15 questions for evolutionists... please try to answer with decorum & science!

[p2r]

With passions building in the rwc what better to get some passion flowing questioning one's religion so here goes...


http://creation.com/15-questionsthan

And of course to question is a fundamental characteristic of science?

15 Questions for Evolutionists

Evolution: the naturalistic origin of life and its diversity

(The General Theory of Evolution, as defined by the evolutionist Kerkut, does include the origin of life.)

by Don Batten



1.
How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design? creation.com/loopholes.

2.
How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created? creation.com/code.

3.
How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See creation.com/meta-information. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate? creation.com/train.

4.
Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? creation.com/defining-terms.

5.
How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”3 creation.com/motor (includes animation).

6.
Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.”4 Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”5 The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes? creation.com/design_legit.

7.
How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals? creation.com/multicellularity.

8.
How did sex originate? Asexual reproduction gives up to twice as much reproductive success (‘fitness’) for the same resources as sexual reproduction, so how could the latter ever gain enough advantage to be selected? And how could mere physics and chemistry invent the complementary apparatuses needed at the same time (non-intelligent processes cannot plan for future coordination of male and female organs). creation.com/evosex.

9.
Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”.6 Other evolutionist fossil experts also acknowledge the problem. creation.com/pattquote.

10.
How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”7 creation.com/werner.

11.
How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes? creation.com/chesterton.

12.
Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”8 creation.com/sexstories.

13.
Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind? creation.com/science#relevance.

14.
Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”12 creation.com/notscience#distinction.

15.
Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”13 Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”14 If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught? creation.com/evo-religious, creation.com/notscience.





References
1.Davies, Paul, Australian Centre for Astrobiology, Sydney, New Scientist 179(2403):32, 2003. Return to text.
2.Knoll, Andrew H., PBS Nova interview, How Did Life Begin? July 1, 2004. Return to text.
3.Harold, Franklin M. (Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University) The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205. Return to text.
4.Dawkins, R., The Blind Watchmaker, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, p. 1, 1986. Return to text.
5.Crick, F., What mad pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery, Sloan Foundation Science, London, 1988, p. 138. Return to text.
6.Gould, Stephen Jay, Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977. Return to text.
7.Gould, S.J. and Eldredge, N., Punctuated equilibrium comes of age. Nature 366:223–224, 1993. Return to text.
8.Skell, P.S., Why Do We Invoke Darwin? Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology, The Scientist 19(16):10, 2005. Return to text.
9.As quoted in the Boston Globe, 23 October 2005. Return to text.
10.Skell, P.S., The Dangers Of Overselling Evolution; Focusing on Darwin and his theory doesn’t further scientific progress, Forbes magazine, 23 Feb 2009; http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/23/evolution-creation-debate-biology-opinions-contributors_darwin.html. Return to text.
11.E.g. Krehbel, M., Railroad wants monkey off its back, Creation 16(4):20–22, 1994; creation.com/monkey_back. Return to text.
12.pbs.org/now/printable/transcript349_full_print.html>, 3 December, 2004. Return to text.
13.Popper, K., Unended Quest, Fontana, Collins, Glasgow, p. 151, 1976. Return to text.
14.Ruse, M., How evolution became a religion: creationists correct? National Post, pp. B1,B3,B7 May 13, 2000. Return to text.

Related articles
Responses to the 15 Questions: part 1
Responses to the 15 Questions: part 2
Responses to the 15 Questions: part 3
The Question Evolution campaign

[shasta]

I shan't go into the debate in any great depth, except to say have you read the book "Eves Bite"

Certainly opened my eyes to alot of things i either didnt know or gave me a fresh perspective

I'm sure you would enjoy the book, if only to give you more questions rather than answers.

I'm NOT religious in any way shape or form (guess im an Atheist then) & dont subscribe to any particular theory

[asc4]

It would seem slot of these references are very old. Work from the 20 or 30 years ago is very out of date, 30 months is considered out of date in many cases.

I think an integral point is that the earth is 4 billion years old not 6000, time, odds and selection bring about evolutionary change.

Evolution doesn't disprove a higher entity, it tries to explain through scientific method how life came to be.

I'm open to the presence of a 'god', but like a good scientist I don't have faith, I will weigh up the evidence when presented with it.

Just my thoughts.

Disc. I'm a molecular biologist so I design genes often, but am far from an intelligent designer! Haha

[Lizard]

1. Asking 15 questions and expecting a reasoned debate on all of them??? How long have you got?

2. Seriously, how much does it matter? Let's pre-suppose intelligent design... what does that actually mean?? There is still a long way to go in terms of arguing form and function.

3. Would you change the way you lived your life for it??? I won't be. Life has to be lived within the definable parameters we have. That's challenging enough. And if I get stuck in an afterlife where everything is perfect (nothing needs fixing!) and I have all the time in the world to (not) fix it, then I will know that I have been punished and sent to hell.

How you face your fear of non-existence is up to you - but I suggest you look to your pre-existence (or not) before you were born for proof of what it is like to no longer exist. Then keep the memory of your ancestors alive - their existence in you is perhaps the only existence they still have. An afterlife will not solve the pain of death. Nor will it keep your relatives from grieving. Nor will life keep your joints from aching or you teeth and hair from falling out. Get grumpy or take up meditation. IT's LIFE!

[garman]

Science is all we have here on earth, to the modern thinking man all religion is nonsense, and to prove that point I suggest you click on this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o There are many mistakes in the so called 15 questions for instance number 6 starts off :Living things look like they were designed: Yea right, I knew a young girl who had the elephant man disease once, her head was twice the size it should have been she had no eyes and her ears were just holes she looked like she was starring in a horror movie, poor thing died when she was twelve, inteligent design Yea Right.

Number 3 :Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia: So is that also intelligent design?
the fact is that mutations are random some are good mutations and some are neutral and some are bad.

As I said science is all we have, it has answered millions of questions for us mainly in the last 200 years so you can imagine many more will be answered in the next 200 years and considering modern humans have been around for 200,000 years and man has only been using science for a few years the results have been quite impressive.

[miner]

I Don't believe in god either Garman but if your going to post links making fun of religion and giving it sh*t then they should at least get there facts right.

Man i.e. the catholic church made up the hell story,you know do what we say or you will burn in everlasting hell.

So you have proven something other than you intended,but we already knew that.

[h2so4]

Well of course. Who would want a God like that?

[garman]

I Don't believe in god either Garman but if your going to post links making fun of religion and giving it sh*t then they should at least get there facts right.

Man i.e. the catholic church made up the hell story,you know do what we say or you will burn in everlasting hell.

So you have proven something other than you intended,but we already knew that.Man i.e. made up the catholic church, Adam and Eve, in fact man i.e. made up the whole shooting match as far as we know.

[fungus pudding]

Man i.e. made up the catholic church, Adam and Eve, in fact man i.e. made up the whole shooting match as far as we know.


Man even made God, in his own image.

[craic]

Not so. The Catholic Church - or the Christian Church as it was then - simply rewrote the same stuff that had been rewritten by the Jews from earlier religions and continues to be rewritten by new religions. the latest version is currently being written here by the IRU.

[p2r]

New Tui ad "The theory of evolution is a scientific fact"... yeah right!

[p2r]

Many cultures have a creation story going way back...Jews, Christians of all sorts, Islam. Maori (Io), Babylonians etc etc.

Materialist athiests too have spontanaeous appearance of life storys going way back to the Greeks...

I guess you can make a story either way depending on your assumptions but is it science?

[miner]

Man i.e. made up the catholic church, Adam and Eve, in fact man i.e. made up the whole shooting match as far as we know.

As we both know Garman the bible(God) doesn't say you will burn in everlasting hell etc,rather the leaders of the catholic church thought it would be a good idea to add it in so as to keep people in line.

Nothing new thought as man has been twisting and turning the bible around for ever for there own gain.

So all your link proves is that you have the same problems as the guy on it who is trying to be funny ?.

[fungus pudding]

New Tui ad "The theory of evolution is a scientific fact"... yeah right!


Are you saying there is no scientific theory concerning evolution?

[garman]

Many cultures have a creation story going way back...Jews, Christians of all sorts, Islam. Maori (Io), Babylonians etc etc.

Materialist athiests too have spontanaeous appearance of life storys going way back to the Greeks...

I guess you can make a story either way depending on your assumptions but is it science?Yes P2r I am one of those wicked Materialist Atheists, but are you trying to say there are no Materialist Christians? sound like you need to watch this video so you can brush up on your evolution knowledge http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4

[garman]

Nothing new thought as man has been twisting and turning the bible around for ever for there own gain.Man has all the right in the world to twist and turn the bible around for his own gain' after-all man was the author.

[garman]

As we both know Garman the bible(God) doesn't say you will burn in everlasting hell etc,rather the leaders of the catholic church thought it would be a good idea to add it in so as to keep people in line. Yep you right there.


Nothing new thought as man has been twisting and turning the bible around for ever for there own gain. Man has all the right in the world to twist and turn the bible to suit himself after-all man was the author


So all your link proves is that you have the same problems as the guy on it who is trying to be funny ?. Not trying to be funny Miner that guy is funny! that's why there are so many in the audience, plus he does make some very valid points.

[karlos]

Yes P2r I am one of those wicked Materialist Atheists, but are you trying to say there are no Materialist Christians? sound like you need to watch this video so you can brush up on your evolution knowledge http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4

Hahahahaha:t_up:......Almost had me believing we were created by some molten steel, rocks, water and some sunlight Garman until that bonehead on the video explained why we could not be crossed due to a cartoon of a croc and a picture of Mr Rubber Ducky:D:p


PS fungus pudding....While I dont wish to sound like a smarty pants, I learnt as a child that God created man in his own image.:). It is recorded in a book that has been around for a couple of thousand years:).
You may have been influenced by Garman and his buddies that You Tube videos are the gospel of honesty and righteousness in the modern world

[garman]

Hahahahaha:t_up:......Almost had me believing we were created by some molten steel, rocks, water and some sunlight Garman until that bonehead on the video explained why we could not be crossed due to a cartoon of a croc and a picture of Mr Rubber Ducky:D:p


PS fungus pudding....While I don't wish to sound like a smarty pants, I learnt as a child that God created man in his own image.:). It is recorded in a book that has been around for a couple of thousand years:).
You may have been influenced by Garman and his buddies that You Tube videos are the gospel of honesty and righteousness in the modern worldKarlos answer me this' if a chap called God created all the heavens and all the earth in fact the whole universe where did he live before that?

[karlos]

Karlos answer me this' if a chap called God created all the heavens and all the earth in fact the whole universe where did he live before that?
Uuummmm??:confused::confused: That is a difficult question for a mere mortal man as myself garman.
You have me stumped:(

Could you answer my reciprocal thoughts....Being as yourself is a modern man that feels in the beginning the entire universe was a small ball of matter and one day that matter just went "BOOM"........

And today we have miraculously materialised:scared:, ....my question to you is who created the matter that created the environment for you, me, V8 Supercars, PTC, porn vids, Jim Beam, Ship Wrecks in Tauranga etc etc to occur:confused::confused::confused:

[garman]

Uuummmm??:confused::confused: That is a difficult question for a mere mortal man as myself garman.
You have me stumped:(

Could you answer my reciprocal thoughts....Being as yourself is a modern man that feels in the beginning the entire universe was a small ball of matter and one day that matter just went "BOOM"........

And today we have miraculously materialised:scared:, ....my question to you is who created the matter that created the environment for you, me, V8 Supercars, PTC, porn vids, Jim Beam, Ship Wrecks in Tauranga etc etc to occur:confused::confused::confused:Life is an amazing thing and I don't know where the materials appeared from that were responsible for the very first basic life forms, scientists are still trying to figure that out, there is still many questions they don't know the answer too. But just as they cannot answer where these building blocks of life came from believers in God are stuck with the same problem IE they haven't got a clue where God the creator of the universe and all life came from. So looking like a stalemate so far.

[belgarion]

So looking like a stalemate so far.

Really? Nobody has mentioned the obvious solution.

What if the universe has ALWAYS existed in one form or another? If it has ALWAYS existed then it never needed to be created by anyone or anything?

But then most humans just cannot grasp a concept like ALWAYS that is so vast and infinite. Thus they create a god to explain away ALWAYS.

For those struggling to understand ALWAYS, try this. E = MC2. What this simple maths is saying is that Matter cannot be destroyed as it turns to Energy. Conversely, Energy can be converted to matter. Thus, either as Energy or as Matter, it has ALWAYS present in one form or another.

Keeping up so far? It cannot be created or destroyed. Simple! Yes, but far harder to comprehend when its applied with time. Humans will look for a beginning or an end.

The less rational amoung us think they'll be an end and the universe everything will simply cease to exist. Others, think they'll go to heaven, where oddly enough they'll ALWAYS exist. The more rational see there as being no end. A bit like counting, there is alaways a number that follows even the highest number imaginable.

But a beginning? Surely something must have created ALWAYS. Once again, apply the lowest number you can think about, again there is always one number lower still.

Once you understand ALWAYS, very few fully comprehend it, you can see any discussion about god (or man) creating anything is just balony.

[POSSUM THE CAT]

KARLOS the bible was written by men? Is this correct? It also says all men are liars. So why do you believe it? Also read what the bible says about Incest. Remember this so called truthful book you rabbit on about says Adam & Eve had two sons. So where did the population of the world come from.

[miner]

Life is an amazing thing and I don't know where the materials appeared from that were responsible for the very first basic life forms, scientists are still trying to figure that out, there is still many questions they don't know the answer too. But just as they cannot answer where these building blocks of life came from believers in God are stuck with the same problem IE they haven't got a clue where God the creator of the universe and all life came from. So looking like a stalemate so far.

So basically your saying that the god lot cant prove and haven't got a clue where-how life started and neither has your religion but somehow your religion is right and the others wrong ?.


"Not trying to be funny Miner that guy is funny! that's why there are so many in the audience, plus he does make some very valid points."

So you are saying that because a group of like minded people are listening to him he is funny and makes some valid points ?.

So a priest talking to his congregation in a church would also be making valid points because there are so many in the church listening to him ?.

[garman]

So basically your saying that the god lot cant prove and haven't got a clue where-how life started and neither has your religion but somehow your religion is right and the others wrong ?.I believe in getting the evidence about our world and our existence from science, and science is not a religion the dictionary defines science as : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method : Science changes from day to day because new answers are always found Religion particularly Christianity is stuck with the bible story something science and rational thinking has ripped to shreds and proved beyond doubt to be full of untruths and fairy tales.

[miner]

One way you can look at design verses random chance is to look at what man has made and what is in nature.

The harrier jump jet is an amazing bit of design,as it can not only go flat out in a straight line but also hover and take off vertically.

Nature has the hummingbird which can also do the same although more agile than the harrier,so also an amazing bit of design work.

So just looking at the flying ability (hummingbirds don't have guns etc :-) ) are they both an amazing design or is one of them just a random fluke ?.

Science often searches for answers for ages,then looks at nature and thinks DAUH that's how you do it and then makes an inferior copy and calls it a great feat of design.

[fungus pudding]

I believe in getting the evidence about our world and our existence from science, and science is not a religion the dictionary defines science as : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method : Science changes from day to day because new answers are always found Religion particularly Christianity is stuck with the bible story something science and rational thinking has ripped to shreds and proved beyond doubt to be full of untruths and fairy tales.

I'm quite fond of this George Carlin quote.
" Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you."

[karlos]

KARLOS the bible was written by men? Is this correct? It also says all men are liars. So why do you believe it? Also read what the bible says about Incest. Remember this so called truthful book you rabbit on about says Adam & Eve had two sons. So where did the population of the world come from.

I have only read the first 2 pages of the bible about 2 decades ago PTC.
So I cant really give an informed comment on your questions.

I shall give you some reasoning as to why I dont discount the possibility of a higher entity.......As a child my adoptive mother provided Christian values and adoptive father was a well respected and righteous man. As a late teen and early twenties bloke it seemed logical to believe in evolution. Therefore when you die its all over:(.
From a few years back I have now had experiences to believe beyond all doubt that after the living flesh dies the spirit lives on:). Since this is so, surely folks like Allah, Maui and the bloke well known in western cilivisation, Jesus (thats the guy they wrote a book about some 2000 years ago) are real.


While that funny guy George Carlin takes the p.ss out of God by stating hes in the sky looking down on everyone to catch them being naughty:p, Im sure the Bible would not actually state this.....surely not:mellow:....can you check in the Bible to see if G Carlin is just sh.t stirring as some Athiests appear to be followers of the stand up comedian

[miner]

I'm quite fond of this George Carlin quote.
" Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you."


George Carlin is good at spreading false information as the bible doesn't say anything about going to hell where you

" full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!"

Fine if people don't believe in god but lying about what is written in the bible is getting a bit desperate.

[minimoke]

What if the universe has ALWAYS existed in one form or another? If it has ALWAYS existed then it never needed to be created by anyone or anything?

But then most humans just cannot grasp a concept like ALWAYS that is so vast and infinite. Thus they create a god to explain away ALWAYS.
As a non-believer I find a sense of scale at times useful to put my existence into a sense of perspective. This link gives us a bit of an idea of our existence and god-botherers can no doubt explain their own relevance in the overall scheme of things: http://htwins.net/scale/index.html.

I can't even begin to explain why after a bit of rain the other day I end up with a massive sinkhole in my driveway with sewerage pouring every where. If one is to believe in Gods existence and His ability to create a universe you'd have to believe He was pretty damn clever. It is inconceivable that He'd f#ck up and leave a few wee cracks in the crust of the earth or that He would be so bereft of morals that He doesn't try to put right his shoddy work - He's had millennia to do it but appears to have moved on.

[miner]

What about this one then.

Swimsuits made of technologically advanced fabrics biomimetically designed with a surface that mimics the rough shark denticles to reduce drag along key areas of the body. The characteristics of the fabric improve shape retention and increase muscle compression to reduce vibration and retain muscle shape to reduce fatigue and power loss.

So after years of trying to come up with a material that produced less drag once again scientists just ended up copying nature and herald it as a great break though in design.

The sharks skin is only one of it's features that make it a very efficient predator,yet the religion of evolution would have us believe that the shark is a random fluke rather than an amazing bit of design work.

So how is it that when we copy the shark skin it is a great bit of design work,yet what we copied it from is not ?.

[miner]

So Garman are they all by design or ???.



One way you can look at design verses random chance is to look at what man has made and what is in nature.

The harrier jump jet is an amazing bit of design,as it can not only go flat out in a straight line but also hover and take off vertically.

Nature has the hummingbird which can also do the same although more agile than the harrier,so also an amazing bit of design work.

So just looking at the flying ability (hummingbirds don't have guns etc :-) ) are they both an amazing design or is one of them just a random fluke ?.

Science often searches for answers for ages,then looks at nature and thinks DAUH that's how you do it and then makes an inferior copy and calls it a great feat of design.


What about this one then.

Swimsuits made of technologically advanced fabrics biomimetically designed with a surface that mimics the rough shark denticles to reduce drag along key areas of the body. The characteristics of the fabric improve shape retention and increase muscle compression to reduce vibration and retain muscle shape to reduce fatigue and power loss.

So after years of trying to come up with a material that produced less drag once again scientists just ended up copying nature and herald it as a great break though in design.

The sharks skin is only one of it's features that make it a very efficient predator,yet the religion of evolution would have us believe that the shark is a random fluke rather than an amazing bit of design work.

So how is it that when we copy the shark skin it is a great bit of design work,yet what we copied it from is not ?.

[fungus pudding]

I have only read the first 2 pages of the bible about 2 decades ago PTC.
So I cant really give an informed comment on your questions.

I shall give you some reasoning as to why I dont discount the possibility of a higher entity.......As a child my adoptive mother provided Christian values and adoptive father was a well respected and righteous man. As a late teen and early twenties bloke it seemed logical to believe in evolution. Therefore when you die its all over:(.
From a few years back I have now had experiences to believe beyond all doubt that after the living flesh dies the spirit lives on:). Since this is so, surely folks like Allah, Maui and the bloke well known in western cilivisation, Jesus (thats the guy they wrote a book about some 2000 years ago) are real.


While that funny guy George Carlin takes the p.ss out of God by stating hes in the sky looking down on everyone to catch them being naughty:p, Im sure the Bible would not actually state this.....surely not:mellow:....can you check in the Bible to see if G Carlin is just sh.t stirring as some Athiests appear to be followers of the stand up comedian

He says religion has convinced many of this. And he is right. I have met many of them.

[garman]

I'm quite fond of this George Carlin quote.
" Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!

But He loves you."


George Carlin is good at spreading false information as the bible doesn't say anything about going to hell where you

" full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time!"

Fine if people don't believe in god but lying about what is written in the bible is getting a bit desperate.It depends on what bits you read in the bible, because it is a book written by man and not a super god capable of creating the entire universe in 6 days it containes many contradictions etc this is a bit of what it says about Hell ::

Key Passages About Hell
(1) Hell was designed originally for Satan and his demons (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:10).

(2) Hell will also punish the sin of those who reject Christ (Matthew 13:41,50; Revelation 20:11-15; 21:8).

(3) Hell is conscious torment.

•Matthew 13:50 “furnace of fire…weeping and gnashing of teeth”
•Mark 9:48 “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”
•Revelation 14:10 “he will be tormented with fire and brimstone”
(4) Hell is eternal and irreversible.

•Revelation 14:11 “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever and they have no rest day and night”
•Revelation 20:14 “This is the second death, the lake of fire”
•Revelation 20:15 “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire”

Maybe George Carlin read these bits.

[garman]

As a non-believer I find a sense of scale at times useful to put my existence into a sense of perspective. This link gives us a bit of an idea of our existence and god-botherers can no doubt explain their own relevance in the overall scheme of things: http://htwins.net/scale/index.html.

I can't even begin to explain why after a bit of rain the other day I end up with a massive sinkhole in my driveway with sewerage pouring every where. If one is to believe in Gods existence and His ability to create a universe you'd have to believe He was pretty damn clever. It is inconceivable that He'd f#ck up and leave a few wee cracks in the crust of the earth or that He would be so bereft of morals that He doesn't try to put right his shoddy work - He's had millennia to do it but appears to have moved on.MM God did create the world in perfect form but everything fell to pieces when Eve eat that f----n apple read your bloody bible man.

[garman]

What about this one then.

Swimsuits made of technologically advanced fabrics biomimetically designed with a surface that mimics the rough shark denticles to reduce drag along key areas of the body. The characteristics of the fabric improve shape retention and increase muscle compression to reduce vibration and retain muscle shape to reduce fatigue and power loss.

So after years of trying to come up with a material that produced less drag once again scientists just ended up copying nature and herald it as a great break though in design.

The sharks skin is only one of it's features that make it a very efficient predator,yet the religion of evolution would have us believe that the shark is a random fluke rather than an amazing bit of design work.

So how is it that when we copy the shark skin it is a great bit of design work,yet what we copied it from is not ?.Simple because there is no proof that it was designed good old logical rational scientific proof Miner.

[miner]

Much the same as there is no proof that it evolved either,so therefore it didn't evolve using your logic.

Other logic would say that it is by design,science hasn't proven it wasn't designed ether.

The logical rational scientific proof that it wasn't designed is ?.

[duncan macgregor]

Much the same as there is no proof that it evolved either,so therefore it didn't evolve using your logic.

Other logic would say that it is by design,science hasn't proven it wasn't designed ether.

The logical rational scientific proof that it wasn't designed is ?. Logic tells me that there must have been a beginning, even for your god, whoever you think that might be. it is easier for me to beleave that we happened by chance, rather that some god has always been there without a beginning.
We the human race will be the god of the future if you think about it. Machines that reproduce themselves once the human race is gone will look on us as being the creater.
Lets face it guys we are half way there on both counts, its only a matter of time. On the other hand perhaps your god was created by chance, and really does exist tucked away in heaven on the other side of the universe who knows?.
I once lived in a haunted house beleave it or not, so a guy that beleaves in ghosts is more mixed up than most I would expect. Macdunk

[minimoke]

What about this one then.
....
So how is it that when we copy the shark skin it is a great bit of design work,yet what we copied it from is not ?.
Given that most of the planet is covered in water there was probably always a good chance mankind would find itself in it. Any intelligent designer would have allowed for this contingency and given us shark skin. Since we aren't covered in shark skin we can surmise we weren't intelligently designed.

[garman]

Much the same as there is no proof that it evolved either,so therefore it didn't evolve using your logic.

The logical rational scientific proof that it wasn't designed is ?.Miner old chap have you been living in a cave for the last 50 years? evolution is accepted wholeheartedly by the scientific community, there is an abundance of proof that evolution is fact, the debate over whether or not evolution occurs ended years ago.

[STRAT]

1. Asking 15 questions and expecting a reasoned debate on all of them??? How long have you got?

2. Seriously, how much does it matter? Let's pre-suppose intelligent design... what does that actually mean?? There is still a long way to go in terms of arguing form and function.

3. Would you change the way you lived your life for it??? I won't be. Life has to be lived within the definable parameters we have. That's challenging enough. And if I get stuck in an afterlife where everything is perfect (nothing needs fixing!) and I have all the time in the world to (not) fix it, then I will know that I have been punished and sent to hell.

How you face your fear of non-existence is up to you - but I suggest you look to your pre-existence (or not) before you were born for proof of what it is like to no longer exist. Then keep the memory of your ancestors alive - their existence in you is perhaps the only existence they still have. An afterlife will not solve the pain of death. Nor will it keep your relatives from grieving. Nor will life keep your joints from aching or you teeth and hair from falling out. Get grumpy or take up meditation. IT's LIFE!Nice answer Liz. I think this one can be left off the table at the next ST meeting. :D

[miner]

Posting yet another condescending load of rubbish is a waste of time garmin,and just a tad hard to believe when you yourself have said that evolutionists haven't got a clue how life started.

Abundance of proof like no transitional fossils,wholeheartedly accepted and debate ended years ago,dream on garmin the debate rages on as it always has,more so as science through things like the fossil record show that the theory of evolution is fatally flawed .

So rather than show us this "logical rational scientific proof" that the shark wasn't designed you side step it and post one of your grand statements.

[belgarion]

Logic tells me that there must have been a beginning...

Bollocks! Logic tells no such story ... It tells completely different story ...


Really? Nobody has mentioned the obvious solution.

What if the universe has ALWAYS existed in one form or another? If it has ALWAYS existed then it never needed to be created by anyone or anything?

But then most humans just cannot grasp a concept like ALWAYS that is so vast and infinite. Thus they create a god to explain away ALWAYS.

For those struggling to understand ALWAYS, try this. E = MC2. What this simple maths is saying is that Matter cannot be destroyed as it turns to Energy. Conversely, Energy can be converted to matter. Thus, either as Energy or as Matter, it has ALWAYS present in one form or another.

Keeping up so far? It cannot be created or destroyed. Simple! Yes, but far harder to comprehend when its applied with time. Humans will look for a beginning or an end.

The less rational amoung us think they'll be an end and the universe everything will simply cease to exist. Others, think they'll go to heaven, where oddly enough they'll ALWAYS exist. The more rational see there as being no end. A bit like counting, there is alaways a number that follows even the highest number imaginable.

But a beginning? Surely something must have created ALWAYS. Once again, apply the lowest number you can think about, again there is always one number lower still.

Once you understand ALWAYS, very few fully comprehend it, you can see any discussion about god (or man) creating anything is just balony.

[belgarion]

... just a tad hard to believe when you yourself have said that evolutionists haven't got a clue how life started.

Miner,

Once you get your head around ALWAYS and the obvious equivilent, INFINITY, then the beginning is easy to understand.

But lets start with something simple ...

How long would it take for 10,000 monkeys randomly hitting keys on a keyboard before they came up with the collective works of Shakespeare?

The question is meant to fool. It starts with "how long ..." making the reader start thinking in terms of years or even millions of years. A better question would be:

With 10,000 monkeys randomly hitting keys on a keyboard would they every come up with collective works of Shakespeare?

The answer obviously has to be YES. They would eventually.

The same applies to LIFE and to our universe.

If it has ALWAYS been there then its had an INFINITE time for atoms to bash into each other creating the environment we live in today.

[miner]

So are you saying that life as we know it started from atoms randomly bashing into each other and from that we now have all the diverse plant and animal life on earth ?.

And here I was just thinking "atom ant" was a cartoon :-) .

[belgarion]

So are you saying that life as we know it started from atoms randomly bashing into each other and from that we now have all the diverse plant and animal life on earth ?.

That's right.

Hang around for another 13.75 billion years (give or take ± 0.13 billion) and I'm pretty sure it'll be a whole lot different to how it is now.

Hopefully, however, they'll be less of the primitive people around who are convinced there must have been a beginning and that the beginning was the work of an entity created and described by the primitives in numerous literary works that are less than 0.000002 billion years old. I'm guessing the beings that trace their origins back to humans as they were in 2011, in 13.75 billion years time, will look back at us and think we were pretty quaint and in the same intellectual league as various unicellular protozoan. Maybe if we're lucky we'll be thought of as slightly more advanced ... Maybe worms?

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

[miner]

One way of looking at it Belg,so would you say your an evolutionist with your own slant on how it all happened ,sounds like basically given enough time you think anything is possible ?.

As with others do you presume that if people don't believe in a form of evolution then they must believe in god ?.

As with all theory's or beliefs on how we got here there is the age old well prove it then question and so far no one can prove what they think from any of the camps.

[garman]

Posting yet another condescending load of rubbish is a waste of time garmin,and just a tad hard to believe when you yourself have said that evolutionists haven't got a clue how life started.

Abundance of proof like no transitional fossils,wholeheartedly accepted and debate ended years ago,dream on garmin the debate rages on as it always has,more so as science through things like the fossil record show that the theory of evolution is fatally flawed .

So rather than show us this "logical rational scientific proof" that the shark wasn't designed you side step it and post one of your grand statements.Since you refuse to take yourself to the correct reference sources to learn the truth I will now attempt to bring sources right to you so there should be no excuses for not grasping the truth that evolution happens and is accepted by science as fact. A short but good video for you it will only take two minutes so no excuses.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnzmxeZJeho

[garman]

Have a look at this Miner http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgnu3Hww8&feature=related

[miner]

And now you presume you know what I have looked at and read because ?,should I go sit in the corner with my naughty boy dunce hat on garman?.

So because an evolutionist has posted his theory on the net it has to be the truth ?,so all the creation videos on the net must also be the truth.

The truth is garman your religion has a bunch of unproven theory's just like the god lot have an unproven story about creation.

Just because you guys think up a theory and draw some nice pictures doesn't make it the truth more like a propaganda campaign.

Evolution is accepted by evolutionist you say,geees what a surprise, just keep ignoring the fact that the fossil record proves your whole theory is fatally flawed.

[garman]

just keep ignoring the fact that the fossil record proves your whole theory is fatally flawed.It doesn't matter how many time you repeat that lie Miner it is still a lie, evolution happens but to be fair here is a video that argues extremely well for the creation of the universe by God. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ah5xFMYbP4s&feature=relmfu

[belgarion]

One way of looking at it Belg,so would you say your an evolutionist with your own slant on how it all happened ,sounds like basically given enough time you think anything is possible ?.

As with others do you presume that if people don't believe in a form of evolution then they must believe in god ?.

As with all theory's or beliefs on how we got here there is the age old well prove it then question and so far no one can prove what they think from any of the camps.

Sorry minor, the two proofs I provided are mathematically undisputable. No further proof of any sort is required. The mathes clearly supports an evolutionist's hypothesis and completely refutes the need for intelligent design ... (even if the ID enthusiasts could offer up even one scientificially accepted proof beyond "we're not that bright - and we don't like the bright people who call themselves scientists as they make us look dumb because the only books we've read are religious ones where the main character is either a super-being we've invented or a nutter that talks to one - and now we've been ramming this bollocks down everyone throats for 3000 years and we're not going to stop now even though we know we look very foolish becuase there are people even more foolish that will believe our crap and give us money (and their vote and even their lives) to spout more of it!")

Once again, sorry minor, the two proofs I provided are mathematically undisputable. No further proof of any sort is required. Somewhat amusingly, you acknowlegde this in your opening sentence which is such a joy to behold as you're clearly stumped as to where to argue next ... I'll repost it .... :)


One way of looking at it Belg, so would you say your an evolutionist with your own slant on how it all happened ,sounds like basically given enough time you think anything is possible ?..

Actually minor, given enough time we might know what is NOT possible but at present I'll stick with ALWAYS and INFINITY and say that anything is possible...

[miner]

Lying is your forte garman,as for the fossil record it clearly shows different species suddenly appearing and fully formed such as fish, and your god Darwin stated

"If numerous species have really started into life at once,the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution"

Insects also appear suddenly ,dinosaurs turn up out of nowhere and don't change until they die out.

Science as you say is great as it has given us a clear history of life through the fossil record,unfortunately for Darwin it disproves his theory.

As for your latest clip,looks like the same old tactic of ridicule and make fun of the opposition,which just reflects badly on your lot,as if you are right why would you need to do it.

I don't think there right either but don't have to go around pocking fun at them.

Are you serious with this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgn...eature=related it's like a five year old made it,nice little cartoons and answer a question with a question or just revert to the tried and true attack the god lot.

Adolf Hitler being a catholic proves evolution is right because ?????.

