religion

[RobotElvis]

Have you never heard of a lungfish? Do you not know what an amphibian is?

Yes a lung fish. Isn't that a ohhhh man what do you call those things? Oh yeah fish! Has always been a fish, will always be a fish. Highly adapted to live out of water for a period if time, but still a fish.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Analogy raises a presumption against evolution. Analogy is not a demonstration. It is an illustration that strengthens and confirms other arguments. Both the science of mathematics and all physical laws must have come into being in an instant of time. Evolution is not God's usual method of creation.
MATHEMATICS.--There is no evolution in the science of mathematics. There is no change or growth or development. God is the author of all mathematical principles. The square described on the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal to the sum of the squares described on the other two sides, because he made it so. The circumference of a circle is approximately 3.1416 times the diameter because he made it so. The wonderful calculations by logarithms, whether by the common system with a base of 10, or the Napierian system with a base of 2.718+ a decimal that never terminates, are possible and reliable only because God made them so. Think what great intelligence is required by the Napierian system, to raise a decimal that never terminates, to a decimal power that never terminates, in order to produce an integral number. Yet God has computed instantaneously every table of logarithms, and every other mathematical table,--no matter how difficult. Thus we have positive proof of the presence everywhere of a great intelligent Being, and we catch a glimpse of that mind that must be infinite. He created the whole system of mathematics, vast beyond our comprehension, at once. A part could not exist without the whole. No growth; no change; no evolution; no improvement, because the whole system was perfect from the first. Reasoning from analogy, is it not reasonable to say that the God who flashed upon the whole universe, the limitless system of mathematics in an instant, also created man as Moses said? Analogy supports the doctrine of the special creation of man.

We learn new things about math every day. Wtf are you even on?

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Yes a lung fish. Isn't that a ohhhh man what do you call those things? Oh yeah fish! Has always been a fish, will always be a fish. Highly adapted to live out of water for a period if time, but still a fish.

So you are saying amphibians are fish?

[RobotElvis]

Have you never heard of a lungfish? Do you not know what an amphibian is?

am·phib·i·an
amˈfibēən/
nounZOOLOGY
1.
a cold-blooded vertebrate animal of a class that comprises the frogs, toads, newts, and salamanders. They are distinguished by having an aquatic gill-breathing larval stage followed (typically) by a terrestrial lung-breathing adult stage.

fish1
fiSH/
noun
1.
a limbless cold-blooded vertebrate animal with gills and fins and living wholly in water.

[leewong]

Find me just one traditional species in the fossil record. That is, one species that went from one kind to another. Say for instance a fish that became a reptile. Just show me one.

You have billions of years of fossil record, that should mean trillions of fossils that exist. All you need is one.

I am not sure what you are asking for because your question is malformed. I will try to answer it anyway.

"Find me just one traditional species in the fossil record."
I am assuming you mean transitional. As I said before, every fossil we find was or had the potential to be a transitional fossil. You seem to think that one day a fish gave birth to a full blown lizard and I am suppose to show you that fossil. That isnt what evolution claims happens. You are asking for something that is nonsensical.

Transitional fossils > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

[RobotElvis]

So you are saying amphibians are fish?

You do know a lung fish is not an amphibian right?

lung·fish
ˈləNGˌfiSH/
noun
an elongated freshwater fish with one or two sacs that function as lungs, enabling it to breathe air. It lives in poorly oxygenated water and can estivate in mud for long periods to survive drought.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

You do know a lung fish is not an amphibian right?

lung·fish
ˈləNGˌfiSH/
noun
an elongated freshwater fish with one or two sacs that function as lungs, enabling it to breathe air. It lives in poorly oxygenated water and can estivate in mud for long periods to survive drought.

Your clearly evading that I meant that lung fish evolved into an amphibious...
...you know it's just easier to call you stupid. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48jd-wkvVd4)

[paulgiamatti]

Wtf are you even on?

Creationism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzHzlMneaeQ).

[RobotElvis]

Your clearly evading that I meant that lung fish evolved into an amphibious...
...you know it's just easier to call you stupid. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48jd-wkvVd4)

And so your proof for that is?????

Here's my proof that it did not evolve into an amphibian.

Buy a plain ticket to Africa, find a guide to take you into the bush.
Ask him to find point you to the nearest lungfish. Find the lungfish.
Realize that lungfish still exist.
Look around for the fossils that show lungfish becoming amphibians.
Find none, return home.

[Glenzig]

Yall can't hang with the RobotElvis. Calling him a stupid creationist as he completely dismantles evolution with cold hard science. All the while you are professing your faith that science will find the answer one day. One day. Eventually we'll have all the answers. One day.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

And so your proof for that is?????

Here's my proof that it did not evolve into an amphibian.

Buy a plain ticket to Africa, find a guide to take you into the bush.
Ask him to find point you to the nearest lungfish. Find the lungfish.
Realize that lungfish still exist.
Look around for the fossils that show lungfish becoming amphibians.
Find none, return home.

Wait. Are you actually implying that if a member of a species evolves that the species it branched off of, necessarily disappears? Wow. Just wow.

[RobotElvis]

I am not sure what you are asking for because your question is malformed. I will try to answer it anyway.

"Find me just one traditional species in the fossil record."
I am assuming you mean transitional. As I said before, every fossil we find was or had the potential to be a transitional fossil. You seem to think that one day a fish gave birth to a full blown lizard and I am suppose to show you that fossil. That isnt what evolution claims happens. You are asking for something that is nonsensical.

Transitional fossils > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Of many species small and large, we have many fossils preserved but _no transitional forms_. The archæopteryx, a bird with a feathered tail, is the only alleged transitional form between the reptiles and the birds. Only two specimens of this same animal have been found. This could easily be an exceptional species of created birds differing no more from the normal bird than the ostrich or humming bird. If there were transitional forms we ought to have them by the millions. No transitional forms have been found between reptiles and mammals; and we have seen that there are no reliable forms between man and mammals. The numerous missing links make a chain impossible. Evolution is not simply growth or change, but the development of all species from one germ.

[RobotElvis]

Wait. Are you actually implying that if a member of a species evolves that the species it branched off of, necessarily disappears? Wow. Just wow.

No I am saying that the lungfish remains unchanged un-evolved over millions of years according to your theory. Yet certain members of its species diverged and became a new kind of animal , amphibians. Yet we do not see the transitional fossils.

All we see is a lungfish. To make the leap from fish to amphibian takes much more than special adaptation of a lung like gill.

Consider: at what point and for what reason did a fish that does not developed from a larvae stage begin to have larvae?

[RobotElvis]

I think you guys need to call for backup here. Your getting soloed by a "creationist".

[Dior]

You guys realize that calling the natural sciences "a belief system that may be wrong" instantly puts the claim of God(s) part of a belief system that may be wrong.

Essentially you guys are saying faith, including your own, may be put on the wrong thing, thereby making your god pissed at you for admitting your own faith may be wrong as well.

Just throwing that out there.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

There is no transition. The lungfish becomes the amphibian.

You don't understand even these basic concepts.

[leewong]

Of many species small and large, we have many fossils preserved but _no transitional forms_. The archæopteryx, a bird with a feathered tail, is the only alleged transitional form between the reptiles and the birds. Only two specimens of this same animal have been found. This could easily be an exceptional species of created birds differing no more from the normal bird than the ostrich or humming bird. If there were transitional forms we ought to have them by the millions. No transitional forms have been found between reptiles and mammals; and we have seen that there are no reliable forms between man and mammals. The numerous missing links make a chain impossible. Evolution is not simply growth or change, but the development of all species from one germ.

What part of every fossil we have found is or had the potential to be a transitional fossil did you not understand? You act as if we should find a half duck half alligator but that isnt what evolution posits.

[paulgiamatti]

Yeah, I think this conversation is starting to die down a bit, especially when Robot's only sympathizer is someone who thinks skeptical, scientific inquiry is literally the same thing as faith without evidence.

[Glenzig]

There is no transition. The lungfish becomes the amphibian.

You don't understand even these basic concepts.

How does the lung fish become the amphibian? Does it happen all at once? Suddenly in one day the lungfish becomes a fully formed amphibian? Does the lungfish give birth to a new kind of animal, a fully formed amphibian?

[RobotElvis]

There is no transition. The lungfish becomes the amphibian.

You don't understand even these basic concepts.

So how does that happen? Will dogs become cats one day?
You make a claim without proof.

Maybe it was magic.

Abracadabra! Watch as this fish becomes an amphibian! I am the great Darwini!

[paulgiamatti]

How does the lung fish become the amphibian? Does it happen all at once? Suddenly in one day the lungfish becomes a fully formed amphibian? Does the lungfish give birth to a new kind of animal, a fully formed amphibian?

Holy facepalm.

[Glenzig]

Holy facepalm.

Well if there is no transition, how does a lungfish become an amphibian? That isn't a logical follow up question to the statement that there is no transition?

[Pokesan]

dear dumb motherfuckers: every fossil is a transitional fossil, you retards

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

So how does that happen? Will dogs become cats one day?
You make a claim without proof.

Maybe it was magic.

Abracadabra! Watch as this fish becomes an amphibian! I am the great Darwini!
Cats did not evolve from dogs.
Holy facepalm.

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/1247017216/hF552D842/

[paulgiamatti]

Stop asking random P99 message boarders to answer your questions about evolutionary biology and go read an actual book. You know, one by an actual evolutionary biologist that provides substantive research based on evidence. It's not just some fancy word we're using to make ourselves seem smart, I promise - there is real, tangible evidence for this stuff. I'm totally serious.

[leewong]

So how does that happen? Will dogs become cats one day?
You make a claim without proof.

Maybe it was magic.

Abracadabra! Watch as this fish becomes an amphibian! I am the great Darwini!

It has been explained about 50 different ways for you but you still dont get it. Small changes over time. Add up those small changes over a long period of time. Congrats...evolution. Nothing magical or mind blowing about it.

[leewong]

dear dumb motherfuckers: every fossil is a transitional fossil, you retards

I already tried explaining that about 10 times.

[Dior]

I'll also like to throw in that using the "something can't come from nothing" argument essentially means that you don't believe there is a single creator that is the end all. If something can't come from nothing, then where did god(s) come from?

I know this will be ignored because you guys like doing the trolling equivalent to the "Who's On First" routine, but it still needs to be pointed out.

[RobotElvis]

What part of every fossil we have found is or had the potential to be a transitional fossil did you not understand? You act as if we should find a half duck half alligator but that isnt what evolution posits.

That is exactly what evolution posits. That speciation occurs to the point of new kinds of animals being formed from preceding kinds of animals.

To say that all animals have the potential to be transitional is to deny the proof of theory's around you to the contrary. Consider hybrids.

Hybrids would seem to be nature's most available means of producing new species." Yet the sterility of hybrids defeats that possibility, and rebukes the untruthful claim of the formation of new species. Nature, with sword in hand, decrees the death of hybrids, lest they might produce a new species. Moses wrote the rigid unchanging law of nature, when he said that every living creature would bring forth "after its kind."
Species are immutable. One does not become another, or unite with another to produce a third. Dogs do not become cats, nor interbreed to produce another species. A few species, so nearly related that we can scarcely tell whether they are species or varieties, as the jackass and the mare, may have offspring, but the offspring are sterile. The zebra and the mare may produce a zebulon, which is likewise sterile. And so with the offspring of other groups intermediate between species and varieties. A human being and ape can not beget an ape-human, showing that they are not even nearly related species.

If evolution be true, we would expect a frequent interbreeding and interchanging of species. Even Darwin admitted that species are immutable. God declared it in his word, and stamps it indelibly on every species. "And God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth, after its kind'."-Gen. 1:24. How did Moses know this great truth, unless he was told by inspiration of God?
Even plant-hybrids are not permanent. Darwin himself says: "But plants not propagated by seed, are of little importance to us, for their endurance is only temporary."
Even if it could be proven that species, like varieties, are formed by development, it does not follow that genera and families and classes are so developed. But it has not been proved that a single species has been added by development, much less orders, families and genera. Evolution must account for every division and sub-division to plant and animal life.

[paulgiamatti]

I'll also like to throw in that using the "something can't come from nothing" argument essentially means that you don't believe there is a single creator that is the end all. If something can't come from nothing, then where did god(s) come from?

I've already pointed this out several times, but I don't blame you for missing it considering the length of the thread. This is also known as the infinite regression argument, and there has never been a meaningful rebuttal to it by any creationist.

[Dior]

I've already pointed this out several times, but I don't blame you for missing it considering the length of the thread. This is also known as the infinite regression argument, and there has never been a meaningful rebuttal to it by any creationist.

Maybe they have the transitional form of god?

I do thoroughly apologize for the overstep.

[RobotElvis]

I'll also like to throw in that using the "something can't come from nothing" argument essentially means that you don't believe there is a single creator that is the end all. If something can't come from nothing, then where did god(s) come from?

I know this will be ignored because you guys like doing the trolling equivalent to the "Who's On First" routine, but it still needs to be pointed out.

If God created matter he cannot reside within it. God is a spirit and is not confined to the physical laws of our universe as he is not material/physical.
This includes the laws of time. God is not constrained by time as time is a product of the physical laws that make up our universe and only affects the physical.

Therefore it can rightly be said that the Creator has no beginning and no end. He was not created.

[Dior]

If God created matter he cannot reside within it. God is a spirit and is not confined to the physical laws of our universe as he is not material/physical.
This includes the laws of time. God is not constrained by time as time is a product of the physical laws that make up our universe and only affects the physical.

Therefore it can rightly be said that the Creator has no beginning and no end. He was not created.

The Bible does not say god is spirit.

[Dior]

Well, not in the way you mean to use the word.

[RobotElvis]

Cats did not evolve from dogs.


https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/1247017216/hF552D842/

You are on a slippery slope here.

You must show proof that a lungfish is transitional.
That is the example you gave as transitional.

[RobotElvis]

The Bible does not say god is spirit.

God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth.”—JOHN 4:24.

[G13]

It has been explained about 50 different ways for you but you still dont get it. Small changes over time. Add up those small changes over a long period of time. Congrats...evolution. Nothing magical or mind blowing about it.

Never been observed

Can't be reproduced in the field

You understand that animals are "kinds" right? They have specific body plans. It's called DNA.

Cats are cats. Dogs are dogs. Cat's and dogs can't fuck and create a new type of never before species of dogcat. If the change from cat to dog took millions and millions of years of slight genetic changes (random chaotic mutations that would not produce legible genetic code), there would be massive fossil evidence of the history of all these changes

It doesn't exist

Evolution is a lie

[Pokesan]

obama

[RobotElvis]

dear dumb motherfuckers: every fossil is a transitional fossil, you retards

Explain please how feathers were formed upon said transitional fossils.
Feathers are useless to anything but a bird.
Where are fossils with proto feathers found?

[paulgiamatti]

As far as I'm concerned, and this was my first post directed at him, Robot is exempt from a rational debate altogether since right away he declared evolution is a religion. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but I suppose I will once more: This does not pass as an argument and this kind of conflation of ideas should warrant no consideration in today's society which holds itself to higher standards for very good reasons.

You don't get to participate in this discussion when right off the bat you conflate evolution with religion, and atheism with belief. These are the most basic, simple, elementary concepts I can possibly think of regarding this subject. No reasonable sentient being would listen to another word in any real debate or discussion concerning this matter. Get serious, or be left out of the conversation.

[Dior]

God is a Spirit, and those worshiping him must worship with spirit and truth.”—JOHN 4:24.

I know you just googled that, and I know you don't really believe the shit you're spewing because if you did, you'd know that the passage refers to god being and proven by the righteous actions of people.

You want to make the claim god is supra and supernatural. The Bible doesn't say that anywhere. Not does it claim that god sits outside of this realm. If he did, that would nullify Jesus's actions in the flesh.

Want some more schooling on the Bible?

[G13]

As far as I'm concerned, and this was my first post directed at him, Robot is exempt from a rational debate altogether since right away he declared evolution is a religion. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but I suppose I will once more: This does not pass as an argument and this kind of conflation of ideas should warrant no consideration in today's society which holds itself to higher standards for very good reasons.

You don't get to participate in this discussion when right off the bat you conflate evolution with religion, and atheism with belief. These are the most basic, simple, elementary concepts I can possibly think of regarding this subject. No reasonable sentient being would listen to another word in any real debate or discussion concerning this matter. Get serious, or be left out of the conversation.

Evolution is a lie

Atheism is a lie

Stop pretending you are smarter than everyone else. You're not.

[Glenzig]

As far as I'm concerned, and this was my first post directed at him, Robot is exempt from a rational debate altogether since right away he declared evolution is a religion. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but I suppose I will once more: This does not pass as an argument and this kind of conflation of ideas should warrant no consideration in today's society which holds itself to higher standards for very good reasons.

You don't get to participate in this discussion when right off the bat you conflate evolution with religion, and atheism with belief. These are the most basic, simple, elementary concepts I can possibly think of regarding this subject. No reasonable sentient being would listen to another word in any real debate or discussion concerning this matter. Get serious, or be left out of the conversation.

So you're taking your ball and going home?

[RobotElvis]

As far as I'm concerned, and this was my first post directed at him, Robot is exempt from a rational debate altogether since right away he declared evolution is a religion. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this, but I suppose I will once more: This does not pass as an argument and this kind of conflation of ideas should warrant no consideration in today's society which holds itself to higher standards for very good reasons.

You don't get to participate in this discussion when right off the bat you conflate evolution with religion, and atheism with belief. These are the most basic, simple, elementary concepts I can possibly think of regarding this subject. No reasonable sentient being would listen to another word in any real debate or discussion concerning this matter. Get serious, or be left out of the conversation.
We'll pardon me! Please provide a viable transitional fossil.
Wait a human! I'm transitional!
I believe I believe! Take me Darwin!

[G13]

I know you just googled that, and I know you don't really believe the shit you're spewing because if you did, you'd know that the passage refers to god being and proven by the righteous actions of people.

You want to make the claim god is supra and supernatural. The Bible doesn't say that anywhere. Not does it claim that god sits outside of this realm. If he did, that would nullify Jesus's actions in the flesh.

Want some more schooling on the Bible?

Your buffoonery knows no bounds

John 4:24 (King James Version)

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Googling has nothing to do with that passage in The Bible. It's in The Bible. You lied. You're a trolling little shit. Go away now.

[Dior]

Your buffoonery knows no bounds

John 4:24 (King James Version)

24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Googling has nothing to do with that passage in The Bible. It's in The Bible. You lied. You're a trolling little shit. Go away now.

You don't know basic Christian theology nor what the passage refers to. I thank you for giving me this opportunity to teach it.


Does "go away now" constitute a win on these forums? It usually means "Uh...oh fuck. ABORT ABORT" on other forums. Can we have an official ruling on this?

[RobotElvis]

I know you just googled that, and I know you don't really believe the shit you're spewing because if you did, you'd know that the passage refers to god being and proven by the righteous actions of people.

You want to make the claim god is supra and supernatural. The Bible doesn't say that anywhere. Not does it claim that god sits outside of this realm. If he did, that would nullify Jesus's actions in the flesh.

Want some more schooling on the Bible?

6 Now it came to be the day when the sons* of the [true] God*+ entered to take their station before Jehovah,+ and even Satan*+ proceeded to enter right among them.+
7 Then Jehovah said to Satan: “Where do you come from?” At that Satan answered Jehovah and said: “From roving about in the earth+ and from walking about in it.”+ 8 And Jehovah went on to say to Satan: “Have you set your heart upon my servant Job, that there is no one like him in the earth,+ a man blameless+ and upright,+ fearing God+ and turning aside from bad?”+ 9 At that Satan answered Jehovah and said: “Is it for nothing that Job has feared God?+ 10 Have not you yourself put up a hedge about him+ and about his house and about everything that he has all around? The work of his hands you have blessed,+ and his livestock itself has spread abroad in the earth. 11 But, for a change, thrust out your hand, please, and touch everything he has [and see] whether he will not curse* you to your very face.”+ 12 Accordingly Jehovah said to Satan: “Look! Everything that he has is in your hand. Only against him himself do not thrust out your hand!” So Satan went out away from the person* of Jehovah.+

Notice here we have two different realms, the heavenly where God resides and the earthly where Satan was roving about.

Have you been to the heavenly realm? It seems as if that is a place reserved for the immaterial. The a Spirit sons of God And God himself.

And I don't need to google biblical information.

[RobotElvis]

I know you just googled that, and I know you don't really believe the shit you're spewing because if you did, you'd know that the passage refers to god being and proven by the righteous actions of people.

You want to make the claim god is supra and supernatural. The Bible doesn't say that anywhere. Not does it claim that god sits outside of this realm. If he did, that would nullify Jesus's actions in the flesh.

Want some more schooling on the Bible?

Are you claiming that Jesus is God the Creator?

[leewong]

That is exactly what evolution posits. That speciation occurs to the point of new kinds of animals being formed from preceding kinds of animals.

To say that all animals have the potential to be transitional is to deny the proof of theory's around you to the contrary. Consider hybrids.

Every species is transitional. Dogs are wolves with distinct traits they acquired through evolution (change over time). Just as wolves are canids with distinct traits they acquired through evolution. Just as canids are mammals with distinct traits they acquired through evolution. Evolution doesnt claim one day a cow gave birth to a chicken then all cows died off because the chicken was superior but that is exactly what you believe it seems.

Hybrids are when two distinct species are mixed to produce an offspring. That isnt evolution in even the broadest sense. Hybrids can only be made when the two species are closely related in evolutionary terms and the results are exactly what you would expect to see. Two isolated populations of animals use to be the same animal but through years and years of evolution they have changed. They have changed so much from one another they cannot produce non-sterile offspring.

[Dior]

Notice here we have two different realms, the heavenly where God resides and the earthly where Satan was roving about.

Have you been to the heavenly realm? It seems as if that is a place reserved for the immaterial. The a Spirit sons of God And God himself.



It depends on what school of Christian theology your a part of.

One camp says Heaven and Hell are real places. The other that both realms are immaterial. I take it you're in the second camp, so I'll try to explain some theology for that ass.


God encompasses the entirety of the universe, he is not outside it. The Bible does not mention that God is outside our realm waiting for us. What it does mention that God is omnipresent, meaning everywhere at once, including our living universe. He is not there and then here. He is everywhere.

With that being said, your claim that god is supra/supernatural, meaning outside of our Universe is wrong. You are making the theologically wrong assumption that god is a singular being.

[RobotElvis]

Every species is transitional. Dogs are wolves with distinct traits they acquired through evolution (change over time). Just as wolves are canids with distinct traits they acquired through evolution. Just as canids are mammals with distinct traits they acquired through evolution. Evolution doesnt claim one day a cow gave birth to a chicken then all cows died off because the chicken was superior but that is exactly what you believe it seems.

Hybrids are when two distinct species are mixed to produce an offspring. That isnt evolution in even the broadest sense. Hybrids can only be made when the two species are closely related in evolutionary terms and the results are exactly what you would expect to see. Two isolated populations of animals use to be the same animal but through years and years of evolution they have changed. They have changed so much from one another they cannot produce non-sterile offspring.
Time!

[Dior]

Are you claiming that Jesus is God the Creator?

Are you claiming he is not? Are you claiming God=/=Jesus? If you were, you'd need to provide the transitional form of God into Jesus

[Glenzig]

It depends on what school of Christian theology your a part of.

One camp says Heaven and Hell are real places. The other that both realms are immaterial. I take it you're in the second camp, so I'll try to explain some theology for that ass.


God encompasses the entirety of the universe, he is not outside it. The Bible does not mention that God is outside our realm waiting for us. What it does mention that God is omnipresent, meaning everywhere at once, including our living universe. He is not there and then here. He is everywhere.

With that being said, your claim that god is supra/supernatural, meaning outside of our Universe is wrong. You are making the theologically wrong assumption that god is a singular being.

That's Pantheism. And its not found anywhere in the bible.

[Pokesan]

hi the bible is bad and you are gay for liking it

[RobotElvis]

It depends on what school of Christian theology your a part of.

One camp says Heaven and Hell are real places. The other that both realms are immaterial. I take it you're in the second camp, so I'll try to explain some theology for that ass.


God encompasses the entirety of the universe, he is not outside it. The Bible does not mention that God is outside our realm waiting for us. What it does mention that God is omnipresent, meaning everywhere at once, including our living universe. He is not there and then here. He is everywhere.

With that being said, your claim that god is supra/supernatural, meaning outside of our Universe is wrong. You are making the theologically wrong assumption that god is a singular being.
Then how do you reconcile Jesus words.
John 16:25 “I have spoken these things to you in comparisons. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in comparisons, but I will tell you plainly about the Father. 26 In that day you will make request of the Father in my name; in saying this, I do not mean that I will make request for you. 27 For the Father himself has affection for you, because you have had affection for me+ and have believed that I came as God’s representative.+ 28 I came as the Father’s representative and have come into the world. Now I am leaving the world and am going to the Father.”+


Jesus came into the physical world leaving the realm of his father the creator.
He then goes back to his father after his redirection to a spirit being.

Two different realms , one physical , one immaterial.

[Dior]

That's Pantheism. And its not found anywhere in the bible.

Did you fuck up and post on one account when you meant to post on another? If not, you quoting me on that particular statement makes no sense.

[RobotElvis]

Are you claiming he is not? Are you claiming God=/=Jesus? If you were, you'd need to provide the transitional form of God into Jesus

Jesus is not God the Creator. He is the only begotten son of God his first creation.

