While one may correctly say that evolution is a fraud, that is not to say that that same person “believes in†Creation as it is literally set forth in Genesis.
The answer is: We don’t know where we came from. Let’s find out.
Evolution is as much, if not more, of an irrational religion than what any Creationist spouts.
Sean O’leary
The Church of the FSM is always looking for content. Details here
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
Purchase from
Amazon.com
Purchase from BN.com
An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American
Add these buttons to your site:
Bobby's Blog
Contact Bobby: Contact Me
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. This means you're free to use the content but not sell it. More Details |
Nowtheworldhasmeaning -Thanks for the info, and Marcus,well,umm…thanks for sharing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s nice to know some people are so ,could I say”passionate”about their belifes.I think…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Can we still eat pasta or what ?Yes , No , Maybe so,tell me please cause I don’t know.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Waiter, I’ll have what Marcus had.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Shhhhh,or everybody will want some.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Faith – belief that is not based on proof
Hmmm see that i just saved you a lot of time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
if evolution is such a fraud, then why is it backed by so much evidence. also, since when do scientists go down to pray to the ‘home erectus fossil’. is evolution really that controversial. if it is, it’s very sad.
‘oh my god, evolution is going to lead to so much trouble in the world. a theory that tells us that animals change over time is going to cause wars much worse than the one that goes on in the middle east. oh my god’
-my sarcastic impression of a fundy (fundamentalist)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If God created us, than where did God come from? And if you are going to say that Evolution is a fraud… please, for the love of his noodleyness, give us some reasoning behind it. You can’t just say something rediculous and then run away without explaining yourself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Here’s Richard Dawkin’s review of the book cited at the top of this thread, “Shattering the Myth of Darwinism†by Richard Milton:
.
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1992-08-28shattering_the_myths.shtml
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
why can’t people just learn to accept evolution. it’s so stupid. creation is so stupid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sean,
I have a good reply for you to your concern here. If in fact, its not about God, then why do Evolutionists such as Richard Lewontin consistently assert: ‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen [but see the difference between origin and operational science—Ed.].’
I know that Evolutionists are usually blind to this methodology of asserting Evidence or that they simply write this off as Creationists “quote mining” but there is a necessary element to quoting these Scientists. One, it is a proper appeal to authority that Evolutionists are starting to see that there may be a possible truth behind the God issue. Two, it demonstrates where the main issue of concern is among the top Evolutionists in Science today. Its keeping God out. So if Evolution is a fraud, then Creation Science is not a fraud, and by default, it becomes correct.
I don’t think you truly understand how people come to the conclusion of what God is. I think a good study in Theodicy would lend credibility to this issue. God has been proven to be true, and not only has God been proven to be true, he has also been demonstrated that only irrational fools could disbelieve in God, as it runs contrary to the Psychological make up of mankind in the first place. One can not truly escape reason. In order to escape reason, one must not even respond to this post. In so asserting, they have used reason…but what comes afterwards, I can’t grant will be intellectual. Its quite possible that it will be self refuting (judging from this site….wouldn’t be surprised.) Its interesting how we have people like this saying: “why can’t people just learn to accept evolution. it’s so stupid. creation is so stupid.” Mind telling us why its stupid? Or its just stupid cause its stupid? Yeah, this is nonsense.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
the argument for a God cannot possibly fall within the relams of logic. to claim that a being which defies logic can be proven through logic is the epitome of counter-intuition..
.
for you to assert there is a God in order to refute materialism is ultimately foolish, because once we abandon logic that we may accept the supernatural, the floodgates for all kinds of absurdities open. if you are willing to believ in god then why not Thor, or Zeus, or Osiris? why not faeries, or vampires, or goblins? you may claim that there is no logical evidence for such things, but you have already committed yourself to the possibility that certain beings (god) can exist outside the realms of logic.
