted garbage or mangle if you can't even tell me the difference between micro and macroevolution at the genetic level.



Youwerecreated said:


> Amazing ! drugs for all 6 witnesses that saw the same thing,nice duck. Trust me i rather have no one see what i have seen, but if it means saving a life from ignorance then i hope you someday get that chance to exp what i have. You can think people are nuts if it makes you feel better, but they really exist. If they exist, God exists,it just only adds to my core beliefs.


You really are describing the signs of schizophrenia.  I'm not saying that to be mean, I think you really should talk to a doctor.  Please, describe what you saw further.



Youwerecreated said:


> Really ? like when evolutionist's say a fish went extinct 65 million years ago,and a few years ago they find one still living. There was another creature they said evolved into another creature and became a land animal, but wow it didn't show any change at all from the fossils they had of this creature and it was still a good swimmer before it supposedly evolved  i'm drawing a blank on the name of the fish or creature whatever it was. Yes they had to overhaul the story.


YET AGAIN you show that you actually don't understand the basic concepts of evolution.  One species evolving from another does not by default make the initial species extinct.  If we take a finch and isolate it on say the galapagos islands, and they evolve, the original finches found thousands of miles away do not all suddenly drop dead.



Youwerecreated said:


> That is funny ,they date fossils by the strata they were found in and date the strata by the fossils found in it. Wow that is science ?


That is completely wrong, and yet you put it forth as if it were fact. Are you really still wondering why people find you and other creationists as liars, underhanded, and disreputable people?


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> *After the fact disturbance ? is this your attempt to answer why supposedly older evidence is found on top of younger evidence ? *
> ------------------------------------
> There are reasons why that could happen, which you know very well.  Per usual, you haven't answered the question asked.  Never mind the on-top-of or underneath part, that's plate tectonics at work.  Why are they NEVER found in the SAME strata?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said they were not found together unless  there was a disturbance after the fact,i am saying that disturbance was the flood. There is world wide evidence of the flood just do some research, And quit taking the words from people on your side as the absolute truth.
Click to expand...


If there was a flood, then why weren't more layers disturbed?  Why are there strata of sea life fossils in the peaks of the Himalayas in such numbers and thickness that can't be explained by a flood of relatively short duration as recounted in the Bible?  The flood also doesn't explain why in undistrurbed layers trilobite and dolphin fossils are NEVER found together.  Care to explain all that?


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's total BS.  Fossils can be dated by atomic methods.  Once the age of a stratum is known, if you find that stratum in another area you can safely assume the fossils there are of the same age.  Your explanation of the method is circular and, therefore, ludicrous in that it in no way describes how scientists really go about determining age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is the age of stratum determined ?
> 
> So do you deny fossils are used to determine the age of strata ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not.  If the fosssils found are a certain age, so is the stratum.  Strata can also be aged without fossils by atomic methods.  Once that's done strata found around the world that have the same pattern of strata are assumed to bew of the same age.  That's the way it works.  How does that have anything to do with creationism?  It would seem to throw that theory completely out the window.  Since things obviously weren't created at the same time and many species found today aren't found in the past, evolution would seem to be the answer.  The only way to reconcile those facts would be to backtrack and claim multiple creations over billions of years, which is totally unbiblical.  I really don't see where you have a logical leg to stand on in this discussion.
Click to expand...


How do you know the different layers of strata were not the result of the same cataclysmic event ?

Why would it matter if dolphins were found in different layers of strata then trilobites ? are you saying Dolphins didn't die at the same time as trilobites ?

I believe what scientist are seeing is the result of a global flood.  I was not there so there is many things that  can't be explained.

With all the weight that was placed on the earth with the global flood, that could have produced plate tectonics and no telling what all happened. Just a theory though.


Dating methods are conducted off presuppositions,if the presuppositions are in error so is the date that is reached. That does not sound like a method that is reliable.

You're forgetting dates are reached by many dating methods that are known to be flawed.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you how what you were asking proves macroevolution and you did not attempt an answer, other then to say its possible to get new information through those mutations. Dr. Spetner said there is no way the mutations you cited can produce the information needed for macroevolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you don't like that I accidentally didn't answer a single question you put forth?  How many have you purposely avoided at this point?  Dr. Spetner over a decade ago wrote on a topic you STILL actually distinguish from microevolution at a genetic level.  You haven't even provided a creationist copied and pasted propaganda. Why is it that you think no creationist can actually differentiate the two at the molecular level?  Oh no! Another question!
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever seen one organism evolve into a destinct new organism ? if you have explain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, actually yes speciation has been observed.  We have that knowledge now.  But I'm not getting into yet another topic with you for you to avoid, produce copied and pasted garbage or mangle if you can't even tell me the difference between micro and macroevolution at the genetic level.
> 
> 
> You really are describing the signs of schizophrenia.  I'm not saying that to be mean, I think you really should talk to a doctor.  Please, describe what you saw further.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really ? like when evolutionist's say a fish went extinct 65 million years ago,and a few years ago they find one still living. There was another creature they said evolved into another creature and became a land animal, but wow it didn't show any change at all from the fossils they had of this creature and it was still a good swimmer before it supposedly evolved  i'm drawing a blank on the name of the fish or creature whatever it was. Yes they had to overhaul the story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YET AGAIN you show that you actually don't understand the basic concepts of evolution.  One species evolving from another does not by default make the initial species extinct.  If we take a finch and isolate it on say the galapagos islands, and they evolve, the original finches found thousands of miles away do not all suddenly drop dead.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is funny ,they date fossils by the strata they were found in and date the strata by the fossils found in it. Wow that is science ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is completely wrong, and yet you put it forth as if it were fact. Are you really still wondering why people find you and other creationists as liars, underhanded, and disreputable people?
Click to expand...


Speciation was the result of cross breeding, Not new information that comes from mutations. Dr. Spetner made it clear macroevolution has never been observed. Your theory is based on speculation not evidence.

Examples of speciation.

Video  Rapid Speciation: AM v3 n4 - Answers in Genesis

What you call evolution is actually only the result of cross breeding.

The information that produced the diversity of life has always been present from the time of creation and after the flood.


----------



## konradv

*How do you know the different layers of strata were not the result of the same cataclysmic event ?

Why would it matter if dolphins were found in different layers of strata then trilobites ? are you saying Dolphins didn't die at the same time as trilobites ?*

We know the different strata are from different times from radio-active dating methods.

Of course I'm saying dolphins didn't die the same time as trilobites, because when trilobites lived dolphins wouldn't exist for 100s of millions of years to come.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> *How do you know the different layers of strata were not the result of the same cataclysmic event ?
> 
> Why would it matter if dolphins were found in different layers of strata then trilobites ? are you saying Dolphins didn't die at the same time as trilobites ?*
> 
> We know the different strata are from different times from radio-active dating methods.
> 
> Of course I'm saying dolphins didn't die the same time as trilobites, because when trilobites lived dolphins wouldn't exist for 100s of millions of years to come.



You're are convinced because your theory say's so ?

How do you know they did not exist at the same time ?

Once again, then how do you explain how fossils and strata that is considered to be older be on top of fossils and strata that is considered to be younger ?

Why are marine fossils found so far inland ?example trilobites.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you how what you were asking proves macroevolution and you did not attempt an answer, other then to say its possible to get new information through those mutations. Dr. Spetner said there is no way the mutations you cited can produce the information needed for macroevolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you don't like that I accidentally didn't answer a single question you put forth?  How many have you purposely avoided at this point?  Dr. Spetner over a decade ago wrote on a topic you STILL actually distinguish from microevolution at a genetic level.  You haven't even provided a creationist copied and pasted propaganda. Why is it that you think no creationist can actually differentiate the two at the molecular level?  Oh no! Another question!
> 
> 
> Well, actually yes speciation has been observed.  We have that knowledge now.  But I'm not getting into yet another topic with you for you to avoid, produce copied and pasted garbage or mangle if you can't even tell me the difference between micro and macroevolution at the genetic level.
> 
> 
> You really are describing the signs of schizophrenia.  I'm not saying that to be mean, I think you really should talk to a doctor.  Please, describe what you saw further.
> 
> 
> YET AGAIN you show that you actually don't understand the basic concepts of evolution.  One species evolving from another does not by default make the initial species extinct.  If we take a finch and isolate it on say the galapagos islands, and they evolve, the original finches found thousands of miles away do not all suddenly drop dead.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is funny ,they date fossils by the strata they were found in and date the strata by the fossils found in it. Wow that is science ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is completely wrong, and yet you put it forth as if it were fact. Are you really still wondering why people find you and other creationists as liars, underhanded, and disreputable people?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speciation was the result of cross breeding, Not new information that comes from mutations. Dr. Spetner made it clear macroevolution has never been observed. Your theory is based on speculation not evidence.
> 
> Examples of speciation.
> 
> Video  Rapid Speciation: AM v3 n4 - Answers in Genesis
> 
> What you call evolution is actually only the result of cross breeding.
> 
> The information that produced the diversity of life has always been present from the time of creation and after the flood.
Click to expand...

Yet again I will reiterate that this is not speculation, but reproducible and observable fact.  Just because you're using outdated information from three decades ago does not mean the intelligence of the world stopped in the previous century.  

There is a plethora of reproducible verifiable evidence that completely shatters your fragile beliefs, and the ONLY defense you have is sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending it doesn't exist, as you have so often demonstrated in this thread.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> *How do you know the different layers of strata were not the result of the same cataclysmic event ?
> 
> Why would it matter if dolphins were found in different layers of strata then trilobites ? are you saying Dolphins didn't die at the same time as trilobites ?*
> 
> We know the different strata are from different times from radio-active dating methods.
> 
> Of course I'm saying dolphins didn't die the same time as trilobites, because when trilobites lived dolphins wouldn't exist for 100s of millions of years to come.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're are convinced because your theory say's so ?
> 
> How do you know they did not exist at the same time ?
> 
> Once again, then how do you explain how fossils and strata that is considered to be older be on top of fossils and strata that is considered to be younger ?
> 
> Why are marine fossils found so far inland ?example trilobites.
Click to expand...


I'm convinced not because of a theory but because of well established scientific measurements that tell us different strata are millions and billions of years different in age.  That tell us that they did not live at the same time.

Plate tectonics explains why the crust has folded in places and you find some inversion.  That's why strata are dated, to prove the time line.

Once again the earth has changed much over the eons.  At one time the Atlantic Ocean didn't exist and Middle America was an inland sea.  Fossils of marine life are found at the peaks of the Himalayas as the subcontinent of India drove a seabed 5 miles into the air!!!


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you don't like that I accidentally didn't answer a single question you put forth?  How many have you purposely avoided at this point?  Dr. Spetner over a decade ago wrote on a topic you STILL actually distinguish from microevolution at a genetic level.  You haven't even provided a creationist copied and pasted propaganda. Why is it that you think no creationist can actually differentiate the two at the molecular level?  Oh no! Another question!
> 
> 
> Well, actually yes speciation has been observed.  We have that knowledge now.  But I'm not getting into yet another topic with you for you to avoid, produce copied and pasted garbage or mangle if you can't even tell me the difference between micro and macroevolution at the genetic level.
> 
> 
> You really are describing the signs of schizophrenia.  I'm not saying that to be mean, I think you really should talk to a doctor.  Please, describe what you saw further.
> 
> 
> YET AGAIN you show that you actually don't understand the basic concepts of evolution.  One species evolving from another does not by default make the initial species extinct.  If we take a finch and isolate it on say the galapagos islands, and they evolve, the original finches found thousands of miles away do not all suddenly drop dead.
> 
> 
> That is completely wrong, and yet you put it forth as if it were fact. Are you really still wondering why people find you and other creationists as liars, underhanded, and disreputable people?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speciation was the result of cross breeding, Not new information that comes from mutations. Dr. Spetner made it clear macroevolution has never been observed. Your theory is based on speculation not evidence.
> 
> Examples of speciation.
> 
> Video  Rapid Speciation: AM v3 n4 - Answers in Genesis
> 
> What you call evolution is actually only the result of cross breeding.
> 
> The information that produced the diversity of life has always been present from the time of creation and after the flood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet again I will reiterate that this is not speculation, but reproducible and observable fact.  Just because you're using outdated information from three decades ago does not mean the intelligence of the world stopped in the previous century.
> 
> There is a plethora of reproducible verifiable evidence that completely shatters your fragile beliefs, and the ONLY defense you have is sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending it doesn't exist, as you have so often demonstrated in this thread.
Click to expand...


Nope,i am convinced the things seen by biologist are explained by presuppositions  from brainwashed people. Even though they have NEVER observed one destinct kind of organism evovle into a destinct new kind of organism. 

Bacterium is still bacterium,cats are still cats,dogs are still dogs,horses are still horses. they are all the result of information that was always present and through sexual reproduction. Not new information from mutations , all evolutionist observe is microevolution.

You really need to learn the difference between micro and macroevolution as Dr.Spetner say's. Mutations do not produce the information needed for macroevolution to take place if it does provide the information that produces macroevolution through mutations. Not small feature and trait changes within a group of organisms that comes through sexual reproduction.


----------



## konradv

* Mutations do not produce the information needed for macroevolution to take place if it does provide the information that produces macroevolution through mutations. *

Not only is your premise wrong, this sentence is circular.  Mutatations don't provide info for macroevolution, unless info produces macroevolution through mutations?!?!  Expain, *PLEASE.*


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> * Mutations do not produce the information needed for macroevolution to take place if it does provide the information that produces macroevolution through mutations. *
> 
> Not only is your premise wrong, this sentence is circular.  Mutatations don't provide info for macroevolution, unless info produces macroevolution through mutations?!?!  Expain, *PLEASE.*



Neo darwinism is the preferred theory of evolution. The theory is based on mutations and natural selection being the engines that drives evolution. While mutations can produce new information in small scale changes but not the information that would allow macroevolution to take place. Most mutations are neutral or harmful to the organism. It is very rare for beneficial mutations and extremely rare for them to produce change that is needed for macroevolution to take place. There is so many conditions that would have to be met for a change from mutations to be preserved that it is highly unlikely that the new information could survive natural selection.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> * Mutations do not produce the information needed for macroevolution to take place if it does provide the information that produces macroevolution through mutations. *
> 
> Not only is your premise wrong, this sentence is circular.  Mutatations don't provide info for macroevolution, unless info produces macroevolution through mutations?!?!  Expain, *PLEASE.*



Change in any organism is based on new information without new information there would be no change. But i believe the diversity we see in all life was the result of cross breeding and information that was there all the time. That fits with the creationist view. That God created according to each kind. There was enough information for animals to cross breed and produce the many different breeds within a kind that we see today.The many different breeds of cats,dogs,horses,and plants supports this view.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Mutations do not produce the information needed for macroevolution to take place if it does provide the information that produces macroevolution through mutations. *
> 
> Not only is your premise wrong, this sentence is circular.  Mutatations don't provide info for macroevolution, unless info produces macroevolution through mutations?!?!  Expain, *PLEASE.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Change in any organism is based on new information without new information there would be no change. But i believe the diversity we see in all life was the result of cross breeding and information that was there all the time. That fits with the creationist view. That God created according to each kind. There was enough information for animals to cross breed and produce the many different breeds within a kind that we see today.The many different breeds of cats,dogs,horses,and plants supports this view.
Click to expand...


Where did dolphins come from, if not macroevolution, since there's about a quarter of a billion years between the death of the last trilobite and the first appearance of dolphins?


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Mutations do not produce the information needed for macroevolution to take place if it does provide the information that produces macroevolution through mutations. *
> 
> Not only is your premise wrong, this sentence is circular.  Mutatations don't provide info for macroevolution, unless info produces macroevolution through mutations?!?!  Expain, *PLEASE.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Change in any organism is based on new information without new information there would be no change. But i believe the diversity we see in all life was the result of cross breeding and information that was there all the time. That fits with the creationist view. That God created according to each kind. There was enough information for animals to cross breed and produce the many different breeds within a kind that we see today.The many different breeds of cats,dogs,horses,and plants supports this view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did dolphins come from, if not macroevolution, since there's about a quarter of a billion years between the death of the last trilobite and the first appearance of dolphins?
Click to expand...


That is your theory, that which can't be proven.so in other words it's just an opinion.

You can't prove when or where trilobites and dolphins showed up.

Have you not learned that dating systems are based on ones presuppositions before they even start the dating methods?If you fill all the blanks in concerning theories with speculation ,what is the theory based on ? We have many natural phenomenon's that we can't fully explain but there will always be one to give an explanation according to his or her view but that does not mean the opinion was accurate. That is the same thing going on with every theory that is taught as fact like,Neo Darwinism.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> * Mutations do not produce the information needed for macroevolution to take place if it does provide the information that produces macroevolution through mutations. *
> 
> Not only is your premise wrong, this sentence is circular.  Mutatations don't provide info for macroevolution, unless info produces macroevolution through mutations?!?!  Expain, *PLEASE.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Change in any organism is based on new information without new information there would be no change. But i believe the diversity we see in all life was the result of cross breeding and information that was there all the time. That fits with the creationist view. That God created according to each kind. There was enough information for animals to cross breed and produce the many different breeds within a kind that we see today.The many different breeds of cats,dogs,horses,and plants supports this view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did dolphins come from, if not macroevolution, since there's about a quarter of a billion years between the death of the last trilobite and the first appearance of dolphins?
Click to expand...


This is my belief and theory,all life began approximately 6,000 years ago. Many organisms vanished in the global flood. The creatures cross bred to produce the many different breeds according to each kind. All living organisms were found to be with others of their kind and now and then some crossed over and produced offspring that became new breeds. That is the simple answer to the diversity to life. One that can be supported by the evidence.

The only way a new kind or species can be produced is two different groups of the same kind cross breed that is a fact.


----------



## Youwerecreated

Last night i watched a show on the universe. There was a Physicist which also had a background in astrology explain that our whole solar system is a black hole,and that we owe our lives to a black hole because he say's life could not exist without a black hole. Talk about circular reasoning,but how do you test to know we are in a black hole ? if no one is able to enter a black hole how can you support such a view ? talk about a vivid imagination.

The same can be said for the theory of macroevolution,it is untestable and has never been observed.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Change in any organism is based on new information without new information there would be no change. But i believe the diversity we see in all life was the result of cross breeding and information that was there all the time. That fits with the creationist view. That God created according to each kind. There was enough information for animals to cross breed and produce the many different breeds within a kind that we see today.The many different breeds of cats,dogs,horses,and plants supports this view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did dolphins come from, if not macroevolution, since there's about a quarter of a billion years between the death of the last trilobite and the first appearance of dolphins?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is my belief and theory,*all life began approximately 6,000 years ago.* Many organisms vanished in the global flood. The creatures cross bred to produce the many different breeds according to each kind. All living organisms were found to be with others of their kind and now and then some crossed over and produced offspring that became new breeds. That is the simple answer to the diversity to life. One that can be supported by the evidence.
> 
> The only way a new kind or species can be produced is two different groups of the same kind cross breed that is a fact.
Click to expand...


You believe something proven to be false by atomic dating methods.  If you cling to your belief, you're in essence saying that God lies to us.  Otherwise, why would he give us the brains we have and then arrange things to frustrate our understanding of how the world works?  Your theory, therefore,* is not* supported by the evidence because the fossils we've been talking about are more than 6,000 years old.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> Last night i watched a show on the universe. There was a Physicist which also had a background in astrology explain that our whole solar system is a black hole,and that we owe our lives to a black hole because he say's life could not exist without a black hole. Talk about circular reasoning,but how do you test to know we are in a black hole ? if no one is able to enter a black hole how can you support such a view ? talk about a vivid imagination.
> 
> The same can be said for the theory of macroevolution,it is untestable and has never been observed.



Macroevolution is proved by the fossil record.  You can't say otherwise without also saying God lies to us.  He gave us the brains to come up with all sorts of scientific tests to determine age, but if after all that the results are false, the only answer seems to be that God plays mind games with us.  Is that REALLY what you want to hang your hat on?!?!


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did dolphins come from, if not macroevolution, since there's about a quarter of a billion years between the death of the last trilobite and the first appearance of dolphins?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is my belief and theory,*all life began approximately 6,000 years ago.* Many organisms vanished in the global flood. The creatures cross bred to produce the many different breeds according to each kind. All living organisms were found to be with others of their kind and now and then some crossed over and produced offspring that became new breeds. That is the simple answer to the diversity to life. One that can be supported by the evidence.
> 
> The only way a new kind or species can be produced is two different groups of the same kind cross breed that is a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You believe something proven to be false by atomic dating methods.  If you cling to your belief, you're in essence saying that God lies to us.  Otherwise, why would he give us the brains we have and then arrange things to frustrate our understanding of how the world works?  Your theory, therefore,* is not* supported by the evidence because the fossils we've been talking about are more than 6,000 years old.
Click to expand...


The problem with atomic dating is you don't know the conditions of gases in the air several thousand years ago, let alone, millions and billions of years ago, to get an accurate reading. Once again questionable evidence you're relying on.

God does not lie to us. The earth has gone through some serious changes since creation. God does not play games with our minds,it's man own desire to think he can trace back everything God did and how he did it without being present. If there is confusion it's on mans doing not Gods doing.

Once again man was not there to record these fossils it is simply guess work on the ones that say how old they're.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last night i watched a show on the universe. There was a Physicist which also had a background in astrology explain that our whole solar system is a black hole,and that we owe our lives to a black hole because he say's life could not exist without a black hole. Talk about circular reasoning,but how do you test to know we are in a black hole ? if no one is able to enter a black hole how can you support such a view ? talk about a vivid imagination.
> 
> The same can be said for the theory of macroevolution,it is untestable and has never been observed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Macroevolution is proved by the fossil record.  You can't say otherwise without also saying God lies to us.  He gave us the brains to come up with all sorts of scientific tests to determine age, but if after all that the results are false, the only answer seems to be that God plays mind games with us.  Is that REALLY what you want to hang your hat on?!?!
Click to expand...


No,if the fossil record proves macroevolution, which it does not, why did paleontologist's Eldridge and Gould promote the theory of "Punctuated Equilibrium" ?  I'll tell you why,it was the lack of transitional fossils to show a slow gradual process of macroevolution. The fossils appeared suddenly, but we know the real reason why. It's because macroevolution is a flawed theory and it never happened. Every fossil was the product of deformity or cross breeding that showed little change within a group.

And the lack of evidence that failed to show all the major groups that supposedly evolved from one group of organism's to another group of organism's.

You know the graphs i am speaking of of how an ape went to another creature to another creature eventually winding up a man.

Here is a reminder.

Pictures of Human Evolution & Timeline of Prehistoric, Early & Modern Man


----------



## konradv

The reason you don't find a lot of transistional fossils is because the numbers initially of "evolved" organisms is very small until such time as their differences give them an advantage over their "unevolved" peers or they find a new niche to exploit and their numbers explode.  That's the gist of Punctuated Equilibrium.  It doesn't in any way disprove macro-evolution, it merely explains why transitional fossils can be hard to find.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> The reason you don't find a lot of transistional fossils is because the numbers initially of "evolved" organisms is very small until such time as their differences give them an advantage over their "unevolved" peers or they find a new niche to exploit and their numbers explode.  That's the gist of Punctuated Equilibrium.  It doesn't in any way disprove macro-evolution, it merely explains why transitional fossils can be hard to find.



The lack of transitional fossils, i believe is strong evidence, against macroevolution.

Darwin said,

" if his theory be true there will be many transitional fossils"

 but he admitted that was not the case than, and many confirm that is still the case today.

Darwin Expected Innumerable Transitional Forms, but they Do not Exist
Here is what I consider the most important excerpt of the book:

Darwin,&#8220;Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.&#8221;

The others.

The following quotations by Drs. Leo Hickey, Preston Cloud, and Vincent Sarich are from a film entitled, The Evolution Conspiracy: A Quantum Leap Into the New Age. (1*)  This video contained interviews with these eminent evolutionary scientists, in which they were asked to comment about the prevalence of transitional forms in the fossil record.  Their initial reply was that transitional forms were numerous.   This answer was based on their definition of "transitional."  To them, since they believe evolution is unquestionably true, any fossil of an extinct species is probably a transition between what it evolved from, and what it evolved into later.  After these claims were made, they were given the chance to list examples of transitional fossils, fossils clearly showing themselves to be between species.  This is the creationists' definition of "transitional."   When faced with this definition, they had to admit that there were few or none.   Initially they made it sound like evolution was a proven fact, but when questioned by knowledgeable experts, they had to admit that they lacked support from the geologic record.

Dr. Leo Hickey, Director of Yale Peabody Museum:

1. "There are myriad transitional forms.  There's really no problem finding transitional forms."

versus his statement of:

2. "One of the things that also makes it a little more difficult in the fossil record is the rapidity with which evolution acts, in very short bursts.  It doesn't leave many transitional forms behind."



Dr. Preston Cloud, Director of Geology, UCSB:

1. "In fact there are so many transitional forms between species that we must often fall back on statistical analysis to separate one from the other."

versus his statement of:

2. "The problem of transitional forms is one that all honest paleontologists have a problem with. The geologic record is incomplete.  It's incomplete because of erosion that has eroded things away."



Dr. Vincent Sarich, Professor of Anthropology, UCB:

(commenting on how creationism was overthrown by the fossil evidence for evolution)

1. "We have to remember that after all, creationism was what everybody thought not all that many years ago.  And creationism was overthrown in the scientific community by evolutionary thinking."

versus his statement of:

2. "Although there must be, from an evolutionary perspective, many transitional forms out there,the likelihood of finding any one of them is extremely low."



    The video went on to give another example of an evolutionist who admits there aren't transitional fossils.  Luther Sunderland, a creationist and aerospace engineer comments on a letter he wrote to Dr. Colin Patterson, Director of the British Museum of Natural History, concerning transitional fossils.  Dr. Patterson, a well known and highly respected evolutionist, had just finished writing a book about evolution.  Even though he believes in evolution, Dr. Patterson failed to illustrate any interspecific fossil forms.  Dr. Patterson didn't include any pictures of transitional fossils.

    "I wrote to Dr. Patterson and asked him why he didn't put a single picture of an intermediate form or a connecting link in his book on evolution. Dr. Patterson now, who has seven million fossils in his museum, said the following when he answered my letter: 

    'I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book.  If I knew of any, fossils or living, I certainly would have included it.&#8230; I will lay it on the line.  There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument.'"

In case you happened to skim over that and missed it, I'm going to repeat this direct quote from Dr. Patterson.

"THERE IS NOT ONE SUCH FOSSIL FOR WHICH ONE MIGHT MAKE A WATERTIGHT ARGUMENT."

    This admission has caused Dr. Patterson some grief from some of his fellow evolutionists.  Some even said he shouldn't say things that creationists might use.  Truthfully, Dr. Colin Patterson's name has come up several times in my readings.  I am impressed with his honesty and openness. I understand he believes in evolution, and I respect him for his sincerity. I think he is deceived by evolution, but unlike some evolutionists, as well as some creationists, Dr. Patterson does not impress me as the kind who would stoop to lies, half-truths, and tricks.  Such honesty deserves mention.  There's no reason he, or any scientist, should have to feel uncomfortable in expressing the truth.  To that end, I will show that Dr. Patterson and these others aren't alone in their admission that the fossil record lacks transitional (interspecies) forms.  Before evolutionists criticize Dr. Patterson, they should hear what other knowledgeable scientists say.

    Before we do that, however, let's look at what we should see in the fossil record if Darwinian evolution is true.  Classic evolution theory says that species gradually developed from previous species.  In fact, the process was so slow, it would be impossible to pinpoint exactly when a new species emerged.  Each generation would possess infinitesimal differences from the previous generation.   Only after several thousands, or even millions of generations, would one be able to recognize species differences.  This is much like looking at a motion picture.   Each frame captures a split second of time.  If you look at each frame one at a time, it would be hard to recognize movement.  There isn't much change between frames.  Only if you look at the frames in rapid succession do you see motion.   This is what classical evolution says we should see in the fossil record.   Fossils represent individual frames in the movie-of-life.  As we discover more and more fossils, the frames in evolution's progress, we should be able to piece them together into a film that shows how life evolved.  Like the images on the individual frames in a film, the difference from one frame to the next ought to be too small to distinguish.  Fossils should show such gradual changes that eventually we ought to have a fossil record with no exact boundaries between species.  

    Is this what the fossil record has shown... over the last one hundred and fifty years?  The answer is no!  The fossil record shows no transitional forms.  It didn't when Darwin proposed his theory, and it has gotten worse for the evolutionist ever since. 

    In his book, Darwin's Enigma, Luther Sunderland reveals much about the truth of the fossil record.(2*)

"The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find intermediate varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps." (3*)

"Back in 1940, Dr. Richard B. Goldschmidt had faced the horns of this dilemma-of-the-gaps with his hopeful monster theory, the idea that every once in awhile an offspring was produced that was a monster grossly different from its parents." (4*)

"Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum, was collaborating with Dr. Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard and calling their new theory, aimed at explaining the gaps, 'punctuated equilibria." (5*)

"Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago,published an article in the January 1979 issue (vol. 50, no. 1) of the museum's journal entitled 'Conflicts Between Darwinism and Paleontology' in which he stated that the 250,000 species of plants and animal recorded and deposited in museums throughout the world did not support the gradual unfolding hoped for by Darwin." (6*)

In fact, Dr. Raup actually stated in the article:

"Ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time."

    How is this possible, you ask?  It is because many of the missing-links used as proof for evolution at Darwin's time have since been discarded by evolutionists because science has proven they weren't links at all.  I can't think of any other field of science that presently bases its beliefs on fewer facts than were available one-hundred and fifty years ago. 

    Dr. Donald Fisher, the state paleontologist at The New York State Natural History Museum, was asked about transitional forms.

    "Did Dr. Fisher know of any transitional forms between the higher taxa?  He replied, 'Intermediates within families and even within orders, but not between phyla.' Why?  His only answer was the standard one&#8212;the imperfection of the fossil record."7

E. C. Olson, author of The Evolution of Life said this.

    "Many new groups of plants and animals suddenly appear, apparently without any close ancestors." (8*)

    Steven Stanley, paleobiologist and professor at Johns Hopkins University spoke out against the gradualistic theory of Charles Darwin.  His observations revealed that the fossil record lacks evidence for gradually changes species.   Defending the punctuated equilibria view of origins, he said this.

"Having carefully scrutinized data from the fossil record during the past decade, however, I have demonstrated a biological stability for species of animals and plants that I think would have shocked Darwin." (9*)

Luther Sunderland quotes Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, of Harvard, from the June-July 1977, Natural History magazine, showing how Gould agrees with this view of gradualism.

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change,..." (10*)

Sunderland further mentions two comments Dr. Gould made during a lecture at Hobart and William Smith College in 1980. 

    "The fossil record is full of gaps and discontinuities, but they are all attributed to the notorious imperfection of the fossil record.  The fossil record is imperfect, but I think that is not an adequate explanation." (11*)

    "The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has known that ever since Cuvier." (12*)

    In fact, Mr. Sunderland asked many well known evolutionists for fossil evidence for the gradual rise of insects, the change of fish to amphibians, the transition from amphibians to reptiles, the change from reptiles to birds, the gradual emergence of mammals from reptiles, the evolution of the horse, and the evolution of man.   Over and over again they admitted that the fossil record reveals no evidence of gradual changes.  Even though millions and millions of fossils have been studied in the last one hundred fifty years, the fossil record is full of gaps between species.   If evolution is true, then we should see an abundance of in-between species.   Although asked several times by Mr. Sunderland, not one of the evolutionists interviewed could site a single transitional fossil showing a direct connection between any two major groups of animals.

