100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: CREATION VERSUS EVOLUTION MADE CLEAR !!! | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Ok quite simple....
show me one animal in the last 500 years I even keep giving your more years...ok one animal that has gone from one animal to a complete new species. Now in evolution is always happening then at some point there has to be some ripe new species....so give me one.....just one....now this does not include a staph or other infection because again that is all within the same family... so go ahead. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would take longer then 500 years for this to happen that is for sure
but to have many examples check out the book by Richard Dawkin's - The Ancestor's Tale - 670 page book researched by another 360 other books from noteable people who study in the field. It shows us evolution up to 4 billion years yet I know that creationists will always argue about the possiblity of a species changing into a different species over such a period of time. but I do believe personally a species will adapt to a different environment to survive and who is to say they don't change form or gain other helpful characteristics to help survive the time on this everchanging planet. but also I am aware that the bible is the perferable choice for many people who want to believe how everything started. At least in today's society we CAN take choices on what we believe to be true without fearing to be persecuted or found guilty of heresy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok quite simple.... show me one animal in the last 500 years I even keep giving your more years...ok one animal that has gone from one animal to a complete new species. Now in evolution is always happening then at some point there has to be some ripe new species....so give me one.....just one....now this does not include a staph or other infection because again that is all within the same family... so go ahead. OMGarsh... OK, this is my final post on here!  500 years? To you that may be a long time, since according to your ONLY SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE, the Bible, this whole world is about 6,000 years. So yeah, you're giving me a pretty reasonable amount of time... EXCEPT, 500 years is like a drop of water in the ocean when it comes to how long the Earth has been around and how long it takes a species to evolve. NEWSFLASH: Evolution takes WAY longer than 500 years. OK, how long did Noah get to live, according to your bible? 900 years or so? OK, multiply that by a thousand and let's go that far back and look at what our ancestors looked like then, or an elephant, or a saber tooth tiger... Oh, I'm sorry. We can't go back that far, because we came from Adam and Eve who were created by this god of yours about 6,000 years ago. Never mind. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok quite simple.... show me one animal in the last 500 years I even keep giving your more years...ok one animal that has gone from one animal to a complete new species. Now in evolution is always happening then at some point there has to be some ripe new species....so give me one.....just one....now this does not include a staph or other infection because again that is all within the same family... so go ahead. Best case I can give, given the narrow-mindedness of your time frame: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase Basically, this bacteria developed an enzyme to breakdown nylon, a man made material. This enzyme could not have existed before the material existed. The food source must be present before the organism that eats it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here - let's take a closer look at this "study".
http://technology-science.newsvine.com/_news/2009/02/12/24 26283-seven-signs-of-evolution-in-action I've been reading through the posts, and it all sounds very familiar.  What begins to occur with these threads is the proponents of evolution state their cases citing scientific websites, links to videos, photographs, documented proof and a research based dialogue. That goes totally ignored by the religious. Then they ask the same questions that were just answered. Then the proponents of evolution post their links to scientific websites, links to videos, photographs..... I've watched every U-tube video that I've been directed to, and have not recieved a single answer to any of the questions I've asked on evolution, or how Creationism has been disproved. I don't think there's anyone on this site who can explain to me how Creationism has been disproved. Or at least if they can - they haven't posted yet. I did post this earlier as something I found on the internet as a tangible proof to macroevolution. Tangible proof of macroevolution Tangible - adj. Able to be touched or percieved through the sense of touch. Let's see how this is demonstrated. Touching off a scientific furor, researchers say they have discovered the mutation that caused the earliest humans to branch off from their apelike ancestors — a gene that led to smaller, weaker jaws and, ultimately, bigger brains. okay - let's stop right here. does anyone think these scientists have examples of "brains" in glass jars to support the tangibility of their study? Smaller jaws would have fundamentally changed the structure of the skull, they contend, by eliminating thick muscles that worked like bungee cords to anchor a huge jaw to the crown of the head. The change would have allowed the cranium to grow larger and led to the development of a bigger brain capable of tool-making and language. The mutation is reported in the latest issue of the journal Nature, not by anthropologists, but by a team of biologists and plastic surgeons at the University of Pennsylvania and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. Hmmm... what are they using to compare this "muscle" presumption? How many different speciments of mustles are used in the control study? The Pennsylvania researchers said their estimate of when this mutation first occurred — about 2.4 million years ago — generally overlaps with the first fossils of prehistoric humans featuring rounder skulls, flatter faces, smaller teeth and weaker jaws. Interesting. 