[RobotElvis]

Did you fuck up and post on one account when you meant to post on another? If not, you quoting me on that particular statement makes no sense.

Nope that's pantheism. Go google it if you need to.

[RobotElvis]

Did you fuck up and post on one account when you meant to post on another? If not, you quoting me on that particular statement makes no sense.

I will save you the trouble.

Pantheism is the belief that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity,[1] or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God.[2] Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god.[3] Some Eastern religions are considered to be pantheistically inclined.

[RobotElvis]

Are you claiming he is not? Are you claiming God=/=Jesus? If you were, you'd need to provide the transitional form of God into Jesus

You know google is not a good source for theology.
If you like I could teach you something about what the bible actually says.

[Patriam1066]

hi the bible is bad and you are gay for liking it

Lol thanks ISIS.... I guess you've got the entire world figured out and your worldview is unequivocally correct.

[G13]

You don't know basic Christian theology nor what the passage refers to. I thank you for giving me this opportunity to teach it.


Does "go away now" constitute a win on these forums? It usually means "Uh...oh fuck. ABORT ABORT" on other forums. Can we have an official ruling on this?

Just stfu and go away you little maggot

You've been exposed

Bye bye

[Dior]

Then how do you reconcile Jesus words.
John 16:25 “I have spoken these things to you in comparisons. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in comparisons, but I will tell you plainly about the Father. 26 In that day you will make request of the Father in my name; in saying this, I do not mean that I will make request for you. 27 For the Father himself has affection for you, because you have had affection for me+ and have believed that I came as God’s representative.+ 28 I came as the Father’s representative and have come into the world. Now I am leaving the world and am going to the Father.”+


Jesus came into the physical world leaving the realm of his father the creator.
He then goes back to his father after his redirection to a spirit being.

Two different realms , one physical , one immaterial.


The poor lack of theological dysfunction is staggering. Did your preacher not teach you these things? For shame.

Let me school you on some more on the Bible.

All Christian's everywhere believe that Jesus=God. Jesus is not a prophet to Christians. He is God incarnate. To believe that god is a seperate being is to say Christianity is a polytheistic religion, which all Chrisitian theologians would disagree with after spewing even more theological bullshit.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say god created an immaterial world. Therefore, how can you claim that there is such a place? The Bible only mentions a physical realm being created and that god held dominion over it all.

This particular passage showcases that God, being Jesus, has seen the actions taken towards him as a human being.

[Patriam1066]

The poor lack of theological dysfunction is staggering. Did your preacher not teach you these things? For shame.

Let me school you on some more on the Bible.

All Christian's everywhere believe that Jesus=God. Jesus is not a prophet to Christians. He is God incarnate. To believe that god is a seperate being is to say Christianity is a polytheistic religion, which all Chrisitian theologians would disagree with after spewing even more theological bullshit.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say god created an immaterial world. Therefore, how can you claim that there is such a place? The Bible only mentions a physical realm being created and that god held dominion over it all.

This particular passage showcases that God, being Jesus, has seen the actions taken towards him as a human being.

I'm no theologian, but isn't this Arianism? Wasn't this thrown out of most orthodox Christian sects?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

[Patriam1066]

Just stfu and go away you little maggot

You've been exposed

Bye bye

Baphomet is coming for you: Repent ass hole. The illuminati are always watching. Like Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

[Pokesan]

should I trade josh gordon+ahmad bradshaw for antonio brown? I don't think I can carry gordon to the end of his suspension.

[Patriam1066]

should I trade josh gordon+ahmad bradshaw for antonio brown? I don't think I can carry gordon to the end of his suspension.

depends if you're in a PPR league... but I probably would

[Dior]

I will save you the trouble.

Pantheism is the belief that the universe (or nature as the totality of everything) is identical with divinity,[1] or that everything composes an all-encompassing, immanent God.[2] Pantheists thus do not believe in a distinct personal or anthropomorphic god.[3] Some Eastern religions are considered to be pantheistically inclined.

I read "poly" instead of "pan."

With that being said, you're still incorrect in the usage of the word. In pantheism: god=nature. In Christianity God=/=Nature but is in all things. What's the difference? Pantheists can, but rarely,praise a specific the elements. Christians praise the god itself.

Learn something?

[Glenzig]

should I trade josh gordon+ahmad bradshaw for antonio brown? I don't think I can carry gordon to the end of his suspension.

These are the important questions.

[Patriam1066]

I read "poly" instead of "pan."

With that being said, you're still incorrect in the usage of the word. In pantheism: god=nature. In Christianity God=/=Nature but is in all things. What's the difference? Pantheists can, but rarely,praise a specific the elements. Christians praise the god itself.

Learn something?

Now you're describing panentheism...

[Pokesan]

i mean I'm set at RB, i got reggie bush and eddie lacy, ithink I can afford to part with bradshaw. makes me worry about the flex though. though i guess any random TE could fill in week to week

[Faron]

yall dumb af

[RobotElvis]

The poor lack of theological dysfunction is staggering. Did your preacher not teach you these things? For shame.

Let me school you on some more on the Bible.

All Christian's everywhere believe that Jesus=God. Jesus is not a prophet to Christians. He is God incarnate. To believe that god is a seperate being is to say Christianity is a polytheistic religion, which all Chrisitian theologians would disagree with after spewing even more theological bullshit.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say god created an immaterial world. Therefore, how can you claim that there is such a place? The Bible only mentions a physical realm being created and that god held dominion over it all.

This particular passage showcases that God, being Jesus, has seen the actions taken towards him as a human being.
Jesus never claimed to be God, but God's son.

John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time;+ the only-begotten god+ who is at the Father’s side*+ is the one who has explained Him.+

We cannot see God because he is invisible.


Exodus 33:19 But he said: “I will make all my goodness pass before your face, and I will declare before you the name of Jehovah;+ and I will favor the one whom I favor, and I will show mercy to the one to whom I show mercy.”+ 20 But he added: “You cannot see my face, for no man can see me and live.”

1 Timothy 1:17 Now to the King of eternity,+ incorruptible,+ invisible,+ the only God,+ be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth

Two different realms for his two different creations.

[RobotElvis]

I read "poly" instead of "pan."

With that being said, you're still incorrect in the usage of the word. In pantheism: god=nature. In Christianity God=/=Nature but is in all things. What's the difference? Pantheists can, but rarely,praise a specific the elements. Christians praise the god itself.

Learn something?

You have no grasp of what theology is?

[Dior]

I'm no theologian, but isn't this Arianism? Wasn't this thrown out of most orthodox Christian sects?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

Ah shit, y u gotta bring Catholic theology into dis shi.

Basically, Arianists aren't Christians. Once you stop equating Jesus as God, you stop being Christian. Of course, it depends on what version of the Bible you want to adhere to. These motherfuckers are googling some post-protestant bullshit, so I'm arguing from their standpoint.

That's the funny thing about Christians. They argue with each other about theology more than they argue with atheists. None of them can agree on a singular Bible being "The Word" nor is there a uniform theology throughout the denominations.

[Dior]

Jesus never claimed to be God, but God's son.

John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time;+ the only-begotten god+ who is at the Father’s side*+ is the one who has explained Him.+

We cannot see God because he is invisible.


Exodus 33:19 But he said: “I will make all my goodness pass before your face, and I will declare before you the name of Jehovah;+ and I will favor the one whom I favor, and I will show mercy to the one to whom I show mercy.”+ 20 But he added: “You cannot see my face, for no man can see me and live.”

1 Timothy 1:17 Now to the King of eternity,+ incorruptible,+ invisible,+ the only God,+ be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth

Two different realms for his two different creations.


Jesus claims on several occasions to be god. Want me to google that for you, or can you handle that?

Also, I can't believe you're saying 2 creations=2 realms. That "heaven and earth" imply two different realms. You be raiding too much PoAir son.

[RobotElvis]

Ah shit, y u gotta bring Catholic theology into dis shi.

Basically, Arianists aren't Christians. Once you stop equating Jesus as God, you stop being Christian. Of course, it depends on what version of the Bible you want to adhere to. These motherfuckers are googling some post-protestant bullshit, so I'm arguing from their standpoint.

That's the funny thing about Christians. They argue with each other about theology more than they argue with atheists. None of them can agree on a singular Bible being "The Word" nor is there a uniform theology throughout the denominations.

You do know that being Christian is following Christ's footsteps, not recognizing him as God the creator right?

I will use any bible version you want to. Want to go on the original Greek transliteration. That's fine I got that too.

Explain how not believing Jesus is a God makes me not a Christian please,

[RobotElvis]

Jesus claims on several occasions to be god. Want me to google that for you, or can you handle that?

Also, I can't believe you're saying 2 creations=2 realms. That "heaven and earth" imply two different realms. You be raiding too much PoAir son.

Please provide me scripture that Jesus claims to be God.

[leewong]

Ah shit, y u gotta bring Catholic theology into dis shi.

Basically, Arianists aren't Christians. Once you stop equating Jesus as God, you stop being Christian. Of course, it depends on what version of the Bible you want to adhere to. These motherfuckers are googling some post-protestant bullshit, so I'm arguing from their standpoint.

That's the funny thing about Christians. They argue with each other about theology more than they argue with atheists. None of them can agree on a singular Bible being "The Word" nor is there a uniform theology throughout the denominations.

But, but, but...morality is something god wrote on all of our hearts with his trusty Acme® brand ink pen. So all these Christians secretly agree with one another.

Jesus is both God and God's son. He's omnipotent so he can do that kinda shit. In other words, God's dick is so long and awesome that he can fuck himself in the ass and give birth to himself. I just blew your mind didnt I?

[leewong]

But, but, but...morality is something god wrote on all of our hearts with his trusty Acme® brand ink pen. So all these Christians secretly agree with one another.

Jesus is both God and God's son. He's omnipotent so he can do that kinda shit. In other words, God's dick is so long and awesome that he can fuck himself in the ass and give birth to himself. I just blew your mind didnt I?

Honestly, if God was as cool as this I would convert.

[Dior]

You have no grasp of what theology is?

Yes, I do.

I also have a grasp on how to get people off the scientific discussion when they're talking about religion as if the two are different sides of the same coin. IDK why the fuck transitional forms and such were even brought up. You guys are talking make believe shit, so I use my knowledge of make believe shit to get you talk about make believe shit. No need for science talk when philosophy and theology is involved.

The fact that you have never heard the idea that the Christian god resides in all things leads me to believe my knowledge of make believe shit is a lot more encompassing than someone grasping for quotes from google.

[RobotElvis]

Yes, I do.

I also have a grasp on how to get people off the scientific discussion when they're talking about religion as if the two are different sides of the same coin. IDK why the fuck transitional forms and such were even brought up. You guys are talking make believe shit, so I use my knowledge of make believe shit to get you talk about make believe shit. No need for science talk when philosophy and theology is involved.

The fact that you have never heard the idea that the Christian god resides in all things leads me to believe my knowledge of make believe shit is a lot more encompassing than someone grasping for quotes from google.
Never said I hadn't heard of it. Heard of it, studied it ,compared it to the bible, found it to be false.

[Dior]

Please provide me scripture that Jesus claims to be God.

No, I won't go quote mining on google. I'll have you read all of John instead. Go, read it, and you'll find several verses where he says it.

Go forth and be enlightened.

[RobotElvis]

Yes, I do.

I also have a grasp on how to get people off the scientific discussion when they're talking about religion as if the two are different sides of the same coin. IDK why the fuck transitional forms and such were even brought up. You guys are talking make believe shit, so I use my knowledge of make believe shit to get you talk about make believe shit. No need for science talk when philosophy and theology is involved.

The fact that you have never heard the idea that the Christian god resides in all things leads me to believe my knowledge of make believe shit is a lot more encompassing than someone grasping for quotes from google.
You seem to think you are very smart. I tend to disagree.

[Dior]

Never said I hadn't heard of it. Heard of it, studied it ,compared it to the bible, found it to be false.

Awesome man! I'm glad you found the claim that god=Jesus to be false! Now, how did you come about such rationalization? What school of Christian theology did you use?

[RobotElvis]

No, I won't go quote mining on google. I'll have you read all of John instead. Go, read it, and you'll find several verses where he says it.

Go forth and be enlightened.

John 3:13 Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven+ but the one who descended from heaven,+ the Son of man

John 6:37 All those whom the Father gives me will come to me, and I will never drive away the one who comes to me;+ 38 for I have come down from heaven+ to do, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me.

John 8:21 So he said to them again: “I am going away, and you will look for me, and yet you will die in your sin.+ Where I am going, you cannot come.”+ 22 The Jews then began to say: “He will not kill himself, will he? Because he says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come.’” 23 He went on to say to them: “You are from the realms below; I am from the realms above.+ You are from this world; I am not from this world.

John 8:42 Jesus said to them: “If God were your Father, you would love me,+ for I came from God and I am here. I have not come of my own initiative, but that One sent me.+


Yes enlightening. Not only does Jesus refer to himself as Gods son, he also confirms the existence of a heavenly immaterial realm.
Wow thanks for the tip!

[Toofliss]

I'm thankful for the modern advances that science has provided us. I firmly believe that science will continue to better our lives, but I don't place it on some pedal stool. Time and time again we've had it wrong and had to rewrite theories.

Some are willing to look past the current gaps in the theory of evolution and put faith in the hope that some day we'll be able to answer all those gaps with solid facts. I'm a little skeptical that this will ever happen. This blind faith is the same sort that I use, but you seem to think I'm batshit crazy for it because I chose to back a different opinion.

That being said, I too like to sit and observe/reflect on my surroundings. The amazing complexity of the world all around us simply leads me to believe that there was something far greater than humans will ever comprehend that put together this wonderful symphony. It seems that some scientists openly acknowledge this same observation.

For now I believe that there was some higher being that I'll reference as God. If someday down the road scientists are able to close all the gaps in evolution and provide solid evidence then perhaps I'll change my mind. I'm open to new information and look to incorporate it when making decisions. Some in this thread lead me to believe that God could reveal himself to you, smack you in the face, and you'd still claim that there is no God. The amazing probability of all of what we see/exists came about due to random chance? That's more far fetched in my mind that a supreme being flipping a switch or waving his hand.

[RobotElvis]

I'm thankful for the modern advances that science has provided us. I firmly believe that science will continue to better our lives, but I don't place it on some pedal stool. Time and time again we've had it wrong and had to rewrite theories.

Some are willing to look past the current gaps in the theory of evolution and put faith in the hope that some day we'll be able to answer all those gaps with solid facts. I'm a little skeptical that this will ever happen. This blind faith is the same sort that I use, but you seem to think I'm batshit crazy for it because I chose to back a different opinion.

That being said, I too like to sit and observe/reflect on my surroundings. The amazing complexity of the world all around us simply leads me to believe that there was something far greater than humans will ever comprehend that put together this wonderful symphony. It seems that some scientists openly acknowledge this same observation.

For now I believe that there was some higher being that I'll reference as God. If someday down the road scientists are able to close all the gaps in evolution and provide solid evidence then perhaps I'll change my mind. I'm open to new information and look to incorporate it when making decisions. Some in this thread lead me to believe that God could reveal himself to you, smack you in the face, and you'd still claim that there is no God. The amazing probability of all of what we see/exists came about due to random chance? That's more far fetched in my mind that a supreme being flipping a switch or waving his hand.
Probably the most honest post I have seen on this thread.

Now prepare to be attacked by the trolls, for you have fed them well

[Dior]

John 3:13 Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven+ but the one who descended from heaven,+ the Son of man

John 6:37 All those whom the Father gives me will come to me, and I will never drive away the one who comes to me;+ 38 for I have come down from heaven+ to do, not my own will, but the will of him who sent me.

John 8:21 So he said to them again: “I am going away, and you will look for me, and yet you will die in your sin.+ Where I am going, you cannot come.”+ 22 The Jews then began to say: “He will not kill himself, will he? Because he says, ‘Where I am going, you cannot come.’” 23 He went on to say to them: “You are from the realms below; I am from the realms above.+ You are from this world; I am not from this world.

John 8:42 Jesus said to them: “If God were your Father, you would love me,+ for I came from God and I am here. I have not come of my own initiative, but that One sent me.+


Yes enlightening. Not only does Jesus refer to himself as Gods son, he also confirms the existence of a heavenly immaterial realm.
Wow thanks for the tip!


Did you find the verses where he claims to be the creator as well? It seems you missed it. Maybe you read so fast because you clearly didn't quote mine google
so I'll assume you missed it.

Also, nothing in this passage mentions an immaterial place. Sorry. He mentions coming from another place. Not another plane of existence.

Might want to read John a bit slower there.

[RobotElvis]

No, I won't go quote mining on google. I'll have you read all of John instead. Go, read it, and you'll find several verses where he says it.

Go forth and be enlightened.

It must be tough having to google a rebuttal to all those scriptures from John.

Good thing I don't need google. That's what years of honest study from the bible gives you a good knowledge of the scriptures.

[Dior]

It must be tough having to google a rebuttal to all those scriptures from John.

Good thing I don't need google. That's what years of honest study from the bible gives you a good knowledge of the scriptures.

My answers are from google? You mean I'm the one posting quotes that I have no understanding of? I do apologize. I should stop that dirty habit.

[RobotElvis]

Did you find the verses where he claims to be the creator as well? It seems you missed it. Maybe you read so fast because you clearly didn't quote mine google
so I'll assume you missed it.

Also, nothing in this passage mentions an immaterial place. Sorry. He mentions coming from another place. Not another plane of existence.

Might want to read John a bit slower there.
Why couldn't they go where Jesus was going? They didn't have the Christ explorer?
Do you think he was talking of some other physical world?
Doesn't harmonize with the scriptures.

They could not go there because they were physical beings.

I would love to see your supportive scriptures for Jesus being the creator.

But I doubt you will show me it's what cowards do after all claim to have proof, then say they don't have time to provide proof , just look it up yourself.

Father / Son= greater/lesser

Was Jesus on earth a lesser for of his heavenly God self?
Now we are getting into trinity territory or at least a duality.

God the Father/ God the Son
Not a biblical concept

[RobotElvis]

My answers are from google? You mean I'm the one posting quotes that I have no understanding of? I do apologize. I should stop that dirty habit.

I have full knowledge of my posts.

You have yet to disprove me while the mountains of scriptural evidence are crushing your posts

[Dior]

Why couldn't they go where Jesus was going? They didn't have the Christ explorer?
Do you think he was talking of some other physical world?
Doesn't harmonize with the scriptures.

They could not go there because they were physical beings.

I would love to see your supportive scriptures for Jesus being the creator.

But I doubt you will show me it's what cowards do after all claim to have proof, then say they don't have time to provide proof , just look it up yourself.

Father / Son= greater/lesser

Was Jesus on earth a lesser for of his heavenly God self?
Now we are getting into trinity territory or at least a duality.

God the Father/ God the Son
Not a biblical concept

Oh, so you mean Christ resurrected to life after his death (which would have made him become immaterial) then became immaterial again to go to Heaven?

I told you where the answers are. Am I to be your teacher poor RobotElvis? Would you have me feed you like a babe at the teet? Nay I say unto thee. I say go forth and learn what you have blindly passed over.

[Aviann]

Theology is amazing until you begin trying to blend it with science. It becomes nothing more than trash and a reason for action originating from the individuals lack of individualism and a multitude of brainwashing and majority belief that they fear to go against at an early age.

Thankfully, we all can change our ideas of what we think is really going on. Humanity doesn't need faith in a negligent deity when it believes in the power of itself. At least you can see the proof of that, both bad and good.

[RobotElvis]

Oh, so you mean Christ resurrected to life after his death (which would have made him become immaterial) then became immaterial again to go to Heaven?

I told you where the answers are. Am I to be your teacher poor RobotElvis? Would you have me feed you like a babe at the teet? Nay I say unto thee. I say go forth and learn what you have blindly passed over.

You have yet to provide one scripture.
But let's assume for the sake of argument that you mean to refer to John 1:1-3 as proof of Jesus being the Creator.

Let's see if you can keep up with the logic here.

The person who became known as Jesus Christ did not begin life here on earth. He himself spoke of his prehuman heavenly life. (Joh 3:13; 6:38, 62; 8:23, 42, 58) John 1:1, 2 gives the heavenly name of the one who became Jesus, saying: “In the beginning the Word [Gr., Lo′gos] was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god"

This one was in the beginning with God.” Since Jehovah is eternal and had no beginning (Ps 90:2; Re 15:3), the Word’s being with God from “the beginning” must here refer to the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works. This is confirmed by other texts identifying Jesus as “the firstborn of all creation,” “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Col 1:15; Re 1:1; 3:14) Thus the Scriptures identify the Word (Jesus in his prehuman existence) as God’s first creation, his firstborn Son.


That Jehovah was truly the Father or Life-Giver to this firstborn Son and, hence, that this Son was actually a creature of God is evident from Jesus’ own statements. He pointed to God as the Source of his life, saying, “I live because of the Father.” According to the context, this meant that his life resulted from or was caused by his Father, even as the gaining of life by dying men would result from their faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice.—Joh 6:56, 57.

[RobotElvis]

Theology is amazing until you begin trying to blend it with science. It becomes nothing more than trash and a reason for action originating from the individuals lack of individualism and a multitude of brainwashing and majority belief that they fear to go against at an early age.

Thankfully, we all can change our ideas of what we think is really going on. Humanity doesn't need faith in a negligent deity when it believes in the power of itself. At least you can see the proof of that, both bad and good.

Become your own God. Apotheosis.
The oldest lie ever.

[Dior]

I have full knowledge of my posts.

You have yet to disprove me while the mountains of scriptural evidence are crushing your posts

Of course you have full knowledge of your posts. You're the one that wrote. What you don't have is full knowledge of the quotes you've googled for.

It's a bit embarrassing that no one called you out on your laughable knowledge of the Bible, when that's your primary anchor point for arguing.

[RobotElvis]

Of course you have full knowledge of your posts. You're the one that wrote. What you don't have is full knowledge of the quotes you've googled for.

It's a bit embarrassing that no one called you out on your laughable knowledge of the Bible, when that's your primary anchor point for arguing.

I think you are confusing the bible with Christian doctrine. You have quoted doctrine yet have never used a scripture to prove it.

I rely on the bible not doctrine from church fathers to guide my life.

I have given ample logical and scriptural proofs to back my claims, you have given neither.

[Toofliss]

Of course you have full knowledge of your posts. You're the one that wrote. What you don't have is full knowledge of the quotes you've googled for.

It's a bit embarrassing that no one called you out on your laughable knowledge of the Bible, when that's your primary anchor point for arguing.

I've seen him back up his statements time and time again throughout this thread. You on the other hand keep being cryptic and mysterious.

While not a direct quote, your posts feel like "Ohhh, you're so ignorant about this subject matter. I know the real truth, but I can't reveal it too you. You must go search for it. Whatever IT may be."

If anything, it feels like you're the one googling for responses. 'Somewhere' within John you'll find the answer. Where? I'm not certain, the google page I pulled up didn't tell me, but its in there! Go, look!

[Dior]

You have yet to provide one scripture.
But let's assume for the sake of argument that you mean to refer to John 1:1-3 as proof of Jesus being the Creator.

Let's see if you can keep up with the logic here.

The person who became known as Jesus Christ did not begin life here on earth. He himself spoke of his prehuman heavenly life. (Joh 3:13; 6:38, 62; 8:23, 42, 58) John 1:1, 2 gives the heavenly name of the one who became Jesus, saying: “In the beginning the Word [Gr., Lo′gos] was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god"

This one was in the beginning with God.” Since Jehovah is eternal and had no beginning (Ps 90:2; Re 15:3), the Word’s being with God from “the beginning” must here refer to the beginning of Jehovah’s creative works. This is confirmed by other texts identifying Jesus as “the firstborn of all creation,” “the beginning of the creation by God.” (Col 1:15; Re 1:1; 3:14) Thus the Scriptures identify the Word (Jesus in his prehuman existence) as God’s first creation, his firstborn Son.


That Jehovah was truly the Father or Life-Giver to this firstborn Son and, hence, that this Son was actually a creature of God is evident from Jesus’ own statements. He pointed to God as the Source of his life, saying, “I live because of the Father.” According to the context, this meant that his life resulted from or was caused by his Father, even as the gaining of life by dying men would result from their faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice.—Joh 6:56, 57.


Holy shit, your whole post was copy/pasted from http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002451


Get fuckt and stop with the copy/pasting community college bullshit. Don't worry tho, I'll give you an A for effort.

Can we get a ruling on failing at the google game?

[RobotElvis]

Of course you have full knowledge of your posts. You're the one that wrote. What you don't have is full knowledge of the quotes you've googled for.

It's a bit embarrassing that no one called you out on your laughable knowledge of the Bible, when that's your primary anchor point for arguing.

It might take you a while to look up all of those supportive scriptures. Take your time. Google for rebuttals. And don't worry I already know what your arguments will be and have an answer for them. This isn't my first rodeo in biblical debate. But it probably the easiest I have encountered.

[RobotElvis]

Holy shit, your whole post was copy/pasted from http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002451


Get fuckt and stop with the copy/pasting community college bullshit. Don't worry tho, I'll give you an A for effort.

Can we get a ruling on failing at the google game?

Yes it was copy pasted so what? I have that site on hand for trolls like you.

