creation vs evolution why the earth cannot be millions and billions of years old, evidence for noahs flood

[nce_wht_guy]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Pontifex Maximus]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Precisely.

[total relism]

[QUOTE=Comrade Wiggum;7928093]N

o, I stopped responding at some point because I was tired of repeating the same points over and over.

i think you should look again i know for a fact you were still posting



[QUOTE=Comrade Wiggum;7928093]N[QUOTE]

Just don't use them. It's simple as that. They're non-arguments and pointless additions to any post. Any quote is going to be taken out of context unless the context is supplied with the quote

.


no u act like there all taken out of context which is false




[QUOTE=Comrade Wiggum;7928093]N[QUOTE]

I was pointing out the silliness of claiming that there's 28 lies in every textbook with that comment. I'm in fact asking you the same question

.

again only if i had your textbook


[QUOTE=Comrade Wiggum;7928093]N[QUOTE]

Sure you do, its a generic Biology textbook that covers a wide variety of topics from cells, evolution, chemistry of life, genetics, plant and animal function, Ecology, and it weighs about 20 pounds.

r u seroius? ok iknow that one let me go get it. You want to ship it to me i would love to look at it.


[QUOTE=Comrade Wiggum;7928093]N[QUOTE]

That's not exactly true for all sciences. But for the ones that did its not surprising, coming from a time when creationism was widely accepted because our understanding of nature was extremely primitive. Those scientists did not turn a blind eye to the evidence that rejected a 6000 year old Earth however. They instead continued to follow the evidence (that's what scientists do) and that's the reason creationism is no longer taken seriously by any respectable scientist.

how do you decide whos respectable? those that like your religon a tenured professor would that count profesors at secular universitys? because many are so how do you define respectable?



[QUOTE=Comrade Wiggum;7928093]N

Edit: I don't want to spend too much time with subject of Biology as I think elfdude and others can cover them much better to me, so leave all your questions and disputes about Biology to them. However I still want to hear about these supposed lies in Biology textbooks. I always hear these claims but they're never really substantiated.

to do so you would have to read my earlier responces, i think i even said you would not read them when i wrote them lol

[hippacrocafish]

Your skills of scientific analysis are surpassed only by your mastery of grammar.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

JK, this is all retarded.

[total relism]

Every major branch? Really? Even Sciences such as Astronomy, Physics and Biology which date back to at least the Ancient Greeks, that is a rather extraordinary claim so I would like to se the evidence you have to support such a claim, because as far as I am aware neither Plato nor Aristotle nor Democritus (who could be considered the founder of Atomic Theory and also suggests a process similar to evolution in several of his books, and something vaguely resembling the accumulation of matter, somewhat similar to the process by which the Earth formed.) as being a creationist.

Before you criticise the use of wikipdia, it is more reliable than the web-sites you are using and it also has citations for these articles, so you can check the sources if you wish.

Edit:- An Interview with Phil Senter, who is a Paleontologist who uses creationist science to prove that, amongst other things, birds are descendants of dinosaurs and your other 'evolutionary myths'

there are so many problems with dino to bird theory


chritians started scince from a cristian worldview
http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Protesta.../dp/0521000963
http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Undertake.../dp/0745953034
http://creation.com/the-biblical-ori...e-glory-of-god




To illustrate the role of Christians in the rise of science, Stark researched ‘scientific stars’ from 1543 to 1680, the era usually designated as the ‘scientific revolution’, and came up with a list of the top 52. Of these, 26 were Protestant and 26 Catholic; 15 of them were English, 9 French, 8 Italian, 7 German (the rest were Dutch, Danish, Flemish, Polish and Swedish respectively). Only one was a sceptic (Edmund Halley) and one (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 at least of which could be characterized as ‘devout’ because of their evident zeal.



here is a few exaples of Cristian scientist . also shows science only makes sense in a biblical view not in a atheist view.

http://creation.com/whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-lawrence-s-lerner#creationist



Aristotle, for example, observed widely and theorized extensively, but he did not test his theories against his observations so he was not a scientist. Alchemy and astrology were highly developed in China, Islamic regions, India and ancient Greece and Rome, but only in medieval Europe did these become the sciences of chemistry and astronomy. ‘It is the consensus among contemporary historians, philosophers and sociologists of science that real science arose only once: in Europe.’ The leading scientific figures in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were overwhelmingly devout Christians who believed it their duty to comprehend God’s handiwork (pp. 123, 126–127).




But what was the Christian difference? India, China, Persia, Greece and Rome all had venerable traditions of scholarship but why did only Christian Europe develop science? Stark’s answer is simple but profound—the Christian God was rational, responsive, dependable and omnipotent and the universe was his personal creation in which his divine nature was put on display for man’s benefit and instruction. Among the passages most commonly cited by medieval scholars was: ‘Thou has ordered all things in measure and number and weight.’1 Christians believed that science could be done and should be done.


http://creation.com/the-biblical-origins-of-science-review-of-stark-for-the-glory-of-god

Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.”8





If the capricious gods of Greek mythology were in charge, we wouldn’t expect unchanging natural laws. And if the universe were one big Thought, as Eastern religions teach, then it could change its mind at any moment!

http://creation.com/what-good-is-christianity

http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10

http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10 shows list of modern science and who started them each branch

No one can understand what you're bloody well saying.

A bit of advice. Take the time to make your posts readable.

No one can take an argument seriously if it is written in a way that reminds them of a 1st year primary school student who got kicked in the head by a horse(or a dinosaur as the case may be). While in a debate you are a/the representative for your side and truth be told your posting to this point just reinforces what many people think of creationists.

thanl you for the advice



[QUOTE=Pøntifex;7928250]

I was going to respond to this. I spent about 15 minutes on my post then deleted this. This can't possibly be a serious post, it has to be a troll. No single post can be that stupid, unsupported, factually incorrect, delusional and illogical. It simply isn't possible. My response is the same as Elf. The OP is unbelievably incorrect on nearly every assertion, especially when trying to validate bible stories by science. Here's an obvious one: If the Noah story is true, we are all the product of incest.

as i said the least tolerant religon in the world.
why would us being the result of incest disprove the bible? also does evolution not say there was once a breading pair of humans the first fully human pair ?


were did the races come from?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n2/four-women-boat-kids
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/are-there-different-races
http://creation.com/the-origin-of-the-human-races


http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter18.pdf


http://www.icr.org/article/5531/






[QUOTE=Pøntifex;7928250]

Its my opinion that the OP has posted a bunch of information and material he himself only has a cursory understanding of, and because of this is only capable of regurgitating the classic old (fallacious) scientific arguments we hear from christian pseudo intellectuals every day. People who think they have exploited some great scientific loophole when they don't really understand what science is in the first place. Science doesn't claim to hold all the cards. Religion does. That's why its always the theists scrambling to find evidence of their ridiculous beliefs to validate the bible and god's other desert scribblings, while those who would prefer to use reason understand that commonly held scientific theories can be blown out of the water by the next battery of tests. But the main difference between the two is that scientific truth is flexible based on finding, religious dogma is not. Therefore its much easier to make scientific updates and build upon previously known theories as opposed to trying to make all the data fit into a crucifix shaped vial. That's what this thread boils down to.