.
face it; creationism has nothing but faith to back it up, and in the face of hard science it truly sucks. you have no evidence, you have no logic which cannot be reufted; you merely have an ancient book of lies and threats, which you, “doctor” seem to take far too seriously.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh, good Doctor, the folks here are going to have so much fun with this! Thank you, thank you, thank you! You might want to quote a few scientists that actually agree with you, too, just to make it more fun. I love your illogical conclusions! I am just salivating waiting for the replies. Again, thank you!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
the argument for a God cannot possibly fall within the relams of logic. to claim that a being which defies logic can be proven through logic is the epitome of counter-intuition..
.
for you to assert there is a God in order to refute materialism is ultimately foolish, because once we abandon logic that we may accept the supernatural, the floodgates for all kinds of absurdities open. if you are willing to believ in god then why not Thor, or Zeus, or Osiris? why not faeries, or vampires, or goblins? you may claim that there is no logical evidence for such things, but you have already committed yourself to the possibility that certain beings (god) can exist outside the realms of logic.
.
face it; creationism has nothing but faith to back it up, and in the face of hard science it truly sucks. you have no evidence, you have no logic which cannot be reufted; you merely have an ancient book of lies and threats, which you, “doctor†seem to take far too seriously.
This isn’t too hard. Your very ability to think refutes Materialism. Not to mention, the fact that the wind exists and can not be denied to exist refutes Materialism. Also, we have that bit of problem that Evolution has absolutely no evidence to back it up, and is a Philosophically defunct position to take a stand on. No new information from beneficial mutations has taken place, only a loss of information.
Now that Materialism is out of the way (like that was a tough one), we have a problem with you stating that God exists outside of the realm of logic. Au contraire, the teleological argument for God asserts the very opposite claim: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/
Thus, being that the mind itself is prior to nature, and precedes nature in like accord, it can be asserted that our thoughts in fact prove that there is a God, hence God is a being that can be thought of as the highest form of being that exists. God’s logic is our logic. Without logic, we could not find God. Without God, there would be no logic. Henceforth, the answer to the God question is logic itself. The laws of logic exist, they define the meaning for rationality in itself, rationality can not be escaped, the Anthropic Principle states that the cause must be greater than the effect. Since reason is beyond the capacity of mankind to escape, mankind is subject to reason and logic, and henceforth, reason precedes mankind (and as such, essence precedes existence). This cause must come from another cause. That cause is God.
Another thing, the unmoved mover argument is enough to claim that there is a God. I can draw you further into this if you want, heading into the area of Theodicy where we can actually prove that the Christian God is the only God that exists, and anything else must be the equivalent to him through the use of the law of logic.
Dr. Michael Martin
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In fact, not many know this, but Christianity is the only thing out there that tells us to check out all sides. “Critically analyze everything, hold onto the good.” It takes someone to deny rational thought in order to deny Christianity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
there is no evidence for evolution? okay, you have pretty much discredited anything else you can possibly say. speciation has been observed in lizards, fish and insects, to name but a few. new strains of bacteria crop up all the time. do these things happen because god makes them? it’s called Mutation, and contrary to what certain christians will tell you, it is not always detrimental.
if evolution does not exist, would you care to explain the origins of MRSA? how about SARS? or any of the modern bacterial strains which are resistant to antibiotics?
.
the existence of wind does not refute the materialist worldview. wind can be measured and observed through use of the correct, imparsial instruments. God and the supernatural cannot.
.
and in what possible way is evolution a defunct philosophical position? i fail to see how you could arrive at this conclusion. just because we are nothing more than bright, emotionally developed animals does not mean we do not have basic social obligations towards one another – you know, the social obligations which people call ‘morality’.
.
please, stop being such an idiot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
J and Wench Nikkiee are going to have carpal tunnel after this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No, beneficial mutations occur. The issue there is that no new information has been observed to occur through the genetics. We’d expect to see a lot by now if Evolution were true.