2.4 million years ago. Where did this come from. We're talking "tangible" here. I can guarentee that the control objects used for this study cannot be definitively doemonstrated to be this old without knowing the chemical content of the speciments at their origin - and without specific data as to environmental controls for the 2.4 million year time span. And even if they thought they had this information - it would have taken their entire lifespan up until now to hae just read it - let alone gleen any information from it. But hey - who needs facts. And, the remarkable genetic divergence persists to this day in every person, they said. Actually - this remarkable observation may be evident today - but how it relates to anything that happened 2.4 million years ago is the stuff of Hollywood legend. But nonhuman primates — including our closest animal relative, the chimpanzee — still carry the original big-jaw gene and thanks to stout muscles attached to the tops of their heads, they can bite and grind the toughest foods. Perhaps - and this just might be conjecture on my part - the control objects were, well - chimpanzee's. Seems fairly obvious that the small cranial cavity and enlarged jaw would be explained this way - would it not. After all, no fossil comes with a label. Over 2 million years since the mutation, the brain has nearly tripled in size. It’s a very intriguing possibility.” I think we're stretching our idea of "tangible' here - you think? Got that information from a laboratory experiment where they recreated this mutation, did they? University of Michigan biological anthropologist Milford Wolpoff called the research “just super.” Hey - what do you know. His presumption just became "tangible" fact. “The other thing that was happening 2½ million years ago is that people were beginning to make tools, which enabled them to prepare food outside their mouths,” he said. “This is a confluence of genetic and fossil evidence.” Yup. Saw the video myself on the discovery channel. Isn't it amaising how thwe Aboriginies in Australia are still making those tools today. Over 2 million years since the mutation, the brain has nearly tripled in size. It’s a very intriguing possibility.” If you repeat something over and over again - eventually you'll get someone to believe it. University of Michigan biological anthropologist Milford Wolpoff called the research “just super.” Wow - a double "Just Super". “The other thing that was happening 2½ million years ago is that people were beginning to make tools, which enabled them to prepare food outside their mouths,” he said. “This is a confluence of genetic and fossil evidence.” Yup. That was on the video too. Details of the study In their experiment, the Penn team isolated a new gene in an overlooked junk DNA sequence on chromosome 7. It belongs to a class of genes that express production of the protein myosin, which enables skeletal muscles to contract. Originally the scientists were concentrating on determining the biological underpinnings of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a muscle-wasting disease. But once they isolated the mutation, they spent the next eight months deciphering its evolutionary implications. Different types of myosin are produced in different muscles; in the chewing and biting muscles of the jaws, the gene MYH16 is expressed. But the Penn researchers discovered humans have a mutation in the gene that prevents the MYH16 protein from accumulating. That limits the size and power of the muscle. In primates like the macaque, the jaw muscles were 10 times more powerful than in humans. They contained high levels of the protein, and the thick muscles were attached to bony ridges of the skull. Ah - now we have a little "tangible" information to deal with. Something absolutely verifyable and testable. An example of a mutation that - though conveniently not mentioned, has occured from a loss of information from the DNA. When did this genetic split occur? No one knows. But that won't stop them from assuming. That's called "circular reasoning". Extablish "pretext" and support it, rather than examine the facts and see where it leads. Scientists assume that the rate of genetic change a species undergoes is relatively constant over time. So the Penn group looked deep into the fossil record to determine when the jaws of human ancestors started looking smaller and more streamlined as compared to more apelike creatures. So - in the final analysis, we have "Scientists assuming". And not much of an example of "tangible" anything - other than the straight forward DNA observations - would could support the theory of UFO's and aliens if one wished. Am I getting my point across here. I'm not getting any questions answered here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://technology-science.newsvine.com/_news/2009/02/12/24 26283-seven-signs-of-evolution-in-action I've been reading through the posts, and it all sounds very familiar. What begins to occur with these threads is the proponents of evolution state their cases citing scientific websites, links to videos, photographs, documented proof and a research based dialogue. That goes totally ignored by the religious. Then