Desperate claims with loosely or partially presented or completely fabricated data is all the OP can use.



Excellent, insightful, and scholarly. As always. I'm joking. Just thought I would make that clear.

i would ask for exsaples to back up your claims


Creation fits the facts while evolution has yet to find any that proves it.
"A theory loses credibility if it must be repeatedly modified over years of testing or if it requires excuses being continually made for why its predictions are not consistent with new discoveries of data. It is not a propitious attribute for a theory to have required numerous secondary modifications. Some evolutionists misunderstand this and attempt to point to the continuous string of modifications to evolution theory as a justification for classifying it as the exclusive respectable scientific theory on origins. They often make the strange claim that creation theory could not be scientific because it fits the evidence so perfectly that it never has required any modification. That line of reasoning is like saying that the law of gravity is not scientific since it fits the facts so perfectly that it never needs modification."—Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 31.

Funny thing about evolution is their isn't a theory in science we have MORE proof on than evolution. There is no remotely scientific way to dispute it.

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions." *Director of a large graduate biology department, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 28.




" ‘Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.’ [Tahmisian called it] a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling."—*Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting *T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].
"The reader . . may be dumbfounded that so much work has settled so few questions."—*Science, January 22, 1965, p. 389







" ‘The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.’ "—*Dr. Fleishmann, quoted in F. Meldau, Why We Believe in Creation, Not Evolution, p. 10 [Erlangen zoologist].






The theory of evolution (is) a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." *D.M.S. Watson, "Adaptation," Nature, Vol. 123 p. 233








"Evolution has no claim whatsoever to being a science.
"It is time all this nonsense teed. It is time to bury the corpse. It is time to shift the books to the humorous fiction section of the libraries." Marshall and Sandra Hall, The Truth: God or Evolution? pp. 39-40.






"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology."—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London 177:8 (1988).




"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .
"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.





One might ask why the neo-Darwinian paradigm does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual information." *C. Schwabe, "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution, " Trends in Biochemical Sciences (1986), p. 280.

Apparently you don't understand that citing your previous arguments doesn't somehow invalidate Efldude's. If you can't keep the argument going past your own initial points it only proves you have no understanding of them in the first place. You just memorized something you think sounds intelligent, something that validates your ridiculous religious beliefs and go with it. You're not fooling anyone but yourself.

he does not read my responces or he would know alredy, since you are so very inteligant and im just a dumb christian please stay on this one topic show me were my sources are wrong and how please

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Precisely.

word

[Pontifex Maximus]

The onus on proof is shouldered by the one making outlandish claims that go against the grain. Whether you like it or not evolution is a scientific theory and things like the Noah story are nothing more than legends scribbled down in a book of dubious origins.

[Vagn]

Cristian scientist . also shows science only makes sense in a biblical view not in a atheist view.

http://creation.com/whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-lawrence-s-lerner#creationist



Aristotle, for example, observed widely and theorized extensively, but he did not test his theories against his observations so he was not a scientist. Alchemy and astrology were highly developed in China, Islamic regions, India and ancient Greece and Rome, but only in medieval Europe did these become the sciences of chemistry and astronomy. ‘It is the consensus among contemporary historians, philosophers and sociologists of science that real science arose only once: in Europe.’ The leading scientific figures in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were overwhelmingly devout Christians who believed it their duty to comprehend God’s handiwork (pp. 123, 126–127).




But what was the Christian difference? India, China, Persia, Greece and Rome all had venerable traditions of scholarship but why did only Christian Europe develop science? Stark’s answer is simple but profound—the Christian God was rational, responsive, dependable and omnipotent and the universe was his personal creation in which his divine nature was put on display for man’s benefit and instruction. Among the passages most commonly cited by medieval scholars was: ‘Thou has ordered all things in measure and number and weight.’1 Christians believed that science could be done and should be done.


http://creation.com/the-biblical-origins-of-science-review-of-stark-for-the-glory-of-god

Had it not been for the rise of the literal interpretation of the Bible and the subsequent appropriation of biblical narratives by early modern scientists, modern science may not have arisen at all. In sum, the Bible and its literal interpretation have played a vital role in the development of Western science.”8





If the capricious gods of Greek mythology were in charge, we wouldn’t expect unchanging natural laws. And if the universe were one big Thought, as Eastern religions teach, then it could change its mind at any moment!

http://creation.com/what-good-is-christianity

http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10

http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10 shows list of modern science and who started them each branch

http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10 This link is broken and also contains a virus as it happens.

You completely ignored my point though, you only addressed one part of my argument. Democritus predicted the existence of the atom over a millenium before there was equipment even available to test it, so there is no way that Christianity can claim Atomic Physics as a 'Christian' discovery. You might also want to check your facts before you post such twaddle, as it was infact, Muslim scientists who first created the Scientific Method.

For example in Ibn al-Haytham's Book of Optics (1021) he develops a scientific method, and also discovers the field of Optical Physics, long before Europe is even remotely near its own Scientific Revolution. So it was infact Muslims who first used the Scientific method, and therefore the first Scientists, as opposed to Christians which you claimed.

There was no Christian difference, this 'difference' came to Europe with the Islamic conquest of Iberia, through Norman Sicily and Byzantium, the multi-cultural areas of Europe, and not from Christendom itself.

Edit:- A more reliable source, here

[total relism]

http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10 This link is broken and also contains a virus as it happens.

You completely ignored my point though, you only addressed one part of my argument. Democritus predicted the existence of the atom over a millenium before there was equipment even available to test it, so there is no way that Christianity can claim Atomic Physics as a 'Christian' discovery. You might also want to check your facts before you post such twaddle, as it was infact, Muslim scientists who first created the Scientific Method.

For example in Ibn al-Haytham's Book of Optics (1021) he develops a scientific method, and also discovers the field of Optical Physics, long before Europe is even remotely near its own Scientific Revolution. So it was infact Muslims who first used the Scientific method, and therefore the first Scientists, as opposed to Christians which you claimed.

