TO ALL EVOLUTIONISTS go to these web sites and have your eyes opened...
these show scientific evidence for creation...

<http://www.creationevidence.org/cemframes.html>
<http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/evidencefor/evidencefor.html>

this one offers rewards to anyone who can prove evolution...

<http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/rewards.html>

(notice the reward still stands)

Well somewhat in Draco's defense, his IP address is registered with the Georgia Department of Education. That also means he's the exact opposite of an evolutionist. I lived in Georgia, it's nothing but redneck christians.

Oh, okay. These are all different people then?

Need similar accounts? Yahoo? Are you telling me that there is a whole class of Americans somewhere who have never heard of Hotmail? Or even Gmail?!

What's worse? Bible bashing Texans or Red Neck Christians from Georgia? Serious question.

Watch it!

Yes...

It was also easy to keep up with...

I'd say Bible bashing Texans... but thats because they are bible bashers...

Bible bashers are better than christians.

I'm willing to believe you.

This is because you provided counter-evidence: something you haven't shown so far.

Wikipedia does have inaccuracies but it's been weighed in vs. britannica and other references and faired well.

Nobody claims Lucy was human. She is widely believed to be an ancestor of the genus homo, which includes humans. She (the species) is possibly where, or near where the split between other great apes and the genus homo occurred.

I have never heard about only "one tooth" being similar to a human tooth on Lucy. The structure of her teeth in general, though, was closer to that of humans than that of other modern primates. Your claim that her skeleton looked like a monkey's skeleton, therefore she can't be an ancestor to humans is misplaced. Lucy is thought to be an ancestor of humans because of striking similarities in parts of her anatomy. For instance, her knees indicated she was a biped and her pelvis was similar to that of human females.

Dogs are closely related to what? Other dogs? Of course. If you're implying humans, than they are closely related. More closely related than fish.

Scientists are people. Of course some will exaggerate. Something esoteric in the scientific community can easily be exaggerated, as we saw with the Korean scientist who claimed to have cloned a human. That said, Lucy is not at all esoteric. It would be very difficult to exaggerate anything based on her, as anyone who did so would be sharply rebuked by the rest of the scientific community.

Right, but not necessarily to all the relevant content of my posts. You tend to ignore many things.

I suppose this can be taken as an example of an adaptation. Not really sure, though.

This is not simple adaptation. An organism adapts. A species evolves due to heritable genes. The frogs evolved due to natural selection and now the entire species will have changed to green frogs.

DNA does not dictate the process of evolution. Genetic variation is not encoded in DNA, therefore evolution stays localized to a population.

Once again, I'd like to point out that modern monkeys are not the same monkeys you would have found 3 million years ago. Monkeys have also evolved to come to be in their present state. This doesn't mean that an entire species has to speciate, though. It can, and usually is still limited to a population.

Perhaps an example would help elucidate the concept. Lets create a hypothetical species of birds called species X. I'm not dealing with the topic of abiogenesis right now, so the origin of species X itself is irrelevant to this example. We are only focusing on how X might speciate. Let us assume that the males of species X fight to win a harem. Only by winning a harem can a male have the chance to reproduce. Let us also assume that species X is split into four populations, A, B, C and D. What happens if one male in population A has a mutant gene that causes the individual to develop twice the muscle as an ordinary bird of species X? This male clearly has an advantage when it comes to reproduction. Its offspring that possess that particular allele will also have an advantage when it comes to reproduction. Gradually, this allele will spread throughout population A, and the evolutionary trend will be towards more muscle. Now, this is of course a very simple example, and we are not considering other factors that could affect the outcome, but in this case these birds will start spending more and more time on the ground since they need to expend more energy to carry around their increasinly massive bodies. Eventually, if the trend continues, these birds will lose the ability of flight altogether. Their wings will then become vestigial, and a hindrance to have to lug around. The birds who have a gene for smaller wings will then be rewarded for not having to put up with as large of a hindrance (perhaps finding it easier to find food, perhaps being more agile in a fight), until the wings on these birds disappear altogether. In the process of these mutations, the DNA of population A has changed too much to produce viable offspring with any of the other populations of species X. Population A has speciated, and is now species Y.


Tar is not an antibiotic. Antibiotics also do not kill every single-celled organism.

Once again, the Miller-Urey experiment was not a replica of early earth. It did, however, prove that amino acids could form spontaneously. If the building blocks for life could form spontaneously, it is a strong indication that life could also form sponataneously.

The electrodes used in the Miller-Urey experiment simply act as a reducing agent. They do not need to strike any specific spot.

I have a very hard time believing that. Citation, please. Epicack is not the name of a medicine according to google.