    J. Kerby Anderson and Harold G. Coffin, in their book Fossils in Focus, (13*) reveal the same fossil evidence against the Theory of Evolution.  They quote three notable scientists, George Gaylord Simpson, David B. Kitts, and Norman Newell. George Gaylord Simpson said this:

    "It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly.  They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution." (14*)

Dr. David Kitts said:

    "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record.  Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." (15*)

Norman Newell of the American Museum of Natural History adds:

    "Experience shows us that the gaps which separate the highest categories may never be bridged in the fossil record.  Many of the discontinuities tend to be more and more emphasized with increased collecting." (16*)

According to Dr. Page Krynine:

    "Conventional uniformitarianism, or 'gradualism,' i.e. the doctrine of unchanging change, is verily contradicted by all-post Cambrian sedimentary data and the geotectonic histories of which these sediments are the record."   (17*)

    Others confirm that geology hasn't been kind to those who think they know all the answers about our origin.

    "Dr. David Pilbeam, curator of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale and later professor of anthropology at Harvard, wrote an article in 1978 entitled 'Rearranging Our Family Tree' in which he stated that we had been wrong in the past and that he was convinced we would not hit upon the true or correct story of human evolution." (18*)

"Richard Leakey summed up the situation on the final Walter Cronkite Universe program.  He said that if he were going to draw a family tree for man, he would just draw a huge question mark.  He said that the fossil evidence was too scanty for us to possibly know man's evolutionary origin, and he did not think we were ever going to know it." (19*)

Literature is filled with statements from evolutionists who know the fossil record lacks truly transitional forms.

Dr. George Gaylor Simpson, the world's foremost evolutionary paleontologist:

    "The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known.  In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed." (20*)

    "This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists.   It is true of all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate." (21*)

    "Possibility for such dispute exists because transitions between major grades of organization are seldom well recorded by fossils.&#8230;  It is thus possible to claim that such transitions are not recorded because they did not exist, that the changes were not by transitions, but by sudden leaps in evolution." (22*)

Dr. E. J. H. Corner, Professor of Botany at Cambridge University:

    "Much evidence can be adduced in favor of the theory of evolution&#8212;from biology, biogeography,and paleontology, but I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation." (23*)

Dr. E. C. Olson:

    "The fossil record which has produced the problem, is not much help in its solution..." (24*)

Drs. David Raup and Steven Stanley:

    "Unfortunately, the origins of most higher categories are shrouded in mystery: commonly new higher categories appear abruptly in the fossil record without evidence of transitional forms."(25*)

Dr. L. du Nouy:

    "In brief, each group, order, or family seems to be born suddenly and we hardly ever find the forms which link them to the preceding strain.   When we discover them they are already completely differentiated.  Not only do we find practically no transitional forms, but in general it is impossible to authentically connect a new group with an ancient one." (26*)

Dr. A. H. Clark:

    "No matter how far back we go in the fossil record of previous animal life upon earth, we find no trace of any animal forms which are intermediate between the various major groups of phyla."(27*)

    "Since we have not the slightest evidence, either among the living or the fossil animals, of any intergrading types following the major groups, it is a fair supposition that there never have been any such intergrading types." (28*)

Dr. Richard B. Goldschmidt:

    "The facts of greatest importance are the following.  When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions."(29*)

Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Biology, Geology, and the History of Science, at Harvard University:

    "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." (30*)

    "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology.  The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."(31*)

Dr. N. Macbeth:

"The whole aim and purpose of Darwinism is to show how modern forms descended from ancient forms, that is, to construct reliable phylogenies (genealogies or family trees). In this it has utterly failed."32

Dr. Francisco Ayala, professor of biology at the University of California, Davis:

    "The evolutionary origins of taxa in the higher categories are poorly known.&#8230; Most orders, classes, and phyla appear abruptly and commonly have already acquired all the characters that distinguish them." (33*)

Finally we'll let Dr. Colin Patterson refute his critics:

"We have access to the tips of the tree; the tree itself is theory, and people who pretend to know about the tree and to describe what went on it&#8212;how the branches came off and the twigs came off&#8212;are, I think, telling stories." (34*)

    It's difficult to read through these confessions of evolutionists without getting the idea that something is very wrong with the Theory of Evolution.   It leaves one with the impression that the Theory of Evolution is like the "Emperor's New Clothes."  Many scientists think other scientists have absolute proof for evolution.  Rather than admit they see no proof for evolution themselves, they go along with the crowd, admiring what isn't there.  Not wishing to look foolish to their associates, they applaud evolution even louder and defend it all the more.  Yet, deep inside, they feel strangely inadequate as scientists because they can't seem to find truth for themselves. 

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF SCIENCE. . . EMPEROR EVOLUTION IS NAKED!

    So you see, Dr. Colin Patterson is not alone when it comes to evolutionists who recognize that geology fails to provide unquestionable proof for evolution.  Some just aren't as straight forward about it as he is.  Geology fails to prove evolution because fossils, the only historical evidence, fail to prove it.  Classical evolutionists firmly stated, and staked their reputations, that someday enough fossils would be found to prove their argument.   They were wrong!  Over a hundred and forty years of intensive searching has resulted in more and wider gaps between the species.  Rather than being a friend to the evolutionists, the fossil record has now become their biggest foe. The historical evidence of the fossils clearly shows that life did not evolve; it was created.

Objections to the Doctrine of Evolution

So no the fossil record only hurts the theory not help it as evolutionist try desperately to  reach for evidence. Now there is no doubt students are being taught the fossil record supports the theory but you wind up with a resounding "No it don't" when you look a little deeper.


----------



## konradv

Seems you need to study Punctuated Equilibrium.  Quoting Darwin on this point makes as much sense as quoting a 19th century physician on the state of 21st century medicine.  New facts are discovered and old theories are reformulated.  That's the way science works, NOT by picking some small point of difference and saying that invalidates an entire theory.  Darwin wasn't right about everything and no one expects him to be.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Change in any organism is based on new information without new information there would be no change. But i believe the diversity we see in all life was the result of cross breeding and information that was there all the time. That fits with the creationist view. That God created according to each kind. There was enough information for animals to cross breed and produce the many different breeds within a kind that we see today.The many different breeds of cats,dogs,horses,and plants supports this view.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did dolphins come from, if not macroevolution, since there's about a quarter of a billion years between the death of the last trilobite and the first appearance of dolphins?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is your theory, that which can't be proven.so in other words it's just an opinion.
> 
> You can't prove when or where trilobites and dolphins showed up.
> 
> Have you not learned that dating systems are based on ones presuppositions before they even start the dating methods?If you fill all the blanks in concerning theories with speculation ,what is the theory based on ? We have many natural phenomenon's that we can't fully explain but there will always be one to give an explanation according to his or her view but that does not mean the opinion was accurate. That is the same thing going on with every theory that is taught as fact like,Neo Darwinism.
Click to expand...


You're TOTALLY WRONG on this point.  The dating methods depend on KNOWN rates of radiactive decay, NOT presuppositions.  This isn't opinion, but scientific fact.  If that's your feeling on the subject, how do you even trust going to a doctor?  Modern medicine depends mightily on the "presuppositions" you so blithely downplay.  YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Seems you need to study Punctuated Equilibrium.  Quoting Darwin on this point makes as much sense as quoting a 19th century physician on the state of 21st century medicine.  New facts are discovered and old theories are reformulated.  That's the way science works, NOT by picking some small point of difference and saying that invalidates an entire theory.  Darwin wasn't right about everything and no one expects him to be.



That is my point Eldridge and Gould had to come up with a way to explain the lack of transitional fossils. Darwin was right, if there were no transitional fossils found the theory is wrong and he was wrong.

What evidence do you have that refutes these Dr's comments ? Did you notice how they contradicted themselves ? I guess that means it depends on the GROUP they're speaking  to determines what they will say.

Punctuated Equilibrium contradicts Neo Darwinism,which theory is it that you're attempting to defend ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did dolphins come from, if not macroevolution, since there's about a quarter of a billion years between the death of the last trilobite and the first appearance of dolphins?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is your theory, that which can't be proven.so in other words it's just an opinion.
> 
> You can't prove when or where trilobites and dolphins showed up.
> 
> Have you not learned that dating systems are based on ones presuppositions before they even start the dating methods?If you fill all the blanks in concerning theories with speculation ,what is the theory based on ? We have many natural phenomenon's that we can't fully explain but there will always be one to give an explanation according to his or her view but that does not mean the opinion was accurate. That is the same thing going on with every theory that is taught as fact like,Neo Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're TOTALLY WRONG on this point.  The dating methods depend on KNOWN rates of radiactive decay, NOT presuppositions.  This isn't opinion, but scientific fact.  If that's your feeling on the subject, how do you even trust going to a doctor?  Modern medicine depends mightily on the "presuppositions" you so blithely downplay.  YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!
Click to expand...


Well to be honest, most Dr's i have had conversations with concerning design and evolution see the human body as a product of design. Many of them do not buy modern day evolution known as Neo Darwinism.

That is correct about Dr's making decisions based on presuppositions,but they don't strike me as reckless as the modern day evolutionist with their presuppositions. They base their presuppositions on actual evidence where there is zero evidence for macroevolution. Macroevolution is based on vivid imaginations. No different then the ones who believe it is logical to think there is life on other planets solely based on how vast the universe is. Once again a view that is not based on evidence.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> Nope,i am convinced the things seen by biologist are explained by presuppositions  from brainwashed people. Even though they have NEVER observed one destinct kind of organism evovle into a destinct new kind of organism.


Except we have observed such things.  You just refuse to acknowledge such factual evidence exists.  Even though it does. 



Youwerecreated said:


> While mutations can produce new information in small scale changes but not the information that would allow macroevolution to take place. Most mutations are neutral or harmful to the organism. It is very rare for beneficial mutations and extremely rare for them to produce change that is needed for macroevolution to take place. There is so many conditions that would have to be met for a change from mutations to be preserved that it is highly unlikely that the new information could survive natural selection.


Unlikely in any given organism, but expected in one of billions of organisms.  We've gone over this before.  When we started this thread you couldn't even acknowledge that new information could be produced in "microevolution," and now you say that's possible but somehow you can't get multiple events of "microevolution" to get the larger version?  Again I ask why you think we can get 5 helpful mutations but not 10.  Why 20 but not 50?  Where's your genetic cutoff, and why if you think that rare beneficial mutations do occur do you not believe they will eventually happen?

We've gone over this before.  The chance of you winning the lotto is nearly zero, but SOMEONE always wins the lotto.  I look forward to you ignoring this reasoning once again.



Youwerecreated said:


> Last night i watched a show on the universe. There was a Physicist which also had a background in astrology.


So last night you watched a show on someone who believes in quackery.  Perhaps you should look up what astrology means, and realize that you blindly believe anything any quack tells you if it agrees with your preconceived notions, regardless of evidence.



Youwerecreated said:


> The problem with atomic dating is you don't know the conditions of gases in the air several thousand years ago, let alone, millions and billions of years ago, to get an accurate reading. Once again questionable evidence you're relying on.


Well no.  We've gone over this too. Physical properties don't change in the universe.  Gravity has never EVER just stopped working.  Basic chemistry doesn't work only sometimes.  Radiometric decay is not uncertain, and BECAUSE physics has never been observed to just change without outside forces, we have no reason to make such a silly assumption that gases somehow decayed differently yesterday or last year or last century compared to today any more than any other physical property.  



Youwerecreated said:


> Well to be honest, most Dr's i have had conversations with concerning design and evolution see the human body as a product of design. Many of them do not buy modern day evolution known as Neo Darwinism.


Then you're not talking to medical doctors, or only seeking out and talking to people who agree with you.  The large majority of doctors in this country, 78%, know evolution to be correct, and that number is growing.

Again, this seems to highlight your ability to ignore actual fact and only believe in the minority of crap that you want to, pretending everything else doesn't exist.  You're essentially delusional, and it's that kind of uneducated illogical ignorance that has ensured every modern court case has rejected pushing those blind beliefs into the classroom. 

Why don't you leave education to people who are actually educated?


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope,i am convinced the things seen by biologist are explained by presuppositions  from brainwashed people. Even though they have NEVER observed one destinct kind of organism evovle into a destinct new kind of organism.
> 
> 
> 
> Except we have observed such things.  You just refuse to acknowledge such factual evidence exists.  Even though it does.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> While mutations can produce new information in small scale changes but not the information that would allow macroevolution to take place. Most mutations are neutral or harmful to the organism. It is very rare for beneficial mutations and extremely rare for them to produce change that is needed for macroevolution to take place. There is so many conditions that would have to be met for a change from mutations to be preserved that it is highly unlikely that the new information could survive natural selection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unlikely in any given organism, but expected in one of billions of organisms.  We've gone over this before.  When we started this thread you couldn't even acknowledge that new information could be produced in "microevolution," and now you say that's possible but somehow you can't get multiple events of "microevolution" to get the larger version?  Again I ask why you think we can get 5 helpful mutations but not 10.  Why 20 but not 50?  Where's your genetic cutoff, and why if you think that rare beneficial mutations do occur do you not believe they will eventually happen?
> 
> We've gone over this before.  The chance of you winning the lotto is nearly zero, but SOMEONE always wins the lotto.  I look forward to you ignoring this reasoning once again.
> 
> 
> So last night you watched a show on someone who believes in quackery.  Perhaps you should look up what astrology means, and realize that you blindly believe anything any quack tells you if it agrees with your preconceived notions, regardless of evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with atomic dating is you don't know the conditions of gases in the air several thousand years ago, let alone, millions and billions of years ago, to get an accurate reading. Once again questionable evidence you're relying on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well no.  We've gone over this too. Physical properties don't change in the universe.  Gravity has never EVER just stopped working.  Basic chemistry doesn't work only sometimes.  Radiometric decay is not uncertain, and BECAUSE physics has never been observed to just change without outside forces, we have no reason to make such a silly assumption that gases somehow decayed differently yesterday or last year or last century compared to today any more than any other physical property.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well to be honest, most Dr's i have had conversations with concerning design and evolution see the human body as a product of design. Many of them do not buy modern day evolution known as Neo Darwinism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you're not talking to medical doctors, or only seeking out and talking to people who agree with you.  The large majority of doctors in this country, 78%, know evolution to be correct, and that number is growing.
> 
> Again, this seems to highlight your ability to ignore actual fact and only believe in the minority of crap that you want to, pretending everything else doesn't exist.  You're essentially delusional, and it's that kind of uneducated illogical ignorance that has ensured every modern court case has rejected pushing those blind beliefs into the classroom.
> 
> Why don't you leave education to people who are actually educated?
Click to expand...


Observing bacteria adapting is not near the level of macroevolution ,where one kind of organism evolves into a destinct new kind of organism.

At first you're correct,but as i read more on the issue i agreed that new information could be produced but not to the point of macroevolution. Why do you keep bringing this up since i conceded that point ? Now since you brought it up again can you provide evidence where mutations produced enough information for macroevolution to take place refuting Dr. Spetner ?

You 're assuming that the enviornment was exactly the same as it is today. Let's see more active volcanoes,and plate tectonics. I am sure they had an effect on the gases in the enviornment.Early Man did not possess the ability to test such things so how do you know ?

The problem is children are being indoctrnated from an early age that is why the numbers are higher in believing as you do. But as more fossils are found and more research is done i see eventually ,i see evolutionist no longer being able to dodge the tough questions. i believe your theory will be put into the proper perspective someday even in the courts. There are many Dr's that believe in the ability to adapt and not buy macroevolution. Microevolution is what i think your numbers are based on ,not Neo Darwinism.

Microevolution can clearly be seen and no one doubts it, However the same cannot be said for Macroevolution. I wish you would quit trying to suggest that there are no differences between micro and macroevolution. Of course you believe that microevolution would have to take place for macroevolution to take place but that is all that has been observed microevolution.

There are limits to change through reproduction that can be seen. Once the limit is reached, organism's become weaker and more susceptible to disease and or they can't produce offspring  or the offspring is sterile.

I am a very skeptical person, Although i am not skeptical about a creator. It is very easy to reason out the evidence and believe that life did not happen through a natural process by chance. Well since you're are concerned with my education on the subject what do you think of the education of the people i am quoting ? are they not educated enough to make the quotes they do ? I have not seen you attempt to refute any of the quotes i have quoted.

Do you think all people that don't agree with you are ignorant on the subject ?


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems you need to study Punctuated Equilibrium.  Quoting Darwin on this point makes as much sense as quoting a 19th century physician on the state of 21st century medicine.  New facts are discovered and old theories are reformulated.  That's the way science works, NOT by picking some small point of difference and saying that invalidates an entire theory.  Darwin wasn't right about everything and no one expects him to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point Eldridge and Gould had to come up with a way to explain the lack of transitional fossils. Darwin was right, if there were no transitional fossils found the theory is wrong and he was wrong.
> 
> What evidence do you have that refutes these Dr's comments ? Did you notice how they contradicted themselves ? I guess that means it depends on the GROUP they're speaking  to determines what they will say.
> 
> Punctuated Equilibrium contradicts Neo Darwinism,which theory is it that you're attempting to defend ?
Click to expand...


I see no contradiction in finding few transitional fossils.  By the very nature of how evolution works, until a new variety of organism reaches high enough numbers to be recognized as a new species, they will be few and far between and probably considered as a subset of the anscestor species.  If Darwin said he would be wrong about the theory if one point was wrong, only shows that he was wrong in saying so.  Undoubtedly a scientist of his caliber would be interested in developments in the field and whole-heartedly agree that Punctuated Equilibrium was the correct theory.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems you need to study Punctuated Equilibrium.  Quoting Darwin on this point makes as much sense as quoting a 19th century physician on the state of 21st century medicine.  New facts are discovered and old theories are reformulated.  That's the way science works, NOT by picking some small point of difference and saying that invalidates an entire theory.  Darwin wasn't right about everything and no one expects him to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point Eldridge and Gould had to come up with a way to explain the lack of transitional fossils. Darwin was right, if there were no transitional fossils found the theory is wrong and he was wrong.
> 
> What evidence do you have that refutes these Dr's comments ? Did you notice how they contradicted themselves ? I guess that means it depends on the GROUP they're speaking  to determines what they will say.
> 
> Punctuated Equilibrium contradicts Neo Darwinism,which theory is it that you're attempting to defend ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see no contradiction in finding few transitional fossils.  By the very nature of how evolution works, until a new variety of organism reaches high enough numbers to be recognized as a new species, they will be few and far between and probably considered as a subset of the anscestor species.  If Darwin said he would be wrong about the theory if one point was wrong, only shows that he was wrong in saying so.  Undoubtedly a scientist of his caliber would be interested in developments in the field and whole-heartedly agree that Punctuated Equilibrium was the correct theory.
Click to expand...


Punctuated equilibrium -evolutionary change in the fossil record came in fits and starts rather than in a steady process of slow change as in Neo darwinism through mutations and natural selection.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> Observing bacteria adapting is not near the level of macroevolution ,where one kind of organism evolves into a destinct new kind of organism.


Such has been observed in animals.  Again, these are just facts you tend to ignore.  



Youwerecreated said:


> At first you're correct,but as i read more on the issue i agreed that new information could be produced but not to the point of macroevolution. Why do you keep bringing this up since i conceded that point ? Now since you brought it up again can you provide evidence where mutations produced enough information for macroevolution to take place refuting Dr. Spetner ?


I must have overlooked where you conceded the point about being completely wrong on a basic biology topic while claiming your own computer "research" on the topic was adequate knowledge to draw conclusions.  OK so now you admit I've already proven you wrong about one or the larger issues here, and that new information can in fact be produced.  Now you seem to be arguing that it can only be produced in small quantities.  Why?

We're not getting into the evidence of animal macroevolution, yet another tangential sidetrack, until you can answer that question.  If you now know that new information can be created, why is it you think only small amounts can be, and not lots of small amounts over time creating larger amounts?  What is the genetic cutoff between micro and macro?  And how can you explain the existence of your arbitrary made up barrier, knowing full well that the mechanism behind the two are exactly the same, and we've already established that the mechanism of the former is intact?



Youwerecreated said:


> You 're assuming that the enviornment was exactly the same as it is today. Let's see more active volcanoes,and plate tectonics. I am sure they had an effect on the gases in the enviornment.Early Man did not possess the ability to test such things so how do you know ?


No, I am not making that assumption.  You are once again copying and pasting pure crap from someone else who similarly has no education and similarly doesn't understand the topic.  This is you arguing no new information can be produced all over again in a different topic.  

Regardless of how similar or different the environment was in the past, the properties of physics do not change.  If there were more active volcanoes or plate tectonics or giant robot dinosaurs roamed the planet, how does that change PHYSICS?  Did gravity stop working?  Was it any different back then?  Magnets didn't have force?  Did e not equal mc^2?  Did adding baking soda to vinegar not cause a science fair volcano when Moses was alive?  Have we EVER in the history of mankind documented basic physics just not working? NO! 

So why is it you think that this part of physics mysteriously and magically changed millions of years ago just because there were more volcanoes around?  The idea is just silly.



Youwerecreated said:


> The problem is children are being indoctrnated from an early age that is why the numbers are higher in believing as you do. But as more fossils are found and more research is done i see eventually ,i see evolutionist no longer being able to dodge the tough questions. i believe your theory will be put into the proper perspective someday even in the courts. There are many Dr's that believe in the ability to adapt and not buy macroevolution. Microevolution is what i think your numbers are based on ,not Neo Darwinism.


This is all contradicted speculation.  You're trying to claim that the SMARTEST minds and free independent thinkers who are trained to scrutinize all evidence to draw independent conclusions are being so easily swayed by what?!  Bad evidence?  Note how you can't point to where any of the evidence I have produced is wrong.  The only thing you can do is claim some other, usually less qualified small minority of people, think something else.  

So you really think that the people you trust your health and life to have been able to double the lifespan of Americans by analyzing research using the scientific method, but those EXACT SAME methods and EXACT SAME group of people have this one particular thing wrong because some uneducated hick with a bible says so?  You're delirious.



Youwerecreated said:


> I wish you would quit trying to suggest that there are no differences between micro and macroevolution.


And I wish you could point out what a single one of those alleged differences is at the genetic level.  I have asked countless times, and you have yet to answer.  At best, you produce some hand waiving and a vague reference to some other man-made phrase.  You remain incapable of pointing out the inherent differences in the biology.  What genetically is different between the two?  You can't tell me because no such thing actually exists.



Youwerecreated said:


> There are limits to change through reproduction that can be seen. Once the limit is reached, organism's become weaker and more susceptible to disease and or they can't produce offspring  or the offspring is sterile.


What limit is that?  Again, a vague hand-waived response that doesn't actually say anything.  You believe a few mutations can in fact produce beneficial changes.  A few more can produce a few more beneficial changes.  And yet you still think that there comes a point where things get "too good" and that makes the organism "weaker" even though you can't tell me what that limit is, and you can't tell me why that would happen.

So just like your idea about "no new information can be produced," you put forth an idea with vague phrases, unsupported stubbornness, and absolutely no factual backing.



Youwerecreated said:


> I am a very skeptical person, Although i am not skeptical about a creator.


Then you're not a very skeptical person.  It doesn't work that way.  You can't be "sometimes very skeptical."  People don't get "a little pregnant."  There's no such thing as "slightly deceased."  You either question things critically, or you don't.  What you describe is picking and choosing your information, whereas everything you already like you accept blindly, and everything you don't want to agree with you believe you are "skeptical" about.  That's not skepticism, it's justifying preconceived decision making.



Youwerecreated said:


> Well since you're are concerned with my education on the subject what do you think of the education of the people i am quoting ? are they not educated enough to make the quotes they do ? I have not seen you attempt to refute any of the quotes i have quoted.
> 
> Do you think all people that don't agree with you are ignorant on the subject ?


Oh no.  There are plenty of people who disagree with me on a variety of subjects.  Evidence speaks loudest.  My side has it.  Yours doesn't. Yours doesn't even know what to do with the evidence that has been produced.  If you look at the people making points on either side, scientists do research and reference it.  Religious fanatics draw opinions, doing on research, and believe it to be equal. We've gone over that before though.

Regarding the people you are quoting: I have in fact refuted quite a bit, when the things you quoted were of a manageable length.  When they became text book chapters, I stopped reading.  Let's face it: you don't even understand half the crap you copy and paste, and yet you want me to go over it all?  Make a point using your own words.  

In the meantime, realize that the things you are quoted continue to remain either outdated, misleading, or outright inaccurate.  In the case of your latest phD, I believe it's 30 years old.  It was written before the human genome was even a concept.  FURTHERMORE, you continue to believe that finding a single outlier is equivalent to the mountains of other well qualified people who are using evidence on this topic in a modern method.  Yes, if you look hard enough you're going to be able to find a hick MD from the middle of nowhere who agrees with you, but as I thoroughly shot down, he is not the majority.  Picture this situation if you were to survey 100 doctors about a health problem you were experiencing.  Do you go with the 99 doctors who are well educated and read on a topic and suggest option A because they know it produces good results, or do you go with the guy who retired a decade ago, knows only outdated information, and recommends option B because that was the standard 30 years ago?  The two camps are not equal but opposite.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Observing bacteria adapting is not near the level of macroevolution ,where one kind of organism evolves into a destinct new kind of organism.
> 
> 
> 
> Such has been observed in animals.  Again, these are just facts you tend to ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> At first you're correct,but as i read more on the issue i agreed that new information could be produced but not to the point of macroevolution. Why do you keep bringing this up since i conceded that point ? Now since you brought it up again can you provide evidence where mutations produced enough information for macroevolution to take place refuting Dr. Spetner ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must have overlooked where you conceded the point about being completely wrong on a basic biology topic while claiming your own computer "research" on the topic was adequate knowledge to draw conclusions.  OK so now you admit I've already proven you wrong about one or the larger issues here, and that new information can in fact be produced.  Now you seem to be arguing that it can only be produced in small quantities.  Why?
> 
> We're not getting into the evidence of animal macroevolution, yet another tangential sidetrack, until you can answer that question.  If you now know that new information can be created, why is it you think only small amounts can be, and not lots of small amounts over time creating larger amounts?  What is the genetic cutoff between micro and macro?  And how can you explain the existence of your arbitrary made up barrier, knowing full well that the mechanism behind the two are exactly the same, and we've already established that the mechanism of the former is intact?
> 
> 
> No, I am not making that assumption.  You are once again copying and pasting pure crap from someone else who similarly has no education and similarly doesn't understand the topic.  This is you arguing no new information can be produced all over again in a different topic.
> 
> Regardless of how similar or different the environment was in the past, the properties of physics do not change.  If there were more active volcanoes or plate tectonics or giant robot dinosaurs roamed the planet, how does that change PHYSICS?  Did gravity stop working?  Was it any different back then?  Magnets didn't have force?  Did e not equal mc^2?  Did adding baking soda to vinegar not cause a science fair volcano when Moses was alive?  Have we EVER in the history of mankind documented basic physics just not working? NO!
> 
> So why is it you think that this part of physics mysteriously and magically changed millions of years ago just because there were more volcanoes around?  The idea is just silly.
> 
> 
> This is all contradicted speculation.  You're trying to claim that the SMARTEST minds and free independent thinkers who are trained to scrutinize all evidence to draw independent conclusions are being so easily swayed by what?!  Bad evidence?  Note how you can't point to where any of the evidence I have produced is wrong.  The only thing you can do is claim some other, usually less qualified small minority of people, think something else.
> 
> So you really think that the people you trust your health and life to have been able to double the lifespan of Americans by analyzing research using the scientific method, but those EXACT SAME methods and EXACT SAME group of people have this one particular thing wrong because some uneducated hick with a bible says so?  You're delirious.
> 
> 
> And I wish you could point out what a single one of those alleged differences is at the genetic level.  I have asked countless times, and you have yet to answer.  At best, you produce some hand waiving and a vague reference to some other man-made phrase.  You remain incapable of pointing out the inherent differences in the biology.  What genetically is different between the two?  You can't tell me because no such thing actually exists.
> 
> 
> What limit is that?  Again, a vague hand-waived response that doesn't actually say anything.  You believe a few mutations can in fact produce beneficial changes.  A few more can produce a few more beneficial changes.  And yet you still think that there comes a point where things get "too good" and that makes the organism "weaker" even though you can't tell me what that limit is, and you can't tell me why that would happen.
> 
> So just like your idea about "no new information can be produced," you put forth an idea with vague phrases, unsupported stubbornness, and absolutely no factual backing.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a very skeptical person, Although i am not skeptical about a creator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you're not a very skeptical person.  It doesn't work that way.  You can't be "sometimes very skeptical."  People don't get "a little pregnant."  There's no such thing as "slightly deceased."  You either question things critically, or you don't.  What you describe is picking and choosing your information, whereas everything you already like you accept blindly, and everything you don't want to agree with you believe you are "skeptical" about.  That's not skepticism, it's justifying preconceived decision making.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well since you're are concerned with my education on the subject what do you think of the education of the people i am quoting ? are they not educated enough to make the quotes they do ? I have not seen you attempt to refute any of the quotes i have quoted.
> 
> Do you think all people that don't agree with you are ignorant on the subject ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh no.  There are plenty of people who disagree with me on a variety of subjects.  Evidence speaks loudest.  My side has it.  Yours doesn't. Yours doesn't even know what to do with the evidence that has been produced.  If you look at the people making points on either side, scientists do research and reference it.  Religious fanatics draw opinions, doing on research, and believe it to be equal. We've gone over that before though.
> 
> Regarding the people you are quoting: I have in fact refuted quite a bit, when the things you quoted were of a manageable length.  When they became text book chapters, I stopped reading.  Let's face it: you don't even understand half the crap you copy and paste, and yet you want me to go over it all?  Make a point using your own words.
> 
> In the meantime, realize that the things you are quoted continue to remain either outdated, misleading, or outright inaccurate.  In the case of your latest phD, I believe it's 30 years old.  It was written before the human genome was even a concept.  FURTHERMORE, you continue to believe that finding a single outlier is equivalent to the mountains of other well qualified people who are using evidence on this topic in a modern method.  Yes, if you look hard enough you're going to be able to find a hick MD from the middle of nowhere who agrees with you, but as I thoroughly shot down, he is not the majority.  Picture this situation if you were to survey 100 doctors about a health problem you were experiencing.  Do you go with the 99 doctors who are well educated and read on a topic and suggest option A because they know it produces good results, or do you go with the guy who retired a decade ago, knows only outdated information, and recommends option B because that was the standard 30 years ago?  The two camps are not equal but opposite.
Click to expand...


Well i should have been clearer on that point of new information. I believe it is more likely to be bad information or information that was already present which would explain speciation within a group.

First you would need to show the new information lead to macroevolution which would refute Dr. Spetner and many others that are on record saying no macroevolution has been observed.

No they observe evidence from a view that all things was the result of a natural process. They do and are constantly trying to support the theory the way it has been done since Darwin. The proof is,they were already making million year claims before modern day dating methods. They knew they needed more time ,so along comes these flawed dating methods how clever. 

You have refuted very little and i do believe i know enough to show the nonsense you spew. People that are far superior in knowledge in your field are refuting you,you just can't seem to understand when you have been shown to be wrong. Not once have you taken the Dr's on. You know why ? because all you have is rhetoric versus whats been presented.

No i have presented rebuttals that are considered recent information.I'm not gonna let you make false claims anymore. Heck you can't seem to be honest enough to admit the differece between Micro and Macroevolution that is about as dishonest as you can get.

Yeah our family Dr's are mostly in their 30's and 40's i would say they are not up to date on modern science  Do you think older Dr's don't bother reading up on new findings ? You're amusing.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> Well i should have been clearer on that point of new information. I believe it is more likely to be bad information or information that was already present which would explain speciation within a group.