[miner]

Sorry minor, the two proofs I provided are mathematically undisputable. No further proof of any sort is required. The mathes clearly supports an evolutionist's hypothesis and completely refutes the need for intelligent design ... (even if the ID enthusiasts could offer up even one scientificially accepted proof beyond "we're not that bright - and we don't like the bright people who call themselves scientists as they make us look dumb because the only books we've read are religious ones where the main character is either a super-being we've invented or a nutter that talks to one - and now we've been ramming this bollocks down everyone throats for 3000 years and we're not going to stop now even though we know we look very foolish becuase there are people even more foolish that will believe our crap and give us money (and their vote and even their lives) to spout more of it!")

Once again, sorry minor, the two proofs I provided are mathematically undisputable. No further proof of any sort is required. Somewhat amusingly, you acknowlegde this in your opening sentence which is such a joy to behold as you're clearly stumped as to where to argue next ... I'll repost it .... :)



Actually minor, given enough time we might know what is NOT possible but at present I'll stick with ALWAYS and INFINITY and say that anything is possible...


You had a few wines belgy ?, try amused at your theory but as for stumped dream on.

"Actually minor, given enough time we might know what is NOT possible but at present I'll stick with ALWAYS and INFINITY and say that anything is possible... "

Then design is possible.

[garman]

"If numerous species have really started into life at once,the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution" But they don't Miner that's why science wholeheartedly backs evolution as a proven fact.




Science as you say is great as it has given us a clear history of life through the fossil record,unfortunately for Darwin it disproves his theory. Wrong again Miner science backs evolution therefore Darwin all the way.


As for your latest clip,looks like the same old tactic of ridicule and make fun of the opposition,which just reflects badly on your lot,as if you are right why would you need to do it.

I don't think there right either but don't have to go around pocking fun at them. Anyone who ignores proven scientific facts for a belief in a man invented fairy story deserves to be pocked.


Are you serious with this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSxgn...eature=related it's like a five year old made it,nice little cartoons and answer a question with a question or just revert to the tried and true attack the god lot. Its a good video because it shows just how stupid the creation story really is even a five year old should be able to work it out if they are not brainwashed first by the likes of Benny Hinn etc.

Adolf Hitler being a catholic proves evolution is right because ?????. [/QUOTE]Agreed Adolf Hitler being an atheist proves nothing that was just put in the video because its a very common argument of creationists to say he was an atheist.

[POSSUM THE CAT]

Evolution all the way it created A Geep the other day

[OldRider]

For another rather more informed viewpoint than any here I think, read some of the ideas of this lady.
She will contradict a lot of assertions made here, certainly those that evolution theory is a proven
scientific fact believed by all scientists

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

I can't be bothered searching to find them again, but previously she expressed the opinion that evolution as
taught in schools today, and seemingly believed by some posters here, as a "load of old crock".

From memory, her opinion was that evolutionary change did not happen, but that the changes that occurred
were both widespread and rapid, like turning on a switch.

Granted her opinions may be in a minority, mostly it seems to me because they need a significant rethink if correct,
and open a good sized can of worms, but she is surely qualified to form them, and none of her colleagues
have, according to my reading, have contradicted her theories.

[garman]

For another rather more informed viewpoint than any here I think, read some of the ideas of this lady.
She will contradict a lot of assertions made here, certainly those that evolution theory is a proven
scientific fact believed by all scientists

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

.Have just read your link OleRider and it states [She later formulated a theory to explain how symbiotic relationships between organisms of often different phyla or kingdoms are the driving force of evolution.] So going by that statement she still endorses evolution the same as the other 99% of scientists. She simpley has a few other radical ideas as I'm sure some other scientists also have.

[OldRider]

What about this bit " Neo-Darwinism, which insists on [the slow accrual of mutations by gene-level natural selection], is in a complete funk."
or perhaps "She does, however, hold a negative view of certain interpretations of Neo-Darwinism, excessively focused on inter-organismic competition, as she believes that history will ultimately judge them as comprising "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology". I think her ideas are worth following a little deeper than Wikipedia.

It seems we need to define the term "evolution". To me, there are for it, the same as with the word "God", about as many interpretations as there are people.
Interesting that she calls, what some would call scientific fact and understanding, a religious sect. Causes one to wonder just how much else falls into this category

[garman]

What about this bit " Neo-Darwinism, which insists on [the slow accrual of mutations by gene-level natural selection], is in a complete funk."
or perhaps "She does, however, hold a negative view of certain interpretations of Neo-Darwinism, excessively focused on inter-organismic competition, as she believes that history will ultimately judge them as comprising "a minor twentieth-century religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology". I think her ideas are worth following a little deeper than Wikipedia.

It seems we need to define the term "evolution". To me, there are for it, the same as with the word "God", about as many interpretations as there are people.
Interesting that she calls, what some would call scientific fact and understanding, a religious sect. Causes one to wonder just how much else falls into this categoryThere is nothing too complicated about evolution, the dictionary defines evolution as :A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form:. There is no doubt that living creatures evolve, it is a clear well accepted indisputable fact in 2011, transitional forms are easily found, but because you can't stand back and watch it happen in front of you some people seem to have trouble accepting it, but in the scientific community it is accepted by well over 90% of all scientists, you cannot be serious when you compare the belief in Gods and religion to a fact like evolution religion and Gods are based on a more of a spiritual feeling or blind faith there is no actual evidence a god or gods actually exist that would stand up in any court. The belief that evolution happens is based on solid scientific data collected over many years by all the fields of science. you will always get some rebel scientists who cannot quite bring themselves to break away from there nagging religious faith so they use science to try and back up these primitive beliefs, there are scientists involved with the intelligent design movement who do exactly that, but they are destined to fail.

[George]

One thing I believe is not to tamper with others' beliefs. It's a free world we can believe what we wish but should not try to force that down others' throats. A debate may help some to question a belief and perhaps abandon it such as that the world is flat, the sixpence in a glass in the morning is from the tooth fairy, father christmas, babies are delivered by a stork etc.
One thing I am sure of is that more poor souls have been killed in the name of religion than all the gambling, drinking, smoking and bad living combined. If I had to make a choice it would be evolution.

[OldRider]

Then understanding your definition of evolution, has not Margulis stated her belief this has not happened.
The changes that occurred were widespread and rapid, not gradual!

Then secondly, I have heard it straight from Dawkins mouth as well that, there is a total absence of proof
of random increasing complexity, in other words everything that is here always was here,
then in my reading i came across an expression of his admiration for Margulis and her work

I have no proof or understanding of how we got here, nor am I trying to prove one theory or another, I am simply
trying to illustrate the various theories are only believed in faith.

I am reading an interesting book at the moment, the author is tring to demonstrate that in the present age of information
actual wisdom and morality are declining, he calls this informationism, he states choices and beliefs are becoming more divergent
with many capable of coming to the wildest conclusions.

In truth there seems to be few "facts" in this world and many opinions, with the devil in the interpretation. For me, at best most
scienific opinion still is only part of the truth with always more to be learned. Each answer bring two more problems.

I find it worthwhile remembering
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt,
~ Bertrand Russell

[elZorro]

Oldrider: I find it worthwhile remembering
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt,
~ Bertrand Russell

Scientists are the most doubting people of all. New data is always checked against theories in an attempt to disprove them, the "negative hypothesis", I think it is called. Against all of the fossil data, the evolution idea keeps standing up. In fact more data is added to strengthen the theory each year. For confirmation, look at the domestic breeds of dogs. In just a few short human generations, we have bred some very unusual animals, by preferring certain attributes and setting breed standards. Survival of the fittest surely provided even more exacting rules.

[miner]

The reason the debate about evolution verses creation has and still is raging on is because neither side can prove there beliefs.

The religious side has the bible which tells there story of how it all happened,but are unable to prove it,hence it is a faith based religion.

If as the bible says god decides man has stuffed things up enough and he turns up to sort the mess out well then game over they win.

Evolutionists bible is Darwin's "The Origin Of Species" which also attempts to say how it all happened,but they are also unable to prove there beliefs so it's also a faith based religion .

Until they come up with a theory about how life started that they can actually prove or find the millions of intermediate fossils that should be out there if there religion is correct,or etc etc, then like the god lot there p*ssing in the wind.

Or you could leave them both to it and think for yourself,as in open your eyes and look around,as evidence of design is all around us in nature so that's a no brainer.
The bit where it gets hard is who designed it,Hmmm now that's anybody's guess.

[garman]

The reason the debate about evolution verses creation has and still is raging on is because neither side can prove there beliefs.Miner in this modern world that we live in we use science to get the answers to complex questions we use science to create medicines to cure sick people we use scientific forensics DNA profiling etc to convict criminals we use science to send astronauts to outta space and to find out about the universe we live in, science and the scientific method prove things and get the answers to complex questions everyday, the bible says the world is 6000 years old, the bible also says the great flood was aprox 4000 years ago and flooded the whole world and drowned all the population except for the few people on the ark science has proven these so called facts from the bible to be complete nonsense and just a fairy tale, no christian can prove that the world is 6000 years old or that the world was completely flooded 4000 years ago but science has proven beyond doubt that these stories from the bible are just not true.


The religious side has the bible which tells there story of how it all happened,but are unable to prove it,hence it is a faith based religion.Yes I agree with that religion is completely based on faith but belief in evolution is based on scientific testing and clear evidence








Or you could leave them both to it and think for yourself,as in open your eyes and look around,as evidence of design is all around us in nature so that's a no brainer.
The bit where it gets hard is who designed it,Hmmm now that's anybody's guess. The world is an incredible place with incredible beauty and if we didn't have science and scientists we may think that yes some sort of god may have created these beautiful things we see but if we take off our rose tinted glasses and look at the world realistically and in a scientific way we can see that the world is a totally random place with beautiful things but also horrific diseases, birth deformities, floods, devastating earthquakes, tsunamis, and tornadoes etc etc if this is evidence of design the designer must be totally incompetent.

[miner]

Have you got a degree in talking down to people and lying garman ?.

All you do is attack the god lot and keep telling us how right you and science are but show us no evidence,ever thought of showing us all the millions of intermediate fossils to back up your religious claims ?,after all hundreds of millions of fossils have been found so surly you must have a few million knocking around ???.

[belgarion]

Have you got a degree in talking down to people and lying garman ?.

All you do is attack the god lot and keep telling us how right you and science are but show us no evidence,ever thought of showing us all the millions of intermediate fossils to back up your religious claims ?,after all hundreds of millions of fossils have been found so surly you must have a few million knocking around ???.

Honestly, Miner ... pot kettle black ... How about you and the "god lot" start fronting up with some evidence?

[miner]

Honestly, Miner ... pot kettle black ... How about you and the "god lot" start fronting up with some evidence?

How many times do I have to say I don't believe in god the bible etc for the simple reason that they cant prove it.

Should I write god is wrong 100 times on the blackboard or something ???.

[garman]

Or you could leave them both to it and think for yourself,as in open your eyes and look around,as evidence of design is all around us in nature so that's a no brainer. The bit where it gets hard is who designed it.


How many times do I have to say I don't believe in god the bible etc for the simple reason that they cant prove it.

Should I write god is wrong 100 times on the blackboard or something ???. So you don't believe in God Miner, but in your previous quote you make it clear you think there was a designer.

[craic]

Who really gives a toss? If ther is a god or a designer, show me one single scrap of evidence that he gives a toss about the brutality and suffering that is part and parcel of the human condition? - how much has he given to feed all the starving kids in Africa???. what has he or she done to deal with the vile bastards, who, from time to time, appear in our society? Why waste your time on a concept of some big daddy when there is no evidence to support the view that he gives a toss about you?

Disclosure. I was raised in a very strict Roman Catholic family in Ireland.

[miner]

What I originally posted was,"Or you could leave them both to it and think for yourself,as in open your eyes and look around,as evidence of design is all around us in nature so that's a no brainer.
The bit where it gets hard is who designed it,Hmmm now that's anybody's guess."

[garman]

What I originally posted was,"Or you could leave them both to it and think for yourself,as in open your eyes and look around,as evidence of design is all around us in nature so that's a no brainer.
The bit where it gets hard is who designed it,Hmmm now that's anybody's guess."So you don't believe in God Miner, but you ask the question who was the designer.

[miner]

I will type slowly for you garman,no I don't believe in god or evolution as neither can prove what they preach.

Evidence of design is blindingly obvious and all around us if you stop and look.

As for who or what designed it I am not that fussed which is why I said "Hmmm now that's anybody's guess".

[garman]

I will type slowly for you garman,no I don't believe in god or evolution as neither can prove what they preach.

Evidence of design is blindingly obvious and all around us if you stop and look.

As for who or what designed it I am not that fussed which is why I said "Hmmm now that's anybody's guess".You originally said [The bit where it gets hard is WHO designed it,Hmmm now that's anybody's guess] You have now extended your view to WHO or WHAT sounds like your view has evolved a little.

[miner]

Are you serious garman ?????.

Hope your sitting down garmin because just thought it may even be a doofracker,whatsimajig,thingmebob,oneofthose,or even a whonacky that designed it,scary sh*t ay :-).

[asc4]

Here is the intelligent designer... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster (just kidding...or am I wrong to assume it isn't?)

DNA analysis is much more accurate that any fossil record. The fossil record does provide alot of evidence though, about time and changes to the layout of the earth and in some cases periods of evolution. If someone says there is gap in this one area (I emphasise ONE area) of evidence for evolution then they need to look at the other parts of the evidence to get the bigger picture. If there is one gap in this area, how many gaps are in intelligent design? And do creationists question them? A scientist would, thats what improves the understanding of the mechanisms that drive evolutionary forces everyday.

Lots of technologys are based on nature? OF COURSE 4 billion years of selection to occupy a ecological niche will select the most efficient characteristics. You wouldn't reinvent the wheel just to be 'original', would you?

The human mind is a wonderful thing, maybe we should keep it open so that it too can improve, or maybe evolve? or maybe we could wait for an overhaul of the design when it is deemed out of date?

[miner]

Same old stuff you guys always come up with asc4.



As I have said I think god is a load of sh*t never happened as they cant prove it so hence NOT part of the equation.

So this should be an easy one ?,could you tell us how life started on the planet please,needless to say proving it would be good also.

[asc4]

Constructive comment? It would seem your comment is the 'same stuff' that those from your side of the discussion also come up with Miner.

I attempted to answer some things pointed out against evolutionary theory.

I think you have been given amble references to educate yourself with on how the scientific world thinks the the start of life began and how those ideas have come about and what was used as experimental evidence, I am not prepared to teach the unwilling.

As more evidence is brought forward hypotheses will change or modify.

Following the scientic method, a hypothesis can only be proven wrong. No-one has proven the general theory of evolution wrong to date.

Intelligent design can't be proven, therefore it is a faith based ideal. I'm open to it, if it is proven...so without any ignorant comments, like 'how could something that is so complex evolve? it had to be designed!' (because you have access to the science behind it, if you were prepared to read it), prove intelligent design. And please give details of the intelligent designer? I think it unfair that science has to provide all the evidence in this discussion, don't you?

[fungus pudding]

Same old stuff you guys always come up with asc4.



As I have said I think god is a load of sh*t never happened as they cant prove it so hence NOT part of the equation.

So this should be an easy one ?,could you tell us how life started on the planet please,needless to say proving it would be good also.

Don't worry about it. You know you're here - you may never know how or why, but it's certainly reasonable to be highly scepitcal of any God or Gods. There's over 2000 of them worshipped throughout the planet, and each one has its/his/her very own fan club, who all know they are right and everyone else is wrong. Unfortunately not one of them has any evidence.

[miner]

asc4 what part of me saying "I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD" are you having trouble understanding ?.

I have already answered the question of who I think designed it all,but here it is once again "I haven't got a clue"

Whenever I ask what I thought would be a simple question like how did life start all I get is you guys doing the side step.

Are you still going with the amino acid big soup in the sea theory ?,or have you come up with a new one ?.

[garman]

Are you serious garman ?????.

Hope your sitting down garmin because just thought it may even be a doofracker,whatsimajig,thingmebob,oneofthose,or even a whonacky that designed it,scary sh*t ay :-).I have already answered the question of who I think designed it all,but here it is once again "I haven't got a clue"
So you keep saying you havent got a clue who designed it, can you then supply some evidence that it was designed? You seem to be saying evolution does not exist Miner just start with small steps, check out the evolution of man kind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution there is clear evidence that man has evolved from a different beings to what we are today the term intelligent designer was invented by religious wackoes in the States in an effort to sneak religion back into schools, there as there is no evidence that we were designed and certainly no evidence of any designers the concept is not worth debating seriously, look into mans evolution from a lesser being. There's more evidence than you could shake a stick at Miner and scientists overwhelmingly accept it.

[miner]

If the theory of evolution is correct then there should be millions of intermediate fossils that clearly show things changing over time.

So for every animal on the planet that we have found fossils for there should be lots of intermediate ones for each.

Yet there isn't,which I would have thought is a bit of a problem to say the least.

How many different views-hypothesis are in that link ?,and there all right ay ?.

The nice little picture they have drawn from there imagination looks like Ma"a Nonu

[elZorro]

If the theory of evolution is correct then there should be millions of intermediate fossils that clearly show things changing over time.

So for every animal on the planet that we have found fossils for there should be lots of intermediate ones for each.

Yet there isn't,which I would have thought is a bit of a problem to say the least.

How many different views-hypothesis are in that link ?,and there all right ay ?.

The nice little picture they have drawn from there imagination looks like Ma"a Nonu

Intermediate fossils: I'm not a fossil expert, but I do know that you need special circumstances to get a fossil in the first place. Then you have to find it before the earth breaks it up in a never-ending mantle recycle. All driven by heat from nuclear fission or decay deep down in the core. This is also what drives volcanoes and eathquakes. The hot areas sustained life under the sea, when sometimes all hell broke loose up above.

So if the intermediate stage was relatively short, a few thousand years (still many generations), you might be hard pushed to find a record. But later, when that species has stabilised more, the chances of a fossil record might be a lot higher.

[miner]

So if the intermediate stage was relatively short, a few thousand years (still many generations), you might be hard pushed to find a record. But later, when that species has stabilised more, the chances of a fossil record might be a lot higher.


Problem with that elzorro is that evolutionists keep telling us that evolution takes for ever to happen,so therefore there should be lots of intermediate fossils lying around.

[asc4]

I never mentioned 'god' Miner. I mentioned an Intelligent Designer.

There is no sidestepping, except from you.
I continuely point to the changes and advances in evolutionary theory as more is learnt and discovered. You seem to learn nothing...

Ask the fossil question again? Have it answered. Ask it again..... so on?

Tiresome.

[miner]

No side step you asked and I said I didn't know,if I did and could prove it I would tell you.

When did you show the millions of intermediate fossils that should be there to back up your theory ?.

[asc4]

The fossil record is complete? NO

Their are examples of transitional fossils? YES see video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o92x6AvxCFg

Will the fossil record ever be complete? NO

Fossils are rare and require specialist conditions to occur? YES

Everything that dies makes a fossil? NO

We have DNA/Chromosomal evidence that contributes to understanding evolutionary pathways? YES

Can this evidence be used in tandem with fossil evidence? YES (Neanderthals)

What do you want Miner? I don't think I can be more direct.

[miner]

Is that it asc4 ? some pictures that someone thought up and two incomplete skulls.

So the fossil evidence in that video is two half skulls that could be a ?,and from that you get to draw pictures of a whole animal,you boys have got a good imagination.

So as Dawkins says this is one of your best examples of intermediate fossils yet for the 50 odd million years you claim they took to evolve to what we have today you have two half skulls as evidence .

Agree not everything that dies makes a fossil the conditions have to be right,but two half skulls for 50 million years,and those skulls are dolphin size not a much bigger whale size skull.

Yet once they are the whale of today we find lots of complete fossils of what we see swimming around.

[asc4]

No imagination. People much more qualified than you came to those conclusions. They would be peer reviewed as well. To discredit their work so quickly would be foolish.

Fossils today?

Fossils from 50million years ago are deep and require slow geological processes to be exposed.

Miner..Genome evidence? Thoughts?

Or is DNA imaginary?

[miner]

Qualified to draw a whale size animal with legs that swims in the sea and evolved into a whale,from two dolphin half sized skulls .

Without imagination how did they draw whales with legs from two half dolphin sized skulls ?.

So a group of people that all believe in evolution agreed that those drawings are ok,good on them.

Funny how we have complete fossils of dinosaurs as old or older than your whale pictures yet only two incomplete skulls that they claim are of an evolving whale.

So rather than come up with some wishful thinking and nice drawings wouldn't it just be better to say you haven't got any intermediate fossils ?as you are really pushing it to say that's conclusive evidence.

Yet you do as you guys will argue until your blue in the face about the transitional fossil evidence.

Genome thoughts, Hmmm your a molecular biologist so would say you have a few .

[asc4]

:) Have a good day Miner.

[miner]

Not sure how I should take that post asc4 ?,but am and will have a nice day hope you are too,would give you a smiley face but can never get them to work duah :-).

[miner]

There's more evidence than you could shake a stick at Miner and scientists overwhelmingly accept it.

Yes I agree with that religion is completely based on faith but belief in evolution is based on scientific testing and clear evidence

Since you refuse to take yourself to the correct reference sources to learn the truth I will now attempt to bring sources right to you so there should be no excuses for not grasping the truth that evolution happens and is accepted by science as fact.

But they don't Miner that's why science wholeheartedly backs evolution as a proven fact.

Wrong again Miner science backs evolution therefore Darwin all the way.

Anyone who ignores proven scientific facts for a belief in a man invented fairy story deserves to be pocked.

Miner old chap have you been living in a cave for the last 50 years? evolution is accepted wholeheartedly by the scientific community, there is an abundance of proof that evolution is fact, the debate over whether or not evolution occurs ended years ago.




Just some of the gems you have come up with garman,then we see your god try and spin us a load of B.S http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o92x6AvxCFg .

So lets see first there is this drawing of a cloven hoofed animal that they don't have a fossil for,is called an imagination horse ?.

Then from two incomplete skulls the size of a dolphins we get three pictures of whale size animals with legs,not dolphin sized drawing to match the skulls size.

So anyway from two skulls we have three pictures that he calls a "lovely series of intermediates",try three pictures drawn from someone's imagination.

Evolutionists tell us evolution takes millions of years 50 odd million in this case,and you have "three" intermediate fossil imaginary drawing for the whole 50 million years ?.

And to top it off you then expect us to lap this all up and not question it,if we do we get labelled as god nutters and ridiculed (which could hurt if I believed in god :-), )

What the fossil record does show is lots of complete whale fossils just as they are swimming around today,and no intermediate fossils as there was only ever the whale,the fossil record shows us this.

Without transitional fossils the theory of evolution falls flat on it's face,well that and not having a clue how life started in the first place,but that wont stop you guys arguing your theory till the cows come home and slinging sh*t at anyone that questions it.

So evolutionist can no more prove there theory than the god lot can which is why rather than being a done deal as you keep telling us garmin the debate will rage on as it always has.

Read your bible as Darwin said basically no intermediate fossils would be fatal to the theory of evolution.

Then ......well you get the picture :-)

[garman]

Qualified to draw a whale size animal with legs that swims in the sea and evolved into a whale,from two dolphin half sized skulls .

Without imagination how did they draw whales with legs from two half dolphin sized skulls ?.

So a group of people that all believe in evolution agreed that those drawings are ok,good on them.

Funny how we have complete fossils of dinosaurs as old or older than your whale pictures yet only two incomplete skulls that they claim are of an evolving whale.

So rather than come up with some wishful thinking and nice drawings wouldn't it just be better to say you haven't got any intermediate fossils ?as you are really pushing it to say that's conclusive evidence.

Yet you do as you guys will argue until your blue in the face about the transitional fossil evidence.

Genome thoughts, Hmmm your a molecular biologist so would say you have a few .Miner you are the closest thing to an ignoramus I have ever come across, I have often wondered if you are just winding us up because as McEnroe once said "You cant be serious"

[elZorro]

I bet Miner could get a discussion or two going in a pub..

[miner]

I bet Miner could get a discussion or two going in a pub..

Don't pub it elzorro,na just sometimes when I see people posting grand statements backed up by B.S I call them up on it and see if they can actually prove it,and B.S it is so far.

[miner]

Miner you are the closest thing to an ignoramus I have ever come across, I have often wondered if you are just winding us up because as McEnroe once said "You cant be serious"

True to form garmin attack is the best form of defence ay,well when it's all you got it is.

So I'm an ignoramus because I am smart enough to think for myself and see what a load of B.S he was talking ?.

Not winding you up just have a brain and actually use it.



"Anyone who ignores proven scientific facts for a belief in a man invented fairy story deserves to be pocked."

Looks like you just pocked yourself garman as your man Dawkins just invented a fairy story about three whales with legs from two half dolphin size skulls and your backing him up on it .

[trader-jim]

Miner,
check out this link
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

[stanace]

Please try to answer with decorum and science. What happened? "
When someone writes,
I don't believe in God", that is a belief, a faith, no different from religion. What happened to all the Agnostics on this site?
Is noone prepared to just say, they don't know.
To me it is reasonably simple, if one believes that there will never be an end of time, it is just as easy to believe there was no beginning. Or even, that it is a continuous circle, a la Einstein.
That doesn't answer how it was created, but at least it stops the circuitous talk about when it all happened, and by whom.

[garman]

I bet Miner could get a discussion or two going in a pub..yea but he's not serious

[garman]

Please try to answer with decorum and science. What happened? "
When someone writes,
I don't believe in God", that is a belief, a faith, no different from religion. What happened to all the Agnostics on this site?
Is anyone prepared to just say, they don't know.
To me it is reasonably simple, if one believes that there will never be an end of time, it is just as easy to believe there was no beginning. Or even, that it is a continuous circle, a la Einstein.
That doesn't answer how it was created, but at least it stops the circuitous talk about when it all happened, and by whom.My view on the subject is that every thing that we cant understand in this universe we look to science and the scientific method for the answers, peer reviewed experiments etc. If we want to cure illness send a man to to the moon etc it is all done with science, at the end of the day "its all we have" there are no answers coming from anywhere else, of course science makes mistakes from time to time but the scientists do there best to find the correct answers. Miner seems to think that just because the fossil record is incomplete and that a few mistakes have been made then science is not the way to get the answers and that evolution is untrue and does not happen, I think if we knew there were 50,000 transitional fossils and I could only supply miner with 49,999 he would still persist with his belief that it was all designed, but of course he has never supplied a scrap of evidence that in fact the universe was designed let alone what the designer's name is.

[miner]

yea but he's not serious

Do tell why you would think that garman ?.

[miner]

My view on the subject is that every thing that we cant understand in this universe we look to science and the scientific method for the answers, peer reviewed experiments etc. If we want to cure illness send a man to to the moon etc it is all done with science, at the end of the day "its all we have" there are no answers coming from anywhere else, of course science makes mistakes from time to time but the scientists do there best to find the correct answers. Miner seems to think that just because the fossil record is incomplete and that a few mistakes have been made then science is not the way to get the answers and that evolution is untrue and does not happen, I think if we knew there were 50,000 transitional fossils and I could only supply miner with 49,999 he would still persist with his belief that it was all designed, but of course he has never supplied a scrap of evidence that in fact the universe was designed let alone what the designer's name is.

You a mind reader garman ?,because you keep telling me what I am supposed to be thinking.

I think science has it's place and has done and will continue to do great things but that doesn't make it the be all and end all.

No answers coming from anywhere else you say,except for the ones we get from nature.

If you lot had 49,999 of 50,000 transitional fossils then there would be no debate but as you have less than 2 half skulls of millions ? and some imaginary drawings only people that for some reason will only accept the theory of evolution would call that evidence that evolution is true.

As Darwin said no transitional fossils and his theory is wrong,so in part I am only thinking of what Darwin said,or is Darwin wrong ?.

The fact that you back that pathetic attempt to con people into thinking you lot have proof of transitional fossils shows how desperate you are.

How can I give you the name of a designer when I haven't got a clue who that could be,as for evidence as I have said it's all around you,if nothing else try looking in the mirror.

[garman]

You a mind reader garman ?,because you keep telling me what I am supposed to be thinking.

I think science has it's place and has done and will continue to do great things but that doesn't make it the be all and end all.

No answers coming from anywhere else you say,except for the ones we get from nature.

If you lot had 49,999 of 50,000 transitional fossils then there would be no debate but as you have less than 2 half skulls of millions ? and some imaginary drawings only people that for some reason will only accept the theory of evolution would call that evidence that evolution is true.

As Darwin said no transitional fossils and his theory is wrong,so in part I am only thinking of what Darwin said,or is Darwin wrong ?.

The fact that you back that pathetic attempt to con people into thinking you lot have proof of transitional fossils shows how desperate you are.

How can I give you the name of a designer when I haven't got a clue who that could be,as for evidence as I have said it's all around you,if nothing else try looking in the mirror.Miner have you ever wondered why absolutely nobody is on your side in this debate about evolution there are no excuses for being as ignorant as you are being that is why I think you cant really be serious the truth is all at your fingertips just use Google search evolution and get reading try to be as rational as possible and I am sure even you will be amazed at just how much evidence there is for evolution there is good reason why 99% of scientists accept it as for evidence of design there is none everything I see when I look at the world is just random natural happenings and the whole world could come to an end at any time all we need is an asteroid of a decent size to hit the earth and bingo we are all done for science tells us its happened before by the way its all just random chance no evidence of design or a designer.

[fungus pudding]

Miner have you ever wondered why absolutely nobody is on your side in this debate about evolution there are no excuses for being as ignorant as you are being that is why I think you cant really be serious the truth is all at your fingertips just use Google search evolution and get reading try to be as rational as possible and I am sure even you will be amazed at just how much evidence there is for evolution there is good reason why 99% of scientists accept it as for evidence of design there is none everything I see when I look at the world is just random natural happenings and the whole world could come to an end at any time all we need is an asteroid of a decent size to hit the earth and bingo we are all done for science tells us its happened before by the way its all just random chance no evidence of design or a designer.

That would probably beat the previous world's longest sentence record.

[miner]

Miner have you ever wondered why absolutely nobody is on your side in this debate about evolution there are no excuses for being as ignorant as you are being that is why I think you cant really be serious the truth is all at your fingertips just use Google search evolution and get reading try to be as rational as possible and I am sure even you will be amazed at just how much evidence there is for evolution there is good reason why 99% of scientists accept it as for evidence of design there is none everything I see when I look at the world is just random natural happenings and the whole world could come to an end at any time all we need is an asteroid of a decent size to hit the earth and bingo we are all done for science tells us its happened before by the way its all just random chance no evidence of design or a designer.


That could be because people are reading what you write and are just thinking gees you've got to be kidding no point answering he's a lost cause.

Yep or you could use google to find all the stuff on the net that shows evolution is nothing but a theory,or are you talking about ground breaking irrefutable evidence like the imaginary legged whale clip ???.
As with you the net is full of stuff saying evolution this and evolution that but when after six pages of this thread you finally give us your evidence( well you didn't - wouldn't ?) it's imaginary legged whale pictures.

So because I don't agree with you I'm ignorant am I,you use the same type of tactics Dawkins does when someone questions him,go on the attack.

Evolution as Darwin said HAS to have a transitional fossil record for everything that has lived on the planet,and we both know there are no transitional fossils for anything.

So far your lot have come up with your two incomplete skulls and three imaginary legged whale drawings ( or are they like your imaginary god whales?),so are you still trying to say that this is your "amazing evidence" .

Are you seriously going to defend the B.S in that video ?,it's that bad it's laughable,and I'm the ignorant one if I don't take it as nothing short of proof of transitional fossils.

Up to 99% of scientists now are we garman,bit like detol kills 99% of germs,cant say 100% as then you get caught out.

Well if 99% of scientists believed that clip then god help us (no pun intended).

People that believe in evolution keep saying there is no proof of design,others say it is all around us,what more evidence could there be of design than the actual finished product of that design living in different forms all around us,not to mention ourselves.

Are evolutionists that arrogant that they think they are it,not only top of the food chain but the smartest thing that ever was.
Does the thought that someone smarter than you may have designed you,or even worse that if you are wrong there may even be a god give you the screaming sh*ts that bad that you make stuff up and lie to people .

Anyone can write anything on the net garman it doesn't make it the truth and calling people names when they don't agree with you doesn't work either,if you really tried you could probable hold your breath longer than me too,bet you cant,worth a crack Nigel :-).

[garman]

what more evidence could there be of design than the actual finished product of that design living in different forms all around What you mean like the Ebola, cholera, polio, or aids viruses? Yes Yes Miner all real brilliantly well designed life forms I'm sure. If I could only get my hands around the neck of that designer.:D

[miner]

Garman are you just going to ignore the fact that there are no intermediate fossil records other than imaginary whales with legs drawings.

And we both know no intermediate fossils = no evolution.

[miner]

Where have I seen these tactics being used before Hmmm ??? :-).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV2-l5jnwtU&feature=related

[garman]

Garman are you just going to ignore the fact that there are no intermediate fossil records other than imaginary whales with legs drawings.

And we both know no intermediate fossils = no evolution.Not ignoring anything Miner here is evidence of intermediate fossils clearly demonstrating evolutionary changes! Evidence of evolution is impossible to ignore Miner modern mans average brain size is about 1350cc to 1400cc one of our ancestors homo erectus only had a brain size of 850cc to 1100cc http://www.stanford.edu/~harryg/protected/chp22.htm

[miner]

So are you saying that imaginary legged whale drawings are not evidence of intermediate fossils but ape drawings from jaw bones are ???.