they ask the same questions that were just answered. Then the proponents of evolution post their links to scientific websites, links to videos, photographs..... I've watched every U-tube video that I've been directed to, and have not recieved a single answer to any of the questions I've asked on evolution, or how Creationism has been disproved. I don't think there's anyone on this site who can explain to me how Creationism has been disproved. Or at least if they can - they haven't posted yet. I did post this earlier as something I found on the internet as a tangible proof to macroevolution. Tangible proof of macroevolution Touching off a scientific furor, researchers say they have discovered the mutation that caused the earliest humans to branch off from their apelike ancestors — a gene that led to smaller, weaker jaws and, ultimately, bigger brains. Smaller jaws would have fundamentally changed the structure of the skull, they contend, by eliminating thick muscles that worked like bungee cords to anchor a huge jaw to the crown of the head. The change would have allowed the cranium to grow larger and led to the development of a bigger brain capable of tool-making and language. The mutation is reported in the latest issue of the journal Nature, not by anthropologists, but by a team of biologists and plastic surgeons at the University of Pennsylvania and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. The Pennsylvania researchers said their estimate of when this mutation first occurred — about 2.4 million years ago — generally overlaps with the first fossils of prehistoric humans featuring rounder skulls, flatter faces, smaller teeth and weaker jaws. And, the remarkable genetic divergence persists to this day in every person, they said. But nonhuman primates — including our closest animal relative, the chimpanzee — still carry the original big-jaw gene and thanks to stout muscles attached to the tops of their heads, they can bite and grind the toughest foods. Over 2 million years since the mutation, the brain has nearly tripled in size. It’s a very intriguing possibility.” University of Michigan biological anthropologist Milford Wolpoff called the research “just super.” “The other thing that was happening 2½ million years ago is that people were beginning to make tools, which enabled them to prepare food outside their mouths,” he said. “This is a confluence of genetic and fossil evidence.” Over 2 million years since the mutation, the brain has nearly tripled in size. It’s a very intriguing possibility.” University of Michigan biological anthropologist Milford Wolpoff called the research “just super.” “The other thing that was happening 2½ million years ago is that people were beginning to make tools, which enabled them to prepare food outside their mouths,” he said. “This is a confluence of genetic and fossil evidence.” Details of the study In their experiment, the Penn team isolated a new gene in an overlooked junk DNA sequence on chromosome 7. It belongs to a class of genes that express production of the protein myosin, which enables skeletal muscles to contract. Originally the scientists were concentrating on determining the biological underpinnings of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a muscle-wasting disease. But once they isolated the mutation, they spent the next eight months deciphering its evolutionary implications. Different types of myosin are produced in different muscles; in the chewing and biting muscles of the jaws, the gene MYH16 is expressed. But the Penn researchers discovered humans have a mutation in the gene that prevents the MYH16 protein from accumulating. That limits the size and power of the muscle. In primates like the macaque, the jaw muscles were 10 times more powerful than in humans. They contained high levels of the protein, and the thick muscles were attached to bony ridges of the skull. When did this genetic split occur? Scientists assume that the rate of genetic change a species undergoes is relatively constant over time. So the Penn group looked deep into the fossil record to determine when the jaws of human ancestors started looking smaller and more streamlined as compared to more apelike creatures. Smiles...  love you my friend.... BUT...... you left out a MAJOR WORD in the article you shared earlier ....... and the Word that was left out, is "MAY"!!!!  Here is the website below...go read the article again.... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4593822/ Here is an exerpt from the article you shared earlier.... but this time with the "left out" Word ,"MAY" , included this time. That ONE WORD "MAY" makes ALLL the Difference ...in the MEANING of the Message !!!!!! Here is an exerpt from the article: "....Touching off a scientific furor, researchers say they MAY have discovered the mutation that caused the earliest humans to branch off from their apelike ancestors — ..." Now.....That Word "MAY" , implies THEORY..not FACT!!! THEORY ONLY!!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Smiles... love you my friend.... BUT...... you left out a MAJOR WORD in the article you shared earlier ....... and the Word that was left out, is "MAY"!!!! Here is the website below...go read the article again.... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4593822/ Here is an exerpt from the article you shared earlier.... but this time with the "left out" Word ,"MAY" , included this time. That ONE WORD "MAY" makes ALLL the Difference ...in the MEANING of the Message !!!!!! Here is an exerpt from the article: "....Touching off a scientific furor, researchers say they MAY have discovered the mutation that caused the earliest humans to branch off from their apelike ancestors — ..." Now.....That Word "MAY" , implies THEORY..not FACT!!! THEORY ONLY!!!! At least they have some sort of reproducible evidence and not just some words written in a book several thousand years ago. