Evolution is Impossible....

Im guessing the consumption by all living things? Or are you saying by humans?

All organisms are bound by the laws of physics, the only difference is that you or I don't need an outside force to move which seperates us from inanimate objects like the pendulum... basically, if you want to move you move... I never said that living organisms could defy the laws of physics.... You create the force to do something, when you move there is no one around you making you move, you do it all by yourself....

If it weren't for "outside forces" we would not exist or be able to function in the form we do today. The sun, gravity, the atomosphere. I think you underestimate the importance of "outside forces" on humans (and any other organisational body). If you don't eat, you die. How is your food created? Heat and light are the source of all life on the earth and the chain extends far beyond your immediate experience. To ignore this is pure folly.

Just after reading the last few posts in this thread, something came to my mind so I'm going to post it here. I don't know if it's relevant or if anyone cares, it's just a thought I was having recently.

It's amazing how complex yet how simple and how perfect systems on earth work. I was watching Planet Earth, and they were talking about how if bees stopped pollenating our plants, we would either have to starve or intervene ourselves and pollenate plants ourselves. The estimated cost of doing this would be hundreds of billions of dollars. It currently costs us nothing because bees do it for us. It's just amazing how simple that is.

Planet Earth? Is in the one made by the Beeb and narrated by David Attenborough?

Never thought they'd show that in America, to be honest. Which episode was it? In fact, which series? I'd guess it's the first one.

It's a new thing that the Discovery channel is doing. It's like a super documentary of our planet, there's all sorts of rare footage shot with super awesome cameras and shit.

This, yeah?

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence...ide/guide.html

If so, then it's the same one I'm on about. It's an amazing series. I got the DVDs of both series for Christmas (as well as having watched them on TV) and I have to say, on a HDTV it looks stunning.

I don't know how far into the whole thing you are, but have you seen the episode on Caves? That one has to be my favourite.

EDIT: Looks like they've changed the narrator for you folks. We had David Attenborough. I wonder if the episodes are the same, or different.

Let's see, I've seen deserts, ice worlds, shallow ocean, future. I think that's it. If there's a "deep ocean" I'm looking forward to it.

By the way, who loves cuttlefish?

Dolphins do. And sharks, I think.

The episode names are definitely the same.

Let's see, I've seen deserts, ice worlds, shallow ocean, future. I think that's it. If there's a "deep ocean" I'm looking forward to it. By the way, who loves cuttlefish?

Deep Sea was the first night.

Deep Sea was the first night.

That's stupid then, because I should have it On Demand. Screw comcast IMO.

You can probably find all of the original English versions online and watch them.

Dear Draco, Please quit raping me. Love, The English language P.S. Anyways, it looks like I've won since you've acknowledged that the 6 pieces of hard evidence I've presented indeed point to the validity of evolution by not responding to any single one of them, yet continuing with your inane tirade. GG, nub. Until you give me a rebuttle Evolutionists: 1 Creationists: 0 ZING!

well... if were going by your rules.... you not posting about each indvidual thing in my post which makes me think you agree with everything I posted....

Furthermore, don't edit your posts after I've already replied to the whole thing. Make a new one so I can see the new crap you've posted. Another thing: Draco said: I did not agree to new species occouring by evolution.... Draco said: I never denied common descent... ZING! Evolutionists: 2 Creationists: 0

O.K... again.... common descent is NOT EVOLUTION, common decent is like a rose and a rose polinating and its offspring being a rose.... evolution is more like the roses offspring being a tree than a rose.... get it straight....

also... common decent has been observed... evolution hasn't...

rescore:
Evolutionists: 0 Creationists: 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent

Nah nah nah.

The theory of common descent proposes that all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor, or ancestral gene pool. Thus common descent is evolution - all organisms on Earth are descended from single celled organisms.

Re-rescore:

Evolutionists: 2 - 0 :Creationists

well... if were going by your rules.... you not posting about each indvidual thing in my post which makes me think you agree with everything I posted....

Well, there's only so much I can do. I mean, I suppose I could reply to each letter you post individually, but a letter on its own is generally meaningless. I could reply to each word, but without a sentence to put it in context, it again is for all practical purposes meaningless. I could reply sentence to sentence, but its much easier to follow when I reply to a paragraph or a set of connected ideas expressed in multiple sentences together, as often sentences on their own are fairly meaningless as well.