[paulgiamatti]

I'm thankful for the modern advances that science has provided us. I firmly believe that science will continue to better our lives, but I don't place it on some pedal stool. Time and time again we've had it wrong and had to rewrite theories.

Some are willing to look past the current gaps in the theory of evolution and put faith in the hope that some day we'll be able to answer all those gaps with solid facts. I'm a little skeptical that this will ever happen. This blind faith is the same sort that I use, but you seem to think I'm batshit crazy for it because I chose to back a different opinion.

That being said, I too like to sit and observe/reflect on my surroundings. The amazing complexity of the world all around us simply leads me to believe that there was something far greater than humans will ever comprehend that put together this wonderful symphony. It seems that some scientists openly acknowledge this same observation.

For now I believe that there was some higher being that I'll reference as God. If someday down the road scientists are able to close all the gaps in evolution and provide solid evidence then perhaps I'll change my mind. I'm open to new information and look to incorporate it when making decisions. Some in this thread lead me to believe that God could reveal himself to you, smack you in the face, and you'd still claim that there is no God. The amazing probability of all of what we see/exists came about due to random chance? That's more far fetched in my mind that a supreme being flipping a switch or waving his hand.

Firstly, pedestal.

When considering The Big Questions, we're all skeptical that we'll get the answers we're looking for. To stop being skeptical is the death of thought, and reason, and rational inquiry. If you want to refer to skepticism as faith, you're more than welcome to do so. If your skepticism to you somehow validates jumping to the conclusion that an all-powerful, omnibenevolent and supernatural power miraculously created the universe, then by all means go right ahead. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Don't teach it to my kids, and keep it to yourself. I don't want to hear about it.

I have seen leewong indeed say that there is no god, but this is not my stance. I'm not making any claims that there is, or is not any supernatural dictator at the beginning of the universe or the end of life. If tomorrow the son of this supposed creator descends from the heavens and raptures every believer into an eternity of praise and worship and servitude, then I will by definition have to immediately become a believer.

It is also not my stance that belief in the supernatural or the divine is the same thing as insanity, or stupidity - but it is immoral. You say you're thankful for modern science, yet you're so eager to go right ahead and assume that just because the theory of evolution doesn't answer every question about humanity, it makes perfect sense to pretend that god is not only responsible for the universe itself but created it with you in mind. This is an astoundingly arrogant claim to be making, yet this is what you must believe if you even so much as call yourself a deist. This is sheer solipsism; it's not conducive of rational thought or healthy for the mind in any way whatsoever.

[RobotElvis]

Holy shit, your whole post was copy/pasted from http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200002451


Get fuckt and stop with the copy/pasting community college bullshit. Don't worry tho, I'll give you an A for effort.

Can we get a ruling on failing at the google game?

Still waiting for some scriptural rebuttal. But it's late and I have to get up early so I will have to read it in the morning

[Dior]

I've seen him back up his statements time and time again throughout this thread. You on the other hand keep being cryptic and mysterious.

While not a direct quote, your posts feel like "Ohhh, you're so ignorant about this subject matter. I know the real truth, but I can't reveal it too you. You must go search for it. Whatever IT may be."

If anything, it feels like you're the one googling for responses. 'Somewhere' within John you'll find the answer. Where? I'm not certain, the google page I pulled up didn't tell me, but its in there! Go, look!

You don't get it. I want him to really read the chapter of John.

Shit, you can do a simple search to see if I am right or wrong. But I want him to really read it.

The best ammo against a Christian is the Bible because the grand majority of them don't know it and pick quotes that suite them instead of actually reading whole chapters.

Not that Elvish is Christian. He just accepted the role of sacrifice for the sake of entertainment, and I'm more than happy to oblige calling him out on the obvious quote mining.

[Dior]

Still waiting for some scriptural rebuttal. But it's late and I have to get up early so I will have to read it in the morning

Thank you for giving up after being caught.

[Toofliss]

Firstly, pedestal.

When considering The Big Questions, we're all skeptical that we'll get the answers we're looking for. To stop being skeptical is the death of thought, and reason, and rational inquiry. If you want to refer to skepticism as faith, you're more than welcome to do so. If your skepticism to you somehow validates jumping to the conclusion that an all-powerful, omnibenevolent and supernatural power miraculously created the universe, then by all means go right ahead. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. Don't teach it to my kids, and keep it to yourself. I don't want to hear about it.

I have seen leewong indeed say that there is no god, but this is not my stance. I'm not making any claims that there is, or is not any supernatural dictator at the beginning of the universe or the end of life. If tomorrow the son of this supposed creator descends from the heavens and raptures every believer into an eternity of praise and worship and servitude, then I will by definition have to immediately become a believer.

It is also not my stance that belief in the supernatural or the divine is the same thing as insanity, or stupidity - but it is immoral. You say you're thankful for modern science, yet you're so eager to go right ahead and assume that just because the theory of evolution doesn't answer every question about humanity, it makes perfect sense to pretend that god is not only responsible for the universe itself but created it with you in mind. This is an astoundingly arrogant claim to be making, yet this is what you must believe if you even so much as call yourself a deist. This is sheer solipsism; it's not conducive of rational thought or healthy for the mind in any way whatsoever.

Where do I start? I'll try to reply paragraph by paragraph. I thought I plainly stated that you've put your faith in the theory of evolution (including the gaps to which we don't currently have answers) as the way in which all things came about. Am I skeptical of that? Of course...but truth be known, I'm not rock solid in my faith as a Christian. But if I'm forced to choose between the two (because school forces one down your throat while openly declaring war on alternatives) then I choose my current stance, that there is overwhelming evidence that someone/thing put all these rules into place. It's too much for me to swallow that the rules of our sandbox is mere chance.

Mostly skipping 2nd paragraph, good to see that at the very least you'd be open to blatant evidence. I'd be the same way with God or the theory of evolution. The point I'll make with this paragraph is that you're comfortable believing this theory. That to me is your faith. I see that as less probable than alternatives.

Now the third paragraph you dive off the deep end. Immoral? It's immoral that I put my faith in something you think less likely than your choice? If new facts come about that completely shatter the theory of evolution, could I call you immoral because you believed it? Yes, I am thankful for science. I was by no means eager to believe in a supreme being. 20+ (I'm mid 30s, not including baby years here) years I would have sided with you and said that God was a fairy tale. It was only after some deep observation of the world around me and trying to rationalize what I think is more probable that I came to my current belief system. The astonishing arrogance in this thread has come from those who claim to know the answer. No one knows...we're still trying to figure it out. In the meantime, you want to silence opposition to your side of the argument. We're immoral in our thinking and must be stopped. We can't spread our 'disease' of thought. I questioned everything for years and continue to do so. This is why I often wonder if I'll ever progress to be solid in my faith as a Christian and instead move towards some other belief (haven't googled the right term for it) where I believe in a creator even if it's not God as presented in the Bible.

Here is my question to you. Until all of the gaps are filled and the doubt is removed, can we stop teaching both in school? Teach the FACTS as we currently know them and let kids come to their own realization. Stop filling in the gaps with what we 'think' must have happened, yet have no firm proof to back up. Let them question everything without preconceived notions as to which one is right and which one can't possibly be. I think deep down both sides of this argument know that we won't know 100% for certain until we're six feet under. Imagination is a great thing for innovation and science. What if some child with a wild imagination someday comes up with a crazy thought that eventually unravels the matrix we live in and leads to the answers we've all missed due to our preconceived notions as to which side is right/wrong? Maybe he is able to positively disprove God and your side can be giddy with joy, but if you have him chasing the never-to-be-found answers to the theory of evolution he may miss it all together.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Where do I start? I'll try to reply paragraph by paragraph. I thought I plainly stated that you've put your faith in the theory of evolution (including the gaps to which we don't currently have answers) as the way in which all things came about. Am I skeptical of that? Of course...but truth be known, I'm not rock solid in my faith as a Christian. But if I'm forced to choose between the two (because school forces one down your throat while openly declaring war on alternatives) then I choose my current stance, that there is overwhelming evidence that someone/thing put all these rules into place. It's too much for me to swallow that the rules of our sandbox is mere chance.

Mostly skipping 2nd paragraph, good to see that at the very least you'd be open to blatant evidence. I'd be the same way with God or the theory of evolution. The point I'll make with this paragraph is that you're comfortable believing this theory. That to me is your faith. I see that as less probable than alternatives.

Now the third paragraph you dive off the deep end. Immoral? It's immoral that I put my faith in something you think less likely than your choice? If new facts come about that completely shatter the theory of evolution, could I call you immoral because you believed it? Yes, I am thankful for science. I was by no means eager to believe in a supreme being. 20+ (I'm mid 30s, not including baby years here) years I would have sided with you and said that God was a fairy tale. It was only after some deep observation of the world around me and trying to rationalize what I think is more probable that I came to my current belief system. The astonishing arrogance in this thread has come from those who claim to know the answer. No one knows...we're still trying to figure it out. In the meantime, you want to silence opposition to your side of the argument. We're immoral in our thinking and must be stopped. We can't spread our 'disease' of thought. I questioned everything for years and continue to do so. This is why I often wonder if I'll ever progress to be solid in my faith as a Christian and instead move towards some other belief (haven't googled the right term for it) where I believe in a creator even if it's not God as presented in the Bible.

Here is my question to you. Until all of the gaps are filled and the doubt is removed, can we stop teaching both in school? Teach the FACTS as we currently know them and let kids come to their own realization. Stop filling in the gaps with what we 'think' must have happened, yet have no firm proof to back up. Let them question everything without preconceived notions as to which one is right and which one can't possibly be. I think deep down both sides of this argument know that we won't know 100% for certain until we're six feet under. Imagination is a great thing for innovation and science. What if some child with a wild imagination someday comes up with a crazy thought that eventually unravels the matrix we live in and leads to the answers we've all missed due to our preconceived notions as to which side is right/wrong? Maybe he is able to positively disprove God and your side can be giddy with joy, but if you have him chasing the never-to-be-found answers to the theory of evolution he may miss it all together.

You know, I keep seeing arguments like this and I can't help but wonder why there aren't more creationistic evolutionists (God gifted all life with the ability to adapt and change over time on an ever changing earth) around asking "por que no las dos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OawrlVoQqSs)?".

[Toofliss]

You know, I keep seeing arguments like this and I can't help but wonder why there aren't more creationistic evolutionists (God gifted all life with the ability to adapt and change over time on an ever changing earth) around asking "por que no las dos (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OawrlVoQqSs)?".

I wasn't very warm to some of your other comments, but this is a great question in my eyes. I think it's a prime example of what our current education breeds. What if the current options being presented aren't all of the choices? We tend to shut down creative thinking in our current factories we call school.

That idea has some merit in my eyes and I'm disappointed I haven't given it more thought. Something I'll have to mull over.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

I wasn't very warm to some of your other comments, but this is a great question in my eyes. I think it's a prime example of what our current education breeds. What if the current options being presented aren't all of the choices? We tend to shut down creative thinking in our current factories we call school.
I post from my phone at work during the afternoon hours. The user interface with this board is gawdawful to say the least, couple that with the fact that fuck swype, I'm sorry if some of that frustration channels its way into my replies at some level.
That idea has some merit in my eyes and I'm disappointed I haven't given it more thought. Something I'll have to mull over.
It's a question I've asked creationists for nearly a decade, often the somewhat open minded ones across various faiths (even a devout Romney supporting Mormon in one case) respond, hmm, maybe. Others on the other hand (Every Jehova's Witness I've ever asked) shake their head nope nope nope like I had just whipped out my dick and asked if they wanted a suck.

Interestingly enough this is something the current pope had suggested roughly a year ago, when he said that science and Christianity need not be mutually exclusive. Though it's worth noting that the current pope has several masters degrees including but not limited to, biological sciences.

[iruinedyourday]

I wasn't very warm to some of your other comments, but this is a great question in my eyes. I think it's a prime example of what our current education breeds. What if the current options being presented aren't all of the choices? We tend to shut down creative thinking in our current factories we call school.

That idea has some merit in my eyes and I'm disappointed I haven't given it more thought. Something I'll have to mull over.

on the subject of education, I don't understand why people that are upset that evolution is taught in science class arnt fine with there just being a religious studies class as an anthropological type of study where you learn of all religions instead of teaching people specifically about a christian believe, namely creationism.

Asking that creationism be taught in school is asking that the christian specific religion is taught in school, and asking for it to be taught in science class is asking for it to be taught in totally the wrong arena.

You are free to believe in evolution, and god. Unfortunately there are extremely right wing Christians that dont believe that is possible. They are drawing the line, where most scientists would agree, that you are free to believe in religion as much as you like, so long as you don't let it interfere with your scientific endeavors.

It doesn't got that way with creationists. Creationism isn't a science and it doesn't belong in schools not devoted to teaching the specifics of christian theology.

[Toofliss]

on the subject of education, I don't understand why people that are upset that evolution is taught in science class arnt fine with there just being a religious studies class as an anthropological type of study where you learn of all religions instead of teaching people specifically about a christian believe, namely creationism.

Asking that creationism be taught in school is asking that the christian specific religion is taught in school, and asking for it to be taught in science class is asking for it to be taught in totally the wrong arena.

You are free to believe in evolution, and god. Unfortunately there are extremely right wing Christians that dont believe that is possible. They are drawing the line, where most scientists would agree, that you are free to believe in religion as much as you like, so long as you don't let it interfere with your scientific endeavors.

It doesn't got that way with creationists. Creationism isn't a science and it doesn't belong in schools not devoted to teaching the specifics of christian theology.

The THEORY of evolution still has many gaps. Theories have been proven wrong or had to be rewritten numerous times throughout history. Until we can close the gaps and stop putting faith in the areas where we 'think' we know what happened, why is that taught as THE answer?

There are plenty of people who have put together evidence of a creator. Some super intelligent being that was able to put together the sandbox in which we currently live. Could I label it as the THEORY of creationism? Sure, there are some gaps. But just look past those, because with enough time we'll find what we need to fill in those gaps. In the meantime, just trust me - I'm really smart, and I'm a scientist.

"Asking that creationism be taught in school is asking that the christian specific religion is taught in school, and asking for it to be taught in science class is asking for it to be taught in totally the wrong arena. "

Who said anything about that? Look at my past posts, I'm admitted that I'm not solid on my faith in being a Christian. And teaching Christianity isn't what I would ask for in science class. How certain are you that there wasn't some super intelligent thing/it that put all of this together? Is that really harder for you to believe than the random chance that all these observable laws in our sandbox just 'happen' to be? If you want to talk miraculous, that would be it -- just by chance, all of these laws work together to sustain this environment/life? That's the biggest coincidence I've ever been asked to swallow.

Little closer to the sun, little further away, little different climate...oops, no life and no Earth. We're just super lucky that it happened this way? We can observe gravity and many other natural laws. We take it for fact because time and time again we can test them and they behave the same way. Have you ever stopped to ask WHY they work this way? How fucking lucky for us! Pure coincidence.

Maybe God is a bunch of aliens who are laughing their asses off watching us try to figure it out. Maybe The Matrix (movie) is right, maybe we're all just a computer program and none of this is real. But to honestly reflect on all of the perfection around us and say that it's impossible that some super intelligent thing created this setting -- I can't really believe that you're being honest with yourself if you can dismiss it that easily. In fact, I find that more probable than mere coincidence. Many of my anti-God friends explain away so much by the term coincidence, but just how far can you go to think that this is all mere chance/luck?

[harnold]

I think I speak for everybody when I say none of us know what you guys are talking about are you speaking chinese or what

[Toofliss]

You are free to believe in evolution, and god. Unfortunately there are extremely right wing Christians that dont believe that is possible. They are drawing the line, where most scientists would agree, that you are free to believe in religion as much as you like, so long as you don't let it interfere with your scientific endeavors.

It doesn't got that way with creationists. Creationism isn't a science and it doesn't belong in schools not devoted to teaching the specifics of christian theology.

I felt the need to reply to this part in particular. How many times and how many amazing laws must we uncover before we have enough proof that something beyond our comprehension must have come up with all of these laws. How arrogant are we as a species to think that there is nothing we can't comprehend. Nothing is too complex that we can't understand it. Don't get me wrong, I fully support constantly looking for explanations for the world in which we live but I've come to accept that we'll never fully understand it all.

That along with what I see as overwhelming evidence for there being some greater being that put all of this together in perfect harmony leads me to believe in a creator. If I'm intellectually honest, I find that less of a stretch than some of the explanations currently found in science textbooks for the origin of life.

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

I know you were responding to someone else however I feel like he will give a stereotypical Athiesm+ angry SJW response with a lot of profanity to your rational (at the very least in comparison to the rest of the anti-evolution arguments in this thread) points/arguments. Therefore I wish to jump the gun and address the points rather than attack your character like Iruinedyourday has been throughout the thread. ;)

The THEORY of evolution still has many gaps. Theories have been proven wrong or had to be rewritten numerous times throughout history.
Pointing out that scientific theory is not always correct and that many theories have to be modified as new information is discovered doesn't discredit science, it simply describes the nature of science. As human understanding of our environment (the universe) grows, so does the need to find more answers to the new questions that arise. Growth in any form is simultaneously advantageous and problematic, whether it be how efficient lifeforms process the resources needed to sustain life (larger lifeforms require more work) or the logistics for an army/government to hold growing territory.
Until we can close the gaps and stop putting faith in the areas where we 'think' we know what happened, why is that taught as THE answer?
There is a distinct difference between a leap of faith (taking the word of an ancient book) and logically deducing a conclusion based on tangible, testable evidence. The latter is not faith. With faith, the book never changes, as time passes more of the book can be understood to misrepresent reality, one verse explicitly states that pi=3, another that every corner of the earth can be seen from one point high up, others tell you how to breed goats to have certain patterns of fur, yet another states that rabbits chew cud. With science, as time passes we toss away the incorrect data in favor of more plausible explanations.

I'm on the same page with Bill Nye when he says "If you show me a theory that better explains how life on earth got to where it is today than evolution does, give me the evidence. If the numbers check out, I'll be instantly convinced".

There are plenty of people who have put together evidence of a creator. Some super intelligent being that was able to put together the sandbox in which we currently live. Could I label it as the THEORY of creationism? Sure, there are some gaps. But just look past those, because with enough time we'll find what we need to fill in those gaps. In the meantime, just trust me - I'm really smart, and I'm a scientist.
This statement is malformed in the sense that it would be correct in a vacuum, however in the real world 99.99~% of those who believe creator myths don't believe that they are a theory, they believe them to be 100% the truth. Evolution however is the best possible explanation based on available evidence. Note that no part of evolution explains how life started, that's abiogenesis which among scientists is still heavily debated and there is no officially accepted prevailing theory, though the majority still understand that the primordial ooze hypothesis is the most plausible.

I'll say it another way. No reputable scientist will ever try to tell you that they know how life on earth began, no reputable scientist will tell you that evolution is 100% fact. If they do they are either a. full of it, or b. sick of saying "the most plausible explanation based upon tangible evidence available at this time" every time just to avoid some creationist going 'aha!'.

"Asking that creationism be taught in school is asking that the christian specific religion is taught in school, and asking for it to be taught in science class is asking for it to be taught in totally the wrong arena. "

Who said anything about that? Look at my past posts, I'm admitted that I'm not solid on my faith in being a Christian. And teaching Christianity isn't what I would ask for in science class. How certain are you that there wasn't some super intelligent thing/it that put all of this together? Is that really harder for you to believe than the random chance that all these observable laws in our sandbox just 'happen' to be? If you want to talk miraculous, that would be it -- just by chance, all of these laws work together to sustain this environment/life? That's the biggest coincidence I've ever been asked to swallow.

This is easy to understand yet at the same time hard for me to put into clear words but I'll do my best.
The universe has a series of laws, gravity, thermodynamics, physics, etc.. There is no evidence that the universe has ever had a different set of laws or that the laws can be or ever have been bent (in 15.6 billion years if you want to get technical).
Science does not try to explain why those laws are there, science only asks 'how do they work?'.
With 15.6 billion years to have gravity, thermodynamics, energy, matter, and all forms of physics doing whatever they have been doing, coupled with the vastness of space, Trillions of galaxies each containing trillions of stars, you cannot tell me that it took a miracle for a planet of the earth's size/compisition to orbit 1AU away from an orange/yellow star.
Even in our own solar system there is speculation that several frozen moons might contain subsurface oceans containing life.
You don't even need a planet our size orbiting the 'habitable zone' of a star, a large moon orbiting a gas giant could have the right ingredients for life.
Recently, just here on earth we found a type of bacteria that uses arsenic to build it's DNA/RNA unlike every other known lifeform on the planet.
All of those possibilities with our limited knowledge. You seem to be implying that the more we learn the less likely life will be found somewhere else when in fact the exact opposite is true.

I will thank you for not using the word 'random' though. Too many people misuse the word when they talk about the universe forming. The laws have been there for as long as the universe has existed, there is no such thing as random in astro-physics.

Little closer to the sun, little further away, little different climate...oops, no life and no Earth. We're just super lucky that it happened this way? We can observe gravity and many other natural laws. We take it for fact because time and time again we can test them and they behave the same way. Have you ever stopped to ask WHY they work this way? How fucking lucky for us! Pure coincidence.
This is another malformed question. As explained before, science doesn't ask nor care about 'why', it cares about 'how'.
Even more malformed is your begging "How fucking lucky for us". The earth is here, that's why we are here. Before you were born you didn't exist, you weren't some spirit in limbo thinking to yourself "oh boy, I hope I luck out and get born".
Maybe God is a bunch of aliens who are laughing their asses off watching us try to figure it out. Maybe The Matrix (movie) is right, maybe we're all just a computer program and none of this is real.
This ignores the spirit of the thread which is about religion (your example of advanced aliens would still make religion incorrect anyway).

But to honestly reflect on all of the perfection around us and say that it's impossible that some super intelligent thing created this setting -- I can't really believe that you're being honest with yourself if you can dismiss it that easily.
The universe may be beautiful, amazing, and wondrous but it's far from perfect. Entropy, black holes, gamma ray bursts, stars burning out, heck, even minor things like giant meteors hitting the planet wiping out most of the planet's life (circa 65mil years ago). Suffice to say, it's far from perfect... from the perspective of us fragile carbon-based lifeforms at least.

In fact, I find that more probable than mere coincidence. Many of my anti-God friends explain away so much by the term coincidence, but just how far can you go to think that this is all mere chance/luck?
Damnit, I thanked you too soon for not using 'random' and here you come with this chance/coincidence/luck stuff. These are concepts, they don't actually exist. Odds are based upon probability and variance, not luck or chance.

Also, your friends are wrong. Intelligence isn't a qualification to being an atheist, it's simply preferred. :)
I felt the need to reply to this part in particular. How many times and how many amazing laws must we uncover before we have enough proof that something beyond our comprehension must have come up with all of these laws. How arrogant are we as a species to think that there is nothing we can't comprehend. Nothing is too complex that we can't understand it. Don't get me wrong, I fully support constantly looking for explanations for the world in which we live but I've come to accept that we'll never fully understand it all.
This one seems out of character from your previous posts actually, you mentioned that you not only believe there is a higher power out there, but explicitly stated that you believe it's a christian one. I would argue that the arrogant one is one who has the audacity to choose one god over the plethora of other available gods when you have only faith to guide you.

I'd also like to point out that your assertion that we believe we will one day know everything is completely baseless. We will probably never know 'everything'. There are tons of concepts that are too complex to even begin to understand or so far away that we'll never reach them to be able to study them.
That along with what I see as overwhelming evidence for there being some greater being that put all of this together in perfect harmony leads me to believe in a creator. If I'm intellectually honest, I find that less of a stretch than some of the explanations currently found in science textbooks for the origin of life.
You have every right to have this belief.
The issue that arises is when you take a rational argument:
"I find intelligent design of some sort to be more plausible than abiogenesis and I'm going to hold my breath on speciation until I see a bit more evidence than what's already on the table"
and turn it into:
"Your theory isn't perfect so I know that evolution is bunk and that it was in fact Yehovah who did it. I also know that the afterlife is real and we will be punished if we don't follow Jesus's son's teachings".

If you can't see the problem with that, I honestly don't know what to tell you at that point.

[Dior]

Fuck, after all the work I did last night bringing the impetus back on the ones making a claim and case for god, you cockwaffles drag science back into the conversation.

I'm starting to think everyone on the interwebs is part of a mass botting program that repeats the same arguments and rebuttals on every god dam forum.

If you, Toofliss, say "I don't know for certain and you don't know for certain" then it would have been difficult to argue with you because, ultimately, in our current understanding of how the universe works we don't know everything.

However.

Your statements have been "I don't know for certain and you don't know for certain, so I choose to believe anyway and I'm right." Why do you believe? What proof is there to believe? You claimed I was making spooky and mysterious comments, but have yet to put forth anything more than "Well, people have been wrong so that proves I'm right" which is close to an autistic line of thinking. Every piece of scientific evidence proving evolution could be wrong, but that doesn't mean you or your belief is right.

I also want to point out that religious folk abhor you. You are the lukewarm water to be spat out by god. "I believe in a creator until there's evidence to the contrary" is the antithesis of a faith based believer. Basically, you're an atheist who wants an excuse just in case the big guy upstairs is real and you have to face him.

[RobotElvis]

Fuck, after all the work I did last night bringing the impetus back on the ones making a claim and case for god, you cockwaffles drag science back into the conversation.