There was no Christian difference, this 'difference' came to Europe with the Islamic conquest of Iberia, through Norman Sicily and Byzantium, the multi-cultural areas of Europe, and not from Christendom itself.

very intersting i will look into this more after this debate is all over which will be along time thank you.



also someone posted earlier something on human evolution can you post it agin i missed it also oldest rock on earth please.




Science in the Middle Ages

While this period used to be called the “Dark Ages”, responsible historians recognize that it was far from dark. Rather, it was a period of great scientific advances, stemming from the logical thought patterns of the medieval Scholastic philosophers of the Church, and the extensive inventiveness and mechanical ingenuity developed in the monasteries. Small wonder that this period saw the development of water and wind power, spectacles, magnificent architecture, the blast furnace, and the stirrup.5
http://creation.com/biblical-roots-of-modern-science


Furthermore and contrary to popular belief, the Church never supported the idea that the earth was flat, never banned human dissection, never banned zero and certainly never burnt anyone at the stake for scientific ideas.”
“Popular opinion, journalistic cliché and misinformed historians notwithstanding, recent research has shown that the Middle Ages were a period of enormous advances in science, technology and culture. The compass, paper, printing, stirrups and gunpowder all appeared in Western Europe between AD 500 and AD 1500.”6




And the ‘Scientific Revolution’? It, like the term ‘Dark Ages’, was coined to discredit the medieval church. The notion has been used to claim that science burst forth only when weakened Christianity could no longer prevent it, and as the recovery of classical learning made it possible. Both claims are as false as those concerning Columbus and the flat earth (p. 134



Long before any so–called ‘Renaissance’, Europe’s technology advanced far beyond anything achieved by the ancients, with examples like waterwheels, milling technology, camshafts, clocks and the compass. While gunpowder was invented by the Chinese they never developed the gun (so it is a misnomer to call their invention ‘gunpowder’—they only used it in fireworks); it was Europeans who developed the gun and by the early 14th century cannon guns were all over Europe. All this progress occurred before the ‘rediscovery’ of classical knowledge. By the late 13th century Europe was the world leader in technology, philosophy and science and this had come from centuries of interaction between Christianity and the ‘barbarians’ who had much more sophisticated cultures than generally acknowledged (p. 134).

[Phier]

Ok, my turn, the wife won't be ready for sex for at least 30 mins.

"I personally hold the evolutionary position, but yet lament the fact that the majority of our Ph.D. graduates are frightfully ignorant of many of the serious problems of the evolution theory. These problems will not be solved unless we bring them to the attention of students. Most students assume evolution is proved, the missing link is found, and all we have left is a few rough edges to smooth out. Actually, quite the contrary is true; and many recent discoveries . . have forced us to re-evaluate our basic assumptions." *Director of a large graduate biology department, quoted in Creation: The Cutting Edge (1982), p. 28.

Director of a large graduate biology department? Thats not a quote. Its also retarded and I wouldn't be surprised if its taken out of context.

" ‘Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.’ [Tahmisian called it] a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling."—*Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting *T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].
"The reader . . may be dumbfounded that so much work has settled so few questions."—*Science, January 22, 1965, p. 389

Quoting a paper older than I am, and before the advent of molecular biology. Brilliant! Oh and hes not even a biologist, extra credit.

" ‘The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.’ "—*Dr. Fleishmann, quoted in F. Meldau, Why We Believe in Creation, Not Evolution, p. 10 [Erlangen zoologist].

This is idiotic. We have so much damn proof, from ring species to obviously genetic sub groups, to hybrids, to even proof of genetic mutations in human specific parasites, to to to , (far to many to's) that one must read something like this and say *derp*.

The theory of evolution (is) a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."

*D.M.S. Watson, "Adaptation," Nature, Vol. 123 p. 233

This quote is from 1929. It was wrong then but its 100* more wrong now.

"Evolution has no claim whatsoever to being a science.

"It is time all this nonsense teed. It is time to bury the corpse. It is time to shift the books to the humorous fiction section of the libraries." Marshall and Sandra Hall, The Truth: God or Evolution? pp. 39-40.

These are the poor fools that don't understand how an eye could evolve, even though we have every possible intermediate step in the LIVING animal record, not including the fossil ones.

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology."—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London 177:8 (1988).

Yes, we do.

"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .
"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.

Grassé presents his arguments against Darwinism in his work L'évolution du vivant (1973). Against the idea which states that the evolution of living things is the product of their adaptating to changes in their environments, he opposes living fossils, meaning species which stopped evolving at some point in time and have remained relatively identical to this day regardless of great climatic or geological changes (he cites numerous examples in Les formes panchroniques et les arrêts de l'évolution, p. 133). Therefore, evolution is in his opinion a process which is not necessary, it does not occur in living beings under the constraints of external physical forces (cf. Necessity-utility is not the primus movens of biological evolution, p. 302). To explain evolution he instead thinks that you must look at the internal dynamics of living things.

The guy wasn't a creationist, he was a Lamarkian, he thought that evolution happened via use and disuse, which is wrong, but not nearly as wrong as creationism.

One might ask why the neo-Darwinian paradigm does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual information." *C. Schwabe, "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution, " Trends in Biochemical Sciences (1986), p. 280.

Oh look another out of context quote, lets go see what he means....

Scientists who support a polyphyletic view differ on how many trees one should expect to find in the "orchard" of life. Some, such as microbiologist Carl Woese of the University of Illinois, argue that life on earth is descended "not from one, but from three distinctly different cell types" ("On the evolution of cells," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99 (2002):8742- 77; 8746). Others, including Malcolm Gordon of UCLA and Christian Schwabe of the Medical University of South Carolina, think there might be a greater number of separate trees.

Do you get it, they are saying LIFE EVOLVED, only from different cell types at first, not one first life form. It does NOTHING TO SUPPORT CREATIONISM.

Its only your ignorance on the subject that would make anyone think there was something to this based on cherry picking quotes over the last 100 years of science.

I know this is wasted but I was bored.

[total relism]

The onus on proof is shouldered by the one making outlandish claims that go against the grain. Whether you like it or not evolution is a scientific theory and things like the Noah story are nothing more than legends scribbled down in a book of dubious origins.

evidence?