Still vague.  What is "group" biologically?  Because it's only hand-waiving semantics. 



Youwerecreated said:


> First you would need to show the new information lead to macroevolution which would refute Dr. Spetner and many others that are on record saying no macroevolution has been observed.


You continue to make the mistake of believing that people going "on record" are somehow factual accounts.  I can go "on record" as saying the moon is made of cheese.  It doesn't matter.  Facts matter.  Evidence matters.  Show the evidence, not the references that others have said it doesn't exist 30 years ago.  



Youwerecreated said:


> No they observe evidence from a view that all things was the result of a natural process. They do and are constantly trying to support the theory the way it has been done since Darwin. The proof is,they were already making million year claims before modern day dating methods. They knew they needed more time ,so along comes these flawed dating methods how clever.
> 
> You have refuted very little and i do believe i know enough to show the nonsense you spew. People that are far superior in knowledge in your field are refuting you,you just can't seem to understand when you have been shown to be wrong. Not once have you taken the Dr's on. You know why ? because all you have is rhetoric versus whats been presented.


As I mentioned in my previous post, both myself and GTH have "taken the dr's on."  And by "dr's" you mean one person who has since "gone on record" to agree with the modern theory of evolution.  Nevertheless you continue to make the point that I have not refuted your made up claims.  You have yet to support them.  It's not my job to support your claims and then counter them.  For example, you claim that basic physical properties of how atoms work was different years ago because there were more volcanoes and tectonic plates, yet you seem incapable of saying why such a ridiculous idea is true.  




Youwerecreated said:


> No i have presented rebuttals that are considered recent information.I'm not gonna let you make false claims anymore. Heck you can't seem to be honest enough to admit the differece between Micro and Macroevolution that is about as dishonest as you can get.


Have you now?  When did Dr. Spetner, the one person in a sea of people who disagree with him, make the claims you are copying and pasting.  Please, list the date, and let me know if you think it is recent information.  Regarding the difference between the two, you have yet to actually say what the difference is on a biological basis.  So why is it you think I will admit there's a difference when you can't even tell me what it is, let alone support such a thing with evidence?




Youwerecreated said:


> Yeah our family Dr's are mostly in their 30's and 40's i would say they are not up to date on modern science  Do you think older Dr's don't bother reading up on new findings ? You're amusing.


Did you miss the part where  I already proved that the vast majority of doctors know evolution to be correct?  No, other people in your hick town are not representative any more than Dr. Spetner is.

Perhaps you should read up on Dr. Spetner a bit more, including what he states in his book: http://www.talkreason.org/articles/spetner.cfm


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well i should have been clearer on that point of new information. I believe it is more likely to be bad information or information that was already present which would explain speciation within a group.
> 
> 
> 
> Still vague.  What is "group" biologically?  Because it's only hand-waiving semantics.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you would need to show the new information lead to macroevolution which would refute Dr. Spetner and many others that are on record saying no macroevolution has been observed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You continue to make the mistake of believing that people going "on record" are somehow factual accounts.  I can go "on record" as saying the moon is made of cheese.  It doesn't matter.  Facts matter.  Evidence matters.  Show the evidence, not the references that others have said it doesn't exist 30 years ago.
> 
> 
> As I mentioned in my previous post, both myself and GTH have "taken the dr's on."  And by "dr's" you mean one person who has since "gone on record" to agree with the modern theory of evolution.  Nevertheless you continue to make the point that I have not refuted your made up claims.  You have yet to support them.  It's not my job to support your claims and then counter them.  For example, you claim that basic physical properties of how atoms work was different years ago because there were more volcanoes and tectonic plates, yet you seem incapable of saying why such a ridiculous idea is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No i have presented rebuttals that are considered recent information.I'm not gonna let you make false claims anymore. Heck you can't seem to be honest enough to admit the differece between Micro and Macroevolution that is about as dishonest as you can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you now?  When did Dr. Spetner, the one person in a sea of people who disagree with him, make the claims you are copying and pasting.  Please, list the date, and let me know if you think it is recent information.  Regarding the difference between the two, you have yet to actually say what the difference is on a biological basis.  So why is it you think I will admit there's a difference when you can't even tell me what it is, let alone support such a thing with evidence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah our family Dr's are mostly in their 30's and 40's i would say they are not up to date on modern science  Do you think older Dr's don't bother reading up on new findings ? You're amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you miss the part where  I already proved that the vast majority of doctors know evolution to be correct?  No, other people in your hick town are not representative any more than Dr. Spetner is.
> 
> Perhaps you should read up on Dr. Spetner a bit more, including what he states in his book: Talk Reason: arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologetics
Click to expand...


Group or kind equals cat family,horse family,canine family.

Your side are the ones using semantics by trying to claim there is different species within the same group, Breed is a less confusing term to describe the different breeds within a group.Why do they call lions and tigers different species but can cross breed and produce offspring ? it's called smoke and mirrors to further add support to your very biased theory.

Many of those quotes posted were quotes from 2002 to present. It just shows that modern scientist's agree with the Dr. that brought it up thirty years ago. How long ago did Darwin present his theory ? once again you show your biased attitude toward information that presents a problem for your theory.

Many of the men quoted believe in your theory but still are looking for answers. And actually focus on what i am saying i am not aganst evolution,i am against macroevolution. And i bet most of your numbers are based on people that believe as i do.

What is your evidence for macroevolution ? are you ever gonna respond to this question.

Dr. spetner does not believe that macroevolution can happen the way Neo Darwinist say it happened.

Prescott AZ is not a hick town,it's probably above your pay grade.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> Group or kind equals cat family,horse family,canine family.


Once again you seem to miss the point.  These are biologically meaningless words.  the cat "family?"  Family is a scientific word with a specific meaning you are misusing, but "group or kind" is meaningless.  Do you mean to tell me a house-cat is in the same "kind" as a feral lion? Poodle and hyena?  What BIOLOGICALLY makes something in the same group or kind?  Don't give me more words you made up and define them with other meaningless words that pop into your head.  I'm talking about biological differences.  I can tell you the exact genetic differences between a man and monkey, yet you still can't grasp what defines a "kind" past a 2nd grade concept of animal-naming, let alone outside mammals.  Are all the different types of fish in the world of the same "kind?"  Let's see how immature this notion is. 



Youwerecreated said:


> Your side are the ones using semantics by trying to claim there is different species within the same group, Breed is a less confusing term to describe the different breeds within a group.Why do they call lions and tigers different species but can cross breed and produce offspring ? it's called smoke and mirrors to further add support to your very biased theory.


Actually just the opposite.  Both GTH and myself have already addressed that and acknowledged that the words genus and species have no specific cutoffs, but have gone on to state that GENETICALLY we can broadly differentiate organisms.  

If you ask what's the difference between a fish and a bird biologically, I can specifically answer it by anatomy, physiology, or genetic differences between the two.

If you ask what's the difference between two similar but different bacteria, I can give you the exact changes in genes.  

So when I ask you what comprises group or kind, I expect you to offer BIOLOGICAL differences.  When I ask you what differentiates micro from macroevolution, I again expect BIOLOGICAL differences. Not man made words.  Not the smoke and mirrors you just falsely accused me of producing that you continue to use yourself.



Youwerecreated said:


> Many of those quotes posted were quotes from 2002 to present. It just shows that modern scientist's agree with the Dr. that brought it up thirty years ago. How long ago did Darwin present his theory ? once again you show your biased attitude toward information that presents a problem for your theory.


If you check the dates on your own sources, you'd see if was late 90s up to 2000, not 2002 to present.  If you believe you are still correct, please provide a link of Dr Spetner since a decade ago reiterating the same material.  No, creationist websites with no scientific education or training copying and pasting things like you are not "going on record."  It means they're being mindless.

As for Darwin, neither GTH nor I have once referenced his ideas.  It is only creationists who cite the use of Darwin's ideas as outdated.  They are.  That's why they are not being used.  Once again I point to the overwhelming genetic evidence that has provided unparalleled insight into evolution.  And yet YOU continue to point to Darwin, ignoring such evidence.  

Again you provide misleading or underhanded twisted points.  Gain some integrity.



Youwerecreated said:


> Many of the men quoted believe in your theory but still are looking for answers. And actually focus on what i am saying i am not aganst evolution,i am against macroevolution. And i bet most of your numbers are based on people that believe as i do.
> 
> What is your evidence for macroevolution ? are you ever gonna respond to this question.


Nope.  I cited the source of my statistics.  Feel free to check the wording.  Nice guessing to hand waive away evidence some more.  

Nonetheless, you still can't tell me the biological difference between micro and macroevolution.  You can't even blindly copy and paste someone else's idea.  It doesn't exist.  So, why do you think I will provide evidence for a concept you can't even define in biological terms?  Can't even differentiate from microevolution?  I have no problem showing you large scale evolution, but you need to actually set the definitions lest you once again create a moving goalpost fallacy.  This is not reluctance or resistance for providing evidence. It's order of events. 

[/quote]Prescott AZ is not a hick town,it's probably above your pay grade.[/QUOTE]
Based on your representing lack of education: probably not.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Group or kind equals cat family,horse family,canine family.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you seem to miss the point.  These are biologically meaningless words.  the cat "family?"  Family is a scientific word with a specific meaning you are misusing, but "group or kind" is meaningless.  Do you mean to tell me a house-cat is in the same "kind" as a feral lion? Poodle and hyena?  What BIOLOGICALLY makes something in the same group or kind?  Don't give me more words you made up and define them with other meaningless words that pop into your head.  I'm talking about biological differences.  I can tell you the exact genetic differences between a man and monkey, yet you still can't grasp what defines a "kind" past a 2nd grade concept of animal-naming, let alone outside mammals.  Are all the different types of fish in the world of the same "kind?"  Let's see how immature this notion is.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your side are the ones using semantics by trying to claim there is different species within the same group, Breed is a less confusing term to describe the different breeds within a group.Why do they call lions and tigers different species but can cross breed and produce offspring ? it's called smoke and mirrors to further add support to your very biased theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually just the opposite.  Both GTH and myself have already addressed that and acknowledged that the words genus and species have no specific cutoffs, but have gone on to state that GENETICALLY we can broadly differentiate organisms.
> 
> If you ask what's the difference between a fish and a bird biologically, I can specifically answer it by anatomy, physiology, or genetic differences between the two.
> 
> If you ask what's the difference between two similar but different bacteria, I can give you the exact changes in genes.
> 
> So when I ask you what comprises group or kind, I expect you to offer BIOLOGICAL differences.  When I ask you what differentiates micro from macroevolution, I again expect BIOLOGICAL differences. Not man made words.  Not the smoke and mirrors you just falsely accused me of producing that you continue to use yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of those quotes posted were quotes from 2002 to present. It just shows that modern scientist's agree with the Dr. that brought it up thirty years ago. How long ago did Darwin present his theory ? once again you show your biased attitude toward information that presents a problem for your theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you check the dates on your own sources, you'd see if was late 90s up to 2000, not 2002 to present.  If you believe you are still correct, please provide a link of Dr Spetner since a decade ago reiterating the same material.  No, creationist websites with no scientific education or training copying and pasting things like you are not "going on record."  It means they're being mindless.
> 
> As for Darwin, neither GTH nor I have once referenced his ideas.  It is only creationists who cite the use of Darwin's ideas as outdated.  They are.  That's why they are not being used.  Once again I point to the overwhelming genetic evidence that has provided unparalleled insight into evolution.  And yet YOU continue to point to Darwin, ignoring such evidence.
> 
> Again you provide misleading or underhanded twisted points.  Gain some integrity.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of the men quoted believe in your theory but still are looking for answers. And actually focus on what i am saying i am not aganst evolution,i am against macroevolution. And i bet most of your numbers are based on people that believe as i do.
> 
> What is your evidence for macroevolution ? are you ever gonna respond to this question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  I cited the source of my statistics.  Feel free to check the wording.  Nice guessing to hand waive away evidence some more.
> 
> Nonetheless, you still can't tell me the biological difference between micro and macroevolution.  You can't even blindly copy and paste someone else's idea.  It doesn't exist.  So, why do you think I will provide evidence for a concept you can't even define in biological terms?  Can't even differentiate from microevolution?  I have no problem showing you large scale evolution, but you need to actually set the definitions lest you once again create a moving goalpost fallacy.  This is not reluctance or resistance for providing evidence. It's order of events.
Click to expand...

Prescott AZ is not a hick town,it's probably above your pay grade.[/QUOTE]
Based on your representing lack of education: probably not.[/QUOTE]

Hey calling a lion a lion,isn't biologically correct ? And we are not speaking biologically we are speaking of Macroevolution. 

I can tell you the difference between a monkey and a man to,about 4 million DNA BASE PAIRS,or 4 to 5 percent difference in our gene make up that don't seem like much until you do the math.

Good for you.trust me, i think everyone can tell the difference between a fish and a bird.

Bacteria is bacteria cats are cats ,why is it difficult to just call it by its name like lion  or tiger. Because it further adds confusion and smoke and mirrors for the naturalist.

Really your theory is built on Darwins ideas.

Why do i care if you can explain the biological differences between two different organism's ? for the common people a name would be suffice.

The one thing you and your fellow believers are missing, and are trying to explain is how God created all the different species with similar substance such as DNA that is truly amazing.

You let me know when you can produce evidence for macroevolution. One more thing,i have no problem telling you the difference between macro and micro evolution apparently you do however.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point Eldridge and Gould had to come up with a way to explain the lack of transitional fossils. Darwin was right, if there were no transitional fossils found the theory is wrong and he was wrong.
> 
> What evidence do you have that refutes these Dr's comments ? Did you notice how they contradicted themselves ? I guess that means it depends on the GROUP they're speaking  to determines what they will say.
> 
> Punctuated Equilibrium contradicts Neo Darwinism,which theory is it that you're attempting to defend ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see no contradiction in finding few transitional fossils.  By the very nature of how evolution works, until a new variety of organism reaches high enough numbers to be recognized as a new species, they will be few and far between and probably considered as a subset of the anscestor species.  If Darwin said he would be wrong about the theory if one point was wrong, only shows that he was wrong in saying so.  Undoubtedly a scientist of his caliber would be interested in developments in the field and whole-heartedly agree that Punctuated Equilibrium was the correct theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Punctuated equilibrium -evolutionary change in the fossil record came in fits and starts rather than in a steady process of slow change as in Neo darwinism through mutations and natural selection.
Click to expand...


There's no contradiction between the two.  If you want to go the micro-, macro-evolution route, mutations are the micro part and natural selection is the macro part, lagging behind and presenting very few examples until such time as numbers increase due to the better viability of their mutations or the ability to harness a new ecological niche.  That's why the time line is suddenly "punctuated" by the appearrance of a new species.  It's been there for awhile, just unnoticed.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> I can tell you the difference between a monkey and a man to,about 4 million DNA BASE PAIRS,or 4 to 5 percent difference in our gene make up that don't seem like much until you do the math.
> 
> Good for you.trust me, i think everyone can tell the difference between a fish and a bird.
> 
> Bacteria is bacteria cats are cats ,why is it difficult to just call it by its name like lion  or tiger. Because it further adds confusion and smoke and mirrors for the naturalist.
> 
> Really your theory is built on Darwins ideas.
> 
> Why do i care if you can explain the biological differences between two different organism's ? for the common people a name would be suffice.
> 
> The one thing you and your fellow believers are missing, and are trying to explain is how God created all the different species with similar substance such as DNA that is truly amazing.
> 
> You let me know when you can produce evidence for macroevolution. One more thing,i have no problem telling you the difference between macro and micro evolution apparently you do however.




The evidence for macro-evolution can be found in the fossil record, like the extremely detailed one of the evolution of the horse. 

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not hard to figure out how God created everything with DNA.  He made the rules and they inexorably lead to an evolution of some sort of biological blueprint molecule.

Now that I've answered your questions, how about explaining why Creationists keep harping on "kind", when evolutionists have never claimed that species change "kind"?  Evolutionary theory postulates a slow transition of species, which completely contradicts the "change of kind" charge.  Anscestors and descendents would be of the same kind while "other kindedness" would only come into play after species had been seperated for millions of years with continued branching of the evolutionary tree, until they're no longer considered to be of the same "kind".


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> Hey calling a lion a lion,isn't biologically correct ? And we are not speaking biologically we are speaking of Macroevolution.


No.  That's not what I said at all.  Still need to misrepresent everything to make false points?  What was said that calling a lion and housecat the same "kind" has absolutely no biological basis.  You can't actually tell me what comprises a "kind" from a biological standpoint.  The word "kind" doesn't actually MEAN anything specifically. It's yet another vague term used to obscure actual topics.

So let's talk about biological topics with biological meaning and definitions.  I'd suggest we start with the terms "kind" or "macroevolution," but you've been avoiding those terms from the start of this thread.



Youwerecreated said:


> Really your theory is built on Darwins ideas.


Sure, as much as a modern smart phone was "built on" a 1970s IBM computer, or today's Jaguar is "built on" the model T.  Historical starting points do not define modern day understanding or technology.  Ascribing today's understanding of evolution to someone from two centuries ago is yet more underhanded misleading on your part because you can't actually address the real issues.



Youwerecreated said:


> Why do i care if you can explain the biological differences between two different organism's ? for the common people a name would be suffice.


If you'd only like a "common people" understanding of biology, then by all means use simple names that any two year old uses to tell you the differences between pretty colorful pictures.  But if you want to enter a discussion on evolution and biology, be sure you use biological terminology and wording. 

I don't think you've ever picked which side of the fence you want to be on.  You address a complex biological topic with 2nd grade understanding, and claim everyone who is educated on the topic is incorrect because you found one person who agrees with you.  Sorry, that's not the way intelligence works.  

If you want to discuss biology like a big boy, including the theory of evolution, be sure to use biological differentiation.  

But you can't. Because you don't understand the topic.  You don't know what you're talking about whatsoever.  Yet you keep talking.



Youwerecreated said:


> You let me know when you can produce evidence for macroevolution. One more thing,i have no problem telling you the difference between macro and micro evolution apparently you do however.


Let me know when you can define evolution in specific terms.  Then I'll produce the evidence that falls within that definition.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey calling a lion a lion,isn't biologically correct ? And we are not speaking biologically we are speaking of Macroevolution.
> 
> 
> 
> No.  That's not what I said at all.  Still need to misrepresent everything to make false points?  What was said that calling a lion and housecat the same "kind" has absolutely no biological basis.  You can't actually tell me what comprises a "kind" from a biological standpoint.  The word "kind" doesn't actually MEAN anything specifically. It's yet another vague term used to obscure actual topics.
> 
> So let's talk about biological topics with biological meaning and definitions.  I'd suggest we start with the terms "kind" or "macroevolution," but you've been avoiding those terms from the start of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really your theory is built on Darwins ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, as much as a modern smart phone was "built on" a 1970s IBM computer, or today's Jaguar is "built on" the model T.  Historical starting points do not define modern day understanding or technology.  Ascribing today's understanding of evolution to someone from two centuries ago is yet more underhanded misleading on your part because you can't actually address the real issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do i care if you can explain the biological differences between two different organism's ? for the common people a name would be suffice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you'd only like a "common people" understanding of biology, then by all means use simple names that any two year old uses to tell you the differences between pretty colorful pictures.  But if you want to enter a discussion on evolution and biology, be sure you use biological terminology and wording.
> 
> I don't think you've ever picked which side of the fence you want to be on.  You address a complex biological topic with 2nd grade understanding, and claim everyone who is educated on the topic is incorrect because you found one person who agrees with you.  Sorry, that's not the way intelligence works.
> 
> If you want to discuss biology like a big boy, including the theory of evolution, be sure to use biological differentiation.
> 
> But you can't. Because you don't understand the topic.  You don't know what you're talking about whatsoever.  Yet you keep talking.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You let me know when you can produce evidence for macroevolution. One more thing,i have no problem telling you the difference between macro and micro evolution apparently you do however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me know when you can define evolution in specific terms.  Then I'll produce the evidence that falls within that definition.
Click to expand...


The word "kind" is used by biologist when it is necessary to explain their point. The word "family" as well. If you know the "family" or "kind" that an organism originates from and the name of the breed why must you go any further ? so the confusion comes from someone who believes he needs to be able to further explain the differences from two different breeds from the same kind almost in a way to support your unfounded theory that is built on imaginative words.

Words that a 2 year old could understand, seems to be on solid ground, where words used by biologist to describe their theory is built on something that has never been observed. Yeah the 2 year old vocanulary seems to be more reliable. 

If you would like to discuss terms like macroevolution or kind, please do. I am avoiding nothing. As a matter of fact i have asked YOU the differences between macroevolution and microevolution and you have yet to asnwer the question. So i guess by now it is ok for me to assume you do not know the differences between the two.

Vague ? what comes to mind when i say horse ? what comes to mind when i say minature horse ? what comes to mind when i say donkey or zebra ? Vague you say.  

Let's do it again. What comes to mind when i say cat ? What comes to mind when i say big cat ? what comes to mind when i say house cat ? what comes to mind when i say tiger ? what comes to mind when i say lion ? what comes to mind when i say siamese cat ?

The only time confusion comes in is when you try explain the biological differences between two different looking organisms from the same "kind" or "family" and your vocabulary does it in a way to try and show support for your theory that is built out of imagination.

Evolution is the change over time from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies. In other words,Microevolution.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you the difference between a monkey and a man to,about 4 million DNA BASE PAIRS,or 4 to 5 percent difference in our gene make up that don't seem like much until you do the math.
> 
> Good for you.trust me, i think everyone can tell the difference between a fish and a bird.
> 
> Bacteria is bacteria cats are cats ,why is it difficult to just call it by its name like lion  or tiger. Because it further adds confusion and smoke and mirrors for the naturalist.
> 
> Really your theory is built on Darwins ideas.
> 
> Why do i care if you can explain the biological differences between two different organism's ? for the common people a name would be suffice.
> 
> The one thing you and your fellow believers are missing, and are trying to explain is how God created all the different species with similar substance such as DNA that is truly amazing.
> 
> You let me know when you can produce evidence for macroevolution. One more thing,i have no problem telling you the difference between macro and micro evolution apparently you do however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence for macro-evolution can be found in the fossil record, like the extremely detailed one of the evolution of the horse.
> 
> Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It's not hard to figure out how God created everything with DNA.  He made the rules and they inexorably lead to an evolution of some sort of biological blueprint molecule.
> 
> Now that I've answered your questions, how about explaining why Creationists keep harping on "kind", when evolutionists have never claimed that species change "kind"?  Evolutionary theory postulates a slow transition of species, which completely contradicts the "change of kind" charge.  Anscestors and descendents would be of the same kind while "other kindedness" would only come into play after species had been seperated for millions of years with continued branching of the evolutionary tree, until they're no longer considered to be of the same "kind".
Click to expand...


I agree that our creator allowed change but change within limits.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you the difference between a monkey and a man to,about 4 million DNA BASE PAIRS,or 4 to 5 percent difference in our gene make up that don't seem like much until you do the math.
> 
> Good for you.trust me, i think everyone can tell the difference between a fish and a bird.
> 
> Bacteria is bacteria cats are cats ,why is it difficult to just call it by its name like lion  or tiger. Because it further adds confusion and smoke and mirrors for the naturalist.
> 
> Really your theory is built on Darwins ideas.
> 
> Why do i care if you can explain the biological differences between two different organism's ? for the common people a name would be suffice.
> 
> The one thing you and your fellow believers are missing, and are trying to explain is how God created all the different species with similar substance such as DNA that is truly amazing.
> 
> You let me know when you can produce evidence for macroevolution. One more thing,i have no problem telling you the difference between macro and micro evolution apparently you do however.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence for macro-evolution can be found in the fossil record, like the extremely detailed one of the evolution of the horse.
> 
> Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It's not hard to figure out how God created everything with DNA.  He made the rules and they inexorably lead to an evolution of some sort of biological blueprint molecule.
> 
> Now that I've answered your questions, how about explaining why Creationists keep harping on "kind", when evolutionists have never claimed that species change "kind"?  Evolutionary theory postulates a slow transition of species, which completely contradicts the "change of kind" charge.  Anscestors and descendents would be of the same kind while "other kindedness" would only come into play after species had been seperated for millions of years with continued branching of the evolutionary tree, until they're no longer considered to be of the same "kind".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree that our creator allowed change but change within limits.
Click to expand...


Fine, what are those limits?  The fossil record implies there ARE NO limits.  All species seem to have come from single cells to the nearly LIMITLESS variety we see today.  Why would change be limited?  Simply saying it because it supports your theory, isn't good enough.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence for macro-evolution can be found in the fossil record, like the extremely detailed one of the evolution of the horse.
> 
> Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It's not hard to figure out how God created everything with DNA.  He made the rules and they inexorably lead to an evolution of some sort of biological blueprint molecule.
> 
> Now that I've answered your questions, how about explaining why Creationists keep harping on "kind", when evolutionists have never claimed that species change "kind"?  Evolutionary theory postulates a slow transition of species, which completely contradicts the "change of kind" charge.  Anscestors and descendents would be of the same kind while "other kindedness" would only come into play after species had been seperated for millions of years with continued branching of the evolutionary tree, until they're no longer considered to be of the same "kind".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that our creator allowed change but change within limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine, what are those limits?  The fossil record implies there ARE NO limits.  All species seem to have come from single cells to the nearly LIMITLESS variety we see today.  Why would change be limited?  Simply saying it because it supports your theory, isn't good enough.
Click to expand...


Limits were set by the creator according to kinds that he determined. Variations within a kind was determined by sexual reproduction. If there is no crossing of breeds you do not get a new breed. I'm not sure why this simple formula is ignored by evolutionist and can be proven by the evidence. You can show variations in a group through sexual reproduction and it never leads to what you call macroevolution,why ?

And that is where evolutionist go off the deep end by saying it happened without any evidence of it ever taking place.You can line up all the fossils you like but they still do not support the theory.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> The word "kind" is used by biologist when it is necessary to explain their point. The word "family" as well. If you know the "family" or "kind" that an organism originates from and the name of the breed why must you go any further ?


Well no, that too is completely false.  The word "kind" is not a scientific word whatsoever.  A religious biologist may use the word to explain a complex concept to a lay person for easy understanding, but it has absolutely zero biological basis, which is why you have been completely incapable of defining it.  

Family, on the other hand, is a scientific word with a specific meaning that has nothing to do with genetics.  It too is just a man-made word that helped scientists classify organisms based on their appearance, but has no actual genetic grounding.  Today, we can group organisms based on a biological basis from their actual genetics. Still, there is no basis for you to tell me why there are different families of toothed whales, because the divisions were arbitrarily constructed by people.  

Nonetheless, liking "Family," which is a scientific word with no genetic basis, to "kind," which is a religious non-scientific word with no genetic basis is yet another underhanded attempt to put forth crap.  There is still no actual differentiation of "kinds" let alone what specific species fall into each category.



Youwerecreated said:


> If you would like to discuss terms like macroevolution or kind, please do. I am avoiding nothing. As a matter of fact i have asked YOU the differences between macroevolution and microevolution and you have yet to asnwer the question.


Actually I've answered the question several times: there is no difference.  It is YOU who put forth the claim that there is a difference, and now you expect me to support the garbage you made up?  No, this is still your claim.  If you want to continue to claim there is a magical difference between micro and macroevolution, it is your responsibility to define what the two are and thus show how they are different.  But once again you are completely incapable and incompetent. 



Youwerecreated said:


> Vague ? what comes to mind when i say horse ? what comes to mind when i say minature horse ? what comes to mind when i say donkey or zebra ? Vague you say.
> 
> Let's do it again. What comes to mind when i say cat ? What comes to mind when i say big cat ? what comes to mind when i say house cat ? what comes to mind when i say tiger ? what comes to mind when i say lion ? what comes to mind when i say siamese cat ?


And this once again goes back to the 2nd grade reasoning I mentioned before.  There are numerous species of horses, whales, cats, and chickens, not to mention breeds, but your simplistic mind can only picture the common stereotyped images found in childrens' books.  Be reducing countless species of animals into base names, you completely strip the biology from the concept, which again goes to show how you have little understanding of the topic.



Youwerecreated said:


> The only time confusion comes in is when you try explain the biological differences between two different looking organisms from the same "kind" or "family" and your vocabulary does it in a way to try and show support for your theory that is built out of imagination.


Biology can very clearly define the differences between two organisms at a genetic level that has nothing to do with evolution. There ARE differences.  If you're reluctant to acknowledge them because you continue to propagate this ignorance, why do you think you are in a good position to make such biological comparisons?



Youwerecreated said:


> Evolution is the change over time from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies. In other words,Microevolution.


Now define macroevolution in such genetic terms. 



Youwerecreated said:


> I agree that our creator allowed change but change within limits.


And yet you are still incapable of stating what those limitations are.  How many mutations are allowed to occur before the organism explodes?  Such an idea is foolish.  You can accept a few beneficial mutations over time, but if a few more beneficial mutations are produced over MORE time it's somehow impossible?  The idea is foolish.  

So you continue to claim there's an invisible imaginary limit, yet can't actually say what it is.  Give me a number.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The word "kind" is used by biologist when it is necessary to explain their point. The word "family" as well. If you know the "family" or "kind" that an organism originates from and the name of the breed why must you go any further ?
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, that too is completely false.  The word "kind" is not a scientific word whatsoever.  A religious biologist may use the word to explain a complex concept to a lay person for easy understanding, but it has absolutely zero biological basis, which is why you have been completely incapable of defining it.
> 
> Family, on the other hand, is a scientific word with a specific meaning that has nothing to do with genetics.  It too is just a man-made word that helped scientists classify organisms based on their appearance, but has no actual genetic grounding.  Today, we can group organisms based on a biological basis from their actual genetics. Still, there is no basis for you to tell me why there are different families of toothed whales, because the divisions were arbitrarily constructed by people.
> 
> Nonetheless, liking "Family," which is a scientific word with no genetic basis, to "kind," which is a religious non-scientific word with no genetic basis is yet another underhanded attempt to put forth crap.  There is still no actual differentiation of "kinds" let alone what specific species fall into each category.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you would like to discuss terms like macroevolution or kind, please do. I am avoiding nothing. As a matter of fact i have asked YOU the differences between macroevolution and microevolution and you have yet to asnwer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually I've answered the question several times: there is no difference.  It is YOU who put forth the claim that there is a difference, and now you expect me to support the garbage you made up?  No, this is still your claim.  If you want to continue to claim there is a magical difference between micro and macroevolution, it is your responsibility to define what the two are and thus show how they are different.  But once again you are completely incapable and incompetent.
> 
> 
> And this once again goes back to the 2nd grade reasoning I mentioned before.  There are numerous species of horses, whales, cats, and chickens, not to mention breeds, but your simplistic mind can only picture the common stereotyped images found in childrens' books.  Be reducing countless species of animals into base names, you completely strip the biology from the concept, which again goes to show how you have little understanding of the topic.
> 
> 
> Biology can very clearly define the differences between two organisms at a genetic level that has nothing to do with evolution. There ARE differences.  If you're reluctant to acknowledge them because you continue to propagate this ignorance, why do you think you are in a good position to make such biological comparisons?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is the change over time from a succession of relatively small genetic variations that often cause the formation of new subspecies. In other words,Microevolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now define macroevolution in such genetic terms.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that our creator allowed change but change within limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet you are still incapable of stating what those limitations are.  How many mutations are allowed to occur before the organism explodes?  Such an idea is foolish.  You can accept a few beneficial mutations over time, but if a few more beneficial mutations are produced over MORE time it's somehow impossible?  The idea is foolish.
> 
> So you continue to claim there's an invisible imaginary limit, yet can't actually say what it is.  Give me a number.
Click to expand...