I'm starting to think everyone on the interwebs is part of a mass botting program that repeats the same arguments and rebuttals on every god dam forum.

If you, Toofliss, say "I don't know for certain and you don't know for certain" then it would have been difficult to argue with you because, ultimately, in our current understanding of how the universe works we don't know everything.

However.

Your statements have been "I don't know for certain and you don't know for certain, so I choose to believe anyway and I'm right." Why do you believe? What proof is there to believe? You claimed I was making spooky and mysterious comments, but have yet to put forth anything more than "Well, people have been wrong so that proves I'm right" which is close to an autistic line of thinking. Every piece of scientific evidence proving evolution could be wrong, but that doesn't mean you or your belief is right.

I also want to point out that religious folk abhor you. You are the lukewarm water to be spat out by god. "I believe in a creator until there's evidence to the contrary" is the antithesis of a faith based believer. Basically, you're an atheist who wants an excuse just in case the big guy upstairs is real and you have to face him.
I do not abhor him and I am religious. What I see is someone who is honestly seeking truth and is humble enough to admit that he doesn't know all the answers. The bible calls that a meek person.

Quite the opposite of yourself.

[Gaffin 7.0]

you guys need help and im talkin about some sun therapy

[RobotElvis]

Quote from Kaga: I'm on the same page with Bill Nye when he says "If you show me a theory that better explains how life on earth got to where it is today than evolution does, give me the evidence. If the numbers check out, I'll be instantly convinced". End quote



The thickness of the earth's crust is fatal to the theory of the great age of the earth, required by evolution. The temperature increases as we descend into the earth, about one degree for every 50 feet, or 100 degrees per mile. Therefore, at 2 mi., water would boil; at 18 mi., glass would melt (1850°); at 28 mi., every known substance would melt (2700°). Hence the crust is not likely more than 28 miles thick,--in many places less. Rev. O. Fisher has calculated that, if the thickness of the earth's crust is 17.5 mi., as indicated by the San Francisco earthquake, the earth is 5,262,170 years old. If the crust is 21.91 mi. thick, as others say, the age would be 8,248,380 years. Lord Kelvin, the well known scientist, who computed the sun's age at 20,000,000 years, computed the earth's age at 8,302,210 years. Subtract from these computations, the years that must have elapsed before the earth became cool enough for animal life, and the few millions of years left would be utterly insufficient to render evolution possible. Note how these figures agree with the age of the earth according to the Helmholtz contraction theory. The thinness of the earth's crust is also proven by the geysers, the volcanoes, and the tremors and earthquakes occurring annually in all parts of the world

[Dior]

I copy/paste things that I don't understand.

Quite the opposite of yourself.


Fixed it for you Holy Robot Elvis that came back to the living.

[Dior]

Quote from Kaga: I'm on the same page with Bill Nye when he says "If you show me a theory that better explains how life on earth got to where it is today than evolution does, give me the evidence. If the numbers check out, I'll be instantly convinced". End quote



The thickness of the earth's crust is fatal to the theory of the great age of the earth, required by evolution. The temperature increases as we descend into the earth, about one degree for every 50 feet, or 100 degrees per mile. Therefore, at 2 mi., water would boil; at 18 mi., glass would melt (1850°); at 28 mi., every known substance would melt (2700°). Hence the crust is not likely more than 28 miles thick,--in many places less. Rev. O. Fisher has calculated that, if the thickness of the earth's crust is 17.5 mi., as indicated by the San Francisco earthquake, the earth is 5,262,170 years old. If the crust is 21.91 mi. thick, as others say, the age would be 8,248,380 years. Lord Kelvin, the well known scientist, who computed the sun's age at 20,000,000 years, computed the earth's age at 8,302,210 years. Subtract from these computations, the years that must have elapsed before the earth became cool enough for animal life, and the few millions of years left would be utterly insufficient to render evolution possible. Note how these figures agree with the age of the earth according to the Helmholtz contraction theory. The thinness of the earth's crust is also proven by the geysers, the volcanoes, and the tremors and earthquakes occurring annually in all parts of the world

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul04.html

Is where you lifted that post from. Your ctrl+c should have quite the impressive indentation.

[Glenzig]

So copy/paste is a rebuttal now? Who cares if its copy/pasted! Its sound information. Do you have an actual response?

[RobotElvis]

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul04.html

Is where you lifted that post from. Your ctrl+c should have quite the impressive indentation.

Nope try again

[RobotElvis]

Fixed it for you Holy Robot Elvis that came back to the living.

I post from my phone at work during the afternoon hours. The user interface with this board is gawdawful to say the least, couple that with the fact that fuck swype, I'm sorry if some of that frustration channels its way into my replies at some level.

It's a question I've asked creationists for nearly a decade, often the somewhat open minded ones across various faiths (even a devout Romney supporting Mormon in one case) respond, hmm, maybe. Others on the other hand (Every Jehova's Witness I've ever asked) shake their head nope nope nope like I had just whipped out my dick and asked if they wanted a suck.

Interestingly enough this is something the current pope had suggested roughly a year ago, when he said that science and Christianity need not be mutually exclusive. Though it's worth noting that the current pope has several masters degrees including but not limited to, biological sciences.
Theistic evolution implies that there is teleology involved in the process of evolution.
But that goes against the accepted model of evolution, because if we are to say that the organs of the body evolved for a final cause then there would be apparent design in the evolutionary process.
And design requires intelligence.

[RobotElvis]

During the historical period, the species have remained unchanged. If over 1,000,000 species of animals have arisen in the 60,000,000 years, as is claimed, over 2000 of them must have arisen in the last 6,000 years. As evolutionists can not name a single new species that has arisen within that time, their theory falls to the ground. No species in that time, has passed into another. No species has been divided into two or more. No lower species has advanced into a higher. History gives no scrap of evidence in support of evolution. Even the horse, whose history has been dubiously traced for 3,000,000 years, has been a horse unchanged for the last 6,000 years. Even if the missing links in the development of the horse _could_ be supplied, it would still be the same species all the while.

But there are no transitional forms showing alleged changes in the development of the horse from the four-toed creature of squirrel like size. Many varieties and individuals under the skill of man have been developed and improved, but not a single new species in historic time. There are 5,000 varieties of apples but no new species. But when the evolutionist is hard pressed to answer, he takes to the wilds of eternity where it is hard to pursue him, and to check up on his guesses. He answers that changes are so slow, and take so many millions of years, that they can not tell of a single new species in the last 6,000 years, when over 2,000 are required.

[Dior]

Shitposting and copy/pasting has failed you. Go forth Elvis of the Robotic mind. Learn a new trade, because you aren't good at the forum game.

[leewong]

...

"the years that must have elapsed before the earth became cool enough for animal life, and the few millions of years left would be utterly insufficient to render evolution possible"

Here is the main problem with this argument:

The Earth isnt a bonfire. We know that radioactive elements that take billions of years to decay have kept Earth's interior hot. Your calculations do not account for it.

[Glenzig]

Shitposting and copy/pasting has failed you. Go forth Elvis of the Robotic mind. Learn a new trade, because you aren't good at the forum game.

Yeah I mean he should know that providing evidence is not how the internetz works. You have to claim to have proof and then tell everyone they're wrong and stupid without providing any actual proof of your claim. Go away RobotElvis! No one wants you backing up your beliefs with actual facts and data! Rabble rabble rabble rabble.

[Dior]

Theistic evolution implies that there is teleology involved in the process of evolution.
But that goes against the accepted model of evolution, because if we are to say that the organs of the body evolved for a final cause then there would be apparent design in the evolutionary process.
And design requires intelligence.

Actually, evolutionary biology doesn't run contrast to theists ideas of the world. God is simply the catalyst for everything. Theists want to add an extra step.

Evolution is a biological process. It has nothing to do with cosmology or philosophy, which is what the whole god talk is about.

But you knew that already I'm sure.

Now, who created god since design requires intelligence?

[Glenzig]

Actually, evolutionary biology doesn't run contrast to theists ideas of the world. God is simply the catalyst for everything. Theists want to add an extra step.

Evolution is a biological process. It has nothing to do with cosmology or philosophy, which is what the whole god talk is about.

But you knew that already I'm sure.

Now, who created god since design requires intelligence?

That has already been answered.

[Dior]

Yeah I mean he should know that providing evidence is not how the internetz works. You have to claim to have proof and then tell everyone they're wrong and stupid without providing any actual proof of your claim. Go away RobotElvis! No one wants you backing up your beliefs with actual facts and data! Rabble rabble rabble rabble.

Ironic shitposting is still shitposting. Stop.

[leewong]

But there are no transitional forms showing alleged changes in the development of the horse from the four-toed creature of squirrel like size.

I have already explained that isnt how evolution works nor is it even close. You keep repeating the same crap even though it has been explained a thousand times.

Since you are basically doing nothing but posting long since debunked bullshit from talkorigins then I will resort to posting page after page of long winded quotes too:

"Creationists acknowledge what they call “micro-evolution” (observed changes due to mutation and selection, as with Darwin’s finches) but they insist that what they call “macro-evolution” (the result of cumulative changes over time) is impossible. We sometimes call this the “micro-macro mambo."

If you ask a creationist why “macro” changes are impossible you’ll be told that it’s just impossible — some magic barrier interferes to preserve the integrity of scriptural “kinds.” Because of that unevidenced magical mechanism, which only the magic designer — blessed be he! — can overcome, creationists flatly assert that regardless of time, one species cannot evolve into another — despite the abundant fossil evidence to the contrary. Therefore, creationism requires belief in a two-part dogma consisting of: (1) the Great Barrier; and (2) the miracle that breaks through the barrier.

The error is enormous, because first it involves accepting, at the scale of a few visible generations, both the fact of and the mechanism for evolution (variation and natural selection), and then rejecting the inevitable consequences of what has been accepted.

Being clueless as to how anything might have come to be, the creationist quotes some big number he copied from somewhere to claim that the universe (or a protein molecule, or life, or DNA, or human evolution) coming into existence or happening “by chance” is improbable, therefore … Oogity Boogity! But ignorance isn’t evidence of anything, except the need to get to work trying to figure it out.

The typical “odds” argument is easily rebutted. Here’s how we do it: There are 52 playing cards in a deck. The odds against the sequence resulting from a good shuffle are — as the mathematicians say — 52 factorial. You need to multiply 52 x 51 x 50, etc., and keep going until you get to the last card. That’s what factorial means. Fifty-two factorial is a big number. It works out to be 8.06581752 × 1067. That’s 8 (and a tad more) times 10 to the 67th power, a far larger number than the creationist usually quotes (or makes up) to “prove” that the odds are against evolution. For comparison, 52 factorial is much larger than the estimated number of stars in the universe, which is “only” 1021 (source: this NASA webpage). But there are decks of cards all over the place; and each of them is arranged in an extremely improbable sequence. Further, as we explained three years ago, the algorithm of evolution can easily defeat those odds. See The Inevitability of Evolution (Part III)."

[Dior]

That has already been answered.

No. It hasn't. It was sidestepped and avoided.

A++ for effort. Next time put some more sarcasm in your comment. That seems to really work for your arguments.

[Glenzig]

I have already explained that isnt how evolution works nor is it even close. You keep repeating the same crap even though it has been explained a thousand times.

Since you are basically doing nothing but posting long since debunked bullshit from talkorigins then I will resort to posting page after page of long winded quotes too:

"Creationists acknowledge what they call “micro-evolution” (observed changes due to mutation and selection, as with Darwin’s finches) but they insist that what they call “macro-evolution” (the result of cumulative changes over time) is impossible. We sometimes call this the “micro-macro mambo."

If you ask a creationist why “macro” changes are impossible you’ll be told that it’s just impossible — some magic barrier interferes to preserve the integrity of scriptural “kinds.” Because of that unevidenced magical mechanism, which only the magic designer — blessed be he! — can overcome, creationists flatly assert that regardless of time, one species cannot evolve into another — despite the abundant fossil evidence to the contrary. Therefore, creationism requires belief in a two-part dogma consisting of: (1) the Great Barrier; and (2) the miracle that breaks through the barrier.

The error is enormous, because first it involves accepting, at the scale of a few visible generations, both the fact of and the mechanism for evolution (variation and natural selection), and then rejecting the inevitable consequences of what has been accepted.

Being clueless as to how anything might have come to be, the creationist quotes some big number he copied from somewhere to claim that the universe (or a protein molecule, or life, or DNA, or human evolution) coming into existence or happening “by chance” is improbable, therefore … Oogity Boogity! But ignorance isn’t evidence of anything, except the need to get to work trying to figure it out.

The typical “odds” argument is easily rebutted. Here’s how we do it: There are 52 playing cards in a deck. The odds against the sequence resulting from a good shuffle are — as the mathematicians say — 52 factorial. You need to multiply 52 x 51 x 50, etc., and keep going until you get to the last card. That’s what factorial means. Fifty-two factorial is a big number. It works out to be 8.06581752 × 1067. That’s 8 (and a tad more) times 10 to the 67th power, a far larger number than the creationist usually quotes (or makes up) to “prove” that the odds are against evolution. For comparison, 52 factorial is much larger than the estimated number of stars in the universe, which is “only” 1021 (source: this NASA webpage). But there are decks of cards all over the place; and each of them is arranged in an extremely improbable sequence. Further, as we explained three years ago, the algorithm of evolution can easily defeat those odds. See The Inevitability of Evolution (Part III)."

Decks of cards are created things. Thanks for lending more credence to creation.

[leewong]

"Kent Hovind (or, to use his correct academic title, Mr. Kent Hovind) is an Independent Baptist young Earth creationist and convicted felon from Pensacola, Florida. He promoted young Earth creationism and dominionist views in lectures and videos sold through his Creation Science Evangelism organization, and started Dinosaur Adventure Land, a small amusement park in his backyard.

In November 2006, he was convicted on a variety of tax-related charges, and received a 10-year sentence. Hovind is scheduled for release in summer 2015 [1] but faces further criminal charges before then. [2] Following his imprisonment, his son Eric Hovind took control of the businesses and renamed them.

Hovind refers to himself as "Dr. Kent Hovind" or as "Dr. Dino" to provide a veneer of respectability to those who have not examined his education or background.[3] He also claims to have "taught high school math and science" for fifteen years.[4] These are less impressive than they sound: he obtained his doctorates by mail-order and never taught at a school requiring accredited credentials.

As of 2013, Hovind claims four doctorates, in education, theology and biblical ministry with an honorary degree in divinity.[5]

His first Ph.D., obtained before his vacation in club fed:

is from Patriot Bible University, a degree mill.[6][7][8][9][10] Patriot sells doctorates for approximately $2,000.[11][12]
is in "Christian education." Hovind ignores the "Christian" part, instead describing it merely as in "education."
is not recognized by any legitimate university, professional association, or governmental agency. Patriot Bible University only offers "programs which are religious in nature" and their "degrees or diplomas have no state recognition."[13]
is officially unavailable to the public. Real doctoral dissertations are readily available through libraries or online. On December 9, 2009, Hovind's dissertation was uploaded to WikiLeaks[14] and that copy mirrors the substandard quality - with spelling and grammar mistakes typical of a high school student - previously described by the few who had read it.[15]
was reviewed by only one person, Wayne Knight[16], the president of Patriot[17][18]. In contrast, the standard practice for PhD dissertations is four or five doctoral committee members.

His 2013 Doctorate of Biblical Ministry (D.Min) is also from Patriot. His dissertation was made for sale as an e-book, entitled What on Earth is about to Happen... for Heaven's Sake?: A Dissertation on End Times According to the Bible, and claims Jesus will return in 2028.[19]

Hovind neglects to mention which institutions awarded the theological doctorate and honorary divinity doctorate, probably because - like the Patriot doctorates - they are also the educational equivalent of an online ordination by the Universal Life Church.[20]

Hovind listed himself as "Dr." in the Pensacola phone book, which is unusual even for someone with a real M.D or Ph.D. His blog, however, warns supporters that any mail addressed to "Dr. Kent Hovind" at the prison where he resides will be returned by the prison's mailroom staff.[21]

When Hovind says he "taught high school math and science," he really means he taught children at three private Christian schools run out of churches (one of which he founded)[22]. At no point did Hovind earn any recognized credentials that would allow him to teach at public school or any school that requires accreditation.

Despite having no scientific credentials or even an accredited degree, he presents himself as someone who understands the science of evolution better than people with advanced science degrees who research in labs and publish peer-reviewed papers. During his presentations, he sounds like an auctioneer or a used car salesman when he is attempting to make a point by getting his audience to buy a video or book from him. Many of his slideshows read like a top 10 list of commonly seen (and refuted) "evidences" for creationism that contain little to no actual data or proof. These arguments are interjected with unfunny "jokes" and anecdotes, which are topped off with a healthy serving of mined quotes. And like any good creationist, he is not above and in fact seems to enjoy spreading the false claim that Darwin caused the Holocaust.

Many of Hovind's claims can be easily refuted by merely reading Hovind's alleged references or doing basic math. For example, in Thunderf00t's Why Do People Laugh at Creationists? series, Hovind is quoted saying:
“”One drop of water will cover the world if you spread it real thin.
—Kent Hovind[23]

Hovind's error is off by a factor of one trillion. The surface area of the Earth is about 500,000,000 km2 (or 5x1012 m2, which is 5x1032 angstroms squared) and the size of a water molecule ("the smallest identifiable unit into which a pure substance can be divided[24]") is about 10 angstroms.[25] To find out how much water you would need to coat the world in a monolayer of water you divide the surface of the world by the water molecule; the result is you would need a minimum of 150,000 tons of water. Comparing the 150,000 tons of water you would need to Hovind's statement that one drop of water (about 0.00002 kg) could cover the world is off by 1,000,000,000,000.

Besides his poor math skills, Hovind doesn't fare much better in biology or being honest about what scientific papers say. Hovind seeks to "debunk" carbon dating by citing scientific literature, but what he actually does is mine quotes, take material out of context and invent alleged quotes out of whole cloth. In Seminar 7: Questions and Answers, he speaks about a scientific paper and displays this alleged quote on a slide:
“”One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the ‘wood immediately around the carcass’ was 9-10,000.
—Slide used and discussed by Kent Hovind[26]

In less than ten seconds, Hovind presents the quote and reference as evidence radiometric dating doesn't work and skips to his next slide. In checking the claim, the quote does not exist and article cited does not even refer to the correct species, date or even continent.[27] Sadly many creationists take Hovind at his word and simply recycle his claims without checking the references.[28]

Yet, there are some creationists who do investigate Hovind's claims and have concluded that Hovind's statements do not stand up to scrutiny. For example, a Creation Ministries International article by Carl Wieland, Ken Ham and Jonathan Sarfati reported: "Kent Hovind’s document repeatedly misrepresents or misunderstands not only our article, but the issues themselves."

[Eliseus]

I have already explained that isnt how evolution works nor is it even close. You keep repeating the same crap even though it has been explained a thousand times.

That actually is how evolution works. Maybe that is why you are so ignorant, you don't even know what you are defending in the first place.

[leewong]

1. “Where is the missing link/ transitional fossils?”

First of all, it should be noted that fossils are not easily found. They are rare, as general conditions do not always favor the formation of fossils. This being said, we actually have a HUGE number of transitional fossils and links between species. While it’s true that we won’t be able to find every single fossil for every single species that has ever existed, we have more than enough to accept the fossil record as extremely important evidence. An analogy would be this: ABCD_FGHIJK_MNO_QRST_VW_YZ. We have some blanks, but we can pretty much figure out which letters (or in evolution’s case, species containing certain traits) fit into these holes. Keep in mind that not having a perfectly complete fossil record is NOT evidence against evolution. It simply implies that there’s still room for improvement, and we still continue to fill in the blanks with new fossil finds. Here is a great reference with an enormous listing of different fossils and links: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

and here’s another: http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm

and ::gasp:: here’s ANOTHER: http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm

2. “My grandfather is not a monkey!"

It’s a common misconception to think that we directly came from monkeys. In reality, we actually share a common ancestor with apes (kind of like a family tree that branches off). To defend the claim that we share a common ancestor with apes, we have many evidences (such as the fossil record), but we have recently discovered two newer, amazing pieces of evidence. The first is that our chromosome pair #2 is consistent with the fusion of two ape chromosomes, and the second is a series of perfect matches between our endogenous retroviruses. The latter essentially proves ape common ancestry beyond all reasonable doubt. You may not understand these two genetic terms, but these two videos do a very good job of explaining just how important these are for evolutionary theory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FGYzZOZxMw&feature=related and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI


3. “Evolution is *just* a theory!”

Evolution is a scientific theory. It is labeled as such for two reasons. The first reason is that it has accumulated so much scientific evidence defending the claim, that it has gone from being an unjustified hypothesis to a justifiable theory. A “scientific theory” is not the same as a “guess” or “hypothesis” (or a regular “theory” in layman’s terms). It is the official scientific explanation for a huge set of facts and evidence. Secondly, it is called a scientific theory because, by definition, it is possible for it to be falsified. If a piece of evidence were to contradict evolutionary theory, the current theory would be dismissed and discarded. This has never, ever happened. Ever. This should show just how powerful this scientific theory really is. It should be noted that other scientific theories that are just as widely accepted in the scientific community include gravity, cell theory, plate tectonics, the big bang theory, and the atomic theory. These are all scientific theories. Yes, gravity is on par with evolution. Too many people think that a scientific theory could potentially be raised to a higher level (*if only there were enough evidence *). There is NO higher level. For instance, a scientific theory does not have the potential to become a scientific law, because they are completely separate things. A scientific law is not above a scientific theory. A law is a principle or guideline to keep in mind (such as the laws of thermodynamics), whereas a theory is the best current explanation for a set of facts. A scientific theory is the highest possible achievement of science. Evolution is not *JUST* a theory… it is TRIUMPHANTLY a theory (http://notjustatheory.com/)

This site also gives very good explanations: http://wilstar.com/theories.htm


4. “Evolution can’t be proven!”

I redirect you to my third misconception; theories, by definition, can’t be proven due to the fact that they are hypothetically falsifiable. For instance, if I held an apple in mid-air, and let go of it… and it didn’t fall, but just floated there… then I would have just falsified the theory of gravity. Similarly, if a scientist found that, on a genetic level, humans have more in common with oak trees than monkeys, it would falsify our nested hierarchies and evolutionary chain. These things have never happened.


5. “Evolution is wrong because the fossils indicate a young earth.”

The young earth argument basically says that if the earth is 10,000 years old (or less), then evolution simply would not have had enough time to run its course (which is true). However, an old earth (billions of years old) is accepted due to radiometric dating (not just carbon dating) and is mathematically and scientifically sound. Many people who say, “well this organism was dated to be two million years old when in reality it was only fifty years old” don’t realize that certain isotopes can only accurately date certain eras (based on their half-lives). For instance, carbon dating is very accurate for things that have been around for the past 10,000 years, but not to date things millions of years old (and so scientists use other isotopes for the older stuff). Here’s a site about which isotopes are used to date back to which eras (and more general information about radiometric dating): http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html#page%2019

We can also check these dates against other dating methods, which include varve counting, pollen analysis, ice core dating, tree ring dating (dendrochronology), coral dating, fluorine testing, thermoremanent magnetism, thermoluminescence, electron spin resonance, cosmic-ray exposure tests, and more. We have more than enough ways to date fossils AND eliminate any large inaccuracies. Whether a fossil is 37 million years old or 39 million years old is hardly something to lose sleep over. Most dating methods give ranges, anyway.


6. “Evolution is wrong because fossils are consistent with a global flood.”

This argument from ignorance actually amazes me. All fossils found in the same era are found in the same layer of earth. Older fossils are found in lower strata, while newer fossils are found closer to the surface. It’s as simple (and logical) as that. The only initially-puzzling special case is when we find older fossils on mountain tops… however, this is because of how those specific mountains were formed (two earth plates pushing against one another for millions of years caused the mountains to form; the earth used to be flatter way back in the day). For a global flood to be correct, ALL fossils from ALL species of living things would need to be found in the same layer of earth (whenever the global flood occurred); that means that you should be able to find a human’s skeleton next to a dinosaur’s. This has never been the case. Ever. Furthermore, here is a video that explains a logical alternative to the “global flood” myth, which is often created due to the Biblical flood story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cq0dBFqJZc0


7. “What about Noah’s Ark?”

This is similar to number six. This is also where it gets ugly, when people try to mix religion with science. You simply can’t do that. Religion is faith-based, whereas science is evidence-based. There is no proof that the Ark was real, or that there ever was a global flood. Since this is such a weak argument against evolution (there are actually many ways to disprove the global flood myth from a scientific standpoint, including the facts that the food/waste for/from every animal could not also fit onto the ark, plus carnivorous animals would eat the other animals, plus all of the plants on earth would die of drowning, plus all of the saltwater fish would have died due to the freshwater rain changing the ocean’s salinity, plus the fact that the animals would have had to carry all of the viruses and bacteria, plus apparently rabbits decided not to “screw like rabbits” for a whole year, plus the fossil record disproves it… but I digress), I’m just going to cut to the chase and post a video that shows one example of irrefutable scientific evidence (the bottlenecking of the cheetah) against the Noah’s Ark/global flood claim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIlWKp44T50


8. “I believe in Intelligent Design.”