I agree, I haven't replied to EVERY single thing, however what is important is that I replied to the relevant information. You can't seem to do that.

Actually, lets compare what I haven't replied to that was directed at me, and what you haven't replied to. I have bolded what is relevant to this thread:

What I haven't replied to (in quotes)

at one point they said that all life came from a "primordial pool" that held all the building blocks of life from which single celled organisms came.... they have also said that all life came from the sea and slowly came upon land... they tried to explain the whale and its role in evolution; they said that it came from a land mammal all because it had a bony flipper.... scientists keep saying that they are finding bones of early man although it has mostly monkey teeth and only one tooth that is human like, they instantly call it human....

There was no way to really respond to that. There were no positive or negative assertions. You were simply rambling.

I know you going to say that it takes billions of years, but at the rate that cells divide small mutations in the DNA would have shown something....

Though I did not quote this part of your response particularly in my response, it was certainly responded to. It was not relevant to quote, however, since your assertion stated previous to this statement is what I was concerned with.

After all if you remove any of the parts of a system the system fails and the organism fails as well.

Again, this was not quoted in my response, but it was a blind assertion at the end of a paragraph which dealt with something entirely different. Also, this was responded to in great length in my next post with the section that dealt with transitional organisms.

the flying squirrel uses it gliding ability to escape danger, the euglena is a single celled protist with a light sensitive eye and use light for energy(my skin uses light for some processes too), the lung fish and other short term land fish come on land come to feedwhen the tide is low(they get nutrients from the sand)...

This was not quoted because your assertion previous to this is what I needed to respond to, as these were all examples to support your assertion. I felt the rebuttal to your assertion was sufficient enough to elucidate your flawed logic.

Like I said before, if everything happened so perfectly wouldent it be in the DNA of everything to come out so perfectly?

This may have been relevant. I'm not sure. It sounds relevant. The reason I didn't respond to this is because it was illegible to me.

Like I said above, "...I am still waiting for the evidence that finally helps evolution...", untill you can give me proper facts on this you have nothing...

This is simply a pestering remark at the end of your post. The last seven pages clearly have ample evidence, therefore I felt this remark was not worth responding to.

[B]animals that come from the same line with similar looks and traits as their parents has been proven... Bacteria become more tolerant to antibiotics because of exposure(another example of adaptation)[B]

Your comment on animals is a well known fact, and needed no comment. The bacteria scenario has been covered at length in multiple other posts.

Ya know... I don't believe I have ever heard of the Oro experiment... Like I said before, I will get to the bible and God later... lets finish this debate first...

If you knew what the Oro experiments were, then it would be worth talking about, otherwise it's not. The other comment is entirely irrelevant to what we're talking about here, and deserved no comment.

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

Again, a simple comment about what you're planning on doing. Didn't reply based on relevance.

Now, you say there are "64 possible tri-nucleotide combinations"... yet each combination stands for a certain amino acid....

You simply restated what I said. No comments needed.

I understand why you laugh...

You exceeded my expectations, however irrelevant and does not need commenting.

I am not including post 250 in our discussion since you edited and added a lot of stuff an hour after I had already replied to it. I am not including any posts after that either, since you have not answered to the evidence I asked you to respond to.

Here's the information you have not responded to:

Info draco hasn't responded to (in quotes)

There are many misconceptions about evolution presented in your original post. The theory of evolution really has nothing to do with the big bang theory. The theory of evolution doesn't even say anything about the origin of life. Evolution does not take thousands of years. It happens generation to generation. Speciation, however, takes many, many thousands, if not millions of years.

This, I feel is important to acknowledge so you get an idea of what biological evolution is. You apparently don't grasp the concept.

There is nothing improbable about the theory of evolution. Not only is it an excellent model of the history of life, the facts behind it have been observed. It's like stating that the theory of gravity is improbable. I really don't know what to say to your specific example of a lizard turning into a bird. My guess, though, is that the process you described is pure speculation on your part. There is nothing to say that it happend the way you described. In general, natural selection would severely reprimand any negative changes in a species, and they would die out fairly quick. I would suspect that the same principle would apply to the lizard. It would have happend much more systematically, and the changes would be beneficial for the intermediate species. That is, of course, how it happens in general.