What the Fossil Record Should Look Like
A great way to test the TOE is to think backwards. Do a mental experiment and objectively imagine what the fossil record would look like if Darwinian evolution indeed did bring about the species that appear on earth today. If you do that, you will soon note that the fossil record does not at all back up Darwinian evolution. There should be fish with gradually protruding arms and legs, preparing for a land invasion, over hundreds of thousands of years. There should be skulls with small dents that grew larger and larger to accommodate the evolution of the eye. There should be skulls that show gradually enlarging ear canals. There should be birds that show gradually lengthening wings. There should be a plethora of fossils that show these changes. We should be able go to the Field Museum in Chicago and view samples of all of these fossils that clearly show the steps to evolution. Then, evolution could be called a real science. But, in reality, Darwinian evolution takes fossils that do not at all show the changes that are required for proof, and pretends that they do.

[garman]

So are you saying that imaginary legged whale drawings are not evidence of intermediate fossils but ape drawings from jaw bones are ???.


What the Fossil Record Should Look Like
A great way to test the TOE is to think backwards. Do a mental experiment and objectively imagine what the fossil record would look like if Darwinian evolution indeed did bring about the species that appear on earth today. If you do that, you will soon note that the fossil record does not at all back up Darwinian evolution. There should be fish with gradually protruding arms and legs, preparing for a land invasion, over hundreds of thousands of years. There should be skulls with small dents that grew larger and larger to accommodate the evolution of the eye. There should be skulls that show gradually enlarging ear canals. There should be birds that show gradually lengthening wings. There should be a plethora of fossils that show these changes. We should be able go to the Field Museum in Chicago and view samples of all of these fossils that clearly show the steps to evolution. Then, evolution could be called a real science. But, in reality, Darwinian evolution takes fossils that do not at all show the changes that are required for proof, and pretends that they do.Well that's what you say Miner but I am not accepting it I choose to accept what the scientists are telling the world, sure there are a handful of scientists that dispute certain aspects of evolution but the overwhelming majority of them have complete faith that evolution is a fact and has happened and continues to happen, you can bury your head in the sand if you like, your argument is not with me it is with the vast majority of scientists from all around the world involved with all the sciences.

[miner]

Well that's what you say Miner but I am not accepting it I choose to accept what the scientists are telling the world, sure there are a handful of scientists that dispute certain aspects of evolution but the overwhelming majority of them have complete faith that evolution is a fact and has happened and continues to happen, you can bury your head in the sand if you like, your argument is not with me it is with the vast majority of scientists from all around the world involved with all the sciences.

So you are happy that the intermediate fossil evidence evolutionists put forward are nothing more than imaginary pictures that they drew from a few bones they found ???.

You sure I'm the one with my head in the sand ?.


A Model of the Current Fossil Record
Current fossil records show the appearance and extinction of millions of different species over several billion years. There does not, at this time, appear to be any morphing of one specie into another through generations. Bird fossils appear, with no precursor with gradually growing wings. There are no animals showing gradually extending limbs. The fossil record looks like the evolution of the automobile. The Model T preceded the 1955 Fairlaine, which preceded the modern Explorer. The model T itself did not morph into the model A. To many, this may seem like a silly scenario, but this is the closest model that can be made with the current inventory of fossils. What does this do to any scientific explanation of how species did go about "appearing"? There is no current objective and scientific answer.

[garman]

A Model of the Current Fossil Record
Current fossil records show the appearance and extinction of millions of different species over several billion years. There does not, at this time, appear to be any morphing of one specie into another through generations. Bird fossils appear, with no precursor with gradually growing wings. There are no animals showing gradually extending limbs. The fossil record looks like the evolution of the automobile. The Model T preceded the 1955 Fairlane, which preceded the modern Explorer. The model T itself did not morph into the model A. To many, this may seem like a silly scenario, but this is the closest model that can be made with the current inventory of fossils. What does this do to any scientific explanation of how species did go about "appearing"? There is no current objective and scientific answer.Can you please give me the link to where you gathered this information I would be interested to read more, sounds interesting.

[miner]

Interesting you say garman,yes it is as both posts came from the same site and for the first one you replied ...

"Well that's what you say Miner but I am not accepting it I choose to accept what the scientists are telling the world, sure there are a handful of scientists that dispute certain aspects of evolution but the overwhelming majority of them have complete faith that evolution is a fact and has happened and continues to happen, you can bury your head in the sand if you like, your argument is not with me it is with the vast majority of scientists from all around the world involved with all the sciences."

And now for the second post.

"Can you please give me the link to where you gathered this information I would be interested to read more, sounds interesting."

Did I just come down in the last rain shower ?,maybe I didn't notice as I had my head in the sand :-) .

[garman]

Interesting you say garman,yes it is as both posts came from the same site and for the first one you replied ...

"Well that's what you say Miner but I am not accepting it I choose to accept what the scientists are telling the world, sure there are a handful of scientists that dispute certain aspects of evolution but the overwhelming majority of them have complete faith that evolution is a fact and has happened and continues to happen, you can bury your head in the sand if you like, your argument is not with me it is with the vast majority of scientists from all around the world involved with all the sciences."

And now for the second post.

"Can you please give me the link to where you gathered this information I would be interested to read more, sounds interesting."

Did I just come down in the last rain shower ?,maybe I didn't notice as I had my head in the sand :-) . The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, palaeontology, anthropology, and others. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists “less than 1%” (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science". An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.

As I said Miner your argument is not with me.

[miner]

I'm not arguing with anyone garman just simply showing why the theory of evolution is fatally flawed as Darwin thought it may prove to be in time.

Interesting that we are now up to 99.9% of scientists,more like oxymagic or bam rather than detol now.

Obviously some scientist believe in evolution as do many everyday people,but there is a reason why other scientists when asked say that they also believe in evolution.


It's basically group psychology,the interesting part is how it works,an example of which is what garman has been trying to do to me,let me explain.


First, you have to get people thinking you have a demeanour that makes your audience think you are very important and smart,eg...

"Miner old chap have you been living in a cave for the last 50 years? evolution is accepted wholeheartedly by the scientific community, there is an abundance of proof that evolution is fact, the debate over whether or not evolution occurs ended years ago. "



Second,corral all those who don't agree with evolution into one group:creationists,make them feel isolated,eg...

"Anyone who ignores proven scientific facts for a belief in a man invented fairy story deserves to be pocked."

And this classic...
"Miner have you ever wondered why absolutely nobody is on your side in this debate about evolution there are no excuses for being as ignorant as you are being that is why I think you cant really be serious"

Or...
"Miner you are the closest thing to an ignoramus I have ever come across, I have often wondered if you are just winding us up because as McEnroe once said "You cant be serious"



Thirdly,Dazzle with an astounding display...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4



And fourth...
They will now worship you and believe anything you tell them,no matter how preposterous.

"So you keep saying you havent got a clue who designed it, can you then supply some evidence that it was designed? You seem to be saying evolution does not exist Miner just start with small steps, check out the evolution of man kind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution there is clear evidence that man has evolved from a different beings to what we are today the term intelligent designer was invented by religious wackoes in the States in an effort to sneak religion back into schools, there as there is no evidence that we were designed and certainly no evidence of any designers the concept is not worth debating seriously, look into mans evolution from a lesser being. There's more evidence than you could shake a stick at Miner and scientists overwhelmingly accept it."


Garman is good I'll give him that but not as good as his mentor he has it down to a fine art http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV2-l5jnwtU&feature=related



So you can now see why some scientists say they believe in evolution,it's all about survival,as in if you dare to say that you don't believe in evolution you get the above treatment and are ostracised from the group.
I remember reading years ago about some eminent scientists (in there field) that were revered by there peers until they disagreed with evolution,then by lunch time they were labelled as god nutters lost there funding etc and got basically kicked out of the scientific community.

Ask yourself why else would intelligent scientists that know evolutionists cant even say how life started let alone come up with any intermediate fossils agree and say they believe in evolution...
Simple if you want to keep your job doing useful science (not the useless science of trying to prove a 100 odd year old theory) then play the game,herd mentality and group psychology at it's best.



The master at work,keep in mind the poor lady only asked "what if your wrong",she didn't say anything about religion, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg&feature=related ,why would Dawkins answer in this way ?.

Simple because he is what they called in the old days a charlatan or now a simple Conn man,so he couldn't answer by saying,I know I am right because there are millions of intermediate fossils in the museums around the world.
So go on the attack and do the four steps above,then the brainwashed sheep in the audience all laugh because the person next to them did and she leaves with her tail between her legs.

No answer but the pesky problem solved,the funny thing is all those sucker sheep in the audience paid money to be conned,just like you garman when you pay to hear him talk or buy his books and dvd"s,your making him millions :-).



Why do I bother,one reason is I find group psychology and basic herd instinct interesting.


I will leave you with a quote from Darwin, .” In Darwin's own words: "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)

p.s, I wasn't born yesterday garman as if I gave you the author of the link you claimed to be interested in you then would have done the above four steps on him,in time you will get it :-)

Oops forgot this bit,the next generation getting brainwashed,a nice little visual cartoon for the kiddies,and it has to be true as we saw it at the museum,little garman's in the making.

The sad thing is that as we know it's just a made up fairytale from two incomplete dolphin sized sculls.

Never mind that's evolution :-( .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cn0kf8mhS4&feature=related

[garman]

I remember reading years ago about some eminent scientists (in there field) that were revered by there peers until they disagreed with evolution,then by lunch time they were labelled as god nutters lost there funding etc and got basically kicked out of the scientific community.

I remind you that Darwin was also a rebel, there were plenty in the scientific community that certainly did not like or accept his heretical radical ideas at the time, but all is forgiven now Darwin is celebrated as the mother of evolution and his ideas are supported by aproxamatley 99% of all scientists around the world even many organised religions acept his ideas.

[miner]

I remind you that Darwin was also a rebel, there were plenty in the scientific community that certainly did not like or accept his heretical radical ideas at the time, but all is forgiven now Darwin is celebrated as the mother of evolution and his ideas are supported by aproxamatley 99% of all scientists around the world even many organised religions acept his ideas.

Is that it garman ?,you should be a salesman for "BAM" as they yell at you and repeat themselves on the TV in an attempt to sell there product.

Is your real name Tom by any chance garman ? :-)



My Debate with an Avid Evolutionist
I wrote an email to an evolution website that had amazingly condescending things to say about anyone who doubted evolution. My comment was that they shouldn't be so disdainful of people who don’t believe in Darwin's theory as the way species appeared on earth; that there were so many evidences that Darwin was wrong, which would make them (the website) wrong. Instead of intelligently responding to my remarks, the website answered my communication condescendingly and basically called me a fool. I got an unsolicited email from a frequent user of the site, Tom, and a staunch evolutionist who treated me in the same manner. I attempted to communicate with him on a respectful level. Actually, at the beginning of our discussion I was still a Darwin believer with doubts. I started communicating with him as a devil's advocate, as if I was a non-believer. The more we discussed, the more I realized what a hoax Darwin really was. By the end of our discussion over about a three month period, I became thoroughly convinced that Darwin's theory was a complete wrong. His communications were as disdainful as the website’s. This is a compendium of an ongoing debate that we had: (My comments are in italics.)

Me: Tom, why did you pick my entry to respond to?

Tom: I use the site frequently and read the feedback every month and pick a few of the more inane posts( no offence intended :-)) (I am offended.) from which to send an email. Your post was answered and the official reply was:
Dear Steve,
We don't need to make it look like everyone who attacks evolution is a fool.
They do a good job all by themselves.

(See what I mean about “condescending” and “name calling”?)
As you can see they give short shrift to persons such as yourself. (Condescending.)

Me: My biggest problem with your writings is that your simplistic "either-or" thinking kills any intelligent discussion of evolution.


Tom: That is probably because the discussion you want to have was settled over 150 years ago and repetitious arguments get old.


Me: You must know that nothing in science is "settled". As new evidence is discovered and tested, models and theories must be modified to fit new information. Try doing a mind experiment and see if you can come up with heart evolution. Draw the steps on a sheet of paper. In actuality, there are no possible intermediate evolutionary steps to a heart system; or eyes, or birds and eggs. A half heart would yield a dead (no) animal and no ev.


Tom: You are presenting Paley's arguments from incredulity. Just because you can't see how it can't happen doesn't mean that it didn't. (No one can figure out how it happened; not even a highly educated evolution scientist.) Evolution opponents assume that an organ today had the same functions millions of years ago as they do today and that is an erroneous assumption. (I wonder what other functions they can think of for hearts, eyes, lungs…….) I don't have long to educate you but the first site I hit in a search was this one: http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=310 You might want to increase your knowledge by researching this. (More condescension. Notice how the question is not answered? Tom spends so much time telling me what a fool I am, but he doesn’t have time to “educate” me on how organs evolved.)
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Me: I will look at this site, but I have already searched many evolution sites
that try to explain heart and eye evolution. What a joke all of them are. They make cartoon drawings of hearts and eye chambers gradually closing through evolutionary micro-steps, and becoming functional organs. The evolution that they draw is impossible anyway. Why would this happen? Where is the evolutionary evidence for these drawings? There is absolutely none. These are no more than figments of someones imagination. If you are truly a scientist with an open mind, you would have to agree.


Tom: Are they a joke? If so perhaps you can suggest a way. The first thing that is required is the ability to distinguish between intelligent design and design which isn't intelligent.

Me: Doesn’t the word “design” just reek of intelligence? (Even dumb design requires intelligence.)


Tom: Only fifty years ago there were competing theories on the existence of
the universe. Today there is little opposition to the big bang theory. What happened to the
steady-state theory?


Me: No evidence to support it. The same with evolution.


Tom: That is why I made the comment to you, that if you had a scientific theory to supplant the TOE you need to present it. (THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD HAS NEVER REQUIRED OFFERING AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY IN ORDER TO FALSIFY AN EXISTING ONE. All that is required for falsification is the evidence that falsifies...nothing more! I've seen this attack used many times, and it is nothing more than a cheap shot.)


Me: Unlike evolution, the "steady state" theory was supplanted by the "big bang" because of overwhelming evidence and mathematical calculation. Astronomers determined that if the big bang truly occurred, there would be cosmic background radiation. It was found in 1989, further proof that the big bang was the beginning of the universe. With evolution, no fossil or lab evidence required for proof has been found, but it just keeps on rolling along as if there was. I do have a theory to supplant evolution. It's exactly the same as science's theory on what there was before the big bang. It's called, "We Simply Don't Know, but Here is
What We Have So Far".


Tom: ID must explain features which are poorly designed, such as the eye. ID can't do it, but evolution can. (Only an evolutionist would think that an organ as miraculous as the eye is poorly designed.) They aren't absolute. They do involve some speculation. It simply isn't known how many of the evolutionary processes of specific organs occurred. (Then why is this a science that is not to be doubted?) There is much evidence that evolution occurred without the specifics of the evolution of each specific organ. You argue against a strawman which you have constructed while ignoring the larger evidence that it did occur. As I like to tell my creationist buddies, once life on earth didn't exist. Today it does (And evolution can’t come close to explaining how life did get here. 100% of their lab tests have been failures..) and evolution explains that diversity and distribution of the flora and fauna on earth better than any other potential theory.

Me: That the universe has a purely scientific intelligence somewhere is probable, and I think necessary for development of species.

Tom: Probable under whose theories? (Can’t evolutionists come up with their own thinking without needing to refer to some one else’s thinking?) The new evidence from the last 150 years has supported the TOE. If the TOE were as fragile as you think, it would have collapsed years ago. There is no theory on the horizon to supplant the TOE but you are certainly encouraged to introduce the first. (TOE is correct because there is no other theory that they can think of? Sorry, but that’s not objective science.)
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Me: It is completely obvious that there needs to be another scientific model
besides evolution to explain the appearance of species.


Tom: Obvious to whom? You? It isn't to me!
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Me: The "we simply don't know yet but here is the evidence that we do
have" would be a far more defensible scientific model than evolution.
The problem with your thinking is that you can only accept theories that
have already been proposed and accepted by someone else. Is my choice
only model A or model B? Can I think on my own?


Tom: Sure, but you need to provide at least a small framework. Usually people who think evolution is a crock make themselves look like fools. (Uh-oh……calling me a fool again.)


Me: Thanks for the compliment. Try opening your mind. You too could look
like a fool. We both know that many famous inventors and scientists were
mocked as fools before they were taken seriously. Also, thanks again for
taking the time to communicate. I love the discussion, and am completely
interested in the subject. Actually I was a firm believer in evolution
for many years. Recently I started making it a study, and POOF! Evolution
became extinct (in my mind) as a possible theory for development of
species. When I saw how impossible evolution really is, I became even more
fascinated with the subject than I was before. How we got here is a
subject that I think about frequently, study a lot, and get very
frustrated by. It is a fun puzzle that will never be solved, but trying
is a kick. (I continue writing respectfully to Tom. Appeasement never works!)


Tom: I'll be honest with you Stephen, I don't believe that you ever understood evolution or that you even studied evolution. (I majored in Biology at USC.) The framework which you have used as your discussion indicates that you don't understand the basics of evolution, much less the details. (Oooh, more condescension!)
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->


Me: Why didn't T Rex's arms (or any other part of T Rex) evolve in the twenty million years that it roamed the earth? Wouldn't NS and SOTF have evolved longer arms for T Rex, since that would have been a huge advantage in fighting and seeking food? For this species, there was virtually no evolution for twenty million years, ten times longer than it took hominid to evolve into man. The more I looked at other exhibits in the museum, (I visited the Field Natural History Museum in Chicago.) I noted that other species for which there were fossils over millions of years showed virtually no evolutionary changes.


Tom: Evolution isn't a directed process that must proceed in a certain direction
and in a certain time. (Tom knows this because he is actually God in disguise.) Did the arms of T Rex prevent him from functioning in his environment? Evidently it didn't because he existed quite well right up to his extinction. As to other species I would need to know what they were before commenting upon them. Cockroaches haven't evolved either. (Thanks! Another great example of non-evolution.)

Me: Massive changes would have to show in the fossil record for Darwin's theory to be correct. Where were they? Were evolutionary changes specific to only fossils that haven't been found? I started reading and studying to update myself on the subject, as it is a subject that I am obviously fascinated with. (Again I try respect.)



Tom: I would imagine you should be with a degree in biology. I do wonder what
course requirements you had at USC that you would be clueless about
evolution. (Fabulous condescension!)

<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->Me: I HAVE spent a lot of time reading and on pro-evolution websites. I thought they would answer a lot of my questions, but they only created more. Some notes on
your reply: You say that TOE is the only theory on the horizon, so it must be true.
Sorry, that is not science, that is belief. Science simply cannot come up with a model
that really fits the fossil finds, and lab evidence, so evolution wins by
default, not by scientific proof. Plus, ev scientists have so completely
committed to ev that they cannot even entertain the obvious fact that it
is poppycock. They cannot back out of their huge over-commitment.


Tom: Of course you have mountains of evidence that the TOE is 'poppycock'
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->Me: Try to envision an eye evolving when all species on the earth were blind. How
did evolution know that if the pre-eye continued to evolve into a complete
camera system, there would be incredible images at the other end? How
did a heart evolve when there were absolutely no pumps in existence on
earth? Even if evolution were fact, intelligence still had to be part of
the puzzle. Evolution would have to also be an incredible inventor. In
my case, I absolutely accept the time line given by science for appearance
and disappearance of species, and the age of the earth and universe. That
the earth is billions of years old, as well as the universe, is proven
beyond doubt. Evidence for evolution, on the other hand, is non-existent.


Tom: Evolution doesn't envision anything. Natural selection selects the desirable traits and not all traits are desirable by all species. (Natural Selection sure is smart!) Again, I don't intend to engage you in a rehash of the evidence supporting the TOE because it is painfully evident that you haven't studied the TOE enough to formulate supported evidence for your position. Do me a favor Stephen. Instead of spouting such bull****, go to the web sites of the journals Science or Nature or to Pub Med and do a search on 'evolution'. The enormous amount of information should keep you busy for the rest of your days. (Tom’s suggested sites:)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
http://www.karger.com/gazette/64/fernald/art_1_0.htm
http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/press/2004/press28oct04.html
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->http://www.talkorigins.com
<!--[endif]-->

Me: The framework of your discussion shows that you believe evolution because
that is what you were taught, lots of people believe it, and it is the only thing "on the horizon". The really great thinkers were able to "think out of the box". You are locked in it. And, they would certainly feel like they were giving in to religion, because, like you, everyone seems to think the only choices are Adam and Eve or evolution. Can you imagine what an OOOPS that would be? The number of textbooks that would have to be dumped? It's far easier to continue with the TOEBS than trying to look elsewhere, and look foolish in doing so.

Tom: Textbooks are revised all of the time. I know when you were
studying biology they changed course textbooks frequently. I know that it seemed to me
like my textbooks were changed every quarter and I had to shell out big
bucks for new ones.

Me: Evolution theory in textbooks has not changed a lick since I was in
school. (I've seen my kids college texts: same as mine.) No new
information supports evolution, but evolution marches on with the same
BS just as if there was lots of proof. Like you, I sincerely thought people that didn't believe in evolution were either uneducated, or somewhat religio-nuts. (The people you think are my bedmates.)



Tom: Actually I am more concerned with the fundamentalists who believe that the
earth and universe are young. These people, the vast majority of whom are
religious fundamentalists, use biology to further their religious views
because biology is perhaps the least understood science by the general
public. If the creationists had their way in biology they would be turning
their attention to the other sciences. Any science that contradicts the
Genesis version of creation must be destroyed. By the time the public
realizes what happened we may be in the dark ages. You have heard of the
dark ages, haven't you Steve? It was the last time that religious fundies
ruled the Western world.
<!--[endif]-->




Tom explains evolution to me (at last!): Your vision of how evolution works is seriously flawed. The best analogy I can use is this. If you start with a series of organisms named AAAAA and went to ZZZZZ you would have a progression chart like this:
AAAAA, AAAAB, AAAAC, AAAAD........ZZZZX, ZZZZY, ZZZZZ.
Pretend (I love this word. It’s evolutionists motto! I had to highlight it, as it is the centerpiece for TOE.) that these are organisms and we see that AAAAB looks almost identical to AAAAA. AAABA would still look almost identical to AAAAA. When you get to ZZZZZ he looks almost totally different from AAAAA but there is a resemblance. At any point if you look into this progression you will find all of the organisms fully functional and like the immediate organisms around him. AAAAA is a fossil that we have found and ZZZZZ has been found.
There are many intermediates but many of them would not be immediately
recognized as AAAAA or ZZZZZ. MMMMM, if we were lucky enough to find him,
might be recognized as an intermediate. If we had a rich fossil record it
would still be difficult to recognize the changes because soft body parts
change more quickly than hard parts, thus it would be many generations
before we recognized what was happening. As it is we are lucky to have
fossils at all.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Me: (I finally get condescending back.): Wow! This is really scientific! This is the perfect example of the BS that evolution is based on. Did you make this up yourself?

Tom: The many examples of eyes in many species of today shows that there are
many variations of the eye and that they arise from the evolution of the eye,
especially for a person like you who believes that life began as a single
cell organism.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->Me: Tom, there are no examples of eye evolution today, or in past fossil
records. But, I am sure you will continue to play pretend, like all ev
"scientists" do. It's the only thing they have to do battle with religion.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Tom: It is ridiculous that someone with a four year degree in biology doesn't
have a clue abut the evolution of the eye!
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Me: Here you are absolutely correct. It is hard to be an expert on something that cannot happen. No highly educated scientist has a clue either. They universally make up fairy tales as to how the eye evolved. Then they present their tales, and people like you agree and worshipfully accept them without question because they are so "educated” (by people that also believe evolution fairy tales). I do commend you on your self-initiated interest in a very fascinating field. However, advancement of science requires a completely open mind. Current models of any science need to be constantly tested and questioned, no matter how locked in they may seem. If this was not the case, scientists would be just as guilty of stifling scientific advancement as the religious zealots that you hate so much.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Tom: What more can I say Steve? You simply stick your head in the dirt and refuse to acknowledge anything which supports evolution. When the evidence supports a theory other than evolution, then you might have a case. Until then, you have absolutely nothing except your personal incredulity of evolution. There is so much wrong with the assumptions you make about biology that it isn't worth my time to refute them.
(Translation: Tom can’t answer them.)


Me: The trouble with your communication is that you are unable to refute what
I say, so you put the answers off to me sticking my head in the dirt. Or
you refer me to a website that has imaginary answers no better than your
lack of answers, or you don't have time to "educate me". My questions are
very reasonable, and a person not so locked into their belief system
would see that they are, and be able to discuss them reasonably.

Tom: No Steve, what you say is easily refutable. The problem is that you can't
recognize that it has been refuted.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Me: I am rather amazed that you picked my writing to respond to. There are so many more inane feedbacks than mine (your word), I really wonder why you chose mine. Do you respond to all? Here is my problem with so called evolution scientists: they are completely condescending, like yourself. They think they are so smart, and everyone else that doesn't believe is a fool. They and you suffer from severe tunnel vision, and to pin down any reasonable questions that any doubter has is like catching a greased pig. They, and you, completely skip over or ignore reasonable questions. Notice the response that I got from the TO site? No intelligent discussion, he simply calls me a fool. Like you, the replier must not have time to educate me either.


Me: (weeks later) Hi Tom
I hope all is well with you and your family. For the fun of it, I made a blog inspired by our debate. Since you were the inspiration I thought you might like to see how inane my thinking really is! Anyway, if you have time: http://
Either way, have a great holiday......
Steve


Tom:

I think you need to consult with your legal counsel. (Now that's real science!)

[garman]

Is that it garman ?,you should be a salesman for "BAM" as they yell at you and repeat themselves on the TV in an attempt to sell there product.

Is your real name Tom by any chance garman ? :-)



My Debate with an Avid Evolutionist
I wrote an email to an evolution website that had amazingly condescending things to say about anyone who doubted evolution. My comment was that they shouldn't be so disdainful of people who don’t believe in Darwin's theory as the way species appeared on earth; that there were so many evidences that Darwin was wrong, which would make them (the website) wrong. Instead of intelligently responding to my remarks, the website answered my communication condescendingly and basically called me a fool. I got an unsolicited email from a frequent user of the site, Tom, and a staunch evolutionist who treated me in the same manner. I attempted to communicate with him on a respectful level. Actually, at the beginning of our discussion I was still a Darwin believer with doubts. I started communicating with him as a devil's advocate, as if I was a non-believer. The more we discussed, the more I realized what a hoax Darwin really was. By the end of our discussion over about a three month period, I became thoroughly convinced that Darwin's theory was a complete wrong. His communications were as disdainful as the website’s. This is a compendium of an ongoing debate that we had: (My comments are in italics.)

Me: Tom, why did you pick my entry to respond to?

Tom: I use the site frequently and read the feedback every month and pick a few of the more inane posts( no offence intended :-)) (I am offended.) from which to send an email. Your post was answered and the official reply was:
Dear Steve,
We don't need to make it look like everyone who attacks evolution is a fool.
They do a good job all by themselves.

(See what I mean about “condescending” and “name calling”?)
As you can see they give short shrift to persons such as yourself. (Condescending.)

Me: My biggest problem with your writings is that your simplistic "either-or" thinking kills any intelligent discussion of evolution.


Tom: That is probably because the discussion you want to have was settled over 150 years ago and repetitious arguments get old.


Me: You must know that nothing in science is "settled". As new evidence is discovered and tested, models and theories must be modified to fit new information. Try doing a mind experiment and see if you can come up with heart evolution. Draw the steps on a sheet of paper. In actuality, there are no possible intermediate evolutionary steps to a heart system; or eyes, or birds and eggs. A half heart would yield a dead (no) animal and no ev.


Tom: You are presenting Paley's arguments from incredulity. Just because you can't see how it can't happen doesn't mean that it didn't. (No one can figure out how it happened; not even a highly educated evolution scientist.) Evolution opponents assume that an organ today had the same functions millions of years ago as they do today and that is an erroneous assumption. (I wonder what other functions they can think of for hearts, eyes, lungs…….) I don't have long to educate you but the first site I hit in a search was this one: http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=310 You might want to increase your knowledge by researching this. (More condescension. Notice how the question is not answered? Tom spends so much time telling me what a fool I am, but he doesn’t have time to “educate” me on how organs evolved.)
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Me: I will look at this site, but I have already searched many evolution sites
that try to explain heart and eye evolution. What a joke all of them are. They make cartoon drawings of hearts and eye chambers gradually closing through evolutionary micro-steps, and becoming functional organs. The evolution that they draw is impossible anyway. Why would this happen? Where is the evolutionary evidence for these drawings? There is absolutely none. These are no more than figments of someones imagination. If you are truly a scientist with an open mind, you would have to agree.


Tom: Are they a joke? If so perhaps you can suggest a way. The first thing that is required is the ability to distinguish between intelligent design and design which isn't intelligent.

Me: Doesn’t the word “design” just reek of intelligence? (Even dumb design requires intelligence.)


Tom: Only fifty years ago there were competing theories on the existence of
the universe. Today there is little opposition to the big bang theory. What happened to the
steady-state theory?


Me: No evidence to support it. The same with evolution.


Tom: That is why I made the comment to you, that if you had a scientific theory to supplant the TOE you need to present it. (THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD HAS NEVER REQUIRED OFFERING AN ALTERNATIVE THEORY IN ORDER TO FALSIFY AN EXISTING ONE. All that is required for falsification is the evidence that falsifies...nothing more! I've seen this attack used many times, and it is nothing more than a cheap shot.)


Me: Unlike evolution, the "steady state" theory was supplanted by the "big bang" because of overwhelming evidence and mathematical calculation. Astronomers determined that if the big bang truly occurred, there would be cosmic background radiation. It was found in 1989, further proof that the big bang was the beginning of the universe. With evolution, no fossil or lab evidence required for proof has been found, but it just keeps on rolling along as if there was. I do have a theory to supplant evolution. It's exactly the same as science's theory on what there was before the big bang. It's called, "We Simply Don't Know, but Here is
What We Have So Far".


Tom: ID must explain features which are poorly designed, such as the eye. ID can't do it, but evolution can. (Only an evolutionist would think that an organ as miraculous as the eye is poorly designed.) They aren't absolute. They do involve some speculation. It simply isn't known how many of the evolutionary processes of specific organs occurred. (Then why is this a science that is not to be doubted?) There is much evidence that evolution occurred without the specifics of the evolution of each specific organ. You argue against a strawman which you have constructed while ignoring the larger evidence that it did occur. As I like to tell my creationist buddies, once life on earth didn't exist. Today it does (And evolution can’t come close to explaining how life did get here. 100% of their lab tests have been failures..) and evolution explains that diversity and distribution of the flora and fauna on earth better than any other potential theory.

Me: That the universe has a purely scientific intelligence somewhere is probable, and I think necessary for development of species.

Tom: Probable under whose theories? (Can’t evolutionists come up with their own thinking without needing to refer to some one else’s thinking?) The new evidence from the last 150 years has supported the TOE. If the TOE were as fragile as you think, it would have collapsed years ago. There is no theory on the horizon to supplant the TOE but you are certainly encouraged to introduce the first. (TOE is correct because there is no other theory that they can think of? Sorry, but that’s not objective science.)
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Me: It is completely obvious that there needs to be another scientific model
besides evolution to explain the appearance of species.


Tom: Obvious to whom? You? It isn't to me!
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Me: The "we simply don't know yet but here is the evidence that we do
have" would be a far more defensible scientific model than evolution.
The problem with your thinking is that you can only accept theories that
have already been proposed and accepted by someone else. Is my choice
only model A or model B? Can I think on my own?


Tom: Sure, but you need to provide at least a small framework. Usually people who think evolution is a crock make themselves look like fools. (Uh-oh……calling me a fool again.)


Me: Thanks for the compliment. Try opening your mind. You too could look
like a fool. We both know that many famous inventors and scientists were
mocked as fools before they were taken seriously. Also, thanks again for
taking the time to communicate. I love the discussion, and am completely
interested in the subject. Actually I was a firm believer in evolution
for many years. Recently I started making it a study, and POOF! Evolution
became extinct (in my mind) as a possible theory for development of
species. When I saw how impossible evolution really is, I became even more
fascinated with the subject than I was before. How we got here is a
subject that I think about frequently, study a lot, and get very
frustrated by. It is a fun puzzle that will never be solved, but trying
is a kick. (I continue writing respectfully to Tom. Appeasement never works!)


Tom: I'll be honest with you Stephen, I don't believe that you ever understood evolution or that you even studied evolution. (I majored in Biology at USC.) The framework which you have used as your discussion indicates that you don't understand the basics of evolution, much less the details. (Oooh, more condescension!)
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->


Me: Why didn't T Rex's arms (or any other part of T Rex) evolve in the twenty million years that it roamed the earth? Wouldn't NS and SOTF have evolved longer arms for T Rex, since that would have been a huge advantage in fighting and seeking food? For this species, there was virtually no evolution for twenty million years, ten times longer than it took hominid to evolve into man. The more I looked at other exhibits in the museum, (I visited the Field Natural History Museum in Chicago.) I noted that other species for which there were fossils over millions of years showed virtually no evolutionary changes.


Tom: Evolution isn't a directed process that must proceed in a certain direction
and in a certain time. (Tom knows this because he is actually God in disguise.) Did the arms of T Rex prevent him from functioning in his environment? Evidently it didn't because he existed quite well right up to his extinction. As to other species I would need to know what they were before commenting upon them. Cockroaches haven't evolved either. (Thanks! Another great example of non-evolution.)