Yes, I believe that the dissociation of a hydrocarbon chain would be an endogenic reaction, however that is not a problem in the actual environment. Aside from lightning, there is a big, glowing, massive ball radiating energy down on the earth at all times. One of the major critiques of the Miller-Urey experiment is that due to recent evidence people think that they may have actually used too much electricity in their experiment.

You actually never stated whether or not you agree that speciation has occurred. You implied that you didn't, but I'm not really sure. Earlier in this thread you stated that you believed in common descent.

Actually, via radiometric dating, and verification with molecular evidence to relationships between parent and descendent, a lot can be learned about the evolution of a species.

Well, clearly you're a man of God. Tell him to do it for you. Perhaps if you pray hard enough, he will.

Exactly. That would be what the definition of transitional is. It will still resemble it's parent. What were you expecting, 6-foot wings sticking out of a squirrel?

Frogs developing bad legs in contaminated water is not an example of evolution. Not all mutations are beneficial, of course. Negative mutations are severely reprimanded by natural selection, which is why only the beneficial mutations (in most cases) are passed on.

Yes, but apparently you were too dense to get it the first time around so I felt compelled to reiterate my sentiments.

*Sigh*

I hate it when people start linking to sites when arguing something without actually paraphrasing what the site has to say. Why? Because this leaves a myriad of possibilities. One, the author of the post may have no idea what the page he is linking to is talking about. Two, the author will then try to argue those points without understanding them. Three, because the content of those links is already there, the author really has to do no work to post it to back his content. I on the other hand, have to reply to what your pages say. If this is how it's going to be, you can't reasonably expect me to respond on a daily basis anymore, simply because I have a lot more stuff I need to say. However, that page is bogus for the most part.

Yet again, many people who argue against evolution cite a �missing link,� fossilized evidence which should be a requirement of proof according to some creationists, in the lineage of the human race. I have heard this argument many times. I find it somewhat ironic that though many people will use this as a key point to their argument, this missing link remains esoteric in the sense that no one seems to know exactly what, when, or where this missing link is. This is a moot argument, however. If a missing link exists, it does not refute the theory of evolution. Evolution does not entail a direct fossilized record from ancestor to descendant. Fossilized evidence is contingent on the geological forces of the earth, and is coincidental when found. It supports the theory of evolution. Fossilized evidence is not a requirement for ascertaining the theory�s validity.

Not true. The earth's magnetic field is known to fluctuate in intensity, and has actually reversed polarity multiple times. The intensity of the field showed no variation for centuries. The change in the field intensity is a relatively recent phenomenon, and perhaps indicative of an upcoming reversal in polarity. The magnetic field does not show exponential decay in the form that the above quote insinuates. Yes, exponential equation can fit the decay in magnetic intensity, but an exponential equation can be modified to fit any set of points. Barnes also relied on an antiquated model of the earth's interior, causing faulty conclusions.

Flood myths are common because floods are common. This does not in any way insinuate a global flood. Though there are many myths about floods, they differe significantly in detail. If they were stories about the same flood, we would expect similar characteristics. The biblical flood myth has parallels only to myths from the same region, because most likely they do have a common source.

What about the sedimentary layering leads them to believe there was a global flood?

Yea, but not on a global scale.

Absolutely. We now have the ability to find evidence for such a flood if it occurred. No hard evidence has been found.

This assumes that the growth-rate has been constant, which is a false assumption. The growth rate between 1000 and 1800 was .1227%. Also, using this model you would see unreasonable populations for historical events. There would not be enough people to fight historical wars, for instance.

Polonium is a product from the alpha decay of radon. Radon, being a gas, can pass through small cracks in the granite.

I'll reply to the rest tomorrow.

I heard it somewhere...

What does cloning a human have to do with Lucy... Lucy is clearly a monkey yet people tie it to us...

Like what?

If you cant see that, then you have no idea what you are talking about...

I guess you did not see the brackets at the end of my sentence... I put what the example was at the end...

DNA evidence would show some form of connection between everything, I mean we did evolve from the same spot....

All right, I will get away from the tar.... for now....

Well, the major difference between early earth and the experiment is that the spark was continuous in the experiment... I really doubt that lightining would ever do that....

It is the name of a medicine that makes you throwup...:x

It would take alot longer than for the sun's light to do anything useful...

I said it with the frog example!

They tested radiometric dating, it does not accuratly date...

I would but God finished creation on the seventh day...

No, that is genetically similar, they are not relatives...

Any mutation is a form of evolution... if the animal survives long enough to mate, it will pass its traits on...

You just don't like my answers....

Diddn't exactly plan it, but it was a great web site...

well if there is no missing link there is no transition between anything....

He was talking about the improbibility of the decaying magnetic field, not the other way around...

Well... he said that there is sedimentary deposits in places where it just does not flood...