16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
2nd peter 1.16





[QUOTE=Phier;7928451]

Ok, my turn, the wife won't be ready for sex for at least 30 mins.

mines facking a headache lol




[QUOTE=Phier;7928451][QUOTE]

Quoting a paper older than I am, and before the advent of molecular biology. Brilliant! Oh and hes not even a biologist, extra credit

.


hes talking about the theory in general, so were is this evidence than?
yeah 1959 is kinda old ouch


[QUOTE=Phier;7928451][QUOTE]

This is idiotic. We have so much damn proof, from ring species to obviously genetic sub groups, to hybrids, to even proof of genetic mutations in human specific parasites, to to to , (far to many to's) that one must read something like this and say *derp

*


please post your top 3 evidences for evolution so i can respond




The theory of evolution (is) a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." *D.M.S. Watson, "Adaptation," Nature, Vol. 123 p. 233








"Evolution has no claim whatsoever to being a science.
"It is time all this nonsense teed. It is time to bury the corpse. It is time to shift the books to the humorous fiction section of the libraries." Marshall and Sandra Hall, The Truth: God or Evolution? pp. 39-40.






"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology."—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London 177:8 (1988).




"Present-day ultra-Darwinism, which is so sure of itself, impresses incompletely informed biologists, misleads them, and inspires fallacious interpretations . .
"Through use and abuse of hidden postulates, of bold, often ill-founded extrapolations, a pseudoscience has been created. It is taking root in the very heart of biology and is leading astray many biochemists and biologists, who sincerely believe that the accuracy of fundamental concepts has been demonstrated, which is not the case."—*Pierre P. Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 202.





One might ask why the neo-Darwinian paradigm does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual information." *C. Schwabe, "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution, " Trends in Biochemical Sciences (1986), p. 280.

.





[QUOTE=Phier;7928451][QUOTE]

This quote is from 1929. It was wrong then but its 100* more wrong now.

i guess i should get ride of it than you are right thought i did last debate they broaght that up




[QUOTE=Phier;7928451][QUOTE]
T

hese are the poor fools that don't understand how an eye could evolve, even though we have every possible intermediate step in the LIVING animal record, not including the fossil ones.
Yes, we do.

please show, maybe read my responces in ealier post as well



[QUOTE=Phier;7928451][QUOTE]

The guy wasn't a creationist, he was a Lamarkian, he thought that evolution happened via use and disuse, which is wrong, but not nearly as wrong as creationism.

so what are you saying? i cant use his qoute?
and no he did not belive in evolution i belive he was a id scintist


[QUOTE=Phier;7928451][QUOTE]
Oh look another out of context quote, lets go see what he means....
Do you get it, they are saying LIFE EVOLVED, only from different cell types at first, not one first life form. It does NOTHING TO SUPPORT CREATIONISM.


[QUOTE=Phier;7928451][QUOTE]
Its only your ignorance on the subject that would make anyone think there was something to this based on cherry picking quotes over the last 100 years of science.


[QUOTE=Phier;7928451]

I know this is wasted but I was bored.

this was not at all wastful for me thank you very much i will be geting ride of these qoutes thank you

[Pontifex Maximus]

You want some evidence? If the Noah story was ing true we would all be severely inbred to the point that genetic disorders, such as down syndrome, would be the norm. Also there is no indication of mass extinctions by a global flood within the last 10,000 years. Also, NOAH NEVER EXISTED. Something else that might rock your world, SANTA ISN'T REAL EITHER. So many revelations in one day, must be a shock.

[Banana Jelly]

If you are serious about this, then I really don't know what to say... Creationism theory is as stupid as believing Dinosaurs still exist, or that the sun was created 10,000 years ago. Main-stream Christianity does not believe that the Earth is 10,000 years old.

[total relism]

You want some evidence? If the Noah story was ing true we would all be severely inbred to the point that genetic disorders, such as down syndrome, would be the norm. Also there is no indication of mass extinctions by a global flood within the last 10,000 years. Also, NOAH NEVER EXISTED. Something else that might rock your world, SANTA ISN'T REAL EITHER. So many revelations in one day, must be a shock.

please read my reponces to you it will anwser your questions.
i strogly disagree on there being no evidence for noahs flood again read my posts
how do you know noahs wasent around? evidence?
your right about mutations building up its acutally one of the young earth evidences we could not posibley be as old as evolutionist say, our genomes would have decayed away and caused exstinction.

http://hort.cals.cornell.edu/cals/ho...le/sanford.cfm
has done great resherch in this feild i cant get link to cmi right know but his book gentic entropy and the human genome
http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Entrop...9&sr=8-1-spell
shows we could not posibly be as old as the evoltuinst want us all to belive. Also acording to evolutionist this is how we get ahead? doesent make sence does it

If you are serious about this, then I really don't know what to say... Creationism theory is as stupid as believing Dinosaurs still exist, or that the sun was created 10,000 years ago. Main-stream Christianity does not believe that the Earth is 10,000 years old.

again the least tolerant of any religon the evolutionist.
how do you belive everything came from nothing? were did things like laws of nature infomation love logic were do these come from?
why does the fossil record not match your story? why is there no direct evidence for evolution?
how can dirt produce the gentic code? dna read my information and mutation post
Read my young earth dates for reasons why i dont belive in your god of millions of years.
If its so stupid show me why? why canont phd evolutionst refute cretion in debates?

[Don in the North]

i see alot of answersingenesis links in OP.
THE most lie-filled, misinformation spreading website on the face of the planet.

[total relism]

i see alot of answersingenesis links in OP.
THE most lie-filled, misinformation spreading website on the face of the planet.

great exsaples you gave im a evolutionst know.

[Gordon Freynman]

I decided to respond to at least a portion of the BIG BANG DISPROOFZ tonight, the rest I will probably do tomorrow. There's a lot of crap to wade through here.

At the beginning of his book The God Particle, Nobel physicist Leon Ledermann [referring to cosmological speculations like the big bang in science books and articles] writes: “When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up.”1
As quoted in: The Fire in the Equations: Science, Religion and the Search for God by Kitty Ferguson, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1995, p. 145 (brackets ours).

This is a misinterpreted quote that's also taken out of context. What Ledermann is actually saying is that creation of the universe is a mystery and no one really knows how it happened. The Big Bang Theory has nothing to say about how the universe was created if ever, only what happened at a certain point in it's existence.

Big bang cosmology is probably as widely believed as has been any theory of the universe in the history of Western civilization. It rests, however, on many untested, and in some cases untestable, assumptions. Indeed, big bang cosmology has become a bandwagon of thought that reflects faith as much as objective truth.