Me: Massive changes would have to show in the fossil record for Darwin's theory to be correct. Where were they? Were evolutionary changes specific to only fossils that haven't been found? I started reading and studying to update myself on the subject, as it is a subject that I am obviously fascinated with. (Again I try respect.)



Tom: I would imagine you should be with a degree in biology. I do wonder what
course requirements you had at USC that you would be clueless about
evolution. (Fabulous condescension!)

<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->Me: I HAVE spent a lot of time reading and on pro-evolution websites. I thought they would answer a lot of my questions, but they only created more. Some notes on
your reply: You say that TOE is the only theory on the horizon, so it must be true.
Sorry, that is not science, that is belief. Science simply cannot come up with a model
that really fits the fossil finds, and lab evidence, so evolution wins by
default, not by scientific proof. Plus, ev scientists have so completely
committed to ev that they cannot even entertain the obvious fact that it
is poppycock. They cannot back out of their huge over-commitment.


Tom: Of course you have mountains of evidence that the TOE is 'poppycock'
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->Me: Try to envision an eye evolving when all species on the earth were blind. How
did evolution know that if the pre-eye continued to evolve into a complete
camera system, there would be incredible images at the other end? How
did a heart evolve when there were absolutely no pumps in existence on
earth? Even if evolution were fact, intelligence still had to be part of
the puzzle. Evolution would have to also be an incredible inventor. In
my case, I absolutely accept the time line given by science for appearance
and disappearance of species, and the age of the earth and universe. That
the earth is billions of years old, as well as the universe, is proven
beyond doubt. Evidence for evolution, on the other hand, is non-existent.


Tom: Evolution doesn't envision anything. Natural selection selects the desirable traits and not all traits are desirable by all species. (Natural Selection sure is smart!) Again, I don't intend to engage you in a rehash of the evidence supporting the TOE because it is painfully evident that you haven't studied the TOE enough to formulate supported evidence for your position. Do me a favor Stephen. Instead of spouting such bull****, go to the web sites of the journals Science or Nature or to Pub Med and do a search on 'evolution'. The enormous amount of information should keep you busy for the rest of your days. (Tom’s suggested sites:)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
http://www.karger.com/gazette/64/fernald/art_1_0.htm
http://www.embl.org/aboutus/news/press/2004/press28oct04.html
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->http://www.talkorigins.com
<!--[endif]-->

Me: The framework of your discussion shows that you believe evolution because
that is what you were taught, lots of people believe it, and it is the only thing "on the horizon". The really great thinkers were able to "think out of the box". You are locked in it. And, they would certainly feel like they were giving in to religion, because, like you, everyone seems to think the only choices are Adam and Eve or evolution. Can you imagine what an OOOPS that would be? The number of textbooks that would have to be dumped? It's far easier to continue with the TOEBS than trying to look elsewhere, and look foolish in doing so.

Tom: Textbooks are revised all of the time. I know when you were
studying biology they changed course textbooks frequently. I know that it seemed to me
like my textbooks were changed every quarter and I had to shell out big
bucks for new ones.

Me: Evolution theory in textbooks has not changed a lick since I was in
school. (I've seen my kids college texts: same as mine.) No new
information supports evolution, but evolution marches on with the same
BS just as if there was lots of proof. Like you, I sincerely thought people that didn't believe in evolution were either uneducated, or somewhat religio-nuts. (The people you think are my bedmates.)



Tom: Actually I am more concerned with the fundamentalists who believe that the
earth and universe are young. These people, the vast majority of whom are
religious fundamentalists, use biology to further their religious views
because biology is perhaps the least understood science by the general
public. If the creationists had their way in biology they would be turning
their attention to the other sciences. Any science that contradicts the
Genesis version of creation must be destroyed. By the time the public
realizes what happened we may be in the dark ages. You have heard of the
dark ages, haven't you Steve? It was the last time that religious fundies
ruled the Western world.
<!--[endif]-->




Tom explains evolution to me (at last!): Your vision of how evolution works is seriously flawed. The best analogy I can use is this. If you start with a series of organisms named AAAAA and went to ZZZZZ you would have a progression chart like this:
AAAAA, AAAAB, AAAAC, AAAAD........ZZZZX, ZZZZY, ZZZZZ.
Pretend (I love this word. It’s evolutionists motto! I had to highlight it, as it is the centerpiece for TOE.) that these are organisms and we see that AAAAB looks almost identical to AAAAA. AAABA would still look almost identical to AAAAA. When you get to ZZZZZ he looks almost totally different from AAAAA but there is a resemblance. At any point if you look into this progression you will find all of the organisms fully functional and like the immediate organisms around him. AAAAA is a fossil that we have found and ZZZZZ has been found.
There are many intermediates but many of them would not be immediately
recognized as AAAAA or ZZZZZ. MMMMM, if we were lucky enough to find him,
might be recognized as an intermediate. If we had a rich fossil record it
would still be difficult to recognize the changes because soft body parts
change more quickly than hard parts, thus it would be many generations
before we recognized what was happening. As it is we are lucky to have
fossils at all.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Me: (I finally get condescending back.): Wow! This is really scientific! This is the perfect example of the BS that evolution is based on. Did you make this up yourself?

Tom: The many examples of eyes in many species of today shows that there are
many variations of the eye and that they arise from the evolution of the eye,
especially for a person like you who believes that life began as a single
cell organism.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->Me: Tom, there are no examples of eye evolution today, or in past fossil
records. But, I am sure you will continue to play pretend, like all ev
"scientists" do. It's the only thing they have to do battle with religion.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Tom: It is ridiculous that someone with a four year degree in biology doesn't
have a clue abut the evolution of the eye!
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Me: Here you are absolutely correct. It is hard to be an expert on something that cannot happen. No highly educated scientist has a clue either. They universally make up fairy tales as to how the eye evolved. Then they present their tales, and people like you agree and worshipfully accept them without question because they are so "educated” (by people that also believe evolution fairy tales). I do commend you on your self-initiated interest in a very fascinating field. However, advancement of science requires a completely open mind. Current models of any science need to be constantly tested and questioned, no matter how locked in they may seem. If this was not the case, scientists would be just as guilty of stifling scientific advancement as the religious zealots that you hate so much.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Tom: What more can I say Steve? You simply stick your head in the dirt and refuse to acknowledge anything which supports evolution. When the evidence supports a theory other than evolution, then you might have a case. Until then, you have absolutely nothing except your personal incredulity of evolution. There is so much wrong with the assumptions you make about biology that it isn't worth my time to refute them.
(Translation: Tom can’t answer them.)


Me: The trouble with your communication is that you are unable to refute what
I say, so you put the answers off to me sticking my head in the dirt. Or
you refer me to a website that has imaginary answers no better than your
lack of answers, or you don't have time to "educate me". My questions are
very reasonable, and a person not so locked into their belief system
would see that they are, and be able to discuss them reasonably.

Tom: No Steve, what you say is easily refutable. The problem is that you can't
recognize that it has been refuted.
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->

Me: I am rather amazed that you picked my writing to respond to. There are so many more inane feedbacks than mine (your word), I really wonder why you chose mine. Do you respond to all? Here is my problem with so called evolution scientists: they are completely condescending, like yourself. They think they are so smart, and everyone else that doesn't believe is a fool. They and you suffer from severe tunnel vision, and to pin down any reasonable questions that any doubter has is like catching a greased pig. They, and you, completely skip over or ignore reasonable questions. Notice the response that I got from the TO site? No intelligent discussion, he simply calls me a fool. Like you, the replier must not have time to educate me either.


Me: (weeks later) Hi Tom
I hope all is well with you and your family. For the fun of it, I made a blog inspired by our debate. Since you were the inspiration I thought you might like to see how inane my thinking really is! Anyway, if you have time: http://
Either way, have a great holiday......
Steve


Tom:

I think you need to consult with your legal counsel. (Now that's real science!)The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, palaeontology, anthropology, and others. One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists “less than 1%” (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science". An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution". A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.

As I said Miner your argument is not with me.

[miner]

Your like a broken record garman,and it wasn't a good one to start with.



A visit to the Field Museum in Chicago brought up a lot of questions in my mind about evolution sciences. I began pondering if it could really be true. The more I thought about what I saw, the more questions arose. The purpose of this blog is not to propose any answer as to how we (earthly species) appeared. The main purposes is to question and challenge the veracity of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and to promote independent thought in any endeavor or study.
Humans, and all animal species, are incredibly engineered machines; thousands of times more complex and better engineered than any device on the planet. We have servo-motors (muscles) that move rods (ligaments) that in turn move ball and socket joints (hip, mandible). We have an incredibly complex and efficient pump (heart), a pair of digital cameras that produce 3D (eyes), miniture sound speakers (ears); and on and on. The one thing that makes us different from an incredibly engineered robot is LIFE; that we are alive. Life separates us from robots. And, life is the one thing that separates evolutionists from being able to see intelligence in the universe. NOT religion, but intelligence; there is a big difference here. If we were functioning and not "alive", and were constructed of plastic and metal, and an "evolutionist" could observe us, he would have to admit that we are the result of an intelligence beyond imagination. And the amazing thing is that evolutionists have absolutely no idea how life formed, and they are completely unable to duplicate life in the laboratory.

[h2so4]

Sometimes amazing things defy the logic of all kinds of people.

[fungus pudding]

Sometimes amazing things defy the logic of all kinds of people.

Not all kinds; perhaps most.

[h2so4]

Not all kinds; perhaps most.

Ever had the solution to a problem come to you and wonder, where did that come from?

[miner]

Just a Note for Evolutionists that May Read this Blog: The earth and solar system, by all good scientific evidence, appear to be 4.5 billion years old. The biological time-line given by biologists for the appearance of species certainly looks scientifically accurate. There appears to have been some minor evolution that has taken (takes) place. I have absolutely no idea how species came into existence, and I don’t promote any solution to that great and fascinating puzzle. This blog is only interested in scientific and objective discourse. Origins of species is an incredible subject, but it is also a useless science. No cures for disease or mechanical marvels will be produced by it. In reality, few people spend much time thinking about it. I am one of the few who do. I find it immensely fascinating, thought provoking, and fun. I am bothered that evolution is taught in schools as if it is a lock, that pseudo-intellectual evolutionists treat those that are not believers condescendingly, that if a person is a non-believer in the TOE most evolutionists think that person must believe in Adam and Eve, and that evidence is bent to make TOE look like real science. That is why I am writing this log. I am starting with this note so that any evolutionists that may read this blog will know where I am coming from, and if they comment, hopefully will keep this in mind.

If evolution can come up with real instead of imaginary evidence, I will be the first to step up and be a full supporter like I was a few years ago. What I do think is that nature is unbelievably intelligent. There is no scientific evidence for the source of that intelligence, so my thinking goes no farther. Please keep your comments within the scope of this blog. If you want to challenge my thinking or any section, please feel free. If you do challenge, please place your comment below the page you are challenging, and note the paragraph. I don’t want to debate about Creationism, ID, if there is a God, invisible guys in the sky, any religious beliefs, or angels or fairies. So please leave those off of your comment list. Also, I promote independent thinking. I have seen and read most pro-evolution sites, and many anti-evolution sites, and I pretty much know what they say. So, please do your own thinking and challenging, and don’t forward any links. Thanks

The pages of this blog are placed in chronological order, and are composed of my thoughts and experiences with evolutionists as they come, so no need to read in any particular order.

[Major von Tempsky]

One of Science's great mistakes - calling it the Theory of Evolution. Just call it Evolution or the Axiom of Evolution.

Just like standing atop of a tall cliff gazing over the sea in all directions you can see the World is round, not flat. So too, with your eyes open you can observe the effects of Evolution.

Recommended Reading - "Telling Lies for God" by geologist Ian Plimer (also an interesting global warming sceptic) with an Introduction by the Anglican Bishop of Sydney who is also an Evolutionist. Like me.

I'd hate to think I was the final finished product with no room for improvement :-)

[fungus pudding]

One of Science's great mistakes............. I'd hate to think I was the final finished product with no room for improvement :-)

Have no fear Major.

[garman]

One of Science's great mistakes - calling it the Theory of Evolution. Just call it Evolution or the Axiom of Evolution.

Just like standing atop of a tall cliff gazing over the sea in all directions you can see the World is round, not flat. So too, with your eyes open you can observe the effects of Evolution.

Recommended Reading - "Telling Lies for God" by geologist Ian Plimer (also an interesting global warming sceptic) with an Introduction by the Anglican Bishop of Sydney who is also an Evolutionist. Like me.

I'd hate to think I was the final finished product with no room for improvement :-)If we were designed it would have been good if we were given the choice of having whiskers or not I get really pissed off having to shave all the time {should have been an optional extra}:D

[h2so4]

One of Science's great mistakes - calling it the Theory of Evolution. Just call it Evolution or the Axiom of Evolution.

Just like standing atop of a tall cliff gazing over the sea in all directions you can see the World is round, not flat. So too, with your eyes open you can observe the effects of Evolution.

Recommended Reading - "Telling Lies for God" by geologist Ian Plimer (also an interesting global warming sceptic) with an Introduction by the Anglican Bishop of Sydney who is also an Evolutionist. Like me.

I'd hate to think I was the final finished product with no room for improvement :-)


We are all evolving, we are at the leading edge. It's never done.

[h2so4]

If we were designed it would have been good if we were given the choice of having whiskers or not I get really pissed off having to shave all the time {should have been an optional extra}:D

You must have ticked the male box.:D

[fungus pudding]

You must have ticked the male box.:D

Not necessarily. :p

[h2so4]

Not necessarily. :p

If that's the case, no wonder garman/garwomen is pissed off. I would be too.

Hey garman which box did you tick mate?

[miner]

How I Came to the Conclusion that Darwin was Dreaming
Since I graduated from USC in 1967, I had been a firm believer in Darwinian evolution. I thought anyone who did not was a sucker, or really naive. It seemed like such a logical way that we humans, and all other species had arrived on earth. I have always been fascinated with the subject, and study and think about it often. I was so comfortable with TOE as the only logical explanation for how we got here. I was in awe of the genius of Charles Darwin. When visiting my son who was studying medicine at Chicago Medical School in 2004, I visited the Field Museum and saw Sue, their T. Rex fossil. What a great experience. But a puzzle came to mind. Why didn't T Rex's arms (or any other part of T Rex) evolve in the twenty million years that it roamed the earth?




Wouldn't natural selection and mutations have evolved longer arms for T. Rex, since that would have been a huge advantage in fighting and seeking food? For this species, there was virtually no evolution for twenty million years, ten times longer than it took hominid to evolve into man. The more I looked at other exhibits in the museum, I noted that other species for which there were fossils over millions of years showed virtually no evolutionary changes. Centipedes have roamed the earth for 400 million years showing only miniscule changes. Trilobytes showed little change over a 250 million year period, more than 100 times longer that it took man to evolve from hominid species. Massive changes would have to show in the fossil record for Darwin's theory to be correct. Where were they? Fossil history should look something like the growth of a fetus, spread over millions of years. The growth of fingers, limbs, eye sockets and ear canals in skulls, should be the norm. Were evolutionary changes specific to only fossils that haven't been found? I started reading and studying to update myself on the subject, as it is a subject that I am obviously fascinated with.



The Coelacanth is a living fish which first appeared 410 million years ago. (Fossil above left) It was thought extinct, but recently has been found live in many locations throughout the world. (Above right) Coelacanth shows absolutely no sign of evolution since it first appeared, 200 times longer ago than it supposedly took man to evolve from hominids. Why didn’t it grow arms, or something? The explanation on an evolution website: “This situation is still under investigation by scientists.” I'm certain that scientists are working around the clock trying to figure this one out! Actually, what's to figure? There was absolutely no evolution with Coelacanth. Nothing to "investigate" here. What truly objective scientists should say is, “This certainly is additional proof that Darwinian evolution may not have occurred at all.” In Darwin's own words: "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)
It is truly a strange experience realizing that something that I believed and defended vociferously for over forty years was completely a hoax. For me, when Darwin started going over the falls, the fall was fast. Suddenly, I started seeing, in every corner that I looked, a huge hoax perpetrated by the brainwashed, wishful thinking "scientists", writers, and professors, and avid anti-religionists. It was a real shock. This website will pretty much log my thoughts and readings about evolution since my visit to the Field Museum.
Current fossil records show the appearance and extinction of millions of different species over several billion years. There does not, at this time, appear to be any morphing of one specie into another through generations. Bird fossils appear, with no precursor with gradually growing wings. There are no animals showing gradually extending limbs. The fossil record looks like the evolution of the automobile. The Model T preceded the 1955 Fairlaine, which preceded the modern Explorer. The model T itself did not morph into the model A. To many, this may seem like a silly scenario, but this is the closest model that can be made with the current inventory of fossils. What does this do to any scientific explanation of how species did go about "appearing"? There is no current objective and scientific answer.

[garman]

In Darwin's own words: "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." No sweat Charles you got it dead right! and your theory of evolution as you called it is now endorsed and accepted as fact by 99% of the scientists on the face of the planet, congratulations.

[miner]

Actually garmin he would be turning in his grave as when he came up with his theory on evolution he said things like .

"If numerous species have really started into life at once,the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution"

So he knew he just had a theory and that it may end up being proven wrong in time.

If he was here today and could look at the fossil record and see that fish for example turn up out of no where and then as the 410 million year old Coelacanth fish shows haven't changed at all he would actually be saying Hmmm well so much for that theory.

What he wouldn't be doing is wasting his and everyone else's time vainly trying to prove a flawed theory,he would accept the facts and move on to doing some useful science,you know the type that actually helps people.


You can post about your so called 99% of scientists as much as you like but it doesn't change the fossil record or the fact that it completely contradicts the theory of evolution

[garman]

Actually garmin he would be turning in his grave as when he came up with his theory on evolution he said things like .

"If numerous species have really started into life at once,the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution"

So he knew he just had a theory and that it may end up being proven wrong in time.
Yes he was a very wise man indeed, like many research scientists he was cautious about calling his theory a fact or getting too exited about it. But I am sure he would be delighted that around 140 years since his death his evolution theory is accepted by 99% of all scientists, but who knows maybe the 1% may prove him to be incorrect, they may prove that a invisible black jewish lesbian living up in the sky may have really designed the whole shooting match but cunningly designed it so it looks like it just evolved over time, just too fool the 99% of scientists.:D

[miner]

Invisible black Jewish lesbian in the sky you say garman Hmmm,you've got most of the basses covered there,still not as good as your master in action but getting there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg&feature=related

All you evolutionists do when science shows your theory is wrong is go on the attack against the god lot.

You come across as scared sh*tless that there may be a god,but also use it to divert attention away from the fact that your theory is full of fatal holes.

Calling people names and making fun of them is what little kiddies do in school,some of them even smile while there doing it ay garman.

[p2r]

How come the sceptics don't get sceptical about this theory which pervades all parts of science but which can't be proved...because it's against their beliefs...?

[garman]

How come the sceptics don't get sceptical about this theory which pervades all parts of science but which can't be proved...because it's against their beliefs...?I am sure that in the past 140 years since Darwin's theory was launched many scientists would have been very sceptical about his theory but as time goes on and research and experimentation just keeps on reinforcing and backing up evolution day after day after day in the field and in labs all around the globe, only 1% of scientists are still a wee bit sceptical, which I think is very healthy because if an astonishing miracle happens and the designer pops up somewhere and says "Ha Ha fooled you guys with all that evidence I planted" then the scientists consisting of the 1% "just as Darwin once was will be able to help us move forward as a species just as he did. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnzmxeZJeho

[miner]

Research and experiments don't back up evolution never mind day after day and posting kiddies cartoons doesn't make it real either garman.


Impossibilities of Evolution
There are so many items in nature that cannot possibly evolve in small steps. The list would be enormous. If any one of these items could not possibly come into existence through the TOE (Theory of Evolution), then the TOE is not a possible scenario for how species came into existence. Six examples are:

1. Sexual Reproduction

2. Flight
3. Birds and Eggs.
4. Eyes and Hearts
5. Maxillary jaw teeth forming and articulating perfectly with concurrently forming mandibular jaw teeth.
6. Survival of the fittest eliminating all weather skin/fur from human beings

Sexual reproduction is an all or none event. Would an evolutionist say that one multi-cellular animal grew an appendage after millions of years, then decided to insert it into a fold in another multi-cellular animal that didn’t possess the appendage just to see what would happen? How could perfectly matched male and female sexual organs evolve in separate individuals of a specie? What microsteps to sexual reproduction could possibly have occurred? Any explanation of gradually evolving sexuality would be preposterous. The same would be true with flight. Evolutionists explain flight by saying that insects were the first to fly. Somehow because insects are small, evolutionists think that they will provide an acceptable explanation for the beginnings of flight evolution. However big or small a species might be, evolution cannot in any way explain flight. Did an insect grow appendages over the millennia that eventually flapped up and down, causing the insect, or bird, to fly? Just think what a heckuva surprise that must have been for the first individual that flew! There simply is no possible scenario that would explain the origins of insect or bird flight that would include evolution. Birds and eggs cannot have possibly originated through the “wonders” of evolution. Not much explanation is required here. Do your own mental experiment and, of course, you will see. Eyes and hearts are two excellent examples of organs that cannot have possibly evolved, as any pre-functioning steps to a fully functioning organ would be completely useless. Evolutionists poo poo the eye/heart challenge, however they never answer it with more than fairy tales. Essentially, if hearts and eyes evolved, the pre-functioning organ would be no more than a useless tumor. Species would have to carry around these useless tumors for hundreds of thousands of years before they would become functioning organs. What force would cause these useless tumors to continue to evolve into the incredibly complex organs represented by hearts and eyes? In the case of the heart: over 800 million years ago there were no pumps on the entire earth of any kind. Evolution would have to start knitting a few cells together with each generation, with the end result, hundreds of thousands of years later, being a sealed pump and valve capable of moving blood. Of course, the blood couldn't exist until there was a heart to pump it. Add to that, there were no lungs to oxygenate the blood, and no vessels to get oxygenated blood to the needy cells. It is not even imaginable that a heart and all systems required to run it could be produced by mutations and natural selection. It is also not even imaginable that maxillary teeth could form through survival of the fittest and natural selection, and articulate like a perfect puzzle pieces with mandibular jaw teeth. You would have to believe in miracles to go for this one, which would make evolution no more than a religion. Add to that the fact that humans have primary teeth, an entire separate set, also with perfect matching of the anatomy of the maxillary teeth with the mandibular, and you have a nightmare for evolutionists.
There are actually thousands of items in nature that could not possibly evolve in slow steps, due to their complexity, and the fact that all parts must be present initially for them to function at all. These items are said to have "irreducible complexity". Evolutionists diminish IC, and act like they can prove that IC is not a factor in disproving evolution. They have come up with outlandish tales (see below) of how these items evolved, but the tales are nothing more than the figments of their imaginations, and not proven at all in the fossil record.
Thinking about how Homo Sapiens "evolved" from Primates: Primates, of course, are/were animals, all of which are capable of living and surviving in nature in the immense variations of weather. Primates, of course, and all animals, have the skin and fur to do so. Humans are the only animals on the planet who cannot. What transition could have possibly taken place that removed the fur and all-weather skin from humans? Since animals with fur and weather-resistant skin would survive far better than humans, why didn't "survival of the fittest" allow humans to keep their outer covering? They would be able to survive far better than they are capable of today. Humans, in reality, are extremely weak as far as all-weather survivability goes, and can survive unprotected only in a very narrow temperature range. Did humans evolve the ability to make clothing and blankets because they were gradually getting less able to withstand cold? Is this scenario gradually taking place imaginable? Could clothes gradually appear?
The fact that any one of these items above could not possibly "evolve" destroys the entire foundation for the TOE.

[Lego_Man]

Research and experiments don't back up evolution never mind day after day and posting kiddies cartoons doesn't make it real either garman.


Impossibilities of Evolution
There are so many items in nature that cannot possibly evolve in small steps. The list would be enormous. If any one of these items could not possibly come into existence through the TOE (Theory of Evolution), then the TOE is not a possible scenario for how species came into existence. Six examples are:

1. Sexual Reproduction

2. Flight
3. Birds and Eggs.
4. Eyes and Hearts
5. Maxillary jaw teeth forming and articulating perfectly with concurrently forming mandibular jaw teeth.
6. Survival of the fittest eliminating all weather skin/fur from human beings

Sexual reproduction is an all or none event. Would an evolutionist say that one multi-cellular animal grew an appendage after millions of years, then decided to insert it into a fold in another multi-cellular animal that didn’t possess the appendage just to see what would happen? How could perfectly matched male and female sexual organs evolve in separate individuals of a specie? What microsteps to sexual reproduction could possibly have occurred? Any explanation of gradually evolving sexuality would be preposterous. The same would be true with flight. Evolutionists explain flight by saying that insects were the first to fly. Somehow because insects are small, evolutionists think that they will provide an acceptable explanation for the beginnings of flight evolution. However big or small a species might be, evolution cannot in any way explain flight. Did an insect grow appendages over the millennia that eventually flapped up and down, causing the insect, or bird, to fly? Just think what a heckuva surprise that must have been for the first individual that flew! There simply is no possible scenario that would explain the origins of insect or bird flight that would include evolution. Birds and eggs cannot have possibly originated through the “wonders” of evolution. Not much explanation is required here. Do your own mental experiment and, of course, you will see. Eyes and hearts are two excellent examples of organs that cannot have possibly evolved, as any pre-functioning steps to a fully functioning organ would be completely useless. Evolutionists poo poo the eye/heart challenge, however they never answer it with more than fairy tales. Essentially, if hearts and eyes evolved, the pre-functioning organ would be no more than a useless tumor. Species would have to carry around these useless tumors for hundreds of thousands of years before they would become functioning organs. What force would cause these useless tumors to continue to evolve into the incredibly complex organs represented by hearts and eyes? In the case of the heart: over 800 million years ago there were no pumps on the entire earth of any kind. Evolution would have to start knitting a few cells together with each generation, with the end result, hundreds of thousands of years later, being a sealed pump and valve capable of moving blood. Of course, the blood couldn't exist until there was a heart to pump it. Add to that, there were no lungs to oxygenate the blood, and no vessels to get oxygenated blood to the needy cells. It is not even imaginable that a heart and all systems required to run it could be produced by mutations and natural selection. It is also not even imaginable that maxillary teeth could form through survival of the fittest and natural selection, and articulate like a perfect puzzle pieces with mandibular jaw teeth. You would have to believe in miracles to go for this one, which would make evolution no more than a religion. Add to that the fact that humans have primary teeth, an entire separate set, also with perfect matching of the anatomy of the maxillary teeth with the mandibular, and you have a nightmare for evolutionists.
There are actually thousands of items in nature that could not possibly evolve in slow steps, due to their complexity, and the fact that all parts must be present initially for them to function at all. These items are said to have "irreducible complexity". Evolutionists diminish IC, and act like they can prove that IC is not a factor in disproving evolution. They have come up with outlandish tales (see below) of how these items evolved, but the tales are nothing more than the figments of their imaginations, and not proven at all in the fossil record.
Thinking about how Homo Sapiens "evolved" from Primates: Primates, of course, are/were animals, all of which are capable of living and surviving in nature in the immense variations of weather. Primates, of course, and all animals, have the skin and fur to do so. Humans are the only animals on the planet who cannot. What transition could have possibly taken place that removed the fur and all-weather skin from humans? Since animals with fur and weather-resistant skin would survive far better than humans, why didn't "survival of the fittest" allow humans to keep their outer covering? They would be able to survive far better than they are capable of today. Humans, in reality, are extremely weak as far as all-weather survivability goes, and can survive unprotected only in a very narrow temperature range. Did humans evolve the ability to make clothing and blankets because they were gradually getting less able to withstand cold? Is this scenario gradually taking place imaginable? Could clothes gradually appear?
The fact that any one of these items above could not possibly "evolve" destroys the entire foundation for the TOE.

On your latter point, humans dont "evolve an ability" to make things. That would be like saying the Ipod is a product of evolution. Anyway on the hair thing wikipedia says:


The thermoregulatory hypothesis (developed by Dr. Peter Wheeler, 1984, 1985) suggests that when human ancestors started living on the savanna, humans began sweating more to stay cool.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair#cite_note-21) It is posited that thick hair got in the way of the sweat evaporating, so humans evolved a sparser coat of fur. Although hair provides protection against harmful UV radiation, since our hominin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominin) ancestors were bipedal, only our heads were exposed to the noonday sun.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair#cite_note-22) Humans kept the hair on our head which reflects harmful UV rays, but our body hair was reduced. Opponents of the thermoregulatory hypothesis would say that losing hair added an extreme weakness to cold, but, seeing as how humans figured out cutlery around 2.6 million years ago, our ancestors easily could have found clothing within the 1.4 million years between cutting up their kills and losing their hair.[clarification needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_clarify)]
The aquatic ape hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis) posits that sparsity of hair is an adaptation to a semi-aquatic environment, but the theory has yet to gain support among scientists.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair#cite_note-Meier-23)
Another hypothesis for the thick body hair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_hair) on humans proposes that Fisherian runaway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisherian_runaway) sexual selection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection) played a role (as well as in the selection of long head hair), (see types of hair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair#Types_of_hair) and vellus hair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vellus_hair)), as well as a much larger role of testosterone in men. Sexual selection is the only theory thus far that explains the sexual dimorphism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism) seen in the hair patterns of men and women. On average, men have more body hair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgenic_hair) than women. Males have more terminal hair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_hair), especially on the face (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_hair), chest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chest_hair), abdomen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdominal_hair), and back, and females have more vellus hair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vellus_hair), which is less visible. The halting of hair development at a juvenile stage, vellus hair, would also be consistent with the neoteny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoteny) evident in humans, especially in females, and thus they could have occurred at the same time.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair#cite_note-24)
A final hypothesis is that human hair was reduced in response to ectoparasites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectoparasites).[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair#cite_note-Pagel.26Bodmer2003-25)[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair#cite_note-26) Getting rid of our hair might have reduced the risk of fleas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleas), ticks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticks), lice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lice), and other biting insects.


Seems fairly reasonable.

However the rest i agree with you on. I can understand though how subspecies can evolve through adaptation to their environment and natural improvements. Eg it is indisputable that you can trace us back to more primitive forms of man.

I simply cant fathom the sludge - intelligent life idea though. There must be an inbetween. Perhaps we are just some big biology experiment by an alien life form? That chucked a few species on the planet to see what happened? But wouldnt they get bored of that after a billion years of observation? The mind boggles...

[miner]

Hi Lego Man thanks, nice to get a thoughtful post.

Those links as always with evolutionists are full of ,we think,suggests,proposes etc,so in other words we are just guessing.

So lets say humans living on the savannah lost there hair to stay cool (not sure why they think they were covered in hair,someone drew an imaginary picture? ),then why didn't the ones in a colder climate keep it ?,and how did we all end up with the same amount of hair ?.

Evolutionists theory's all sound the same,full of if's buts and maybes,also did you think about how many different theory's they come up with on the same subject ? four or so just in your two links,are they all right ?.

You use the words adoption and evolve in the same sentence,lots of things adapt to there surroundings but they don't evolve.

We can trace humans back for years but there is no proof that we evolved from apes,we simply couldn't have because then we would have had to evolve a heart, eyes sexual reproduction etc.

"On your latter point, humans don't "evolve an ability" to make things. That would be like saying the Ipod is a product of evolution"
I read that as he was saying as evolutionists keep telling us things take millions of years to evolve we would have frozen to death long before we made cloths,remember according to your links this is after we lost all our imaginary hair.
Not trying to be smart just that if you actually stop and think about what evolutionists are trying to sell us it reads like a mental fairytale with multiple versions for the same thing.

Don't get me wrong as I am not saying I have all the answers,what I am saying though is that if you think about what evolutionists keep ramming down our throats it just doesn't add up and couldn't of happened the way they keep telling us it did.

[Lego_Man]

Hi Lego Man thanks, nice to get a thoughtful post.

Those links as always with evolutionists are full of ,we think,suggests,proposes etc,so in other words we are just guessing.

So lets say humans living on the savannah lost there hair to stay cool (not sure why they think they were covered in hair,someone drew an imaginary picture? ),then why didn't the ones in a colder climate keep it ?,and how did we all end up with the same amount of hair ?.

Evolutionists theory's all sound the same,full of if's buts and maybes,also did you think about how many different theory's they come up with on the same subject ? four or so just in your two links,are they all right ?.

You use the words adoption and evolve in the same sentence,lots of things adapt to there surroundings but they don't evolve.

We can trace humans back for years but there is no proof that we evolved from apes,we simply couldn't have because then we would have had to evolve a heart, eyes sexual reproduction etc.

"On your latter point, humans don't "evolve an ability" to make things. That would be like saying the Ipod is a product of evolution"
I read that as he was saying as evolutionists keep telling us things take millions of years to evolve we would have frozen to death long before we made cloths,remember according to your links this is after we lost all our imaginary hair.
Not trying to be smart just that if you actually stop and think about what evolutionists are trying to sell us it reads like a mental fairytale with multiple versions for the same thing.

Don't get me wrong as I am not saying I have all the answers,what I am saying though is that if you think about what evolutionists keep ramming down our throats it just doesn't add up and couldn't of happened the way they keep telling us it did.