Well, sedimentary deposits are found on every continent, but I don't think it floods every where....

Well, what could have stopped the population growth? Flood? What?

Granites are formed of an aggregate of crystals which are molded together without any space between them or which enclose one another. No way gas could seep into the rock and stick around...

Just ban this kid already. He's absolutely dense.

The only thing you got right is Syrup of Ipecak (or something).

And I'm pretty sure that makes you puke because it's so bitter you can't handle it. I don't know if it's actually tar. I do know it doesn't make you puke because it's an antibiotic though. Even if it is an antibiotic, that's not what it's used for, as you won't keep it in your body.

Dude I can put up with Texicans, but hillbillies are just too stupid. I live in a hillbilly state right now because it's cheaper to fly to Japan from here. No one can read, spell, or write with a readable penmanship.

Also christians are stupid. No matter who becomes one they always lose a lot of their intelligence and wisdom and they are terrible cooks as well!

My vote for Red Neck Christians.

For those of you that have looked at the website:

http://www.geocities.com/worldview_3/rewards.html

I believe that if you could prove evolution possible, those rewards would have been taken already... and most of these have been going on for years....

Of course we can prove it POSSIBLE. But we can't prove it to be FACT.

I'll give you a thousand dollars if you can prove to me that your religion and your god are FACT. Seriously. If you can give me hard evidence proving to me that your god is indeed real, I will give you a thousand dollars.

Just because we can't PROVE it doesn't mean it's not true. Same goes for your god and your religion. You can't prove it's real, I can't prove it isn't. I can't prove evolution is real, you can't prove it isn't.

It comes down to faith vs evidence when the evidence is so far to one side of an arguement. I'm not saying your beliefs are wrong, but the evidence points to evolution. I chose to believe the evidence rather than put my faith in the opposite. You chose to put your faith into something that is almost completely lacking evidence, which is a brave thing to do, and could be rewarding in the end if you were right.

For all we know, you could be right and I could be wrong, I'll end up in hell and you wont. Until then, I'm a science man, not a religion man, and science tells me you are wrong.

Let me put it to you as best as I can.... this should help....

You know the universal code for help, S.O.S (dont worry I am going somewhere with this) means distress. S.O.S. isn't distress but it means it.... back when these simple letters were too big to transmit somone sat down and divised a way to re-represent this... he decided to represent S as three dots(...), and O as three dashes(---), so S.O.S. is (...---...). This is the way he wanted it and that is the way everyone now accepts it. Similarly, in DNA the acids Thymine(T), Guanine(G), Cytosine(C), and Adenine(A) in certain patterns represent different chemicals, Similarly to the dots and dashes represent certain chemicals except there are no dots and dashes... In cells the ribosomes(which act like the reading head of a tape player) read the DNA sequences and from that determines the next chemical to go into the chain that is being built. Say the ribosome reads GGC. If the ribosome reads GGC it will know that the next chemical to go in will be Glycine(I believe is how it is spelled)... GCC does not make Glycine it just represents that particular chemical, so you know that intelligence has predrtermined what this represents. Here is an experiment... say I have a bowl, and I take 1,000 cards that have the letter 'A' on them and put them into the bowl, and I take 1,000 cards of B, C, all the way to Z in to the bowl(now I have 1,000 cards of every letter in the alphabet in the bowl) then I mix them up in to a random assortment... then say I reached in and grabbed the letter 'J', then say we do it again and I pull out 'A'... so now I have 'JA' as a completely random sequence of lettrers. Now I ask you, what does 'JA' mean? It means absolutely nothing... there is nothing that is set in stone that says 'JA' means something...

Now how could a random collection of acids possibly come together and form something if it has no idea what to do with certain chemical sequences if there is nothing to be represented...

I already addressed this

Everyone that wins the lottery feels beforehand that the odds were impossible

Yet people win every week and animals continue to evolve

Mostly undocumented claims. Even if they aren't, it doesn't prove much. Minerals in a solution can harden around an intruding object over relatively short periods of time.

Helium is a very light atom, and can reach escape velocity simply through heat.

Humphrey's theory is erroneous in at least 3 ways. First off, it assumes that we're at the bottom of an enormous gravity well, which contradicts evidence. If this were the case, we would notice blue-shifts rather than red-shifts. Secondly, it is based on the earth's frame of reference. Third, it is a well documented fact that our sun is at least a second-generation star. His theory fails to account for the billions of years before the formation of the earth.

It doesn't happen by chance. Even if it did, this is an argument based on the incredulity of the author, which is scientifically irrelevant.

Another argument based on incredulity.

Ahh. You heard it somewhere. Incredible place to get your scientific facts.

