Evidence FOR the Creation Theory

[Ceridwen018]

shoes as shelter?

Unless you enjoy walking on rocks with bare feet, I should say so.

why weren't all species killed when the dinosaurs were?

For the same reason that the average size of animals today is much smaller than it was back then. Whatever happened to the dinosaurs, their great size, (and therefore great food and sunlight requirements, etc.), were perhaps more than what the earth was able to support.

If mankind has existed for millions of years, one might ask where the remains are of our ancestors?

No problem here. The earliest human skull on record is dated at about 160,000 years. A bit shy of a million, wouldn't you say?

As for your question, in the ground and/or in museums.

After twenty five thousand generations, calculations show that there would today be more people than could fit on the earth, and more than could fit in the solar system..

Luckily, human bodies are made of organic materials, and so we decompose and become 'one' with the earth, so to speak.

The fact that the earth is not crowded implies that the human race is relatively young.

Why do you need me here when you can just disprove creationism all on your own?

The general archaeological consensus is that the middle east was indeed the cradle of the first civilisation.

Actually, the first humans were found on the African continent. You were close.

In this cradle, originating from a primitive settlement near Mount Arrarat, quickly flowered on the plains of Messopotania the great prehistoric civilisation of Someria - an extremely advanced culture from nowhere?From this civilisation sprung great cities and cultures such as the Egyptian Empire, and, of course, a remarkably advanced technology, language and culture, immediately appearing from nowhere?

In a word? 'No', they did not come from 'nowhere'. Any more than modern knowledge of computers came from 'nowhere' anyhow.

Similarly, their method of communication and education are extremely primitive, may we categorize this as deevolution?

'Evolution' and 'advancement' are not synonymous. Again, the answer is 'no'.

The magnetic field of our planet is decaying at a steady exponential rate. It has been carefully measured over approximately one and a half centuries.

Could you cite this information please?

This propaganda can be challenged on several accounts(i should assume you know them).

Enlighten me.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Draw your own conclusions from this...

All of those journals you cited are 20 years old or more. Science is incredibly fast-paced--that's not going to cut it.

Lisa63,

the arguement about bipedalism is sound, if a combination of biped and quad is a better trait than strict biped then explain why evolution would select the lesser? having the combination with intelligence would have been an even more protected and suvivable existence then the rules of evolution should have selected it otherwise we should see other creatures also maladapted to the environment. a logical arguement based on observation.

Evolution causes an organism to adapt as needed. It does NOT specifically cause an organism to improve. Often times, an organism will improve through it's adaptation, but this is not necessary.

Some animals are bipedal, because they do not need to be quadrupedal, even if the latter could be considered more advantageous.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

use your conciousness?

My conciousness? I'm going to assume that you mean consciousness, because conscience doesn't seem to fit. Whatever you do, force me to guess what it is you are trying to say - don't bother to take the time to look up the correct word, or, God forbid, spell it correctly after you find it. I'm trying to figure out what the heck that means - use my consciousness? I give - what did you mean by that?

and we 'just happen' to be the best predator huh?
i'm sorry, were you not under the impression that 'my religious agenda' includes us being created as the superior species?i didn't ask to exclude man from my question for a religious reason, it was for a purely observational one.the wars, even battles we wage, are not seriously comparable to that of other species due to our technology.

Stay with me, HelpMe - cause it's going to get real tough to follow this:
Mankind is the most evolved of all animals, not because God chose to make him so, but because mankind developed bipedalism, which led to opposable thumbs, and a greater cranial capacity (among other things). This enhanced cranial capacity, and the development of language, have led us to the technology that you would dismiss as "God given" and off limits to this discussion, thus, invalidating the very apex of the argument for evolution. Nice trick. Of course, if you wanted to make the claim that evolution is some crackpot theory (which you are hellbent on doing), it would certainly help your argument if you make the claim that "God made man dominant during Intelligent Design". The perfect argument, really, since that puts it out of the realm of being questioned, tested, or proven by science. Unfortunately for you, it has the same circular logic that you base every other post on.
If I didn't know any better, I'd almost swear that you are intentionally "not getting it". It has been said on this site before, that Creationists don't even bother to cherry-pick the science that they quote, rather, they don't even bother to read the science in the first place. You are beginning to make a believer out of me.