And Speciation, Variation and Natural Selection are perfectly legitimate concepts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“new” information does not occur, because all DNA uses the same chemical componants – Adenine, Thymine, Guanine, Cytosine and various saccharides. new species occur because new combinations of existing genetic information arise. that is why we still share 66% of our DNA with that of bacteria.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Evolution has no merit because of the Origin Science involved behind it. Nonbeing can not create Being. Metaphysically, this is a defunct position, and should be discarded as such.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As far as evidence for a Young Earth model, try: Russell Humphrey’s White Hole Model and Salty Seas for evidence. This site really sucks concerning messaging.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’d be nice to know where we have observed those new species too. As far as we can see, all genetic information involves a loss in information.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
genetic mutation requires a RECOMBINATION of existing information, not necessarily a loss of it. sometimes, a gain does occur (wild banana plants a bi-chromosomal; farmed ones have been grown from cuttings so long that they are trichromosomal). i’ll dig up some more specific examples when i am not so tired.
.
evidence against the young earth model starts with radiocarbon and potassium-argon dating , the fossil record, geological strata and a bunch of otehr stuff.
.
evolution does not explain the origin of life, merely its diversity. it is no way a defunct position. life could possibly have been created by god. it could equally have arisen spontaneaously in primordial oceans (you only need that first strand of DNA) or have come to earth clinging to a meteor in the form of archaeobacteria.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Darwin stole the ideas from Edward Blythe a YECS. Andrew Bradbury has an excellent book that can be found on this subject online. Darwin bears the burden of proof. Hence, a huge barrier for Evolution.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No combination has successfully denoted any new change or new gain of genetic information in the very least.
If you agree with this, then of course, Evolution has further problems against Creation Science than before. Though, I’d venture to say the most prominent of Scientists (and I have seen quite a few) would disagree with you on this one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But assuming the truth of Darwinism as ‘evidence’ for their explanation is begging the question. There is no experimental evidence, since we lack the DNA code of these alleged ancestors.
And therein lies your problem. Your position is still unassertable and ultimately false.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
..I don’t think you truly understand how people come to the conclusion of what God is. I think a good study in Theodicy would lend credibility to this issue. God has been proven to be true, and not only has God been proven to be true, he has also been demonstrated that only irrational fools could disbelieve in God….
AT LAST!! AT LAST!! a worthy opponent (sort of). If you believe that god put all manner of living creatures on this earth, that he also apparently created, then we have something to debate here. The human brain is a wonderful thing. In it’s billions of connections and awsome complexity, such things arise such as emotion, thought, imagination etc. A symphony of chemical and electrical interaction that give rise to what makes us, us. The capacity to love, hate, enjoy a plate of spaghetti all arise from this living organ and it’s biological process(es). Can you deny this? Can you say, with a straight face, that our brains do NOT do this? Faith also, my friend, is a result of chemical, biological, electical processes in our brains. All of what we are, or can ever be is determined by the happenings in our brains (which is damn near infinite I reckon). Why should I believe that some spirit in the sky created me? I suppose my brain could grasp that concept. I suppose it could be possible, but why? Why can’t I follow the clues? Why can’t I seek evidence? You have a book. A nifty little book that says “this is the truth!” and when I ask why, you say “because god made it this way, and god says this, and god says that…” Faith. Have Faith. I do have faith. It is an emotion; governed by the chemical and electrical activity in my brain organ. It works for you too, just that your faith is in your god, while mine is in science, and man, and mathematics. How dare you say that god is proven to be true? Do you suggest that your capacity for faith is different, or better that mine? You sir, are limited by your faith. I don’t expect you to accept that, just stop suggesting that your faith is the only true faith. Christianity is a losing bet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
evidence against the young earth model starts with radiocarbon and potassium-argon dating , the fossil record, geological strata and a bunch of otehr stuff. (Not really, all of the transitional fossils we have are solely potential. We really have no solid evidence for the transitional fossil record. This is old hat.
Radiocarbon dating really is not at all accurate. Most of the support for this is abandoned based off of the fact that: The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the ‘half-life.’ So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old. Regarding Potassium Argon dating: Potassium-argon ‘dates’
Inset: Andesite of the June 30, 1954 flow, Mt Ngauruhoe, seen at 60 times magnification under a geological microscope. Different minerals have different colours. All are embedded in a fine-grained matrix.