Apes already reproduced sexually though and had the same "basic structure" in terms of genetic material and organs as we do. There's really not that much difference within species, or even family of species though. For example there is no reason to believe that say zebras and horses were "created" separately, as they come from the same family of animal. They merely developed their own characteristics by "evolving" separately through random variation and being in different environments over millions of years. However as you said i dont see how you can bridge the gap between an amoeba and a dolphin for example. The development of complex organs just seems to be unlikely or even in possible no matter how many times you "roll the dice".

For example, how many tens or hundreds of thousands of years would it take for a fish to sprout a leg. And what use would that leg be in a partially developed form? And even if it was in some way useful, this miraculous creature may have still through bad luck (eg getting eaten) died before being able to reproduce. Bang! How long do you have to wait for another one now?

As for humans, because we had a basic level of intelligence the smartest and most technologically innovative survived. They may be the ones who could produce the best clothes, shelter etc. That may have coincided with a tendency to have less hair as by necessity a less haired creature would have to struggle harder to survive in some environments. But anyway, humans were in Africa for a very long time before they migrated to other areas so may have lost most of their hair by then. The other thing is that i believe that geological history records an event early in our development that almost wiped out the entire species bar a few thousand individuals? Thus the impact of their characteristics would be amplified.

You can imagine that we will look pretty different in another million years if we continue on the same current mode of development. Although natural selection is actually less important now as ironically the most lowly are the ones who breed the most. But that in itself will have an impact over a long enough time period...

[miner]

Yes apes did reproduce sexually but where did the ape come from ? as it didn't evolve from a amino acid ???.

We are close to apes etc with some of our genetic material etc.

One way I look at that is when a car is designed they all share common parts,wheels motor etc,but are different in other ways,body shape front or rear wheel drive etc.

So horse = Mazda, zebras = Toyota,you don't change the whole design between makes- models.

As for us and internal parts,think of it as the internal combustion engine,they all have a crank,pistons,carburation etc,but vary in size power etc,the basic layout is the same though and they share common parts.

So if your going to design life then the smart thing to do is integrate some parts as much as you can,when man does this it is called great efficient design,but when whoever designed life it is called ???.


When I ask some people I know why do you believe in evolution they say "because",I say yeah but why,"because it said it on TV",but do you know anything about it ?,"I know that god sh*t is a load of rubbish",so you don't know anything about it so why do you think we evolved ,"BECAUSE".

Hmmm and that's your standard conversation,they may as well have just gone Baaa like a sheep for each answer,and the theory of evolution lives on as the next person goes Baaa and stays in the safety of the flock.

Great your thinking for yourself Lego Man.

[garman]

and how did we all end up with the same amount of hair ?.
Thinking about how Homo Sapiens "evolved" from Primates: Primates, of course, are/were animals, all of which are capable of living and surviving in nature in the immense variations of weather. Primates, of course, and all animals, have the skin and fur to do so. Humans are the only animals on the planet who cannot. What transition could have possibly taken place that removed the fur and all-weather skin from humans? Since animals with fur and weather-resistant skin would survive far better than humans, Miner I don't know where you get this utter crap from!! for a start humans are animals, you really have to start thinking a bit for yourself, for instance why do you think groups of people who have lived in very hot parts of the world for thousands of years don't have much if any body hair IE Africans, or Asians etc.. And why is it that in general a group of people that have lived in hot countries for thousands of years have black or brown skin, and if from cold countries they have white skin. The human animal can survive in the cold no problem without clothes he has the genetic make-up to do it as these links prove, evolution in front of your eyes Miner get those blinkers off and turn on the brain. http://myfavouritestuffs.com/very-hairy-people/10944/ http://izismile.com/2009/09/23/the_most_hairy_man_in_the_world_27_pics.html And you said on a post to Lego man [and how did we all end up with the same amount of hair ?.] :D:D

[miner]

Ummm "Humans are the only animals on the planet who cannot."

"get those blinkers off and turn on the brain" pity you don't take your own advice.

Posting utter crap is your forte garman,like pictures of people with body hair,so are you saying that hairy guy would be ok sleeping out in the snow like a husky dog ?.

All you have done yet again garman is go on the attack,which does prove something but dare say not what you were intending.

If you want to read some utter crap try the hopeful imaginary we think explanations for heart/eye evolution.

Garman do you remember a few posts back when you pretended to find the posts from this now utter crap site interesting so as you could get a link to it and I said all you wanted to do was find out so you could then attack the author with the 4 steps like your god Dawkins http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV2-l5jnwtU&feature=related

So from interesting to utter crap,make your mind up garman :-).





Evolution Websites Try to Explain Heart/Eye Evolution
I started thinking about how evolution must have taken place. I did mind experiments on how organs like the heart and eye could have evolved. I couldn't come up with any possibilities at all. None. So I did some research on the scientific evolution websites hoping they would have some answers for me; fascinating reading. The foundation of TOE is replete with "may haves", "might haves", "possible scenarios are"..........Actually the Dark Ages of the origin of species is here now, founded by Charles Darwin, a guy who didn't know much more than Moses about cell biology, dominated by people who promote religion-like magic and who mock anyone who might not believe Darwin Dogma. TOE discourages open minded thought as to how species really did appear on earth.
The following is text from scientific evolution websites http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/0400_feature1.html regarding heart and eye evolution: (My comments in italics.)
Quote: They’ve also discovered that the change from simple tube to complex, chambered organ may have happened in an evolutionary flash. (Discovered that it may have?? Then they didn't discover.)
The first foreshadowings of the heart reach back to at least 800 million years ago, when the first known multicellular fossils formed.
Genes also provide a hint as to where that first protoheart might have come from: the throat. (What is a protoheart? Please include a drawing. And, the throat?? Great guess!)
So here’s a possible scenario for how the first heart evolved. Every now and then during cell division and reproduction, one gene (or, rarely, a group of genes) is accidentally duplicated. Perhaps this happened to the genes that induced throat formation in a lineage of primitive animals. At first, the second set of throat genes may have kept on doing their original job of helping to build the throat. Then, thanks to a mutation, (WOW! That must have been some mutation!) the genes started switching on in cells in a different part of the animal’s body. Instead of making a muscular tube that pumped food, (perhaps) these genes began to make a muscular tube that pumped blood. (I wonder where they got the blood to pump.....from the Red Cross?)
Keeping hard-working hearts supplied with oxygen may have been the initial pressure behind the evolution of lungs 400 million years ago. (Double WOW!) Unquote.

From: http://www.newsroom.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=310
Quote: Darwin proposed that complex eyes could have been formed with a succession of photosensitive organs, each a bit more complex than its predecessor and each favored by natural selection because of the advantages that the possessor received. (What advantages are there in a blind eye?) Visualizing such a process would be easiest if steps in this sequence were preserved in closely related living organisms; but no such sequence exists*** (See *** below. Who is lying?) for eyes because the intermediate stages have been lost through extinction. Unquote.
(A sorry excuse. No wonder creationists out debate the evolutionists. The intermediate stages don't exist as fossils because they never existed as animals. The stages of eye evolution should show up as indents in the skulls of fossils which gradually grow into eye sockets over hundreds of thousands of years. Of course this evidence, which should be plentiful, is non-existent.)


http://library.thinkquest.org/C003758/Development/heart_evolution.htm explains heart evolution by describing hearts that already function, but are "simpler". What about the steps from nothing to a functioning heart? What did they look like, and why did they even occur since a "proto-heart" would be useless? Evolutionists usually ignore this part of the evolution of the heart, and start their explanation with single-chambered hearts. This is an embarrassment to real science. The next part had something to do with flying reindeer and Santa Claus. "The reindeer sprouted wings and off they flew.................." No matter what the subject is in Darwinian evolution, assumptions are piled upon figments of imagination, until a whole fake science has been established, and believed by enough people to make it seem real. Then evolution "scientists" all pat each other on the back and agree that it is real, and anyone who questions is a fool. A great example of group psychology.
I have since found that creationists (again, this site has nothing to do with creationism) have the same challenge for Darwinism: that hearts and other organs cannot possibly evolve, because there are no possible intermediate steps to that evolution. What I thought about independently had already been on the books.
Try http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html for a real visit to Alice in Wonderland.
Quote: Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot (What exactly is a "light-sensitive spot"?) on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, (What advantage, since it would still be totally blind?) perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created
(Watch out! "Created" is a bad word for evolutionists!) a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera. (Wow! Now this is real scientific imagining!)

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. (What change could possibly be an advantage, since a "proto-eye" would be something like a tumor?) Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, (Wow again!) the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. (Triple WOW!) It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species.*** (Complete poppycock. The eyes of some species are "simpler", but still extremely complex, with nerve connection to a brain. Limpet, and Murex are examples. Also, see *** above for a major contradiction. ) The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch. Unquote
(Could I please see his calculations? I bet they would really be interesting and scientific!)

[garman]

and how did we all end up with the same amount of hair ? Are you going to admit you were wrong about that statement Miner?? or are you just going to ignore the truth?? failing to learn from your mistakes and admitting you have made a mistake is all part of the learning process.http://myfavouritestuffs.com/very-hairy-people/10944/

[h2so4]

When I ask some people I know why do you believe in evolution they say "because",I say yeah but why,"because it said it on TV",but do you know anything about it ?,"I know that god sh*t is a load of rubbish",so you don't know anything about it so why do you think we evolved ,"BECAUSE".

You are fighting against a mass concsiousness that says, "there is only evolution"

You obviously have other ideas, tell us about those.

[miner]

Are you going to admit you were wrong about that statement Miner?? or are you just going to ignore the truth?? failing to learn from your mistakes and admitting you have made a mistake is all part of the learning process.http://myfavouritestuffs.com/very-hairy-people/10944/

What I said was "So lets say humans living on the savannah lost there hair to stay cool (not sure why they think they were covered in hair,someone drew an imaginary picture? ),then why didn't the ones in a colder climate keep it ?,and how did we all end up with the same amount of hair ?."

Which was in reference to evolutionists saying we had a coat of fur,"so humans evolved a sparser coat of fur".

So short of someone like you trying desperately to find any fault in what I say no matter how pathetic,you wouldn't take it literally as of corse we don't have exactly the same amount of hair.

But in the context of what I was saying we do,as people from a cold climate aren't covered in ape like hair just like people in a hot climates aren't hairless.

Your grasping attack hardly warranted a reply.

I would have thought you may have been more concerned about the total lack of fossils showing eye socket development,the only eye socket fossils are complete finished ones,but if you want to pick hairs.

[miner]

"You are fighting against a mass concsiousness that says, "there is only evolution" "
Not fighting against anyone just thinking for myself and posting some thoughts.


"You obviously have other ideas, tell us about those."
Umm have you actually read what I have been posting ?

[garman]

What I said was "So lets say humans living on the savannah lost there hair to stay cool (not sure why they think they were covered in hair,someone drew an imaginary picture? ),then why didn't the ones in a colder climate keep it ?,and how did we all end up with the same amount of hair ?."

Which was in reference to evolutionists saying we had a coat of fur,"so humans evolved a sparser coat of fur".

So short of someone like you trying desperately to find any fault in what I say no matter how pathetic,you wouldn't take it literally as of corse we don't have exactly the same amount of hair.

But in the context of what I was saying we do,as people from a cold climate aren't covered in ape like hair just like people in a hot climates aren't hairless.

Your grasping attack hardly warranted a reply.

I would have thought you may have been more concerned about the total lack of fossils showing eye socket development,the only eye socket fossils are complete finished ones,but if you want to pick hairs.OK so you won't admit that through changes in climate and conditions some groups of people isolated from other groups for thousands of years end up with less hair than others or more depending on where they are on our planet, so then the next question is why do we have some groups of human animals that have been living in hot climates for thousands of years who are as black as the ace of spades and others from cold areas who are very white skinned? is it just a fluke or is it man evolving to suit the conditions in this case climate.

[roddy]

HI Miner,this is off topic but
hey havent touched base with you for a long time Miner
Hope you are well
are you still trading The Miner V trade
cheers
roddy

[miner]

OK so you won't admit that through changes in climate and conditions some groups of people isolated from other groups for thousands of years end up with less hair than others or more depending on where they are on our planet, so then the next question is why do we have some groups of human animals that have been living in hot climates for thousands of years who are as black as the ace of spades and others from cold areas who are very white skinned? is it just a fluke or is it man evolving to suit the conditions in this case climate.

It's called adapting to your environment garman,lots of things do it lots of different ways,but adaptation is not evolution.

So is your defence of the theory of evolution trying to say I said we all have the same amount of hair (literally) ???.

And just ignore the total lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record or the fact that hearts / eyes etc couldn't have evolved ?.

[miner]

Hi Roddy yep all is well and no not trading at the moment,if I was I sure as hell wouldn't be posting on this thread.

Been doing outside stuff jobs for a bit so until I finish that (another week or so ) I wont be trading,like to have my mind solely on the job when am.

The "U" 4 chart system is still working ok,although pays to sit on your hands when things get a bit mental,wait for the right trade.

So hence having a natter on this thread,but not for much longer then back to trading.

Hope all is well with you and your in the green with FX :-).

Cheers
Miner

[garman]

It's called adapting to your environment garman,lots of things do it lots of different ways,but adaptation is not evolution.

So is your defence of the theory of evolution trying to say I said we all have the same amount of hair (literally) ???.

And just ignore the total lack of evidence for evolution in the fossil record or the fact that hearts / eyes etc couldn't have evolved ?.Evolution definition= A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.


Dark skin The evolution of dark skin is linked intrinsically to the loss of body hair in humans. By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had the same receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was dark, and the intense sun lowered the chance of survival of those with lighter skin that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein. This is significantly earlier than the speciation of Homo sapiens from Homo erectus some 250,000 years ago.

Skin cancer as a result of ultraviolet light radiation causing mutations in the skin is less common among people with dark skin than it is among those with light skin. Dark skin prevents an essential B vitamin, folate, from being destroyed. In the absence of modern medicine and diet, a person with dark skin in the tropics would live longer, be healthier and more likely to reproduce than a person with light skin. As evidence of this expectation of adverse effects of light skin in the tropics, white Australians have some of the highest rates of skin cancer. Conversely, as dark skin prevents sunlight from penetrating the skin, it hinders the production of vitamin D3. When humans migrated to less sun-intensive regions in the north, low vitamin D3 levels became a problem, and humans with lighter skin were more successful in reproducing. White people of Europe, who have low levels of melanin, naturally have an almost colourless skin pigmentation, especially when untanned. This low level of pigmentation allows the blood vessels to become visible, which gives the characteristic pale pink colour of white people. The loss of melanin in white people is thought to have been caused by a mutation in one letter out of 3.1 billion letters of DNA.

[miner]

"Evolution definition= A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."

All you need now is some evidence like say an intermediate fossil record,and it would also help if hearts / eyes could evolve etc.

Ignoring the facts doesn't make you right garman.

[garman]

"Evolution definition= A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."

All you need now is some evidence like say an intermediate fossil record,and it would also help if hearts / eyes could evolve etc.

Ignoring the facts doesn't make you right garman.You are the one ignoring the facts Miner I have proven that man evolves from one colour to another colour, from having hair to not having hair these are gradual genetic mutations and that's exactly what evolution is, at least that is what the dictionary defines it as. And as for transitional fossils there are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism. And as science knows there's a **** load of evidence for that which probably explains why 99% of scientists on this planet support evolution. This is my last post on the subject Miner I really think you are beyond help.

[miner]

You are the one ignoring the facts Miner I have proven that man evolves from one colour to another colour, from having hair to not having hair these are gradual genetic mutations and that's exactly what evolution is, at least that is what the dictionary defines it as. And as for transitional fossils there are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism. And as science knows there's a **** load of evidence for that which probably explains why 99% of scientists on this planet support evolution. This is my last post on the subject Miner I really think you are beyond help.


Classic evolutionist post garman,a baffling load of BS,

" However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism."

A great way to test the TOE is to think backwards. Do a mental experiment and objectively imagine what the fossil record would look like if Darwinian evolution indeed did bring about the species that appear on earth today. If you do that, you will soon note that the fossil record does not at all back up Darwinian evolution. There should be fish with gradually protruding arms and legs, preparing for a land invasion, over hundreds of thousands of years. There should be skulls with small dents that grew larger and larger to accommodate the evolution of the eye. There should be skulls that show gradually enlarging ear canals. There should be birds that show gradually lengthening wings. There should be a plethora of fossils that show these changes. We should be able go to the Field Museum in Chicago and view samples of all of these fossils that clearly show the steps to evolution. Then, evolution could be called a real science. But, in reality, Darwinian evolution takes fossils that do not at all show the changes that are required for proof, and pretends that they do.

As for your 99% of scientists,truly amazing that 99% (so you keep telling us) of scientists that are all brainwashed the same way and who's work involves the theory of evolution being right think that it is.

99% of priests think god is right so using your logic god must exist .

"You are the one ignoring the facts Miner I have proven that man evolves from one colour to another colour, from having hair to not having hair"
No you didn't garman you just posted some evolution propaganda with no evidence at all to back it up

Interesting that you think I am the one beyond help,beyond brainwashing is what you should have said.

[h2so4]

"You are fighting against a mass concsiousness that says, "there is only evolution" "
Not fighting against anyone just thinking for myself and posting some thoughts.


"You obviously have other ideas, tell us about those."
Umm have you actually read what I have been posting ?

Yes, you stated that this blog was to prove TOE was false. You stop short telling us what you believe with ???? Is the alternative????, is that what you believe????

Maybe you could sum it up in one word for me.

[karlos]

OK fellas.....Karlos has given this ongoing dilemma to the origins of our existence some thought and I have a thought which may clear the air as to wether Garman or miner is correct:)

p2r wished at the start of this thread to use science....I have a fantastic bench top experimental idea.:t_up:
Since we are talking about fish who wish to grow legs and walk on land.....Then lets do some nitty gritty experiment. My experiment condenses a million years into one human year:ohmy:
I dont have a fish tank but if someone at home has got one with a few goldfish in then try this on.


Karlos Fish Grow Legs Experiment
--------------------------------
Place a long straight edge into the water of the fish tank with the top resting on a platform. At the top of this platform have some porn mags open wide, a dozen cans of bourbon, a McDonalds hamburger and Metallica music playing on a surround sound system. I feel my incentives will motivate fish to wish to grow legs, walk up the flat plank to enjoy modern culture and this should occur within one human year:)
Should the individual undertaking this experiment wake one morning and find the fish in the tank has evolved to human form, is severely intoxicated, burger crumbs everywhere and semen stains on the magazines......we can conclude Karlos experiment was a fantastic idea which exceeded expectations and Garman is 100 percent correct in the theory of evolution.

Now should the fish still be swimming around one year later with no visual signs of arms or legs or human reproductive organs growing.....I firmly feel miner has could cause to justify his thoughts that we did not arrive here by some sheer fluke:)

[POSSUM THE CAT]

Karlos there all ready is a walking fish. Did you not take science at school

[garman]

Karlos there all ready is a walking fish. Did you not take science at schoolDead right possum!! you are correct. I know because when I was fifteen I had one of them for a pet, not only that I came home from school one day and found one of my playboy mags "usually hidden" was open and left on my bed, I always suspected that walking fish.:D

[elZorro]

Miner, I have one big issue with your theory about the 'missing fossils' and other reasons to doubt evolution. "Publish or Perish" refers to the pressure on academics to make their mark in their research area with quality peer-reviewed papers. Some knock out several a year, and it can be related to their chances of promotion. So if any scientist found an experimental result that clashed with the theory of evolution, it would certainly be put forward for publishing, and I'm not aware of any like that which stood up to serious investigation. Not enough to discard the main theory anyway.

[miner]

Yes, you stated that this blog was to prove TOE was false. You stop short telling us what you believe with ???? Is the alternative????, is that what you believe????

Maybe you could sum it up in one word for me.


No I never said "this blog was to prove TOE was false" and i have told you many times what I think,it's all there all you have to do is actually read it.

[miner]

Karlos there all ready is a walking fish. Did you not take science at school

I presume you are talking about the axolotl ?,which has only ever been found as just what it is an axolotl .

[miner]

Dead right possum!! you are correct. I know because when I was fifteen I had one of them for a pet, not only that I came home from school one day and found one of my playboy mags "usually hidden" was open and left on my bed, I always suspected that walking fish.:D

Garman so much for your " This is my last post on the subject ".

[miner]

Miner, I have one big issue with your theory about the 'missing fossils' and other reasons to doubt evolution. "Publish or Perish" refers to the pressure on academics to make their mark in their research area with quality peer-reviewed papers. Some knock out several a year, and it can be related to their chances of promotion. So if any scientist found an experimental result that clashed with the theory of evolution, it would certainly be put forward for publishing, and I'm not aware of any like that which stood up to serious investigation. Not enough to discard the main theory anyway.

One of the reasons there are not many put forward elzorro is because then you get the treatment I am getting but on a much larger scale.

Which doesnt make any difference to my life but it would to a scientist that dared to question the herd.

As for missing fossils It's not a theory as they are simply not there as the evolutionists keep telling us.

Think about it there are millions of species and hundreds of millions of fossils have been found yet none of them show any species gradually evolving(intermediate fossils).

No guess work there as there are simply none and for the theory of evolution to be correct there has to be.

Yet the majority of people on this thread simply choose to ignore or side step the fact,and you wonder why there are few papers speaking out against evolution.


Tried to explain this by posting .


I'm not arguing with anyone garman just simply showing why the theory of evolution is fatally flawed as Darwin thought it may prove to be in time.

Interesting that we are now up to 99.9% of scientists,more like oxymagic or bam rather than detol now.

Obviously some scientist believe in evolution as do many everyday people,but there is a reason why other scientists when asked say that they also believe in evolution.


It's basically group psychology,the interesting part is how it works,an example of which is what garman has been trying to do to me,let me explain.


First, you have to get people thinking you have a demeanour that makes your audience think you are very important and smart,eg...

"Miner old chap have you been living in a cave for the last 50 years? evolution is accepted wholeheartedly by the scientific community, there is an abundance of proof that evolution is fact, the debate over whether or not evolution occurs ended years ago. "



Second,corral all those who don't agree with evolution into one group:creationists,make them feel isolated,eg...

"Anyone who ignores proven scientific facts for a belief in a man invented fairy story deserves to be pocked."

And this classic...
"Miner have you ever wondered why absolutely nobody is on your side in this debate about evolution there are no excuses for being as ignorant as you are being that is why I think you cant really be serious"

Or...
"Miner you are the closest thing to an ignoramus I have ever come across, I have often wondered if you are just winding us up because as McEnroe once said "You cant be serious"



Thirdly,Dazzle with an astounding display...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4



And fourth...
They will now worship you and believe anything you tell them,no matter how preposterous.

"So you keep saying you havent got a clue who designed it, can you then supply some evidence that it was designed? You seem to be saying evolution does not exist Miner just start with small steps, check out the evolution of man kind http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution there is clear evidence that man has evolved from a different beings to what we are today the term intelligent designer was invented by religious wackoes in the States in an effort to sneak religion back into schools, there as there is no evidence that we were designed and certainly no evidence of any designers the concept is not worth debating seriously, look into mans evolution from a lesser being. There's more evidence than you could shake a stick at Miner and scientists overwhelmingly accept it."


Garman is good I'll give him that but not as good as his mentor he has it down to a fine art http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bV2-l...eature=related



So you can now see why some scientists say they believe in evolution,it's all about survival,as in if you dare to say that you don't believe in evolution you get the above treatment and are ostracised from the group.
I remember reading years ago about some eminent scientists (in there field) that were revered by there peers until they disagreed with evolution,then by lunch time they were labelled as god nutters lost there funding etc and got basically kicked out of the scientific community.

Ask yourself why else would intelligent scientists that know evolutionists cant even say how life started let alone come up with any intermediate fossils agree and say they believe in evolution...
Simple if you want to keep your job doing useful science (not the useless science of trying to prove a 100 odd year old theory) then play the game,herd mentality and group psychology at it's best.



The master at work,keep in mind the poor lady only asked "what if your wrong",she didn't say anything about religion, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmsk...eature=related ,why would Dawkins answer in this way ?.

Simple because he is what they called in the old days a charlatan or now a simple Conn man,so he couldn't answer by saying,I know I am right because there are millions of intermediate fossils in the museums around the world.
So go on the attack and do the four steps above,then the brainwashed sheep in the audience all laugh because the person next to them did and she leaves with her tail between her legs.

No answer but the pesky problem solved,the funny thing is all those sucker sheep in the audience paid money to be conned,just like you garman when you pay to hear him talk or buy his books and dvd"s,your making him millions :-).



Why do I bother,one reason is I find group psychology and basic herd instinct interesting.


I will leave you with a quote from Darwin, .” In Darwin's own words: "Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." (Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)

p.s, I wasn't born yesterday garman as if I gave you the author of the link you claimed to be interested in you then would have done the above four steps on him,in time you will get it :-)

Oops forgot this bit,the next generation getting brainwashed,a nice little visual cartoon for the kiddies,and it has to be true as we saw it at the museum,little garman's in the making.

The sad thing is that as we know it's just a made up fairytale from two incomplete dolphin sized sculls.

Never mind that's evolution :-( .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cn0k...eature=related

[garman]

One of the reasons there are not many put forward elzorro is because then you get the treatment I am getting but on a much larger scale.

Which doesn't make any difference to my life but it would to a scientist that dared to question the herd. Miner I could take the same unusual stance as you are and completely deny that evolution of every single living thing on this earth never actually occurres in the slightest, and that all life is exactly as some invisible designer designed it to be full stop... and it would also not make the slightest bit of difference to my life either, so the completely optional choice I make is to look at the evidence much like other posters on this thread and make up my own mind, admittidley scientists at the end of the day are just people like you and me, but in all honesty scientists in general are noted as well above the average in intelligence. So what you are saying is that 99% of them are just chicken arse's who are too scared to argue against evolution. I really don't think you are being rational with that argument.


As for missing fossils It's not a theory as they are simply not there as the evolutionists keep telling us.

Think about it there are millions of species and hundreds of millions of fossils have been found yet none of them show any species gradually evolving(intermediate fossils).

No guess work there as there are simply none and for the theory of evolution to be correct there has to be.

So you don't believe Australopithecus, Homo erectus, etc are transitional fossils that came before us like the palaeontologists and archaeologists "who have spent years and years researching" tell us. I do believe what their research says, but what is your view? what are Australopithecus and Homo erectus Miner? just to name 2 examples of transitional fossils from the thousands in existance discovered from numerous species on our planet.

ps couldn't help myself not ready for the last post yet:)

[miner]

"So what you are saying is that 99% of them are just chicken arse's who are too scared to argue against evolution. I really don't think you are being rational with that argument.'

Dare say they have a bit more on the line than you or me garman.

"So you don't believe Australopithecus, Homo erectus, etc are transitional fossils that came before us like the palaeontologists and archaeologists "who have spent years and years researching" tell us. I do believe what their research says, but what is your view? what are Australopithecus and Homo erectus Miner? just to name 2 examples of transitional fossils from the thousands in existence discovered from numerous species on our planet."


Is that so garman,well your guru of evolution would beg to differ as he is telling us that one of the best examples is whales,which as we can see consists of two half dolphin sized skulls some nice pictures and a load of BS. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o92x6AvxCFg

No mention of homo erectus (a name that you lot gave to a jaw bone or skull ) and not a mention of the thousands of others you claim to have been found.

As for there research it all boils down to we think,they may have,looks like etc.

Why is it that you persist in lying about the fossil record ?.

Richard Dawkins and "The Blind Watchmaker"



Evolution is so much fun, because the proponents are so condescending to the non-believers, and they think they are so right. The proof of their fake science is nearly non-existent, but they act like there is bountiful proof. Thanks evolution for providing me with so much thoughtful fun. Whenever I think that I have no more to say about evolution, I read another evolution website, and, amazingly, there is more fodder to show how ridiculous TOE is. This is an excerpt (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/page02.html) about Richard Dawkins, famed evolution proponent, and writer of "The Blind Watchmaker", displaying his totally wishful thinking evidence for evolution: (My comments in italics.)
One improvement at a time .

Quote: The pathway by which evolution can produce complex structures has been brilliantly (This is brilliant? See how one evolutionist pats the other on the back?) explained in The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, a biologist at Oxford University. The essence of Dawkins’s explanation is simple. Given enough time (thousands of years) and material (millions of individuals in a species), many genetic changes will occur that result in slight improvements in a system or structure such as the eye. However slight that improvement, as long as it is genuine (Absolutely! It must be "genuine"!), natural selection will favor its spread throughout the species over several generations.

Little by little, one improvement at a time, the system becomes more and more complex, eventually resulting in the fully functioning, well-adapted organ that we call the eye. The retina and the lens did not have to evolve separately because they evolved together. (Huh? How does he know? Steps from eyeless species to the first usable eyes are skipped, and in place of any kind of logical explanation, "thousands of years and millions of little changes" is inserted. The god of evolution is millions of years. Who can argue with that, since "millions of years" cannot be replicated in the lab? It's the perfect proof for evolution, as it cannot be substantiated.)


Evolution can be used as an explanation for complex structures if we can imagine (there we go again......."imagine" ) a series of small, intermediate steps leading from the simple to the complex. Further, because natural selection will act on every one of those intermediate steps, (Huh! How do they know?) no single one can be justified on the basis of the final structure toward which it may be leading. Each step must stand on its own (Absolutely!) as an improvement that confers an advantage on the organism that possesses it. Unquote
(That's is an order! It's not that it "did stand", or "stood". But it "must stand". The underlying psychology here is that the writer doesn't believe that it happened, so he will order it, then it will be true. This is common evolutionary phraseology.)

[karlos]

Karlos there all ready is a walking fish. Did you not take science at school
Thankyou for jogging my memory........I had seen the Mexican Walking Fish at the Hamilton Zoo as a child......Looks like his daddy was a lizard thou........Doesnt resemble a homosapien, ape, monkey or gorilla for that matter.

The point of the exercise is to speed up the evolution theory to determine if you, me and the entire human race had a few freak mutations to our physical form to aid us to become the dominent life form on Earth.
If the experiment on the goldfish fails to show any resemblance of human features, we can then move on from these half arse theories that the crackpots raise like.......If you sail off into the ocean, you will fall off the edge.......The sun revolves around Earth because we are most important........Hahahahahaha:D..........Or how about the lastest (its gotta be American) About 4 and a half billion years ago there was an almighty explosion and time began....Ooopps, we need some more time for the scientists to prove that one wrong as well.

PS I dont recall as a child being taught about the Bible quoting anything crazy like sailing off the edge of the world etc etc.........Maybe the Bible has the answers:confused:

[garman]

PS I dont recall as a child being taught about the Bible quoting anything crazy like sailing off the edge of the world etc etc.........Maybe the Bible has the answers:confused:And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. Yep you prob right Karlos only real sensible s__t from a very enlightened time in human history is contained in the good book. Ye though I walk in the shadow of the valley of death I fear no evil cos I'm the meanest SOB in the valley.:mad ;:

[garman]

"So what you are saying is that 99% of them are just chicken arse's who are too scared to argue against evolution. I really don't think you are being rational with that argument.'

Dare say they have a bit more on the line than you or me garman.

"So you don't believe Australopithecus, Homo erectus, etc are transitional fossils that came before us like the palaeontologists and archaeologists "who have spent years and years researching" tell us. I do believe what their research says, but what is your view? what are Australopithecus and Homo erectus Miner? just to name 2 examples of transitional fossils from the thousands in existence discovered from numerous species on our planet."


Is that so garman,well your guru of evolution would beg to differ as he is telling us that one of the best examples is whales,which as we can see consists of two half dolphin sized skulls some nice pictures and a load of BS. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o92x6AvxCFg

No mention of homo erectus (a name that you lot gave to a jaw bone or skull ) and not a mention of the thousands of others you claim to have been found.

As for there research it all boils down to we think,they may have,looks like etc.

Why is it that you persist in lying about the fossil record ?.

Richard Dawkins and "The Blind Watchmaker"



Evolution is so much fun, because the proponents are so condescending to the non-believers, and they think they are so right. The proof of their fake science is nearly non-existent, but they act like there is bountiful proof. Thanks evolution for providing me with so much thoughtful fun. Whenever I think that I have no more to say about evolution, I read another evolution website, and, amazingly, there is more fodder to show how ridiculous TOE is. This is an excerpt (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/page02.html) about Richard Dawkins, famed evolution proponent, and writer of "The Blind Watchmaker", displaying his totally wishful thinking evidence for evolution: (My comments in italics.)
One improvement at a time .

Quote: The pathway by which evolution can produce complex structures has been brilliantly (This is brilliant? See how one evolutionist pats the other on the back?) explained in The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, a biologist at Oxford University. The essence of Dawkins’s explanation is simple. Given enough time (thousands of years) and material (millions of individuals in a species), many genetic changes will occur that result in slight improvements in a system or structure such as the eye. However slight that improvement, as long as it is genuine (Absolutely! It must be "genuine"!), natural selection will favor its spread throughout the species over several generations.

Little by little, one improvement at a time, the system becomes more and more complex, eventually resulting in the fully functioning, well-adapted organ that we call the eye. The retina and the lens did not have to evolve separately because they evolved together. (Huh? How does he know? Steps from eyeless species to the first usable eyes are skipped, and in place of any kind of logical explanation, "thousands of years and millions of little changes" is inserted. The god of evolution is millions of years. Who can argue with that, since "millions of years" cannot be replicated in the lab? It's the perfect proof for evolution, as it cannot be substantiated.)