If you knew anything about beneficial mutations you would know they are extremely rare. You would need a boatload of beneficial mutations FOR ALL LIFE TO BE AS IT IS CURRENTLY!

So since there would be plenty of beneficial mutations would you care to name some ?and not the obvious fallback answers to this question that evolutionist fall back on once forced to answer the question. You can identify these beneficial mutations ,come on, lets hear it ?

2nd grade reasoning seems to be on more solid ground just admit it.

Macroevolution- Large-scale evolution occurring over time that results in a destinct new kind of organism. Remember the graphs showing monkeys turning  into apes,apes turning into chimps,chimps into neanderthals and neanderthals into man= Macroevolution.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> If you knew anything about beneficial mutations you would know they are extremely rare. You would need a boatload of beneficial mutations FOR ALL LIFE TO BE AS IT IS CURRENTLY!


How rare?  Give me a number.  I've already run this scenario with you.  You continue to ignore the facts.  It is rare for any one person to win the lotto, but the lotto is always won.  Every time.  

Genetics, much like the pick 6, may provide a very large number of possibilities, but they are still finite.  

But again: if you don't agree, and insist that beneficial mutations are so rare they are essentially impossible despite millions of years in which to be acquired, please provide the actual numbers and statistics.  Let's just fast forward this conversation: you won't provide ANYTHING, once again, because you are, ONCE AGAIN, making up complete unsupported garbage. 



Youwerecreated said:


> So since there would be plenty of beneficial mutations would you care to name some ?and not the obvious fallback answers to this question that evolutionist fall back on once forced to answer the question. You can identify these beneficial mutations ,come on, lets hear it ?


If you understood the theory of evolution, which you have demonstrated on multiple occasions already to not be the case, you would know that ALL genes are the result of beneficial mutations.  That is the very core of evolution. 

That's not to say that it is impossible for local deleterious mutations to arise, but the fact a gene exists in the first place shows it was useful at some point.  Even the genes that cause sickle cell anemia protect against malaria, as GTH pointed out. This is yet another concept in this thread you have pretended doesn't exist.



Youwerecreated said:


> 2nd grade reasoning seems to be on more solid ground just admit it.


The fact that you can only subscribe to second grade reasoning should exhibit your childish short-sighted ignorance.  Perhaps we should apply the rest of science and medicine to second grade reasoning as well?  



Youwerecreated said:


> Remember the graphs showing monkeys turning  into apes,apes turning into chimps,chimps into neanderthals and neanderthals into man= Macroevolution.


Yes.  Those graphs are not evolution.  Apes have never turned into chimps.  Chimps have never turned into neanderthals.  Fish do not turn into birds.  You continue to exhibit a lack of understanding on this topic despite claiming you know it's wrong. 



Youwerecreated said:


> Macroevolution- Large-scale evolution occurring over time that results in a destinct new kind of organism.


That doesn't answer the question whatsoever!  You just defined "macroevolution" in terms of "kind," which we've already established is a non-scientific word that has nothing to do with genetics and has no real meaning.  We are talking about a GENETIC topic, and despite claiming knowledge in the topic, you are completely incapable of defining your term in genetics.  In short: you have yet to illustrate what separates one "kind of organism" from another genetically. Do you believe there is such a genetic separation or do you concede this point as being fabricated yet?


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that our creator allowed change but change within limits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, what are those limits?  The fossil record implies there ARE NO limits.  All species seem to have come from single cells to the nearly LIMITLESS variety we see today.  Why would change be limited?  Simply saying it because it supports your theory, isn't good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Limits were set by the creator according to kinds that he determined. Variations within a kind was determined by sexual reproduction. If there is no crossing of breeds you do not get a new breed. I'm not sure why this simple formula is ignored by evolutionist and can be proven by the evidence. *You can show variations in a group through sexual reproduction and it never leads to what you call macroevolution,why ?*
> 
> And that is where evolutionist go off the deep end by saying it happened without any evidence of it ever taking place.You can line up all the fossils you like but they still do not support the theory.
Click to expand...


Who says it never leads to macroevolution?  The fossil record PROVES that to be false.  You can't just keep repeating the same thing without presenting proof of your own.  For example, you have no explanation for why new species, tellingly different in "kind" have emerged at DIFFERENT times over billions of years.  Work on an explanation for that.


----------



## Old Rocks

LOL. I was raised in a very fundementalist family. There were also a number of farmers and ranchers in the family. One of them made a statement of how long it took for an inch of soil to weather from rock. Then I made the observation that there were many inchs of soil in many layers between basalt flows that one can see in Washington and Oregon. That was not well recieved, and I did not bring up the subject again. 

However, it was definately my first lesson concerning how willfully ignorant people can be about anything that contradicts their core beliefs.


----------



## FA_Q2

Didn't you guys know?  The number of beneficial mutations is locked to 665.  After that, you get to 666 and the creature becomes demon spawn and kills off all the other creatures that have built up any beneficial mutations so that we can all start over.  The proof is in fern tree because it has the largest set of chromosomes at 630 pairs so it is obvious that you cannot have more mutations than that.   See, there IS an upper limit but I guess you will simply dismiss all this concrete data and hard numbers with your 'peer reviewed' information as if it was actually reliable.  I mean really, it is all a conspiracy because you are in the religious cult of evolution and all.


----------



## Old Rocks

Lol!


----------



## antagon

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, what are those limits?  The fossil record implies there ARE NO limits.  All species seem to have come from single cells to the nearly LIMITLESS variety we see today.  Why would change be limited?  Simply saying it because it supports your theory, isn't good enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Limits were set by the creator according to kinds that he determined. Variations within a kind was determined by sexual reproduction. If there is no crossing of breeds you do not get a new breed. I'm not sure why this simple formula is ignored by evolutionist and can be proven by the evidence. *You can show variations in a group through sexual reproduction and it never leads to what you call macroevolution,why ?*
> 
> And that is where evolutionist go off the deep end by saying it happened without any evidence of it ever taking place.You can line up all the fossils you like but they still do not support the theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who says it never leads to macroevolution?  The fossil record PROVES that to be false.  You can't just keep repeating the same thing without presenting proof of your own.  For example, you have no explanation for why new species, tellingly different in "kind" have emerged at DIFFERENT times over billions of years.  Work on an explanation for that.
Click to expand...


the macro/micro mental block is a telltale of ignorance.  i wish folks would work on an explanation for what separates the two in the natural world.  what natural barrier actually exists to microdivergence broadening to what folks would call 'macro'.  like you said the fossil record shows no indication of such a barrier.

i can't believe this discussion is still rollin'


----------



## Youwerecreated

Hick I new you couldn't answer the question and would fall back on an adapting bacteria as support.


----------



## Youwerecreated

antagon said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Limits were set by the creator according to kinds that he determined. Variations within a kind was determined by sexual reproduction. If there is no crossing of breeds you do not get a new breed. I'm not sure why this simple formula is ignored by evolutionist and can be proven by the evidence. *You can show variations in a group through sexual reproduction and it never leads to what you call macroevolution,why ?*
> 
> And that is where evolutionist go off the deep end by saying it happened without any evidence of it ever taking place.You can line up all the fossils you like but they still do not support the theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who says it never leads to macroevolution?  The fossil record PROVES that to be false.  You can't just keep repeating the same thing without presenting proof of your own.  For example, you have no explanation for why new species, tellingly different in "kind" have emerged at DIFFERENT times over billions of years.  Work on an explanation for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the macro/micro mental block is a telltale of ignorance.  i wish folks would work on an explanation for what separates the two in the natural world.  what natural barrier actually exists to microdivergence broadening to what folks would call 'macro'.  like you said the fossil record shows no indication of such a barrier.
> 
> i can't believe this discussion is still rollin'
Click to expand...


Why do you suggest as others here have done that the fossil shows support for macro when eldridge and Gould that are well respected paleontologist came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium because the lack of transitional fossils that would support macro ? Really ,the diversity we see in a group or kind is the result of cross breeding. This diversity is limited by sexual reproduction.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> Hick I new you couldn't answer the question and would fall back on an adapting bacteria as support.



You have yet to actually DEFINE the question.  You ask what proof there is for macroevolution yet can't actually tell me what it is on a genetic or biologic level.  Instead you use vague terms that have no scientific meaning whatsoever.  It would be like me asking you how many widgets you own, and defining widgets to be "those things."  Vague definitions for key terms in questions make the question unintelligible and thus unanswerable.  

This is once again another underhanded method of pushing your point, which is the norm for people like you.

So again I ask: what is macroevolution on a genetic level?  You are incapable of answering because there exists no such distinction.  If you could answer that question, I would be able to answer yours.  Until that point in time, realize you're not actually asking a real question anymore than "How many widgets do you own?"


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hick I new you couldn't answer the question and would fall back on an adapting bacteria as support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to actually DEFINE the question.  You ask what proof there is for macroevolution yet can't actually tell me what it is on a genetic or biologic level.  Instead you use vague terms that have no scientific meaning whatsoever.  It would be like me asking you how many widgets you own, and defining widgets to be "those things."  Vague definitions for key terms in questions make the question unintelligible and thus unanswerable.
> 
> This is once again another underhanded method of pushing your point, which is the norm for people like you.
> 
> So again I ask: what is macroevolution on a genetic level?  You are incapable of answering because there exists no such distinction.  If you could answer that question, I would be able to answer yours.  Until that point in time, realize you're not actually asking a real question anymore than "How many widgets do you own?"
Click to expand...


Ok,let's keep it simple.

What is the result of macroevolution according to your view ?

What is macroevolution at the genetic level and the biological level ? The changes in a group or kind ,are not the result of a natural process driven by mutations. If they are give your proof.

Since it is your side that says diffferent breeds of the same kind or organisms, are different species. It is up to your side to show these different, so called species are a product of mutations  or are they a product of cross breeding.

I'm betting they are a product of two different breeds of the same kind cross breeding. This can be observed unlike your theory.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hick I new you couldn't answer the question and would fall back on an adapting bacteria as support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to actually DEFINE the question.  You ask what proof there is for macroevolution yet can't actually tell me what it is on a genetic or biologic level.  Instead you use vague terms that have no scientific meaning whatsoever.  It would be like me asking you how many widgets you own, and defining widgets to be "those things."  Vague definitions for key terms in questions make the question unintelligible and thus unanswerable.
> 
> This is once again another underhanded method of pushing your point, which is the norm for people like you.
> 
> So again I ask: what is macroevolution on a genetic level?  You are incapable of answering because there exists no such distinction.  If you could answer that question, I would be able to answer yours.  Until that point in time, realize you're not actually asking a real question anymore than "How many widgets do you own?"
Click to expand...


The only change at the genetic level is aging from a loss of genetic information not a gain of information. From the time a child begins growing in the womb, the childs genes already have determined what that child will look like and how tall it will grow and pretty much how long that child will live and if that child will suffer from disease and or some deformity.

There is no change of the genes,the body has the ability to adapt to hazzards within the body that is not evidence that the body is evolving into an destinct new organism,That is just a silly assumption.

If you can prove otherwise please provide your proof.

Organs in our body's work together and are needed for our body's to function properly and that is evidence of intelligent design. If you were not so narrow minded in your reasoning you would have to admit that even if we were the result of a natural process you would have to say that the natural process is constantly thinking and that is illogical to assume .The only EXPLANATION that makes any sense is that God the creator designed and built us to be what he meant us to be, and gave us the ability to adapt to our suirroundings. But having that ability to adapt caused many smart men and women to explain that ability. The problem is they leave the designer out of the of their reasoning and explanations because he has never revealed himself to them.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hick I new you couldn't answer the question and would fall back on an adapting bacteria as support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to actually DEFINE the question.  You ask what proof there is for macroevolution yet can't actually tell me what it is on a genetic or biologic level.  Instead you use vague terms that have no scientific meaning whatsoever.  It would be like me asking you how many widgets you own, and defining widgets to be "those things."  Vague definitions for key terms in questions make the question unintelligible and thus unanswerable.
> 
> This is once again another underhanded method of pushing your point, which is the norm for people like you.
> 
> So again I ask: what is macroevolution on a genetic level?  You are incapable of answering because there exists no such distinction.  If you could answer that question, I would be able to answer yours.  Until that point in time, realize you're not actually asking a real question anymore than "How many widgets do you own?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok,let's keep it simple.
> 
> What is the result of macroevolution according to your view ?
> 
> What is macroevolution at the genetic level and the biological level ? The changes in a group or kind ,are not the result of a natural process driven by mutations. If they are give your proof.
> 
> Since it is your side that says diffferent breeds of the same kind or organisms, are different species. It is up to your side to show these different, so called species are a product of mutations  or are they a product of cross breeding.
> 
> I'm betting they are a product of two different breeds of the same kind cross breeding. This can be observed unlike your theory.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but that doesn't explain how you get different species millions of years apart.  I'm afraid you're the one that has to provide prooof.  All of mine is in the fossil record and it definitely shows macro-eviolution.  I would think it's up to you to show why that isn't conclusive evidence.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to actually DEFINE the question.  You ask what proof there is for macroevolution yet can't actually tell me what it is on a genetic or biologic level.  Instead you use vague terms that have no scientific meaning whatsoever.  It would be like me asking you how many widgets you own, and defining widgets to be "those things."  Vague definitions for key terms in questions make the question unintelligible and thus unanswerable.
> 
> This is once again another underhanded method of pushing your point, which is the norm for people like you.
> 
> So again I ask: what is macroevolution on a genetic level?  You are incapable of answering because there exists no such distinction.  If you could answer that question, I would be able to answer yours.  Until that point in time, realize you're not actually asking a real question anymore than "How many widgets do you own?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok,let's keep it simple.
> 
> What is the result of macroevolution according to your view ?
> 
> What is macroevolution at the genetic level and the biological level ? The changes in a group or kind ,are not the result of a natural process driven by mutations. If they are give your proof.
> 
> Since it is your side that says diffferent breeds of the same kind or organisms, are different species. It is up to your side to show these different, so called species are a product of mutations  or are they a product of cross breeding.
> 
> I'm betting they are a product of two different breeds of the same kind cross breeding. This can be observed unlike your theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that doesn't explain how you get different species millions of years apart.  I'm afraid you're the one that has to provide prooof.  All of mine is in the fossil record and it definitely shows macro-eviolution.  I would think it's up to you to show why that isn't conclusive evidence.
Click to expand...


If you are gonna make the claim that organisms are a million years apart that is up to you to prove ,not speculate. And we both know that dating methods are not reliable unless of course you have been brainwashed into believing they are reliable.

If they were reliable they could put definate dates on things of the past and you know that is not possible. Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.

The fossil record only reflects extinct species and things that died from the past. It does not show this slow gradual evolution of organisms. They have found organisms that was preserved and put rediculous dates on them and the organisms showed no change at all from current day organisms.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok,let's keep it simple.
> 
> What is the result of macroevolution according to your view ?
> 
> What is macroevolution at the genetic level and the biological level ? The changes in a group or kind ,are not the result of a natural process driven by mutations. If they are give your proof.
> 
> Since it is your side that says diffferent breeds of the same kind or organisms, are different species. It is up to your side to show these different, so called species are a product of mutations  or are they a product of cross breeding.
> 
> I'm betting they are a product of two different breeds of the same kind cross breeding. This can be observed unlike your theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that doesn't explain how you get different species millions of years apart.  I'm afraid you're the one that has to provide prooof.  All of mine is in the fossil record and it definitely shows macro-eviolution.  I would think it's up to you to show why that isn't conclusive evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are gonna make the assumption that organisms are a million years apart that is up to you to prove ,not speculate. And we both know that dating methods are not reliable unless of course you have been brainwashed into believing they are reliable.
> 
> If they were reliable they could put definate dates on things of the past and you know that is not possible. Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.
> 
> The fossil record only reflects extinct species and things that died from the past. It does not show this slow gradual evolution of organisms. They have found organisms that was preserved and put rediculous dates on them and the organisms showed no change at all from current day organisms.
Click to expand...


The proof of the timeline is in atomic dating methods.  It's amazing how we have these intricate brains.  Able to figure out many things about how the world works, but creationists want to insist that we are being misled.  Misled by whom?  Are you saying God lies to us.  If everything was created, so was the fossil record.  Are you saying God did it, just for funzies?!?!


----------



## FA_Q2

Youwerecreated said:


> If you are gonna make the assumption that organisms are a million years apart that is up to you to prove ,not speculate. And we both know that dating methods are not reliable unless of course you have been brainwashed into believing they are reliable.



They are not reliable?  What evidence do you have that refutes carbon dating and how do you contend the way it lines up with other dating methods?  Where is the science that refutes dating methods?


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but that doesn't explain how you get different species millions of years apart.  I'm afraid you're the one that has to provide prooof.  All of mine is in the fossil record and it definitely shows macro-eviolution.  I would think it's up to you to show why that isn't conclusive evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are gonna make the assumption that organisms are a million years apart that is up to you to prove ,not speculate. And we both know that dating methods are not reliable unless of course you have been brainwashed into believing they are reliable.
> 
> If they were reliable they could put definate dates on things of the past and you know that is not possible. Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.
> 
> The fossil record only reflects extinct species and things that died from the past. It does not show this slow gradual evolution of organisms. They have found organisms that was preserved and put rediculous dates on them and the organisms showed no change at all from current day organisms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The proof of the timeline is in atomic dating methods.  It's amazing how we have these intricate brains.  Able to figure out many things about how the world works, but creationists want to insist that we are being misled.  Misled by whom?  Are you saying God lies to us.  If everything was created, so was the fossil record.  Are you saying God did it, just for funzies?!?!
Click to expand...


No i don't think you are being lied to,i think they are wrong with their explanations of what they see. And there is a mountain of information built on information that was wrong from the beginning.

How can you test the enviornment of the past and creatures that are extinct ? so really it is based on imagination and i'm sorry that is not science when you can't test the hypothsis.

No God is not messing with man, i believe it is the other way around.


----------



## Youwerecreated

FA_Q2 said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are gonna make the assumption that organisms are a million years apart that is up to you to prove ,not speculate. And we both know that dating methods are not reliable unless of course you have been brainwashed into believing they are reliable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not reliable?  What evidence do you have that refutes carbon dating and how do you contend the way it lines up with other dating methods?  Where is the science that refutes dating methods?
Click to expand...


How many times must i post the evidence ?

Look i showed where they took objects such as trees that they positively knew the age of and got conflicting ages from several different parts of the same tree. None were even close to the actual age of the tree.

There was the rock that they tested ten different pieces of the same rock once again conflicting ages of the same rock.

Is it a coincedence that many years evolutionist were makling the argument for many millions of years without the modern day dating methods ? THEN THEY COME UP WITH THESE SO CALLED ERRORLESS METHODS OF DATING THINGS SAYING SEE IT WORKS AND ARE VERY ACCURATE. They were guessing when they first said millions of years and they are still doing so.

The reason evolutionist are so against creationist is because their opinions of the evidence differs a great deal and they point out the flaws on the other side. Many well known evolutionist have spoken out against the many theories of the theory that have been created by other evolutionist and when they do they're quickly reminded they are only hurting their future employment opportunities.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are gonna make the assumption that organisms are a million years apart that is up to you to prove ,not speculate. And we both know that dating methods are not reliable unless of course you have been brainwashed into believing they are reliable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not reliable?  What evidence do you have that refutes carbon dating and how do you contend the way it lines up with other dating methods?  Where is the science that refutes dating methods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times must i post the evidence ?
> 
> Look i showed where they took objects such as trees that they positively knew the age of and got conflicting ages from several different parts of the same tree. None were even close to the actual age of the tree.
> 
> There was the rock that they tested ten different pieces of the same rock once again conflicting ages of the same rock.
> 
> Is it a coincedence that many years evolutionist were makling the argument for many millions of years without the modern day dating methods ? THEN THEY COME UP WITH THESE SO CALLED ERRORLESS METHODS OF DATING THINGS SAYING SEE IT WORKS AND ARE VERY ACCURATE. They were guessing when they first said millions of years and they are still doing so.
> 
> The reason evolutionist are so against creationist is because their opinions of the evidence differs a great deal and they point out the flaws on the other side. Many well known evolutionist have spoken out against the many theories of the theory that have been created by other evolutionist and when they do they're quickly reminded they are only hurting their future employment opportunities.
Click to expand...


The reason why your evidence isn't accepted is that you only post the times when there were problems.  Most of the time the methods are dead on and when they're not, it's because of some assay, sampling or contamination problem, NOT because there's anything wrong with evolutionary theory.  People don't get fired for questioning aspects of the theory, that's expected in science.  They get fired for sloppy science and thinking, like your posts and the people you cite.  If there's anyone with a preconcieved notion of how things should be, it's the creationists, NOT the evolutionists, as the discussion concerning the smooth-transition vs punctuated-equilibrium models proves.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are gonna make the assumption that organisms are a million years apart that is up to you to prove ,not speculate. And we both know that dating methods are not reliable unless of course you have been brainwashed into believing they are reliable.
> 
> If they were reliable they could put definate dates on things of the past and you know that is not possible. Close only counts in horse shoes and hand grenades.
> 
> The fossil record only reflects extinct species and things that died from the past. It does not show this slow gradual evolution of organisms. They have found organisms that was preserved and put rediculous dates on them and the organisms showed no change at all from current day organisms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proof of the timeline is in atomic dating methods.  It's amazing how we have these intricate brains.  Able to figure out many things about how the world works, but creationists want to insist that we are being misled.  Misled by whom?  Are you saying God lies to us.  If everything was created, so was the fossil record.  Are you saying God did it, just for funzies?!?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No i don't think you are being lied to,i think they are wrong with their explanations of what they see. And there is a mountain of information built on information that was wrong from the beginning.
> 
> How can you test the enviornment of the past and creatures that are extinct ? so really it is based on imagination and i'm sorry that is not science when you can't test the hypothsis.
> 
> No God is not messing with man, i believe it is the other way around.
Click to expand...


Of course we have a good idea of past environments.  It's called scientific inquiry.  If you think it's "the other way around",  are you saying the fossil record was not created by God.  Who's messing with our minds?  Are you calling Satan a Creator now?!?!  If God didn't do it, then who?


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> The proof of the timeline is in atomic dating methods.  It's amazing how we have these intricate brains.  Able to figure out many things about how the world works, but creationists want to insist that we are being misled.  Misled by whom?  Are you saying God lies to us.  If everything was created, so was the fossil record.  Are you saying God did it, just for funzies?!?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No i don't think you are being lied to,i think they are wrong with their explanations of what they see. And there is a mountain of information built on information that was wrong from the beginning.
> 
> How can you test the enviornment of the past and creatures that are extinct ? so really it is based on imagination and i'm sorry that is not science when you can't test the hypothsis.
> 
> No God is not messing with man, i believe it is the other way around.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course we have a good idea of past environments.  It's called scientific inquiry.  If you think it's "the other way around",  are you saying the fossil record was not created by God.  Who's messing with our minds?  Are you calling Satan a Creator now?!?!  If God didn't do it, then who?
Click to expand...


Now that's something that could be considered. If anyone is messing around it could be Satan. But really when there are problems with the dating methods it shows they can't be trusted. To me that gives plenty of reason to doubt. If they were reliable methods wouldn't they always be reliable ?


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> No i don't think you are being lied to,i think they are wrong with their explanations of what they see. And there is a mountain of information built on information that was wrong from the beginning.
> 
> How can you test the enviornment of the past and creatures that are extinct ? so really it is based on imagination and i'm sorry that is not science when you can't test the hypothsis.
> 
> No God is not messing with man, i believe it is the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we have a good idea of past environments.  It's called scientific inquiry.  If you think it's "the other way around",  are you saying the fossil record was not created by God.  Who's messing with our minds?  Are you calling Satan a Creator now?!?!  If God didn't do it, then who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now that's something that could be considered. If anyone is messing around it could be Satan. But really when there are problems with the dating methods it shows they can't be trusted. To me that gives plenty of reason to doubt. If they were reliable methods wouldn't they always be reliable ?
Click to expand...


Not necessarily, we're humans.  Humans make mistakes.  The overwhelming number of tests, however, are totally reliable.

I can't believe you've fallen for my trap!!!  You ARE considering as a Creator!!!  Even in creationist timelines you've got a problem there.  Satan didn't rebel until after the creation of Adam, at which time the earth had already been created!!!


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> What is the result of macroevolution according to your view ?


The result of "macroevolution" is the same as "microevolution" being the retaining of beneficial mutations over time.  We've already established this is the result of microevolution, and you have yet to show any barrier whatsoever to macroevolution from there, being multiple microevolutionary events in combination. 



Youwerecreated said:


> What is macroevolution at the genetic level and the biological level ? The changes in a group or kind ,are not the result of a natural process driven by mutations. If they are give your proof.


Sure, tell me what a "kind" is at the genetic level.  The question in the above quote is the one I've been asking you, and you've been COMPLETELY unable to define. Tell me what KIND means in genetic terms, and I'll show you the genetic proof.  Apples to apples.  Otherwise, you're still talking widgets.



Youwerecreated said:


> Since it is your side that says diffferent breeds of the same kind or organisms, are different species. It is up to your side to show these different, so called species are a product of mutations  or are they a product of cross breeding.


This is actually completely false.  First off, the word KIND is not scientific, so no one on "my side" is using it to claim anything.  Secondly, differences in breed by definition are NOT different species.  Again, you exhibit an overall lack of knowledge on the basoc vocabulary of this topic.



Youwerecreated said:


> The only change at the genetic level is aging from a loss of genetic information not a gain of information.


Except we've already established this as false.  The very microevolution that you acknowledge as acceptable demonstrates that newly gained information and function drive it, as witnessed by every single biology major in the country in their basic education.  As mentioned previously, this is an easily reproducible experiment that shows bacteria acquiring new information and abilities to escape antibiotics. 

We've already gone over this.  I've already proved you wrong on this topic, and you've already admitted you were previously wrong on it.  Why are you backtracking to it now?



Youwerecreated said:


> Organs in our body's work together and are needed for our body's to function properly and that is evidence of intelligent design. If you were not so narrow minded in your reasoning you would have to admit that even if we were the result of a natural process you would have to say that the natural process is constantly thinking and that is illogical to assume .The only EXPLANATION that makes any sense is that God the creator designed and built us to be what he meant us to be, and gave us the ability to adapt to our suirroundings. But having that ability to adapt caused many smart men and women to explain that ability. The problem is they leave the designer out of the of their reasoning and explanations because he has never revealed himself to them.


All of the above is unsupported drivel, better known as guessword without evidence. Organs DO work together.  How does that preclude evolution?  The parts of a bacteria work together, yet you have no problem acknowledging "microevolution" in them.  How can you actually resolve such double standards?


----------



## SmarterThanHick

FA_Q2 said:


> They are not reliable?  What evidence do you have that refutes carbon dating and how do you contend the way it lines up with other dating methods?  Where is the science that refutes dating methods?



Truth be told, CARBON dating actually isn't particularly good for measuring really old things, because its half-life is much shorter than those old things.  That's why we only use other substances with longer half-lives for radiometric dating.  

What this poor uneducated soul says to discredit radiometric dating is that somehow physics were completely different in the past, despite absolutely no evidence of that being the case.  When asked why he would believe the core physical properties of things like gravity, or magnetism, or atomic interactions, or nuclear decay would change over time, he ignores the question, much like everything else he can't support.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we have a good idea of past environments.  It's called scientific inquiry.  If you think it's "the other way around",  are you saying the fossil record was not created by God.  Who's messing with our minds?  Are you calling Satan a Creator now?!?!  If God didn't do it, then who?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's something that could be considered. If anyone is messing around it could be Satan. But really when there are problems with the dating methods it shows they can't be trusted. To me that gives plenty of reason to doubt. If they were reliable methods wouldn't they always be reliable ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily, we're humans.  Humans make mistakes.  The overwhelming number of tests, however, are totally reliable.
> 
> I can't believe you've fallen for my trap!!!  You ARE considering as a Creator!!!  Even in creationist timelines you've got a problem there.  Satan didn't rebel until after the creation of Adam, at which time the earth had already been created!!!
Click to expand...


The creationist timeline began with the creation of the heaven's and the earth. I have no idea about what you are suggesting. Can you be more specific ?


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is the result of macroevolution according to your view ?
> 
> 
> 
> The result of "macroevolution" is the same as "microevolution" being the retaining of beneficial mutations over time.  We've already established this is the result of microevolution, and you have yet to show any barrier whatsoever to macroevolution from there, being multiple microevolutionary events in combination.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is macroevolution at the genetic level and the biological level ? The changes in a group or kind ,are not the result of a natural process driven by mutations. If they are give your proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, tell me what a "kind" is at the genetic level.  The question in the above quote is the one I've been asking you, and you've been COMPLETELY unable to define. Tell me what KIND means in genetic terms, and I'll show you the genetic proof.  Apples to apples.  Otherwise, you're still talking widgets.
> 
> 
> This is actually completely false.  First off, the word KIND is not scientific, so no one on "my side" is using it to claim anything.  Secondly, differences in breed by definition are NOT different species.  Again, you exhibit an overall lack of knowledge on the basoc vocabulary of this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only change at the genetic level is aging from a loss of genetic information not a gain of information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except we've already established this as false.  The very microevolution that you acknowledge as acceptable demonstrates that newly gained information and function drive it, as witnessed by every single biology major in the country in their basic education.  As mentioned previously, this is an easily reproducible experiment that shows bacteria acquiring new information and abilities to escape antibiotics.
> 
> We've already gone over this.  I've already proved you wrong on this topic, and you've already admitted you were previously wrong on it.  Why are you backtracking to it now?
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Organs in our body's work together and are needed for our body's to function properly and that is evidence of intelligent design. If you were not so narrow minded in your reasoning you would have to admit that even if we were the result of a natural process you would have to say that the natural process is constantly thinking and that is illogical to assume .The only EXPLANATION that makes any sense is that God the creator designed and built us to be what he meant us to be, and gave us the ability to adapt to our suirroundings. But having that ability to adapt caused many smart men and women to explain that ability. The problem is they leave the designer out of the of their reasoning and explanations because he has never revealed himself to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of the above is unsupported drivel, better known as guessword without evidence. Organs DO work together.  How does that preclude evolution?  The parts of a bacteria work together, yet you have no problem acknowledging "microevolution" in them.  How can you actually resolve such double standards?
Click to expand...


Why would they need two different terms to name the same process ?  Microevolution would happen from mutations over time if it was mutations that cause change over time. Just admit it the only strong evidence for adaptations is at the micro level and since there is such a lack of evidence for macroevolution you equate micro as macro. Kind is a group or to be specific on a kind within a group is the name of the breed. Well now, microevolution can be considered to be new information if the ability was not present already. But I believe the ability to adapt has always been present.so I don't think it is really new information I believe the information was already present and does not show up until needed. Now if adaptations were of a natural process with no limits then we should always be able to adapt and not die at all. So you see there is limits to adapting also meaning there would be limits to evolving into another distinct organism. Wishful thinking on your part to suggest that a natural process was the cause for all organs that was needed for any organism to survive and function let alone every living organism. You are entertaining I have to admit. Sorry I am on my smart phone and have not figured out how to space my responses.


----------



## Youwerecreated

SmarterThanHick said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are not reliable?  What evidence do you have that refutes carbon dating and how do you contend the way it lines up with other dating methods?  Where is the science that refutes dating methods?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth be told, CARBON dating actually isn't particularly good for measuring really old things, because its half-life is much shorter than those old things.  That's why we only use other substances with longer half-lives for radiometric dating.
> 
> What this poor uneducated soul says to discredit radiometric dating is that somehow physics were completely different in the past, despite absolutely no evidence of that being the case.  When asked why he would believe the core physical properties of things like gravity, or magnetism, or atomic interactions, or nuclear decay would change over time, he ignores the question, much like everything else he can't support.
Click to expand...