Eleven samples were collected from five recent lava flows during field work in January 1996—two each from the 11 February 1949, 4 June 1954, and 14 July 1954 flows and from the 19 February 1975 avalanche deposits, and three from the 30 June 1954 flow. The darker recent lavas were clearly visible and each one easily identified (with the aid of maps) on the northwestern slopes against the lighter-coloured older portions of the cone. All flows were typically made up of jumbled blocks of congealed lava, resulting in rough, jagged, clinkery surfaces.
The samples were sent progressively in batches to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), for whole-rock potassium-argon (K–Ar) dating—first a piece of one sample from each flow, then a piece of the second sample from each flow after the first set of results was received, and finally, a piece of the third sample from the 30 June 1954 flow. To also test the consistency of results within samples, second pieces of two of the 30 June 1954 lava samples were also sent for analysis.
Geochron is a respected commercial laboratory, the K–Ar lab manager having a Ph.D. in K–Ar dating. No specific location or expected age information was supplied to the laboratory. However, the samples were described as probably young with very little argon in them so as to ensure extra care was taken during the analytical work.
Map of the northwestern slopes of Mt Ngauruhoe showing the lava flows of 1949 and 1954, and the 1975 avalanche deposits.
The ‘dates’ obtained from the K–Ar analyses are listed in The ‘ages’ range from
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
for one, we do not lack the DNA code of all ancestor species. many primitive species still exist in the world today.
.
and what the hell do you mean when you say that no recombination has resulted in a new genetic code? did you miss my post on a previous thread about antibiotic-resistant bacteria?
.
of course evolution bares the burden of proof – it’s a scientific THEORY! everything in science bares this burden. gravity, electricity and physical/temporal relativity all bare the burden of proof. evolution has literally masses of evidence, from DNA sequencing to the fossil record, yet you seem intent on closing your eyes, jamming your fingers in your ears and ignoring it as well as you possibly can.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
lavas 25–50 years ago. One sample from each flow yielded ‘ages’ of
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
0.27 or 0.29 million years while all the other samples gave ‘ages’ of millions of years. The low ‘age’ samples were all processed by the laboratory in the same batch, suggesting a systematic lab problem. So the lab manager kindly re-checked his equipment and re-ran several of the samples, producing similar results. This ruled out a systematic lab error and confirmed that the low results were real. Furthermore, repeat measurements on samples already analyzed did not reproduce the same results, but this was not surprising given the analytical uncertainties at such low levels of argon. Clearly, the argon content varies greatly within these rocks. Some geochronologists would say
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nor can we accept the implicit truth of the christian god’s existence, because there is NO empirically verifiable evidence.
.
right, i’m going to leave this debate up to Maxwell. it’s late here in the UK, i have lectures tomorrow, and i need sleep.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
0.27 million years is actually the correct ‘date’, but how would they know that 3.5 million years was not in fact the correct ‘age’ if they did not already know the lava flows were recent?!
Because these rocks are known to be less than 50 years old, it is apparent from the analytical data that these K–Ar ‘ages’ are due to ‘excess’ argon inherited from the magma source area deep in the earth. Thus, when the lavas cooled, they contained appreciable (non-zero) concentrations of ‘normal’ 40Ar, which is indistinguishable from daughter radiogenic 40Ar* derived by radioactive decay of parent 40K. This violates assumption of radioactive dating, and so the K–Ar method fails the test. This same failure is also known to occur in many other rocks, including both recent volcanics8and ancient crustal rocks.
This makes it highly unreliable for the purposes that you mention.
.
evolution does not explain the origin of life, merely its diversity. it is no way a defunct position. life could possibly have been created by god. it could equally have arisen spontaneaously in primordial oceans (you only need that first strand of DNA) or have come to earth clinging to a meteor in the form of archaeobacteria. (then what are we arguing for? And how do you explain life being created without a God? That conclusion as a possibility does not follow).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I will tell you like C.S. Lewis did about our thoughts coming from Chemicals.