Burbidge, G., 1992. Why only one big bang? Scientific American, 266(2):96

This quote only demonstrates that the Big Bang Theory is incomplete, but everyone in the physics community knows this already. I would strongly disagree with his statement that the BBT "...reflects faith as much as objective truth." The assumptions in the BBT are not held to be absolute truths, they are merely conditions required that cannot yet be tested. Nor is the BBT held to be absolute truth, no matter how much the popular media or creationists like to claim it says it is. The BBT is simply the best supported theory by far at this point, and if such evidence should arise that conclusively disproves it then it will be discarded and science will move on. That seems extremely improbable though, because to entirely refute the BBT one must show that universe is infinitely old which seems completely infeasible at this point.

here is a list of over 500 phd evolutist cosmoligiest astronmers and pysists who are leving the big bang http://www.cosmologystatement.org/ published in new scientist and this is not because of the many problems with the big bang this is because well read the intro .
You could also add the many creation cosmoligst astrnomers physist to this list

Who cares? 500...out of tens maybe hundreds of thousands of astronomers. Until they come up with a better theory that matches observation I couldn't care less about them and neither does the rest of the scientific community.

there are many problems with the big bang also reasons not to acept it

Oh do tell, this should be fun!

The Big Bang as it is understood today is an inadequate theory since there are many fundamental problems that are seldom mentioned in the pertinent literature.

Seldom mentioned? I call BS. Every book I've read on the subject readily points out the flaws of the BBT.

1. Missing Origin. The Big Bang theory assumes an original concentration of energy. Where did this energy come from? Astronomers sometimes speak of origin from a "quantum mechanical fluctuation within a vacuum." However, an energy source is still needed. Actually, there is no secular origin theory, since every idea is based on preexisting matter or energy.

Where did the energy come from? No one knows, but it isn't the job nor the purpose of the BBT to tell us where it came from. Quantum fluctuations do not require energy to happen, in fact they don't require anything at all really, they may not even require space or time to happen but that's speculative at this point.

Missing Fuse. What ignited the Big Bang? The mass concentration proposed in this theory would remain forever as a universal black hole. Gravity would prevent it from expanding outward.

These objections must be based on outdated information, because Inflation theory, developed in 1980 by a particle physicist of all people, solved this problem rather eloquently. Einstein showed through his theory of Relativity that if space embodied a positive amount of energy, then it would create an overall negative pressure region which causes a repulsive effect with gravity. Inflation takes this idea to the extreme.

The basic idea is that space became infused with a relatively large amount of energy for it's small size, which caused a temporary extremely rapid expansion of space, in which it's radius doubled at least a hundred times in about 10^-32 seconds. One of the effects of Inflation is that the energy density of the universe during inflation remained the same, meaning that as the volume of space increased so did the amount of energy, so the amount of energy in the universe went from very little to the humongous amount we see today. At the end of inflation the energy embodied in space was released and condensed into radiation and various particles while the universe continued to expand, albeit rather slowly comparatively.

I recognize that this explanation is heavily lacking in detail, but to effectively explain Inflation even in layman's terms would require a lot of time and a whole other thread in of itself. If you want to learn more, read "The Inflationary Universe" by Alan Guth, who was one of the original formulators of Inflation theory.

Missing Star Formation. No natural way has been found to explain the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies. An explosion should produce, at best, an outward spray of gas and radiation. This gas should continue expanding, not form intricate planets, stars, and entire galaxies.

Wat? Nothing in this claim is even remotely true. The BB was not an explosion, that implies that it was uneven and exploded from a point and had something to explode into, and all those implications are false. The BB (including inflation) was an overall uniform metric expansion of space itself, and it didn't expand from a single point. Suggesting that stars couldn't have formed due to the expansion of space is incredibly naive and a complete over simplification of what would be happening on smaller scales. It fails to take into account that hydrogen and helium molecules wouldn't be static, but rather they'd be bouncing all over the damn place. The gravitational and electrostatic attraction between hydrogen molecules would eventually cause them to coalesce into gravitational wells that would attract more and hydrogen until the pressure upon the central molecules of hydrogen would be so great that fusion is induced.

Missing Antimatter. Some versions of the Big Bang theory require an equal production of matter and antimatter. However, only small traces of antimatter (positrons, antiprotons) are found in space.

Some versions eh? This isn't really a problem, just something that has yet to be explained by the BBT, or anything in physics really. Some particle accelerator experiments (I believe it was RHIC but I'd have to check) have shown tiny asymmetries in the production of anti-matter from pure energy, however it's difficult to conclude anything from these results. This doesn't mean there isn't a reason though, it only means we have yet to find it. To conclude that the BBT is false based off this is simply stupid, and by that logic you'd have to simultaneously conclude that all quantum mechanics is false too, which is similarly stupid.

Missing Time. Some experiments indicate that the universe may be young, on the order of 10,000 years old. If true, then there is not sufficient time for the consequences of the Big Bang to unfold. A short time span would not allow for the gradual evolution of the earth, heavens, and mankind.

A load of bollocks if I've ever heard any. Even if there are some, they don't just explain away all the rest that show the universe is far far older. I'll assume some of these evidences are presented later but I don't know if I'll get to that tonight.

Missing Mass. Many scientists assume that the universe will eventually stop expanding and begin to collapse inward. Then it will again explode, and repeat its oscillating type of perpetual motion. This idea is an effort to avoid an origin and destiny for the universe. For oscillation to occur, the universe must have a certain density or distribution of mass. So far, measurements of the mass density are a hundred times smaller than expected. The universe does not appear to be oscillating. The necessary mass is "missing."

This is a very outdated view, and the argument isn't even against the BBT. First, the idea of an oscillatory doesn't require a certain density (called the critical density), it requires a density higher than the critical density. If it were the critical density, the universe would expand forever but the expansion would slow, approaching zero as time goes to infinity. Second, to suggest this is an attempt to avoid the origin and destiny of the universe is flat out wrong. The old idea of a static universe may have been, but an oscillatory universe involving a big crunch/big bang is only a speculative idea that was suggested because before the discovery of dark energy it was believed that the expansion of the universe was slowing down and may eventually reverse. There is fairly wide consensus that the universe is not oscillating, but not because the missing matter, in fact if you include the contributions of dark energy and matter the density of the universe is almost exactly the critical density (almost because the measurements aren't perfectly accurate), but dark energy appears to be making the universe's expansion accelerate in a run-away fashion. Instead of collapsing into a big crunch, the universe appears to be on a path to a big rip, where the rate of expansion becomes so great that all matter is torn apart. Keep in mind that this wont happen for trillions of years from now though.

Missing Life. In an evolving universe, life should have developed everywhere. Space should be filled with radio signals from intelligent life forms. Where is everybody?