The big bang theory states that the universe began from a singularity. The big bang would be very much like the collapse of a star into a black hole in reverse. Also, as Lenny stated, matter can not be destroyed in our universe. Black holes that swallow mass spit it back out in the form of Hawking Radiation. This is, of course, not matter, it is energy, however energy and matter are for all practical purposes the same thing, and the relationship between them is given by Einstein's famous equation. Before the big bang, atoms did not exist. Hydrogen atoms did not begin to form until at least one second after the bang -- an eternity at that time...quite literally.

That's irrelevant to the theory of evolution. And to the big bang theory as well, for that matter.

Because the spectrum of the cosmic background radiation is very close to that of a blackbody. In fact, the spectrum picked up by COBE was much closer to that of a blackbody than anything we can produce in a lab. The only reasonable explanation for this is that it comes from a time when the universe was much hotter and denser than its current state. That, coupled with the fact that the deviations on the experimental values collected from COBE differ so slightly from theoretical values that they aren't even plotted on the graphs strongly implies that the big bang theory is valid.

There are probably millions of planets. Some, surely, must have comprable conditions to those of earth. Furthermore, live has also adapted to the conditions presented to us. It does not need to be perfectly fine-tuned.

This story was propogated by Lady Hope, and is almost certainly untrue.

Chuck Missler is a biblical fundamentalist who probably knows nothing of the working of evolution or biology in general. He is a moron. Not because he claims that evolution is highly improbable, but because he has absolutely no basis for his claim. Evolution by natural selection is very systematic. His analogy is bogus.

From my "Objection to Religion" post: Quote: The main claim of creationism asserts that life did not evolve on Earth by natural selection, but that a divine entity designed and created life in its present state. Creationists generally mean common descent when they use the term �evolution.� Creationists insist that their claim is as valid as evolution because evolution �is just a theory,� and since it is just a theory it should be removed from class, or all opposing theories should be given equal time in the classroom. The problem here arises from their interpretation of the word �theory.� In American vernacular the term insinuates uncertainty; in the context of science the term is used to describe a group of propositions that explain a natural phenomenon. Gravity, for instance, is a natural phenomenon. There have been many proposed theories to explain the phenomenon, such as Newton�s classical theory, or Einstein�s general theory of relativity, however the fact that two massive bodies will attract each other has remained constant. Similarly, common descent is a natural phenomenon. The theory of evolution explains this phenomenon. It is possible that one day our current theory may be replaced by something else; however that will not change the fact that species are related by common descent.

The possibility exists that everything I've been told is a lie. However, some of what I've been told is certainly verifiable. For instance, much of physics, especially classical physics, is self-verifiable. Heredity is also, for all practical purposes, verifiable. Genetic variation from parent to child is also verifiable. Many, many more observations are verifiable. These all coincide with the phenomenon of evolution. The same can not be said about most major religions. Secondly, the reason I trust what is considered scientific fact is not because I have some unyielding trust in people, it's because every experiment they perform is verifiable. [replied to] There are many, many social checks and balances in the scientific community, which is why I trust scientific fact. Religion, being based on faith, does not have these checks and balances.

BWAHAHAHA! Believe that if you want.

I don't believe something because it's termed "theory," I accept it because it is based in well established scientific fact. "Magic bullet" most certainly is not. Plus, a theory in the context of science is not really the same thing as a theory in common language. People seem to think that the term "theory" in science implies a certain degree of uncertainty. This is not the case. It is not termed "fact" because it is not a fact. It gives a plausible explanation of "how" or "why" a fact is, based on previous scientific research and new observations. There is the theory of evolution (debatable, although reasonably only on a very technical level). Then there is the natural phenomenon (fact) of common descent.

The second paragraph is important to understand.

You don't seem to get it do you? Maybe a diagram will help: Nobel Prize ----> Money (Nobel Prize brings money) You don't go into science for the money. A Biology or a Physics PHD will get you shit for cash. People go into it because they have a passion for finding the truth. That said, quickest way to money in a research-related career is a Nobel prize.

Well, because of threads like this. Despite apodictic evidence, you deny common descent. That's fairly closed minded. I mean, if you can believe in God, you shouldn't even need evidence. Why can't you simply "believe in" evolution, like you do God? Not saying that's a smart thing to do, but the logic doesn't make sense to me.