TVOR

 

[LISA63]

Bipedalism is also not preferred over quadrupeds, ... That is simply false.

prove it

 

[The Voice of Reason]

C-14
A freshly killed seal dated by C14 showed it had died 1300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal, vol. 6, [September-October 1971], p. 211.)
Living mollusk shells were dated at up to 2,300 years old. (Science, vol. 141, 1963, pp. 634-637.)
Living snails' shells showed they had died 27,000 years ago. (Science, vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61.)
The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious ... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted." (Lee, R. E., Radiocarbon, "Ages in Error", Anthropological Journal of Canada, 1981, vol. 19, No. 3, p. 9)
Draw your own conclusions from this...

Do you even bother to read about a subject prior to posting someone else's work? Carbon-14 dating is not accurate on anything that has been dead for less than a week to ten days - because the carbon that is inherent in carbon based lifeforms has not dissapated enough until that time lapse. Notice that all three of the instances cited in the article are of "Freshly Killed, Living, and Living" matter? When carbon-14 dating was first developed, this was not known about it. The article you cite was written in 1981 - you might bother to check, if you cared about accuracy, to see if anything a little newer than 23 year old articles have been written.

For goodness sake, you appear to be intent on invalidating your own argument. PLEASE - try to read something and understand it prior to using it. Better yet - try to learn some facts about what you speak of.

Holy Cow,
TVOR

 

[HelpMe]

humans are so bright.everything else is so stupid...especially their natural selection processes.

so you do not believe that we, or other species of today lived with the dinosaurs?

you didn't propose an end for them, just a childish theory that the earth could not handle that which you assume it produced.

i suppose you would not like to adress my comments regarding dating in the same motion would you?

The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious ... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted." (Lee, R. E., Radiocarbon, "Ages in Error", Anthropological Journal of Canada, 1981, vol. 19, No. 3, p. 9)

i suppose you would not like to adress the fact that humans according to the same dating process have been dated much older?How many of your ancestors are in museums?how many of them existed?how come more didn't make it into our museums?were the supposedly prehistoric fossils remaining not as organic?

The fact that the earth is not crowded implies that the human race is relatively young

Why do you need me here when you can just disprove creationism all on your own?

you appear to be suggesting an overcrowded earth?...ahem, pardon me.
ok ok im back, where was your reasoning on that?

Actually, the first humans were found on the African continent. You were close.

thanks for not responding to the text following that(a mere introduction) which you actually responded to.

Any more than modern knowledge of computers came from 'nowhere' anyhow[/QUOTE]
are you saying recent knowledge concerning the computers we're on is comparable to the abacus?

may we categorize this as deevolution?

'Evolution' and 'advancement' are not synonymous.Again, the answer is 'no'.

well natural selection sounded bad anywho.how can you make the first statement, and the second statement?they are contradictory.

The magnetic field of our planet is decaying at a steady exponential rate

Could you cite this information please?

i might as well not, since i know of the supposed refutals you would cite.

Enlighten me.

1-The Earth's atmosphere almost certainly(as anything can only be called almost certain), at any time, never in any way resembled Millers mixture.
2-Even presuming an atmosphere like Millers, without free oxygen, if any amino acid had been formed on Earth it would have been immediately destroyed by cosmic rays. Without oxygen there would have been no protection from the deadly rays.
3-Finally, a most intriguing rebuttal. Amino acid molecules can either be left handed or right handed. The second law of thermodynamics requires an equal ratio of right handed and left handed molecules. Miller's amino acids were a law-abiding lot; a mixture of left and right handed molecules. But here is the catch - Life breaks the law. In living cells the amino acids are all left handed and left handed only. Never a right-handed molecule! If you ate a right hander the body would reject it. The living cell breaks the unbreakable natural law.