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok quite simple.... show me one animal in the last 500 years I even keep giving your more years...ok one animal that has gone from one animal to a complete new species. Now in evolution is always happening then at some point there has to be some ripe new species....so give me one.....just one....now this does not include a staph or other infection because again that is all within the same family... so go ahead. Best case I can give, given the narrow-mindedness of your time frame: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylonase Basically, this bacteria developed an enzyme to breakdown nylon, a man made material. This enzyme could not have existed before the material existed. The food source must be present before the organism that eats it. Let's examine the facts. 1) Nylon was not "created" - it was discovered as the combiniation of elements that has existed on this planet since the time of it's creation. Therefore the idea that this bacteria could not have existed previous to the discovery of Nylon is a "narrow-minded" ill informed presumption. Now let's examine this fallous statement from the site. There is scientific consensus that the capacity to synthesize nylonase most probably developed as a single-step mutation that survived because it improved the fitness of the bacteria possessing the mutation. This is seen as good example of evolution through mutation and natural selection.[7][8][9] As a result nylon-eating bacteria have been discussed, in articles and on websites, in the context of the creation-evolution controversy. This is crap. First of all - the idea of an "improved fitness" to this bacteria is more than a wild guess, as it has yet to be determined that any information is added to DNA. It is known that information is lost - but to date, no scientific evidence of information being added to any genome exists. What is most likely is that the bacteria - through de-evolving (loosing information through mutation) developed the ability to synthesize nylonese. It is quite possible that the ability to do this has always existed in a previous generation of the bacteria's DNA, but had mutated over time to bring about the occurance of synthesization that was not witnessed until 1975. This presumption is equaly viable. So what's this about "narrow mindedness"? Perhaps you should consider thinking outside of the box, eH? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://technology-science.newsvine.com/_news/2009/02/12/24 26283-seven-signs-of-evolution-in-action I've been reading through the posts, and it all sounds very familiar. What begins to occur with these threads is the proponents of evolution state their cases citing scientific websites, links to videos, photographs, documented proof and a research based dialogue. That goes totally ignored by the religious. Then they ask the same questions that were just answered. Then the proponents of evolution post their links to scientific websites, links to videos, photographs..... I've watched every U-tube video that I've been directed to, and have not recieved a single answer to any of the questions I've asked on evolution, or how Creationism has been disproved. I don't think there's anyone on this site who can explain to me how Creationism has been disproved. Or at least if they can - they haven't posted yet. I did post this earlier as something I found on the internet as a tangible proof to macroevolution. Tangible proof of macroevolution Touching off a scientific furor, researchers say they have discovered the mutation that caused the earliest humans to branch off from their apelike ancestors — a gene that led to smaller, weaker jaws and, ultimately, bigger brains. Smaller jaws would have fundamentally changed the structure of the skull, they contend, by eliminating thick muscles that worked like bungee cords to anchor a huge jaw to the crown of the head. The change would have allowed the cranium to grow larger and led to the development of a bigger brain capable of tool-making and language. The mutation is reported in the latest issue of the journal Nature, not by anthropologists, but by a team of biologists and plastic surgeons at the University of Pennsylvania and the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia. The Pennsylvania researchers said their estimate of when this mutation first occurred — about 2.4 million years ago — generally overlaps with the first fossils of prehistoric humans featuring rounder skulls, flatter faces, smaller teeth and weaker jaws. And, the remarkable genetic divergence persists to this day in every person, they said. But nonhuman primates — including our closest animal relative, the chimpanzee — still carry the original big-jaw gene and thanks to stout muscles attached to the tops of their heads, they can bite and grind the toughest foods. Over 2 million years since the mutation, the brain has nearly tripled in size. It’s a very intriguing possibility.” University of Michigan biological anthropologist Milford Wolpoff called the research “just super.” “The other thing that was happening 2½ million years ago is that people were beginning to make tools, which enabled them to prepare food outside their mouths,” he said. “This is a confluence of genetic and fossil evidence.” Over 2 million years since the mutation, the brain has nearly tripled in size. It’s a very intriguing possibility.” University of Michigan biological anthropologist Milford Wolpoff called the research “just super.” “The other thing that was