Wanted a response here.

Generally when I pose this question people retort with, "Well what would it take to make you believe in God?" Before you dodge my question by throwing that at me, I'm going to just anticipate it and answer it for you. First of all, this depends on how you define God. If you want to define God as whatever it was that initiaited the universe, then I could believe in God. General Relativity indicates that the universe is finite in both time and space. The fact that we exist inside it means if it wasn't always around, by our current understanding, it had to have been started at some point, so I can in this case reasonably acknowledge the existence of God. I'm not acknowledging any type of "outside" intelligence whatsoever, I'm simply saying whatever it was that initiated the universe can be called God, and that in that case it (term used loosely...because extra...universal anything is an opaque subject to science altogether) definitely exists.

Didn't expect response here.

(Flowchart of religion vs science, though I didn't expect a response, that was just a jab)

(Images of churches)

Absolutely. If I had to pay $40,000 a week to keep my grass trimmed I doubt I could help pay for the advancement of the human race either.

What? I'm not sure what it is you object to anymore. Most people who don't like evolution seem to not like the idea of common descent. If you're okay with that, what do you have against evolution? I mean, I don't know about you, but I would consider the rise of human beings from prokaryotes to be a fairly massive fucking change.

You ACKNOWLEDGED the validity of evolution. You did quote this, but you didn't reply to it. You went off on a completely different tangent.

Exactly. Such changes are cumulative in a population. Given enough time, a new species rises. It's hard to distinguish exactly when a population is in a transitional state and when it is finally a species of its own, but it is what happens. But you dodged my earlier question. What would it take for me to reasonably convince you of the validity of the theory.

Convenient how you can simply decree by fiat that the only thing that could really be seen as evidence for a Judeo-Christian God is impossible. I do agree with you, though. Miracles are impossible. Just as impossible as they were 2000+ years ago.

They do not create exact copies. There is genetic variation due to recombination, migration, or alteration in the karyotype. The beneficial traits in the descendant are preserved via natural selection, ergo a species evolves. I'm not entirely sure about my next statement, but my guess would be that meiotic cell division catalyzes this process significantly.

Simply because something is too hard for you to believe does not mean it can not happen. If you are referring solely to DNA replication, then you are correct. All the information needed for DNA replication is stored in the cell. However, the environment certainly has an effect on the genotypes and phenotypes of an organism. Genes which harm an organism in its current environment will make it more likely that the organism dies earlier than its competitors, which makes it less likely that the particular gene will be passed on. This is, once again, the process of natural selection. Also, don't think of natural selection to occur on a species-level. It's far easier to think of it on a genetic level.

Not necessarily. Creationists often throw this argument out. Believe it or not, though, speciation has been observed. Here are four well-known examples. These do not encompass all or most of the available examples: Drosophila paulistorum developing hybrid sterility in male offspring A species of firewood that was formed by doubling the chromosome count from the original stock The faeroe island house mouse speciated in less than 250 years after being brought to the island by man Five species of cichlid fish formed after being isolated from the original stock.

or example, you want to know how to build a computer. Sure, I could tell you how to build a working copmuter. But if you asked me to explain the electronics behind building a motherboard I wouldn't know what to tell you. Surely, however, since this is a man-made creation, someone knows. However, what happens when you get down to the elemental level. Nobody can actually tell you how to simply create an element. It can be outlined by top-of-the-notch physicists, but piece by piece is still a long way away. Similarly, scientists can synthetically create organisms. However, to describe piece by piece how they were built and evolved naturally is still a long way away. Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe somebody does know, and I simply haven't heard of it. Unlikely, though.

The example here is not as important as the assertion made previously, which you did reply to, however by ignoring these particular examples altogether you were able to take my assertion out of context and reply to it with trivial CCB.