If that is true, then we have no reason to trust our thoughts, since they are unreliablly solely chemical processes derived from the mind. And if that be true, then we have no trusting that they are unreliable chemical processes in the first place.
Karl Marx tried and failed years ago with that one. Nice try though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nor can we accept the implicit truth of the christian god’s existence, because there is NO empirically verifiable evidence. – prove this statement.
.
right, i’m going to leave this debate up to Maxwell. it’s late here in the UK, i have lectures tomorrow, and i need sleep. Better luck next time :).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i can’t leave without replying to your comment on transitional fossils. yes, they are potential. no, they cannot be 100% verified because we do not have living samples here. but to say that none of the transitional forms discovered bare any relevance here is stupid. theory of evolution predicts transitional forms and guess what, we find transitional forms!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
for one, we do not lack the DNA code of all ancestor species. many primitive species still exist in the world today – argument by mere assertion. These species would be?
.
and what the hell do you mean when you say that no recombination has resulted in a new genetic code? did you miss my post on a previous thread about antibiotic-resistant bacteria? This feedback, from Mikko Ilmari Nummelin of Finland, who gave permission for his full name to be used, criticises the responses to the PBS series on ostensibly scientific grounds. He accuses CMI of bias, falsehood, and misinformation, but fails to back up his points.
The only issue he does attempt to back up is a claim of information increase that caused increased resistance to antibiotics. But this once again fails to understand the key relationship between information and specified complexity. Once again, supposed evidence for evolution turns out to be better explained by the Creation/Fall model. His letter is printed with point-by-point responses by Dr Jonathan Sarfati (the author of the PBS responses) interspersed as per normal email fashion. MIN’s letter includes quotes from the PBS rebuttal, which are double-indented. Ellipses at the end of one of the paragraphs signal that a mid-sentence comment follows, not an omission. – might this be what you are referring to? Old hat.
.
of course evolution bares the burden of proof – it’s a scientific THEORY! everything in science bares this burden. gravity, electricity and physical/temporal relativity all bare the burden of proof. evolution has literally masses of evidence, from DNA sequencing to the fossil record, yet you seem intent on closing your eyes, jamming your fingers in your ears and ignoring it as well as you possibly can.
DNA sequencing :). You really don’t want to go there with me do you? I can chew that cud up and spit it out.
DNA comparisons—subject to interpretation
Scientific American repeats the common argument that DNA comparisons help scientists to reconstruct the evolutionary development of organisms:
Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.
DNA comparisons are just a subset of the homology argument, which makes just as much sense in a biblical framework. A common Designer is another interpretation that makes sense of the same data. An architect commonly uses the same building material for different buildings, and a car maker commonly uses the same parts in different cars. So we shouldn’t be surprised if a Designer for life used the same biochemistry and structures in many different creatures. Conversely, if all living organisms were totally different, this might look like there were many designers instead of one.
Since DNA codes for structures and biochemical molecules, we should expect the most similar creatures to have the most similar DNA. Apes and humans are both mammals, with similar shapes, so both have similar DNA. We should expect humans to have more DNA similarities with another mammal like a pig than with a reptile like a rattlesnake. And this is so. Humans are very different from yeast but they have some biochemistry in common, so we should expect human DNA to differ more from yeast DNA than from ape DNA.
So the general pattern of similarities need not be explained by common-ancestry (evolution). Furthermore, there are some puzzling anomalies for an evolutionary explanation—similarities between organisms that evolutionists don’t believe are closely related. For example, hemoglobin, the complex molecule that carries oxygen in blood and results in its red color, is found in vertebrates. But it is also found in some earthworms, starfish, crustaceans, mollusks, and even in some bacteria. An antigen receptor protein has the same unusual single chain structure in camels and nurse sharks, but this cannot be explained by a common ancestor of sharks and camels. And there are many other examples of similarities that cannot be due to evolution.