This is the absolute worst argument for a young universe so far, which is probably why it is last. Space may very well be filled with radio signals from intelligent life, but our ability to detect them is extremely limited. Projects like SETI can only scan a very limit range of wavelengths of the EM spectrum. Unless we specifically look at the wavelength the radio waves are broadcast in, they will be indistinguishable from the background radiation from everything else in the universe.

[Pontifex Maximus]

please read my reponces to you it will anwser your questions.
i strogly disagree on there being no evidence for noahs flood again read my posts
how do you know noahs wasent around? evidence?
your right about mutations building up its acutally one of the young earth evidences we could not posibley be as old as evolutionist say, our genomes would have decayed away and caused exstinction.

http://hort.cals.cornell.edu/cals/ho...le/sanford.cfm
has done great resherch in this feild i cant get link to cmi right know but his book gentic entropy and the human genome
http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Entrop...9&sr=8-1-spell
shows we could not posibly be as old as the evoltuinst want us all to belive. Also acording to evolutionist this is how we get ahead? doesent make sence does it

Your evidence is a testimony from a professor of horticulture and a link to his book which is factually incorrect. You will have to do better than that. Let me go ahead and turn this around on you. How do you know Noah existed? Also, you have provided NO proof that the floods happened. You've just linked to random pages with nothing substantial. Read this and save us from your nonsensical drivel.

Also, I want to point out that you are taking works out of context and trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Assuming evolution is a flawed theory, that doesn't mean that creationism is the answer. Additionally it is a ridiculous to believe any story of the bible literally because there is little to no proof of them happening at all.

[Vagn]

very intersting i will look into this more after this debate is all over which will be along time thank you.



also someone posted earlier something on human evolution can you post it agin i missed it also oldest rock on earth please.




Science in the Middle Ages

While this period used to be called the “Dark Ages”, responsible historians recognize that it was far from dark. Rather, it was a period of great scientific advances, stemming from the logical thought patterns of the medieval Scholastic philosophers of the Church, and the extensive inventiveness and mechanical ingenuity developed in the monasteries. Small wonder that this period saw the development of water and wind power, spectacles, magnificent architecture, the blast furnace, and the stirrup.5
http://creation.com/biblical-roots-of-modern-science


Furthermore and contrary to popular belief, the Church never supported the idea that the earth was flat, never banned human dissection, never banned zero and certainly never burnt anyone at the stake for scientific ideas.”
“Popular opinion, journalistic cliché and misinformed historians notwithstanding, recent research has shown that the Middle Ages were a period of enormous advances in science, technology and culture. The compass, paper, printing, stirrups and gunpowder all appeared in Western Europe between AD 500 and AD 1500.”6




And the ‘Scientific Revolution’? It, like the term ‘Dark Ages’, was coined to discredit the medieval church. The notion has been used to claim that science burst forth only when weakened Christianity could no longer prevent it, and as the recovery of classical learning made it possible. Both claims are as false as those concerning Columbus and the flat earth (p. 134



Long before any so–called ‘Renaissance’, Europe’s technology advanced far beyond anything achieved by the ancients, with examples like waterwheels, milling technology, camshafts, clocks and the compass. While gunpowder was invented by the Chinese they never developed the gun (so it is a misnomer to call their invention ‘gunpowder’—they only used it in fireworks); it was Europeans who developed the gun and by the early 14th century cannon guns were all over Europe. All this progress occurred before the ‘rediscovery’ of classical knowledge. By the late 13th century Europe was the world leader in technology, philosophy and science and this had come from centuries of interaction between Christianity and the ‘barbarians’ who had much more sophisticated cultures than generally acknowledged (p. 134).

Most of the Inventions you have listed were actually Chinese inventions, for example the Blast Furnace, Paper, the Compass all orginated in China and spread West, similar to gunpowder, and as a matter of fact the Chinese did actually use gunpowder weapons, in the form of flamethrowers, bombs, rockets and mines, before the advent of the gun. The Water Wheel was also developed long before Christianity, as there are records of their use in both Ancient Greek and Roman texts.

The Stirrup was in fact originally invented in Ancient India and spread through the Steppe Nomadic Peoples before reaching Europe via the Avars.

The Lens had been discovered in Ancient Egypt and was used in the 1st Century AD by the Romans, Christian Europeans only put two lenses together, which had also been done before by the chinese who had used smoky quartz to manufacture sunglasses.

The first usable windmill appears in Persia in the 9th century, although theAncient Greeks had discovered its use before, but never used it practically, so again, not a Christian invention.

'Magnificent Architecture' had also been discovered before Christianity, for example, The Pyramids, The Parthenon and the Temple to Jupiter all pre-date Christianity, and yet are still pieces of awe-inspiring architecture, comparable to any cathedral built after.

The Camshaft was yet again not discovered by Medieval Christians, but was infact invented by... the Ancient Greeks, and was later described by al-Jazari which he used in the construction of his castle clocks and water clocks, before appearing in Christendom in the 14th Century.

So in fact 13th Century Europe was certainly not 'the world leader in technology' as the vast majority of inventions were actually originally from China.

[elfdude]

lol when did i or anyone say change does not happen or "evolution" what your talking about is natural selection yes this happens thoght of by creationist 20 years b4 darwin by the way.

This is called a genetic fallacy. For your information a marriage ring was originally a chain tied to a woman's foot that literally made her a man's. The ring symbolized this chain and only later came to symbolize love. So marriage is an inherently sexist practice and anyone who practices it must be sexist right? Wrong. Creationists coming up with natural selection has nothing to do with it's acceptance as a theory.

survival of the fittest cannot exsplain the arival of the fittest you cannot exsplain by the same method natural selction the orgin of anything, mutations never produce the orgin of anything new

If you'll kindly note that natural selection only guides the principles of DIVERSIFICATION of life. Natural selection does not deal with abiogenesis which is built upon a different theory entirely. So you're sort of making a completely moot point here.

yes evolution works new species evolve, but all that is hapining is variation of alredy existing infomationin the animals genome.

This is not true. The information I provided you about the human eye already covered this point. The reason we are trichromats is because the gene that codes for the cones in our eyes was REPLICATED and ADDED to our genome. You are quite simply wrong. This isn't even advanced biology or genetics but biology 101. There's dozens of ways new genetic information is created on the genome. Further what do you have to say about people who end up with additionall chromosomes or genetic information? Not all of them are sick in fact many live completely normal lives.

nothing new evolves no new genes no new enzymes etc.