It's pretty simple my brainwashed fellow no one was there to know for sure now were they ? Once again you give into imagination.


----------



## geauxtohell

So, have I missed anything in the last 400 posts, or is it just the same-old, same-old?


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that's something that could be considered. If anyone is messing around it could be Satan. But really when there are problems with the dating methods it shows they can't be trusted. To me that gives plenty of reason to doubt. If they were reliable methods wouldn't they always be reliable ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily, we're humans.  Humans make mistakes.  The overwhelming number of tests, however, are totally reliable.
> 
> I can't believe you've fallen for my trap!!!  You ARE considering as a Creator!!!  Even in creationist timelines you've got a problem there.  Satan didn't rebel until after the creation of Adam, at which time the earth had already been created!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The creationist timeline began with the creation of the heaven's and the earth. I have no idea about what you are suggesting. Can you be more specific ?
Click to expand...


You seeemed to be considering Satan as a creator of the fossil record, just to fool us.  That timeline doesn't seem to jibe with the Bible, as Satan rebelled after the creation of Adam, NOT before the creation of the world.  Seems you have some splainin to do!!!


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are not reliable?  What evidence do you have that refutes carbon dating and how do you contend the way it lines up with other dating methods?  Where is the science that refutes dating methods?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth be told, CARBON dating actually isn't particularly good for measuring really old things, because its half-life is much shorter than those old things.  That's why we only use other substances with longer half-lives for radiometric dating.
> 
> What this poor uneducated soul says to discredit radiometric dating is that somehow physics were completely different in the past, despite absolutely no evidence of that being the case.  When asked why he would believe the core physical properties of things like gravity, or magnetism, or atomic interactions, or nuclear decay would change over time, he ignores the question, much like everything else he can't support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's pretty simple my brainwashed fellow no one was there to know for sure now were they ? Once again you give into imagination.
Click to expand...


Seems to me that anyone who thinks physics was different in the past, is the one with the over-active imagination!!!


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily, we're humans.  Humans make mistakes.  The overwhelming number of tests, however, are totally reliable.
> 
> I can't believe you've fallen for my trap!!!  You ARE considering as a Creator!!!  Even in creationist timelines you've got a problem there.  Satan didn't rebel until after the creation of Adam, at which time the earth had already been created!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The creationist timeline began with the creation of the heaven's and the earth. I have no idea about what you are suggesting. Can you be more specific ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seeemed to be considering Satan as a creator of the fossil record, just to fool us.  That timeline doesn't seem to jibe with the Bible, as Satan rebelled after the creation of Adam, NOT before the creation of the world.  Seems you have some splainin to do!!!
Click to expand...


That is true Satan rebelled after the creation of Adam. Now I am not suggesting satan created the fossil to fool us you did I just said it could be considered. But if Satan has that ability I would say he is more likely to do things to fool you he has something to gain by proving his case before god. Oh and one other thing man really did not collecting and studying fossils until well after the rebellion of Satan.


----------



## Youwerecreated

geauxtohell said:


> So, have I missed anything in the last 400 posts, or is it just the same-old, same-old?



You have not missed anything from the evolutionist side same old same old. Still lacking logic and reason .


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SmarterThanHick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth be told, CARBON dating actually isn't particularly good for measuring really old things, because its half-life is much shorter than those odontld things.  That's why we only use other substances with longer half-lives for radiometric dating.
> 
> What this poor uneducated soul says to discredit radiometric dating is that somehow physics were completely different in the past, despite absolutely no evidence of that being the case.  When asked why he would believe the core physical properties of things like gravity, or magnetism, or atomic interactions, or nuclear decay would change over time, he ignores the question, much like everything else he can't support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty simple my brainwashed fellow no one was there to know for sure now were they ? Once again you give into imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems to me that anyone who thinks physics was different in the past, is the one with the over-active imagination!!!
Click to expand...


don't know for sure I was not there,and that is not the only flaw with the dating methods currently used. Look if your side can't nail down definite dates its not reliable. The colecanth fish supposedly went extinct 235 million years ago how did they come to that figure ? Yes your dating methods. What happened recently they found that they are still around oh and it showed no change and definitely no change that was said by evolutionist that it grew legs and walked up on dry land. So who do you say is relying on the imagination ?


----------



## pinqy

Youwerecreated said:


> don't know for sure I was not there,and that is not the only flaw with the dating methods currently used. Look if your side can't nail down definite dates its not reliable. The colecanth fish supposedly went extinct 235 million years ago how did they come to that figure ?


Actually it was 65 million years ago, and that figure was arrived at because those were the most recent fossils found.  That certainly doesn't mean the dating methods were flawed, it just means no examples were found more recently.



> Yes your dating methods. What happened recently they found that they are still around oh and it showed no change and definitely no change that was said by evolutionist that it grew legs and walked up on dry land. So who do you say is relying on the imagination ?


 But they did show changes.  There is no fossil record of modern coelacanths.  Keep in mind that Coelacanth is an Order of fish, not a species, not a genus, not even a Family.  There are about 8 extinct Families of Coelacanth, and 7 extinct genera in the one surviving Family, leaving 2 known modern species.

Yes, it was suspected by some that Coelacanth was ancestoral to some land animals, and that might still be true for the extinct Families.  Or it might not be.  Nobody has the answers at this time.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty simple my brainwashed fellow no one was there to know for sure now were they ? Once again you give into imagination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me that anyone who thinks physics was different in the past, is the one with the over-active imagination!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> don't know for sure I was not there,and that is not the only flaw with the dating methods currently used. Look if your side can't nail down definite dates its not reliable. The colecanth fish supposedly went extinct 235 million years ago how did they come to that figure ? Yes your dating methods. What happened recently they found that they are still around oh and it showed no change and definitely no change that was said by evolutionist that it grew legs and walked up on dry land. So who do you say is relying on the imagination ?
Click to expand...


The fact that they found coelocanth fossils and tested them to be millions of years old, that has nothing at all to do with the fact that the news of their extinction was wrong.  Dates ARE nailed down within the error of the method.  When you're talking millions, even a 100,000 years off is within tolerance.  BTW, evolutionary theory claims that species CAN change, NOT that they WILL change.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> That is true Satan rebelled after the creation of Adam. Now I am not suggesting satan created the fossil to fool us you did *I just said it could be considered*. But if Satan has that ability I would say he is more likely to do things to fool you he has something to gain by proving his case before god. Oh and one other thing man really did not collecting and studying fossils until well after the rebellion of Satan.



Even considering it casts Satan in the Crerator role.  Sure you want to be saying that?


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is true Satan rebelled after the creation of Adam. Now I am not suggesting satan created the fossil to fool us you did *I just said it could be considered*. But if Satan has that ability I would say he is more likely to do things to fool you he has something to gain by proving his case before god. Oh and one other thing man really did not collecting and studying fossils until well after the rebellion of Satan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even considering it casts Satan in the Crerator role.  Sure you want to be saying that?
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what abilities was given to Satan ,because he has such an ability does not put in the same category as the creator of all life. The bible does say Satan keeps transforming himself into the angel of light when he is actually a ravenous wolf. So he does have some special abilities. He is also called in the scriptures the god of this system and is misleading the entire population of the earth.


----------



## Youwerecreated

pinqy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't know for sure I was not there,and that is not the only flaw with the dating methods currently used. Look if your side can't nail down definite dates its not reliable. The colecanth fish supposedly went extinct 235 million years ago how did they come to that figure ?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was 65 million years ago, and that figure was arrived at because those were the most recent fossils found.  That certainly doesn't mean the dating methods were flawed, it just means no examples were found more recently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes your dating methods. What happened recently they found that they are still around oh and it showed no change and definitely no change that was said by evolutionist that it grew legs and walked up on dry land. So who do you say is relying on the imagination ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they did show changes.  There is no fossil record of modern coelacanths.  Keep in mind that Coelacanth is an Order of fish, not a species, not a genus, not even a Family.  There are about 8 extinct Families of Coelacanth, and 7 extinct genera in the one surviving Family, leaving 2 known modern species.
> 
> Yes, it was suspected by some that Coelacanth was ancestoral to some land animals, and that might still be true for the extinct Families.  Or it might not be.  Nobody has the answers at this time.
Click to expand...


thank you for the correction it was 65 million years. But surely 65 million years it would have showed some change no ? And surely they would have found others. They said it went extinct and they were wrong.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> thank you for the correction it was 65 million years. *But surely 65 million years it would have showed some change no ? *And surely they would have found others. They said it went extinct and they were wrong.



Not necessarily.  Evolutionary theory says things may change, not that they must.  Sharks, for example, have changed very little over the eons.

The fact that they were wrong about extinction is just a distraction, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the veracity of evolution.  All that it proves is that it's easy to hide in the ocean.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> thank you for the correction it was 65 million years. *But surely 65 million years it would have showed some change no ? *And surely they would have found others. They said it went extinct and they were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.  Evolutionary theory says things may change, not that they must.  Sharks, for example, have changed very little over the eons.
> 
> The fact that they were wrong about extinction is just a distraction, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the veracity of evolution.  All that it proves is that it's easy to hide in the ocean.
Click to expand...


Evolution is all things are always evolving I guess it depends on which evolutionist you are speaking to. Bottomline there is no evidence supporting that all living things are a product of macroevolution zero,none. The theory is only supported by explanations of the evidence not proof. Everyone can have opinions but does mean the opinion is correct. While there is mountains of evidence that shows that change within a group happens through reproduction. Meaning genes passed on from parents and their parents determines the offspring.


----------



## rdean

Youwerecreated said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, have I missed anything in the last 400 posts, or is it just the same-old, same-old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have not missed anything from the evolutionist side same old same old. Still lacking logic and reason .
Click to expand...


Because "magical creation" is logical, completely reasonable and totally provable.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> thank you for the correction it was 65 million years. *But surely 65 million years it would have showed some change no ? *And surely they would have found others. They said it went extinct and they were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily.  Evolutionary theory says things may change, not that they must.  Sharks, for example, have changed very little over the eons.
> 
> The fact that they were wrong about extinction is just a distraction, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the veracity of evolution.  All that it proves is that it's easy to hide in the ocean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Evolution is all things are always evolving *I guess it depends on which evolutionist you are speaking to. Bottomline there is no evidence supporting that all living things are a product of macroevolution zero,none. The theory is only supported by explanations of the evidence not proof. Everyone can have opinions but does mean the opinion is correct. While there is mountains of evidence that shows that change within a group happens through reproduction. Meaning genes passed on from parents and their parents determines the offspring.
Click to expand...


Who said things are always evolving?  Sharks have changed very little over the eons and the coelocanth is basically the same as its ancient anscestor.  Of course things show change through reproduction, it's the well spring of evolution or there would be no more life!  When one individual achieves a mutation that helps with survival it slowly moves through the population until more and more individuals have the gene.  Eventually as such mutations accumulate and aid in survival there will be an explosion in individuals with the changes, enough so that they can be recognized in the fossil record as a new species.


----------



## pinqy

Youwerecreated said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> don't know for sure I was not there,and that is not the only flaw with the dating methods currently used. Look if your side can't nail down definite dates its not reliable. The colecanth fish supposedly went extinct 235 million years ago how did they come to that figure ?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was 65 million years ago, and that figure was arrived at because those were the most recent fossils found.  That certainly doesn't mean the dating methods were flawed, it just means no examples were found more recently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes your dating methods. What happened recently they found that they are still around oh and it showed no change and definitely no change that was said by evolutionist that it grew legs and walked up on dry land. So who do you say is relying on the imagination ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But they did show changes.  There is no fossil record of modern coelacanths.  Keep in mind that Coelacanth is an Order of fish, not a species, not a genus, not even a Family.  There are about 8 extinct Families of Coelacanth, and 7 extinct genera in the one surviving Family, leaving 2 known modern species.
> 
> Yes, it was suspected by some that Coelacanth was ancestoral to some land animals, and that might still be true for the extinct Families.  Or it might not be.  Nobody has the answers at this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> thank you for the correction it was 65 million years. But surely 65 million years it would have showed some change no ? And surely they would have found others. They said it went extinct and they were wrong.
Click to expand...


It did show changes, and they did find others.  2 species of Coelacanths have been found.  Neither is known from the fossil record, so they are considerably different and have changed.  It was thought the Order was extinct, and it wasn't.

Now you're criticizing scientists for being wrong, but it wasn't like they made any errors or mistakes..they didn't have any data.  Between 65 million years ago and the 20th century there were absolutely NO sign of Coelacanths.  So how was anyone supposed to know they still existed until one was found?


----------



## Youwerecreated

rdean said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, have I missed anything in the last 400 posts, or is it just the same-old, same-old?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have not missed anything from the evolutionist side same old same old. Still lacking logic and reason .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because "magical creation" is logical, completely reasonable and totally provable.
Click to expand...


Creation probable yes,proven no, reasonable yes. The first cell forming itself unreasonable , the first cell forming all life through a natural means, mathematically impossible. A natural process thinking of everything needed for life to begin and exist, vivid imagination. Irony all the smart men with certificates of education and sophisticated machines and knowledge cannot create life in controlled environments can't recreate the origins of life but an unintelligent natural process can.


----------



## Youwerecreated

pinqy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was 65 million years ago, and that figure was arrived at because those were the most recent fossils found.  That certainly doesn't mean the dating methods were flawed, it just means no examples were found more recently.
> 
> But they did show changes.  There is no fossil record of modern coelacanths.  Keep in mind that Coelacanth is an Order of fish, not a species, not a genus, not even a Family.  There are about 8 extinct Families of Coelacanth, and 7 extinct genera in the one surviving Family, leaving 2 known modern species.
> 
> Yes, it was suspected by some that Coelacanth was ancestoral to some land animals, and that might still be true for the extinct Families.  Or it might not be.  Nobody has the answers at this time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thank you for the correction it was 65 million years. But surely 65 million years it would have showed some change no ? And surely they would have found others. They said it went extinct and they were wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did show changes, and they did find others.  2 species of Coelacanths have been found.  Neither is known from the fossil record, so they are considerably different and have changed.  It was thought the Order was extinct, and it wasn't.
> 
> Now you're criticizing scientists for being wrong, but it wasn't like they made any errors or mistakes..they didn't have any data.  Between 65 million years ago and the 20th century there were absolutely NO sign of Coelacanths.  So how was anyone supposed to know they still existed until one was found?
Click to expand...


This one of many mistakes,and until you realise that you won't even question whether the theory has other errors until forced to accept other errors. Every level of what you call evidence are flawed.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not missed anything from the evolutionist side same old same old. Still lacking logic and reason .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because "magical creation" is logical, completely reasonable and totally provable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creation probable yes,proven no, reasonable yes. The first cell forming itself unreasonable ,* the first cell forming all life through a natural means, mathematically impossible. *A natural process thinking of everything needed for life to begin and exist, vivid imagination. Irony all the smart men with certificates of education and sophisticated machines and knowledge cannot create life in controlled environments can't recreate the origins of life but an unintelligent natural process can.
Click to expand...


If it's true that it's mathematically impossible, show the proof or a link to the proof.  Without it this just sounds like another off-the-top-of-your-head made up objection.  Why couldn't it all be a natural process?  God set it up that way when He said, "Let there be light".  The rest of Genesis is just legend and allegory.  None of it has ever been proven to happen and there's no evidence of a world wide flood, unlike the overwhelming evidence of evolution presented by the fossil record.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> thank you for the correction it was 65 million years. But surely 65 million years it would have showed some change no ? And surely they would have found others. They said it went extinct and they were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did show changes, and they did find others.  2 species of Coelacanths have been found.  Neither is known from the fossil record, so they are considerably different and have changed.  It was thought the Order was extinct, and it wasn't.
> 
> Now you're criticizing scientists for being wrong, but it wasn't like they made any errors or mistakes..they didn't have any data.  Between 65 million years ago and the 20th century there were absolutely NO sign of Coelacanths.  So how was anyone supposed to know they still existed until one was found?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This one of many mistakes,and until you realise that you won't even question whether the theory has other errors until forced to accept other errors. Every level of what you call evidence are flawed.
Click to expand...


You just won't quit lying about the evidence, will you?  Whether or not coelocanths survived or anyone's opinion thereof, has NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER with the correctness of current evolutionary theory.


----------



## Youwerecreated

pinqy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it was 65 million years ago, and that figure was arrived at because those were the most recent fossils found.  That certainly doesn't mean the dating methods were flawed, it just means no examples were found more recently.
> 
> But they did show changes.  There is no fossil record of modern coelacanths.  Keep in mind that Coelacanth is an Order of fish, not a species, not a genus, not even a Family.  There are about 8 extinct Families of Coelacanth, and 7 extinct genera in the one surviving Family, leaving 2 known modern species.
> 
> Yes, it was suspected by some that Coelacanth was ancestoral to some land animals, and that might still be true for the extinct Families.  Or it might not be.  Nobody has the answers at this time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thank you for the correction it was 65 million years. But surely 65 million years it would have showed some change no ? And surely they would have found others. They said it went extinct and they were wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It did show changes, and they did find others.  2 species of Coelacanths have been found.  Neither is known from the fossil record, so they are considerably different and have changed.  It was thought the Order was extinct, and it wasn't.
> 
> Now you're criticizing scientists for being wrong, but it wasn't like they made any errors or mistakes..they didn't have any data.  Between 65 million years ago and the 20th century there were absolutely NO sign of Coelacanths.  So how was anyone supposed to know they still existed until one was found?
Click to expand...


Oh I can't wait for this what changes ? Please don't tell me the change could be something the change could be considered a deformity ? There different breeds of most group of organisms. Please don't tell me it did not have eyes.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It did show changes, and they did find others.  2 species of Coelacanths have been found.  Neither is known from the fossil record, so they are considerably different and have changed.  It was thought the Order was extinct, and it wasn't.
> 
> Now you're criticizing scientists for being wrong, but it wasn't like they made any errors or mistakes..they didn't have any data.  Between 65 million years ago and the 20th century there were absolutely NO sign of Coelacanths.  So how was anyone supposed to know they still existed until one was found?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This one of many mistakes,and until you realise that you won't even question whether the theory has other errors until forced to accept other errors. Every level of what you call evidence are flawed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just won't quit lying about the evidence, will you?  Whether or not coelocanths survived or anyone's opinion thereof, has NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER with the correctness of current evolutionary theory.
Click to expand...


Look you can't handle the facts,if you want to call me a liar don't bother expecting a reply. That is something I take very serious.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> This one of many mistakes,and until you realise that you won't even question whether the theory has other errors until forced to accept other errors. Every level of what you call evidence are flawed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just won't quit lying about the evidence, will you?  Whether or not coelocanths survived or anyone's opinion thereof, has NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER with the correctness of current evolutionary theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look you can't handle the facts,if you want to call me a liar don't bother expecting a reply. That is something I take very serious.
Click to expand...


You have no facts, just objections.  If you don't like being called a liar, quit lying.  Anyone with a modicum of intelligence realizes that, just because we couldn't find coelocanths doesn't prove ANYHTING about the veracity of evolution.  The fact that you would post that statement leaves only two choices, IMO, you are logic-deprived or you're a liar willing to say anything to back your point.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just won't quit lying about the evidence, will you?  Whether or not coelocanths survived or anyone's opinion thereof, has NO RELATIONSHIP WHATSOEVER with the correctness of current evolutionary theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look you can't handle the facts,if you want to call me a liar don't bother expecting a reply. That is something I take very serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have no facts, just objections.  If you don't like being called a liar, quit lying.  Anyone with a modicum of intelligence realizes that, just because we couldn't find coelocanths doesn't prove ANYHTING about the veracity of evolution.  The fact that you would post that statement leaves only two choices, IMO, you are logic-deprived or you're a liar willing to say anything to back your point.
Click to expand...


Did I stumble onto a forum filled with middle school kids. Can you point out what I supposedly lied about ? If not you are doing what you are accusing me of. Come on you can do it ,if not May I suggest you just watch and learn.


----------



## pinqy

Youwerecreated said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> thank you for the correction it was 65 million years. But surely 65 million years it would have showed some change no ? And surely they would have found others. They said it went extinct and they were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did show changes, and they did find others.  2 species of Coelacanths have been found.  Neither is known from the fossil record, so they are considerably different and have changed.  It was thought the Order was extinct, and it wasn't.
> 
> Now you're criticizing scientists for being wrong, but it wasn't like they made any errors or mistakes..they didn't have any data.  Between 65 million years ago and the 20th century there were absolutely NO sign of Coelacanths.  So how was anyone supposed to know they still existed until one was found?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This one of many mistakes,and until you realise that you won't even question whether the theory has other errors until forced to accept other errors. Every level of what you call evidence are flawed.
Click to expand...


This should be interesting...what, exactly, was the mistake?  By what means should it have been known that the Order Coelacanth was not extinct and that there were existing species not found in the fossil record?


----------



## pinqy

Youwerecreated said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> thank you for the correction it was 65 million years. But surely 65 million years it would have showed some change no ? And surely they would have found others. They said it went extinct and they were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It did show changes, and they did find others.  2 species of Coelacanths have been found.  Neither is known from the fossil record, so they are considerably different and have changed.  It was thought the Order was extinct, and it wasn't.
> 
> Now you're criticizing scientists for being wrong, but it wasn't like they made any errors or mistakes..they didn't have any data.  Between 65 million years ago and the 20th century there were absolutely NO sign of Coelacanths.  So how was anyone supposed to know they still existed until one was found?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I can't wait for this what changes ? Please don't tell me the change could be something the change could be considered a deformity ? There different breeds of most group of organisms. Please don't tell me it did not have eyes.
Click to expand...


I told you the changes....the Coelacanths found were NOT THE SAME SPECIES as found in the fossil record.  Even the genus was previously unknown.  

What part of "different species" was unclear?  I'm not a biologist and would not even know where to find the detailed differences nor is it likely I would understand them well if I did.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look you can't handle the facts,if you want to call me a liar don't bother expecting a reply. That is something I take very serious.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no facts, just objections.  If you don't like being called a liar, quit lying.  Anyone with a modicum of intelligence realizes that, just because we couldn't find coelocanths doesn't prove ANYHTING about the veracity of evolution.  The fact that you would post that statement leaves only two choices, IMO, you are logic-deprived or you're a liar willing to say anything to back your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I stumble onto a forum filled with middle school kids. Can you point out what I supposedly lied about ? If not you are doing what you are accusing me of. Come on you can do it ,if not May I suggest you just watch and learn.
Click to expand...


NO, you stumbled into a forum where, if you're not honest, you're going to get called on it.  What I said you were lying about is the contention that not finding coelocanths says anything at all about the truth of evolution.  It obviously doesn't, but you continue to make the case.  That's "intellectual dishonesty".  You like that any better that being called a liar?  Not that I really care, I'm just surprised that you'd hide behind this in order to once again, not answer the questions I've posed.  Before you say "What questions?", check back and read a few of my earlier posts.  I'm getting pretty tired of repeating the same thing over and over again.  If you don't like the middle school atmosphere, quit using middle school debating techniques.


----------



## Youwerecreated

pinqy said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> It did show changes, and they did find others.  2 species of Coelacanths have been found.  Neither is known from the fossil record, so they are considerably different and have changed.  It was thought the Order was extinct, and it wasn't.
> 
> Now you're criticizing scientists for being wrong, but it wasn't like they made any errors or mistakes..they didn't have any data.  Between 65 million years ago and the 20th century there were absolutely NO sign of Coelacanths.  So how was anyone supposed to know they still existed until one was found?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I can't wait for this what changes ? Please don't tell me the change could be something the change could be considered a deformity ? There different breeds of most group of organisms. Please don't tell me it did not have eyes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you the changes....the Coelacanths found were NOT THE SAME SPECIES as found in the fossil record.  Even the genus was previously unknown.
> 
> What part of "different species" was unclear?  I'm not a biologist and would not even know where to find the detailed differences nor is it likely I would understand them well if I did.
Click to expand...


When you guys start using the word species that is code for time to add confusion,if you can't tell me what the differences are how do you know they are a different breed. Are you suggesting the fossils were different ? You do understand they found no soft tissue to test for biological differences. Like I said earlier , one evolutionist tried using a deformed fish that had no eyes to show evolution that was pretty funny.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have no facts, just objections.  If you don't like being called a liar, quit lying.  Anyone with a modicum of intelligence realizes that, just because we couldn't find coelocanths doesn't prove ANYHTING about the veracity of evolution.  The fact that you would post that statement leaves only two choices, IMO, you are logic-deprived or you're a liar willing to say anything to back your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I stumble onto a forum filled with middle school kids. Can you point out what I supposedly lied about ? If not you are doing what you are accusing me of. Come on you can do it ,if not May I suggest you just watch and learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NO, you stumbled into a forum where, if you're not honest, you're going to get called on it.  What I said you were lying about is the contention that not finding coelocanths says anything at all about the truth of evolution.  It obviously doesn't, but you continue to make the case.  That's "intellectual dishonesty".  You like that any better that being called a liar?  Not that I really care, I'm just surprised that you'd hide behind this in order to once again, not answer the questions I've posed.  Before you say "What questions?", check back and read a few of my earlier posts.  I'm getting pretty tired of repeating the same thing over and over again.  If you don't like the middle school atmosphere, quit using middle school debating techniques.
Click to expand...


Very weak and pathetic to call someone a liar which was not a lie at all. The mistake of evolutionist is to make a claim before all the facts are in and there will be more errors like this as more evidence becomes available. This was just to show you and others there are many flaws with the theory of theories. How many errors do you need to see before it causes you to pause instead of rushing out here to defend your religion? That's what this theory is to believe it,it takes faith to believe such rubbish.


----------



## konradv

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I stumble onto a forum filled with middle school kids. Can you point out what I supposedly lied about ? If not you are doing what you are accusing me of. Come on you can do it ,if not May I suggest you just watch and learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO, you stumbled into a forum where, if you're not honest, you're going to get called on it.  What I said you were lying about is the contention that not finding coelocanths says anything at all about the truth of evolution.  It obviously doesn't, but you continue to make the case.  That's "intellectual dishonesty".  You like that any better that being called a liar?  Not that I really care, I'm just surprised that you'd hide behind this in order to once again, not answer the questions I've posed.  Before you say "What questions?", check back and read a few of my earlier posts.  I'm getting pretty tired of repeating the same thing over and over again.  If you don't like the middle school atmosphere, quit using middle school debating techniques.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very weak and pathetic to call someone a liar which was not a low at all. The mistake of evolutionist is to make a claim before all the facts are and there will be more errors like this as more evidence becomes available. This was just to show you and others there are many flaws with the theory of theories. How many errors do you need to see before it causes you to pause instead of rushing out here to defend your religion? That's what this theory is to believe it,it takes faith to believe such rubbish.
Click to expand...


You're the one turning this into a religion.  I'm all about scientific observation.  When new data comes in, the theory may be tweaked, but that hardly makes the underlying thesis untrue.  A good example is the thought that we would find smooth transitions in the fossil record, but in fact the "punctuated equilibrium" is a much better explanation of how things work.  That doesn't throw into question all of Darwin's findings, just some of the conclusions about how evolution works.  What you're calling "errors" is in actuality the advancement of knowledge, built and modified as more data becomes available.  Scientists are always making claims before all the facts are in, because all the facts will NEVER be in.  That's just another creationist trick, like demanding every intermediate form or claiming that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics.


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, you stumbled into a forum where, if you're not honest, you're going to get called on it.  What I said you were lying about is the contention that not finding coelocanths says anything at all about the truth of evolution.  It obviously doesn't, but you continue to make the case.  That's "intellectual dishonesty".  You like that any better that being called a liar?  Not that I really care, I'm just surprised that you'd hide behind this in order to once again, not answer the questions I've posed.  Before you say "What questions?", check back and read a few of my earlier posts.  I'm getting pretty tired of repeating the same thing over and over again.  If you don't like the middle school atmosphere, quit using middle school debating techniques.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very weak and pathetic to call someone a liar which was not a low at all. The mistake of evolutionist is to make a claim before all the facts are and there will be more errors like this as more evidence becomes available. This was just to show you and others there are many flaws with the theory of theories. How many errors do you need to see before it causes you to pause instead of rushing out here to defend your religion? That's what this theory is to believe it,it takes faith to believe such rubbish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one turning this into a religion.  I'm all about scientific observation.  When new data comes in, the theory may be tweaked, but that hardly makes the underlying thesis untrue.  A good example is the thought that we would find smooth transitions in the fossil record, but in fact the "punctuated equilibrium" is a much better explanation of how things work.  That doesn't throw into question all of Darwin's findings, just some of the conclusions about how evolution works.  What you're calling "errors" is in actuality the advancement of knowledge, built and modified as more data becomes available.  Scientists are always making claims before all the facts are in, because all the facts will NEVER be in.  That's just another creationist trick, like demanding every intermediate form or claiming that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics.
Click to expand...


Creationist are not making demands,they're just pointing out the many problems with the theory. Darwin himself said that if his they be true there would be many transitional fossils connecting each groups that evolved and that's not the case. I will agree with you one thing though all the facts will never be in if its left to man to explain. But with god someday all the facts and details will be in. It won't be left to mans vivid imagination.


----------



## HUGGY

rdean said:


> Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life
> 
> I was watching this special on BBC.
> 
> It's totally amazing.  Especially when it comes to the development of the "eye".
> 
> The examples are great and compelling.
> 
> Now, what's "odd", BBC listed the program under "religion".
> 
> What is especially wonderful is the enormous amount of evidence backing up the "theory".



Early life forms included photosynthetic light sustained organisms. Sometimes these simple forms of life were absorbed by other types of simple life living symbiotically. The process of light interaction could have made the relationship more important reinforcing the need to incorporate one life form within the other.


----------



## idb

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very weak and pathetic to call someone a liar which was not a low at all. The mistake of evolutionist is to make a claim before all the facts are and there will be more errors like this as more evidence becomes available. This was just to show you and others there are many flaws with the theory of theories. How many errors do you need to see before it causes you to pause instead of rushing out here to defend your religion? That's what this theory is to believe it,it takes faith to believe such rubbish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one turning this into a religion.  I'm all about scientific observation.  When new data comes in, the theory may be tweaked, but that hardly makes the underlying thesis untrue.  A good example is the thought that we would find smooth transitions in the fossil record, but in fact the "punctuated equilibrium" is a much better explanation of how things work.  That doesn't throw into question all of Darwin's findings, just some of the conclusions about how evolution works.  What you're calling "errors" is in actuality the advancement of knowledge, built and modified as more data becomes available.  Scientists are always making claims before all the facts are in, because all the facts will NEVER be in.  That's just another creationist trick, like demanding every intermediate form or claiming that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Creationist are not making demands,they're just pointing out the many problems with the theory. Darwin himself said that if his they be true there would be many transitional fossils connecting each groups that evolved and that's not the case. I will agree with you one thing though all the facts will never be in if its left to man to explain. But with god someday all the facts and details will be in. It won't be left to mans vivid imagination.
Click to expand...

I have read a lot of this thread but not all but I give you some credit for your perserverance.

I am not a scientist but it seems to me that some of the reason that the creationists will never see the other side of the argument is that their view of the world is solid, a definite article of faith that is unshakeable and this doesn't enable them to see that the scientific method is based on posing a theory and testing it, refining it based on subsequent observations and tests.
Because of this they see any flaw in the original theory as proof that it should be completely discarded.

A theory may either be totally proven and accepted as originally proposed, be refined over the course of testing or totally rejected.
It may also never be proven or disproven so can remain until the end of time as a legitimate theory.