Life must then go beyond the natural law. This point is doubly proved by death. At death the natural law takes over. The amino molecules start to rearrange themselves until they get an equal ratio of right and left handed molecules, in the cell from which life has departed. Suppose we say that Miller's experiment showed that amino acids are easy enough to make. We should also say that they are only the humble building blocks, for making a complete complex molecule - a protein. Then we should go on to say, what are the mathematical odds against one protein molecule forming by chance?

If we could imagine unlimited material shaking itself together over vast time, so that the material fully interacted. The odds against one protein molecule forming would be one to the one hundred and sixtieth power to one against.

(100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000)
That simply means no chance at all.

In fact, to meet those unimaginable odds, there would not be enough material in the whole universe to shake together. You would need more universes, and not just three or four more, but sextillion universes to provide the material.

The time required to shake the material together on our planet, would be, in years, ten to the one hundred and forty third power. (1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000 years).

The mind simply cannot conceive that sort of time. But supposing one lucky protein did beat the infinite odds, and did assemble itself. It would be nothing more than an organic molecule. After using up all that luck, we would have one lonely protein, one organic molecule. Life would still be a long way off.

Other protein things would have to drop out of the mixture and join this lonely protein. Things like ribosomes and enzymes, to name a few, and even some DNA. And, of course, a membrane would have to drop out and envelop the lot to make one cell. Now that is a lot of assembling and dropping out. I don't believe this could happen by blind chance, and I don't think you do either. I might mention furthermore that something would even yet be missing - an energy system. Our supposed first cell is without an energy mechanism, to collect sunshine and turn it into chemical energy. That would mean a specialized cell inside the first cell. A specialized cell to do the special business of photosynthesis. Something so complex that it still remains a mystery to science.

For your reassurance let me summarise progress. Science with its genius and equipment has not made one speck of life in the laboratory. It's put together some organic molecules and even two small proteins. That is not life. In 1970, a doctor Kourana built a gene. He began with complex compounds and he copied a gene from a yeast cell. A most tremendous achievement, but it is not life.
In that same year, 1970, one of the most eminent men in science, Sir Ernst Chain*, fellow of the Royal Society, (who, for his work on penicillin* had received the Nobel prize jointly with Fleming), said, "the laboratory synthesis of even the simplest cell is just not on, and the notion that man is about to compete with God is absurd, and not to be taken seriously."

*whom, according to evolution backing peoples on this board is 'not looking at evidence' or being a 'lunatic'.

on the dating

In almost every major continent there are examples of older rocks (using radioactive dating) resting on top of younger rocks.

The clearest example is to be found at the Matterhorn mountains. In this mountain the fossils are in the wrong sequence. Therefore, by evolution geology, the mountain is old and the rocks the mountain rests on are young. How can this possibly be explained?

Another example is the most famous peak in the alps - the Mythen Peak. This is supposed to have been thrust all the way from Africa into Switzerland.
There are numerous examples like the aforementioned examples. The Lewis "overthrust" of Montana in America follows the same peculiar reasoning. Going by the fossils, this tremendous mountain system is upside down. Pre- Cambrian rocks are resting on top of Cretaceous rocks, supposedly five hundred million years younger. To justify this, Lyell's geology says that this mountain mass, five hundred miles long, thousands of feet high, weighing eight hundred thousand billion tons, and containing some of the most glorious scenery in the world, must have been uplifted in some other place then slid across country for at least thirty five to forty miles. Common sense says that this could not happen, the field evidence said that it never did happen and engineering principles say that it would not happen.

There is a certain beetle called the Bombardier Beetle. This beetle contains two chemical tanks in its body. When the beetle is attacked by a predator, the two different chemicals in the tanks are sprayed out from the beetle. They combine in the air and create a hot chemical explosion in the face of the predator. According to evolution, when the very first mutation appeared and the chemical tanks were just starting to form but were not yet functional, they would not provide any survival benefit to the beetle. It would take many thousands of mutations over many millions of years to produce the end mechanism. But since mutations are not beneficial and random they could never follow a pattern to produce the end result, especially since the mechanism would not provide any survival advantage until it was fully developed.

k thx for adressing the evidence.