Quite frankly, you shouldn’t believe in Intelligent Design (the umbrella hypothesis that includes Creationism). That’s the problem right there. It is unfortunate for those who like the idea of ID, because not a single shred of evidence has been presented to defend this hypothesis. The foundation of ID is Irreducible Complexity, and every supposed “example” of this has been found out to not apply. Exactly what things ID and IC claim are explained in the following video. Here is an example of the main argument for IC (and it’s debunking), the Bacterial Flagellum: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU

ID doesn’t impress the scientific community (the people who matter when it comes to facts and evidence) because there is no logical reason to believe in it.


9. “Evolution contradicts God’s existence… and… therefore, science is wrong."

Besides being a clearly illogical argument, I’d like to say: Nope. It does not. Evolution (and science, in general) says NOTHING about the existence of God. Evolution and the rest of science are SECULARIST, not ATHEISTIC. It may disagree with the Creation story in the Bible’s Genesis chapter, but it does not, in any way, falsify or contradict the concept of a general deity. It is possible for God to exist with the intent of creating the universe in such a way that this scientific process of evolution could have run its course (I recommend looking up the very smart and *safe* religion of Deism). Therefore, God and evolution can both exist. Of course, it should be noted that possibility is very different than probability. Quite frankly, Christians should be relieved that science is incapable of disproving God, or else evolution would be proof that their deity can’t exist (based on Biblical claims)


10. “There’s evidence for micro-evolution, but not macro-evolution.”

This is actually just plain false, but allow me to first explain the terms. Many people choose only to note the tiny steps (a mutation here, a new function there) and thus believe that only micro-evolution occurs and not macro-evolution. Micro-evolution and macro-evolution are terms used by IDers to try to weasel their way around the truth of evolution. Micro-evolution is supposed to be changes within a species, while macro-evolution means changes that connect one species to another. In reality, scientists decide when enough small changes have been generated (usually through multiple generations) to label a new organism as a new species. Evolution is evolution, period. Skeptics need to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. We all know that micro-evolution is observable and testable. A very simple and common example of this is the fact that every few years we need brand new flu vaccines; viruses and bacteria often evolve rapidly and overcome our current treatments. You USUALLY won’t witness a macro-evolutionary step in your lifetime, because a macro-evolutionary step could take tens of thousands of years to occur. However, one macro-evolutionary step could be the same as a hundred micro-evolutionary steps, and a few of those we CAN see in our lifetime. Looking back on our fossil records, we see all of the tiny steps (through our transitional fossils) and then choose to label a certain group of them as a single macro-evolutionary step. Here’s an analogy:

AARDVARK (original word)

AASDVARK (one micro-mutation, changing one letter)

AASDVARL (one micro-mutation, changing one letter)

AASDBARL (one micro-mutation, changing one letter)

AASEBARL (one micro-mutation, changing one letter)

AASEBALL (one micro-mutation, changing one letter)

BASEBALL (one micro-mutation, changing one letter; new word )

To go from AARDVARK to BASEBALL, six micro-steps took place in between the two real words. However, the first six “words” could be labeled as A-species, while the last word could be labeled as a new B-species (based off of the first letter of each “word”). Therefore, A-species to B-species could be considered a macro-evolutionary step, while the little “in-between” steps are micro-evolutionary.

Another very simple word analogy is this: Accepting micro-evolution but not macro-evolution is like accepting that seconds exist but not whole minutes.


***It should be noted that macro-evolution HAS been observed. Unique polyploidy generations result in speciation (which is the same as macro-evolution) due to there being more than the expected two homologous sets of chromosomes. This occurs more frequently in plants than animals. Here’s a reference regarding examples of unique polyploidy types and hybridization (as well as other examples): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5


The REASON this is an example of macro-evolution is because there are certain unique and beneficial capabilities that polyploidy organisms have over organisms with only two homologous sets of chromosomes. This is why they are classified differently. However, we have found that sometimes the latter organisms can produce offspring that (through mutations) have the polyploidy characteristic. Therefore, we have witnessed macro-evolution.

Allow me to give some examples and references to back up my claim (as it is ALWAYS important when discussing science):

"Ultrafrequent establishment of poly- ploidy in the homosporous Pteridophy- ta appears to be necessary to create and maintain genetic variation in the face of the homozygotizing effects of habitual self-fertilization in the monoe- cious gametophytes of these plants."

~http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/153/3733/305

"Somatic polyploidy, defined as genome multiplication, was found in all differentiated mammalian tissues. The highest level of such a polyploidy was found in the myocardium. This phenomenon was shown to be associated with changes in the pattern of gene expression. Hence, polyploidization may create cells with new physiology. ... Thus, we suppose that additional genomes may serve for cardiomyocyte protection from oxidative damage in the hearts."

~http://www.tsitologiya.cytspb.rssi.ru/46_2/anatskaya_en.htm

Check out this abstract as well (I can’t copy/paste this one, sorry guys): http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.es.07.110176.001233?cookieSet=1&journalCode=ecolsys.1


If anyone ever says that macro-evolution has never been observed, you can safely correct them.***

11. “Evolution doesn’t explain how the very first living thing came about.”

It’s not supposed to. Evolution is the study of how living organisms have changed throughout history. Evolutionary theory does NOT deal with how the first living organism came from non-life. This is a separate scientific field of study, know as Abiogenesis. Evolution and Abiogenesis do not rely on one another. Whether the first living organism came from self-replicating RNA or proteins or amino acids or Zeus or Thor or the Christian God does NOT affect the fact that we have substantial evidence for evolution. Abiogenesis contains hypotheses, but is currently not up to “scientific theory” status. However, it should be noted that we HAVE created life from non-life. We know that Abiogenesis is an absolute possibility (though we’re not 100% positive if this first experiment is the correct one, which is why it is not yet a scientific theory): http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/harvard-team-cr.html


12. “You can’t prove that God simply didn’t set up everything to fool us!”

This is true. God could have planted every single fossil correctly, decided (unimaginatively) that all living things should be connected genetically, and every other fact we have for evidence could have been a front for a designer. Most people believe in some sort of God; however, most of them do NOT believe in a deceitful one. Based on facts, evidence, observations, experiments, logic, and common sense, there is no reason to believe that evolution is incorrect, or a trick devised by a deceptive deity. Genetics can tell us who our mum is just like genetics can tell us who our grandparents are and (if we go back far enough, which doesn’t make it any less accurate) we can also find out other ancestors (species-wise). In the Creationist line of thinking (doubt EVERYTHING in light of obvious evidence), one couldn't even prove that you're related to your mum! Even when she was pregnant with you, the fact that you look like your mum and have her DNA and genetic make-up CLEARLY only says that God implanted an intelligently designed fetus inside of her to make you APPEAR to be related Come on now. This isn’t logical or scientific, and it shows that some people are simply grasping at straws.


13. “All of the alternatives should be taught in the classroom anyway. Everyone has a right to speak their minds. Let the children decide for themselves. It’s only FAIR.”

This obviously is not even an argument against evolution, but an argument to try and convince an audience that science is subjective. This argument, however, presents the dangerous fact that some people want unscientific hypotheses (or possibly even religion) taught in science class. This is terrible, and must be stopped at all costs. There is no scientific alternative to evolution. There is no controversy. Intelligent Design/Creationism does not impress the scientific community, because it is a religious belief system and it has no evidence behind it. Teaching science in schools is not about freedom of speech or ideas. It’s about teaching what we know is correct. In fact, there are many instances where education is simply NOT open for interpretation. Should a math teacher say, “If you WANT, you can believe that a triangle has four sides?” NO. Should an English teacher say, “If you WANT, you can say ‘I brang my lunch to school,’ instead of ‘brought’?” NO. Should parents say to small children, I want you to go to bed at nine o'clock and always do your homework... but it's up to YOU to make the final decision on those things ? NO. Using this faulty argument, we should also teach that since gravity is also *just a theory*, we should encourage children to jump off cliffs so that they can make their OWN decisions on whether or not to accept it as truth. Remember, evolution is on par with gravity (they’re both at the status of “scientific theory”… neither have ever been disproven, and both properly explain all of the facts). It's NOT up to the children to decide. It's up to the experts. It's up to the scientists and the teachers. Parents and other adults need to set a good example for children. Teaching ignorant alternatives is not healthy, and it will, quite frankly, screw up the next generation. The concept of fairness may seem appealing, but this extremely short video will explain how teaching ID (or other unscientific alternatives) in classrooms is anything BUT fair: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO5us0qHcwc


14. “A butterfly is a butterfly is a butterfly.”

This is the argument that a butterfly will only give birth to a butterfly (or that a dog will never give birth to a “non-dog”). Popularized by Kent Hovind, this argument against evolution actually defies the very definitions of evolution, speciation, and macro-evolution. I will use the butterfly scenario. An animal is considered a butterfly if it falls into Kingdom Animalia + Phylum Arthropoda + Class Insecta + Order Lepidoptera + any number of Families ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly ).

This being said, there are still smaller classifications (Genus and Species), ALL of which are still considered butterflies . This means that a butterfly parent could hypothetically even have an offspring in a different GENUS (not just Species) and it STILL wouldn't fall under the ridiculous ID goalpost-moving fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost ).

You might as well move the goalposts all the way back from the get-go and say evolution hasn't occurred because animals only give birth to animals .


15. "Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics."

"This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body. [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the second law is phrased in another equivalent way, The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease. Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always ) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the second law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder. However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the second law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the second law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?"

~http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html


16. “Darwin recanted his belief in his own evolutionary theory when he was on his deathbed.”

This is a misconception taken grossly out of context. The backstory here is that a woman named Elizabeth Cotton (also known as Lady Hope) visited Darwin when he was nearing the end of his life. The following is taken from a website that is famous for its ANTI-evolutionary and pro-Biblical literalist opinions:

“Further, it is fascinating what Lady Hope’s story does not say. It does not say that Darwin renounced evolution. It merely says that Darwin speculated over the outcome of his ideas. He never backed away from evolution. Nor does the Lady Hope story say that Darwin actually became a Christian.”

~http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/03/31/darwins-deathbed-conversion-legend

And, of course, pro-evolution websites explain the same thing (such as http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html). Lady Hope actually visited Darwin months before he died, and she wasn’t even with him when he was on his deathbed. Most importantly, even if this whole fairy tale were true, it would not make evolutionary theory any less valid If Newton had renounced his scientific views on his deathbed, he wouldn’t have flown into the ceiling.


17. “Mutations never provide *new* genetic information.”

This is a very common misconception, and probably one of the funniest arguments ever; EVERY mutation technically provides new information.

If a base pair is inserted, then that's the addition of new information.

If a base pair is removed, then the resulting shift from the rest of the bases in the sequence causes new information.

If base pairs are switched, then that's new information also.

In every single mutation, new triples emerge. Therefore, there is always new information.

Let's say we start with: ...-ATA-CGC-ATA-CGC-...


Insertion of C between first T and second A: ...-ATC-ACG-CAT-ACG-C...

Deletion of first G: ...-ATA-CCA-TAC-GC...

Switching second A with first C: ...-ATC-AGC-ATA-CGC-...


As you can see, regardless of what mutation occurs, new triples form. This means that new information is being processed. To say that no new information ever occurs due to mutations could not be more wrong; new information ALWAYS forms due to mutations.


Finally, here is a huge reference defending the entire scientific theory of evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


Only 2% of scientists even consider Intelligent Design as a HYPOTHESIS (not even close to a scientific theory), which is about the same percentage of geologists who consider the possibility of a flat earth (check out the Flat Earth Society if you want a few good laughs). There will ALWAYS be a small group of people who refuse to accept facts that may go against personal belief. It's called denial. The other 98% of the scientific community recognize evolutionary theory (and, in the analogy, a round earth) as truth. If the experts accept evolution as the prominent, unifying biological theory, why should the less-educated disagree? It’s always good to be initially skeptical and ask questions (this is how science progesses), but it should be painfully obvious that scientific theories have already gone through rigorous processes (make sure you watched the short video at the end of misconception thirteen). There is an abundance of evidence for evolution; there is none against it (or for any alternative). There is no controversy. It’s vital that we silence the myths and correct the misconceptions. Personally, I’d like to stick twenty Creationists in a room with twenty tigers and show them that survival of the fittest really DOES work… but as for right now, I’ll stick to the Facebook debates.


18. “Evolution is wrong because of the Piltdown Man, Haeckel’s Embryos, or any other famous scientific hoax!”

Like other areas of science, evolutionary theory has had its fair share of greedy scientists who fabricate finds and make up data in poor attempts to gain a quick path to fame and fortune. However, it has always been the case that, through peer review, OTHER scientists have discovered the occasional forgery and refuted it. Science is, after all, self-checking. The rare fake does NOT discredit the hundreds of thousands of other genetic, geological, and biological facts that all agree with one another and validate evolutionary theory. Besides, there have been plenty of fake religious propaganda and forgeries as well (Paluxy tracks, Peter Popoff, Shroud of Turin, Kinderhook plates, etc.); you wouldn’t want us saying that your entire religion is false just because some religious fundamentalists fabricated “evidence” to further THEIR own agendas, now would you?

[leewong]

When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.

Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy. They lobby for creationist ideas such as "intelligent design" to be taught as alternatives to evolution in science classrooms. As this article goes to press, the Ohio Board of Education is debating whether to mandate such a change. Some antievolutionists, such as Philip E. Johnson, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and author of Darwin on Trial, admit that they intend for intelligent-design theory to serve as a "wedge" for reopening science classrooms to discussions of God.

Besieged teachers and others may increasingly find themselves on the spot to defend evolution and refute creationism. The arguments that creationists use are typically specious and based on misunderstandings of (or outright lies about) evolution, but the number and diversity of the objections can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage.

To help with answering them, the following list rebuts some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution. It also directs readers to further sources for information and explains why creation science has no place in the classroom.

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.

2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
"Survival of the fittest" is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In a pioneering study of finches on the Galápagos Islands, Peter R. Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild [see his article "Natural Selection and Darwin's Finches"; Scientific American, October 1991].

The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.

3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Gal¿pagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.

4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.

Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless.

Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.

5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.
Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology.

Unfortunately, dishonest creationists have shown a willingness to take scientists' comments out of context to exaggerate and distort the disagreements. Anyone acquainted with the works of paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard University knows that in addition to co-authoring the punctuated-equilibrium model, Gould was one of the most eloquent defenders and articulators of evolution. (Punctuated equilibrium explains patterns in the fossil record by suggesting that most evolutionary changes occur within geologically brief intervals--which may nonetheless amount to hundreds of generations.) Yet creationists delight in dissecting out phrases from Gould's voluminous prose to make him sound as though he had doubted evolution, and they present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs.

When confronted with a quotation from a scientific authority that seems to question evolution, insist on seeing the statement in context. Almost invariably, the attack on evolution will prove illusory.

6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, "If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?" New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.

7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.

Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.

8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
Chance plays a part in evolution (for example, in the random mutations that can give rise to new traits), but evolution does not depend on chance to create organisms, proteins or other entities. Quite the opposite: natural selection, the principal known mechanism of evolution, harnesses nonrandom change by preserving "desirable" (adaptive) features and eliminating "undesirable" (nonadaptive) ones. As long as the forces of selection stay constant, natural selection can push evolution in one direction and produce sophisticated structures in surprisingly short times.

As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence "TOBEORNOTTOBE." Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet's). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare's entire play in just four and a half days.

9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
This argument derives from a misunderstanding of the Second Law. If it were valid, mineral crystals and snowflakes would also be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.

The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Thus, our planet as a whole can grow more complex because the sun pours heat and light onto it, and the greater entropy associated with the sun's nuclear fusion more than rebalances the scales. Simple organisms can fuel their rise toward complexity by consuming other forms of life and nonliving materials.

10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.

Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.

Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.

11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.
Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.

Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved.

12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms' physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership.

Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection--for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits--and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.

13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.
Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; Scientific American, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record.

Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.

14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.
This "argument from design" is the backbone of most recent attacks on evolution, but it is also one of the oldest. In 1802 theologian William Paley wrote that if one finds a pocket watch in a field, the most reasonable conclusion is that someone dropped it, not that natural forces created it there. By analogy, Paley argued, the complex structures of living things must be the handiwork of direct, divine invention. Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species as an answer to Paley: he explained how natural forces of selection, acting on inherited features, could gradually shape the evolution of ornate organic structures.

Generations of creationists have tried to counter Darwin by citing the example of the eye as a structure that could not have evolved. The eye's ability to provide vision depends on the perfect arrangement of its parts, these critics say. Natural selection could thus never favor the transitional forms needed during the eye's evolution--what good is half an eye? Anticipating this criticism, Darwin suggested that even "incomplete" eyes might confer benefits (such as helping creatures orient toward light) and thereby survive for further evolutionary refinement. Biology has vindicated Darwin: researchers have identified primitive eyes and light-sensing organs throughout the animal kingdom and have even tracked the evolutionary history of eyes through comparative genetics. (It now appears that in various families of organisms, eyes have evolved independently.)

Today's intelligent-design advocates are more sophisticated than their predecessors, but their arguments and goals are not fundamentally different. They criticize evolution by trying to demonstrate that it could not account for life as we know it and then insist that the only tenable alternative is that life was designed by an unidentified intelligence.

15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.
"Irreducible complexity" is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap--a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. He makes similar points about the blood's clotting mechanism and other molecular systems.

Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells.

The key is that the flagellum's component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. Similarly, the blood-clotting system seems to involve the modification and elaboration of proteins that were originally used in digestion, according to studies by Russell F. Doolittle of the University of California at San Diego. So some of the complexity that Behe calls proof of intelligent design is not irreducible at all.

Complexity of a different kind--"specified complexity"--is the cornerstone of the intelligent-design arguments of William A. Dembski of Baylor University in his books The Design Inference and No Free Lunch. Essentially his argument is that living things are complex in a way that undirected, random processes could never produce. The only logical conclusion, Dembski asserts, in an echo of Paley 200 years ago, is that some superhuman intelligence created and shaped life.

Dembski's argument contains several holes. It is wrong to insinuate that the field of explanations consists only of random processes or designing intelligences. Researchers into nonlinear systems and cellular automata at the Santa Fe Institute and elsewhere have demonstrated that simple, undirected processes can yield extraordinarily complex patterns. Some of the complexity seen in organisms may therefore emerge through natural phenomena that we as yet barely understand. But that is far different from saying that the complexity could not have arisen naturally.

"Creation science" is a contradiction in terms. A central tenet of modern science is methodological naturalism--it seeks to explain the universe purely in terms of observed or testable natural mechanisms. Thus, physics describes the atomic nucleus with specific concepts governing matter and energy, and it tests those descriptions experimentally. Physicists introduce new particles, such as quarks, to flesh out their theories only when data show that the previous descriptions cannot adequately explain observed phenomena. The new particles do not have arbitrary properties, moreover--their definitions are tightly constrained, because the new particles must fit within the existing framework of physics.

In contrast, intelligent-design theorists invoke shadowy entities that conveniently have whatever unconstrained abilities are needed to solve the mystery at hand. Rather than expanding scientific inquiry, such answers shut it down. (How does one disprove the existence of omnipotent intelligences?)

Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.

Logically, this is misleading: even if one naturalistic explanation is flawed, it does not mean that all are. Moreover, it does not make one intelligent-design theory more reasonable than another. Listeners are essentially left to fill in the blanks for themselves, and some will undoubtedly do so by substituting their religious beliefs for scientific ideas.

Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort.

[leewong]

That actually is how evolution works. Maybe that is why you are so ignorant, you don't even know what you are defending in the first place.

No, it isnt. You are a fucking idiot.

[leewong]

"(1) "The Second Law of Thermodynamics proves that evolution is impossible"
This is the most common creationist claim about science and evolution. The people who make this claim, often do not know what the Laws of Thermodynamics are about, much less how to apply them. Just to be fair, I thought I'd get a verbatum description of these laws from a commonly available source, an encyclopedia. Here it is:

Thermodynamics as taken from The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright c 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved

thermodynamics, branch of science concerned with the nature of HEAT and its conversion into other forms of ENERGY. Heat is a form of energy associated with the positions and motion of the molecules of a body. The total energy that a body contains as a result of the positions and the motions of its molecules is called its internal energy.

The first law of thermodynamics states that in any process the change in a system's internal energy is equal to the heat absorbed from the environment minus the WORK done on the environment. This law is a general form of the law of conservation of energy.

The second law of thermodynamics states that in a system the ENTROPY cannot decrease for any spontaneous process. A consequence of this law is that an engine can deliver work only when heat is transferred from a hot reservoir to a cold reservoir or heat sink.

The third law of thermodynamics states that all bodies at absolute zero would have the same entropy; this state is defined as having zero entropy.

Now, given this description, let me say that these laws can be loosely applied to nature, specifically to the life of any organism, or to an entire ecosystem. As it relates to a biological organism, we can substitute "heat" or "Energy" with "Food", "Air", and "water". Essentially, a creature that does not get enough energy in the forms of food, water, and oxygen, will decay and die, due to entropy. As it relates to a whole ecosystem, heat can be left unsubstituted, as heat from the Sun is the cheif driving force behind all life on earth. We know that the environment rarely decays and dies -- it merely changes it's state.

Now evolution is not a mechanical system, nor is it an ecosystem -- evolution is not driven by heat exchange. To say that the second law applies to evolution is like saying that the second law applies to the act of thinking or to genetic variation. It doesn't and cannot.

Creationists are using a scientific principle of physical systems in a PHILOSOPHICAL manner, which is a misapplication of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Would we not be foolish if we applied the rules of football to baseball?

(2) "There are no transitional fossils."
This is absolutely false. There are so many fossils on record (literally millions, worldwide), and most of them are transitional fossils. Creationists like Duaine Gish admit that there is "variation" in fossil groups, just as there is variation in a species, but he claims that there are no transitions between "kinds", when he says "There are no rep-birds, fish-phibians, or rep-mammals". Nothing can be further from the truth. There are so many fossils that are transitions between fish and amphibian, amphibian and reptile, and reptile and mammal, that these fossils have been given groups unto themselves. A look through a typical college text on fossils will reveal the following groups:

Therapsids -- these are creatures that share features of both reptiles and mammals, but are neither mammal nor reptile entirely -- they are in-between both.

Ichtyosetigids -- creatures that have both fish and amphibian features, but are neither. They are universally accepted by paleontologists as intermediates between fish and amphibians.

Seymoromorphs -- creatures that have both reptilian and amphibian features, but cannot be classified as either or or the other.

There are whole lineages of fossils that can be traced right through reptile, into therapsidia, and then into mammals, to the extent that classifying where reptile ends and where mammal begins is difficult, because the changes are so minute. Creationists often argue that scientists just "guess" which fossils are reptile, and which are mammal, and also claim that the selection process is arbitrary, which is again, totally untrue. A lot of debate and conjecture goes into figuring out how to classify a given fossil. all the details are hashed out and people debate them. (See Science On Trial by Douglas Futuyma)

(3) "Rocks cannot be dated Radiometrically."
Perhaps it would do more justice to this creationist argument if I quoted the original source. In Scientific Creationism, Henry Morris argues thusly:

"Rocks are not dated Radiomatrically. Many people believe the age of rocks are determined by study of their radioactive minerals -- uranium, thorium, potassium, rubidium, etc. -- but this is not so. The obvious proof that this is not the way it is done is the fact that the geologic column and approximate ages of all the fossil-bearing strata were all worked out long before anyone ever heard or thought about radioactive dating"

This statement is not only a distortion of reality, but is is a fallacy. First of all, saying that "rocks cannot be dated radiometrically because the geologic column was dated before radioactive dating was invented" is exactly the same as saying that you cannot cook with a microwave oven because people cooked with fire and electricity long before anyone ever heard or thought about microwaves. It's a complete fallacy.

Secondly, it distorts the work that has been done in the field over the past 200 years, most of it by people who never even heard of Darwin or evolution. The Geologic column, and the reletive dates of the fossils in them, were studied for decades by geologists and civil engineers. Though the reletive age of the rocks and fossils were worked out as far back as the early 1800s, the actual dates have gotten more and more accurate with the introduction of radioactive dating methods. We can now more accurately date rocks, whereas before we only knew that certain layers were simply older than others -- we now know how much older.
(4) "Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record. This is proof that life was created."
Not true at all. In fact, all complex life forms in the fossil record are preceeded by a long line of simple single-celled organisms. The fossil record is exactly as would be expected if evolution occurred. There are no vertibrates preceeding invertibrates, no mammals appearing before amphibians or fish. There are no simple life forms preceeded by more complex forms. A single occurence, for example, of a reptile being found in precambrian strata, or a mammal being found in carboniferous strata would be enough to throw the geologic column on edge, and force science to re-examine everything, yet there is nothing of the sort.

Invertibrates, and especially single-celled organisms, are difficult to fossilize, because of a lack of hard matter in their makeup, but single-celled life forms and algae have been found in precambrian strata. In fact, many microscopic traces suggesting development before single-celled organisms, have been found. The argument that life suddenly appears abruptly in the fossil record is just utterly false.
(5) "The Paluxi River basin contains footprints of dinosaurs, side-by-side with human footprints. This is proof that man and dinosaurs were contemporaneous, and that dinosaurs are not millions of years older."
This is absolutely false, and it's amazing that this argument keeps cropping up. The famous "man tracks" in the Paluxi river have been examined again, and again, and the results are the same every time. The alleged "man" tracks are 2-1/2 times the size of a large human foot, too large to be that of a human. They don't even have toe imprints, as would be expected, if a human made them. The prints are vaguely "bean-shaped", much like a human footprint, but when you see a cast of them, it is obvious that these prints are not human. Also, there is a 1-to-1 correlation with the Dinosaur tracks that these footprints are next to. In fact, it becomes more apparent when you see a sequence, that the "man" tracks, in effect, are part of the dinosaur's print -- they are the impression of one of the toes or footpads.