Debunking the ‘molecular clock’
Scientific American repeats the common canard that DNA gives us a ‘molecular clock’ that tells us the history of DNA’s evolution from the simplest life form to mankind:
Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the ‘molecular clock’ that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.
Actually, the molecular clock has many problems for the evolutionist. Not only are there the anomalies and common Designer arguments I mentioned above, but they actually support a creation of distinct types within ordered groups, not continuous evolution, as non-creationist microbiologist Dr Michael Denton pointed out in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. For example, when comparing the amino acid sequence of cytochrome C of a bacterium (a prokaryote) with such widely diverse eukaryotes as yeast, wheat, silkmoth, pigeon, and horse, all of these have practically the same percentage difference with the bacterium (64 –69%). There is no intermediate cytochrome between prokaryotes and eukaryotes, and no hint that the ‘higher’ organism such as a horse has diverged more than the ‘lower’ organism such as the yeast.
The same sort of pattern is observed when comparing cytochrome C of the invertebrate silkmoth with the vertebrates lamprey, carp, turtle, pigeon, and horse. All the vertebrates are equally divergent from the silkmoth (27–30%). Yet again, comparing globins of a lamprey (a ‘primitive’ cyclostome or jawless fish) with a carp, frog, chicken, kangaroo, and human, they are all about equidistant (73–81%). Cytochrome C’s compared between a carp and a bullfrog, turtle, chicken, rabbit, and horse yield a constant difference of 13–14%. There is no trace of any transitional series of cyclostome → fish → amphibian → reptile → mammal or bird.
Another problem for evolutionists is how the molecular clock could have ticked so evenly in any given protein in so many different organisms (despite some anomalies discussed earlier which present even more problems). For this to work, there must be a constant mutation rate per unit time over most types of organism. But observations show that there is a constant mutation rate per generation, so it should be much faster for organisms with a fast generation time, such as bacteria, and much slower for elephants. In insects, generation times range from weeks in flies to many years in cicadas, and yet there is no evidence that flies are more diverged than cicadas. So evidence is against the theory that the observed patterns are due to mutations accumulating over time as life evolved.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i can’t leave without replying to your comment on transitional fossils. yes, they are potential. no, they cannot be 100% verified because we do not have living samples here. but to say that none of the transitional forms discovered bare any relevance here is stupid. theory of evolution predicts transitional forms and guess what, we find transitional forms! – WHERE?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t mind arguing facts with these christian folk, but we cannot disprove them, and they cannot disprove us with facts. We quote scholars, they quote scholars. We call them closed-minded, they call us (insert filthy word of your choice here). I think the real debate is about thought. Specifically, who is interested in controlling our thoughts, and why. Why do religious zealots seek to spread their influence? Why do they want us to believe in what they believe in? And, why do they get so offended when we don’t believe it? That is the heart of all this. There is power in numbers. We scare the by-jesus out of them because we discuss this, and someone may read it and believe us instead of them. Just for the record; to all human beings, it’s ok with me to believe whatever you want to. Just dont kill in the name of god and expect me to keep quiet. Dont tell me what to teach in school, and I won’t bother you. Don’t tell me I’m going to Hell because I say or do something your book don’t (bad grammar on purpose) approve of, and I won’t challenge your myopic views in public. Samey-Samey. I can keep my word, can you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
My point is this. We have but a handful of even potentials. We should have many more if Evolution is true. But we don’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Dr. Michael Martin
.
about .15% of biologists and geologists believe in creationism/ID.
here are a couple links to help it get into your head that overwhelming scientific evidence beats “I dont get it, so God did it”
.
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html
http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://www.nap.edu/hhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_lifetml/creationism/evidence.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
.
A simple google search will get you HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS (actually, more) of websites that support (and often prove) that a big white guy could not have created us.
Show a little intelligence, it isn’t really all that hard.