 

[LISA63]

The fact that mankind has no "fur covering" is evidence for creationism? Is this it? Is this what they are teaching you in college, or did you come up with this on your own? It is this type of Pseudo-Science that is quoted by the gullible people that are so adamant on proving that their religious views are correct. You are doing those people an injustice, Lisa, when you feed them this tripe. Woof!

TVOR

the bible talks about how we were created different from the rest of creation right?
evolution believes we all came from one ancestor right?

so my arguement is logical if we are just an another mutation like every other creture then logic would warrant that we would have every advantage the rest of creation shares.
attacking my professors or me seems to be an unwarranted act on your part its too bad there isnt someone that would deal with this type of malice here.

this thread asks a question and I see a logical line of evidence that supports it so if you have nothing of worth to contribute then don't reply, learning requires give and take, malice is take take take is this how you treat others in person? you must have a lonely existence.

 

[HelpMe]

All of those journals you cited are 20 years old or more. Science is incredibly fast-paced--that's not going to cut it.

yeah, since darwin and creationism is older than 20 yrs old, they are both invalid.

Inductive reasoning relies on Uniformity of Nature. This, in a nutshell, is the assumption that if something happens enough in the past (The pencil drops when I let go of it), it will continue to do the same thing in the future. So, how do you prove Uniformity of Nature?

Therefore, whenever a cause is proven to produce an effect in the past, it will continue to produce that effect in the future.

You guessed it--that is inductive reasoning. But inductive reasoning relies on the Uniformity of Nature, which relies on inductive reasoning. Thus, the very concept of inductive reasoning is circular logic.

This makes a hopeless problem—we use inductive reasoning for almost everything. If you let that logical fallacy not use inductive reasoning, you might stop assuming that the ground will support your weight, or that not jumping in front of moving trucks is a good way to stay alive. You couldn't trust any of your senses, because just because they were right before doesn't mean they will be right now.

why do evolutionists claim creationists wrong100% of the time? to the point of namecalling?

My conciousness? I'm going to assume that you mean consciousness, because conscience doesn't seem to fit. Whatever you do, force me to guess what it is you are trying to say - don't bother to take the time to look up the correct word, or, God forbid, spell it correctly after you find it. I'm trying to figure out what the heck that means - use my consciousness? I give - what did you mean by that?

all this s**t over one letter?grow up?would you like me to find a single error in your typing and complain over it like this?wouldn't this forum be a heavenly place then?thanks to people like you i could imagine the harps an all.at times you seem so close to being a decent person, then you hark to the point of insult(and possibly tears on your end?) over a grammatical error?
consciousness.
why are we the only ones with it?of course you will go into natural instinct and compare it favorably to conform to your (instert stereotype) agenda to our consciousness, please don't be foolish.

if i've made one spelling error, please disregard my whole post.but if not, provide me with evidence of an ancestor of ours not having opposable thumbs.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... I have enjoyed the company of several highly intelligent and experienced professors

I have to ask - for the third time - just what esteemed place of higher education you are attending?

and they have no idea about any safe haven that could have existed for any period of earths history.

Spend a lot of time socializing with the Junior class at MIT now, do they? Or is it Bob Jones University? Don't tell me that you are close personal friends with all of your proffesors - and that each has shared all of their ideas on human habitats throughout history with you - I might doubt that such conversations are taking place.

...simply explain how every other creature in existence (observable by science) got to hit the genetic lottery by having correct evolution and we did not, do we not have the same ancestor? then we had the same genetics that have covered them correctly.

Let me understand this - are you arguing that because other animals have bodies that fit their environment so well - evolution is wrong? That is exactly what evolution does - the animals that have the correct adaptations survive, those that don't, perish. Novel idea, even for a third year phenom that dines with greatness!

children can be warmed by thier parents untill the parents die then they do what? warm themselves by the fire they don't have? did he learn from those parents how to fashion coverings that the parents never would have needed to learn to make?