This is wrong. First of all, a gene codes for a protein. An enzyme is a protein. So the enzymes do not evolve only genes do. If an alteration is made to the genes the resulting protein IS ALMOST ALWAYS CHANGED. There's a few DNA codons that can be changed without causing a mutuation but for the most part no.

that is what evolution has to exsplain the orgin of, if the change or evolution happens because something new evolves a new gene for exsaple that would be proof of evolution.

Uh huh. So... the gene that allows us to be a trichromat would be evidence of our evolved eyes over animal dichromatic eyes? Good job there. You're proving my points. I can't help but feel you haven't read my post at all. A pity.

read my earlier post

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that the arguments you presented originally are backed up. Unfortunately my argument takes into account not only real science but the most recent real science. Your source is biased and modern science has since progressed past these problems that creationists are unwilling to let go. These have already been completed.

new mice species http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...-or-adaptation

Uh... No that was not what I was talking about as far as new mice species. I'm talking about mice who evolved new chromosomes, 5 genetically distinct species evolved on an island. They can no longer reproduce with each other. I have a feeling you failed to look at my linked information as well because it has nothing to do with the links you've provided curiously.

http://creation.com/genetics-no-friend-of-evolution spectiation

This is a broken link. I don't suspect you proof-read your posts at all do you?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...tion-evolution natural selction

Haha. That's hilarious. In the theory of evolution natural selection is the mechanism through which evolution occurs. You're simply confusing two words together. What exactly does this prove? That evolution doesn't occur without new information? Unfortunately the thesis that there's no new genetic information is ENTIRELY wrong. I can list you a dozen diseases resulting FROM EXTRA information as well as a dozen additions in our own evolutionary history.

please read my big bang post i alredy replied to this under the spoilers

I'm sorry, but I've completed reading your posts. Nothing you say is anything but wrong, stretched or altered to fit your world view. Unfortunately science doesn't work that way. I'm sorry but you're 100% wrong, there's not a debatable point you can defend yourself from. I confirmed the big bangs existence as well as the age of the universe with 3 separate scientific principles which your argument does not cover in the slightest but merely deals with radiometric dating which it fails to explain and does not understand the first point about. Tell me how radiometric dating works and I might believe you that you don't believe in it but I highly doubt you understand that or you wouldn't find it so unbelievable. The rather misinformed 'issues' with it you provided are all wrong.

you are greatly over using what the evidence says here. It can be esplained another way and there are numeroius problems with your big bang

No. Explaining it another way has nothing to do with science. Science respect Occam's Razor which asserts that which is most likely is judged by the evidence supporting it. Because there's evidence supporting both the big bang and evolution by Occam's razor they are the most likely explanations of life and the origins of this universe. The god assertion is nothing more than wishful thinking, by Occam's razor if we entertain the idea that god created the universe we must also entertain the idea that Unicorns frolic with demons on the moon made of cheese when we're not looking.

wow you are so easily convinced my friend again read my big bang post

I have, please read some basic science.

your a great story teller ill give you that again big bang post problems all along your star formation

Unfortunately there are no issues with the big bang. It is established fact, as in 2+2=4. All the way to a few seconds after it happened. This is because quantum mechanics begins to dictates the rules it follows rather than natural law at that age and before. It's reducible mathematics. Until you find something that explains the information I presented in a different way backed up by science your opinion on the subject is completely moot. It's almost like you're calling black white and white black. I'm sorry reality doesn't work that way.

this has made me lose alot of respect for you not reading my post to even find out what im saying nor is what i was saying somehow poor evidence.

I really am not bothered by your lack or abundance of respect for my character. All I want is for you to be intellectually honest rather than using such poor arguments. I did read your arguments but if you have specific problem with what I say please quote the point then post what you think refutes it and I'll respond otherwise no, my post refuted the central pieces of your arguments entirely. Without those central issues the rest of the information you presented was moot.

I never said radiometric dating is bunk i acept everydate as is you just need to take the time to understand.

Uh huh, so you accept the earth is 4 billion years old and that the universe is 15 billion years old? Radiometric dating proves it, helioseismic dating proves it, CMBR provides us with a literal photo of the big bang and the timeline since.

you dont even see your own asumtions do you

Please enlighten me.

How old is the sun?

• Solar Neutrinos—the Critical Shortfall Still Elusive (Semi-Technical)
• The Young Faint Sun paradox and the age of the solar system (Semi-Technical, TJ)
• Evidence for a Young Sun
• The Young Faint Sun paradox and the age of the solar system (Semi-Technical, ICR Impact)

The young faint sun paradox is solved by the presence of carbonates in the early earth atmosphere as well as the increased solar winds of a younger star which result in the increased surface temperatures of the earth. Further earth did freeze at least once that we know of.

Further the solar neutrinos argument is completely and utterly idiotic. I can't believe you bothered bringing it up. The sun is neither shrinking nor expanding at any observable rate. The false claim is carelessly based on the premise of a paper that was once read as a meeting abstract (if you don't know an abstract is a summary), but was withdrawn by the authors before publication, when they discovered that they were in error. It's bad enough that the creationist argument is wrong, but it shows a sloppy and careless approach, that the entire argument is based on a paper that was withdrawn for good reasons.

Creationists, and other pseudoscientists, continue to describe the solar neutrino problem in the same way it was described 30 years ago. When the solar neutrino deficit was first discovered, the detectors could only see neutrinos at a single energy. That experiment detected fewer neutrinos than expected, and this led some scientists to question the reality of nuclear fusion in stars, since those fusion reactions create the neutrinos. Still you must take into account that advances in neutrino detecting technology have changed the picture. This is what I mean by old science.


We now know that nearly all of the neutrinos expected from the main proton-proton fusion reactions are detected. The creationist has stated the problem as it was understood 30 yearts ago, not as it is understood now, leading to the conclusion that the creationist has not bothered even to find out what the solar neutrino problem really is, before deciding to expound upon it in expert tone.