happening 2½ million years ago is that people were beginning to make tools, which enabled them to prepare food outside their mouths,” he said. “This is a confluence of genetic and fossil evidence.” Details of the study In their experiment, the Penn team isolated a new gene in an overlooked junk DNA sequence on chromosome 7. It belongs to a class of genes that express production of the protein myosin, which enables skeletal muscles to contract. Originally the scientists were concentrating on determining the biological underpinnings of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a muscle-wasting disease. But once they isolated the mutation, they spent the next eight months deciphering its evolutionary implications. Different types of myosin are produced in different muscles; in the chewing and biting muscles of the jaws, the gene MYH16 is expressed. But the Penn researchers discovered humans have a mutation in the gene that prevents the MYH16 protein from accumulating. That limits the size and power of the muscle. In primates like the macaque, the jaw muscles were 10 times more powerful than in humans. They contained high levels of the protein, and the thick muscles were attached to bony ridges of the skull. When did this genetic split occur? Scientists assume that the rate of genetic change a species undergoes is relatively constant over time. So the Penn group looked deep into the fossil record to determine when the jaws of human ancestors started looking smaller and more streamlined as compared to more apelike creatures. Smiles... love you my friend.... BUT...... you left out a MAJOR WORD in the article you shared earlier ....... and the Word that was left out, is "MAY"!!!! Here is the website below...go read the article again.... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4593822/ Here is an exerpt from the article you shared earlier.... but this time with the "left out" Word ,"MAY" , included this time. That ONE WORD "MAY" makes ALLL the Difference ...in the MEANING of the Message !!!!!! Here is an exerpt from the article: "....Touching off a scientific furor, researchers say they MAY have discovered the mutation that caused the earliest humans to branch off from their apelike ancestors — ..." Now.....That Word "MAY" , implies THEORY..not FACT!!! THEORY ONLY!!!! so in the end it is just a theory and not a fact yet or ever will be. The search for the truth continues Well what it is worth both creationists and evolutions will continue to strive to search the truth in what seems or perhaps one day is to be true of how everything started. Perhaps even in my lifetime. You never know. As far as I understand this We have people who believe in microevolution but not macroevolution then we have people that believe in both then we have people say it is both the same thing. One is short term and other term is long term then we have people who don't believe at all evolution and stick to a document so in the end we have a bunch of people believing in something else well what it is worth at least we are thinking about it. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Skeptic Goes Inside Noah’s Ark
by Michael Shermer, Feb 17 2009 Two Gibbons on Noah’s Ark, bearing no resemblance whatsoever to humans. Evolution and Creationism in England During the first week of February, 2009, on the occasion of Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday celebrations at various locals around England (including his birthplace city of Shrewsbury — see photo montage below), my hosts Andrew Kelly (a science writer who authored a gorgeous coffee-table book entitled Darwin: For the Love of Science) and Bruce Hood (a University of Bristol cognitive psychologist and author of the forthcoming book Supersense), arranged for a visit to Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm in Bristol, run by a kindly creationist gentleman named Anthony Bush. (Yes, in addition to being a zoo for the public to tour, it is a working farm.) The Manifest of Noah’s Ark, according to its modern day purser, Anthony Bush. Bush’s warmth and good cheer were appreciated on this blistering cold snowy day, one of the worst witnessed in the UK in decades. As we started our tour Mr. Bush made it clear to me that he did not to be confused with those “loonie American creationists” who think that the earth is only 6,000 years old. No, no, the Earth is much older than that, he proclaimed. “How old do you think it is?” I queried. “Oh, I’ve worked it out to be around 100,000 years old, with Adam and Eve at around 21,000 years old.” No, indeed, there was no confusing Mr. Bush with those nutty American creationists! And what was happening between those two time spans? If I understood Mr. Bush correctly, he believes that between the creation at 100,000 years ago and Adam and Eve 21,000 years ago, there was the pre-Adamite period during which the dinosaurs roamed. The author and Mr. Anthony Bush, the curator and administrator of Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm, discuss the differences between apes and humans. What about all the geological evidence for a much older Earth, I pressed on? All those strata of, say, sandstone, which was once loose sand compressed into solid rock over immense periods of time — how could that possibly happen over thousands instead of millions of years? Those strata are laid down every season, like tree-rings, he explained. Interesting analogy, since we can see trees growing from year to year, but where on earth can we see sand being compressed into stone each year? Noah’s Ark captain, Anthony Bush, explains to Michael Shermer the recolonization theory, which holds that the modern geographic distribution of species around the globe today all happened after the flood destroyed all life on earth (even the fish drowned?) and Noah released the animal pairs to go forth and multiply. Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm features educational posters for British school children to read on their tour, including this one showing the lineage of Adam and Eve. The conversation turned most passionate for Mr. Bush when we arrived at the primate cages, featuring marmosets and gibbons. Standing next to a poster display of the differences between apes and humans (implying that humans are not apes, which we are), Mr. Bush seemed particularly interested (obsessed really) in the sexual differences between us, insisting that humans are the only primates that copulate in the missionary position (he waxed poetic about how the angle of the vagina and the slant of the penis are perfectly positioned for proper penetration (say that three times!) for producing the orgasm, which God created to keep us together in pair bonds (he offered no explanation for why women get multiples and men only one, and I wasn’t about to ask). He added that we are the only primate to have orgasms. I told him about bonobos, whom Frans deWaal describes as a very sexual primate indeed, including copulating in the missionary position and apparently experiencing orgasms (and if not then they sure seem to be having as good a time as we do during sex). Mr. Bush offered no acknowledgement of this fact, but after more sex talk along these lines I finally said something like “you sure are into sex,” to which he responded “what do you expect, I’m a man?” To which I rejoined: “yes, well, Darwinism explains that nicely, thank you.” The author in front of Darwin's birthplace If you want to read more about the Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm, go to: http://www.noahsarkzoofarm.co.uk/ I haven’t any idea how influential Anthony Bush’s Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm is on the school children who are taken there on field trips, but I was most disturbed by the results of a survey just released there (the “Rescuing Darwin Survey” conducted by the polling agency ComRes on behalf of the Theos thinktank) that was given to me by my hosts to prepare me for my talk on evolution and creationism, indicating that half of British adults do not believe in evolution, with at least 22 percent preferring creationism or intelligent design as an explanation for how the world came about. In fact, according to this survey, only 25 percent of Britons said that they believe Darwin’s theory of evolution is “definitely true,” while another quarter reported that they think it is “probably true.” These results mirror those found in most surveys of American’s attitudes about evolution, although ours are slightly worse. In England, according to this recent survey, fully half of the 2,060 people questioned were either strongly opposed to the theory of evolution, or confused about it. There are even some Young Earth Creationists in the UK, as the survey found that around 10 percent of Britons believe that God created the world some time in the last 10,000 years. The author in front of Darwin's school |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Thu 02/19/09 10:15 AM
|
|
http://technology-science.newsvine.com/_news/2009/02/12/24 26283-seven-signs-of-evolution-in-action I've been reading through the posts, and it all sounds very familiar. What begins to occur with these threads is the proponents of evolution state their cases citing scientific websites, links to videos, photographs, documented proof and a research based dialogue. That goes totally ignored by the religious. Then they ask the same questions that were just answered. Then the proponents of evolution post their links to scientific websites, links to videos, photographs..... I've watched every U-tube video that I've been directed to, and have not recieved a single answer to any of the questions I've asked on evolution, or how Creationism has been disproved. I don't think there's anyone on this site who can explain to me how Creationism has been disproved. Or at least if they can - they haven't posted yet. It's really quite simple, for creationism/I.D. to be proven, someone needs to find an organism that is irreducibly complex. Simply, for ID to be correct, you need to find an organism, or a system within the organism, that if you take just one part of that away, it will no longer work. Each and every example of this that the ID camp has trotted out with, Science has disproven the Irreducibly Complexity of the organism/organism system. I find it hard to believe that you actually watched all the videos, and didn't get a single answer.. Okay - I'll bit. As an evolutionist (or one adhering to that world view), explain how the Vanilla plant "evolved" to give us vanilla, and how we get it. Justify the evolutioniary process from catapillar to Butterfly. I can't seem to find the answer to these questions anywhere in my evolution investigation - and no one has answered the question yet, having asked it at least a dozen times on the evolution theads over the past 6 months. And yes - I sat through them all. Even watched Zeitgiest. I'm not saying that I didn't get any answers - just ones that didn't adress the question. Such as - what makes Macro-Evolution a science? The only science I'm aware of is what is called "micro-evolution", though I'm not sure how we got that phrase, since the planet isn't evolving - it's dying. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You guys are punctuating my equilibrium!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow... it's come down to "throwing poo" at each other... very primate like don't you think?
|
|
|
|
|