Science accepts blind alleys, corrections, refinements- these build on the original idea, maybe changing it as knowledge advances but these don't necessarily mean that the original posit was incorrect - maybe simply that the mechanisms theorised to explain the observed nature were wrong.

I'm not sure if that's clear, I suppose what I'm trying to say is that a lot of the divide is a difference in the mechanism from which a position is reached - one is faith and acceptance of the word of a higher authority and is generally unwavering.
The other is through conclusions reached from the weight of evidence derived from observation and the testing of theories and can be changed and adapted as the body of evidence increases.





Then again, I could be wrong...


----------



## Youwerecreated

konradv said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> NO, you stumbled into a forum where, if you're not honest, you're going to get called on it.  What I said you were lying about is the contention that not finding coelocanths says anything at all about the truth of evolution.  It obviously doesn't, but you continue to make the case.  That's "intellectual dishonesty".  You like that any better that being called a liar?  Not that I really care, I'm just surprised that you'd hide behind this in order to once again, not answer the questions I've posed.  Before you say "What questions?", check back and read a few of my earlier posts.  I'm getting pretty tired of repeating the same thing over and over again.  If you don't like the middle school atmosphere, quit using middle school debating techniques.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very weak and pathetic to call someone a liar which was not a low at all. The mistake of evolutionist is to make a claim before all the facts are and there will be more errors like this as more evidence becomes available. This was just to show you and others there are many flaws with the theory of theories. How many errors do you need to see before it causes you to pause instead of rushing out here to defend your religion? That's what this theory is to believe it,it takes faith to believe such rubbish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one turning this into a religion.  I'm all about scientific observation.  When new data comes in, the theory may be tweaked, but that hardly makes the underlying thesis untrue.  A good example is the thought that we would find smooth transitions in the fossil record, but in fact the "punctuated equilibrium" is a much better explanation of how things work.  That doesn't throw into question all of Darwin's findings, just some of the conclusions about how evolution works.  What you're calling "errors" is in actuality the advancement of knowledge, built and modified as more data becomes available.  Scientists are always making claims before all the facts are in, because all the facts will NEVER be in.  That's just another creationist trick, like demanding every intermediate form or claiming that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics.
Click to expand...


Do you understand that punctuated equilibrium presents a problem for neo drawinism ? If you don't believe me ask a neo that is well versed in neo ande
 Let them explain why they reject pe.


----------



## Youwerecreated

idb said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one turning this into a religion.  I'm all about scientific observation.  When new data comes in, the theory may be tweaked, but that hardly makes the underlying thesis untrue.  A good example is the thought that we would find smooth transitions in the fossil record, but in fact the "punctuated equilibrium" is a much better explanation of how things work.  That doesn't throw into question all of Darwin's findings, just some of the conclusions about how evolution works.  What you're calling "errors" is in actuality the advancement of knowledge, built and modified as more data becomes available.  Scientists are always making claims before all the facts are in, because all the facts will NEVER be in.  That's just another creationist trick, like demanding every intermediate form or claiming that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Creationist are not making demands,they're just pointing out the many problems with the theory. Darwin himself said that if his they be true there would be many transitional fossils connecting each groups that evolved and that's not the case. I will agree with you one thing though all the facts will never be in if its left to man to explain. But with god someday all the facts and details will be in. It won't be left to mans vivid imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have read a lot of this thread but not all but I give you some credit for your perserverance.
> 
> I am not a scientist but it seems to me that some of the reason that the creationists will never see the other side of the argument is that their view of the world is solid, a definite article of faith that is unshakeable and this doesn't enable them to see that the scientific method is based on posing a theory and testing it, refining it based on subsequent observations and tests.
> Because of this they see any flaw in the original theory as proof that it should be completely discarded.
> 
> A theory may either be totally proven and accepted as originally proposed, be refined over the course of testing or totally rejected.
> It may also never be proven or disproven so can remain until the end of time as a legitimate theory.
> 
> Science accepts blind alleys, corrections, refinements- these build on the original idea, maybe changing it as knowledge advances but these don't necessarily mean that the original posit was incorrect - maybe simply that the mechanisms theorised to explain the observed nature were wrong.
> 
> I'm not sure if that's clear, I suppose what I'm trying to say is that a lot of the divide is a difference in the mechanism from which a position is reached - one is faith and acceptance of the word of a higher authority and is generally unwavering.
> The other is through conclusions reached from the weight of evidence derived from observation and the testing of theories and can be changed and adapted as the body of evidence increases.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then again, I could be wrong...
Click to expand...


I agree with things you say,and I understand in science you make claims that sometimes don't hold up scrutiny and further evidence but when you confront an audience such as creationist you keep credibility when you make your claim after you can prove it. Evolutionist have lost credibility with all the false claims. If a group keeps on be proven wrong with further evidence eventually they lose their audience.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> Why would they need two different terms to name the same process ?


Because religious zealots attempted to make a completely arbitrary distinction where one didn't exist.  As I have mentioned from the start of this thread, there is no such distinction, and both fall under the term evolution.  



Youwerecreated said:


> Kind is a group or to be specific on a kind within a group is the name of the breed.


Once again you define a made up term with other vague terms with no biological basis.  What is the genetic basis of "kind?"  You can't tell me because no such distinction exists, much like no distinction exists between micro and macro evolution past arbitrary man-made words. 

This is not true for any other part of the physical world.  If you ask the scientific difference between red and blue, I can tell you the exact frequencies that determine each, and show them to be distinct.  When asked the difference between animals and plants, I can point to a number of biological and specifically genetic differences.  But when asked what distinguishes "kind" you are left completely without a specific answer. 



Youwerecreated said:


> Well now, microevolution can be considered to be new information if the ability was not present already. But I believe the ability to adapt has always been present.so I don't think it is really new information I believe the information was already present and does not show up until needed.


Except we've already established that new information is produced all the time.  You yourself even admitted to it.  Now you are rescinding that information?  We can analyze every single DNA base for a particular bacteria, and find that its offspring, through no contact to any exogenous DNA, have differences that create newly changed proteins to be formed.  In humans, we can observe dwarf babies being born to non-dwarf parents, and similarly examine their DNA to find neither parent had the gene that produces dwarfism.  This is the de novo mutation you refuse to even acknowledge exists because you can't respond to it with any copied and pasted crap from some creationist website.  NO ONE can deny it, and it is the perfect example of new information being created all the time.



Youwerecreated said:


> Now if adaptations were of a natural process with no limits then we should always be able to adapt and not die at all.


That's because you still don't understand how or why evolution works.  Evolution does not create super-hero abilities.  It is not there to get you what you WANT.  And it is certainly not designed too well.  Evolution is nothing more than allowing beneficial genes to get passed on with greater probability than less beneficial genes.  After they are passed on, it doesn't much matter what happens to the parent.  It's the same reason you don't really care how fast a relay racer is moving after he hands off the baton as his leg of the race is over.  Evolution has no bearing on what happens to an organism after they have completed their reproductive time.  Or do you think salmon were "designed" to die after spawning?




Youwerecreated said:


> It's pretty simple my brainwashed fellow no one was there to know for sure now were they ? Once again you give into imagination.


Oh that's right.  Because you believe if a human being wasn't there to see something, it never really happened.  If we find a car smashed up on the bottom of a cliff with a broken guardrail on the road above it, clearly we have no clue what could have happened because no one is there to give testament.  

Thankfully, smart people in this world are able to use evidence to better understand events that no living person observed.  It's why we have people like forensic detectives, researchers in Antarctica, astonomists, and doctors.


----------



## SmarterThanHick

Youwerecreated said:


> don't know for sure I was not there,and that is not the only flaw with the dating methods currently used. Look if your side can't nail down definite dates its not reliable. The colecanth fish supposedly went extinct 235 million years ago how did they come to that figure ? Yes your dating methods. What happened recently they found that they are still around oh and it showed no change and definitely no change that was said by evolutionist that it grew legs and walked up on dry land. So who do you say is relying on the imagination ?


You still have ZERO supporting evidence as to why you believe fundamental physical properties of substances were different in the past, yet you claim that such fabled differences are the reason why radiometric dating doesn't work.  So you completely fabricate a false idea, and then use it as a discrediting factor.  That's pretty sad.

Then you seem to have a hard time with this fish concept.  Imagine for a moment a live dodo bird was found on some random island that was previously unexplored.  The last confirmed siting was in 1662, at which point it was believed they went extinct.  If we found one today, would that mean evolution is wrong?  What you mean the scientific method is discredited?  Does it prove religion wrong?  Does it prove god doesn't exist? NO!  Don't be so ridiculous. They have absolutely NOTHING to do with one another. It just means we found something that was previously believed to no longer be living. 



Youwerecreated said:


> Evolution is all things are always evolving I guess it depends on which evolutionist you are speaking to.


This is completely false.  There is no evolutionist who says all organisms must be always evolving at all times.  Not one.  If you continue to make vague references to things that don't actually exist, I will continue to call you out on it.  Provide a reference of someone stating otherwise or concede this point.

Mutation occurs at different rates in different species.  In fact, a recent article in the peer reviewed and reputable scientific journal Nature showed that orangutans have evolved at a significantly slower rate than any other great ape.  As konradv pointed out, sharks have remained unchanged for a tremendous period of time.    

Please stop making things up and vaguely attributing it to "so evolutionist."  You're wrong.  Stop making crap up, and then people won't think you're a dishonest lying zealot.



Youwerecreated said:


> Look you can't handle the facts,if you want to call me a liar don't bother expecting a reply. That is something I take very serious.


You're not a liar.  Lying requires someone have the intelligence to KNOW what the truth is and then purposely provide something else.  You're not that smart.  You make things up as if they were fact, you misrepresent other people, you blindly copy and paste unaccredited writings that have no factual basis because you're gullible, and you and foolishly blinded by your religion, but you're not a liar.  For someone who believes in being misguided by Satan as you do, one would think you would want to avoid those qualities.  Nonetheless it just means you are both a bad thinker and a bad Christian.



Youwerecreated said:


> When you guys start using the word species that is code for time to add confusion,


Oh "species" is bad but "kind" is perfectly acceptable to you?  That's hilarious.



Youwerecreated said:


> Creationist are not making demands,they're just pointing out the many problems with the theory. Darwin himself said that if his they be true there would be many transitional fossils connecting each groups that evolved and that's not the case.


Good thing such transitional fossils have been found.  Regardless, as we have discussed previously, evolution is no longer based on Darwin's ideas, but instead genetics, which ALSO shows such transitional changes.  Amazing how every single field of science independently reaches the exact same conclusion without contradiction or discrepancy.


----------



## Abishai100

Darwinism offers us a special way to inquire about the variegation of life.


For example:

----------------------

"I see a school of shiny goldfish and I see a group of visually confounding black-and-white zebras, and both groups of animalia make me think about the human eye and how it perceives the interactions between object pigment and species motility."

When I apply Darwinism to this thought offering, I obtain a clearer perspective on the environmental advantageousness of animalia adaptations of body feature investments.

---------------------


This almost economical edge to perceptual taxonomy reveals why modern capitalists tend to reference Darwinism as a modular construct for discussing supply-and-demand.


----------



## Vikrant

^ That is a good post. Although, I would say animalia are not the only ones that can benefit from body feature investments. I think advantageous body feature investment is just as crucial for plantae even though they are not heterotrophs.


----------



## sealybobo

Youwerecreated said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> _All i said was they were found in limestone ,did not say they were found together._
> 
> I also said they weren't found together.  The question is , "Why not?"  Pleasde try and stick to one line of reasoning.  It sounds like you're trying to make MY point!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!  Is your memory THAT bad.  I said trilobite and dolphin fossils are NEVER found in the same strata without there being some after-the -fact disturbance.  Do you think you can remember that long enough to tell us why that would be, if we were all created at about the same time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the fact disturbance ? is this your attempt to answer why supposedly older evidence is found on top of younger evidence ? The explanation is you guys are wrong on whats older evidence and the evidence was distributed by the global flood but nice try.
> 
> Regurgitating theories will get you nowhere.
> 
> There is plenty of evidence to suggest your theory is wrong.
> 
> UPSIDE DOWN
>  The Distorted Theory of Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution stands exposed as a myth; a fanciful theory where so-called fact
> 
> is built upon assumption; where theory replaces data; where guesswork replaces
> 
> logic; where anti-supernaturalistic bias reigns supreme. Evolution is built on the
> 
> house of cards called The Geologic Succession Of Strata, which assumes
> 
> that the oldest rocks containing the simplest forms of fossil life are always
> 
> beneath younger rocks. Here, you will discover the astonishing truth about
> 
> evolutions big lie!
> 
> 
> 
> By Garner Ted Armstrong   [printer-friendly]     [pdf format]
> 
> There are literally thousands of proofs that a Creator God exists. The Bible says we can know much about our Creator by looking at the things He has made! Paul wrote, For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
> 
> Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them [evident to them; plain to see, right before their eyes!] ; for God hath showed it unto them.
> 
> For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world [by looking at the creation itself] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
> 
> Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened (Romans 1:18-21).
> 
> We know a house had an architect and a builder. We know an automobile had a manufacturer. We know a child had parents. We know a watch had a maker. We know that an airplane was designed by aeronautical engineers, and that crystals form the same way every time, according to their properties. We know that mosquitos hatch from larvae, which were laid by adult mosquitos, which were hatched from larvae, just as we know chickens were hatched from eggs, which were laid by adult hens, which were hatched from eggs. We know that all life exists in a cycle, and that life comes only from pre-existing life. Further, life comes only from pre-existing life of the same kind.
> 
> These are absolutes. They are inexorable, immutable, unchanging.
> 
> It is important to remember, however, that there is such a thing as micro-evolution,  almost limitless variety within a Genesis kind; almost limitless adaptation. Hundreds of examples are instantly evident; moths which adapt to their environment, becoming virtually invisible as they take on the texture and color of plants and trees so as to conceal themselves from predators; the many hundreds of breeds of dogs (resulting, in the main, from mans selective breeding); the incredible variety within the human race, from pygmies in the Ituri Forest in Africa to a Swede who is seven feet tall; from tiny Shetlands and miniature horses to the huge Percheron and Clydesdale; the myriad species of birds.
> 
> Evolutionists are fond of pointing to micro-evolution, meaning the many varieties within a kind, and applying it to their theory that a kind evolved into a different kind!  This is utterly untrue. Whether pygmy or gigantic Swede, they are both human beings, and inter-fertile. A snowshoe rabbit, which is white in the winter and brown in the summer is still a snowshoe rabbit, and is not in process of becoming a whale, or a horse, or a monkey. A chameleon which is green on a green leaf and brown on a brown leaf is still a chameleon, and will give birth to other chameleons, not to a different species.  Actually, the very fact of such marvelous adaptation, such as the camouflage of certain birds, insects, animals and fish, is another proof of a Great Designer and Creator.
> 
> All around us are proofs of God. The closer we look into the marvels of what men refer to as Mother Nature (interesting they refuse to call it Father), the more awesome, the more law-abiding, the more intricate, the more perfectly designed.
> 
> We know much about the Creator by looking at His creation. Creation means all that is; all that exists. That means the entire universe; all the stars and their planetary systems; all laws, all energy, all matter.
> 
> We know that matter is energy arranged in intricate, law&#8209;abiding ways. Matter is anything that has weight  and occupies space. Even air is "matter." Air consists of different kinds of gases, mostly oxygen, hydrogen and carbon dioxide, and suspended particulate matter. Where did it come from? What was before it? Oxygen in air is the result of the action of living plants and diatoms in the sea. Carbon dioxide results from humans and animalss extracting oxygen, and giving off carbon dioxide. There is no air on the moon, or the other plants. Some of the planets are surrounded by thick, gaseous mantles which would be poisonous to life.
> 
> Obviously, a study of only a part of creation would require enough books to fill a very large library. Every conceivable physical science would be involved: Astronomy, Biology,  Geology and all the subdivisions of such fields, such as historical and dynamic geology, microbiology and genetics&#8209;&#8209;a vast field of special disciplines involving every aspect of the material universe would be involved in such a  study. You should do yourself a favor, and, limiting your study to only one subject of the myriad number available, go to a public library, and study the articles in an encyclopedia about such mundane, taken-for-granted things as air, or water, or light. I  promise you, you will be fascinated for the simple reason that most quit studying such things the moment they graduated from high school.
> 
> Terra Firma, The Rocks Beneath Our Feet
> 
> Nothing is more immediately obvious  when thinking of the creation, than the rocks beneath our feet. To illustrate only a few of these thousands of challenges to the vain theory of evolution, let's investigate the so&#8209;called geologic succession of strata. This phrase suggests there is an orderly succession in the rocks of our earth; that the most ancient rocks are always on the bottom, and that the younger rocks, containing much more recent forms of fossil life, are always on top.
> 
> Are the oldest rocks always on the bottom? In a sense, this is an irrelevant question, for the geologic succession of strata, having used a false system of measurement, has labeled so-called older rocks which they claim are atop so-called younger rocks, and then tried to explain away this anomaly by devious means.
> 
> As you will see, according to their false system of labeling strata, evolutionists have erroneously labeled the rocks. The terms older and younger are applied, not because of the order of the rocks; the depth at which they are found, or which layer is atop another, but because of the kind of fossil life forms found within the rocks!
> 
> As you will see, this is reasoning in a circle, and not true science at all. Evolutionary geology is built around the presupposition that our earth consists of layers of rock found in succession as they were deposited over aeons of time; that the very oldest rocks, containing no fossils, are at the bottom; that the Archeozoic and Proterozoic (before life) rocks contain no fossil remains; that the early Paleozoic rocks contain only simple life forms; that Mesozoic rocks contain ever more complex life forms until one arrives at the most recent strata, such as the ice ages (Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Recent), where one finds mammoths and man.
> 
> Further, evolutionary hypotheses are based upon the supposition that all these rocks were laid down over vast aeons of time; that the fossil record shows the passage of billions of years; that the fossils in the rocks were not laid down suddenly, as a result of great catastrophes, like a world&#8209;wide flood! Yet, the Bible not only asserts that the flood of Noah was global, but allows, in the first verses of Genesis, for any number of submergences of the continental land masses beneath the waters of the seas. Any geologist knows that fossil sea shells are found atop the highest mountains on earth; from the Rockies to the Himalayas, from the Atlas to the Alps.
> 
> Evolutionists are fond of arranging the fossils as they are allegedly found in the rocks in museums, and in illustrations in textbooks. Yet, most laymen have assumed that only the deepest, most ancient, strata contain these primitive fossil forms. This, in spite of the fact that fossil dinosaurs are found on or near the surface in places from China to Colorado. Evolutionists established a theory long ago, and have built an incredibly warped, shaky, unstable superstructure atop it. They date the strata by the fossils found in them, and then date the fossils by the supposed age of the strata.
> 
> As one collegiate&#8209;grade text asserts, All fossil evidence has some significance in determining the geologic time of deposition of strata. Thus in the case of man the correlation of artifacts with the bones of extinct Pleistocene mammals is the chief reliance in dating stone age man with regard to the various glacial and interglacial stages of that epoch.
> 
> Did you notice the important admission here? The author is asserting that stone age man is assigned a certain date because of correlation of artifacts with the bones of extinct Pleistocene mammals.
> 
> Once this false concept is assumed, it leads to incredible errors in dating fossil life. The author continued, Again, any strata that contain dinosaur bones must be Mesozoic; those with vertebrate remains must be later than Ordovician, and trilobite fossils mean Paleozoic time (Geology, by von Engeln and Caster, p. 435, emphasis mine).
> 
> Talk about dogma. Note that well. Any strata that contain dinosaur bones must be Mesozoic.  While this is simply not so, it sounds like a pronouncement issued by an individual that claims infallibility.  A kind of evolutionary pope, speaking from the holy see of erudition and anti-God evolution, issuing an infallible edict which all are required to accept.
> 
> There are insurmountable difficulties with the so&#8209;called Geologic Succession of Strata, Lets take a look at some of them.
> 
> The Geologic Succession Of Strata Is False!
> 
> First, there is no place on earth where the entire Geologic Succession of Strata can be found. Obviously, the concept of the earths sedimentary rocks being found in orderly form, from most ancient to most recent is impossible to begin with. Where did the rocks come from? Rocks are either sedimentary (water deposited), metamorphic (formed by changes caused by faulting and pressure) or igneous (volcanic). Since there are no fossils in igneous rocks, and since there are virtually no fossils in metamorphic rocks, scientists are limited to investigating the water&#8209;borne deposits, such as various kinds of marbles, sandstone, limestone and shale, to establish an age for the strata.
> 
> The strata are dated according to the fossils found in them. The fossils are dated according to the strata in which they are found. Does that sound rather arbitrary? It is. As we shall see, evolutionary geology immediately discards data; facts  evidence in the amount of billions of tons of rock; whole mountain ranges, mammoth regions of the earth, where the fossils found in the rocks contradict their theories.
> 
> True science always alters a given theory to admit proven facts. Not so with evolution. To illustrate this point, let's get right to one of the most poignant and embarrassing, proofs. An important one is the ridiculous attempt by geologists to claim that whenever the fossils are out of order according to their geologic succession of strata, there is something wrong with the rocks!  They say in many cases the rocks are upside down  completely out of order!
> 
> When you walk into your bedroom and see the bed made, you probably suppose your wife spread the sheet on the bed prior to the cover, and the cover prior to the bedspread. She would look a little silly putting the bedspread on first, and then burrowing beneath it, attempting to spread the sheet. If she had done so out of caprice, there would probably be evidence pointing to the fact, for it would be virtually impossible to do a neat job unless she once again straightened the bedspread.
> 
> When you view layers of rock as exposed in highway cuts, canyons (like the Grand Canyon of Arizona) and river banks, and you see massive layers, sometimes twenty, thirty feet thick, seemingly as smooth and cohesive as if they had been mixed in a blender, lying conformably atop each other in orderly succession, it is logical to assume the layers on the bottom (if no evidence of faulting, such as tilted, folded, or fractured strata: isoclines, synclines, etc., is present) were deposited first; then the ones immediately above them, and, lastly, the layer on the top, like a chef would make a layer cake.
> 
> You would be quite correct, of course. However, evolutionists often tell us we are wrong to assume the younger strata are always atop older strata. Why? Because the fossils found in so&#8209;called younger strata are often found beneath so&#8209;called older strata.
> 
> When this occurs, as it quite frequently does, evolutionists become incredibly inventive. In order to tenaciously cling to their theories, in many regions, including large areas of significant mountain ranges, they seek to explain away the arrangement of millions of tons of rocks; miles upon miles of rocks where the fossils are out of proper order; sometimes upside down. Not that they are really upside own, please note, but that it appears older fossils are found in rocks above younger fossils, when these older fossils were supposedly extinct for millions of years! Yet, the layers appear undisturbed!
> 
> Problem! The rocks appear to have been smoothly laid down; are conformable to each other, showing no evidence of massive faulting, overthrusts, or any other activity. What a headache! What a problem for evolutionists!  If they admit what their eyes plainly tell them, they would be admitting their entire scheme of the geologic succession of strata is wrong; admitting that the supposed younger fossils did not evolve from supposed older, simpler ones!
> 
> But such an admission would be disastrous to evolutionists!
> 
> So, presto!  Forget the evidence.  Claim the rocks are upside down! Those rocks just have no right to be sitting there, mute, weighing billions of tons, in a ridiculous posture, containing the wrong kind of fossils!  Like many a clever defense attorney, just because the defendant was standing there, holding the gun, with the smoke still issuing forth, doesnt mean he was the one who pulled the trigger!
> 
> What kind of force would be required to superimpose massive layers of rock, weighing millions of tons, atop other layers? The kind of forces which caused mountain&#8209;building; overthrusts, isoclines, synclines and geosynclines. When one sees twisted, tilted, and folded strata, which is clearly visible throughout the Swiss Alps, many other major mountain ranges, and in highway cuts in Southern California, one is seeing evidence of massive earthquakes on a scale never experienced in the history of mankind. Whenever a younger layer of rock is allegedly found beneath an older layer of rock, there is inescapable physical evidence which demonstrates how such an unusual phenomenon could have occurred.
> 
> To be sure, there are cases where such things can and do occur.  Such vast movement of massive regions of land would cause grinding, crushing destruction of the rocks closest to the moving layers, reforming them into metamorphic rocks, destroying all fossils.  Certainly, there could not have survived such delicate fossil forms as worm tracks, ferns and leafs, ripple marks, and the like after such catastrophic crushing and grinding. Any layman can look at two layers of rock, and determine if slickensides, the polished rocks formed at the place where faulting and slippage of the rocks occurred, is present. But what if the layer of rock (stratum) containing the so&#8209;called older fossils, and the stratum containing the so&#8209;called younger fossils beneath it show absolutely no evidence of any twisting, faulting, or movement? What if there is perfect conformity between them?
> 
> Obviously, they were deposited just as you view them. Therefore, assertions that  fossils beneath other fossils are younger than the fossils atop them--perhaps by countless millions of years--are simply false. Though evolutionists may claim they are somehow out of order, or that we are viewing deceptive conformity, we are actually seeing the fossils in their respective layers of rock reposing in the exact order in which they were deposited.
> 
> You and I know that when mud is deposited by flooding, then gradually hardens, it begins to crack. Then, it erodes. Animals walk about upon it. Wind blows. Summer storms come along. In other words, any deposits of alluvial soil, slowly drying as the water which carried it there recedes, will show obvious evidence of the passage of time.  Especially when that time is assumed to be measured in the millions or even billions of years!
> 
> When any two layers containing so&#8209;called upside down fossils record are lying perfectly, smoothly, uninterruptedly together, as if the tide of mud which had deposited the bottom layer had no sooner receded when another flow of different mud, containing different forms of life, came from another direction and was deposited immediately, it is obvious that the evolutionists have made a serious error in their dating theories.
> 
> The rocks are not in error. Evolutionists are. When one cannot  slip a thin knife between two smoothly&#8209;mixed layers of sandstone; when there is absolutely no evidence of any erosion, or overthrust faulting (which would crush the rock, grind it, metamorphose it, and cause a completely different kind of rock structure), then one must assume the rocks were deposited exactly as they appear ---  the older on the bottom, and the younger on the top, like your sheet and your bedspread.
> 
> Of course, what you are looking at when you see such strata piled atop each other so uniformly is in itself evidence of a massive catastrophe; floods on unimaginable scale which held vast amounts of silts and muds in dissolution, and which came flowing over the recently&#8209;deposited mud of a previous tide. That huge amounts of the rocks in the earth's surface were deposited suddenly is anathema to evolutionists, for they detest the word catastrophism, a word which means much of the geologic formations on the earth were the result of gigantic catastrophes, such as huge floods, giant earthquakes, and the unimaginable movement of the tectonic plates.
> 
> Their false theories require vast amounts of time! Time for birds to evolve from dinosaurs; for four-footed quadrupeds to climb down from trees, enter the oceans, and gradually have their nostrils move from their nose to their foreheads; their hairy bodies become sleek skin, until they become toothed whales and dolphins!
> 
> Evolutionists simply will not admit that different layers of strata, containing vastly different species, could have lived contemporaneously. Once having insisted that their supposed geologic succession of strata is correct, they stolidly refuse to alter the theory to suit the facts.
> 
> Rock Bottom  Where Is It? Which Layer Is On The Bottom?
> 
> Which stratum is the oldest of all fossil&#8209;bearing rock, and therefore (according to evolution) contains the earliest and simplest of all life forms?  Long ago, evolutionary theory accepted as fact that primitive, simple life forms are invariably found at the bottom of the layers of rocks; that, as one progresses through layer after layer toward the top, the life forms become ever more complex. This is a given. Virtually every high school graduate who has been introduced to only a little sample of geology, or history, or biology, has been told repeatedly that this is so. But it is not so.
> 
> Long ago, evolutionists used the order of fossils found in a few regions in Western Europe and New York state to establish their evolutionary column. They have assumed that fossil forms of ancient life are invariably found in the same order all over the world. Such is not the case. In fact, evolutionary geologists have not yet determined, with any degree of certainty,  which layer of rock is the bottom insofar as the fossil record is concerned.
> 
> As one eminent geologist says, For any given limited locality, where stratigraphy can be followed out, the lowest beds are certainly the oldest. But we can make no progress by such a method when we come to deal with the world at large, for actual stratigraphical relationships can be proved over only very limited areas.
> 
> These beds may be the lowest in this locality, may rest on the granite or crystalline schists, and have every appearance of antiquity. But other beds containing very different fossils, are in precisely this position elsewhere, and where stratigraphical order can no more prove the relative age of their fossils than the overlap of scales on a fish proves those at the tail to be older than those at the head (Evolutionary Geology And The New Catastrophism, by Price: p. 78, emphasis mine).
> 
> Price goes on to show how ...any kind of fossiliferous rock whatever, even young Tertiary rocks, may rest upon the Archaean or Azoic series, or may themselves be almost wholly metamorphosed or crystalline, thus resembling in position and outward appearance the so&#8209;called oldest rocks (ibid. p. 79).
> 
> In his chapter on finding bottom, Price concludes, ...I see no escape from the acknowledgment that the doctrine of any particular fossils' being essentially older than others is a pure invention, with absolutely nothing in nature to support it (ibid. p. 87).
> 
> Evolutionary geology operates on a false assumption that the layers of rock on the earth are invariably found in the same order, like the layers of an onion. Obviously the whole world is not like an onion, with the oldest rocks on the bottom, progressing upward until arriving at the most recent rocks, for the earth is round, after all, and each layer of sedimentary rock was water borne, and had to come from some other area, where the materials the water carried were scoured by massive floods; tides, rivers, and so&#8209;on. Logically, the area so scoured is now absent the exact amount of materials which were deposited elsewhere.
> 
> Bottom, or the lowest rocks next to the liquid magma upon which the tectonic plates float is naturally where there are no fossils in evidence, according to evolutionary theory. Bottom means, usually, bedrock of granite and various schists; metamorphic rock, atop which one finds sedimentary rock, containing various fossil forms. But, as Price proves, Since the life&#8209;succession theory [evolution] rests logically and historically on the biological form of Werner's onion&#8209;coat notion that only certain kinds of rocks (fossils) are to be found at the bottom, or next to the Archaean, or Primitive, and it is now acknowledged everywhere that any kind of rocks whatever may be thus situated [including Tertiary rocks, containing fossils of mammoths and men!], it is as clear as sunlight that the life&#8209;succession theory rests logically and historically on a myth, and that there is no way of proving what kind of fossil was buried first(ibid. p. 87).
> 
> In spite of such overwhelming evidence, evolutionists cling to their false theory. Students who intend entering the teaching field in the subjects of anthropology or paleontology are not taught from books such as those by Nelson, Price, Whitcomb and Morris, and a host of others. They are never told about such books, which are dismissed by evolutionary geologists; completely ignored.
> 
> Yet, there are many studious works which completely dismantle the evolutionary theory. Outstanding examples are "Darwin On Trial," by Phillip E. Johnson, published by Regnery Gateway, Washington, D.C., and "Evolution&#8209;&#8209;Possible or Impossible?" by James F. Coppedge, published by Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and "The Bone Peddlers&#8209;&#8209;Selling Evolution," by William R. Fix, published by Macmillan. Two excellent and very recent books are those by James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, published in 1999, and The Case Against Darwin, published in 2002.
> 
> Price conclusively shows, most of the rocks of our earth prove great catastrophes occurred in the past; and most of the sedimentary rocks, including miles and miles of coal beds show very recent catastrophes, such as massive floods. Since God's word speaks of a global flood, and the rocks cry out in a great roaring voice that A massive flood caused this, only a fool would ignore the obvious message of the rocks. It requires on the average about a forty foot thick layer of vegetation ripped up, and water borne to then be crushed beneath subsequent layers of muds to form a seam of coal only one foot thick. Coal beds prove gargantuan catastrophes in the past, as do many, many other strata, such as marbles, which are sometimes formed from solid masses of sea bottom life.
> 
> All such evidence completely destroys the theory that it required vast aeons of time for various forms of life to evolve into other, remarkably different forms of life; that men eventually evolved from simple, one-celled animals like amoeba.
> 
> To assume that our continents and islands; the massive mountain ranges of our earth, and all topographical features of the land are the result of uniformity; that we are viewing the results of a very slow, gradual process which required billions of years is sheer nonsense.
> 
> Our present river systems and deltas portray only a very recent development. In the North American continent are hundreds of dry lake beds, vast areas where ancient inland sea shores are clearly visible. The Great Salt Lake is but a tiny puddle remaining from massive Lake Bonneville, which was a massive inland sea at one time. The Mississippi River is but a tiny trickle when compared with the monstrous drainage basin that once surged toward the South, carrying untold amounts of silts and sediments that were deposited across many states. When the North American continent was thrust upward from the seas which covered it, the buckling of the tectonic plates beneath caused the massive mountain building that is evident by looking at the great Rocky Mountains; the Cascades, and the Sierra Madre mountains. In the river valleys one discovers deep layers of sedimentary rocks. Along the spines of the mountains, one sees the ancient granites and schists; upthrusts of bedrock that soar as high as 14,000 feet in the continental United States, and above 22,000 feet in Chile.
> 
> Here and there, at incredibly high elevations, one discovers fossils which could only have existed in the seas; fossils preserved, not through the process of gradual change, but uprooted, sorted by alluvial action, and deposited by the millions, suddenly.
> 
> The vast San Juaquin Valley of California was once a gigantic bay, teeming with sea life. At its southern end, around Bakersfield, are supposedly some of the oldest mountains found on the North American continent. Why the so-called oldest? Because paleontologists have found fossilized sharks there, and, since the kinds of sharks found belong to a certain stratum found elsewhere, and therefore must be of a certain age, that same age is assigned to the hills around Bakersfield.
> 
> Among these rolling, yet steep and gravely hills is Shark Tooth Mountain. Actually, it is not just one mountain, but a number of ridges and ravines; smaller hills, which contain countless hundreds of thousands of sharks teeth and bones.
> 
> Many years ago, it proved one of the most exciting classes of the year when I would arrange a field trip for my college students to go to Sharks Tooth Mountain. We would take wire mesh baskets with wooden frames, into which we would shovel the gravely soil. By shaking the loose soil rapidly, like a winnowing process, the dirt and smaller pieces would fall through the mesh, and, with surprising regularity, we would discover sharks teeth of various sizes. Some were found right on the surface.
> 
> Our field trips proved to us that, at some time perhaps many thousands of years ago, a vast inland basin, or bay, had existed in central California, of which San Francisco Bay is but a tiny remnant. Further, that this shallow inland basin, or sea, contained countless fish and sharks. Further, that some great catastrophe had suddenly killed all that sea life. Further, that, due to the sorting action of water, and massive tides flowing this way and that as the former inland sea drained, the decaying bodies of millions of fish and sharks were mangled and torn; that there were so many of them, that hundreds of thousands of teeth were deposited in one small region. A study of specific gravity; the density of various bodies in water and how they are sorted by fluvial action is all that is necessary to understand the process.
> 
> Reading the rocks by noting the kinds of fossil forms found within them; the shape and texture of the rocks; the accompanying rocks above, below, and all around them, is not difficult. These rounded, yet steep hills had obviously been deposited by massive tides and waves which had sluiced back and forth for many years, as what had once been a salt water basin was being raised above the level of the Pacific, and the millions of creatures which lived in it were trapped, died, were torn apart; their remains being sorted so that they were deposited as we found them.
> 
> The entire journey was a fascinating study in paleontology and geology, for in the highway cuts between the mountains, we could see plain evidence of massive faulting, folding, twisting of the strata. Of course, we drove right through the famous San Andreas fault, where mind-boggling earthquakes have occurred in the past.
> 
> Perhaps those who live on the plains, or in farming states like Iowa or Illinois, are not quite so aware of how great catastrophes formed and shaped our continent. Yet, they have only to look at the  rich black soil of Iowa, note its depth, determine which kinds of rocks lie beneath it, and so-on, to appreciate how Americas richest soil was formed by the fluvial action of water, many thousands of years ago. It is ludicrous to assume, for example, that the Grand Canyon of Arizona is the result of the slow, gradual scouring action of todays Colorado River! One only has to journey downstream for a few hundred miles, to the dams along the Colorado River system along the border with California, to see conglomerates and other sedimentary deposits which show immediate evidence of massive river flows in the past.
> 
> When you see huge stones, as large as automobiles, lying mixed among rocks of every conceivable size and shape, as well as gravels and sand--when those rocks, no matter how large, or how small, are rounded; many of them smoothed off, so as to have very few jagged edges, it means they were rolled and tumbled along for many, many miles together.
> 
> The operative word is together. It requires massive flows of water to tumble rocks that are as large as a house! Only by river flows that are hundreds of times larger than the present flow of the Colorado could those rocks have been deposited together, obviously at the same time.
> 
> Evolutionists may not like the word catastrophe being applied to geology and paleontology, but it is the only word applicable when one looks at the plain chapter and verse of the rocks themselves. Only a casual study of the Grand Canyon tells us of at least two of the most massive floods imaginable: the first, when the huge layers of sedimentary rock were deposited all over the southwest--layers which lie smoothly mixed, perfectly conformable to each other, for many, many miles. The second, when those water-deposited layers were scoured to the depth of one mile, carving out the most awesome, massive canyon on earth, and depositing billions of tons of rock in jumbled profusion for hundreds of miles.
> 
> Uniform flows of the Colorado did not deposit the gigantic layers of sandstone, many of them  60 to 80 feet thick, mixed as smoothly as if in a giant blender, which are visible along the rim of the Grand Canyon. Neither did uniform flow of the river, even including seasonal variations due to flooding, accomplish the scouring of the entire Grand Canyon.
> 
> Your eyes and camera which can record such awesome sights, and which does not lie, tell you, this was a massive catastrophe at some ancient time in the past, not the result of gradual processes; not the result of the deposition of sands and silts along a single river bank.
> 
> Evolutionary Geology And The New Catastrophism, by George M. Price (Pacific Press) is a book I highly recommend to serious students of the question of whether evolution is true, or whether God exists. It is replete with examples from all over the world like that mentioned above; geologic evidence of catastrophes, which occurred suddenly which are simply irrefutable. Unfortunately, it may be out of print, although it might be possible for one of the large Internet book sellers to find a copy, or it might be found in a used book store.
> 
> As David said, The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God (Psalm 14:1).
> 
> There are many educated fools in this world.
> 
> "Upside Down" - The Distorted Theory Of Evolution
Click to expand...