The point of my paragraph was to grant your argument about dishonesty within the scientific community some credit by giving the example of human cloning but then point out that in this particular case it can not be a factor.

Such as most of post 115 and 116.

A natural chemical reaction by an organism which is encoded into its DNA is generally not termed an adaption.

IT DOES

The sparks are not continuous in the experiment, nor do they need to be for a chemical reaction to occur.

Not really. Most endogenic reactions only require heat. The sun provides plenty of heat.

No, you didn't. A population of frogs changing colors is not speciation.

It does. This is CCB. Common Creationist Bullshit.

Did he die after that? If not, you can still do what I asked.

In case you didn't know, relatives are genetically similar.

Yes, but bad legs are generally not a mutation, and are not heritable.

Do you even read what you're responding to? You never gave me any answers about the difference between evidence and proof. And you're right. I don't like most of your answers. They're full of CCB.

There isn't a perfect fossil record of transition. There is a damn good one though (refer to the John Doe example.). Even if there wasn't, that doesn't mean there wasn't any transition.

According to that paragraph he's asserting that the earth's field is decaying, not that it's improbable.

No...he...didn't...

I'm fairly sure that it rains everywhere on earth. Furthermore, the earth's environment changes as time progresses.

This is a more complicated question than I'm prepared to answer at this time.

Actually it can. I'm too lazy to go into details.

Genetic Mutations. How do Genetic Mutations fit into all of this perfect creation? Surely, if everything was designed perfect, then there would be no genetic mutations along the strand of DNA, right?

It'd probably be in the best interest of religion to adapt to science rather than try to fight it fully x_x.

I don't know... they managed to keep it at bay pretty well during the Dark Ages. But then again, it WAS the Dark Ages. I'd like to see Catholics try and force that upon such a technological world. :rolleyes:

Well, if China takes over we might have a world purged of mainstream religion x_X.

This world would be a lot more peaceful without religions.

But we'd also have less people to argue at... a much quieter place t'would be.

Perhaps people could talk about more important things. How often do people go to war over science? There are scientific debates, there are scientists that disagree about things, but they don't go to war over it. I'm not saying the world would be war free without religion, but it would be a much safer and more peaceful place. People claim religion gives people morals as they go and slaughter families in other countries simply because they disagree with them. We're "helping them" by forcing our religion on them.

Unfortunately, religion will never cease to exist.

I disagree. We will ALWAYS find something to fight about, whether religion or the difference of opinion between and Existentialist and another of a differing philosophical thought.

I specifically said that I don't think the world would be war free. The point is, a lot of hate, genocide, and the majority of wars seem to be about religion and about the "make people believe by force feeding them" mentality that most christians seem to have.

Possibly, but it's hard to tell such things. Look at the Rwanda genocides and you will see a genocide driven not by religion, but by racism. The Holocaust comes to mind as well.

I think you're having trouble differentiating between "a lot of" and "all." They are indeed two separate things.

Well... acutally the plan was perfect, not the design... Adam and Eve had perfect Genetics, but over time due to Genetic mutations and the pulling of ourselfs out of natural selection(by use of medicine and stuff like that) we slowly corrupted our genetics...

You don't remember the cold war do you? It was a war of power and technology lead the way... Everyone did and still do want atomic power...

I will get back to you on all of this... I just need to find some time to be able to sit down for atleast an hour and reply.... If it looks like I forgot about it, tell me...

That was mostly a war over power and bragging rights than a war over science, but it was indeed partially a war over science.

Like I said, I don't think the world would be perfect without religion, but it would definately be a big leap closer.

I concur with the fact that "all" and "a lot of" are different things. I just believe that we would still have the same amount of wars, but I believe we may be less likely to nuke the livid fuck out of someone.

With religion, people are looking to initiate Doomsday in what way they can because they want to be free of their mortal shell as well as hasten mankind's judgement, if such a thing will ever happen.

Hey, I found a video about a guy who once believed in evolution but after looking at certain animals he realized they don't fit into the evolutionary process... with this one he was looking at a bug called the bombardier beetle...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAFLIPSSU5M

Evolution is so unforgiving, isn't it?

I just thought your little quip at the end was worthy of an equally irrelevant rebuttal.

What is more unforgiving: a system which lets the weak fall to the wayside, or a system which dooms the vast majority of its population to eternal suffering?

Hmm...

A system that lets the weak fall to the wayside...

atleast the vast majority was given a warning about eternal suffering and yet people ignore it, and the system allows anyone to be pulled away from the eternal suffering(which is the forgivness)...

Hey, did you know that Hitler himself believed in evolution? That was the main reason behind his 'perfect race' of blond haired, blue eyed people... he thought they were the closest to Arian so he started to kill anyone that did not fit the discription... too bad he didn't look in the mirror...