Recent events in the study of neutrinos in general, and more specifically of solar neutrinos, have shed much light on the issue. It is now known that neutrinos have a small mass, whereas it was previously thought that they had none. The fact that neutrinos have mass allows neutrinos to change from one to another of the 3 types of neutrinos, in accordance with the rules of quantum mechanics. If we apply those rules of quantum mechanics to the flux of neutrinos that we expect the sun to emit, we can recover the flux of neutrinos that is actually measured. In other words, theory and experiment agree, within the limits of uncertainty allowed to both.

great question i will tell you what the bible says
orginally we were created perfect in a perfect universe, than sin and the curse entered, than the flood.
the perfect world we lived in has been destoryed our bodies decay mutations happen we are slowly dying off.
The world will contiune in the is path untill it is restored

Convenient and very assumptive. I thought you proved this stuff with a real tangible argument not just a statement from your bible. Alas you aren't being intellectually honest now are you? If god punishes us for his lie then god is wrong. If you'll kindly re-read genesis, you'll note the snake tells the truth, god lies and god then punishes us after lying to us. Whereas had god told us the consequences of our actions we would not have made the same mistake. Further this is also assuming god was not all knowing. God knew before we were created that we would eventually sin. God created a flawed being on purpose because we cannot assume god would've done it for any other reason without debating the actual qualitites of god. So either god is not all power, not all knowing and/or not all good.

are you serious? this is the efects of decay and a fallen world were just trying to patch up the wholes.
I dont belive in mutations are you seroius?
notice breking the gene to produce vitamin c
lactose intolerant you dont belive this is evolution do you it cant exspalin the orgin off the switch

Unfortunately your grammar and English is so bad here it's hard to determine what your issue is besides having one with what I said in general. Evolution is the progressive build up of mutations. If mutations occur and natural selection keeps those mutations evolution is occuring. If two species can no longer reproduce evolution has occured. Notably the mice who EVOLVED NEW CHROMOSOMES. Luckily the site you quote is out of date on new scientific discoveries. As for the gene that produces vitamin C.

Vitamin C is not an essential nutrient for most animals in the animal kingdom. Humans and guineau pigs are amongst the only species who cannot synthesize them themselves. This is because at some point (the point is known btw) in humanoid evolution the gene became damaged by a mutation and this was later inherited by the resulting human race.

please read my embreology vestigular structures post

Please quote specifically from my post where I discussed either? Never. I'm surprised you're accusing me of not reading your posts.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq...9%20Retina.pdf why the eye is not poorly desighned

response to dawikins the eye being bad desighn
http://creation.com/mueller-cells-ba...tina-v-dawkins

eye bad design
Is Our ‘Inverted’ Retina Really ‘Bad Design’? (Technical)
Fibre optics in eye demolish atheistic ‘bad design’ argument (Semi-technical

My reasoning had nothing to do with this refutation. Nor did I get this argument from dawkins but my own medical training. Nice try though.

Back problems are not evidence for evolution many cultures in the world do not have back problems exersise and lack of nutrition cause back problems.
This is like going to a car crash and saying the car was bad desighned, no it just wasent taken care of.
Just because today we have problems since the fall is not a reflection of the orginal desighn.

No, this is also not what I was referring to. Our pelvis itself is improperly designed as well as our knees and feet. We walk on the arches of our feet which is a major cut hazard because if you get a cut along them you'll bleed out very quickly. Our knees are destroyed by the ordinary activity of running and walking. This is not because of our lack of care but rather because the arch of our foot is welded as opposed to apes who's arch is actually a bending point. You're talking to someone currently going through med school here. I can list you off literally thousands of systemic problems having to do with the physiology of humans alone.

i dont deny the fossil record i have lost all respect for you know . I use it as evidence aginst evolution

As I've said before I care little for your personal ideal of me. I have a thing against people who use bad information are ignorant and miss-use real science. As for what portion of the fossil record actually disproves evolution I don't really care which part you say disproves (I've read it) but luckily for evolution the genetic evidence backs up the fossil record and both back up evolution.

everyone of these predictions i use to show how evolution is wrong.

Uh huh. Unfortunately you sort of fail to show anything except that you're wrong. Really just try and refute your own arguments here. You'll find not only is it fantastically easy to find real science that is contrary to them you'll find that they use real science wrongly.

also talk orgins says on there site they have 20 evidences for real evolution and 5 infomation gaing mutations.

That's of the ones the person actually looked for there's thousands of examples that have come in since the late 1800's. Creationists conveniently try to sweep this fact under the rug, every year we have found more and more examples of evolution. As phier said evolution is a more respected theory in science than gravity is.

but once there in a debate they admit there is no evidence for evolution
http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp

Hahaha, no. Spetner is an evolutionist and agrees with evolution. He attacks some of the specifics in regard to rigor of max's argument. In reality he considers the arguments you're supporting to be nothing more than strawmen but he does propose a real argument which illustrates perfectly why evolution is considered a theory and not a fact.

You are confusing the burden of proof, point mutations and exaggerations with contrary positions, in reality both evolutionary biologist agree on the overall idea behind evolution. They simply don't agree about the mechanisms through which it occurs which is far more specific than our little debate could hope to touch on.

most of there atacks are copletely baseless some books they atack they have not even read.

You don't say?

Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis.
TalkOrigins contributors, have been kindly asked to submit their criticisms to our online, peer-reviewed technical journal so that they can be professionally peer-reviewed. They have refused to do this. Instead, TalkOrigins has a highly unprofessional and unscientific habit of hurling voluminous references at people and making them read scores of articles to figure out what they are talking about. I would recommend that you e-mail Mark Isaak and challenge him to have his ideas peer-reviewed in our online journal. Until he does, his criticisms do not merit our time, and will be treated as blog posts, etc.
Kind Regards,
Alexander Evans
Correspondence Representative
Answers in Genesis
P.O. Box 510
Hebron, KY 41048

It'd be key to note here that the articles on which he bases his arguments on are peer reviewed from national science articles. However I find this concentration on that website somewhat hilarious when it was only being used as a reference for examples of evolution in real life.

[Don in the North]

again the least tolerant of any religon the evolutionist.
how do you belive everything came from nothing?

so where did this imaginary god of yours, if it were indeed 'real'; come from again?
oh thats right, NOTHING.
naturally logic dictates that god came from mans imagination. fact.

were did things like laws of nature infomation love logic were do these come from?

laws of nature came into being during the formation of the universe.
example point ..... 1+1 has to equal two. it is an inevitability, you cannot avoid it much as you cannot avoid the laws.
millions of years of evolution contributed to emotions. animals have emotions too, however not everyone believes that because of their own experiences with animals.

why does the fossil record not match your story?

answersingenesis has no answers, nor credible evidence to support your story on fossils.

why is there no direct evidence for evolution?

there is, just some people are too ARROGANT or brainwashed, to apply logic to their understandings to see what is directly in front of their eyes.

how can dirt produce the gentic code?

one form is, a body of a living animal is essentially going to turn to dust and organic matter after some time, nutrients are added to the soil by water and wind. genetic code would be present from the decayed matter whence it came

If its so stupid show me why? why canont phd evolutionst refute cretion in debates?

they do, just some people are too ARROGANT or brainwashed to apply logic to understand what they have just witnessed