Diatoms. I’m just now learning about them


----------



## idb

sealybobo said:


> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> _All i said was they were found in limestone ,did not say they were found together._
> 
> I also said they weren't found together.  The question is , "Why not?"  Pleasde try and stick to one line of reasoning.  It sounds like you're trying to make MY point!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!  Is your memory THAT bad.  I said trilobite and dolphin fossils are NEVER found in the same strata without there being some after-the -fact disturbance.  Do you think you can remember that long enough to tell us why that would be, if we were all created at about the same time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the fact disturbance ? is this your attempt to answer why supposedly older evidence is found on top of younger evidence ? The explanation is you guys are wrong on whats older evidence and the evidence was distributed by the global flood but nice try.
> 
> Regurgitating theories will get you nowhere.
> 
> There is plenty of evidence to suggest your theory is wrong.
> 
> UPSIDE DOWN
>  The Distorted Theory of Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution stands exposed as a myth; a fanciful theory where so-called fact
> 
> is built upon assumption; where theory replaces data; where guesswork replaces
> 
> logic; where anti-supernaturalistic bias reigns supreme. Evolution is built on the
> 
> house of cards called The Geologic Succession Of Strata, which assumes
> 
> that the oldest rocks containing the simplest forms of fossil life are always
> 
> beneath younger rocks. Here, you will discover the astonishing truth about
> 
> evolutions big lie!
> 
> 
> 
> By Garner Ted Armstrong   [printer-friendly]     [pdf format]
> 
> There are literally thousands of proofs that a Creator God exists. The Bible says we can know much about our Creator by looking at the things He has made! Paul wrote, For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
> 
> Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them [evident to them; plain to see, right before their eyes!] ; for God hath showed it unto them.
> 
> For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world [by looking at the creation itself] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
> 
> Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened (Romans 1:18-21).
> 
> We know a house had an architect and a builder. We know an automobile had a manufacturer. We know a child had parents. We know a watch had a maker. We know that an airplane was designed by aeronautical engineers, and that crystals form the same way every time, according to their properties. We know that mosquitos hatch from larvae, which were laid by adult mosquitos, which were hatched from larvae, just as we know chickens were hatched from eggs, which were laid by adult hens, which were hatched from eggs. We know that all life exists in a cycle, and that life comes only from pre-existing life. Further, life comes only from pre-existing life of the same kind.
> 
> These are absolutes. They are inexorable, immutable, unchanging.
> 
> It is important to remember, however, that there is such a thing as micro-evolution,  almost limitless variety within a Genesis kind; almost limitless adaptation. Hundreds of examples are instantly evident; moths which adapt to their environment, becoming virtually invisible as they take on the texture and color of plants and trees so as to conceal themselves from predators; the many hundreds of breeds of dogs (resulting, in the main, from mans selective breeding); the incredible variety within the human race, from pygmies in the Ituri Forest in Africa to a Swede who is seven feet tall; from tiny Shetlands and miniature horses to the huge Percheron and Clydesdale; the myriad species of birds.
> 
> Evolutionists are fond of pointing to micro-evolution, meaning the many varieties within a kind, and applying it to their theory that a kind evolved into a different kind!  This is utterly untrue. Whether pygmy or gigantic Swede, they are both human beings, and inter-fertile. A snowshoe rabbit, which is white in the winter and brown in the summer is still a snowshoe rabbit, and is not in process of becoming a whale, or a horse, or a monkey. A chameleon which is green on a green leaf and brown on a brown leaf is still a chameleon, and will give birth to other chameleons, not to a different species.  Actually, the very fact of such marvelous adaptation, such as the camouflage of certain birds, insects, animals and fish, is another proof of a Great Designer and Creator.
> 
> All around us are proofs of God. The closer we look into the marvels of what men refer to as Mother Nature (interesting they refuse to call it Father), the more awesome, the more law-abiding, the more intricate, the more perfectly designed.
> 
> We know much about the Creator by looking at His creation. Creation means all that is; all that exists. That means the entire universe; all the stars and their planetary systems; all laws, all energy, all matter.
> 
> We know that matter is energy arranged in intricate, law&#8209;abiding ways. Matter is anything that has weight  and occupies space. Even air is "matter." Air consists of different kinds of gases, mostly oxygen, hydrogen and carbon dioxide, and suspended particulate matter. Where did it come from? What was before it? Oxygen in air is the result of the action of living plants and diatoms in the sea. Carbon dioxide results from humans and animalss extracting oxygen, and giving off carbon dioxide. There is no air on the moon, or the other plants. Some of the planets are surrounded by thick, gaseous mantles which would be poisonous to life.
> 
> Obviously, a study of only a part of creation would require enough books to fill a very large library. Every conceivable physical science would be involved: Astronomy, Biology,  Geology and all the subdivisions of such fields, such as historical and dynamic geology, microbiology and genetics&#8209;&#8209;a vast field of special disciplines involving every aspect of the material universe would be involved in such a  study. You should do yourself a favor, and, limiting your study to only one subject of the myriad number available, go to a public library, and study the articles in an encyclopedia about such mundane, taken-for-granted things as air, or water, or light. I  promise you, you will be fascinated for the simple reason that most quit studying such things the moment they graduated from high school.
> 
> Terra Firma, The Rocks Beneath Our Feet
> 
> Nothing is more immediately obvious  when thinking of the creation, than the rocks beneath our feet. To illustrate only a few of these thousands of challenges to the vain theory of evolution, let's investigate the so&#8209;called geologic succession of strata. This phrase suggests there is an orderly succession in the rocks of our earth; that the most ancient rocks are always on the bottom, and that the younger rocks, containing much more recent forms of fossil life, are always on top.
> 
> Are the oldest rocks always on the bottom? In a sense, this is an irrelevant question, for the geologic succession of strata, having used a false system of measurement, has labeled so-called older rocks which they claim are atop so-called younger rocks, and then tried to explain away this anomaly by devious means.
> 
> As you will see, according to their false system of labeling strata, evolutionists have erroneously labeled the rocks. The terms older and younger are applied, not because of the order of the rocks; the depth at which they are found, or which layer is atop another, but because of the kind of fossil life forms found within the rocks!
> 
> As you will see, this is reasoning in a circle, and not true science at all. Evolutionary geology is built around the presupposition that our earth consists of layers of rock found in succession as they were deposited over aeons of time; that the very oldest rocks, containing no fossils, are at the bottom; that the Archeozoic and Proterozoic (before life) rocks contain no fossil remains; that the early Paleozoic rocks contain only simple life forms; that Mesozoic rocks contain ever more complex life forms until one arrives at the most recent strata, such as the ice ages (Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Recent), where one finds mammoths and man.
> 
> Further, evolutionary hypotheses are based upon the supposition that all these rocks were laid down over vast aeons of time; that the fossil record shows the passage of billions of years; that the fossils in the rocks were not laid down suddenly, as a result of great catastrophes, like a world&#8209;wide flood! Yet, the Bible not only asserts that the flood of Noah was global, but allows, in the first verses of Genesis, for any number of submergences of the continental land masses beneath the waters of the seas. Any geologist knows that fossil sea shells are found atop the highest mountains on earth; from the Rockies to the Himalayas, from the Atlas to the Alps.
> 
> Evolutionists are fond of arranging the fossils as they are allegedly found in the rocks in museums, and in illustrations in textbooks. Yet, most laymen have assumed that only the deepest, most ancient, strata contain these primitive fossil forms. This, in spite of the fact that fossil dinosaurs are found on or near the surface in places from China to Colorado. Evolutionists established a theory long ago, and have built an incredibly warped, shaky, unstable superstructure atop it. They date the strata by the fossils found in them, and then date the fossils by the supposed age of the strata.
> 
> As one collegiate&#8209;grade text asserts, All fossil evidence has some significance in determining the geologic time of deposition of strata. Thus in the case of man the correlation of artifacts with the bones of extinct Pleistocene mammals is the chief reliance in dating stone age man with regard to the various glacial and interglacial stages of that epoch.
> 
> Did you notice the important admission here? The author is asserting that stone age man is assigned a certain date because of correlation of artifacts with the bones of extinct Pleistocene mammals.
> 
> Once this false concept is assumed, it leads to incredible errors in dating fossil life. The author continued, Again, any strata that contain dinosaur bones must be Mesozoic; those with vertebrate remains must be later than Ordovician, and trilobite fossils mean Paleozoic time (Geology, by von Engeln and Caster, p. 435, emphasis mine).
> 
> Talk about dogma. Note that well. Any strata that contain dinosaur bones must be Mesozoic.  While this is simply not so, it sounds like a pronouncement issued by an individual that claims infallibility.  A kind of evolutionary pope, speaking from the holy see of erudition and anti-God evolution, issuing an infallible edict which all are required to accept.
> 
> There are insurmountable difficulties with the so&#8209;called Geologic Succession of Strata, Lets take a look at some of them.
> 
> The Geologic Succession Of Strata Is False!
> 
> First, there is no place on earth where the entire Geologic Succession of Strata can be found. Obviously, the concept of the earths sedimentary rocks being found in orderly form, from most ancient to most recent is impossible to begin with. Where did the rocks come from? Rocks are either sedimentary (water deposited), metamorphic (formed by changes caused by faulting and pressure) or igneous (volcanic). Since there are no fossils in igneous rocks, and since there are virtually no fossils in metamorphic rocks, scientists are limited to investigating the water&#8209;borne deposits, such as various kinds of marbles, sandstone, limestone and shale, to establish an age for the strata.
> 
> The strata are dated according to the fossils found in them. The fossils are dated according to the strata in which they are found. Does that sound rather arbitrary? It is. As we shall see, evolutionary geology immediately discards data; facts  evidence in the amount of billions of tons of rock; whole mountain ranges, mammoth regions of the earth, where the fossils found in the rocks contradict their theories.
> 
> True science always alters a given theory to admit proven facts. Not so with evolution. To illustrate this point, let's get right to one of the most poignant and embarrassing, proofs. An important one is the ridiculous attempt by geologists to claim that whenever the fossils are out of order according to their geologic succession of strata, there is something wrong with the rocks!  They say in many cases the rocks are upside down  completely out of order!
> 
> When you walk into your bedroom and see the bed made, you probably suppose your wife spread the sheet on the bed prior to the cover, and the cover prior to the bedspread. She would look a little silly putting the bedspread on first, and then burrowing beneath it, attempting to spread the sheet. If she had done so out of caprice, there would probably be evidence pointing to the fact, for it would be virtually impossible to do a neat job unless she once again straightened the bedspread.
> 
> When you view layers of rock as exposed in highway cuts, canyons (like the Grand Canyon of Arizona) and river banks, and you see massive layers, sometimes twenty, thirty feet thick, seemingly as smooth and cohesive as if they had been mixed in a blender, lying conformably atop each other in orderly succession, it is logical to assume the layers on the bottom (if no evidence of faulting, such as tilted, folded, or fractured strata: isoclines, synclines, etc., is present) were deposited first; then the ones immediately above them, and, lastly, the layer on the top, like a chef would make a layer cake.
> 
> You would be quite correct, of course. However, evolutionists often tell us we are wrong to assume the younger strata are always atop older strata. Why? Because the fossils found in so&#8209;called younger strata are often found beneath so&#8209;called older strata.
> 
> When this occurs, as it quite frequently does, evolutionists become incredibly inventive. In order to tenaciously cling to their theories, in many regions, including large areas of significant mountain ranges, they seek to explain away the arrangement of millions of tons of rocks; miles upon miles of rocks where the fossils are out of proper order; sometimes upside down. Not that they are really upside own, please note, but that it appears older fossils are found in rocks above younger fossils, when these older fossils were supposedly extinct for millions of years! Yet, the layers appear undisturbed!
> 
> Problem! The rocks appear to have been smoothly laid down; are conformable to each other, showing no evidence of massive faulting, overthrusts, or any other activity. What a headache! What a problem for evolutionists!  If they admit what their eyes plainly tell them, they would be admitting their entire scheme of the geologic succession of strata is wrong; admitting that the supposed younger fossils did not evolve from supposed older, simpler ones!
> 
> But such an admission would be disastrous to evolutionists!
> 
> So, presto!  Forget the evidence.  Claim the rocks are upside down! Those rocks just have no right to be sitting there, mute, weighing billions of tons, in a ridiculous posture, containing the wrong kind of fossils!  Like many a clever defense attorney, just because the defendant was standing there, holding the gun, with the smoke still issuing forth, doesnt mean he was the one who pulled the trigger!
> 
> What kind of force would be required to superimpose massive layers of rock, weighing millions of tons, atop other layers? The kind of forces which caused mountain&#8209;building; overthrusts, isoclines, synclines and geosynclines. When one sees twisted, tilted, and folded strata, which is clearly visible throughout the Swiss Alps, many other major mountain ranges, and in highway cuts in Southern California, one is seeing evidence of massive earthquakes on a scale never experienced in the history of mankind. Whenever a younger layer of rock is allegedly found beneath an older layer of rock, there is inescapable physical evidence which demonstrates how such an unusual phenomenon could have occurred.
> 
> To be sure, there are cases where such things can and do occur.  Such vast movement of massive regions of land would cause grinding, crushing destruction of the rocks closest to the moving layers, reforming them into metamorphic rocks, destroying all fossils.  Certainly, there could not have survived such delicate fossil forms as worm tracks, ferns and leafs, ripple marks, and the like after such catastrophic crushing and grinding. Any layman can look at two layers of rock, and determine if slickensides, the polished rocks formed at the place where faulting and slippage of the rocks occurred, is present. But what if the layer of rock (stratum) containing the so&#8209;called older fossils, and the stratum containing the so&#8209;called younger fossils beneath it show absolutely no evidence of any twisting, faulting, or movement? What if there is perfect conformity between them?
> 
> Obviously, they were deposited just as you view them. Therefore, assertions that  fossils beneath other fossils are younger than the fossils atop them--perhaps by countless millions of years--are simply false. Though evolutionists may claim they are somehow out of order, or that we are viewing deceptive conformity, we are actually seeing the fossils in their respective layers of rock reposing in the exact order in which they were deposited.
> 
> You and I know that when mud is deposited by flooding, then gradually hardens, it begins to crack. Then, it erodes. Animals walk about upon it. Wind blows. Summer storms come along. In other words, any deposits of alluvial soil, slowly drying as the water which carried it there recedes, will show obvious evidence of the passage of time.  Especially when that time is assumed to be measured in the millions or even billions of years!
> 
> When any two layers containing so&#8209;called upside down fossils record are lying perfectly, smoothly, uninterruptedly together, as if the tide of mud which had deposited the bottom layer had no sooner receded when another flow of different mud, containing different forms of life, came from another direction and was deposited immediately, it is obvious that the evolutionists have made a serious error in their dating theories.
> 
> The rocks are not in error. Evolutionists are. When one cannot  slip a thin knife between two smoothly&#8209;mixed layers of sandstone; when there is absolutely no evidence of any erosion, or overthrust faulting (which would crush the rock, grind it, metamorphose it, and cause a completely different kind of rock structure), then one must assume the rocks were deposited exactly as they appear ---  the older on the bottom, and the younger on the top, like your sheet and your bedspread.
> 
> Of course, what you are looking at when you see such strata piled atop each other so uniformly is in itself evidence of a massive catastrophe; floods on unimaginable scale which held vast amounts of silts and muds in dissolution, and which came flowing over the recently&#8209;deposited mud of a previous tide. That huge amounts of the rocks in the earth's surface were deposited suddenly is anathema to evolutionists, for they detest the word catastrophism, a word which means much of the geologic formations on the earth were the result of gigantic catastrophes, such as huge floods, giant earthquakes, and the unimaginable movement of the tectonic plates.
> 
> Their false theories require vast amounts of time! Time for birds to evolve from dinosaurs; for four-footed quadrupeds to climb down from trees, enter the oceans, and gradually have their nostrils move from their nose to their foreheads; their hairy bodies become sleek skin, until they become toothed whales and dolphins!
> 
> Evolutionists simply will not admit that different layers of strata, containing vastly different species, could have lived contemporaneously. Once having insisted that their supposed geologic succession of strata is correct, they stolidly refuse to alter the theory to suit the facts.
> 
> Rock Bottom  Where Is It? Which Layer Is On The Bottom?
> 
> Which stratum is the oldest of all fossil&#8209;bearing rock, and therefore (according to evolution) contains the earliest and simplest of all life forms?  Long ago, evolutionary theory accepted as fact that primitive, simple life forms are invariably found at the bottom of the layers of rocks; that, as one progresses through layer after layer toward the top, the life forms become ever more complex. This is a given. Virtually every high school graduate who has been introduced to only a little sample of geology, or history, or biology, has been told repeatedly that this is so. But it is not so.
> 
> Long ago, evolutionists used the order of fossils found in a few regions in Western Europe and New York state to establish their evolutionary column. They have assumed that fossil forms of ancient life are invariably found in the same order all over the world. Such is not the case. In fact, evolutionary geologists have not yet determined, with any degree of certainty,  which layer of rock is the bottom insofar as the fossil record is concerned.
> 
> As one eminent geologist says, For any given limited locality, where stratigraphy can be followed out, the lowest beds are certainly the oldest. But we can make no progress by such a method when we come to deal with the world at large, for actual stratigraphical relationships can be proved over only very limited areas.
> 
> These beds may be the lowest in this locality, may rest on the granite or crystalline schists, and have every appearance of antiquity. But other beds containing very different fossils, are in precisely this position elsewhere, and where stratigraphical order can no more prove the relative age of their fossils than the overlap of scales on a fish proves those at the tail to be older than those at the head (Evolutionary Geology And The New Catastrophism, by Price: p. 78, emphasis mine).
> 
> Price goes on to show how ...any kind of fossiliferous rock whatever, even young Tertiary rocks, may rest upon the Archaean or Azoic series, or may themselves be almost wholly metamorphosed or crystalline, thus resembling in position and outward appearance the so&#8209;called oldest rocks (ibid. p. 79).
> 
> In his chapter on finding bottom, Price concludes, ...I see no escape from the acknowledgment that the doctrine of any particular fossils' being essentially older than others is a pure invention, with absolutely nothing in nature to support it (ibid. p. 87).
> 
> Evolutionary geology operates on a false assumption that the layers of rock on the earth are invariably found in the same order, like the layers of an onion. Obviously the whole world is not like an onion, with the oldest rocks on the bottom, progressing upward until arriving at the most recent rocks, for the earth is round, after all, and each layer of sedimentary rock was water borne, and had to come from some other area, where the materials the water carried were scoured by massive floods; tides, rivers, and so&#8209;on. Logically, the area so scoured is now absent the exact amount of materials which were deposited elsewhere.
> 
> Bottom, or the lowest rocks next to the liquid magma upon which the tectonic plates float is naturally where there are no fossils in evidence, according to evolutionary theory. Bottom means, usually, bedrock of granite and various schists; metamorphic rock, atop which one finds sedimentary rock, containing various fossil forms. But, as Price proves, Since the life&#8209;succession theory [evolution] rests logically and historically on the biological form of Werner's onion&#8209;coat notion that only certain kinds of rocks (fossils) are to be found at the bottom, or next to the Archaean, or Primitive, and it is now acknowledged everywhere that any kind of rocks whatever may be thus situated [including Tertiary rocks, containing fossils of mammoths and men!], it is as clear as sunlight that the life&#8209;succession theory rests logically and historically on a myth, and that there is no way of proving what kind of fossil was buried first(ibid. p. 87).
> 
> In spite of such overwhelming evidence, evolutionists cling to their false theory. Students who intend entering the teaching field in the subjects of anthropology or paleontology are not taught from books such as those by Nelson, Price, Whitcomb and Morris, and a host of others. They are never told about such books, which are dismissed by evolutionary geologists; completely ignored.
> 
> Yet, there are many studious works which completely dismantle the evolutionary theory. Outstanding examples are "Darwin On Trial," by Phillip E. Johnson, published by Regnery Gateway, Washington, D.C., and "Evolution&#8209;&#8209;Possible or Impossible?" by James F. Coppedge, published by Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and "The Bone Peddlers&#8209;&#8209;Selling Evolution," by William R. Fix, published by Macmillan. Two excellent and very recent books are those by James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, published in 1999, and The Case Against Darwin, published in 2002.
> 
> Price conclusively shows, most of the rocks of our earth prove great catastrophes occurred in the past; and most of the sedimentary rocks, including miles and miles of coal beds show very recent catastrophes, such as massive floods. Since God's word speaks of a global flood, and the rocks cry out in a great roaring voice that A massive flood caused this, only a fool would ignore the obvious message of the rocks. It requires on the average about a forty foot thick layer of vegetation ripped up, and water borne to then be crushed beneath subsequent layers of muds to form a seam of coal only one foot thick. Coal beds prove gargantuan catastrophes in the past, as do many, many other strata, such as marbles, which are sometimes formed from solid masses of sea bottom life.
> 
> All such evidence completely destroys the theory that it required vast aeons of time for various forms of life to evolve into other, remarkably different forms of life; that men eventually evolved from simple, one-celled animals like amoeba.
> 
> To assume that our continents and islands; the massive mountain ranges of our earth, and all topographical features of the land are the result of uniformity; that we are viewing the results of a very slow, gradual process which required billions of years is sheer nonsense.
> 
> Our present river systems and deltas portray only a very recent development. In the North American continent are hundreds of dry lake beds, vast areas where ancient inland sea shores are clearly visible. The Great Salt Lake is but a tiny puddle remaining from massive Lake Bonneville, which was a massive inland sea at one time. The Mississippi River is but a tiny trickle when compared with the monstrous drainage basin that once surged toward the South, carrying untold amounts of silts and sediments that were deposited across many states. When the North American continent was thrust upward from the seas which covered it, the buckling of the tectonic plates beneath caused the massive mountain building that is evident by looking at the great Rocky Mountains; the Cascades, and the Sierra Madre mountains. In the river valleys one discovers deep layers of sedimentary rocks. Along the spines of the mountains, one sees the ancient granites and schists; upthrusts of bedrock that soar as high as 14,000 feet in the continental United States, and above 22,000 feet in Chile.
> 
> Here and there, at incredibly high elevations, one discovers fossils which could only have existed in the seas; fossils preserved, not through the process of gradual change, but uprooted, sorted by alluvial action, and deposited by the millions, suddenly.
> 
> The vast San Juaquin Valley of California was once a gigantic bay, teeming with sea life. At its southern end, around Bakersfield, are supposedly some of the oldest mountains found on the North American continent. Why the so-called oldest? Because paleontologists have found fossilized sharks there, and, since the kinds of sharks found belong to a certain stratum found elsewhere, and therefore must be of a certain age, that same age is assigned to the hills around Bakersfield.
> 
> Among these rolling, yet steep and gravely hills is Shark Tooth Mountain. Actually, it is not just one mountain, but a number of ridges and ravines; smaller hills, which contain countless hundreds of thousands of sharks teeth and bones.
> 
> Many years ago, it proved one of the most exciting classes of the year when I would arrange a field trip for my college students to go to Sharks Tooth Mountain. We would take wire mesh baskets with wooden frames, into which we would shovel the gravely soil. By shaking the loose soil rapidly, like a winnowing process, the dirt and smaller pieces would fall through the mesh, and, with surprising regularity, we would discover sharks teeth of various sizes. Some were found right on the surface.
> 
> Our field trips proved to us that, at some time perhaps many thousands of years ago, a vast inland basin, or bay, had existed in central California, of which San Francisco Bay is but a tiny remnant. Further, that this shallow inland basin, or sea, contained countless fish and sharks. Further, that some great catastrophe had suddenly killed all that sea life. Further, that, due to the sorting action of water, and massive tides flowing this way and that as the former inland sea drained, the decaying bodies of millions of fish and sharks were mangled and torn; that there were so many of them, that hundreds of thousands of teeth were deposited in one small region. A study of specific gravity; the density of various bodies in water and how they are sorted by fluvial action is all that is necessary to understand the process.
> 
> Reading the rocks by noting the kinds of fossil forms found within them; the shape and texture of the rocks; the accompanying rocks above, below, and all around them, is not difficult. These rounded, yet steep hills had obviously been deposited by massive tides and waves which had sluiced back and forth for many years, as what had once been a salt water basin was being raised above the level of the Pacific, and the millions of creatures which lived in it were trapped, died, were torn apart; their remains being sorted so that they were deposited as we found them.
> 
> The entire journey was a fascinating study in paleontology and geology, for in the highway cuts between the mountains, we could see plain evidence of massive faulting, folding, twisting of the strata. Of course, we drove right through the famous San Andreas fault, where mind-boggling earthquakes have occurred in the past.
> 
> Perhaps those who live on the plains, or in farming states like Iowa or Illinois, are not quite so aware of how great catastrophes formed and shaped our continent. Yet, they have only to look at the  rich black soil of Iowa, note its depth, determine which kinds of rocks lie beneath it, and so-on, to appreciate how Americas richest soil was formed by the fluvial action of water, many thousands of years ago. It is ludicrous to assume, for example, that the Grand Canyon of Arizona is the result of the slow, gradual scouring action of todays Colorado River! One only has to journey downstream for a few hundred miles, to the dams along the Colorado River system along the border with California, to see conglomerates and other sedimentary deposits which show immediate evidence of massive river flows in the past.
> 
> When you see huge stones, as large as automobiles, lying mixed among rocks of every conceivable size and shape, as well as gravels and sand--when those rocks, no matter how large, or how small, are rounded; many of them smoothed off, so as to have very few jagged edges, it means they were rolled and tumbled along for many, many miles together.
> 
> The operative word is together. It requires massive flows of water to tumble rocks that are as large as a house! Only by river flows that are hundreds of times larger than the present flow of the Colorado could those rocks have been deposited together, obviously at the same time.
> 
> Evolutionists may not like the word catastrophe being applied to geology and paleontology, but it is the only word applicable when one looks at the plain chapter and verse of the rocks themselves. Only a casual study of the Grand Canyon tells us of at least two of the most massive floods imaginable: the first, when the huge layers of sedimentary rock were deposited all over the southwest--layers which lie smoothly mixed, perfectly conformable to each other, for many, many miles. The second, when those water-deposited layers were scoured to the depth of one mile, carving out the most awesome, massive canyon on earth, and depositing billions of tons of rock in jumbled profusion for hundreds of miles.
> 
> Uniform flows of the Colorado did not deposit the gigantic layers of sandstone, many of them  60 to 80 feet thick, mixed as smoothly as if in a giant blender, which are visible along the rim of the Grand Canyon. Neither did uniform flow of the river, even including seasonal variations due to flooding, accomplish the scouring of the entire Grand Canyon.
> 
> Your eyes and camera which can record such awesome sights, and which does not lie, tell you, this was a massive catastrophe at some ancient time in the past, not the result of gradual processes; not the result of the deposition of sands and silts along a single river bank.
> 
> Evolutionary Geology And The New Catastrophism, by George M. Price (Pacific Press) is a book I highly recommend to serious students of the question of whether evolution is true, or whether God exists. It is replete with examples from all over the world like that mentioned above; geologic evidence of catastrophes, which occurred suddenly which are simply irrefutable. Unfortunately, it may be out of print, although it might be possible for one of the large Internet book sellers to find a copy, or it might be found in a used book store.
> 
> As David said, The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God (Psalm 14:1).
> 
> There are many educated fools in this world.
> 
> "Upside Down" - The Distorted Theory Of Evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Diatoms. I’m just now learning about them
Click to expand...