This ability that mammals have evolved (as opposed to egglaying reptiles) is one of those unique evolutionary advantages! Keep going, I can't top your ability to refute your own biases.

...otherwise we should see other creatures also maladapted to the environment. a logical arguement based on observation.

No - maladapted creatures tend to perish - again, nice argument for the theory of evolution. Don't stop now - you're rolling.

my world view will be decided by the evidence that proves something

No - your view is decided by your ability to ignore what science teaches, and a strong committment to perpetuate ignorance based on the misapplication of what you do not understand, or refuse to accept.

if you don't have a good solid evidence backed answer then why answer at all?

Why indeed? Other than to prostelytize, I can't imagine why one would insist on continuing as you have.

TVOR

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... i might as well not, since i know of the supposed refutals you would cite.

Refutals? Refutals? What can I say? Refutals? Are you making this stuff up as you go? Refutals? Man, that isn't even a word. I guess that from now on, when I wish to bisfurcal something that you post, I'll just make up my own language to get my point across. Work on that for a while.

if i've made one spelling error, please disregard my whole post.

Somebody stop me. It would be easier to point out those rare occasions that you get your point across without my having to decipher and decrypt the message. You are forcing me to disbondulate myself to try to understand you.

TVOR

 

[Ceridwen018]

1-The Earth's atmosphere almost certainly(as anything can only be called almost certain), at any time, never in any way resembled Millers mixture.

It doesn't have to. Miller's mixture is not the only possible combination for producing amino acids, and other such building blocks of life.

2-Even presuming an atmosphere like Millers, without free oxygen, if any amino acid had been formed on Earth it would have been immediately destroyed by cosmic rays. Without oxygen there would have been no protection from the deadly rays.

Says who? These 'deadly rays', which I assume are rays of light from the sun, would only help to incubate and therefore speed along the process. Take note that adding heat and energy were two of the steps in Miller's experiment.

3-Finally, a most intriguing rebuttal. Amino acid molecules can either be left handed or right handed. The second law of thermodynamics requires an equal ratio of right handed and left handed molecules. Miller's amino acids were a law-abiding lot; a mixture of left and right handed molecules. But here is the catch - Life breaks the law. In living cells the amino acids are all left handed and left handed only. Never a right-handed molecule! If you ate a right hander the body would reject it. The living cell breaks the unbreakable natural law.

And your individual body's methods of using energy break the law of entropy. So what's your point? the laws of thermodynamics were not made to be applied to single molecules, but rather to the entire system.

The mind simply cannot conceive that sort of time. But supposing one lucky protein did beat the infinite odds, and did assemble itself. It would be nothing more than an organic molecule. After using up all that luck, we would have one lonely protein, one organic molecule. Life would still be a long way off.

If we were trying to prve the creation of proteins, maybe you'd be correct, but your reasoning is faulty here. This is a typical creationist argument: Simple Chemicals--> Proteins. However, the real process follows a little more along these lines: Simple Chemicals--> Polymers--> Replicating Polymers--> hypercycle--> protobiont--> and on and on. Actual proteins don't enter the scene until much later.

The 'chance' argument has been weighed, measured, and found wanting. I suggest you look for new ideas. For more on the folly of chance, check out this link: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html#Search

For your reassurance let me summarise progress. Science with its genius and equipment has not made one speck of life in the laboratory. It's put together some organic molecules and even two small proteins. That is not life. In 1970, a doctor Kourana built a gene. He began with complex compounds and he copied a gene from a yeast cell. A most tremendous achievement, but it is not life.
In that same year, 1970, one of the most eminent men in science, Sir Ernst Chain*, fellow of the Royal Society, (who, for his work on penicillin* had received the Nobel prize jointly with Fleming), said, "the laboratory synthesis of even the simplest cell is just not on, and the notion that man is about to compete with God is absurd, and not to be taken seriously."

I've already answered this elsewhere.

yeah, since darwin and creationism is older than 20 yrs old, they are both invalid.