RAmen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@dr. michael martin
.
the reason why creationism is stupid is because the scientific evidence for it is……well there is none. creationism is a way of saying ‘god did it’ in a more politically correct sense. you see, you think that evolution is wrong because it contradicts your 2000 year old myth. yea, i said it, myth. you will probably say the same about evolution, but there’s a difference. evolution has been based on observation, testing, genetics, the fossil record, vestigial structures, and countless other things.
.
creationism is supported by the myths set forth in a 2000 year old book. since this book has been around for so long, i’ll admit it’s hard to let it go. however, it isn’t correct. you’ll say, ‘o, i have blind faith that the bible is 100% true’. well, if the bible is 100% true, then the world is flat right. wrong. you can accept that because we figured that out centuries ago. you won’t accept evolution because you feel it as a threat to your myths.
.
you can call me crazy, but i am not the one making shit up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t mind arguing facts with these christian folk, but we cannot disprove them, and they cannot disprove us with facts. We quote scholars, they quote scholars. We call them closed-minded, they call us (insert filthy word of your choice here). I think the real debate is about thought. Specifically, who is interested in controlling our thoughts, and why. Why do religious zealots seek to spread their influence? Why do they want us to believe in what they believe in? And, why do they get so offended when we don’t believe it? That is the heart of all this. There is power in numbers. We scare the by-jesus out of them because we discuss this, and someone may read it and believe us instead of them. Just for the record; to all human beings, it’s ok with me to believe whatever you want to. Just dont kill in the name of god and expect me to keep quiet. Dont tell me what to teach in school, and I won’t bother you. Don’t tell me I’m going to Hell because I say or do something your book don’t (bad grammar on purpose) approve of, and I won’t challenge your myopic views in public. Samey-Samey. I can keep my word, can you?
Haha, this is quite funny….we finally have a guy who realizes that Evolution is solely a Philosophy.
Well, this would be great…if it indeed was MYYYY book. But its not. And we have plenty of evidential support pointing out that a gentleman by the name of Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and performed many miracles.
Why do we want you to believe in this? It has nothing to do with numbers. We are debunking your arguments for no self-interested motives at all. We do it because we truly believe that there is a God, who lived us enough to come to earth as man and die on a cross for our sins, and that he truly rose from the dead as he proclaimed. If you can debunk the resurrection, you’ve done away with Christianity. This has failed to have been done by ANYBODY.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@dr. michael martin
.
the reason why creationism is stupid is because the scientific evidence for it is……well there is none. creationism is a way of saying ‘god did it’ in a more politically correct sense. you see, you think that evolution is wrong because it contradicts your 2000 year old myth. yea, i said it, myth. you will probably say the same about evolution, but there’s a difference. evolution has been based on observation, testing, genetics, the fossil record, vestigial structures, and countless other things.
.
creationism is supported by the myths set forth in a 2000 year old book. since this book has been around for so long, i’ll admit it’s hard to let it go. however, it isn’t correct. you’ll say, ‘o, i have blind faith that the bible is 100% true’. well, if the bible is 100% true, then the world is flat right. wrong. you can accept that because we figured that out centuries ago. you won’t accept evolution because you feel it as a threat to your myths.
.
you can call me crazy, but i am not the one making shit up.
RIGHT, and your myth that we descended from common ancestry makes a WHOLE lot more sense, right?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Prove the Bible wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In fact, our book is the only one, again that tells us to critically analyze everything…and hold on to the good stuff.
Hey, you poseur Jesus Christ up there. What does Young Earth Creation Science believe?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
p.s.
.
god isn’t a science
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I don’t mind arguing facts with these christian folk, but we cannot disprove them, and they cannot disprove us with facts.
Well, sounds like you’ve just proven this….with a fact right?
If so, then your point is moot. If not, then your point is also moot. You’re wrong either way. Faulty logic, but we’d expect that from Agnosticism.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
p.s.
.
god isn’t a science
No stuff Sherlock.
What does YECS believe?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Theodicy and Theology are what we use to analyze God.
Atheism is a form of Theology. This has been proven through court cases. As such, if you assert Atheism, you assert an Atheistic Theology. Thats self defeating, and false.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0