Evolution can be used as an explanation for complex structures if we can imagine (there we go again......."imagine" ) a series of small, intermediate steps leading from the simple to the complex. Further, because natural selection will act on every one of those intermediate steps, (Huh! How do they know?) no single one can be justified on the basis of the final structure toward which it may be leading. Each step must stand on its own (Absolutely!) as an improvement that confers an advantage on the organism that possesses it. Unquote
(That's is an order! It's not that it "did stand", or "stood". But it "must stand". The underlying psychology here is that the writer doesn't believe that it happened, so he will order it, then it will be true. This is common evolutionary phraseology.) But what is your view? what are Australopithecus and Homo erectus Miner??? please try to answer with decorum & science! scrap the decorum just science will do.

[miner]

I am posting my views garman,as for Australopithecus it is a simian skull (ape) not a human skull,evolutionists just put there usual spin on it,you guys could all get jobs as spin doctors.

As for homo erectus, Encyclopaedia Britannica observed that ,"the limb bones thus far discovered have been indistinguishable from those of homo sapiens.However it is unclear whether it was from humans or not.
If so then it was merely a branch of the human family and died off".

The two so called "one of the best examples" half skulls Dawkins is trying to con us with for whales falls a tad short of your claimed "thousands of transitional fossils" you claim there is.

A couple of bones(Australopithecus,homo erectus,whales etc) that you guys get imaginative with and draw pictures of something that backs up the BS you are telling us does not make a transitional fossil record.
A transitional fossil record would be one that has thousands of fossils showing a very slow (you guys claim it takes millions of years) transition from one type of species to another,and as you know that has never been found amongst the hundreds of millions of fossils that have.
So claiming that you have is just outright lies.

So garman are you saying that you are more than happy with the two half skulls Dawkins claims show whale evolution and therefore believe what he is telling us ?.

"please try to answer with decorum & science! scrap the decorum just science will do. " pity you don't,hell we might even get somewhere if you did.

[garman]

I am posting my views garman,as for Australopithecus it is a simian skull (ape) not a human skull,evolutionists just put there usual spin on it,you guys could all get jobs as spin doctors.

As for homo erectus, Encyclopaedia Britannica observed that ,"the limb bones thus far discovered have been indistinguishable from those of homo sapiens.However it is unclear whether it was from humans or not.
If so then it was merely a branch of the human family and died off".

The two so called "one of the best examples" half skulls Dawkins is trying to con us with for whales falls a tad short of your claimed "thousands of transitional fossils" you claim there is.

A couple of bones(Australopithecus,homo erectus,whales etc) that you guys get imaginative with and draw pictures of something that backs up the BS you are telling us does not make a transitional fossil record.
A transitional fossil record would be one that has thousands of fossils showing a very slow (you guys claim it takes millions of years) transition from one type of species to another,and as you know that has never been found amongst the hundreds of millions of fossils that have.
So claiming that you have is just outright lies.

So garman are you saying that you are more than happy with the two half skulls Dawkins claims show whale evolution and therefore believe what he is telling us ?.

"please try to answer with decorum & science! scrap the decorum just science will do. " pity you don't,hell we might even get somewhere if you did.You just stick with your delusional beliefs Miner, you keep on about Dawkins all the time as though I know a lot about the guy, the fact of the matter I don't, have never read any of his books, but I do understand he is rated as one of Britain's top intellectuals he topped Prospect magazine's 2004 list of the top 100 public British intellectuals, as decided by the readers, receiving twice as many votes as the runner-up. Pretty smart guy I may even read some of his books definitely not an ignoramus.

[miner]

You just stick with your delusional beliefs Miner, you keep on about Dawkins all the time as though I know a lot about the guy, the fact of the matter I don't, have never read any of his books, but I do understand he is rated as one of Britain's top intellectuals he topped Prospect magazine's 2004 list of the top 100 public British intellectuals, as decided by the readers, receiving twice as many votes as the runner-up. Pretty smart guy I may even read some of his books definitely not an ignoramus.

So much for your "please try to answer with decorum & science! scrap the decorum just science will do."

So calling me delusional and an ignoramus makes you right does it ?,standard stuff from evolutionists,once someone calls there bluff they go on the attack and try and discredit and ridicule the person questioning there faith based religion.

Dawkins is smart all right just look at how many people he has coned into his way of thinking and made many of them pay for it.

So anyway

"So garman are you saying that you are more than happy with the two half skulls Dawkins claims show whale evolution and therefore believe what he is telling us ???."

[garman]

Dawkins is smart all right just look at how many people he has coned into his way of thinking and made many of them pay for it.If you can bring yourself to believe in the biggest con of all time "the bible, Jesus etc" you can delude yourself that you will end up in heaven where you can no doubt play golf or whatever takes your fancy 24/7 so that's a really good reward worth having, on the other hand if you think God is a load of rubbish "just an invention of man" and that we just evolved from a few ingredients in a primordial soup what benefits are there? IE "No heaven no golf, 40 virgins etc" the only benefit you get from believing in evolution is personal satisfaction that you have accepted the real truth. By the way Miner as well as 99% of scientists that accept evolution there are many religions that accept even the pope head of the catholic church accepts evolution happens, OK they do put their little clause in saying it was Gods idea to use evolution, but the important thing is they acknowledged that it happens simply because its so obvious that it does.







"So garman are you saying that you are more than happy with the two half skulls Dawkins claims show whale evolution and therefore believe what he is telling us ???." Whale evolution bores me a bit Miner but did a bit of reading and it appears there is ample evidence to support the evolution of whales http://www.proof-of-evolution.com/whale-evolution.html

Its pretty clear Miner you don't believe in evolution one little bit, and you seem to fancy the idea of intelligent design, so do you accept other things that scientist's also say like the age of the earth 4 billion or so years, how old do you think it is.

[miner]

Garman exactly what part of "I don't believe in god " as I have said many times on this thread are you having trouble understanding ?.

"So garman are you saying that you are more than happy with the two half skulls Dawkins claims show whale evolution and therefore believe what he is telling us ???."

[miner]

Miner, I have one big issue with your theory about the 'missing fossils' and other reasons to doubt evolution. "Publish or Perish" refers to the pressure on academics to make their mark in their research area with quality peer-reviewed papers. Some knock out several a year, and it can be related to their chances of promotion. So if any scientist found an experimental result that clashed with the theory of evolution, it would certainly be put forward for publishing, and I'm not aware of any like that which stood up to serious investigation. Not enough to discard the main theory anyway.

Elzorro concerning "peer-reviewed" papers have a read of these,there are more if you want them.

5. “Peer reviewed papers” and Websites Explain Evolution

Albert’s Mind Experiment:

Albert Einstein developed his Theory of Relativity with mind experiments. He thought of two rocket ships traveling near the speed of light side by side. He visualized what would happen if one rocket ship would send a light beam to the other, which would have a mirror to reflect it back. He tried to imagine how differently a “stationary” external observer would see the light beam versus how the space travelers in the rocket ships would see it. The stationary observer would see the light beam go out of one rocket at a forward angle (say 45 degrees), and reflect back at the same forward angle. Otherwise the beam would miss the ship with the mirror. The two space travelers would see the light go out at 90 degrees, and return in a straight line. There would be a discrepancy in the length of the beams. The stationary observer’s beam would be longer than the space traveler’s. (The hypotenuse is longer than either side of a right triangle.)Since the speed of light is constant, this would mean that time for the observer would have to be going faster than time for the space travelers. This very simple mind experiment led to his earth-shattering Theory of Relativity.

The same kind of mind experiments can be done quite easily with Darwin’s theory. I started thinking about how evolution must have taken place. I did mind experiments on how organs like the heart and eye could have evolved. I couldn’t come up with any possibilities at all. None. So I did some research on the scientific evolution websites hoping they would have some answers for me; fascinating reading. The foundation of TOE is replete with “may haves”, “might haves”, “possible scenarios are”……….Actually the Dark Ages of the origin of species is here now, founded by Charles Darwin, a guy who didn’t know much more than Moses about cell biology, dominated by people who promote religion-like magic and who mock anyone who might not believe Darwin Dogma. TOE discourages open minded thought as to how species really did appear on earth.

Typical “peer reviewed papers” on any bio-system describe what is present today in great detail. They then usually give a lesson in genetics of the subject system, and then some embryology. Lots of big words and complexity. Never do they broach the subject of how they arrived. How these systems were invented, designed, assembled,and improved . Why? Because there is no current possible answer. That includes in the real or imaginable realm. We can’t even come up with plausible fables. If the subject is broached, it is always full of could have’s, might have’s, and maybe’s. Guesses. Lots of guesses, no science. A few examples of current documents: (My comments are separated or in parenthesis,)


(1) Evolution of the Kreb’s citric acid cycle: Here is a quote from a terrific “peer reviewed article” referred to me by a guy name ADParker from www.richarddawkins.net as an answer to how did the Kreb’s Cycle evolve (a biochemical cycle step present in all animal cells that produces energy from the foods we eat. If you don’t know biochem, that is all you need to know.):

from The Puzzle of the Krebs Citric Acid Cycle: Assembling the Pieces of Chemically Feasible Reactions, and Opportunism in the Design of Metabolic Pathways During Evolution
Enrique Mele´ndez-Hevia,1 Thomas G. Waddell,2 Marta Cascante 3
Of the phosphomalate pathway, which they had eliminated, they write: “…IT COULD BE ARGUED, however, that [the feeder P-malate] COULD HAVE PLAYED SOME ROLE in earlier metabolism; and thus it IT COULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE. It is, in fact, highly UNLIKELY that some ancient metabolic pathway involving such a compound has vanished without trace (although the original pathway has been lost, such an intermediate COULD HAVE BEEN to other purposes); however, it cannot be strictly discarded and thus, although UNLIKELY, phosphomalate and the [alternative] Krebs cycle structure…MIGHT BE FOUND IN SOME paleospecies as a case of paleometabolism.”

(Just to clarify my point that evo-peer reveiwed papers are no more than the fantasies of the writers, here are the “perhaps”es in this one short paragraph: IT COULD BE ARGUED, UNLIKELY, COULD HAVE PLAYED SOME ROLE, COULD HAVE BEEN, IT COULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE, UNLIKELY, MIGHT BE FOUND IN SOME)

Melendez et al conclude: “The Krebs cycle has been frequently quoted as a key problem in the evolution of living cells, hard to explain by Darwin’s natural selection: How could natural selection explain the building of a complicated structure in toto, when the intermediate stages have no obvious fitness functionality? ……….. In the Krebs cycle problem the intermediary stages were also useful, but for different purposes, and, therefore, its complete DESIGN (Say what?) was a very clear case of opportunism. ………..the Krebs cycle was built through the process that Jacob (1977) called ‘evolution by molecular tinkering,’ stating that EVOLUTION DOES NOT PRODUCE NOVELTIES FROM SCRATCH (Oh? Then how did the first models get there??): IT WORKS ON WHAT ALREADY EXISTS. (Say what? Who or what made the first model?) ) The most novel result of our analysis is seeing how, with minimal new material, evolution CREATED (Say what? I thought you weren’t creationists??) the most important pathway of metabolism, achieving the BEST CHEMICALLY POSSIBLE DESIGN. IN THIS CASE, A CHEMICAL ENGINEER WHO WAS LOOKING FOR THE BEST DESIGN OF THE PROCESS COULD NOT HAVE FOUND A BETTER DESIGN design design design design THAN THE CYCLE WHICH WORKS IN LIVING CELLS”
J Mol Evol (1996) 43:293-303

(Astounding. This guy just disproved his own theory. The one he is trying to prove! Is he really a closet intelligent design scientist?)




(2) A “respected” peer reviewed paper on how lungs evolved says we don’t know how lungs evolved.:

From: Deconvoluting lung evolution using functional and comparitive genomics
American Journal of Resporitory Biology

” we are still far from uniting proximate ontogenetic mechanisms and ultimate adaptive processes to explain the evolution of lung structure and function….”

(An honest assessment, much to the chagrin of the evolutionaut that referred me to the paper.)

(3) Here is a peer reviewed paper that, as is typical for evolutions papers, describes modern lung types then fantasizes.

From: New perspectives on the evolution of lung ventilation mechanisms in vertebrates E. L. Brainerd

Department of Biology and Program in Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA

Received: 4 March 1999 Accepted: 19 March 1999

Aspiration breathing evolved in two steps: initially, axial muscles were recruited for exhalation; later, axial muscles and ribs were recruited for inspiration by costal aspiration. (Recruited?) Buccal pumping was not abandoned when costal aspiration breathing evolved. Both mechanisms are present in extant lizards, and both mechanisms may well have been present in some groups of extinct amphibians and amniotes. (But they obviously haven’t found any. All guesses, of course. No fossils to show what they want them to show, as usual.)

[garman]

Garman exactly what part of "I don't believe in god " as I have said many times on this thread are you having trouble understanding ?. Sorry about that Miner I will rephrase that yes I know you don't believe in God you have said that several times. By saying ---[[[[If people can bring themselves to believe in the biggest con of all time "the bible, Jesus etc" you can delude yourself that you will end up in heaven where you can no doubt play golf or whatever takes your fancy 24/7 so that's a really good reward worth having, on the other hand if you think God is a load of rubbish "just an invention of man" and that we just evolved from a few ingredients in a primordial soup what benefits are there? IE "No heaven no golf, 40 virgins etc" the only benefit you get from believing in evolution is personal satisfaction that you have accepted the real truth.]]]] all I was trying to point out is that there are a lot more benefits for the God believers.


"So garman are you saying that you are more than happy with the two half skulls Dawkins claims show whale evolution and therefore believe what he is telling us ???." Yes I am in general whale evolution looks pretty clear plenty of evidence for it. Without evolution it means that species suddenly appear in a split second almost like a magic trick, and I don't think there is much evidence for that.

As I said before Its pretty clear you don't believe in evolution one little bit, and you seem to fancy the idea of intelligent design, so do you accept other things that scientist's also say like the age of the earth 4 billion or so years, how old do you think it is?

[miner]

Interesting then why at every chance through this thread you attack the god lot by ridiculing them,but then that's what all you evolutionists do .

Which comes across as you think attack is the best form of defence as apposed to actual proof that backs up your theory of evolution.

As in if you are right and can so easily prove it why even bother a mention of a bunch of people who as you put it believe in an "invisible black Jewish lesbian living up in the sky" .

Could it be that you actually know your theory is a load of BS so to divert anyone clicking on to that you attack the god lot ?.

Or is it that your so arrogant you think no one could be smarter than you and have possibly designed it all,or are you just sh*t scared that there might actually be a god if you are wrong ?.

So you are gullible enough to believe in someone saying a few bones and some nice drawing are proof of whale evolution and never questioned it.

As for the site you posted about whales it's the same old we imagined some nice drawings from a few bones stuff as Dawkins does in his video,it's full of "perhaps"es,eg Unbelievable,amazingly,remarkably ,There is some resemblance,believed to be,They likely had to,the list goes on.

"the only benefit you get from believing in evolution is personal satisfaction that you have accepted the real truth." you have been well indoctrinated garman,will explain at a later date.

As I am not sure if you actually read my posts in full I will start with a clip for you about the whale evolution fantasy your lot is trying to con us with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xoViDri8Mo

There is some text also if you would like ?.

"Without evolution it means that species suddenly appear in a split second almost like a magic trick, and I don't think there is much evidence for that." the fossil record actually does show that(not a split second so don't even bother) garman as species like fish appear suddenly as if out of nowhere in the fossil record,it's just that that proves the theory of evolution is wrong so you choose to ignore it.

[garman]

Interesting then why at every chance through this thread you attack the god lot by ridiculing them,but then that's what all you evolutionists do . Yes the God lot do come under fire quite a lot but only because there bible story cannot stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever for instance the world is not 6000 years old the whole world did not go under water in Noah's time which was about 4000 years ago you just have to start reading the bible to know its all a bloody fairy tale and should not be taken seriously the same as that w---er Benny Hinn on early morning TV in yet millions of dim witted people waste their time and money in the 21st century with that, they should embrace the truth rather than persist with delusion no matter how reassuring it is, as Dawkins said. And as for attacking the God lot Miner you should check out the God lot websites especially in the US they know exactly who the enemy is, and attack science and evolution at every turn they simple don't want their flock of sheep educated.

Miner I watched your clip put out by one of the one percent of scientists who prefers to twist the truth to defend his religious beliefs, this guy specialises in turning out garbage video's that regect evolution and reinforce Christianity that are watched by families in the US mainly that home school, they are religious and require some propaganda to steer there children down the right path IE religion. Dr Carl Werner http://www.creationconversations.com/page/ask-the-expert-dr-carl-werner


As I said before before Its pretty clear you don't believe in evolution one little bit, and you seem to fancy the idea of intelligent design, so do you accept other things that scientist's also say like the age of the earth 4 billion or so years, how old do you think it is???

[miner]

Not sure how showing that there are only a small collection of incomplete fossils from which evolutionists draw imaginary pictures from is twisting the truth,I would have thought drawing imaginary pictures would be twisting the truth.

What a surprise you say he just puts out garbage garman,standard attack from you guys,and Dawkins imaginary whale picture clip was just BS but not garbage ?,but rather than get side tracked on what he believes in (leave him to it) look at the fossil record which clearly doesn't show the intermediate steps you guys claim it does.

As I said if you are so right and can prove it beyond all doubt then why bother just leave them too it.

So much for you saying that debate on the subject ended years ago( that would be everyone garman not just evolutionists).

So looks like the battle lines are well set and the fight rages on,and other than the obvious reason of both camps disagree the reason for the ongoing battle is that neither side can prove what there saying,as if one could then game over.

It's school yard stuff as we are told we must pick a side as people on this thread have kept harping on to me for example.

What about your both wrong and I think something else must have happened,nup cant have that you free thinker you choose a side as there are only two options.

Anyways will post some stuff on whales a bit later

[garman]

So much for you saying that debate on the subject ended years ago( that would be everyone garman not just evolutionists).

The debate in the scientific community on whether evolution occurre's ended years ago that's what I said and that is fact.


As I said before before before Its pretty clear you don't believe in evolution one little bit, and you seem to fancy the idea of intelligent design, so do you accept other things that scientist's also say like the age of the earth 4 billion or so years, how old do you think it is?????

[miner]

It's like saying the debate about god ended for people that believe in it years ago so therefore god must automatically be right.

Interesting that both videos used the same evidence to back up there point,ie both used a few incomplete fossils and imaginary drawings.

For the Werner clip you said "this guy specialises in turning out garbage video's ".

For the Dawkins clip you said,"Yes I am in general whale evolution looks pretty clear plenty of evidence for it. Without evolution it means that species suddenly appear in a split second almost like a magic trick, and I don't think there is much evidence for that."

So how is it that you have two totally different opinions on the same evidence put forward for both videos ???.

[garman]

It's like saying the debate about god ended for people that believe in it years ago so therefore god must automatically be right.That's the thing though Miner the debate is well an truly alive with religion the religious don't know what the hell to believe anymore some say the world is 6000 years old some go along with science and say billions of years old some believe in evolution some don't, then there are a thousand different denominations that all believe in different things Catholics fighting Anglicans etc at least with evolution 99% of scientists believe the same thing religion has never been so fractured, but of course that wouldn't bother you being a follower of intelligent design, who by the way generally believe that designer to be God.

As I said before before before Its pretty clear you don't believe in evolution one little bit, and you seem to fancy the idea of intelligent design, so do you accept other things that scientist's also say like the age of the earth 4 billion or so years, how old do you think it is?????

[miner]

Garman harping on about your supposed 99% doesn't make you right.

How did I suddenly become a "follower" of intelligent design ?.

Again garman attacking the god lot doesn't make you right but you just cant help yourself can you.

Interesting that both videos used the same evidence to back up there point,ie both used a few incomplete fossils and imaginary drawings.

For the Werner clip you said "this guy specialises in turning out garbage video's ".

For the Dawkins clip you said,"Yes I am in general whale evolution looks pretty clear plenty of evidence for it. Without evolution it means that species suddenly appear in a split second almost like a magic trick, and I don't think there is much evidence for that."

So how is it that you have two totally different opinions on the same evidence put forward for both videos ???.

[garman]

How did I suddenly become a "follower" of intelligent design ?.
Well you have made it clear you believe life forms here on earth have been designed on page 3 you said this [Quote] The sharks skin is only one of it's features that make it a very efficient predator,yet the religion of evolution would have us believe that the shark is a random fluke rather than an amazing bit of design work. [end quote] Design work, Miner that's what you said!! You did not use the term intelligent though.:confused:

[miner]

Ummm dauh garman I do realize I have and do use the word design,"follower" was the bit you have added,and no I don't follow a religion like you and the god lot do as your both wrong.

Interesting that both videos used the same evidence to back up there point,ie both used a few incomplete fossils and imaginary drawings.

For the Werner clip you said "this guy specialises in turning out garbage video's ".

For the Dawkins clip you said,"Yes I am in general whale evolution looks pretty clear plenty of evidence for it. Without evolution it means that species suddenly appear in a split second almost like a magic trick, and I don't think there is much evidence for that."

So how is it that you have two totally different opinions on the same evidence put forward for both videos ???.

[tesla]

As I said before before before Its pretty clear you don't believe in evolution one little bit, and you seem to fancy the idea of intelligent design, so do you accept other things that scientist's also say like the age of the earth 4 billion or so years, how old do you think it is?????

Can you answer this question Miner?

[miner]

Are you garmans mum or something Tesla ?,the answer to that one is give or take a few million years sounds about right,but just to be sure you lot understand as it's a loaded question that would be a YES from me.

Would be nice if garman would answer my questions rather than do the evolutionists side step.

[garman]

Ummm dauh garman I do realize I have and do use the word design, Yes you do don't you Miner? nice to get an admission from you on that one, now all you have to do is let us know who the designer is????

[miner]

That post speaks volumes about you garman.

I have said I think life is too complex to be anything other than by design from the start of this thread,I have also said (due to being asked constantly) I haven't got a clue what designed things.

So how you twist "Ummm dauh garman I do realize I have and do use the word design" into an admission only you know.

You answer my questions with a question so not holding my breath but why cant you accept that I don't believe in god ?.

[garman]

Nature has the hummingbird which can also do the same although more agile than the harrier,so also an amazing bit of design work.Its pretty clear you think the hummingbird is an amazing bit of design work Miner but can you back that up with some real evidence that the bird was actually designed or are you just having a stab in the dark as you accuse others of doing?

[miner]

Or you could try something different and actually answer a question,crazy I know but go on be a devil and give it a go.



Interesting that both videos used the same evidence to back up there point,ie both used a few incomplete fossils and imaginary drawings.

For the Werner clip you said "this guy specialises in turning out garbage video's ".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xoViDri8Mo

For the Dawkins clip you said,"Yes I am in general whale evolution looks pretty clear plenty of evidence for it. Without evolution it means that species suddenly appear in a split second almost like a magic trick, and I don't think there is much evidence for that."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o92x6AvxCFg

So how is it that you have two totally different opinions on the same evidence put forward for both videos ???.

[garman]

Nature has the hummingbird which can also do the same although more agile than the harrier,:pso also an amazing bit of design work.:pIts pretty clear you think the hummingbird is an amazing bit of design work Miner but can you back that up with some real evidence that the bird was actually designed, or are you just having a guess without any facts or evidence to back it up, as you accuse others of doing?

[miner]

You still at school garman as adding little faces with there tongues sticking out just makes you look like an .....


I shall answer your question for you ,although to be fair you have inadvertently answered some of it by telling us that the so called fossil evidence put forward for whale evolution is "garbage" finally we agree on something.

You ask me to show you some "real" evidence about birds you should try it with whales first,as you don't even have one complete fossil just bits of unrelated fossils.

As usual though that's not going to stop you guys coming up with a good story and some imaginary pictures and models to back up your latest fantasy,oops theory.

So you have no transitional fossils and a story that if you stop and think about it is nuts,as in you cant seriously expect us to believe that,but you do and anyone that dare question it gets the attack treatment.

This is your poster boy example of look we can prove evolution,but this is actually what your asking or should that be demanding us to believe...



Here is a great one! The raccoon-like quadruped, the indohyus, that evolved into a whale! Yes, this animal was once a fish that spent millions of years growing fins. Then it realized it would be better if it could crawl out of the ocean, away from those pesky sharks and other predators. It evolved legs and lungs so it could come out of the water. It then evolved a furry exterior and became a quadruped, the indohyus. The indohyus then realized what a mistake it had made (tic), so it then re-evolved fins, shrank its legs down to small completely internal bones, and went back into the water with those pesky sharks, which must not have been so bad after all, to become the largest species ever known: a whale! It’s nasal openings migrated to the top of it’s head to become single or double blowholes. This story makes “Little Red Riding Hood” believable. You can double click on the article to get a larger readable version. This is the perfect example of how ev-illusionists work to get a student-victim to believe a couple of impossible items. Once one or two impossibilities are believed and accepted by the student-victim, the next steps are much more easily believed and accepted.
Once the barriers are removed, anything will be believed. Like this story.

[garman]

Nature has the hummingbird which can also do the same although more agile than the harrier,so also an amazing bit of design work.Its pretty clear you think the hummingbird is an amazing bit of design work Miner but can you back that up with some real evidence that the bird was actually designed, or are you just having a guess without any facts or evidence to back it up, as you accuse others of doing?

Do you have any fossils or evidence of any kind apart from just an uneducated presumption on your part to back this up Miner??

[miner]

One can only presume that you think by ignoring my questions and endlessly posting your's you think you are going to achieve something ?,O-well mildly amusing if nothing else.

Anyway back to the story of the amazing fantasy whale .




One of the many questions that this absurd “fish to quadruped to whale” notion brings out is why would whales evolve a blow hole in the first place? Evolutionauts proudly show how nostrils migrated and modified from forward to back on the “nasal” area of their heads. They proudly display this as evidence for evolution, of course, and in doing so, blind themselves to why a hole would evolve on their heads at all. What environmental pressures stimulated the formation of this unique feature? I certainly can’t think of any. How about: the ones that were the best “squirt gun” fighters won the females? They could blow fish out of the water, and catch them? A remarkable invention, the blowhole. Certainly a fun one to watch. But why would evolution come up with this? Why did evolution give this unique entity to all fish? Why not sharks. I could see sharks blowing water out of a blowhole just as much as whales. I wonder if indohyus could blow water out it’s nose, and that trait became the blowhole for whales. How did the nose become the blowhole? Which whale began the blowing of water? Which was the first? Did the other whales watch, and think, “That looks like cool! I think I’ll try it!”

From pandasthumb.com:

Nasal Drift in Early Whales Whales breathed with more ease when they no longer had to lift a snout above water. The nostrils migrated upward toward the top of their head, as ancient whales spent more time immersed in the water. Blowholes help to distinguish modern forms of whales. While toothed whales generally have one hole, baleens are split into two. Fig 1. Pakicetus Fig 2. Rodhocetus nostrils were higher on the skull, intermediate between its ancestors and modern whales. Fig 3. A modern gray whale can emerge from the water, inhale and resubmerge without stopping or tilting its snout to breathe.




Blowholes are covered by muscular flaps that keep water from entering the opening when the whale is under water. In the relaxed state, the flap covers the blowhole. A blowhole leads to the whale’s trachea directly, not through a series of sinuses like those of land mammals, and then to its lungs. Unlike indohyus and all land mammals, whales cannot breathe through their mouths. They can only breath through their blowholes. We can conclude that earlier whales had indohyus nostrils that made it difficult for them to breathe, because they had to stick their nose out of water. Air sacs just below the blowhole allow whales to produce sounds for communication and (for those species capable of it) echolation. These air sacs are filled with air, which is then released again to produce sound in a similar fashion to releasing air from a balloon. According to evolution, natural selection improved indohyus nostrils by turning them into blowholes and moving it (them) back toward their forehead. With blowholes they don’t have to stick their noses out of water. Just think of how incredibly powerful that supposed glitch was, that it forced mutations and natural selection to move and modify indohyus nasal openings. I wonder about the intermediate steps involved. The steps from “no flap” to a fully functioning muscular flap. Were there “half flaps” that allowed water into the proto-whale’s lungs? Were there partial air sacs? Is there such thing as a partial balloon? Shall we all accept this without thinking about it? Because, if you think about it, you might wonder. You might question. And that is bad for evolution. And, as it usual with all evolution fables, there are no fossils that show the steps of the modification and movement of indohyus nostrils which produced whale blowholes. Just as they don’t have fossils that show the growth of giraffe necks, and bird wings. Evolutionauts always brag about how the fossil record proves evolution beyond a shadow of at doubt. And that they have millions if transitional fossils. In fact “every fossil and every species is transitional.” Reality is their “mountains of evidence” disproves their theory.

[GTM 3442]

Just out of interest, has anyone asked a few mothers how good a piece of design they think the process of childbirth is ?

So, all you mums out there, how about a rating - scale of 0 to 10 ?

[garman]

Anyway back to the story of the amazing fantasy whale .

Miner I remind you that way back on page 3 well before you decied to rubish the substantial body of evidence supporting the evolution of whales you said that the hummingbird was an amazing bit of design work but you refuse to name the designer or produce a scrap of evidence supporting your claim. At least the scientists researching whale evolution have put up some evidence supporting their claims, you haven't.

[miner]

Substantial body of wishful BS would be closer garman,and your tactic of sidestepping something as soon as it gets tricky by dragging up a question for me from page 3 that you didnt ask about then and continually asking it isn't going to work no matter how much you want it to.

Your tactics may have worked for you in the past with other people but there not going to with me,I am still discussing your claim that there is substantial intermediate fossils for the theory of whale evolution and that it is a done deal.

And not trying to rubbish anything,rather just looking at the claim evolutionists want us to believe and thinking for myself as when you do this it just doesn't add up or make any sense aside from the total lack of fossil evidence.

Why is it that you question any alternative to the theory of evolution but just blindly accept a,was going to say fantasy but basically an outright lie like whale evolution.
I say lie because the people that dream it up are smart enough to know they are not saying what science and the fossil record say.

Astoundingly, evolutionauts can’t see the THOUSANDS of characteristics that are not alike at all. In fact indohyus and whales are complete opposites in almost every imaginable trait. Evolutionauts are blind to the immense number of differences. Oh, like size, fur, blow hole, water/land species, diet, habits, eye……..the list of differences is endless. Even the way whales sleep is different. They can’t fully sleep under water, or they might drown. So only half of their brain sleeps at a time. They are never fully asleep. How would the different sleep patterns of quadrupeds and whales transition? The scientists the make up these fables are to be respected and revered; certainly not doubted. Their stuff is forced into our schools and into the brains of the students. Or else! And there can be no challenges to evolution in the textbooks. With all of the evidence against this hoax, shouldn’t real scientists demand that there be a chapter on why evolution is not the answer to the Puzzle? The problem here is that most students bite the bait, become evolution believers, and in doing so forfeit their ability to think, doubt, reason, and be skeptical. They do this with the subject of evolution. Hopefully they won’t spread their newly attained gullibility and lack of reason to other fields of endeavor.

[garman]

Nature has the hummingbird which can also do the same although more agile than the harrier,so also an amazing bit of design work. Pretty hypocritical of you Miner, you expect scientists to come up with huge amounts of evidence supporting the evolution of whales ""and they have"" and yet you don't supply even a smidgen of evidence to support your assumption of design.

[miner]

They have come up with huge amounts of fantasy BS which only shows how bad they are at trying to con us,although looking at you it does work on some people who are indoctrinated (will get to that later).




Here is an typical article based on a peer reviewed article on whale evolution:
From: http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/02/pr0235.htm

Researchers Discover Clues to Whale Evolution

Side view of a dolphin inner ear (left) demonstrating the particularly small semicircular canals (yellow / light grey) of cetaceans compared with land mammals, represented here by a bushbaby (right). Images reconstructed from computed tomography scans, adjusting for body size differences between the two animals. Each inner ear would easily fit on a penny.
Image: F. Spoor.


A team of international scientists, including Hans Thewissen, an anatomist and paleontologist at the Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine (NEOUCOM), has discovered that the inner ear of whales evolved much more quickly than expected, (another case of quick evolution or punctuated equilibrium) allowing the animals to become fully aquatic early in their evolution. The team’s research, funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), (Of course they had to come up with results to continue getting funding. And who is going to challenge this finding?) shows that the semicircular canals, the organ responsible for balance and located in the inner ear, was adapted to aquatic life approximately 45 million years ago. The discovery was published in the May 9 issue of the journal Nature.

Cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) have unique semicircular canals that allow them to be highly acrobatic swimmers without becoming dizzy. By investigating this organ in ancient fossils, the researchers found that early whales acquired this special trait quickly and early on in their evolution. This was a defining event that likely resulted in their total independence of life on land. (My gawd, how do they know this? Astounding. Not only do we have quadrupeds that turned into whales, we have ears the evolved for under water use “quickly”!)

“The early evolutionary development of small semicircular canals by cetaceans opened an entirely new mammalian niche for habitation and contributed to the broad diversity of marine living habits that we see in whales today,” said Rich Lane, director of NSF’s paleontology program, which funded the research. “The evolutionary acquisition of such specialized organs or abilities (like the brain and upright walking habit of man) provide mechanisms by which highly evolved organisms dominate in certain environments.”