1.) This is largely irrelevant to the topic of speciation, which you actually stated you agree with in one of your above responses. 2.) Photons are packets of energy. They can not simply turn into electrons. 3.) You are incredulous. Again, simply because you believe something is too complex to occur naturally does not mean that it can not. Darwin wrote three and a half pages how the eye could have evolved. This shows how easily it is possible for the eye to have evolved. I have no intention of copying those pages and pasting them here. I suggest you read his work.

esus fucking H. Christ (If you catch me for blasphemy, FUCK YOU. I'm allowed to use my own name in vein). Again with the moronic missing link and no fossil evidence claims. From the thread: http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41042 "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." However, if you lift even one finger (quite literally...thats all it takes to hit the keyboard) to look for the evidence, you will find it. There is no practical way I can list all the fossilized evidence towards evolution, but lets start by some: Archaeopteryx fossils coelacanth fossils Fish Fossils Gish on Precambrian fossils Hominid Fossils Horse fossils Polystrate fossils punctuated equilibria trilobites whale fossils and oh yes...transitional fossils Of course the fact that these fossils form a sort of phylogenetic tree is certainly not evidence towards evolution. Certainly not. I'll get to the rest of the posts later. I'm going to play basketball.

That's the entire point. Most transitional abilities are not vestigial. They are useful to the animal. These traits make them more fit to survive in their given environment. After further evolution, they will become even more adept at surviving in their environment. Negative. Photons are quanta of light, or energy. By light I mean anything on the electromagnetic spectrum. Light, of course, observes the phenomenon of wave-particle dualty. When an electron is excited it moves to an outside orbital. This gives the electron more potential energy. This extra energy comes from absorbing a photon of particularly the right frequency. To calculate the right frequency, you divide the increase in potential energy by Dirac's constant. When an electron moves back to an inside orbital, it emits a photon. The frequency of this photon can be calculated in a similar manner. Don't take my word for it, though: But natural selection makes it very different from rolling a die with a trillion different sides. Evolution is not random. It is precise. Darwin's verson of the evolution of the eye very much coincides with fact, and our natural world. If you look at evolution so critically, why not examine your own theory as critically? I believe if you look at it objectively, you will find it has far more flaws.

You responded to these four, but inadequately.

They have...

These two words were very significant, and you skipped them entirely.

<Relisted evidence presented in other posts that you refused to respond to>

Now why don't you pull your head out of your ass and actually reply to the facts, Captain Oblivious? While you're at it, why not answer the simple fucking questions that I've been asking over and over. I'll put them in big font for you so you don't accidently miss them, because I know reading must be a bit of a challenge for someone so mentally challenged. What would it take for me to reasonably convince you of the validity of evolution? Evidence has been presented. Until you can learn to answer what's been presented thus far, I'm not about to bite and give you anymore. If you wanted to objectively look at the matter at hand, you could easily google it, but you're a fucking troll. Nevertheless, this is the most fun I've had on Zelaron for quite a while, so I'll continue to feed you facts as long as you continue to feed me your ignorance. If you look at evolution so critically, why not examine your own theory as critically?

Ya know, this troll is actually fun. Draco, if you could, could you reply to this thread as well: http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41042

I was kind of looking forward to you posting there.

1.) You came here to first try and disprove evolution with your third grade understanding of science and English, and then to prove that the bible is true? Well, thus far you're failing miserably. People here are not going to take your "durr durr it's faaaake (*drool*) durrrrr" at face value. The evidence I have provided here is fairly easily accessible to anyone. If you think it's fake, state why, or shut up.

You quoted this, but replied to something entirely different.

Do you not like the phylogenetic tree? It matches up well on both anatomical and molecular levels, pretty much ascertaining the fact that it is a valid tree. Do you not like the fact that bacteria have become increasingly resistant to antibiotics? Your beef is with the bacteria then, quit arguing with me and argue with them. Or is this a fictional fact? Not only evolutionists are making up fictional facts, now doctors too. Holy fucking shit. The world is one big conspiracy. You're not actually standing on a spherical object. The world is flat. That's just a theory purported by evolutionists to make people doubt God. Do you not like the beneficial mutations that have occurred and been observed in recent times? Damn, you would make a mean God. Not allowing your people to recieve the benefits that they naturally get. You should argue that with God, though, those benefits are clearly observable.

How about the transitional animals? Are they all fake too? Are flying squirrels just robots created by those big bad scientists to make people think transitional animals are real? Do hawks really not have better eye-sight than us? Could it be that we have the best eye-sight there is, so there is no way our eye-sight could possibly be transitional and evolving. BY GOLLY, YOU'RE RIGHT!

You quoted this, but didn't really reply to it. You replied to something related to this, but not actually to this.