Some creationists argue that the print is that of a race of giants referred to in Genesis, but where are the fossils of these giants? There is no physical proof of these giants.
(6) "The Earth's Magnetic field is decaying at a rate of 1/2 of it's strength every 1400 years. This means that 1400 years ago, the earth's magnetic field was twice as stong as it is today. If we extrapolate backwards on this figure only 10,000 years, the earth's magnetic field would be greater than that of the sun!"
Henry Morris, in Scientific Creationism made this argument, based on a figure that isn't even true. The earth's magnetic field fluctuates. It has not been decaying at a steady rate at all. Thomas G. Barnes, who originated those figures, made his conclusions over 60 years ago, without enough data to make such an assertion. We now know, not only from current measurements, but from evidence left behind in rock layers (in the form of the alignment of magnetic minerals), that the Earth's magnetic field doesn't just get weaker and stronger over time, but the polarity of the Earth's magnetic field actually reverses itself periodically. Barnes' data is now outdated, and the argument is nonsensical.

The technique of backwards extrapolation is a common tool used by creationists in an attempt to make certain scientific facts and theories seem absurd. In the same book, Morris concludes, by using a mathematical formula to represent population growth, that there would be 10^2100 people living, if we extrapolated backwards only 1 million years.

Remember, Homo Sapiens have only been around for about 60-70 thousand years, according to current data, and civilization itself is less than 15,000 years old. The population growth rate that Morris uses (based on current figures) was many times smaller than today (Morris used figures from the 1970's, when his book was first published), as early as 900 A.D. Morris doesn't even take into account, the child mortality rate, which has decreased for industrialized civilizations quite significantly this past century.

The rate of population growth is not a constant, and never has been. Using the same formula that Morris uses, you can take the current population of the United States, for example, using our current population growth rate, and extrapolate backwards to the early 1700s, and get a population figure of ZERO for the United States, even though there has been a significant population since the mid 1600's. Backwards extrapolation can never be used for such measurements, because things like population growth, magnetic field fluctuation, and the size of the diameter of the sun, are too inconsistant.
(7) "Neanderthal Man was nothing more than a modern man with bone disease!"
Not true at all. This is actually a distortion of the facts. Though it is true that the original Neanderthal skeleton found in France showed evidence of rickets and osteoporosis (discovered 100 years after the discovery of the bones, by modern osteopathic experts), other later fossils of Neanderthal man lack these diseases. The bones of a Neanderthal skeleton are so radically different from that of a modern man's that there is no way you could simply call them deformed humans. The devil is in the details. Most people know about Neanderthal's skull, since that is the most dramatic part of the skeleton, with it's raised brow-ridge, huge nasal cavity, and thick jawbone. It has very ape-like features. But that is only the beginning. In Modern human anatomy, the bones of our arms and legs have a very distinct triangular shape, with the corners of the triangle having thicker bone than the sides. In Neanderthal bones, the shape of the bones is round; they are evenly round all sides, and are twice as thick as modern man's bones, as well as twice as strong. Their bodily proportions are slightly different than ours, not due to bone disease, however. (8) "Evolution says that everything in the universe came from nothing."
This is a common misconception that creationists, sadly, have yet to stop promoting. All the theory of evolution says is that life forms adapt to changes in the environment over time; that there are global changes in the gene pool of a given population of animals over time. Evolution doesn't deal with origins. Creationists have a difficult time separating evolution from the big bang theory. They dislike both theories, and often mistakenly connect them, confusing them as being related in a a way that they are not. The big bang theory is part of physics and cosmology, and only explains why the galaxies appear to all be moving away from the same central point. Evolution doesn't propose any explanation for the existence of matter itself, nor does it propose the idea that life came from non-life. That is another theory altogether called the theory of Abiogenesis. Though a biological theory like evolution, Abiogenesis is a completely separate theory based on connections discovered between organic and inorganic chemistry, protiens and DNA. Experiments such as the famous Miller/Urey experiment, produced self-replicating protiens in the lab under controlled conditions. Though nothing created was near the complexity of DNA or RNA-based life forms, the results proved that many of the basic components of DNA could easily come to be created by inorganic processes. Despite the promising results, nobody should ever confuse abiogenesis with evolutionary theory. "

[Eliseus]

No, it isnt. You are a fucking idiot.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evolution+debunked

[Eliseus]

You're the one that told me to do that. Don't like the results? Tough shit you little bitch.

[RobotElvis]

Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.





I will answer that and back it by science.

God created animals, vegetables, and humans in their full formed present condition.
These creations are able to breed and adapt within their species but not exceed the boundaries of their kinds.

This accounts for the Cambrian explosion, an event which baffles scientists to this day.
They cannot account for fully formed fossils suddenly appearing in the fossil record with no previous transitional species from whence they came.

If we are to believe as Leewong says that time is on the side of evolution, producing slow changes in species leading to new kinds being developed, how does he account for the Cambrian explosion?

[leewong]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evolution+debunked

And every single creationist claim that google turns up has been debunked. I didnt ask you to post this shit here. I asked you to do a search for the claims your are making with the word debunked after them. You are doing the exact opposite of that.

[Eliseus]

Intelligent design offers few answers. For instance, when and how did a designing intelligence intervene in life's history? By creating the first DNA? The first cell? The first human? Was every species designed, or just a few early ones? Proponents of intelligent-design theory frequently decline to be pinned down on these points. They do not even make real attempts to reconcile their disparate ideas about intelligent design. Instead they pursue argument by exclusion--that is, they belittle evolutionary explanations as far-fetched or incomplete and then imply that only design-based alternatives remain.





I will answer that and back it by science.

God created animals, vegetables, and humans in their full formed present condition.
These creations are able to breed and adapt within their species but not exceed the boundaries of their kinds.

This accounts for the Cambrian explosion, an event which baffles scientists to this day.
They cannot account for fully formed fossils suddenly appearing in the fossil record with no previous transitional species from whence they came.

If we are to believe as Leewong says that time is on the side of evolution, producing slow changes in species leading to new kinds being developed, how does he account for the Cambrian explosion?

I'm more concerned how Leewong doesn't get how much of what he quoted contradicts itself. The first paragraph goes into detail about how rare it is to come across fossils, while the next ones talk about how much support they have for evolution based off..... fossils. Better yet there is another paragraph that explains how impossible it is to prove evolution exists based off how long it takes to "evolve" while saying they have much supported evidence. Pretty contradicting if you ask me. I kind of stopped there and read bits of pieces of other of his spam posts because it kept just contradicting previous statements in his.......... own posts.

[Eliseus]

And every single creationist claim that google turns up has been debunked. I didnt ask you to post this shit here. I asked you to do a search for the claims your are making with the word debunked after them. You are doing the exact opposite of that.

It's ok little bitch. You are the one that said to google everything debunked. And your comments by far the the most debunked stuff on the webz.

[Eliseus]

I was trying to search for my claims of evolution was real. All I came up with was debunked stuff D:

[leewong]

If we are to believe as Leewong says that time is on the side of evolution, producing slow changes in species leading to new kinds being developed, how does he account for the Cambrian explosion?

The term “explosion” may be a bit of a misnomer. Cambrian life did not evolve in the blink of an eye. The Cambrian was preceded by many millions of years of evolution, and many of the animal phyla actually diverged during the Precambrian.

A lot can happen in 40 million years. Try again.

[leewong]

It's ok little bitch. You are the one that said to google everything debunked. And your comments by far the the most debunked stuff on the webz.

Again, that's not what I asked you to do. I asked you to do a search for the claims your are making with the word debunked after them. FFS, you are dense.

[RobotElvis]

To go from AARDVARK to BASEBALL, six micro-steps took place in between the two real words. However, the first six “words” could be labeled as A-species, while the last word could be labeled as a new B-species (based off of the first letter of each “word”). Therefore, A-species to B-species could be considered a macro-evolutionary step, while the little “in-between” steps are micro-evolutionary.




Here we see an example of ignorance in action.
To understand this analogy you must concede the fact that letters imply design and intelligence. You also must concede the fact that a certain pattern or order will be maintained to go from one word(animal) to another word (animal) all while not disrupting the pattern that takes you from one to the other.

This is a fatal flaw in the argument against teleology in Darwinian evolution.

Order and final cause must on some level be maintained for the finite result of AARDVARK to BASEBALL.

If not then using these eight letters we would have a nearly infinite number of possibilities to reach point B from point A.

[leewong]

I'm more concerned how Leewong doesn't get how much of what he quoted contradicts itself. The first paragraph goes into detail about how rare it is to come across fossils, while the next ones talk about how much support they have for evolution based off..... fossils. Better yet there is another paragraph that explains how impossible it is to prove evolution exists based off how long it takes to "evolve" while saying they have much supported evidence. Pretty contradicting if you ask me. I kind of stopped there and read bits of pieces of other of his spam posts because it kept just contradicting previous statements in his.......... own posts.

Try reading it again. Your reading skills have already been shown to be questionable.

[Glenzig]

Blood clotting isn't irreducibly complex either. I like that one. Why isn't it? Cause it could have maybe just started to happen one day a hundred billion years ago. Until then all living organisms that have a circulatory system would have bleed out any time they were cut. Could have been some migrating cells from the digestive tract that incorporated themselves perfectly and seamlessly into the bloodstream for the sole purpose of clotting blood though. Stuff like that happens all the time. Maybe you should research how many stages there are, and how many chemical processes involved in blood clotting before you parrot a malformed rebuttal.

God can't exist, but maybe since we can't account for the origins of life any other way we'll just say that aliens did it. There is an awful lot of evidence for alien life after all. Science!!!

[G13]

"(1) "The Second Law of Thermodynamics proves that evolution is impossible"
This is the most common creationist claim about science and evolution. The people who make this claim, often do not know what the Laws of Thermodynamics are about, much less how to apply them. Just to be fair, I thought I'd get a verbatum description of these laws from a commonly available source, an encyclopedia. Here it is:

Thermodynamics as taken from The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, licensed from Columbia University Press. Copyright c 1991 by Columbia University Press. All rights reserved

thermodynamics, branch of science concerned with the nature of HEAT and its conversion into other forms of ENERGY. Heat is a form of energy associated with the positions and motion of the molecules of a body. The total energy that a body contains as a result of the positions and the motions of its molecules is called its internal energy.

The first law of thermodynamics states that in any process the change in a system's internal energy is equal to the heat absorbed from the environment minus the WORK done on the environment. This law is a general form of the law of conservation of energy.

The second law of thermodynamics states that in a system the ENTROPY cannot decrease for any spontaneous process. A consequence of this law is that an engine can deliver work only when heat is transferred from a hot reservoir to a cold reservoir or heat sink.

The third law of thermodynamics states that all bodies at absolute zero would have the same entropy; this state is defined as having zero entropy.

Now, given this description, let me say that these laws can be loosely applied to nature, specifically to the life of any organism, or to an entire ecosystem. As it relates to a biological organism, we can substitute "heat" or "Energy" with "Food", "Air", and "water". Essentially, a creature that does not get enough energy in the forms of food, water, and oxygen, will decay and die, due to entropy. As it relates to a whole ecosystem, heat can be left unsubstituted, as heat from the Sun is the cheif driving force behind all life on earth. We know that the environment rarely decays and dies -- it merely changes it's state.

Now evolution is not a mechanical system, nor is it an ecosystem -- evolution is not driven by heat exchange. To say that the second law applies to evolution is like saying that the second law applies to the act of thinking or to genetic variation. It doesn't and cannot.

Creationists are using a scientific principle of physical systems in a PHILOSOPHICAL manner, which is a misapplication of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Would we not be foolish if we applied the rules of football to baseball?

(2) "There are no transitional fossils."
This is absolutely false. There are so many fossils on record (literally millions, worldwide), and most of them are transitional fossils. Creationists like Duaine Gish admit that there is "variation" in fossil groups, just as there is variation in a species, but he claims that there are no transitions between "kinds", when he says "There are no rep-birds, fish-phibians, or rep-mammals". Nothing can be further from the truth. There are so many fossils that are transitions between fish and amphibian, amphibian and reptile, and reptile and mammal, that these fossils have been given groups unto themselves. A look through a typical college text on fossils will reveal the following groups:

Therapsids -- these are creatures that share features of both reptiles and mammals, but are neither mammal nor reptile entirely -- they are in-between both.

Ichtyosetigids -- creatures that have both fish and amphibian features, but are neither. They are universally accepted by paleontologists as intermediates between fish and amphibians.

Seymoromorphs -- creatures that have both reptilian and amphibian features, but cannot be classified as either or or the other.

There are whole lineages of fossils that can be traced right through reptile, into therapsidia, and then into mammals, to the extent that classifying where reptile ends and where mammal begins is difficult, because the changes are so minute. Creationists often argue that scientists just "guess" which fossils are reptile, and which are mammal, and also claim that the selection process is arbitrary, which is again, totally untrue. A lot of debate and conjecture goes into figuring out how to classify a given fossil. all the details are hashed out and people debate them. (See Science On Trial by Douglas Futuyma)

(3) "Rocks cannot be dated Radiometrically."
Perhaps it would do more justice to this creationist argument if I quoted the original source. In Scientific Creationism, Henry Morris argues thusly:

"Rocks are not dated Radiomatrically. Many people believe the age of rocks are determined by study of their radioactive minerals -- uranium, thorium, potassium, rubidium, etc. -- but this is not so. The obvious proof that this is not the way it is done is the fact that the geologic column and approximate ages of all the fossil-bearing strata were all worked out long before anyone ever heard or thought about radioactive dating"

This statement is not only a distortion of reality, but is is a fallacy. First of all, saying that "rocks cannot be dated radiometrically because the geologic column was dated before radioactive dating was invented" is exactly the same as saying that you cannot cook with a microwave oven because people cooked with fire and electricity long before anyone ever heard or thought about microwaves. It's a complete fallacy.

Secondly, it distorts the work that has been done in the field over the past 200 years, most of it by people who never even heard of Darwin or evolution. The Geologic column, and the reletive dates of the fossils in them, were studied for decades by geologists and civil engineers. Though the reletive age of the rocks and fossils were worked out as far back as the early 1800s, the actual dates have gotten more and more accurate with the introduction of radioactive dating methods. We can now more accurately date rocks, whereas before we only knew that certain layers were simply older than others -- we now know how much older.
(4) "Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record. This is proof that life was created."
Not true at all. In fact, all complex life forms in the fossil record are preceeded by a long line of simple single-celled organisms. The fossil record is exactly as would be expected if evolution occurred. There are no vertibrates preceeding invertibrates, no mammals appearing before amphibians or fish. There are no simple life forms preceeded by more complex forms. A single occurence, for example, of a reptile being found in precambrian strata, or a mammal being found in carboniferous strata would be enough to throw the geologic column on edge, and force science to re-examine everything, yet there is nothing of the sort.

Invertibrates, and especially single-celled organisms, are difficult to fossilize, because of a lack of hard matter in their makeup, but single-celled life forms and algae have been found in precambrian strata. In fact, many microscopic traces suggesting development before single-celled organisms, have been found. The argument that life suddenly appears abruptly in the fossil record is just utterly false.
(5) "The Paluxi River basin contains footprints of dinosaurs, side-by-side with human footprints. This is proof that man and dinosaurs were contemporaneous, and that dinosaurs are not millions of years older."
This is absolutely false, and it's amazing that this argument keeps cropping up. The famous "man tracks" in the Paluxi river have been examined again, and again, and the results are the same every time. The alleged "man" tracks are 2-1/2 times the size of a large human foot, too large to be that of a human. They don't even have toe imprints, as would be expected, if a human made them. The prints are vaguely "bean-shaped", much like a human footprint, but when you see a cast of them, it is obvious that these prints are not human. Also, there is a 1-to-1 correlation with the Dinosaur tracks that these footprints are next to. In fact, it becomes more apparent when you see a sequence, that the "man" tracks, in effect, are part of the dinosaur's print -- they are the impression of one of the toes or footpads.

Some creationists argue that the print is that of a race of giants referred to in Genesis, but where are the fossils of these giants? There is no physical proof of these giants.
(6) "The Earth's Magnetic field is decaying at a rate of 1/2 of it's strength every 1400 years. This means that 1400 years ago, the earth's magnetic field was twice as stong as it is today. If we extrapolate backwards on this figure only 10,000 years, the earth's magnetic field would be greater than that of the sun!"
Henry Morris, in Scientific Creationism made this argument, based on a figure that isn't even true. The earth's magnetic field fluctuates. It has not been decaying at a steady rate at all. Thomas G. Barnes, who originated those figures, made his conclusions over 60 years ago, without enough data to make such an assertion. We now know, not only from current measurements, but from evidence left behind in rock layers (in the form of the alignment of magnetic minerals), that the Earth's magnetic field doesn't just get weaker and stronger over time, but the polarity of the Earth's magnetic field actually reverses itself periodically. Barnes' data is now outdated, and the argument is nonsensical.

The technique of backwards extrapolation is a common tool used by creationists in an attempt to make certain scientific facts and theories seem absurd. In the same book, Morris concludes, by using a mathematical formula to represent population growth, that there would be 10^2100 people living, if we extrapolated backwards only 1 million years.

Remember, Homo Sapiens have only been around for about 60-70 thousand years, according to current data, and civilization itself is less than 15,000 years old. The population growth rate that Morris uses (based on current figures) was many times smaller than today (Morris used figures from the 1970's, when his book was first published), as early as 900 A.D. Morris doesn't even take into account, the child mortality rate, which has decreased for industrialized civilizations quite significantly this past century.

The rate of population growth is not a constant, and never has been. Using the same formula that Morris uses, you can take the current population of the United States, for example, using our current population growth rate, and extrapolate backwards to the early 1700s, and get a population figure of ZERO for the United States, even though there has been a significant population since the mid 1600's. Backwards extrapolation can never be used for such measurements, because things like population growth, magnetic field fluctuation, and the size of the diameter of the sun, are too inconsistant.
(7) "Neanderthal Man was nothing more than a modern man with bone disease!"
Not true at all. This is actually a distortion of the facts. Though it is true that the original Neanderthal skeleton found in France showed evidence of rickets and osteoporosis (discovered 100 years after the discovery of the bones, by modern osteopathic experts), other later fossils of Neanderthal man lack these diseases. The bones of a Neanderthal skeleton are so radically different from that of a modern man's that there is no way you could simply call them deformed humans. The devil is in the details. Most people know about Neanderthal's skull, since that is the most dramatic part of the skeleton, with it's raised brow-ridge, huge nasal cavity, and thick jawbone. It has very ape-like features. But that is only the beginning. In Modern human anatomy, the bones of our arms and legs have a very distinct triangular shape, with the corners of the triangle having thicker bone than the sides. In Neanderthal bones, the shape of the bones is round; they are evenly round all sides, and are twice as thick as modern man's bones, as well as twice as strong. Their bodily proportions are slightly different than ours, not due to bone disease, however. (8) "Evolution says that everything in the universe came from nothing."
This is a common misconception that creationists, sadly, have yet to stop promoting. All the theory of evolution says is that life forms adapt to changes in the environment over time; that there are global changes in the gene pool of a given population of animals over time. Evolution doesn't deal with origins. Creationists have a difficult time separating evolution from the big bang theory. They dislike both theories, and often mistakenly connect them, confusing them as being related in a a way that they are not. The big bang theory is part of physics and cosmology, and only explains why the galaxies appear to all be moving away from the same central point. Evolution doesn't propose any explanation for the existence of matter itself, nor does it propose the idea that life came from non-life. That is another theory altogether called the theory of Abiogenesis. Though a biological theory like evolution, Abiogenesis is a completely separate theory based on connections discovered between organic and inorganic chemistry, protiens and DNA. Experiments such as the famous Miller/Urey experiment, produced self-replicating protiens in the lab under controlled conditions. Though nothing created was near the complexity of DNA or RNA-based life forms, the results proved that many of the basic components of DNA could easily come to be created by inorganic processes. Despite the promising results, nobody should ever confuse abiogenesis with evolutionary theory. "

Are you seriously going to do some lazy cut/paste gobbly**** nonsense?

Our galaxy is not a closed system. The universe is a closed system. All laws govern the entire universe. You grasp this yes? The sun is destructive and also contributes to shit breaking down over time. For examples see the roofs of cars and houses

FYI the Miller/Urey experiment has proven to be bogus so you're using an outdated source. If you actually understood these things you wouldn't expose yourself so hilariously by using bogus information. That experiment was decades ago and it only produced a sliver of a basic amino acid. It's not even .000000000000000000000001% of the first step/complex synthesis conditions you would need for life.

[Eliseus]

Again, that's not what I asked you to do. I asked you to do a search for the claims your are making with the word debunked after them. FFS, you are dense.

I was trying to search for my claims of evolution was real. All I came up with was debunked stuff D:

[RobotElvis]

I'm more concerned how Leewong doesn't get how much of what he quoted contradicts itself. The first paragraph goes into detail about how rare it is to come across fossils, while the next ones talk about how much support they have for evolution based off..... fossils. Better yet there is another paragraph that explains how impossible it is to prove evolution exists based off how long it takes to "evolve" while saying they have much supported evidence. Pretty contradicting if you ask me. I kind of stopped there and read bits of pieces of other of his spam posts because it kept just contradicting previous statements in his.......... own posts.

Yes it is very hard to find fossils(?) but don't worry the fossils needed to fill the gaps are there. I'm sure of it you could say I put faith in it.
Evidence? Oh I don't need that all I need is google to tell me they exist, somewhere.

*sarcasm*!

I wonder if The Jesus that Dior believes in took him to his home planet on his Jesus space explorer.

[leewong]

To go from AARDVARK to BASEBALL, six micro-steps took place in between the two real words. However, the first six “words” could be labeled as A-species, while the last word could be labeled as a new B-species (based off of the first letter of each “word”). Therefore, A-species to B-species could be considered a macro-evolutionary step, while the little “in-between” steps are micro-evolutionary.




Here we see an example of ignorance in action.
To understand this analogy you must concede the fact that letters imply design and intelligence. You also must concede the fact that a certain pattern or order will be maintained to go from one word(animal) to another word (animal) all while not disrupting the pattern that takes you from one to the other.

This is a fatal flaw in the argument against teleology in Darwinian evolution.

Order and final cause must on some level be maintained for the finite result of AARDVARK to BASEBALL.

If not then using these eight letters we would have a nearly infinite number of possibilities to reach point B from point A.

Except, DNA can fuse but letters cannot. DNA has random mutations that are selected by environmental pressures. I see no accounting for either here.

[leewong]

Yes it is very hard to find fossils(?) but don't worry the fossils needed to fill the gaps are there. I'm sure of it you could say I put faith in it.
Evidence? Oh I don't need that all I need is google to tell me they exist, somewhere.

*sarcasm*!

I wonder if The Jesus that Dior believes in took him to his home planet on his Jesus space explorer.

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

[RobotElvis]

Blood clotting isn't irreducibly complex either. I like that one. Why isn't it? Cause it could have maybe just started to happen one day a hundred billion years ago. Until then all living organisms that have a circulatory system would have bleed out any time they were cut. Could have been some migrating cells from the digestive tract that incorporated themselves perfectly and seamlessly into the bloodstream for the sole purpose of clotting blood though. Stuff like that happens all the time. Maybe you should research how many stages there are, and how many chemical processes involved in blood clotting before you parrot a malformed rebuttal.

God can't exist, but maybe since we can't account for the origins of life any other way we'll just say that aliens did it. There is an awful lot of evidence for alien life after all. Science!!!
But maybe it was just a mechanism!

[leewong]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=creationism+debunked

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=intellegent+design+debunked

See, that wasnt hard.

[Glenzig]

Except, DNA can fuse but letters cannot. DNA has random mutations that are selected by environmental pressures. I see no accounting for either here.

Really? Random mutations that are selected by environmental pressure. So they are both random and selected. They happen by coincidence and by guidance.

[Glenzig]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=creationism+debunked

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=intellegent+design+debunked

See, that wasnt hard.

So those are ok. But evolution+debunked proves nothing? Why?

[leewong]

But maybe it was just a mechanism!

If you folks really wanted answers they arent hard to find:

"At its core, the actual mechanism of clotting is remarkably simple. A fibrous, soluble protein called fibrinogen ("clot-maker") comprises about 3% of the protein in blood plasma. Fibrinogen has a sticky portion near the center of the molecule, but the sticky region is covered by little amino acid chains with negative charges. Because like charges repel, these chains keep fibrinogen molecules apart.

When a clot forms, a protease (protein-cutting) enzyme clips off the charged chains. This exposes the sticky parts of the molecule, and suddenly, fibrinogens (which are now called fibrins) start to stick together, beginning the formation of a clot.