*sigh* Honestly, HelpMe, The Darwinian theory has been redrafted numerous times over the years. Your magazines have not.

***NOTE***

We are getting a little rough here, guys. We're here to present science, not name call--so let's get down to it, shall we?

 

[HelpMe]

dear fount of knowledge and grammatical expertise

http://www.online-dictionary.biz/english/vocabulary/reference/Refutal.asp

did your larger cranium seriously have a problem with that word?made up as it were, i didn't know it was a word, but i figured that if a 5yr old could figured out my intent...that perhaps each member of this board(including you?) would display an equal amount of maturity in not flipping a lid.

The article you cite was written in 1981 - you might bother to check, if you cared about accuracy, to see if anything a little newer than 23 year old articles have been written.

No - your view is decided by your ability to ignore what science teaches

okok, i get it, wait 23 years and see how wrong science is now.k gotcha.stick around.

*sigh* Honestly, HelpMe, The Darwinian theory has been redrafted numerous times over the years. Your magazines have not.

...and it will continue to be redrafted numerous times to fit errors found(yet to be accepted/found errors) in it's current form.but until then, it is so riiight.

fox is a new thing?

 

[LISA63]

As we've stated in other threads, science has observed that life comes from life. As a scientist in training, you should know that observation does not warrant proof. It speaks for the great probability that all life comes from other life, however in light of recent discoveries, that theory is being called into question.

as I have learned by those deserving respect;
observation is the first evidence, postulation is based on observation, the professors here ingrain the attitude that we should experiment and when you find through repeatable experiments that you observe then you are finding truth. everything else they say is speculation and theory so what evidence do you have that would overrule the observable repeatable evidence? are you able to argue this subject with evidence or are you going to try and overwhelm me with your many words.

in reference you made about fox I believe he was disproven by his own peers years ago so if all your opinions concerning my post are based on such inferences then I will not bother to reply to the rest of your post, I have been dealing with all the current thoughts and science that is available so I am sure that I have a grasp on the important theories and experimentation that is happening .

 

[The Voice of Reason]

...so my arguement is logical if we are just an another mutation like every other creture then logic would warrant that we would have every advantage the rest of creation shares.

Your argument is anything but logical.
This statement shows your distinct lack of understanding about evolution - it does not state that an animal retains every mutation that came before it - not even close.

...attacking my professors or me seems to be an unwarranted act on your part its too bad there isnt someone that would deal with this type of malice here.

Not so fast. YOU are the one that points out (condescendingly, I might add) how this thread (and a couple of others) are not up to snuff - and that even a third year biology whiz that has visited every notable lab on the east coast is wasting her time on this site. YOU are the one that brought your education into this argument, in an attempt to make yourself appear to be educated beyond being questioned. If YOU want to throw your resume and curriculum vitae out there, as if it gives you final authority, then YOU have to be ready to defend it. No free passes for anyone. There is no malice - we have asked several times now - and you don't seem to want to answer the question. Quit whining, and defend what YOU bring to the table as part of your argument.

...this thread asks a question and I see a logical line of evidence that supports it so if you have nothing of worth to contribute then don't reply, learning requires give and take, malice is take take take is this how you treat others in person? you must have a lonely existence.

Your ad hominim attack does not go unnoticed, but I will answer it anyway. Actually, I have an outstanding existence - thanks for asking.

TVOR

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Bipedalism is also not preferred over quadrupeds, ...

That is simply false.

prove it

The burden of proof is yours, but I'll be glad to talk about it.

Actually, I should have said: to the extent that your statement is not absurdly confused, it is simple false.

Evolution is not driven by preferences, nor is it goal oriented. Rather, it functions as a sieve. In this sence (as Pah intimated) nothing is preferred, and your statement was meaningless.

There is, however, a rather beautiful story to be told, starting with the formation of Panama as our two continents came together. The currents flowing from Atlantic to Pacific were diverted north. The resulting climactic change shrank the African rain forest, which once dominated that continent, to a mere strip, thereby replacing a massive and robust aboreal habitat with savannah.