The man went to all that trouble to write a huge essay, clearly pouring his heart and Ever-Lovin'-God-Saved soul into it and...you give him a seven word response?!!!


----------



## IsaacNewton

The last thread that religion has to cling to, that we are still working on how life arose. They've given up on debunking evolution and have retreated to 'well god made everything and then micro-evolution took place after that'. Uh huh. They backtrack with every new discovery that can't be ignored by people with functioning brains. They're finally dangling by the last thread of the rope they've been clinging to off the edge of the cliff. Oh they'll still claim 'god' or 'gods' after life can be created in a lab, but they will go forward from that day knowing they have no logical argument for what they believe.

And just for you religious folks, if science were to find tomorrow proof of 'a god' or 'gods' I'd be fine with it because it would be reality. Not myth that has been passed down between ignorants that are afraid of living over millennia.


----------



## toobfreak

rdean said:


> Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life
> 
> I was watching this special on BBC.
> 
> It's totally amazing.  Especially when it comes to the development of the "eye".
> 
> The examples are great and compelling.
> 
> Now, what's "odd", BBC listed the program under "religion".
> 
> What is especially wonderful is the enormous amount of evidence backing up the "theory".




Anywhere in there, did they happen to mention the name of Alfred Russel Wallace, whom Darwin stole the idea from and published Wallace's papers and letters to him adding his name to them (first) and without Wallace's knowledge nor permission, in order to take credit for it all while Wallace was still off in Indonesia deep in the forests of Borneo continuing his studies?   Or does the BBC continue to lie to you Derps telling you that evolution was wholly the work and efforts of their buddyboy Darwin?


----------



## sealybobo

idb said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Youwerecreated said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> _All i said was they were found in limestone ,did not say they were found together._
> 
> I also said they weren't found together.  The question is , "Why not?"  Pleasde try and stick to one line of reasoning.  It sounds like you're trying to make MY point!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!  Is your memory THAT bad.  I said trilobite and dolphin fossils are NEVER found in the same strata without there being some after-the -fact disturbance.  Do you think you can remember that long enough to tell us why that would be, if we were all created at about the same time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the fact disturbance ? is this your attempt to answer why supposedly older evidence is found on top of younger evidence ? The explanation is you guys are wrong on whats older evidence and the evidence was distributed by the global flood but nice try.
> 
> Regurgitating theories will get you nowhere.
> 
> There is plenty of evidence to suggest your theory is wrong.
> 
> UPSIDE DOWN
>  The Distorted Theory of Evolution
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution stands exposed as a myth; a fanciful theory where so-called fact
> 
> is built upon assumption; where theory replaces data; where guesswork replaces
> 
> logic; where anti-supernaturalistic bias reigns supreme. Evolution is built on the
> 
> house of cards called The Geologic Succession Of Strata, which assumes
> 
> that the oldest rocks containing the simplest forms of fossil life are always
> 
> beneath younger rocks. Here, you will discover the astonishing truth about
> 
> evolutions big lie!
> 
> 
> 
> By Garner Ted Armstrong   [printer-friendly]     [pdf format]
> 
> There are literally thousands of proofs that a Creator God exists. The Bible says we can know much about our Creator by looking at the things He has made! Paul wrote, For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
> 
> Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them [evident to them; plain to see, right before their eyes!] ; for God hath showed it unto them.
> 
> For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world [by looking at the creation itself] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
> 
> Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened (Romans 1:18-21).
> 
> We know a house had an architect and a builder. We know an automobile had a manufacturer. We know a child had parents. We know a watch had a maker. We know that an airplane was designed by aeronautical engineers, and that crystals form the same way every time, according to their properties. We know that mosquitos hatch from larvae, which were laid by adult mosquitos, which were hatched from larvae, just as we know chickens were hatched from eggs, which were laid by adult hens, which were hatched from eggs. We know that all life exists in a cycle, and that life comes only from pre-existing life. Further, life comes only from pre-existing life of the same kind.
> 
> These are absolutes. They are inexorable, immutable, unchanging.
> 
> It is important to remember, however, that there is such a thing as micro-evolution,  almost limitless variety within a Genesis kind; almost limitless adaptation. Hundreds of examples are instantly evident; moths which adapt to their environment, becoming virtually invisible as they take on the texture and color of plants and trees so as to conceal themselves from predators; the many hundreds of breeds of dogs (resulting, in the main, from mans selective breeding); the incredible variety within the human race, from pygmies in the Ituri Forest in Africa to a Swede who is seven feet tall; from tiny Shetlands and miniature horses to the huge Percheron and Clydesdale; the myriad species of birds.
> 
> Evolutionists are fond of pointing to micro-evolution, meaning the many varieties within a kind, and applying it to their theory that a kind evolved into a different kind!  This is utterly untrue. Whether pygmy or gigantic Swede, they are both human beings, and inter-fertile. A snowshoe rabbit, which is white in the winter and brown in the summer is still a snowshoe rabbit, and is not in process of becoming a whale, or a horse, or a monkey. A chameleon which is green on a green leaf and brown on a brown leaf is still a chameleon, and will give birth to other chameleons, not to a different species.  Actually, the very fact of such marvelous adaptation, such as the camouflage of certain birds, insects, animals and fish, is another proof of a Great Designer and Creator.
> 
> All around us are proofs of God. The closer we look into the marvels of what men refer to as Mother Nature (interesting they refuse to call it Father), the more awesome, the more law-abiding, the more intricate, the more perfectly designed.
> 
> We know much about the Creator by looking at His creation. Creation means all that is; all that exists. That means the entire universe; all the stars and their planetary systems; all laws, all energy, all matter.
> 
> We know that matter is energy arranged in intricate, law&#8209;abiding ways. Matter is anything that has weight  and occupies space. Even air is "matter." Air consists of different kinds of gases, mostly oxygen, hydrogen and carbon dioxide, and suspended particulate matter. Where did it come from? What was before it? Oxygen in air is the result of the action of living plants and diatoms in the sea. Carbon dioxide results from humans and animalss extracting oxygen, and giving off carbon dioxide. There is no air on the moon, or the other plants. Some of the planets are surrounded by thick, gaseous mantles which would be poisonous to life.
> 
> Obviously, a study of only a part of creation would require enough books to fill a very large library. Every conceivable physical science would be involved: Astronomy, Biology,  Geology and all the subdivisions of such fields, such as historical and dynamic geology, microbiology and genetics&#8209;&#8209;a vast field of special disciplines involving every aspect of the material universe would be involved in such a  study. You should do yourself a favor, and, limiting your study to only one subject of the myriad number available, go to a public library, and study the articles in an encyclopedia about such mundane, taken-for-granted things as air, or water, or light. I  promise you, you will be fascinated for the simple reason that most quit studying such things the moment they graduated from high school.
> 
> Terra Firma, The Rocks Beneath Our Feet
> 
> Nothing is more immediately obvious  when thinking of the creation, than the rocks beneath our feet. To illustrate only a few of these thousands of challenges to the vain theory of evolution, let's investigate the so&#8209;called geologic succession of strata. This phrase suggests there is an orderly succession in the rocks of our earth; that the most ancient rocks are always on the bottom, and that the younger rocks, containing much more recent forms of fossil life, are always on top.
> 
> Are the oldest rocks always on the bottom? In a sense, this is an irrelevant question, for the geologic succession of strata, having used a false system of measurement, has labeled so-called older rocks which they claim are atop so-called younger rocks, and then tried to explain away this anomaly by devious means.
> 
> As you will see, according to their false system of labeling strata, evolutionists have erroneously labeled the rocks. The terms older and younger are applied, not because of the order of the rocks; the depth at which they are found, or which layer is atop another, but because of the kind of fossil life forms found within the rocks!
> 
> As you will see, this is reasoning in a circle, and not true science at all. Evolutionary geology is built around the presupposition that our earth consists of layers of rock found in succession as they were deposited over aeons of time; that the very oldest rocks, containing no fossils, are at the bottom; that the Archeozoic and Proterozoic (before life) rocks contain no fossil remains; that the early Paleozoic rocks contain only simple life forms; that Mesozoic rocks contain ever more complex life forms until one arrives at the most recent strata, such as the ice ages (Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Recent), where one finds mammoths and man.
> 
> Further, evolutionary hypotheses are based upon the supposition that all these rocks were laid down over vast aeons of time; that the fossil record shows the passage of billions of years; that the fossils in the rocks were not laid down suddenly, as a result of great catastrophes, like a world&#8209;wide flood! Yet, the Bible not only asserts that the flood of Noah was global, but allows, in the first verses of Genesis, for any number of submergences of the continental land masses beneath the waters of the seas. Any geologist knows that fossil sea shells are found atop the highest mountains on earth; from the Rockies to the Himalayas, from the Atlas to the Alps.
> 
> Evolutionists are fond of arranging the fossils as they are allegedly found in the rocks in museums, and in illustrations in textbooks. Yet, most laymen have assumed that only the deepest, most ancient, strata contain these primitive fossil forms. This, in spite of the fact that fossil dinosaurs are found on or near the surface in places from China to Colorado. Evolutionists established a theory long ago, and have built an incredibly warped, shaky, unstable superstructure atop it. They date the strata by the fossils found in them, and then date the fossils by the supposed age of the strata.
> 
> As one collegiate&#8209;grade text asserts, All fossil evidence has some significance in determining the geologic time of deposition of strata. Thus in the case of man the correlation of artifacts with the bones of extinct Pleistocene mammals is the chief reliance in dating stone age man with regard to the various glacial and interglacial stages of that epoch.
> 
> Did you notice the important admission here? The author is asserting that stone age man is assigned a certain date because of correlation of artifacts with the bones of extinct Pleistocene mammals.
> 
> Once this false concept is assumed, it leads to incredible errors in dating fossil life. The author continued, Again, any strata that contain dinosaur bones must be Mesozoic; those with vertebrate remains must be later than Ordovician, and trilobite fossils mean Paleozoic time (Geology, by von Engeln and Caster, p. 435, emphasis mine).
> 
> Talk about dogma. Note that well. Any strata that contain dinosaur bones must be Mesozoic.  While this is simply not so, it sounds like a pronouncement issued by an individual that claims infallibility.  A kind of evolutionary pope, speaking from the holy see of erudition and anti-God evolution, issuing an infallible edict which all are required to accept.
> 
> There are insurmountable difficulties with the so&#8209;called Geologic Succession of Strata, Lets take a look at some of them.
> 
> The Geologic Succession Of Strata Is False!
> 
> First, there is no place on earth where the entire Geologic Succession of Strata can be found. Obviously, the concept of the earths sedimentary rocks being found in orderly form, from most ancient to most recent is impossible to begin with. Where did the rocks come from? Rocks are either sedimentary (water deposited), metamorphic (formed by changes caused by faulting and pressure) or igneous (volcanic). Since there are no fossils in igneous rocks, and since there are virtually no fossils in metamorphic rocks, scientists are limited to investigating the water&#8209;borne deposits, such as various kinds of marbles, sandstone, limestone and shale, to establish an age for the strata.
> 
> The strata are dated according to the fossils found in them. The fossils are dated according to the strata in which they are found. Does that sound rather arbitrary? It is. As we shall see, evolutionary geology immediately discards data; facts  evidence in the amount of billions of tons of rock; whole mountain ranges, mammoth regions of the earth, where the fossils found in the rocks contradict their theories.
> 
> True science always alters a given theory to admit proven facts. Not so with evolution. To illustrate this point, let's get right to one of the most poignant and embarrassing, proofs. An important one is the ridiculous attempt by geologists to claim that whenever the fossils are out of order according to their geologic succession of strata, there is something wrong with the rocks!  They say in many cases the rocks are upside down  completely out of order!
> 
> When you walk into your bedroom and see the bed made, you probably suppose your wife spread the sheet on the bed prior to the cover, and the cover prior to the bedspread. She would look a little silly putting the bedspread on first, and then burrowing beneath it, attempting to spread the sheet. If she had done so out of caprice, there would probably be evidence pointing to the fact, for it would be virtually impossible to do a neat job unless she once again straightened the bedspread.
> 
> When you view layers of rock as exposed in highway cuts, canyons (like the Grand Canyon of Arizona) and river banks, and you see massive layers, sometimes twenty, thirty feet thick, seemingly as smooth and cohesive as if they had been mixed in a blender, lying conformably atop each other in orderly succession, it is logical to assume the layers on the bottom (if no evidence of faulting, such as tilted, folded, or fractured strata: isoclines, synclines, etc., is present) were deposited first; then the ones immediately above them, and, lastly, the layer on the top, like a chef would make a layer cake.
> 
> You would be quite correct, of course. However, evolutionists often tell us we are wrong to assume the younger strata are always atop older strata. Why? Because the fossils found in so&#8209;called younger strata are often found beneath so&#8209;called older strata.
> 
> When this occurs, as it quite frequently does, evolutionists become incredibly inventive. In order to tenaciously cling to their theories, in many regions, including large areas of significant mountain ranges, they seek to explain away the arrangement of millions of tons of rocks; miles upon miles of rocks where the fossils are out of proper order; sometimes upside down. Not that they are really upside own, please note, but that it appears older fossils are found in rocks above younger fossils, when these older fossils were supposedly extinct for millions of years! Yet, the layers appear undisturbed!
> 
> Problem! The rocks appear to have been smoothly laid down; are conformable to each other, showing no evidence of massive faulting, overthrusts, or any other activity. What a headache! What a problem for evolutionists!  If they admit what their eyes plainly tell them, they would be admitting their entire scheme of the geologic succession of strata is wrong; admitting that the supposed younger fossils did not evolve from supposed older, simpler ones!
> 
> But such an admission would be disastrous to evolutionists!
> 
> So, presto!  Forget the evidence.  Claim the rocks are upside down! Those rocks just have no right to be sitting there, mute, weighing billions of tons, in a ridiculous posture, containing the wrong kind of fossils!  Like many a clever defense attorney, just because the defendant was standing there, holding the gun, with the smoke still issuing forth, doesnt mean he was the one who pulled the trigger!
> 
> What kind of force would be required to superimpose massive layers of rock, weighing millions of tons, atop other layers? The kind of forces which caused mountain&#8209;building; overthrusts, isoclines, synclines and geosynclines. When one sees twisted, tilted, and folded strata, which is clearly visible throughout the Swiss Alps, many other major mountain ranges, and in highway cuts in Southern California, one is seeing evidence of massive earthquakes on a scale never experienced in the history of mankind. Whenever a younger layer of rock is allegedly found beneath an older layer of rock, there is inescapable physical evidence which demonstrates how such an unusual phenomenon could have occurred.
> 
> To be sure, there are cases where such things can and do occur.  Such vast movement of massive regions of land would cause grinding, crushing destruction of the rocks closest to the moving layers, reforming them into metamorphic rocks, destroying all fossils.  Certainly, there could not have survived such delicate fossil forms as worm tracks, ferns and leafs, ripple marks, and the like after such catastrophic crushing and grinding. Any layman can look at two layers of rock, and determine if slickensides, the polished rocks formed at the place where faulting and slippage of the rocks occurred, is present. But what if the layer of rock (stratum) containing the so&#8209;called older fossils, and the stratum containing the so&#8209;called younger fossils beneath it show absolutely no evidence of any twisting, faulting, or movement? What if there is perfect conformity between them?
> 
> Obviously, they were deposited just as you view them. Therefore, assertions that  fossils beneath other fossils are younger than the fossils atop them--perhaps by countless millions of years--are simply false. Though evolutionists may claim they are somehow out of order, or that we are viewing deceptive conformity, we are actually seeing the fossils in their respective layers of rock reposing in the exact order in which they were deposited.
> 
> You and I know that when mud is deposited by flooding, then gradually hardens, it begins to crack. Then, it erodes. Animals walk about upon it. Wind blows. Summer storms come along. In other words, any deposits of alluvial soil, slowly drying as the water which carried it there recedes, will show obvious evidence of the passage of time.  Especially when that time is assumed to be measured in the millions or even billions of years!
> 
> When any two layers containing so&#8209;called upside down fossils record are lying perfectly, smoothly, uninterruptedly together, as if the tide of mud which had deposited the bottom layer had no sooner receded when another flow of different mud, containing different forms of life, came from another direction and was deposited immediately, it is obvious that the evolutionists have made a serious error in their dating theories.
> 
> The rocks are not in error. Evolutionists are. When one cannot  slip a thin knife between two smoothly&#8209;mixed layers of sandstone; when there is absolutely no evidence of any erosion, or overthrust faulting (which would crush the rock, grind it, metamorphose it, and cause a completely different kind of rock structure), then one must assume the rocks were deposited exactly as they appear ---  the older on the bottom, and the younger on the top, like your sheet and your bedspread.
> 
> Of course, what you are looking at when you see such strata piled atop each other so uniformly is in itself evidence of a massive catastrophe; floods on unimaginable scale which held vast amounts of silts and muds in dissolution, and which came flowing over the recently&#8209;deposited mud of a previous tide. That huge amounts of the rocks in the earth's surface were deposited suddenly is anathema to evolutionists, for they detest the word catastrophism, a word which means much of the geologic formations on the earth were the result of gigantic catastrophes, such as huge floods, giant earthquakes, and the unimaginable movement of the tectonic plates.
> 
> Their false theories require vast amounts of time! Time for birds to evolve from dinosaurs; for four-footed quadrupeds to climb down from trees, enter the oceans, and gradually have their nostrils move from their nose to their foreheads; their hairy bodies become sleek skin, until they become toothed whales and dolphins!
> 
> Evolutionists simply will not admit that different layers of strata, containing vastly different species, could have lived contemporaneously. Once having insisted that their supposed geologic succession of strata is correct, they stolidly refuse to alter the theory to suit the facts.
> 
> Rock Bottom  Where Is It? Which Layer Is On The Bottom?
> 
> Which stratum is the oldest of all fossil&#8209;bearing rock, and therefore (according to evolution) contains the earliest and simplest of all life forms?  Long ago, evolutionary theory accepted as fact that primitive, simple life forms are invariably found at the bottom of the layers of rocks; that, as one progresses through layer after layer toward the top, the life forms become ever more complex. This is a given. Virtually every high school graduate who has been introduced to only a little sample of geology, or history, or biology, has been told repeatedly that this is so. But it is not so.
> 
> Long ago, evolutionists used the order of fossils found in a few regions in Western Europe and New York state to establish their evolutionary column. They have assumed that fossil forms of ancient life are invariably found in the same order all over the world. Such is not the case. In fact, evolutionary geologists have not yet determined, with any degree of certainty,  which layer of rock is the bottom insofar as the fossil record is concerned.
> 
> As one eminent geologist says, For any given limited locality, where stratigraphy can be followed out, the lowest beds are certainly the oldest. But we can make no progress by such a method when we come to deal with the world at large, for actual stratigraphical relationships can be proved over only very limited areas.
> 
> These beds may be the lowest in this locality, may rest on the granite or crystalline schists, and have every appearance of antiquity. But other beds containing very different fossils, are in precisely this position elsewhere, and where stratigraphical order can no more prove the relative age of their fossils than the overlap of scales on a fish proves those at the tail to be older than those at the head (Evolutionary Geology And The New Catastrophism, by Price: p. 78, emphasis mine).
> 
> Price goes on to show how ...any kind of fossiliferous rock whatever, even young Tertiary rocks, may rest upon the Archaean or Azoic series, or may themselves be almost wholly metamorphosed or crystalline, thus resembling in position and outward appearance the so&#8209;called oldest rocks (ibid. p. 79).
> 
> In his chapter on finding bottom, Price concludes, ...I see no escape from the acknowledgment that the doctrine of any particular fossils' being essentially older than others is a pure invention, with absolutely nothing in nature to support it (ibid. p. 87).
> 
> Evolutionary geology operates on a false assumption that the layers of rock on the earth are invariably found in the same order, like the layers of an onion. Obviously the whole world is not like an onion, with the oldest rocks on the bottom, progressing upward until arriving at the most recent rocks, for the earth is round, after all, and each layer of sedimentary rock was water borne, and had to come from some other area, where the materials the water carried were scoured by massive floods; tides, rivers, and so&#8209;on. Logically, the area so scoured is now absent the exact amount of materials which were deposited elsewhere.
> 
> Bottom, or the lowest rocks next to the liquid magma upon which the tectonic plates float is naturally where there are no fossils in evidence, according to evolutionary theory. Bottom means, usually, bedrock of granite and various schists; metamorphic rock, atop which one finds sedimentary rock, containing various fossil forms. But, as Price proves, Since the life&#8209;succession theory [evolution] rests logically and historically on the biological form of Werner's onion&#8209;coat notion that only certain kinds of rocks (fossils) are to be found at the bottom, or next to the Archaean, or Primitive, and it is now acknowledged everywhere that any kind of rocks whatever may be thus situated [including Tertiary rocks, containing fossils of mammoths and men!], it is as clear as sunlight that the life&#8209;succession theory rests logically and historically on a myth, and that there is no way of proving what kind of fossil was buried first(ibid. p. 87).
> 
> In spite of such overwhelming evidence, evolutionists cling to their false theory. Students who intend entering the teaching field in the subjects of anthropology or paleontology are not taught from books such as those by Nelson, Price, Whitcomb and Morris, and a host of others. They are never told about such books, which are dismissed by evolutionary geologists; completely ignored.
> 
> Yet, there are many studious works which completely dismantle the evolutionary theory. Outstanding examples are "Darwin On Trial," by Phillip E. Johnson, published by Regnery Gateway, Washington, D.C., and "Evolution&#8209;&#8209;Possible or Impossible?" by James F. Coppedge, published by Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and "The Bone Peddlers&#8209;&#8209;Selling Evolution," by William R. Fix, published by Macmillan. Two excellent and very recent books are those by James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, published in 1999, and The Case Against Darwin, published in 2002.
> 
> Price conclusively shows, most of the rocks of our earth prove great catastrophes occurred in the past; and most of the sedimentary rocks, including miles and miles of coal beds show very recent catastrophes, such as massive floods. Since God's word speaks of a global flood, and the rocks cry out in a great roaring voice that A massive flood caused this, only a fool would ignore the obvious message of the rocks. It requires on the average about a forty foot thick layer of vegetation ripped up, and water borne to then be crushed beneath subsequent layers of muds to form a seam of coal only one foot thick. Coal beds prove gargantuan catastrophes in the past, as do many, many other strata, such as marbles, which are sometimes formed from solid masses of sea bottom life.
> 
> All such evidence completely destroys the theory that it required vast aeons of time for various forms of life to evolve into other, remarkably different forms of life; that men eventually evolved from simple, one-celled animals like amoeba.
> 
> To assume that our continents and islands; the massive mountain ranges of our earth, and all topographical features of the land are the result of uniformity; that we are viewing the results of a very slow, gradual process which required billions of years is sheer nonsense.
> 
> Our present river systems and deltas portray only a very recent development. In the North American continent are hundreds of dry lake beds, vast areas where ancient inland sea shores are clearly visible. The Great Salt Lake is but a tiny puddle remaining from massive Lake Bonneville, which was a massive inland sea at one time. The Mississippi River is but a tiny trickle when compared with the monstrous drainage basin that once surged toward the South, carrying untold amounts of silts and sediments that were deposited across many states. When the North American continent was thrust upward from the seas which covered it, the buckling of the tectonic plates beneath caused the massive mountain building that is evident by looking at the great Rocky Mountains; the Cascades, and the Sierra Madre mountains. In the river valleys one discovers deep layers of sedimentary rocks. Along the spines of the mountains, one sees the ancient granites and schists; upthrusts of bedrock that soar as high as 14,000 feet in the continental United States, and above 22,000 feet in Chile.
> 
> Here and there, at incredibly high elevations, one discovers fossils which could only have existed in the seas; fossils preserved, not through the process of gradual change, but uprooted, sorted by alluvial action, and deposited by the millions, suddenly.
> 
> The vast San Juaquin Valley of California was once a gigantic bay, teeming with sea life. At its southern end, around Bakersfield, are supposedly some of the oldest mountains found on the North American continent. Why the so-called oldest? Because paleontologists have found fossilized sharks there, and, since the kinds of sharks found belong to a certain stratum found elsewhere, and therefore must be of a certain age, that same age is assigned to the hills around Bakersfield.
> 
> Among these rolling, yet steep and gravely hills is Shark Tooth Mountain. Actually, it is not just one mountain, but a number of ridges and ravines; smaller hills, which contain countless hundreds of thousands of sharks teeth and bones.
> 
> Many years ago, it proved one of the most exciting classes of the year when I would arrange a field trip for my college students to go to Sharks Tooth Mountain. We would take wire mesh baskets with wooden frames, into which we would shovel the gravely soil. By shaking the loose soil rapidly, like a winnowing process, the dirt and smaller pieces would fall through the mesh, and, with surprising regularity, we would discover sharks teeth of various sizes. Some were found right on the surface.
> 
> Our field trips proved to us that, at some time perhaps many thousands of years ago, a vast inland basin, or bay, had existed in central California, of which San Francisco Bay is but a tiny remnant. Further, that this shallow inland basin, or sea, contained countless fish and sharks. Further, that some great catastrophe had suddenly killed all that sea life. Further, that, due to the sorting action of water, and massive tides flowing this way and that as the former inland sea drained, the decaying bodies of millions of fish and sharks were mangled and torn; that there were so many of them, that hundreds of thousands of teeth were deposited in one small region. A study of specific gravity; the density of various bodies in water and how they are sorted by fluvial action is all that is necessary to understand the process.
> 
> Reading the rocks by noting the kinds of fossil forms found within them; the shape and texture of the rocks; the accompanying rocks above, below, and all around them, is not difficult. These rounded, yet steep hills had obviously been deposited by massive tides and waves which had sluiced back and forth for many years, as what had once been a salt water basin was being raised above the level of the Pacific, and the millions of creatures which lived in it were trapped, died, were torn apart; their remains being sorted so that they were deposited as we found them.
> 
> The entire journey was a fascinating study in paleontology and geology, for in the highway cuts between the mountains, we could see plain evidence of massive faulting, folding, twisting of the strata. Of course, we drove right through the famous San Andreas fault, where mind-boggling earthquakes have occurred in the past.
> 
> Perhaps those who live on the plains, or in farming states like Iowa or Illinois, are not quite so aware of how great catastrophes formed and shaped our continent. Yet, they have only to look at the  rich black soil of Iowa, note its depth, determine which kinds of rocks lie beneath it, and so-on, to appreciate how Americas richest soil was formed by the fluvial action of water, many thousands of years ago. It is ludicrous to assume, for example, that the Grand Canyon of Arizona is the result of the slow, gradual scouring action of todays Colorado River! One only has to journey downstream for a few hundred miles, to the dams along the Colorado River system along the border with California, to see conglomerates and other sedimentary deposits which show immediate evidence of massive river flows in the past.
> 
> When you see huge stones, as large as automobiles, lying mixed among rocks of every conceivable size and shape, as well as gravels and sand--when those rocks, no matter how large, or how small, are rounded; many of them smoothed off, so as to have very few jagged edges, it means they were rolled and tumbled along for many, many miles together.
> 
> The operative word is together. It requires massive flows of water to tumble rocks that are as large as a house! Only by river flows that are hundreds of times larger than the present flow of the Colorado could those rocks have been deposited together, obviously at the same time.
> 
> Evolutionists may not like the word catastrophe being applied to geology and paleontology, but it is the only word applicable when one looks at the plain chapter and verse of the rocks themselves. Only a casual study of the Grand Canyon tells us of at least two of the most massive floods imaginable: the first, when the huge layers of sedimentary rock were deposited all over the southwest--layers which lie smoothly mixed, perfectly conformable to each other, for many, many miles. The second, when those water-deposited layers were scoured to the depth of one mile, carving out the most awesome, massive canyon on earth, and depositing billions of tons of rock in jumbled profusion for hundreds of miles.
> 
> Uniform flows of the Colorado did not deposit the gigantic layers of sandstone, many of them  60 to 80 feet thick, mixed as smoothly as if in a giant blender, which are visible along the rim of the Grand Canyon. Neither did uniform flow of the river, even including seasonal variations due to flooding, accomplish the scouring of the entire Grand Canyon.
> 
> Your eyes and camera which can record such awesome sights, and which does not lie, tell you, this was a massive catastrophe at some ancient time in the past, not the result of gradual processes; not the result of the deposition of sands and silts along a single river bank.
> 
> Evolutionary Geology And The New Catastrophism, by George M. Price (Pacific Press) is a book I highly recommend to serious students of the question of whether evolution is true, or whether God exists. It is replete with examples from all over the world like that mentioned above; geologic evidence of catastrophes, which occurred suddenly which are simply irrefutable. Unfortunately, it may be out of print, although it might be possible for one of the large Internet book sellers to find a copy, or it might be found in a used book store.
> 
> As David said, The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God (Psalm 14:1).
> 
> There are many educated fools in this world.
> 
> "Upside Down" - The Distorted Theory Of Evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Diatoms. I’m just now learning about them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The man went to all that trouble to write a huge essay, clearly pouring his heart and Ever-Lovin'-God-Saved soul into it and...you give him a seven word response?!!!
Click to expand...

He’s the only person who knows about diatoms. Or he’s the only one to ever mention them.

You think I read all that?


----------