The semicircular canals sense head movements and this vital information is used to coordinate the body during locomotion. This happens subconsciously, and humans only become aware of an organ of balance when things go wrong, such as during sea sickness, drunkenness and wild roller coaster rides.

The researchers found that in living cetaceans the semicircular canals are much smaller than in any other mammal of the same body size. In fact, the semicircular canals of the huge blue whale are smaller than those of humans. In general, cetaceans are more acrobatic than similarly sized land animals (imagine an elephant making the jumps of a similar-sized whale). This could be the result of the small canals, because the small size makes the canals less sensitive, preventing the animal from becoming dizzy (i.e. experiencing vertigo). (Why didn’t they evolve to the same proportional size as human semi-circular canals? Is it advantageous for humans to be dizzy?)

Between 40 and 50 million years ago, early cetaceans evolved from land mammals into swimmers. Over the last decade many new whale fossils have been found which show how this dramatic change happened. Skeletons of the transitional species (“whales with limbs”) demonstrate that they were adept, otter-like swimmers. (Whales with legs? Show me. There are none in the clade drawing above. Or is this where evolutionauts call normal quadrupeds “whales with legs” to fool us into believing they have transitional species when they don’t.)

Just last year, Thewissen’s discovery of two early whale ancestors showed that the earliest whales were mainly land animals, and resolved a controversy over the relationships of whales, showing that they are most closely related to modern even-toed ungulates (such as pigs, hippos, camels, deer, and sheep) than to an extinct group of meat-eating mammals. (Just imagine: whales walking around on land. That must have been quite a sight!)

[garman]

Nature has the hummingbird which can also do the same although more agile than the harrier,so also an amazing bit of design work. You say [They have come up with huge amounts of fantasy BS] well at least in your view they have produced some BS evidence, which on the face of it still far better than a big fat zero amount of evidence for your design assumption Miner!! so pretty hypocritical of you really.

[miner]

Highlighting in red isn't going to work either garman,possibly blue tho as its my favourite colour ?.

So your tactic of continually asking me a question until I answer it and then doing the same with a different question when my answer is not to your liking has run it's coarse garman.

However your current question is being answered with each of my posts if you dare I say it actually think about it.

Interesting you think BS evidence is better than no evidence .



Those Beautiful Legs:




At left is a museum photo of a whale skeleton showing the spine. The two “bent L” shaped bones are the bones that evolutionauts say are vestigial hind legs from Pakicitus and Indohyus, supposed whale precursors. Evo-scientists say these bones correspond exactly to the hind legs of a furry quadruped. Do they look like former leg bones? If you have a great evo-imagination, they sure do. Anything looks like anything if it proves evolution. Note that these bones are completely internal. No part of them has an external remnant whatsoever. So the legs shrank, bent themselves into an “L”, fused the knee joint, and moved themselves way inside of the body of the whale? Also there are several muscles that attach to these bones, hinting that these bones have a designed use in modern whales. They have a purpose, and are not remnants of an evolutionary past. They actually are part of whale birthing apparatus. These two bones are a huge part of the “mountains of evidence” cited by evolutionauts for their fake science. These “legs”, along with chicken teeth, are two of my favorite “whale of a tale” fables that evolutionauts feed young impressionable students. http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/HMPBK02.JPG

At left is the remains of a Pakicetus fossil. Can you imagine assigning these bits of bones as the precursor to all whales? What kind of science is this. A few bones found in the dirt is for sure an early whale. The more I look at this science, the more amazing it gets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pakicetus_fossil.png

[garman]

Nature has the hummingbird which can also do the same although more agile than the harrier,so:confused: also an amazing bit of design work. You say [They have come up with huge amounts of fantasy BS] well at least in your view they have produced some BS evidence, which on the face of it still far better than a big fat zero amount of evidence for your design assumption Miner!! so pretty hypocritical of you really.

[miner]

Thanks for the laugh garman,I will type very slow for you,your plan is not going to work,did I say blue sorry should have said green,my bad.

How about those so called whale bone legs though ay,no doubt you believe that load of BS and think they look like left over wolf legs ?.

If in any doubt after that then there is the pakicetus fossil,yep they sure nailed some conclusive BS with that one,just add a MASSIVE dollop of imagination and you can see the whale in those bones no worry's.

Is this the huge amount of evidence you have been going on about garman ?.

The mind boggles that people actually believe this sh*t,but then most don't even know about this stuff they just believe in evolution because everyone else does Baaaaa. (not literally everyone garman settle down).

[garman]

Is this the huge amount of evidence you have been going on about garman ?. Yep that's the stuff, very impressive, and a lot more convincing than the zero amount of evidence produced by you Miner to support your wild presumption about design.:ohmy:

[miner]

You are showing a bad case of indoctrination garman as otherwise you would be thinking Hmmm that doesn't add up and no they haven't actually got the fossil evidence they keep telling us about.

A 20 pound pakicetus that is 3ft long evolving into a 400,000 pound 108ft long blue whale is laughable.

Anyway you know you are indoctrinated if you think that load of BS is very impressive evidence for whale evolution,but also .....



34. 20 Reasons Why I Say You Are Indoctrinated
If I give you an answer that says you are indoctrinated, I am not trying to demean you. I am also not trying to avoid a debate question. I am not saying you are dumb in any way. I only say this when the facts of your answers show indoctrination. I was indoctrinated with this beguiling science as well, so I know the mental games you must play on yourself to believe the fantasy of evolution. And I am a very intelligent person. Just fact, not bragging. I fell for this science in a paleontology class in college. Evolution made so much sense to me, far more than the “Adam and Eve” story that I had given up years before, but never replaced. I just didn’t know how things came about, but I was and still am incredibly fascinated with the subject. When I went to my first class, there was the bearded PHD instructor that my very religious father had warned me about, showing how evolution was the source of everything in nature. The first day he asked “Please raise your hand if you do not believe in Darwinian evolution.” I raised mine, along with about half of the other students. At the end of the first week, he asked for a raising of hands again. There was nary a one. He had us all. We were all convinced, and the indoctrination began. In fact it was already successful.

About twenty years ago, when I was still a firm believer in evolution, I began thinking and having doubts about the notion that an entity with absolutely zero intelligence could put together all of the incredible bio-systems of nature. I picked up one of my texts on the subject, and turned to a page that showed how early primates and man have the same lower first molar configuration with five cusps. Apes have four. Supposedly this showed that man is evolutionarily related those five cusped early primates. That ONE FACT satisfied me…….temporarily. It convinced me that evolution was the way EVERYTHING happened. That littlest of crumbs convinced me that natural selection et al formed all of nature. Astounding. How could I possibly been so fooled? Why was I so gullible. I was! And I freely admit it. I was indoctrinated. And that one example meant the indoctrination was working well.

These are the indicators to me that you are indoctrinated:

(1) When the answers you give have nothing to do with the questions I ask and you have no idea. Here is a perfect example: Re: the evolution of vision: (This is an actual YouTube answer): (eyes)”couldn’t assemble itself”…moron…do you know how snowflakes form? what’s your try to explain snowflakes? “fairies did it”? ” This guy has no idea that there is no purpose to the design of snowflakes, and uses them as his answer anyway.

[garman]

34. 20 Reasons Why I Say You Are Indoctrinated
If I give you an answer that says you are indoctrinated, I am not trying to demean you. I am also not trying to avoid a debate question. I am not saying you are dumb in any way. I only say this when the facts of your answers show indoctrination. I was indoctrinated with this beguiling science as well, so I know the mental games you must play on yourself to believe the fantasy of evolution. And I am a very intelligent person. Just fact, not bragging. I fell for this science in a paleontology class in college. Evolution made so much sense to me, far more than the “Adam and Eve” story that I had given up years before, but never replaced. I just didn’t know how things came about, but I was and still am incredibly fascinated with the subject. When I went to my first class, there was the bearded PHD instructor that my very religious father had warned me about, showing how evolution was the source of everything in nature. The first day he asked “Please raise your hand if you do not believe in Darwinian evolution.” I raised mine, along with about half of the other students. At the end of the first week, he asked for a raising of hands again. There was nary a one. He had us all. We were all convinced, and the indoctrination began. In fact it was already successful.

About twenty years ago, when I was still a firm believer in evolution, I began thinking and having doubts about the notion that an entity with absolutely zero intelligence could put together all of the incredible bio-systems of nature. I picked up one of my texts on the subject, and turned to a page that showed how early primates and man have the same lower first molar configuration with five cusps. Apes have four. Supposedly this showed that man is evolutionarily related those five cusped early primates. That ONE FACT satisfied me…….temporarily. It convinced me that evolution was the way EVERYTHING happened. That littlest of crumbs convinced me that natural selection et al formed all of nature. Astounding. How could I possibly been so fooled? Why was I so gullible. I was! And I freely admit it. I was indoctrinated. And that one example meant the indoctrination was working well.

The author of the above also said [Quote] You and I and every person who ever lived on the face of the earth actually observe ID every waking minute of every day.[end quote ] The only problem for intelligent design supporters as this guy "and going by your comments your self" is you have no evidence whatsoever that any natural life on earth was designed or any evidence whatsoever who that designer is. I do notice that a lot of intelligent design supporters seem to be people who just can't quite let go of the God thing they know enough about this modern world to know that what it says in the bible is just primitive superstition that clashes with many scientific things they accept "the age of the earth etc" but because of their strong religious background they just cant quite drop the god creator designer thing.

[miner]

There you go again garman if all else fails attack the god lot,if you actually read what I am posting you would know that the author doesn't believe in god but he does talk about how you lot carry on in an attempt to convince us all that you are right.

He also wrote...

(quote) If evolution can come up with real instead of imaginary evidence, I will be the first to step up and be a full supporter like I was a few years ago. What I do think is that nature is unbelievably intelligent. There is no scientific evidence for the source of that intelligence, so my thinking goes no farther. Please keep your comments within the scope of this blog. If you want to challenge my thinking or any section, please feel free. If you do challenge, please place your comment below the page you are challenging, and note the paragraph. I don’t want to debate about Creationism, ID, if there is a God, invisible guys in the sky, any religious beliefs, or angels or fairies. So please leave those off of your comment list.


Anyway back to your indoctrination

(2) When your answers are memorized dogma. Stuff that someone who taught you in school who doesn’t know, or a book you read written by a person who has no idea how nature came to be but nonetheless has fooled you into thinking they do. One great example is that I ask the question about how bio-systems, such as a hepatic system, which had to evolve in a single species, migrated from the original species to all of the other species that then and now have livers. I usually get this answer: “Traits” change and those changes are caused by mutations, and are passed from generation to generation. Additional changes occur, and eventually, through tiny steps over millions of years……..” The writers obviously have no idea about the difference between “traits” which are items such as eye color, height, weight, hair color, and “biological systems”, which includes items such as hepatic systems, vision, auditory systems, musculo-skeletel,….. The evo-responders are on auto pilot. They just spout the answer, because that is what they were taught. There is no thought as to whether the question is answered or not. Push the button, out comes the indoctrination. And this is common beyond my wildest expectations. Intelligent people who must know the difference between “traits” and “biological systems” write as if they don’t.

[garman]

There you go again Garman if all else fails attack the god lot,if you actually read what I am posting you would know that the author doesn't believe in god but he does talk about how you lot carry on in an attempt to convince us all that you are right. As I said your mate said [Quote] You and I and every person who ever lived on the face of the earth actually observe ID every waking minute of every day.[end quote ]So this guy believes that the Ebola, cholera, polio, and aids viruses etc not to mention down syndrome and other more horrific genetic disorders and cancer are all intelligently designed. Time for a Tui I think.

[miner]

"I am often asked by evolutionauts to specify what makes me think an entity is designed rather than being an illusion of design. This question is so simply answered, anyone with half a brain could put together a rational answer. One would think evolutionauts could play devils advocate, and put an answer together themselves; an answer that they would think a person that thinks the way I do might put forth. They don’t. Not because they only have half a brain. I truly think most evolutionauts are very intelligent. But because they are so ingrained that evolution is correct, the don’t want to even consider the fact of design. They are universally so adamant that there is no design in nature, and they work so hard to keep that illusion going for themselves. The notion that there IS design is abhorrent to them. They can’t in any way even consider thinking of an answer. They have to pretend 100% that there is no design. Evolutionauts are not on a search for truth. They think they have already found truth, and they don’t want it disturbed."


More on this later but for now we are discussing your indoctrination.


(3) I pose a question, and instead of answering you choose to demean my education, which is extensive, my knowledge about evolution, which is also extensive, (remember, I was an evolutionaut, and an enthusiastic one at that) my IQ, my upbringing….you say ANYTHING but answer the question posed.

I never said he was my mate.

[garman]

"I am often asked by evolutionauts to specify what makes me think an entity is designed rather than being an illusion of design. So give us the answer Please. why an entity is designed rather than being an illusion of design.
This question is so simply answered, anyone with half a brain could put together a rational answer. So go ahead.
And I am a very intelligent person. Anybody that makes a desperate arrogant stupid comment like that is showing in graphic style they are not.

[miner]

We will get to that part later garman,for now it's just interesting how you have pretty well hit all of the indoctrination list on the head.

(4) You play the religion card. Again, I am not religious. You bring up “the magic man in the sky”, “sky fairies”, “bronze age books and goat-herders”, anything to distract from the question you are showing you can’t answer.

[karlos]

And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. Yep you prob right Karlos only real sensible s__t from a very enlightened time in human history is contained in the good book. Ye though I walk in the shadow of the valley of death I fear no evil cos I'm the meanest SOB in the valley.:mad ;:
I decided to do a Google search regarding the seven headed monster in the Bible Garman......You are correct as the Bible does state this.
However, the understanding is it is a SIMILE.
Let me explain, if for example you said "Karlos, my car is the biggest piece of sh.t I have ever driven"
I would not think for one moment that you were travelling to your desired destination in a large piece of human faeces:scared:, so why do you feel that in an earlier time of history that a seven headed monster (which in evolutionists theory should be the survivor of the fittest) could actually be real:p....its just a SIMILE buddy....not fairy tail...just an emotion to portray an image of something to be greatly feared.

I hope this clears your misunderstanding of the Bible:cool:

[garman]

I decided to do a Google search regarding the seven headed monster in the Bible Garman......You are correct as the Bible does state this.
However, the understanding is it is a SIMILE.
Let me explain, if for example you said "Karlos, my car is the biggest piece of sh.t I have ever driven"
I would not think for one moment that you were travelling to your desired destination in a large piece of human faeces:scared:, so why do you feel that in an earlier time of history that a seven headed monster (which in evolutionists theory should be the survivor of the fittest) could actually be real:p....its just a SIMILE buddy....not fairy tail...just an emotion to portray an image of something to be greatly feared.

I hope this clears your misunderstanding of the Bible:cool:Thanks for clearing that up Karlos, everything is crystal clear now.:)

[miner]

(5) You call me dumb names. I have already been called everything you can think of and more. IDiot, f*ckwit, moron, retard, Creotard. Again, by doing this you are avoiding answering a question you can’t deal with. So this is the way you choose to distract from the question. It simply shows indoctrination.

[garman]

(5) You call me dumb names. I have already been called everything you can think of and more. IDiot, f*ckwit, moron, retard, Creotard. Again, by doing this you are avoiding answering a question you can’t deal with. So this is the way you choose to distract from the question. It simply shows indoctrination.OK tell me again what the question is don't make it to long and I will give you what I think the answer is.

[miner]

Could this be some light at the end of the tunnel garman ?.

I replied to your claims of evolution in the first place as obviously I don't think science and the fossil record back the theory up,but also I don't believe in god for much the same reason,as in science cant prove there is a god.

As you know I do think that life is too complex not to have been designed,who designed it ? I haven't got a clue but that doesn't automatically say that it wasn't designed just simply the designer is unknown.

You have asked for scientific proof which is what I have given you,and for want of a better word logic,as in if you think about it logically then what evolutionists want us to believe simply doesn't add up.

What puzzles me about people like yourself is have you actually stoped and thought for yourself ? about what the Dawkins etc are telling you and the way they twist science and the fossil record to back there theory,if so then how could you accept( for example) the story of a small wolf like animal evolving into a massive whale or whales as there are more than one type,and that's before you even look at the fossil record or science behind there claim.

So if you want a discussion as apposed to a schoolyard sh*t slinging match I would be interested as to why you believe and vigorously defend the whale evolution story ?,I have shown you the science and fossil record behind my thoughts on it as well as the simply stop and think for yourself wolf to whale you've got to be kidding.

I often wonder if people like yourself believe in evolution simply because for some reason you don't want the god lot to be right and as you have shown there appears to only be two choices for you lot, evolution or god,so to say evolution is wrong is saying god is right and there is no way you can do that,have you ever thought that there may be a third option ?.




"So in your own words why do you believe in the whale evolution story ?."

Keeping in mind that it just so happens that No 6 on the indoctrination list is ...


(6) You refer me to another site, book, or video, made by someone who you worship and who you think knows all of the answers. They don’t. And if you believe they are somehow super-intelligent and know all, far more than you do, you are indoctrinated. You have fallen, just like I did. If you think their stuff is so great, learn it and discuss the information with me yourself. I have read mountains of pro-evolution peer reviewed papers, pro-evolution books. I have viewed many pro-evolution shows on Discovery, PBS, and the Science Channel. I have viewed many of he “big” pro-evolution YouTube vids (CDK007, potholer54, on and on). Many of these items are reviewed, posted and playable, and reprinted on this blog. So please, don’t rely on the thinking of others. Don’t refer me to a Google “look up”, or a YouTube video, or a book or paper that requires no effort on your part. If you do you have caved in to your indoctrination.

[garman]

"So in your own words why do you believe in the whale evolution story ?." Miner you must understand that when you ask a question of a person such as myself "who is not a scientist or a geologist or an archaeologist and is simply not trained in any way shape or form to experiment or even fully understand the science behind subjects like whale evolution or nuclear physics for that matter etc etc" all you are really going to get from me is an opinion that based on what I have read about not only whale evolution but evolution in general I accept that the whole concept of evolution makes pretty good sense, but this opinion of mine is not just based upon whether I think evolution actually happens its also based on many other factors one of them is the age of life on earth which is billions of years old, if for instance scientists told us life was only 6000 years old as the bible says then that would not be enough time for evolution to work, another reason I believe in evolution is also based on the fact that 99% of all earth scientists accept that evolution happens not just some fields of science but ALL, just the same as 99% of scientists believe that carbon dating works or that DNA can be used to identify individuals, its a bit like when you go the the doctor because you have a rare type of cancer and the doctor gives you some special pills invented by a scientist, you accept science in every thing you do on this life. But what you say is that scientists are too scared to question evolution, so if they are too scared to question evolution what else are they too scared to question, for instance can you name me another subject that scientists endorse by 99% that you think they are wrong about and are too scared to rebel against. You seem to have the idea that evolution is just a big conspiracy endorsed by 99% of scientists only because they are too scared to rebel for some reason and tell us they think that evolution is just not true. Its not as though 99% of scientists have always believed in evolution they haven't its just been a gradual acceptance based on discoveries and painstaking experimental procedures over the last 150 or so that the almost unanimous support for evolution has come from, and I sure as hell don't see that changing Miner so you may as well get relaxed about it.




As you know I do think that life is too complex not to have been designed So you look at a piece of life and you think to your self "that's really complex it must have been designed" that Miner is nothing more that a wild guess, a hunch, a stab in the dark with absolutely zero to back it up, it would be worth considering if there was a hint of evidence of a designer, but there in none, as I have said before life is just random it is not good it is not bad its not perfect which explains the multitude of horrible diseases genetic disorders mental disorders etc and incredible variations in life, I mean to say Miner why would this unknown designer design life forms like the aids virus etc, you seem to have no trouble believing in design something there is no proof for whatsoever, but totally reject evolution something we have heaps of proof for.






[/QUOTE]

[miner]

Well so much for that garman,you just managed to say a whole lot of nothing other than take another stab at the god lot and say that according to someone 99% of scientist who believe in evolution agree with each other,you said it five times,and a go at me again,so basically do everything but answer the question .

You are well and truly indoctrinated.



"Miner you must understand that when you ask a question of a person such as myself "who is not a scientist or a geologist or an archaeologist and is simply not trained in any way shape or form to experiment or even fully understand the science behind subjects like whale evolution or nuclear physics for that matter etc etc" all you are really going to get from me is an opinion that based on what I have read about not only whale evolution but evolution in general I accept that the whole concept of evolution makes pretty good sense, but this opinion of mine is not just based upon whether I think evolution actually happens its also based on many other factors one of them is the age of life on earth which is billions of years old, if for instance scientists told us life was only 6000 years old as the bible says then that would not be enough time for evolution to work, another reason I believe in evolution is also based on the fact that 99% of all earth scientists accept that evolution happens not just some fields of science but ALL, just the same as 99% of scientists believe that carbon dating works or that DNA can be used to identify individuals, its a bit like when you go the the doctor because you have a rare type of cancer and the doctor gives you some special pills invented by a scientist, you accept science in every thing you do on this life. But what you say is that scientists are too scared to question evolution, so if they are too scared to question evolution what else are they too scared to question, for instance can you name me another subject that scientists endorse by 99% that you think they are wrong about and are too scared to rebel against. You seem to have the idea that evolution is just a big conspiracy endorsed by 99% of scientists only because they are too scared to rebel for some reason and tell us they think that evolution is just not true. Its not as though 99% of scientists have always believed in evolution they haven't its just been a gradual acceptance based on discoveries and painstaking experimental procedures over the last 150 or so that the almost unanimous support for evolution has come from, and I sure as hell don't see that changing Miner so you may as well get relaxed about it."

(1) When the answers you give have nothing to do with the questions I ask and you have no idea. Here is a perfect example: Re: the evolution of vision: (This is an actual YouTube answer): (eyes)”couldn’t assemble itself”…moron…do you know how snowflakes form? what’s your try to explain snowflakes? “fairies did it”? ” This guy has no idea that there is no purpose to the design of snowflakes, and uses them as his answer anyway.

(4) You play the religion card. Again, I am not religious. You bring up “the magic man in the sky”, “sky fairies”, “bronze age books and goat-herders”, anything to distract from the question you are showing you can’t answer.

(6) You refer me to another site, book, or video, made by someone who you worship and who you think knows all of the answers. They don’t. And if you believe they are somehow super-intelligent and know all, far more than you do, you are indoctrinated. You have fallen, just like I did. If you think their stuff is so great, learn it and discuss the information with me yourself. I have read mountains of pro-evolution peer reviewed papers, pro-evolution books. I have viewed many pro-evolution shows on Discovery, PBS, and the Science Channel. I have viewed many of he “big” pro-evolution YouTube vids (CDK007, potholer54, on and on). Many of these items are reviewed, posted and playable, and reprinted on this blog. So please, don’t rely on the thinking of others. Don’t refer me to a Google “look up”, or a YouTube video, or a book or paper that requires no effort on your part. If you do you have caved in to your indoctrination.

"So you look at a piece of life and you think to your self "that's really complex it must have been designed" that Miner is nothing more that a wild guess, a hunch, a stab in the dark with absolutely zero to back it up, it would be worth considering if there was a hint of evidence of a designer, but there in none, as I have said before life is just random it is not good it is not bad its not perfect which explains the multitude of horrible diseases genetic disorders mental disorders etc and incredible variations in life, I mean to say Miner why would this unknown designer design life forms like the aids virus etc, you seem to have no trouble believing in design something there is no proof for whatsoever, but totally reject evolution something we have heaps of proof for."


(3) I pose a question, and instead of answering you choose to demean my education, which is extensive, my knowledge about evolution, which is also extensive, (remember, I was an evolutionaut, and an enthusiastic one at that) my IQ, my upbringing….you say ANYTHING but answer the question posed.


You just chose to ignore scientific facts like this...

Those Beautiful Legs:



At left is a museum photo of a whale skeleton showing the spine. The two “bent L” shaped bones are the bones that evolutionauts say are vestigial hind legs from Pakicitus and Indohyus, supposed whale precursors. Evo-scientists say these bones correspond exactly to the hind legs of a furry quadruped. Do they look like former leg bones? If you have a great evo-imagination, they sure do. Anything looks like anything if it proves evolution. Note that these bones are completely internal. No part of them has an external remnant whatsoever. So the legs shrank, bent themselves into an “L”, fused the knee joint, and moved themselves way inside of the body of the whale? Also there are several muscles that attach to these bones, hinting that these bones have a designed use in modern whales. They have a purpose, and are not remnants of an evolutionary past. They actually are part of whale birthing apparatus. These two bones are a huge part of the “mountains of evidence” cited by evolutionauts for their fake science. These “legs”, along with chicken teeth, are two of my favorite “whale of a tale” fables that evolutionauts feed young impressionable students. http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/HMPBK02.JPG

[garman]

Well so much for that garman,you just managed to say a whole lot of nothing other than take another stab at the god lot and say that according to someone 99% of scientist who believe in evolution agree with each other,you said it five times,and a go at me again,so basically do everything but answer the question .Its interesting to note Miner that Ed Babinski's link http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/HMPBK02.JPG that you put at the bottom of your page also said [quote] Pigs have two toes on each foot that don't touch the ground when they walk. Male primates have functionless nipples. The new born giraffe falls a couple of feet and lands on its head at birth. There have always been plenty of reasons to doubt the "design explanation. AND HERE ALSO [QUOTE] According to evolution it took billions of years for an amoeba to become a man. This seems laughably implausible to creationists who cannot believe that God would design a system of evolution whereby an amoeba becomes a man in any length of time. But a single cell becomes a human baby in nine months and they call it "God's miracle." If only they would consider evolution in a similar light.[END QUOTE] The link to where Ed Babinski's makes these comments is here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/4/part1.html
it is a speech by him, it is very good reading in my view, I suggest you read it' he is no proponent of your design theory that is for sure.


Mammals evolved and diversified all over the continents of Asia, Africa, even reaching North America via the land bridge that existed back then. But meanwile back in Australia that continent was breaking away from Asia, moving further and further away, isolated from the mainland. So Australia came to be filled with nothing but marsupials and just three monotreme species (monotremes are the earliest known forms of mammals), among them, the Platypus. Ed Babinski's

[miner]

Wouldn't go getting too excited about that link garman as I simply used it for the photo as it is a good clear image of evolutionists imaginary whale legs.

So what do you think of this scientific fact ?


Those Beautiful Legs:

At left is a museum photo of a whale skeleton showing the spine. The two “bent L” shaped bones are the bones that evolutionauts say are vestigial hind legs from Pakicitus and Indohyus, supposed whale precursors. Evo-scientists say these bones correspond exactly to the hind legs of a furry quadruped. Do they look like former leg bones? If you have a great evo-imagination, they sure do. Anything looks like anything if it proves evolution. Note that these bones are completely internal. No part of them has an external remnant whatsoever. So the legs shrank, bent themselves into an “L”, fused the knee joint, and moved themselves way inside of the body of the whale? Also there are several muscles that attach to these bones, hinting that these bones have a designed use in modern whales. They have a purpose, and are not remnants of an evolutionary past. They actually are part of whale birthing apparatus. These two bones are a huge part of the “mountains of evidence” cited by evolutionauts for their fake science. These “legs”, along with chicken teeth, are two of my favorite “whale of a tale” fables that evolutionauts feed young impressionable students.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/HMPBK02.JPG


Try not to answer with No 7 on the your indoctrinated list this time.

(7) When an astounding but sound fact is posed to you that may not quite fit into evolution’s origin of species and nature, your response is to demean the fact and above all defend evolution instead of discussing the fact with interest, and a desire to really dig down and understand our beginnings.

[garman]

So what do you think of this scientific fact ?
I think Ed Babinski has some really good points and the fact that he endorses evolution is definatley in his favor, he can see the writing on the wall.
Mammals evolved and diversified all over the continents of Asia, Africa, even reaching North America via the land bridge that existed back then. But meanwile back in Australia that continent was breaking away from Asia, moving further and further away, isolated from the mainland. So Australia came to be filled with nothing but marsupials and just three monotreme species (monotremes are the earliest known forms of mammals), among them, the Platypus. Ed Babinski

[Lego_Man]

By the way, it's not enough to say "Evolution is wrong, therefore the God i believe in is the correct answer".

It's the equivalent of saying "Telecom is a crap stock, therefore Rakon is awesome".

In both cases the 2 questions are completely separate.

[miner]

Your only fooling yourself garman as we both know the question was...

"What do you think of the scientific fact that the two bones in a whale that you guys claim are remnants of a wolf leg are actually part of the whale birthing apparatus ???."

Those Beautiful Legs:

At left is a museum photo of a whale skeleton showing the spine. The two “bent L” shaped bones are the bones that evolutionauts say are vestigial hind legs from Pakicitus and Indohyus, supposed whale precursors. Evo-scientists say these bones correspond exactly to the hind legs of a furry quadruped. Do they look like former leg bones? If you have a great evo-imagination, they sure do. Anything looks like anything if it proves evolution. Note that these bones are completely internal. No part of them has an external remnant whatsoever. So the legs shrank, bent themselves into an “L”, fused the knee joint, and moved themselves way inside of the body of the whale? Also there are several muscles that attach to these bones, hinting that these bones have a designed use in modern whales. They have a purpose, and are not remnants of an evolutionary past. They actually are part of whale birthing apparatus. These two bones are a huge part of the “mountains of evidence” cited by evolutionauts for their fake science. These “legs”, along with chicken teeth, are two of my favorite “whale of a tale” fables that evolutionauts feed young impressionable students.

Amongst others you just did No6 again...

(6) You refer me to another site, book, or video, made by someone who you worship and who you think knows all of the answers. They don’t. And if you believe they are somehow super-intelligent and know all, far more than you do, you are indoctrinated. You have fallen, just like I did. If you think their stuff is so great, learn it and discuss the information with me yourself. I have read mountains of pro-evolution peer reviewed papers, pro-evolution books. I have viewed many pro-evolution shows on Discovery, PBS, and the Science Channel. I have viewed many of he “big” pro-evolution YouTube vids (CDK007, potholer54, on and on). Many of these items are reviewed, posted and playable, and reprinted on this blog. So please, don’t rely on the thinking of others. Don’t refer me to a Google “look up”, or a YouTube video, or a book or paper that requires no effort on your part. If you do you have caved in to your indoctrination.

[miner]

Unsure if that post was for me Lego Man ?,if it was have you read what I posted ?.



Could this be some light at the end of the tunnel garman ?.

I replied to your claims of evolution in the first place as obviously I don't think science and the fossil record back the theory up,but also I don't believe in god for much the same reason,as in science cant prove there is a god.

As you know I do think that life is too complex not to have been designed,who designed it ? I haven't got a clue but that doesn't automatically say that it wasn't designed just simply the designer is unknown.

You have asked for scientific proof which is what I have given you,and for want of a better word logic,as in if you think about it logically then what evolutionists want us to believe simply doesn't add up.

What puzzles me about people like yourself is have you actually stoped and thought for yourself ? about what the Dawkins etc are telling you and the way they twist science and the fossil record to back there theory,if so then how could you accept( for example) the story of a small wolf like animal evolving into a massive whale or whales as there are more than one type,and that's before you even look at the fossil record or science behind there claim.

So if you want a discussion as apposed to a schoolyard sh*t slinging match I would be interested as to why you believe and vigorously defend the whale evolution story ?,I have shown you the science and fossil record behind my thoughts on it as well as the simply stop and think for yourself wolf to whale you've got to be kidding.

I often wonder if people like yourself believe in evolution simply because for some reason you don't want the god lot to be right and as you have shown there appears to only be two choices for you lot, evolution or god,so to say evolution is wrong is saying god is right and there is no way you can do that,have you ever thought that there may be a third option ?.

[garman]

"What do you think of the scientific fact that the two bones in a whale that you guys claim are remnants of a wolf leg are actually part of the whale birthing apparatus ???." It is not a fact Miner and even if it was it does not disprove evolution one iota many evolutionists have made wrong judgments and you have to be very careful before you claim something to be a fact. What you are talking about is the subject of some debate and is far from resolved either way, you may be right or you may be wrong.

Nothing can be imagined more useless to the animal than rudiments of hind legs entirely buried beneath the skin of a whale, so that one is inclined to suspect that these structures must admit of some other interpretation. Yet, approaching the inquiry with the most skeptical determination, one cannot help being convinced, as the dissection goes on, that these rudiments [in the Right Whale] really are femur and tibia. The synovial capsule representing the knee-joint was too evident to be overlooked. An acetabular cartilage, synovial cavity, and head of femur, together represent the hip-joint. Attached to this femur is an apparatus of constant and strong ligaments, permitting and restraining movements in certain directions; and muscles are present, some passing to the femur from distant parts, some proceeding immediately from the pelvic bone to the femur, by which movements of the thigh-bone are performed; and these ligaments and muscles present abundant instances of exact and interesting adaptation.

[miner]

It is a fact actually garman and yes it would amongst other things disprove evolutionists poster boy example of whale evolution.

So from telling me whale evolution(as well as the acceptance of the whole theory of evolution) was a done deal with untold evidence to back it up and that there was no debate on the subject as 99% of all earth scientists believed in evolution you are now telling me it is...

"What you are talking about is the subject of some debate and is far from resolved either way, you may be right or you may be wrong."
So in other words they are telling big porkys garman as are you.