Bipedalism and quadrupedalism are not counterposed in the abstract. No one is talking about bipedalism evolving among the komodo dragon or the striped skunk. What we are talking about is the rather obvious adaptive advantages of bipedalism when evolved among aboreal primates facing the loss of rain forest habitat and its replacement by savannah. These advantages include a more efficient gait, improved thermoregulation, and a better view of both predator and prey.

For more information, see, for example: bipedalism, and thermoregulation

 

[The Voice of Reason]

dear fount of knowledge and grammatical expertise

http://www.online-dictionary.biz/english/vocabulary/reference/Refutal.asp

did your larger cranium seriously have a problem with that word?made up as it were, i didn't know it was a word, but i figured that if a 5yr old could figured out my intent...that perhaps each member of this board(including you?) would display an equal amount of maturity in not flipping a lid.

Touche. I'll eat my incredulity and ignorance of the word - nicely done. Big of you to admit that it was made up, but nonetheless, I'll eat it.

TVOR

PS - while we're admitting it, don't bother to look up bisfurcal or disbondulate - I made those up myself.

 

[Ceridwen018]

observation is the first evidence, postulation is based on observation, the professors here ingrain the attitude that we should experiment and when you find through repeatable experiments that you observe then you are finding truth.

In a sense, I absolutely agree. Observation is a fundamental part of forming theories. However, it takes only one contradictory observation, experiment, etc. to disprove a theory. Miller's experiment with producing amino acids from non-living chemicals disproves the theory that living things can only come from other living things.

in reference you made about fox I believe he was disproven by his own peers years ago so if all your opinions concerning my post are based on such inferences then I will not bother to reply to the rest of your post,

I never mentioned Fox. I assume you're referring to someone else.

I have been dealing with all the current thoughts and science that is available so I am sure that I have a grasp on the important theories and experimentation that is happening .

Unfortunately for you, it seems, many other people on these forums also have a pretty strong grasp on modern science, or at least think they do. Do not attempt to isolate yourself as the sole source of intelligent biological information on these forums, because the results will not be pretty. No one is assuming your ignorance, but please realize that there is nothing in the world which can make you automatically right, be it a college education, friendships with professors, or what have you.

 

[LISA63]

Evolution causes an organism to adapt as needed. It does NOT specifically cause an organism to improve. Often times, an organism will improve through it's adaptation, but this is not necessary.

so when did we need to adapt to being hairless?
and how long would a hairless man live without before he could learn to improve?
we are taught how to deal with life from our parents according to their existing understanding but without the need to form coverings where would this wisdom come from? your arguement is not logical or backed by anything other than biased assumption.
all I can see is this naked guy freezing his butt off trying to figure out how to stay warm after his parents died. hahaha
your arguement goes a long way towards proving that the dumb get all the benefits and the smart get the bad luck, maybe I should go blonde and get some evolutionary respect like every other dumb but well covered creature, oh wait I think it says somewhere in the bible that god protects the dumb oh well I guess you just helped justify his existence.

 

[Ceridwen018]

HelpMe,

...and it will continue to be redrafted numerous times to fit errors found(yet to be accepted/found errors) in it's current form.but until then, it is so riiight.

I rather like the idea that scientific theories can be altered to incorporate new discoveries. It is a skill not shared by the creationism theory or the bible.

 

[HelpMe]

...the Bombardier Beetle. This beetle contains two chemical tanks in its body. When the beetle is attacked by a predator, the two different chemicals in the tanks are sprayed out from the beetle. They combine in the air and create a hot chemical explosion in the face of the predator. According to evolution, when the very first mutation appeared and the chemical tanks were just starting to form but were not yet functional, they would not provide any survival benefit to the beetle. It would take many thousands of mutations over many millions of years to produce the end mechanism. But since mutations are not beneficial and random they could never follow a pattern to produce the end result, especially since the mechanism would not provide any survival advantage until it was fully developed...

If we were trying to prve the creation of proteins

O great god of english TVOR?...does your lid popping mechanism only react to creationists or does it have a recuperating period?what does privy mean here?