The protease that cuts off the charged chains is called thrombin. So, just like the lobster clotting system, the heart of the reaction involves just two molecules: fibrinogen and thrombin. But, unlike the lobster, there's a lot more to this machine. It turns out that thrombin itself exists in an inactive form called prothrombin. So it, just like fibrinogen, has to be activated before it can start the clotting process. What activates prothrombin? Here's where life gets really interesting. Prothrombin, a protease itself, is activated by another protease called Factor X which clips of part of the inactive protein to produce active, clot-forming thrombin. OK, so what activates Factor X? Believe it or not, there are still more proteases, two of them, actually, called Factor VII and Factor IX, that can switch on Factor X. What switches them on? Here's where a good teacher goes the the blackboard, and so will I:

Now, "beauty" is a word that most people wouldn't think to put in the same sentence with "biochemistry," but the biochemistry of this pathway is beautiful indeed. Start at the bottom, with the conversion of soluble fibrinogen into clot-forming fibrin. As you look up, you can trace this process to one of two different external stimuli, both of which make good sense. At the upper left, the pathway can be started with damage to a cell surface, something that happens whenever blood is exposed to the air or a foreign object at the surface of a wound. At the upper right, tissue factor, a soluble protein found in most tissues but not in the bloodstream, activates the pathway. This is where clotting starts from an internal hemorrage, a broken vessel within the tissues of the body. So, both of these ultimate stimuli lead to the same set of clot-forming proteins (Factor X, thrombin, and fibrin), but neither does it directly. Instead, each activates a "cascade" of intermediate factors, nearly all of them proteases, which eventually activate clot formation.

It sure does look pretty, but why a cascade? Why couldn't we have a simpler pathway, like the lobster, where something like tissue factor activated clotting directly? Well, we could, but a complex pathway, even if it drives biochemistry students to distraction, has advantages of its own. For one thing, the multiple steps of the cascade amplify the signal from that first stimulus. If a single active molecule of Factor XII could activate, say, 20 or 30 molecules of Factor XI, then each level of the cascade would multiply the effects of a starting signal. Put 5 or 6 steps in the cascade, and you've amplified a biochemical signal more than a million times. Clotting with fewer steps would still work, but it would take longer to produce a substantial clot, and would be much less responsive to smaller injuries.

Michael Behe is in awe of the the intricate complexity of this system, and so am I. And he is also correct in pointing out that if we take away part of this system, we're in trouble. Hemophiliacs, for example, are unable to synthesize the active form of Factor VIII. This means that they are unable to complete the final step of one of the pathways, and that's why hemophilia is sometimes known as the bleeder's disease. Defects or deficiencies in any of the other factors are equally serious. No doubt about it - clotting is an essential function and it's not something to be messed with. But does this also mean that it could not have evolved? Not at all. The key to understanding the evolution of this intricate system, as Russell Doolittle has pointed out, is the fact that the clotting factors share an exquisite and revealing similarity.

Building the Machine

To paraphrase Darwin, the notion that evolution could have produced a system as intricate as the blood clotting cascade seems, we might freely confess, "absurd in the highest possible degree." This is especially true if you believe, as Behe seems to, that clotting is not possible until the entire cascade of factors is assembled.

But we already know that evolution doesn't start from scratch, and it doesn't need fully-assembled systems to work. Remember the lobster system as an example. Blood clotting evolved there from two pre-existing proteins, normally found in separate compartments of the body, that had a fortuituous interaction when damage to a blood vessel brought them together. Once that interaction was established, natural selection did the rest.

Could something like this have happened here?

Remember, we're not starting from nothing. We're starting about 600 million years ago in a small pre-vertebrate. with a low-volume low-pressure circulatory system. Just like any small inverterbate with a circulatory system, our ancestral organism would have had a full compliment of sticky white cells to help plug leaks. In addition, that ancestral system would have had something else. Most of the time, hemorrage starts with cell injury, meaning that cells are broken in the vicinity of a wound and their contents are dumped out. That means, among other things, that all of a cell's internal signalling molecules are suddenly spilled out into the damaged vascular system. Included among the contents are a whole slew of internal signalling molecules, including prominent ones like cyclic adenosine monophosphate (abbreviated: cAMP), all dumped into the tissue surrounding a wound.

Why would a sudden gusher of cAMP in a wound be significant? Well, it turns out that vertebrates use cAMP as a signalling molecule to control the contractions of smooth muscle cells, the very sort of muscle cells that surround blood vessels. Therefore, the release of internal cAMP from broken cells would automatically cause smooth muscles around a broken vessel to contract, limiting blood flow and making it more likely that the blood's own sticky white cells would be able to plug the leak. That means that we already have some ability to limit damage and plug leaks in a primitive, low-pressure system. Not a bad place to begin.

Our next step is to consider the nature of blood itself. For reasons relating to osmotic pressure, the tendency of water to move across cell membranes, blood plasma is a viscous, protein-laden solution. And it's also important to note that the extracellular environment of ordinary tissue is very different from blood. These spaces are laden with protein signals, insoluble matrix molecules, and extracellular proteases that cut and trim these molecules to their final shapes and sizes. In fact, such proteases constitute one of the major forms of extracellular signalling. So the tissues of our ancestral vertebrate would be laden with protein-cutting enzymes for reasons completely unrelated to clotting.

Keeping all of this in mind, what would happen when a blood vessel broke in such an organism?

Well, protein-rich plasma flows into an unfamiliar environment, and sticky white cells quickly "glom" up against the fibers of the extracellular matrix. Tissue proteases, quite accidentally, are now exposed to a new range of proteins, and they cut many of them to pieces. The solubility of these new fragments vary. Some are more soluble than the plasma proteins from which they were trimmed, but many are much less soluble. The result is that clumps of newly-insoluble protein fragments begin to assumulate at the tissue-plasma interface, helping to seal the break and forming a very primitive clot. (Could one object that this is too primitive and too nonspecific to work? That it wouldn't be sufficient to seal breaks? Well, it turns out that you can't make this objection for the very simple reason that this is pretty much the clotting mechanism used today by a large number of invertebrates. Works for them, and therefore there is no reason why it wouldn't have worked for the ancestors of today vertebrates, either!)

Now we get down to business. A mutation duplicates an existing gene for a serine protease, a digestive enzyme produced in the pancreas. Gene duplications happen all the time, and they are generally of such little importance that they are known as "neutral" mutations, having no effect on an organism's fittness. However, the original gene had a control region that switched it on only in the pancreas. During the duplication, the control region of the duplicate is damaged so that the new gene is switched on in both the pancreas and the liver. As a result, the inactive form of the enzyme, a zymogen, is relesased into the bloodstream.

This causes no problem for the organism - most pancreatic proteases are inactive until a small piece near their active sites can be cut away by another protease. However, when damage to a blood vessel allows plasma to seep into tissue, suddenly our previously inactive plasma serine protease is activated by tissue proteases, increasing the overall protein-cutting activity at the site of the hemorrage. Blood clotting is enhanced, so our duplicate gene (with the mistargeted protein) is now favored by natural selection.

That plasma protease gene is now subject to the same witches' brew of copying errors, rearrangements, and genetic reshuffling that affect the genes for every other cellular protein. Over time, bits and pieces of other genes are accidentally spliced into the plasma protease sequence. Because the selective value of the plasma protease is pretty low (it doesn't help clotting all that much), most of these changes make very little difference. But one day, through a well-understood process called "exon shuffling," a DNA sequence known as an "EGF domain" is spliced into one end of the protease gene. EGF stands for epidermal growth factor, a small protein used by cells throughout the body to signal other cells. EGF is so common that just about every tissue cell has "receptors" for it. These receptors are cell surface proteins shaped in such a way that they bind EGF tightly.

The fortuitious combination of a EGF sequence with the plasma protease changes everything.

In a flash, the tissue surrouding a broken blood vessel is now teeming with receptors that bind to the new EGF sequence on our serum protease. As a result, high concentrations of the circulating protease bind directly to the surfaces of cells near a wound. The proteases are activated in the same way, but now their proteolytic activities are highly localized. The production of a clot of insoluble protein fragments is now faster and more specific than ever. Organisms with the new EGF-protease can clot their blood much more quickly than before, and therefore are favored by natural selection. To emphasize its role in the clotting process, that cell surface protein with the EGF receptor is called Tissue Factor.

What happens next? Well, remember the case of the lobster in which a duplicate of a circulating protein (vitellogenin) became specialized to produce a clot-forming protein (lobster fibrinogen)? Once we have a situation in which every hemorrage activates a protease bound to tissue receptors, a gene duplicate of one of the major plasma proteins would then be under strong selective pressure to increase its ability to interact with the bound protease. Fibrinogen, the soluble protein that now is now the primary target of proteolysis in the clotting cascade, clearly arose in this way. Natural selection would favor each and every mutation or rearrangement that increased the sensitivity of fibrinogen to the plasma protease, dramatically enhancing the ability of the new protease to form specific clots of insoluble protein.

There is no doubt that these three steps, each one supported by classic Darwinian mechanisms, would have been sufficient to fashion a rudimentary clotting system. This would leave us with system in which circulating plasma contains both an inactive serine protease and its fibrinogen target. The protease would activated by contact with tissue factor, and the active protease, in turn, would cleave sensitive sites in fibrinogen to form a clot. This system wouldn't be nearly as quick, as responsive, or as sensitive as the current system of vertebrate clotting, but it would work a little better than the system that preceeded it, and that's all that evolution requires.

Adding Complexity

Could evolution take this rudimentary system and produce a multilayered cascade of factors? Just watch. Most serine proteases, including trypsin and thrombin, are auto-catalytic. That means that some extent they can activate themselves, in many cases by cleaving a few amino acids to switch on their active sites. So, we could diagram the actual functions of our ancestral plasma protease (which we'll call protease A) like this:

As we have seen, the inactive form of the protease (A) is changed into the active form (A*) when two things happen: it is bound to tissue factor (TF) and it is activated by tissue proteases, including our protease itself (that's the autocatalytic part). This means - and this is important - that our protease is actually involved in cutting two things: Fibrinogen, and also itself, converting A's inactive precursor protein into A*.

Now, let's suppose that a gene duplication occurs in the gene for our protease, producing a new (B) version of the gene:

At first, just like most gene duplications, this is no big deal. Proteins A and B are identical. Each can bind to TF, each can cleave fibrinogen into fibrin, and each can activate itself or its sister serum protease. So nothing has really changed - we've just got two copies of the same gene. But now let's suppose that a mutation in the active site of B changes its behavior, making it a little less likely to cut fibrinogen and a little more likely to activate protease A. In essence, this would change the relationship between these previously duplicate genes to something like this:

Suddenly, the ability of A to bind to TF becomes much less important. If B can saturate all of the available TF-binding sites itself (by virtue of its EGF domain), then the TF-mediated activation of B, combined with B's affinity for A, will result in a rapid activation of A, producing plenty of activated A to convert fibrinogen into clottable fibrin. Sounds good. But why would natural selection favor a mutation like this in B's active site? Simple: it would increase the efficiency of the clotting process by producing a 2-level cascade. Look closely, and you'll see that our 1-step clotting system required a direct interaction with TF to activate each protease. The new 2-step system allows each TF to activate a protease B, each of which in turn can activate scores or hundreds of A's. With so many more active proteases in the neighborhood of the injury, clotting can now occur more quickly, increasing the chances of surviving a hemorrage. Exactly the sort of stuff that natural selection favors.

Step back for a second and think about what we've just seen. A simple gene duplication sets the stage for the selection of active site mutations that would dramatically improve the clotting process. Gene duplications are neutral mutations, the sort that occur all the time and therefore, given enough time, are highly probable. Once the duplication has taken place, any mutation in the active site that shifts the preferences of the active site in the direction I have mentioned will be strongly favored. And that means that a true 2-step system will evolve very quickly.

Two additional points have to be mentioned. The first one is obvious. If gene duplication and subsequent mutation of the duplicate protease can change a 1-step system into a 2-step one, they could certainly change a 2-step system into a 3-step one. This means that increases in biochemical complexity are not only accomodated by evolutionary theory, they are actually predicted by it. The second point is a little more subtle. Early stages in the evolution of a clot forming-system are bound not to work very well. But as the system starts to work better, as it increases in complexity and efficiency, it begins to present a danger to the organism. That danger, simply put, is that clotting might get out of hand. As the clot-forming cascade evolves larger and larger, there is a chance that a small stimulus will start a reaction that might cause all of an organism's blood to clot, or at least enough of it to cause serious problems. Does evolution have an answer to that, too?

Well, it turns out that it does. First, keep in mind that a primitive clotting system, adequate for an animal with low blood pressure and minimal blood flow, doesn't have the clotting capacity to present this kind of a threat. But just as soon as the occasional clot becomes large enough to present health risks, natural selection would favor the evolution of systems to keep clot formation in check. And where would these systems come from? From pre-existing proteins, of course, duplicated and modified. The tissues of the body produce a protein known as a1-antitrypsin which binds to the active site of serine proteases found in tissues and keeps them in check. So, just as soon as clotting systems became strong enough, gene duplication would have presented natural selection with a working protease inhibitor that could then evolve into antithrombin, a similar inhibitor that today blocks the action of the primary fibrinogen-cleaving protease, thrombin.

In similar fashion, plasminogen, the precursor to a powerful clot-dissolving protein now found in plasma, would have been generated from duplicates of existing protease genes, just as soon as it became advantageous to develop clot-dissolving capability.

In short, the key to understanding the evolution of blood clotting is to appreciate that the current system did not evolve all at once. Like all biochemical systems, it evolved from genes and proteins that originally served different purposes. The powerful opportunistic pressures of natural selection progressively recruited one gene duplication after another, gradually fashioning a system in which high efficiences of controlled blood clotting made the modern vertebrate circulatory system possible.



Mining the Biochemical Past

Can we know for sure that this is how blood clotting (or any other biochemical system) evolved? The strict answer, of course, is we cannot. The best we can hope from our vertebrate ancestors are fossils that preserve bits and pieces of their form and structure, and it might seem that their biochemistry would be lost forever. But that's not quite true. Today's organisms are the descendents of that biological (and biochemical) past, and they provide a perfect opportunity to test these ideas.

Even a general scheme, like the one I've just presented, leads to a number of very specific predictions, each of which can be tested. First, the scheme itself is based on the use of well-known biochemical clues. For example, most of the enzymes involved in clotting are serine proteases, protein-cutting enzymes so-named because of the presence of a highly reactive serine in their active sites, the business ends of the protein. Now, what organ produces lots of serine proteases? The pancreas, of course, which releases serine proteases to help digest food. The pancreas, as it turns out, shares a common embryonic origin with another organ: the liver. And, not surprisingly, all of the clotting proteases are made in the liver. So, to "get" a masked protease into the serum all we'd need is a gene duplication that is turned on in the pancreas' "sister" organ. Simple, reasonable, and supported by the evidence.

Next, if the clotting cascade really evolved the way I have suggested, the the clotting enzymes would have to be near-duplicates of a pancreatic enzyme and of each other. As it turns out, they are. Not only is thrombin homologous to trypsin, a pancreatic serine protease, but the 5 clotting proteases (prothrombin and Factors X, IX, XI, and VII) share extensive homology as well. This is consistent, of course, with the notion that they were formed by gene duplication, just as suggested. But there is more to it than that. We could take one organism, humans for example, and construct a branching "tree" based on the relative degrees of similarity and difference between each of the five clotting proteases. Now, if the gene duplications that produced the clotting cascade occurred long ago in an ancestral vertebrate, we should be able to take any other vertebrate and construct a similar tree in which the relationships between the five clotting proteases match the relationships between the human proteases. This is a powerful test for our little scheme because it requires that sequences still undiscovered should match a particular pattern. And, as anyone knows who has followed the work in Doolittle's lab over the years, it is also a test that evolution passes in one organism after another.

There are many other tests and predictions that can be imposed on the scheme as well, but one of the boldest was made by Doolittle himself more than a decade ago. If the modern fibrinogen gene really was recruited from a duplicated ancestral gene, one that had nothing to do with blood clotting, then we ought to be able to find a fibrinogen-like gene in an animal that does not possess the vertebrate clotting pathway. In other words, we ought to be able to find a non-clotting fibrinogen protein in an invertebrate. That's a mighty bold prediction, because if it could not be found, it would cast Doolittle's whole evolutionary scheme into doubt.

Not to worry. In 1990, Xun Yu and Doolittle won their own bet, finding a fibrinogen-like sequence in the sea cucumber, an echinoderm. The vertebrate fibrinogen gene, just like genes for the other proteins of the clotting sequence, was formed by the duplication and modification of pre-existing genes.

Now, it would not be fair, just because we have presented a realistic evolutionary scheme, supported by gene sequences from modern organisms, to suggest that we now know exactly how the clotting system has evolved. That would be making far too much of our limited ability to reconstruct the details of the past. But nonetheless, there is little doubt that we do know enough to develop a plausible and scientifically valid scenario for how it might have evolved. And that scenario makes specific predictions that can be tested and verified against the evidence."

[RobotElvis]

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

You keep posting this as if it has actual transitional fossils that have been proven through science and not speculation in it.

That's a wonderful tale of the fossil record but not a reliable one.

[leewong]

You keep posting this as if it has actual transitional fossils that have been proven through science and not speculation in it.

That's a wonderful tale of the fossil record but not a reliable one.

No, you have a complete misunderstanding of what "transitional' means and the evolutionary process.

[Archalen]

90 pages later and approximately zero minds were changed.

[Dior]

I wonder if The Jesus that Dior believes in took him to his home planet on his Jesus space explorer.

I believe in Jesus? When the fuck did I say that?

So the list now is: shitposting, copy/paste, and now poor comprehension skills?

Should I add account juggling? Or are we going to ignore the obvious?

[Dior]

90 pages later and approximately zero minds were changed.

No one tries to change minds with these threads. The threads are made to entertain the posters.

[leewong]

I believe in Jesus? When the fuck did I say that?

So the list now is: shitposting, copy/paste, and now poor comprehension skills?

Should I add account juggling? Or are we going to ignore the obvious?

It would be funny if it wasnt so sad.

[Glenzig]

90 pages later and approximately zero minds were changed.

[Frieza_Prexus]

90 pages later and approximately zero minds were changed.

I find it interesting that the debate has focused solely on the science for the last while. The majority of Christian resistance to evolution stems from issues with Biblical hermeneutics, not scientific issues.

If you're looking to persuade as opposed to humiliate, I'd suggest you start with something along the lines of Humani generis from Pius XII. I'm not Catholic, but I like a lot of the surrounding literature. (Warning: Southern denominations will often reply to papal literature with buckshot.)

[leewong]

I dont think that is the purpose of the thread but who knows who is reading this thread and what they are thinking. Sure, the people posting here havent been swayed but they arent fence sitting like some that claim to be "spiritual" and such. I didnt come to theis thread to change a die hard creationists mind. I came here to counter their bullshit.

[Archalen]

No one tries to change minds with these threads. The threads are made to entertain the posters.

I really think it has more to do with maintenance of fragile identity/ ego. Also, I think it is "entertaining" in the same way that engaging in an addiction (like smoking) is "fun;" kind of a maladaptive way of relating to the world. Same rule applies to me.

[Dior]

I really think it has more to do with maintenance of fragile identity/ ego. Also, I think it is "entertaining" in the same way that engaging in an addiction (like smoking) is "fun;" kind of a maladaptive way of relating to the world. Same rule applies to me.

Probably the best post in the thread.

[G13]

I really think it has more to do with maintenance of fragile identity/ ego. Also, I think it is "entertaining" in the same way that engaging in an addiction (like smoking) is "fun;" kind of a maladaptive way of relating to the world. Same rule applies to me.

Or Evolution is a hoax

There is Truth and there is Untruth

[G13]

Probably the best post in the thread.

You're not helping him

[G13]

Except, DNA can fuse but letters cannot. DNA has random mutations that are selected by environmental pressures. I see no accounting for either here.

Random mutations are destructive

They don't create legible genetic code

This has already been explained to you simpleton

[Dior]

You're not helping him

In four words, you succinctly summarized the thread. Good job!

[Estolcles]

(Warning: Southern denominations will often reply to papal literature with buckshot.)

*gets the shotgun out and ready*

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

Random mutations are destructive

They don't create legible genetic code

This has already been explained to you simpleton

Next you'll tell the class that hairless cats are a hoax.

[leewong]

Or Evolution is a hoax

There is Truth and there is Untruth

Hmmm, a hoax that has run for over 170 years and involved almost every single scientist in the field of geology, archeology, DNA analysis, behavior studies, biology, germ theory, and and paleontology. They are all conspiring to make us believe God doesnt exist. G13 has single-handedly dismantled the millions of peer reviewed papers published that support evolutionary theory. I mean, all scientists have are facts and years of specialization in a field. They are probably just making shit up, right?

[leewong]

Random mutations are destructive

They don't create legible genetic code

This has already been explained to you simpleton

Destructive, eh? Ever hear of bacteria that have evolved to eat nylon? How about drug resistant bacteria? How about every living creature on this planet that in one way or another proves this wrong?

[iruinedyourday]

The THEORY of evolution still has many gaps. Theories have been proven wrong or had to be rewritten numerous times throughout history. Until we can close the gaps and stop putting faith in the areas where we 'think' we know what happened, why is that taught as THE answer?

well, it isn't taught as "the answer" to where life came from, if you think it is. It is taught as a theory, because it is science.

It teaches scientific method and the path that you take to find the answers to what things are made of based on its relationships with other things. In school believe it or not they teach children what a theory is and how it works. You are misinformed if you think that its taught as "the answer". If you are told that it is taught as "the answer", you are being lied to.

Creationism is a christian belief, made up, it's not fact. You can believe in it all you want which is fine! but you cant teach it to my children.

If you want to learn about christian beliefs, go to christian church.

if you want Creationism taught in science class then you have to teach the Muslim creation story right next to it, or the beliefs of Buddha. All of the sudden, you have to be asking yourself, why the hell are you asking for all this religious shit to be taught in SCIENCE class!?

The study of Evolution is science, it belongs in science class.

All that other junk belongs in its respective churches. Where you have to choose to learn about it. You cant force people to learn about religion in school because this is america man, not Iran.

you cant say I don't want my kid learning science, anymore than you can say I don't want my kid to learn math, or English or history.

Dear Christians creationists, I don't believe in your god, stop trying to make me believe in your god. I don't care what you believe in, why cant you be respectful of my beliefs?

[Eliseus]

Look, I can do exactly what leewrong does, but my google searches are more correct then his. When he googles something with debunked, it's 100% accurate, but when his ideas are googled and debunked, it is 100% fabricated results.

Instead of though finding a random website and copy/paste everything, I'll just save the hassle and do a link.

http://www.creationism.org/genesis.htm

Myself didn't even care to read it, but I'm pointing out what leewrong does to validate his points, while everyone else doing the exact same process or giving example to fit his Criteria are completely wrong. Again, like I've said a million times in this thread, wether or not 1 side is write or wrong, the side leewrong is on, whatever that may be, and people who agree, are completely hypocritical.

[leewong]

Look, I can do exactly what leewrong does, but my google searches are more correct then his. When he googles something with debunked, it's 100% accurate, but when his ideas are googled and debunked, it is 100% fabricated results.

No you arent doing exactly what I have done so let me explain it to you.

1. I hear a creationist claim, "no transitional fossils"
2. I type the word "debunked" after the creationist phrase into google (every claim a creationist makes has a rebuttal)
3. I find tons of articles stating exactly what is wrong with that specific claims creationist are making.
4. I go back and see if creationists have any rebuttal by doing another search. I find nothing to counter the scientists answers.

Here is what you do:

1. Type in google, "evolution debunked" or copy/paste from answersingenisis and talkorigins.com.

That's the difference. You dont care about what the scientist have to say to counter the specific arguments creationist make. You simply swallow everything they say without a thought and then in turn accuse others of doing the same when they arent.

[Eliseus]

No you arent doing exactly what I have done so let me explain it to you.

1. I hear a creationist claim, "no transitional fossils"
2. I type the word "debunked" after the creationist phrase into google (every claim a creationist makes has a rebuttal)
3. I find tons of articles stating exactly what is wrong with that specific claims creationist are making.
4. I go back and see if creationists have any rebuttal by doing another search. I find nothing to counter the scientists answers.

Here is what you do:

1. Type in google, "evolution debunked" or copy/paste from answersingenisis and talkorigins.com.

That's the difference. You dont care about what the scientist have to say to counter the specific arguments creationist make. You simply swallow everything they say without a thought and then in turn accuse others of doing the same when they arent.

Anyone with an amount of intelligence, or common sense, knows you are full of shit. Sorry bud.

[Eliseus]

There is nothing wrong being full of shit. I still think you are a cool guy for trying though. I just think you are a 1-sided moron at the same time that disagree with anyone that would doubt your point of view, not matter the cause. For example, google debunked after everything you say, and it is no longer relevant, google debunked after everything I say, and it is now relevant. Anyone who was around for those pages, or has read those pages knows it. Stop trying to hide from it.

[leewong]

Anyone with an amount of intelligence, or common sense, knows you are full of shit. Sorry bud.

So are you saying I dont do this? Interesting...

[leewong]

There is nothing wrong being full of shit. I still think you are a cool guy for trying though. I just think you are a 1-sided moron at the same time that disagree with anyone that would doubt your point of view, not matter the cause. For example, google debunked after everything you say, and it is no longer relevant, google debunked after everything I say, and it is now relevant. Anyone who was around for those pages, or has read those pages knows it. Stop trying to hide from it.

I explained what I wanted from you a few times now. If you cant read a simple paragraph and digest it...no skin off my back but you come off looking like a complete moron.