And your
Nothing can be imagined more useless to the animal than rudiments of hind legs entirely buried beneath the skin of a whale, so that one is inclined to suspect that these structures must admit of some other interpretation. Yet, approaching the inquiry with the most skeptical determination, one cannot help being convinced, as the dissection goes on, that these rudiments [in the Right Whale] really are femur and tibia. The synovial capsule representing the knee-joint was too evident to be overlooked. An acetabular cartilage, synovial cavity, and head of femur, together represent the hip-joint. Attached to this femur is an apparatus of constant and strong ligaments, permitting and restraining movements in certain directions; and muscles are present, some passing to the femur from distant parts, some proceeding immediately from the pelvic bone to the femur, by which movements of the thigh-bone are performed; and these ligaments and muscles present abundant instances of exact and interesting adaptation. other than the usual “perhaps”es even says that the bones are connected to the pelvic bone, some proceeding immediately from the pelvic bone,gee what a surprise as they are after all part of whale birthing apparatus.

Take another look at the bone photo garman it is a single piece of bone,there is no knee joint etc http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/HMPBK02.JPG .

What you believe and expect others to is .


(1) Uni-celled organism formed

(2) Uni-celled organism go multi, evolved into “marine organism of some type”

(3) “Marine organism of some type” evolved a spinal cord

(4) Fish with spinal cord evolved legs began crawling out of the water

(5) Eyes migrated from side of head to front of head, ears evolve, fur evolved, legs extended. Result: evolution forms wolf-like animal predator that weighs about 30 to 50 lbs. and who kills and eats other animals.

(6) Furred wolf -like creature goes back in water

(7) Legs shrink to tiny bones

(8) Fins evolve to aid whale-wolf swimming

(9) Two nostrils migrate to top of head, become single opening blowhole. Flap/door evolves over blowhole to keep water out.

(10) Ears that evolved previously gradually evolve away, become internal.

(11) Fur that previously evolved, evolves away.

(12) Eyes that originally migrated to the front migrate back to the side of the head from the front.

(13) Ex-wolf evolves in size from 30 to 50 lbs. to 200,000 lb., becomes blue whale, largest organism ever on earth (I know, and all other whales)

(14) Blue whale diet changes from killer/predator to filterer of krill and plankton


And you did your favourite No6 again

(6) You refer me to another site, book, or video, made by someone who you worship and who you think knows all of the answers. They don’t. And if you believe they are somehow super-intelligent and know all, far more than you do, you are indoctrinated. You have fallen, just like I did. If you think their stuff is so great, learn it and discuss the information with me yourself. I have read mountains of pro-evolution peer reviewed papers, pro-evolution books. I have viewed many pro-evolution shows on Discovery, PBS, and the Science Channel. I have viewed many of he “big” pro-evolution YouTube vids (CDK007, potholer54, on and on). Many of these items are reviewed, posted and playable, and reprinted on this blog. So please, don’t rely on the thinking of others. Don’t refer me to a Google “look up”, or a YouTube video, or a book or paper that requires no effort on your part. If you do you have caved in to your indoctrination.

[garman]

So what do you think of this scientific fact ?


I think Ed Babinski has some really good points and the fact that he endorses evolution is definatley in his favor, he can see the writing on the wall.
Mammals evolved and diversified all over the continents of Asia, Africa, even reaching North America via the land bridge that existed back then. But meanwile back in Australia that continent was breaking away from Asia, moving further and further away, isolated from the mainland. So Australia came to be filled with nothing but marsupials and just three monotreme species (monotremes are the earliest known forms of mammals), among them, the Platypus. Ed Babinski

I don't think you have the clues to work it out Miner ignoring the fact that evolution happens is just plain dumb.

[miner]

I think Ed Babinski has some really good points and the fact that he endorses evolution is definatley in his favor, he can see the writing on the wall.
Mammals evolved and diversified all over the continents of Asia, Africa, even reaching North America via the land bridge that existed back then. But meanwile back in Australia that continent was breaking away from Asia, moving further and further away, isolated from the mainland. So Australia came to be filled with nothing but marsupials and just three monotreme species (monotremes are the earliest known forms of mammals), among them, the Platypus. Ed Babinski

I don't think you have the clues to work it out Miner ignoring the fact that evolution happens is just plain dumb.



You make me laugh garman,so much for those bones being wolf legs ay,and what about the 99% of earth scientists that now I presume are debating and trying to resolve there differences?.

As I said ages ago what you believe in is the faith based religion of evolution.

Do you think people reading this are dumb garman ?,that they wont see that you just repeated one of your earlier posts with "I don't think you have the clues to work it out Miner ignoring the fact that evolution happens is just plain dumb. " added in (No5 on the list by the way) and that the scientific fact I was asking you about was en-fact as you well know "What do you think of the scientific fact that the two bones in a whale that you guys claim are remnants of a wolf leg are actually part of the whale birthing apparatus ???."So is being deceitful and lying the best you can do ?.

Trying to make it look like I was saying that your Ed Babinski post was scientific fact is getting very desperate.




I will say though you are very well indoctrinated,as you have covered them all so far,and more than one per post usually.

So far...
These are the indicators to me that you are indoctrinated:

(1) When the answers you give have nothing to do with the questions I ask and you have no idea. Here is a perfect example: Re: the evolution of vision: (This is an actual YouTube answer): (eyes)”couldn’t assemble itself”…moron…do you know how snowflakes form? what’s your try to explain snowflakes? “fairies did it”? ” This guy has no idea that there is no purpose to the design of snowflakes, and uses them as his answer anyway.

(2) When your answers are memorized dogma. Stuff that someone who taught you in school who doesn’t know, or a book you read written by a person who has no idea how nature came to be but nonetheless has fooled you into thinking they do. One great example is that I ask the question about how bio-systems, such as a hepatic system, which had to evolve in a single species, migrated from the original species to all of the other species that then and now have livers. I usually get this answer: “Traits” change and those changes are caused by mutations, and are passed from generation to generation. Additional changes occur, and eventually, through tiny steps over millions of years……..” The writers obviously have no idea about the difference between “traits” which are items such as eye color, height, weight, hair color, and “biological systems”, which includes items such as hepatic systems, vision, auditory systems, musculo-skeletel,….. The evo-responders are on auto pilot. They just spout the answer, because that is what they were taught. There is no thought as to whether the question is answered or not. Push the button, out comes the indoctrination. And this is common beyond my wildest expectations. Intelligent people who must know the difference between “traits” and “biological systems” write as if they don’t.

(3) I pose a question, and instead of answering you choose to demean my education, which is extensive, my knowledge about evolution, which is also extensive, (remember, I was an evolutionaut, and an enthusiastic one at that) my IQ, my upbringing….you say ANYTHING but answer the question posed.

(4) You play the religion card. Again, I am not religious. You bring up “the magic man in the sky”, “sky fairies”, “bronze age books and goat-herders”, anything to distract from the question you are showing you can’t answer.

(5) You call me dumb names. I have already been called everything you can think of and more. IDiot, ****wit, moron, retard, Creotard. Again, by doing this you are avoiding answering a question you can’t deal with. So this is the way you choose to distract from the question. It simply shows indoctrination.

(6) You refer me to another site, book, or video, made by someone who you worship and who you think knows all of the answers. They don’t. And if you believe they are somehow super-intelligent and know all, far more than you do, you are indoctrinated. You have fallen, just like I did. If you think their stuff is so great, learn it and discuss the information with me yourself. I have read mountains of pro-evolution peer reviewed papers, pro-evolution books. I have viewed many pro-evolution shows on Discovery, PBS, and the Science Channel. I have viewed many of he “big” pro-evolution YouTube vids (CDK007, potholer54, on and on). Many of these items are reviewed, posted and playable, and reprinted on this blog. So please, don’t rely on the thinking of others. Don’t refer me to a Google “look up”, or a YouTube video, or a book or paper that requires no effort on your part. If you do you have caved in to your indoctrination.

(7) When an astounding but sound fact is posed to you that may not quite fit into evolution’s origin of species and nature, your response is to demean the fact and above all defend evolution instead of discussing the fact with interest, and a desire to really dig down and understand our beginnings.

And for your latest post...

(8) You think you are 100% right about this subject that no person who ever lived has the answers for. There are no 100%’s in the subject of the origin of nature and us.

Although to be fair you only got as high as 99.9% of scientists believe in evolution.

[garman]

The sharks skin is only one of it's features that make it a very efficient predator, yet the religion of evolution would have us believe that the shark is a random fluke rather than an amazing bit of design work. And your evidence that the shark was designed Miner is???????



Do you think people reading this are dumb garman ? No I don't Miner I believe that the vast majority of them accept evolution so just happen to agree with me, even the Catholic church's official line is that they accept evolution, and as you know yourself 99% of scientists endorse evolution. Expert scientists working in the field of germ warfare cannot ignore evolution, its just part of their work, they have to stay one step ahead of the situation in order to help humanity to survive, to ignore evolution Miner is just silly. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070305-evolution-germs.html

[miner]

So other than call me names again and tell me I'm dumb,be deceitful and lie about what I have written,change your story from evolution is a done deal with untold proof that 99.9% of scientists believe in to they are actually debating it and trying to resolve there differences.

I am silly also now I see.

I thought we were still discussing the fairy story you guys have made up about the wolf leg bones that are actually part of the whale birthing apparatus ?.

Or are we in agreement ? as you posted that as I did muscles are present some proceeding immediately from the pelvic bone,which as we both know is no surprise being that the bones are part of the whale birthing apparatus .

If you don't think the readers are dumb then why did you try and trick them by lying to them about what I posted ?.

Hang on one minute 99% of scientists agree the next they are What you are talking about is the subject of some debate and is far from resolved either way, you may be right or you may be wrong.So again do you think the readers are dumb ?

You just nailed No5 and 6 on the indoctrinated list easy with your last post your getting better.

You have nailed No16 also
(16) When you respond to a challenge by saying, “You don’t understand evolution.” I find it astounding when evolutionauts use this as a defense mechanism against me when I was an evolutionaut for many years, and odds are my education (beyond a BS degree) and post education studies have gone far far beyond those of 90% of evolutionauts. The basis for evolution is the simplest of ALL “sciences”, one a 3rd grader could understand. Gradual selected genetic changes over time that brought about ALL of the species and bio-systems of nature. That’s it. And the “you don’t understand” response is trite, typical, not informative, and a cop out.


Great another article full of “perhaps”es,so in other words they DON'T KNOW



Evolution Getting Faster Thanks to Germs, Viruses, Study Says
Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News

March 5, 2007
Viruses and bacteria have sped up the process of evolution by rapidly transferring DNA from one species to another, a new study suggests.
Gene-mapping projects over the past decade have already shown that genes can move between species via tiny microorganisms.



Now a team of scientists at Texas' Rice University believes that microbes are accelerating evolution by constantly transporting whole chunks of DNA that may represent new and beneficial functions—like resistance to disease.

This process—called horizontal gene transfer (HGT)—may allow life-forms to evolve more quickly than they would by occasional, random mutations alone, the scientists say.

"We know that the majority of the DNA in the genomes of some animal and plant species—including humans, mice, wheat and corn—came from HGT insertions," said Michael Deem, a genetic engineer at Rice, in a press statement.

"For example, we can trace the development of the adaptive immune system in humans and other jointed vertebrates to an HGT insertion about 400 million years ago."

"Once [viruses and bacteria] find a useful protein or gene, it can be transmitted to more complex species by [this process]," Deem told National Geographic News.

"I think this is the main mechanism by which dramatically new function evolves."
Evolution in Overdrive?

Evolution, as most scientists understand the process, has been getting faster and more complex over time.

Fossil records indicate that single-celled organisms appeared on Earth some 3.5 billion years ago. It took a further 2.5 billion years for the first multicellular life-forms to evolve.

But over the next billion years, those first multi-cellular organisms evolved into the staggering diversity of plant and animal life found on modern Earth.

[garman]

I am silly also now I see.Agreed




Evolution, as most scientists understand the process, has been getting faster and more complex over time.

Fossil records indicate that single-celled organisms appeared on Earth some 3.5 billion years ago. It took a further 2.5 billion years for the first multicellular life-forms to evolve.

But over the next billion years, those first multi-cellular organisms evolved into the staggering diversity of plant and animal life found on modern Earth. Can't argue with that Miner well said.

[miner]

Can you hold your breath longer than me also garman,silly me I wouldn't stand a chance.

That would be according to them most rather than 99.9% understand the process,pity the process is fatally flawed though ay garman because as they say the fossil record only indicates that single-celled organisms appeared on Earth some 3.5 billion years ago.
In other words they haven't got a clue when or how life started on earth,but that's never stoped them from coming up with a good story about what they think could have happened.

So as you are back at
(5) You call me dumb names. I have already been called everything you can think of and more. IDiot, ****wit, moron, retard, Creotard. Again, by doing this you are avoiding answering a question you can’t deal with. So this is the way you choose to distract from the question. It simply shows indoctrination.

I take it you have given up on trying to prove the fantasy whale wolf story ?.

So much for your intelligent prove it with science conversation.

A bit of real science for you to read.

Fascinating DNA
DNA is remarkable beyond imagination. To give you an idea of how amazing this genetically coded molecule is, let’s put into perspective the size of the cells that house our genetic code. Our cells are so small that 10,000 cells would fit on the head of a pin. DNA is coiled and encapsulated inside the nucleus of each cell. DNA is made up of a “coiled ladder” type of molecule. The ladder rungs are composed of four different organic bases, two on each rung: adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine. Adenine always links to thymine, cytocine to guanine, and these links are called “base pairs”. The code is written AT, GC by biologists. Human DNA is composed of over three billion base pairs. The order of these links acts like a digital code that are the blueprint for cells to construct proteins which are the building blocks of life.

When the bases have certain types of sugars and phosphates added, they then are molecules called nucleotides, which are the building blocks of the coiled side rails of the “ladder”. Each nucleotide side rail has it’s molecules in opposite order from the opposing side rail, making the molecules “anti-parallel”, which of course requires an incredible feat of assembly.

To give you an idea of how long and thin our DNA is, five million strings of DNA would fit inside the eye of a sewing needle. If the DNA from one cell was unraveled, it would be six feet long. If DNA were 2″ wide, the molecule would be over ten miles long! If DNA were movie film, and each individual “picture” represented a single rung, and twenty-four rungs went by the lens per second, it would take 1447 days, almost four years, to watch the entire film.

The idea that this kind of molecule could self assemble on the early earth sea floor, with the enormous tides, as the moon was 25,000 to 50,000 miles away, with the huge currents, with the seas being boiling hot, is just moronic at best. But this idea is pushed by evolution/abiogenesis scientists as “real science”. DNA is such a good example of why I say there is a lot more to the story than we humans can possibly understand.

[Poet]

Hi All,

Been hanging around the site for quite a while, thought I’d try a post so here goes…

Hi Miner,

An interesting point of view but I’m having some difficulty following some of your reasoning. I definitely get that you don’t believe evolution is the right answer to the observed bio-diversity and you seem to be suggesting that someone/something designed the various forms of life although not God if I understand you correctly.

A couple of questions for you

Lets assume that the fossil record that we currently have is more or less complete as opposed to the standard evolutionists argument that it is far from complete. [If I understand your previous posts correctly then I think that you are arguing for completeness of the fossil record].

If we look at the existing fossil record of say Homo Sapiens. Then we can conclude that this species has existed in more or less its current form for say 300,000 years give or take. We know this because it isn’t found in its current form in the fossil record prior to this .

Given the above two assumptions and further assuming that life is designed then do you draw the conclusion that the designer delivered a few complete examples of Homo Sapiens onto the earth 300k years ago and left them to get on with breeding.

Do you think that this process happened for every one of the existing separate species on earth.

[miner]

Hi poet

I don't know how things got here ,but science and the fossil record show species and plants appear suddenly and complete,as in they haven't changed.

So the fossil record is actually telling an open minded person that life didn't evolve as one may have thought 150 years ago,but that wont stop some people spending there life trying to prove the theory correct.

Therefore using the fossil record you would conclude that different forms of life be that animal or plant,look to have appeared in a complete form.

Darwin had noted this back in 1879

National Geographic 11/06: “And yet, as he (Darwin) wrote to a friend in 1879, flowers were for him an “abonimable mystery”. Darwin was referring to the sudden, unheralded emergence of flowers in the fossil record. Making the mystery all the more abonimable was the exquisite complexity of flowers.”

[Poet]

Hi poet

I don't know how things got here ,but science and the fossil record show species and plants appear suddenly and complete,as in they haven't changed.

So the fossil record is actually telling an open minded person that life didn't evolve as one may have thought 150 years ago,but that wont stop some people spending there life trying to prove the theory correct.

Therefore using the fossil record you would conclude that different forms of life be that animal or plant,look to have appeared in a complete form.

Darwin had noted this back in 1879

National Geographic 11/06: “And yet, as he (Darwin) wrote to a friend in 1879, flowers were for him an “abonimable mystery”. Darwin was referring to the sudden, unheralded emergence of flowers in the fossil record. Making the mystery all the more abonimable was the exquisite complexity of flowers.”

Yes thanks for the reply. I can see that you say that you don't know how things got here, who of us does?

What I really want to know is how your argument hangs together logically.

You seem to say (or agree with my assertion above at least) that Homo Sapiens was designed, by persons unknown, and popped onto the earth fully formed some time around 300k years ago. The reasoning for this is that there is no fossil record of homo sapiens in its current form prior to this. Please tell me if I've misunderstood and this isn't actually what you are saying.

The difficulty that I have with this is that I am almost sure that somewhere in, say, the Amazon Jungle, say yesterday, someone discovered a new species, previously unknown to man and for which no fossil record exists. Should we, according to your theory, assume that that species was designed quite recently and dropped there (maybe as late as the day before yesterday) by the designer?

[miner]

There are fossil records for lots of things,the problem for evolutionists is that the fossil records don't show through a series of intermediate fossils any evidence of evolution,they actually show as I have said things appear in the fossil record suddenly and complete,the opposite to evolution.

As for the Amazon jungle or anywhere else for that matter new species are found,deep sea is where a few pop up.

As for dropped there yesterday,depending on what it is,say an insect (likely for the amazon) then if you look at the fossil record insects appeared at a certain time in the fossil record so it would be logical to assume that the new one that has been found originated at the same time as the rest and simply no one had found it up until now,you know deep jungle etc.

So Poet you believe in,evolution,god,or a third option ?.

[Poet]

There are fossil records for lots of things,the problem for evolutionists is that the fossil records don't show through a series of intermediate fossils any evidence of evolution,they actually show as I have said things appear in the fossil record suddenly and complete,the opposite to evolution.

As for the Amazon jungle or anywhere else for that matter new species are found,deep sea is where a few pop up.

As for dropped there yesterday,depending on what it is,say an insect (likely for the amazon) then if you look at the fossil record insects appeared at a certain time in the fossil record so it would be logical to assume that the new one that has been found originated at the same time as the rest and simply no one had found it up until now,you know deep jungle etc.

So Poet you believe in,evolution,god,or a third option ?.


Thanks for asking, however since you don't know me from Adam (as a figure of speech only) I'm not sure that my beliefs are germane to the discussion.

I'd rather fall back to what you originally asked for - a science based argument. So, if it's alright with you I'd like to stick with logic and consistency.

You are proposing a theory that (if I've got it right) says that unless someone can provide fossil evidence of an organism before a cerain date then that organism never existed before that date. To me this if a perfectly reasonable theory to propose. The scientific method certainly allows you to do this.

However you can't logically both propose the above theory and argue, as you have done above, that a new species discovered in the Amazon (or at the bottom of the sea for that matter) yesterday could have existed any longer than since the day before yesterday given that we don't have fossil evidence, or indeed any evidence, of its existence prior to its discovery yesterday. And to argue that its family is 'insect' and other insect fossils have been discovered really is getting back to evolution isn't it. After all Homo sapiens appeared after other mammals (but you don't agree a link there)

[garman]

Given the above two assumptions and further assuming that life is designed then do you draw the conclusion that the designer delivered a few complete examples of Homo Sapiens onto the earth 300k years ago and left them to get on with breeding.Going by Miners theory Homo Sapien was designed by who knows what, and possibly delivered to earth at exactly 6am on Monday the 1st of December 298000BC just in time to see the sun rise. An interesting theory to say the least.

[miner]

So your another evolutionist Poet,what a surprise,not so much a theory as a conclusion after reading the facts.

You are proposing a theory that (if I've got it right) says that unless someone can provide fossil evidence of an organism before a cerain date then that organism never existed before that date. To me this if a perfectly reasonable theory to propose. The scientific method certainly allows you to do this.
No I am not saying that,as you well know what I am saying is that the fossil record shows plants and animals appearing suddenly and then not changing,the Coelacanth fish hasn't changed at all for 410 million years for example.
Also there should be millions of transitional fossils if the theory of evolution was correct,there are none,eg the whale fantasy etc.

So as far as fossils go I have no theory I am simply looking at the scientific facts and concluding that due to the lack of any intermediate fossils and the sudden appearance of fossils in the record if nothing else it shows that the theory of evolution is fatally flawed as Darwin himself feared it may prove to be.

[miner]

Going by Miners theory Homo Sapien was designed by who knows what, and possibly delivered to earth at exactly 6am on Monday the 1st of December 298000BC just in time to see the sun rise. An interesting theory to say the least.

Before you have an accident garman.



Habilis, Erectus, Ardi, and Other Hominids


WASHINGTON — Surprising fossils dug up in Africa are creating messy kinks in the iconic straight line of human evolution with its knuckle-dragging ape and briefcase-carrying man. The new research by famed paleontologist Meave Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches. The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis (upper left) evolved into Homo erectus (above center), which then became us, Homo sapiens.
But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years, Leakey and colleagues report in a paper published in Thursday’s journal London. The two species lived near each other, but probably didn’t interact with each other, each having their own “ecological niche,” Spoor said.
Homo habilis was likely more vegetarian and Homo erectus ate some meat, he said. Like chimps and gorillas, “they’d just avoid each other, they
don’t feel comfortable in each other’s company,” he said. They have some still-undiscovered common ancestor that probably lived 2 million to 3 million years ago, a time that has not left much fossil record, Spoor said. Overall what it paints for human evolution is a “chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree rather than this heroic march that you see with the cartoons of an early ancestor evolving into some intermediate and eventually unto us,” Spoor said in a phone interview from a field office of the Koobi Fora Research Project in northern Kenya.



That old evolutionary cartoon, while popular with the general public, keeps getting proven wrong and too simple, said Bill Kimbel, who praised the latest findings.
He is science director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University and wasn’t involved in the research team.
“The more we know, the more complex the story gets,” he said. Scientists used to think H. sapiens evolved from Neanderthals, a closely related species, he said, but now know that both species lived during the same time period and that we did not come from Neanderthals. Now a similar discovery applies further back in time. Leakey’s team spent seven years analyzing the fossils before announcing their findings that it was time to redraw the family tree — and rethink other ideas about human evolutionary history, especially about our most immediate ancestor, H. erectus. Because the H. erectus skull Leakey recovered was much smaller than others, scientists had to first prove that it was erectus and not another species nor a genetic freak. The jaw, probably from an 18- or 19-year-old female, was adult and showed no signs of any type of malformations or genetic mutations, Spoor said. The scientists also know it isn’t H. habilis from several distinct features on the jaw. That caused researchers to re-examine the 30 other erectus skulls they have and the dozens of partial fossils. They realized that the females of that species are much smaller than the males — something different from modern man, but similar to other animals, said study co-author Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist. Scientists hadn’t looked carefully enough before to see that there was a distinct difference in males and females. Difference in size between males and females seem to be related to monogamy, the researchers said. Primate species that have same-sized males and females, such as gibbons, tend to be more monogamous. Species that are not monogamous, such as gorillas and baboons, have much bigger males.
This suggests that our ancestor H. erectus reproduced with multiple partners. The H. habilis jaw was dated at 1.44 million years ago. That is the youngest ever found from a species that scientists originally figured died off somewhere between 1.7 and 2 million years ago, Spoor said. It enabled scientists to say that H. erectus and H. habilis lived at the same time. All the changes to human evolutionary thought should not be considered a weakness in the theory of evolution, Kimbel said. Rather, those are the predictable results of getting more evidence, asking smarter questions and forming better theories, he said. (Now we’ve lost Neanderthal, Homo Habilis, and most of Australopithecus. Just keep hoping that the evidence fits the theory. Why not just say it may not or doesn’t!)

Ever since an influential Science paper by Wilson & King in 1975, reported that humans and chimpanzees are genetically 99% the same, evillusionists have been jumping for joy. But in the same journal that figure has now been described as an error. Human and chimpanzee gene copy numbers differ by a whopping 6.4%’, and researchers are finding that chunks of missing DNA, extra genes, different connections in gene networks and the very structure of chromosomes confound any quantification of “humanness” versus “chimpness”. In the case of the brain cortex, 17.4% of connections have been found to be specific to humans. In short, ‘there isn’t one single way to express the genetic distance between two complicated living organisms.’
Ardi: News clip summation: On Oct. 1st, 2009, paleontologists unveiled the fossil skeleton of Ardi, the newest missing link between humans and chimpanzees. Ardi, short for ardipithecus ramidus, was first discovered in 1992 on a barren region in the Awash River of Ethiopia. Approximately 4.4 million years old, Ardi predates Lucy, the famous hominid found in 1974 and previously thought to have been the oldest ancestor to humans, by over 1.2 million years. Dr. Tim D. White of UC-Berkeley, who led a team of international scientists in the discovery of Ardi, told The New York Times that Ardi is very crucial to understanding human evolution and that she will shed light on “the initial stage of [human] evolutionary adaptation.”

A few commenst on Ardi:

She is just assumed to be a precursor to man, without the slightest bit of discussion that maybe she isn’t. It is simply a given that any ape-like creature found from many years ago evolved into (or branched into) man. A rather HUGE assumption.

Her feet are made to both walk upright, and grasp. She has a long skewed big “toe” that looks more like a grasping thumb. She also had a narrowed pelvis, which is better for upright walking. Her cuspid teeth are short; not long like modern day chimps. The upright walking and short teeth are tied together as some sort of common evolutionary goal. As if upright walking and short teeth go together. Why this is assumed, I have no idea.

Her hands and wrists make her a non-knuckle walker,

Ardi is actually a real killer for Darwinian evolution. According to Darwin, short cuspids evolved because we gained the knowledge to make tools. Long cuspids were then not needed for predation and defense. But 4.4 million year old Ardi had short cuspids like ours. Primate apes of today have long ones. The shape and swing of Ardi’s wrists and knuckles mean Ardi was not a “knuckle walker”; apes of today are. So it is assumed Ardi walked upright. Apes of today have long limbs and “wrap around” fingers, which are good for grasping tree branches. Not Ardi. This means human hands, limbs, fingers, wrists, knuckles, and cuspids are actually more primitive than modern corresponding ape parts. Can we conclude that apes evolved from modern man, since our body parts are more primitive than those of apes? What other conclusion can be drawn? Another major chink in the Darwinian model. But science, of course, won’t recognize that fact. We are sure to get more stories about how this major conundrum is really good evidence for Darwin’s theory. Evolution scientists say Darwin would have been happy to know that Ardi was found. I think he would have been pretty depressed. This will be fun to watch.

The big question here is why did man evolve upright walking? Quadrupeds are faster at running than man by a factor of four or five. Imagine if we evolved as quadrupeds, and we were able to run fifty miles an hour, instead of the twelve miles an hour we are capable of running now. Wouldn’t we be much better at catching prey? At avoiding predators? A show on the Discovery channel (“Ardi”, October 11, 2009) discusses this conundrum. And their answer? Upright walking hominids could carry MORE FOOD! Yes, that is why we evolved a far slower mode of transportation: so we could carry the groceries. The males that carried more groceries were favored by the females. So sexual selection stepped in, the women picked the men that carried the most groceries, and voila: upright walking evolved. Ladies and gentlemen, this is science at its BEST! Is it scientific to assume that carrying more food would entirely change the skeletel design, genetic code, and brain function of a species? Of course! This is evolution.

[garman]

due to the lack of any intermediate fossils and the sudden appearance of fossils in the record if nothing else it shows that the theory of evolution is fatally flawed Miner I am trying to be constructive here, could you have a look at these fossils and tell me what they are? if not transitional towards the modern form of species we know of today. [the link] http://s1188.photobucket.com/albums/z410/garmam/?action=view&current=Onthewaytohuman.jpg

[miner]

If all else fails garman try reading my last post,they are different species,so not transitional.

[garman]

If all else fails garman try reading my last post,they are different species,so not transitional.So if I could produce a transitional fossil that looks exactly the same as what it changes into and if I also called it by the same name say homo sapian would that convince you.

[miner]

How can two fossils that look exactly the same be transitional ?.

Did you read my post ?,not to mention evolution fell over at the whale fantasy story.

Ardi is actually a real killer for Darwinian evolution. According to Darwin, short cuspids evolved because we gained the knowledge to make tools. Long cuspids were then not needed for predation and defense. But 4.4 million year old Ardi had short cuspids like ours. Primate apes of today have long ones. The shape and swing of Ardi’s wrists and knuckles mean Ardi was not a “knuckle walker”; apes of today are. So it is assumed Ardi walked upright. Apes of today have long limbs and “wrap around” fingers, which are good for grasping tree branches. Not Ardi. This means human hands, limbs, fingers, wrists, knuckles, and cuspids are actually more primitive than modern corresponding ape parts. Can we conclude that apes evolved from modern man, since our body parts are more primitive than those of apes? What other conclusion can be drawn? Another major chink in the Darwinian model. But science, of course, won’t recognize that fact. We are sure to get more stories about how this major conundrum is really good evidence for Darwin’s theory. Evolution scientists say Darwin would have been happy to know that Ardi was found. I think he would have been pretty depressed. This will be fun to watch.

The big question here is why did man evolve upright walking? Quadrupeds are faster at running than man by a factor of four or five. Imagine if we evolved as quadrupeds, and we were able to run fifty miles an hour, instead of the twelve miles an hour we are capable of running now. Wouldn’t we be much better at catching prey? At avoiding predators? A show on the Discovery channel (“Ardi”, October 11, 2009) discusses this conundrum. And their answer? Upright walking hominids could carry MORE FOOD! Yes, that is why we evolved a far slower mode of transportation: so we could carry the groceries. The males that carried more groceries were favored by the females. So sexual selection stepped in, the women picked the men that carried the most groceries, and voila: upright walking evolved. Ladies and gentlemen, this is science at its BEST! Is it scientific to assume that carrying more food would entirely change the skeletel design, genetic code, and brain function of a species? Of course! This is evolution.

[Poet]

So as far as fossils go I have no theory I am simply looking at the scientific facts and concluding that due to the lack of any intermediate fossils and the sudden appearance of fossils in the record if nothing else it shows that the theory of evolution is fatally flawed as Darwin himself feared it may prove to be.

I hadn't meant to comment at all on the theory of evolution I was more wanting to discuss your ideas and follow what might result from following them to their logical conclusions. Sort of a thought experiment along the lines of "OK, if the world works this way, what consequences logically flow from that and what results might we expect to see"

You say your ideas don't amount to a theory and maybe there is a better word to describe it, maybe a "world view" or some such.

You are saying that if something doesn't exist in the fossil record it never existed. For example, above, you say that if there aren't any intermediate fossils then the intermediate stage never existed and therefore evolution is fatally flawed.

If we follow this line of reasoning then the fact that there aren't Homo Sapien fossils before 300K years ago means (according to your world view/theory) that Homo Sapiens appeared on earth fully formed 300K years ago.

My earlier question was, do you also think that species are still coming into existence every day fully formed because they are being found fully formed every day with no accompanying fossil record? or is there something special about the processses that were happening in the distant past that made that a more favourable time for species to suddenly appear.

And if species are appearing fully formed, why hasn't anyone seen this happening. Or do they just happen to be appearing at the bottom of oceans and in the amazon jungle. and why not in Aotea Square

[miner]

The fossil record shows when species such as insects suddenly appeared,in other words they all turned up,since then some have become extinct,as we have fossils but no living insects.

So you could say according to the fossil record we got our insect stock along time ago.

According to a noted science journal: “Apart from some tantalizing Devonian fragments, insects first appear suddenly in the fossil record at the very beginning of the Late Carboniferous period, and Early Bashkirian age, about 350 million years ago. Insect species were already diverse and highly specialized by this time, with fossil evidence reflecting the presence of more than half a dozen different orders. Thus, the first insects probably emerged earlier in the Carboniferous period, or even in the preceding Devonian. Some have even suggested they originated from a terrestrial ancestor not later than in the Late Silurian or the Earliest Devonian. Research to discover these earliest insect ancestors in the fossil record continues.”

You are saying that if something doesn't exist in the fossil record it never existed. For example, above, you say that if there aren't any intermediate fossils then the intermediate stage never existed and therefore evolution is fatally flawed.
What I am saying is that there have been hundreds of millions of fossils found and yet no intermediate fossil,and if species did evolve there should be millions of fossils showing intermediate stages,and thousands or at least hundreds for each species(eye evolution alone would have numerous skulls showing the eye socket forming,there are none),that is not to say a few new fossils of a "New Species" will not be found,wait for it .....

Darwin’s own words:“The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.” (Darwin, Charles, Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1902 p. 341-342)
Not sure what you are trying to get me to say as all I can do is make a conclusion as to what has happened looking at the science at hand.

Or I may just be garmand out and thinking any minute now here we go again,and can I be bothered or have I got the energy ?.

People go on about scientific proof I give it (whale story etc) but that doesn't fit there theory of evolution so away we go again with the indoctrination list type stuff,is there an end in sight ?.