Basically, give us counter-evidence and tell us why you think the evidence I have presented to you is fictional quick, prick. Or just save face and admit defeat. You're not convincing anyone of anything right now. You're simply becoming the laughing stock of Zelaron.

You still have not provided counter-evidence for anything I have presented here.

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.

I'll get back to you after I watch the next 30 seconds. Or maybe after I watch the rest. Now I'm at 1 minute. This guy makes me laugh almost as much as you. He's either a make-believe doctor, or he's recently suffered memory loss. "Somewhere in the water on earth something got zapped by an x-ray or something and then all of a sudden you have this little spec of life." I'm paraphrasing, but that's the essence of what he said. This guy isn't presenting any scientific facts. It's evident in his tone that all he's doing is setting himself up to belittle the idea of evolution with fabricated facts. He goes on to say that this little spec of life somehow became the first cell. Riiight. If he was a doctor he would know that the cell was the basic unit of life. Anything before that wasn't really considered life. I'll get back to you when I feel like it. I am now at 1 minute and 6 seconds. In the previous 6 seconds, the moron has managed to claim that cells began forming 600 million years ago. The ediacaran period already had animals. We know this due to sparse, yet real (a concept this man might want to learn about) fossilized records. The reason I am responding this frequently to this video is because I can't remember all the misinformation this guy gives out without having to reply to each one individually when he says it. I am now at a 1:21 in the video. During the last 15 seconds, some random guy popped up and gave us a brief background of "Dr." Jobe Martin. I decided to do some research on my own. From the minute I spent on google, I found out that Martin is an evangelical, which of course implies a hidden agenda. His masters is in theology. So basically, here's a guy who took basic biology courses, and we're supposed to believe him over professors and doctors actually in the field of biology? Especially considering the fact that after 30 seconds he gave out enough misinformation on any scientific topic that after hearing that any major university would consider him a quack. Please. He may be able to be a professor of theology, but he's a joke of a scientist. You don't need a huge biology background to become a fucking dentist. I'm now at 2:23 in the video. He goes on talking about assumptions that evolutionists make. He does not actually name the assumptions, he just says that we make them. The one assumption that he does specify is the age of rocks. I suppose he does not understand the concept of radiometric dating? And yes, it is accurate. Carbon-14 dating loses some of its precision past 50,000 years due to earths changing environment, however there are other methods of radiometric dating which do not. They match up well against each other, and other independent forms of dating such as tree rings, Milankovitch cycles, and luminescence dating methods.

Representing the evidence from the first four pages

I'm not including any posts after 250.

Okay Draco, we have the "each individual" thing I'm not posting about by your definition compared to all the details you missed in one post. You tell me who won that one.

ZING! Evolutionists: 3 Creationists: 0

Oh, and sorry everyone for the enormous post, however I felt it necessary to demonstrate the enormous amount of content that Draco was missing compared to what he claims I'm missing.

O.K... again.... common descent is NOT EVOLUTION, common decent is like a rose and a rose polinating and its offspring being a rose.... evolution is more like the roses offspring being a tree than a rose.... get it straight.... also... common decent has been observed... evolution hasn't...

And you got owned by Lenny!

ZING

Evolutionists: 4 Creationists: 0

It seems that wherever I go, it's always a bad thing to be owned by me. Can't think why...

It seems that wherever I go, it's always a bad thing to be owned by me. Can't think why...

Heh, didn't say it was a bad thing, just said he got owned by you.

If Draco's next post in this thread isn't a submission that Mjordan is right, or at least some sort of effort to respond to all of those things Mjordan just said he hasn't responded to, this debate will be over with Mjordan being the winner and Draco will go away for a very long time because he's bugging the shit out of me.

Hey you have got to give me some time.... I will try to get back to the post ASAP(which may be a while)...

Edited by King_Amazon

This is a note from me. I said the next post had to be a submission to Mjordan or an effort to respond to everything you haven't responded to yet. Since you are at least saying you will though, you've got all the time you want. But do it soon. I'm serious. You better go back and respond to the things you've been dodging. If you don't, you're out of here. The only other way this will end is if you give in to Mjordan. Those are your choices.

So it's been nearly a month. Can I say I win now?

GG No re?

Yep, he hasn't even visited back to reply.

For now, unless you mysteriously comes back, you're the winner.