[Eliseus]

I explained what I wanted from you a few times now. If you cant read a simple paragraph and digest it...no skin off my back but you come off looking like a complete moron.

I google debunked several times for evolution and even gave you a google link on how to do it? Do I need to bold your quote again of your exact words?

[Eliseus]

Just for sake of clarity.

Simply type the word "debunked" after the crazy shit you are about to post.

I also found it interesting among your posts the countless times you have resulted in degrading peoples credibility through name calling, or stuff like calling them children, and that you are on your way home, and goodbye or something. I'm not doubting some of the "credible" sources you would call them, but I'm definitely doubting your lack of knowledge at all. Maybe you should let the big boys handle it and keep with your "religious" following towards their discoveries than argue on their behalf.

[leewong]

I google debunked several times for evolution and even gave you a google link on how to do it? Do I need to bold your quote again of your exact words?

Yes, please go ahead and quote my exact phrase again. I want you to take time and digest what I was saying and the whole point of the exercise. I have repeated it a few times now and even gave examples but it still seems to be going over your head. Maybe you should write it out on the chalkboard a few hundred times to let it sink in.

[paulgiamatti]

Eliseus, RobotElvis and G13 are disqualified from this discussion. They can't even differentiate between the ideas of belief and atheism, or religion and evolution. If you want to be caught in their web of circular logic and unfalsifiable claims, then by all means go right ahead. They are not approaching this conversation from a rational standpoint and are therefore removed from consideration for any semblance of rational debate.

I do have a response for Toofliss though, but I don't think I have time to get around to it today.

[RobotElvis]

Destructive, eh? Ever hear of bacteria that have evolved to eat nylon? How about drug resistant bacteria? How about every living creature on this planet that in one way or another proves this wrong?

Bacteria that's still bacteria. What a nail in the coffin for ID

[Eliseus]

For someone so obsessed with Charles Darwin, I'm surprised you haven't read some of the quotes.

"In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed."

Which you are far from.

"A moral being is one who is capable of reflecting on his past actions and their motives - of approving of some and disapproving of others."

Which completely negates the earlier convo that there is no 1 country like another if you base morals off that.

"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic."

Basically, you argue that a guy who knows it all, admits he doesn't have a clue.

"My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts."

Almost contradicts his last statement which in turn destroys some of his credibility.

"On the ordinary view of each species having been independently created, we gain no scientific explanation."

Oh I see, so this in line with one of the earlier quotes = evolution? We don't need facts, we can just make claims.

How about

"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."

You get the point I'm getting at. Actually, you probable don't, I don't know why I even posted these quotes.

In the end of this post I leave you with this.

"...I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.— Let each man hope & believe what he can.—"

[Glenzig]

Eliseus, RobotElvis and G13 are disqualified from this discussion. They can't even differentiate between the ideas of belief and atheism, or religion and evolution. If you want to be caught in their web of circular logic and unfalsifiable claims, then by all means go right ahead. They are not approaching this conversation from a rational standpoint and are therefore removed from consideration for any semblance of rational debate.

I do have a response for Toofliss though, but I don't think I have time to get around to it today.

So sayith the pualyG. So it shall be done.

[Eliseus]

Eliseus, RobotElvis and G13 are disqualified from this discussion. They can't even differentiate between the ideas of belief and atheism, or religion and evolution. If you want to be caught in their web of circular logic and unfalsifiable claims, then by all means go right ahead. They are not approaching this conversation from a rational standpoint and are therefore removed from consideration for any semblance of rational debate.

I do have a response for Toofliss though, but I don't think I have time to get around to it today.

Lawls, you are a good read. I would quote you definitions some more, but apparently can't comprehend definitions through your thick skull. It's ok though, real issue at hand with you is you don't want people to preach to you in your house anything that would be detrimental to your opinion, or your children's, but you let said people into your house, just for the sake of ridiculing them, then get mad that they preached to you. You lost and respect a long time ago.

[Glenzig]

Eliseus, RobotElvis and G13 are disqualified from this discussion. They can't even differentiate between the ideas of belief and atheism, or religion and evolution. If you want to be caught in their web of circular logic and unfalsifiable claims, then by all means go right ahead. They are not approaching this conversation from a rational standpoint and are therefore removed from consideration for any semblance of rational debate.

I do have a response for Toofliss though, but I don't think I have time to get around to it today.

Do you know how the theory of evolution was formed and its origins? It wasn't from honest scientific observation. There you have the first part of the answer.

[Barnes]

you have smoked yourself retarded

Nice one hehe

[leewong]

Just for sake of clarity.



I also found it interesting among your posts the countless times you have resulted in degrading peoples credibility through name calling, or stuff like calling them children, and that you are on your way home, and goodbye or something. I'm not doubting some of the "credible" sources you would call them, but I'm definitely doubting your lack of knowledge at all. Maybe you should let the big boys handle it and keep with your "religious" following towards their discoveries than argue on their behalf.

Lol, the fact you think you are even remotely intelligent is the funniest part. You cant even read a full paragraph without getting lost and taking things out of context. Keep trying though. One day you may actually come up with an argument that debunks 170+ years of evolutionary studies and thousands of scientists with PHDs.

[Eliseus]

Lol, the fact you think you are even remotely intelligent is the funniest part. You cant even read a full paragraph without getting lost and taking things out of context. Keep trying though. One day you may actually come up with an argument that debunks 170+ years of evolutionary studies and thousands of scientists with PHDs.

Ok pumpkin.

[leewong]

Bacteria that's still bacteria. What a nail in the coffin for ID

I posted bacteria as a response to the claim that, "no mutation is beneficial". Bacteria evolve resistances which are beneficial. Keep up with the conversation.

[G13]

Eliseus, RobotElvis and G13 are disqualified from this discussion.

Really?

Our posting privileges have been removed from this thread? Could have fooled me.

What a hilarious Fascist you are. Typical mouth dragging simpleton. When you can't refute facts you declare the debate over and everyone who doesn't buy into your Materialism and Evolution lies is "disqualified"

You are only making yourself look weak and small. Keep it up.

[Eliseus]

I posted bacteria as a response to the claim that, "no mutation is beneficial". Bacteria evolve resistances which are beneficial. Keep up with the conversation.

Be careful on your next step robot. He will tell you are stupid you are to try a deter from his own ignorance.

[leewong]

Ok pumpkin.

Nice rebuttal...you sack of shit.

[leewong]

He will tell you are stupid

I call em like I see em.

[iruinedyourday]

man u gotta check this thread 1 second after you post if you want to see your fuckn post on the current page.

Yall mother fuckers know there are new celeb pics out there right now?

[Glenzig]

Lol, the fact you think you are even remotely intelligent is the funniest part. You cant even read a full paragraph without getting lost and taking things out of context. Keep trying though. One day you may actually come up with an argument that debunks 170+ years of evolutionary studies and thousands of scientists with PHDs.

I believe this particular logical fallacy is called "the appeal to authority".

By the way, theologians have PHD's also. Does that qualify them to decide for everyone what is correct or incorrect?

[Eliseus]

Nice rebuttal...you sack of shit.

This right here supports exactly what I was saying earlier how leewrong is not only hypocritical, but he resorts to this right here. On another note, you didn't give me your opinion on

For someone so obsessed with Charles Darwin, I'm surprised you haven't read some of the quotes.

"In the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed."

Which you are far from.

"A moral being is one who is capable of reflecting on his past actions and their motives - of approving of some and disapproving of others."

Which completely negates the earlier convo that there is no 1 country like another if you base morals off that.

"The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an agnostic."

Basically, you argue that a guy who knows it all, admits he doesn't have a clue.

"My mind seems to have become a kind of machine for grinding general laws out of large collections of facts."

Almost contradicts his last statement which in turn destroys some of his credibility.

"On the ordinary view of each species having been independently created, we gain no scientific explanation."

Oh I see, so this in line with one of the earlier quotes = evolution? We don't need facts, we can just make claims.

How about

"I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."

You get the point I'm getting at. Actually, you probable don't, I don't know why I even posted these quotes.

In the end of this post I leave you with this.

"...I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton.— Let each man hope & believe what he can.—"

so quoting it for you. I want to know what derogatory term I will be called for this one. I'm writing a book on it, so please don't hold back.

[Whirled]

http://www.popcorn-song.com/img/popcorn.gif

http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_gifs/4289052/my+face+when+browsing+funnyjunk+comments

[Eliseus]

http://www.popcorn-song.com/img/popcorn.gif

http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_gifs/4289052/my+face+when+browsing+funnyjunk+comments

I laughed, though your popcorn joke is 80 something pages off.

[Eliseus]

oh wow, 90 something now

[Glenzig]

oh wow, 90 something now

If we get to 100 I win.

[Whirled]

I laughed, though your popcorn joke is 80 something pages off.

I'm trying :D

[Eliseus]

If we get to 100 I win.

Let's just push it.

[Eliseus]

Oh and for the sake of hoping leewrong is still there to help push it.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Charles+Darwin+debunked

[G13]

I posted bacteria as a response to the claim that, "no mutation is beneficial". Bacteria evolve resistances which are beneficial. Keep up with the conversation.

Evolution is when one species changes to an entirely different species. A new, never before seen form of life from an existing form of life

99.9999999999999999999999% of mutations are harmful. This is what Evolutionists claim. if you disagree take it up with them. A mutation is sporadically changed/rewritten genetic code. They are also extremely rare. The chances that this randomly and chaotic rewriting of existing genetic code into never before seen working and ordered code is ... well let's just say the odds are laughably not in your favor.

Trillions to 1 and that's being generous. It's never been seen. Never been reproduced. They've been trying now for years with fruitflies. 600 + generations of fruitflies slaughtered to try and prove this hoax. Guess what? Still fruitflies

Do I really need to get into how if you really rely on all these mutations to prove Evolution you're only digging a deeper hole? They are chaotic and random. All forms of life on this planet wouldn't have evolved in a designed and ordered process, meaning 2 eyes on the face, a nose, a heart, lungs, ect ect ect are you getting it now? There is symmetrical design to all life on this planet. Even the building blocks of matter are far more complex than Darwin ever could have realized. Cells were blobs of goo back in his day. His BS theory dates back to the mid 1800s. It's outdated. It has become a religion.

Just look at how complex and organized a single cell is. The building blocks of all matter are powered by complex little motors with more than 30 moving parts. They all need to have sprang into existence at the same time for this motor to work in perfect harmony properly. random chance creating these complex molecular structures are basically an impossibility. Evolutionists have lost the argument. They just aren't willing to admit it yet.

If you want to build a functioning motorcycle do you throw a bunch of tin cans together in a pile and hope for the best? Or do you write detailed blueprints and schematics and carefully design it from the ground up? Ever watch Orange County Choppers? Do they just randomly and chaotically toss a bunch of shit together and call it a motorcycle?

Evolution is a lie

[leewong]

I believe this particular logical fallacy is called "the appeal to authority".

By the way, theologians have PHD's also. Does that qualify them to decide for everyone what is correct or incorrect?

Dont be dense. I was pointing out that nearly two hundred years and thousands of scientific papers, experiments, etc back up what this p99 genius is trying to overturn. Creationism doesnt hold water in the scientific community because it isnt even science. It is dullards misunderstanding and mischaracterizing of the work people have put into these subjects and have been studying in far greater detail and who have vastly more knowledge than some asshats that just happen to browse answersingenesis one day.

If I need surgery I go to a surgeon. I dont ask joe-bob down the street what he thinks are the risks of a appendectomy because he hasnt studied for a large part of his life trying to acquire knowledge in that field. Joe-bob has never operated on someone just as I doubt a single person arguing against evolution has above a high school eduction on biology if even that. They lack knowledge and you need knowledge to have a intelligent answer.

[Eliseus]

Dont be dense. I was pointing out that nearly two hundred years and thousands of scientific papers, experiments, etc back up what this p99 genius is trying to overturn. Creationism doesnt hold water in the scientific community because it isnt even science. It is dullards misunderstanding and mischaracterizing of the work people have put into these subjects and have been studying in far greater detail and who have vastly more knowledge than some asshats that just happen to browse answersingenesis one day.

If I need surgery I go to a surgeon. I dont ask joe-bob down the street what he thinks are the risks of a appendectomy because he hasnt studied for a large part of his life trying to acquire knowledge in that field. Joe-bob has never operated on someone just as I doubt a single person arguing against evolution has above a high school eduction on biology if even that. They lack knowledge and you need knowledge to have a intelligent answer.

If we are to use a time-frame like you do, the belief in God extends all the way back to known discovery of human cultures.

[Eliseus]

Oh wait, it doesn't matter, irrelevant, only your info is relevant.

[capco]

There is so much win in this thread but it still makes me sad.

Someone explain?!?!!?!!

[Eliseus]

There is so much win in this thread but it still makes me sad.

Someone explain?!?!!?!!

It's win because the discussion can be pretty interesting and fun. It's sad because EVERYONE FUCKING SUCKS!

[RobotElvis]

Eliseus, RobotElvis and G13 are disqualified from this discussion. They can't even differentiate between the ideas of belief and atheism, or religion and evolution. If you want to be caught in their web of circular logic and unfalsifiable claims, then by all means go right ahead. They are not approaching this conversation from a rational standpoint and are therefore removed from consideration for any semblance of rational debate.

I do have a response for Toofliss though, but I don't think I have time to get around to it today.

"Neither lastly would our observer be driven out of his conclusion, or from his confidence in its truth, by being told that he knows nothing at all about the matter. He knows enough for his argument; he knows the utility of the end; he knows the subserviency and adaptation of the means to the end. These points being known, his ignorance concerning other points, his doubts concerning other points, affect not the certainty of his reasoning. The consciousness of knowing little need not beget a distrust of that which he does know."
Paley's '_Natural Theology_,' chap. i

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

I believe this particular logical fallacy is called "the appeal to authority".

By the way, theologians have PHD's also. Does that qualify them to decide for everyone what is correct or incorrect?

Mail order PHDs don't count. A PHD in religious education is not a PHD in education.

[Estolcles]

Time to create a new religion.

[leewong]

....

"Evolution is when one species changes to an entirely different species."

No, that is called speciation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

"99.9999999999999999999999% of mutations are harmful."

Please sight a source for this amazing insight! Fascinating! Oh wait, it isnt even remotely true and you just pulled the number from your ass?

"powered by complex little motors"

Lol, too funny not to quote.

"..."

Anyone who wants can simply look up your claims and within 30 seconds see they have all been debunked.

[Eliseus]

Mail order PHDs don't count. A PHD in religious education is not a PHD in education.

http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/programs_of_study/religion.php

I don't know what you are referring to as PHD in education, because any PHD is a PHD in education.

schools like Harvard offer

http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/programs_of_study/religion.php

and actually have a pretty extensive requirement and learning required for this field.

I feel the implication you are trying to imply is that someone with a PHD in religion is a retard, when that is on the contrary.

[Whirled]

Time to create a new religion.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/10433821_10155240279277355_608247282492362035_n.jp g?oh=1646489cfd5c8c75bf42d0ae73652c3a&oe=548EA925&__gda__=1419224090_b6b89787d1ac0239cb94cf85dd7dc80 e

[Eliseus]

"Evolution is when one species changes to an entirely different species."

No, that is called speciation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

"99.9999999999999999999999% of mutations are harmful."

Please sight a source for this amazing insight! Fascinating! Oh wait, it isnt even remotely true and you just pulled the number from your ass?

"powered by complex little motors"

Lol, too funny not to quote.

"..."

Anyone who wants can simply look up your claims and within 30 seconds see they have all been debunked.

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."

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

Look at me, I can link Wikipedia articles too, and that wasn't even anything of my views, that is your own view.

[leewong]

http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/programs_of_study/religion.php

I don't know what you are referring to as PHD in education, because any PHD is a PHD in education.

schools like Harvard offer

http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/programs_of_study/religion.php

and actually have a pretty extensive requirement and learning required for this field.

I feel the implication you are trying to imply is that someone with a PHD in religion is a retard, when that is on the contrary.

Way to miss his point. There is that pesky reading comprehension again.

He was referring to PHDs from religious institutions that teach things like creationism. A PHD in religious studies from Harvard or Yale is a completely different animal than a PHD in truthology from Patriot University.

[capco]

a PHD in truthology from Patriot University.

Hey, I have one of those!

[Glenzig]

Mail order PHDs don't count. A PHD in religious education is not a PHD in education.

A PHD in biology is not a PHD in education either. There are actual PHD's for educational studies. What's your point?

[leewong]

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."

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

Look at me, I can link Wikipedia articles too, and that wasn't even anything of my views, that is your own view.

Maybe you will learn something as you quote these things. Did you read the article on speciation? I doubt it.

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."

"Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise."

There is a reason why they have separate wiki pages and dictionary definitions. I quoted both again to make it easy for you.

[Dior]

I think the overarching thread is that theists believe god to be true and work backwards from there. "God is true, so I must look for things to prove that and ignore what might conflict with my answer" is pretty much the foundation of theologians everywhere.

God doesn't need apologists. He/She/It doesn't need anyone proving that he/she/it is real. Even if the Earth is a lot younger than what a multitude of scientific fields have shown, even if Jesus did resurrect, even if a being raped a woman to then give birth to himself, even if every miracle actually happened, it still does not prove that an all powerful, supernatural being exists. It only shows that our knowledge is still limited.

Don't get me wrong, clearly no one here believes in god. But I want the thread to ding 100.

[RobotElvis]

Evolution is when one species changes to an entirely different species. A new, never before seen form of life from an existing form of life

99.9999999999999999999999% of mutations are harmful. This is what Evolutionists claim. if you disagree take it up with them. A mutation is sporadically changed/rewritten genetic code. They are also extremely rare. The chances that this randomly and chaotic rewriting of existing genetic code into never before seen working and ordered code is ... well let's just say the odds are laughably not in your favor.

Trillions to 1 and that's being generous. It's never been seen. Never been reproduced. They've been trying now for years with fruitflies. 600 + generations of fruitflies slaughtered to try and prove this hoax. Guess what? Still fruitflies

Do I really need to get into how if you really rely on all these mutations to prove Evolution you're only digging a deeper hole? They are chaotic and random. All forms of life on this planet wouldn't have evolved in a designed and ordered process, meaning 2 eyes on the face, a nose, a heart, lungs, ect ect ect are you getting it now? There is symmetrical design to all life on this planet. Even the building blocks of matter are far more complex than Darwin ever could have realized. Cells were blobs of goo back in his day. His BS theory dates back to the mid 1800s. It's outdated. It has become a religion.

Just look at how complex and organized a single cell is. The building blocks of all matter are powered by complex little motors with more than 30 moving parts. They all need to have sprang into existence at the same time for this motor to work in perfect harmony properly. random chance creating these complex molecular structures are basically an impossibility. Evolutionists have lost the argument. They just aren't willing to admit it yet.

If you want to build a functioning motorcycle do you throw a bunch of tin cans together in a pile and hope for the best? Or do you write detailed blueprints and schematics and carefully design it from the ground up? Ever watch Orange County Choppers? Do they just randomly and chaotically toss a bunch of shit together and call it a motorcycle?

Evolution is a lie

Three or four per cent. of the population are color blind--"red-blind" --and are not able to distinguish the color of the green leaves from that of the red ripe cherries. Can it be possible that the eye becomes more perfect, because those who had less perfect eyes perished, and only those who could recognize colors survive until color blindness is finally eliminated? Is such a doctrine scientific? Is it more reasonable to believe it than to believe that an infinitely wise and powerful God created this organ of marvelous value and beauty? Of course, the ability to recognize color is only one of the many perfections of the eye.


But if the evolutionist _could_ convince the thoughtful student that the marvelous eye could have been so formed, by blind chance or natural selection, how could he account for the advantageous location of the eye and other organs? While we can not well name a fraction small enough to express the mathematical probability of the formation of the eye, the ear, and other organs of the body, we easily can compute the fraction of the probability of their location, though very small. In the passage quoted from Darwin, he begins with the simple eye but does not say how the eye originated.

The evolutionist guesses that there was a time when eyes were unknown--that is a necessary part of the hypothesis. And since the eye is a universal possession, among living things, the evolutionist guesses that it came into being,--not by design or act of God--I will give you the guess,--a piece of pigment, or as some say, a freckle, appeared upon the skin of an animal that had no eyes. This piece of pigment or freckle converged the rays of the sun upon that spot, and when the little animal felt the heat on that spot, it turned the spot to the sun to get more heat. This increased heat irritated the skin,--so the evolutionists guess--and a nerve came there and out of the nerve came the eye. Can you beat it? But this only accounts for one eye; there must have been another piece of pigment or freckle soon afterward, and just in the right place in order to give the animal two eyes.

Now assuming, what seems an utter impossibility, that the wonderful mechanism of the eye can be accounted for by chance or natural selection (another name for chance since design is excluded), how can we account for the _location_ of the eyes, and, in fact, of all the other organs of the body? We can easily calculate the mathematical probability on the basis of natural selection. There are from 2500 to 3500 square inches of surface to the human body, a space easily 3000 times the space occupied by an eye. The eye, by the laws of probability, is just as likely to be located any where else, and has one chance out of 3000 to be located where it is. But out, of our abundant margin, we will concede the chance to be one out of 1000, and hence its mathematical probability is .001. For mathematical probability includes possibility and even improbability. The compound probability of two things happening together is ascertained by multiplying together their fractions of probability. Now the probability of the location of the second eye where it is, also is .001. And the compound probability of the location of both eyes where they are, is .001 x .001 or .000,001. In like manner, the probability of the location of each ear where it is, is .001, and of the two ears .000,001. The compound probability of the location of two eyes and two ears where they are, is .000001 x .000001 or .000,000,000,001. The two eyes and two ears have but one chance out of a trillion or a million million to be located where they are. The location of the mouth, the nose, and every organ of the body diminishes this probability a thousand fold. We are speaking mildly when we say that this calculation proves that the evolution of the body, by chance or natural selection, has not one chance in a million to be true. So ruthlessly does the pure and reliable science of mathematics shatter the theory of evolution, which so called scientists claim is as firmly established as the law of gravitation!

[Eliseus]

Way to miss his point. There is that pesky reading comprehension again.

He was referring to PHDs from religious institutions that teach things like creationism. A PHD in religious studies from Harvard or Yale is a completely different animal than a PHD in truthology from Patriot University.

You keep talking about reading comprehension. He literally said that a PHD in religion is not a PHD in education. Maybe you are having a hard time reading, or not understanding what everyone is saying.

[Eliseus]

Maybe you will learn something as you quote these things. Did you read the article on speciation? I doubt it.

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."

"Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise."

There is a reason why they have separate wiki pages and dictionary definitions. I quoted both again to make it easy for you.

Just because I feel you failed to read some more.

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."

[leewong]

A PHD in biology is not a PHD in education either. There are actual PHD's for educational studies. What's your point?

Do you know know what accredited means? If one university is accredited and another is not...what does it mean? Is the PHD still considered a PHD if it comes from a non-accredited school? Are lawyers able to practice law after getting a law degree from a non-accredited school? How about a doctor? Engineer? Astrophysicist?

Do you see the difference now?

[Eliseus]

Believe in evolution, but claims evolution isn't evolution. Mind BLOWN!

[leewong]

You keep talking about reading comprehension. He literally said that a PHD in religion is not a PHD in education. Maybe you are having a hard time reading, or not understanding what everyone is saying.

Yes, and once again you demonstrate you cant follow a conversation. Read it all again and get back to me.

[RobotElvis]

100!

[capco]

DAMN IT I WANTED TO BE FIRST ON 100!!!!1

[RobotElvis]

I win!

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

You keep talking about reading comprehension. He literally said that a PHD in religion is not a PHD in education. Maybe you are having a hard time reading, or not understanding what everyone is saying.
No I didn't. Read it again.
Mail order PHDs don't count. A PHD in religious education is not a PHD in education.

A PHD in "religious education" is not a PHD in "education". What don't you understand?

[leewong]

Just because I feel you failed to read some more.

"Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins."

And what do we call the evolutionary process that gives rise to new species? Speciation. I am not denying it is part of the evolutionary process. This conversation to tough for you to follow?

[KagatobLuvsAnimu]

And what do we call the evolutionary process that gives rise to new species? Speciation. I am not denying it is part of the evolutionary process. This conversation to tough for you to follow?

He doesn't understand the basic concepts of the theory he is trying to argue against. End of story.

[Eliseus]

And what do we call the evolutionary process that gives rise to new species? Speciation. I am not denying it is part of the evolutionary process. This conversation to tough for you to follow?

Actually you did. I'm not going to go back and quote it, because you don't obviously believe or listen to your own statements.

[Eliseus]

No I didn't. Read it again.


A PHD in "religious education" is not a PHD in "education". What don't you understand?

Uhh what. You said A PHD in religious eduction is not a PHD in eduction. So you then say again, A PHD in religious education is not a PHD in education. Then I said you said a PHD in religious education is not a PHD in education. Therefore, I'm wrong, you did not say a PHD in religious education is not a PHD in education.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Wut

[leewong]

Actually you did. I'm not going to go back and quote it, because you don't obviously believe or listen to your own statements.

Um no, here is the entire quote for you to view again...

""Evolution is when one species changes to an entirely different species."

No, that is called speciation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

READING SKILLS....GET SOME DUMBASS.

[Daldolma]

if evolution isn't real then how the FUCK did avocados become guacamole