I can't help but laugh myself to death when I'm reminded of this pristine, top of the line irony that you cant buy anywhere. Do the Christians that put all the effort into disproving evolution understand that they are, as a living metaphor, acting out evolution? The world has changed very fast over the last century and a half, and many of these Christians, whether they've read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" or not, that they see they must adapt. This is how some Christians chose to adapt...
evolution is proven already would it kill you to not believ that God creaed the world in 7 days i know plenty of christians and catholics and so on that do
Nearly 1000 pages of over 3000 out-of-context scientific facts, from writers, theologians, pastors, other non-scientists.
Including 1350 scientific quotemines.
43 pages of illustrations that are strangely insufficient for Christians when supporting Evolution Theory. ("they think cartoons of cave-men are proof of evolution" - Fuckwit Creationist)
Such irony. Such intellectual dishonesty. Same old, same old.
Did you know this book is produced by Seventh Day Adventists who also promote many of their heretical doctrines on the same website that sells this book?
Most humans do not have an intelligence evolved to understand how it could evolve. Why do they not leave these matters up to those who can? Because they are egotistical fascists. This answer you will probably not find in Genesis.
Because, most evolutionists don't believe God created the world... so it goes on to explain other theories/ideas that most evolutionists accept to back their own.... which in turn do not through facts.
If you want to make fun of everyone about evolution, go pick up the book and give it a read---then comment. It's full of so many ideas and facts that dispute the theory(not evolution itself) that you'll have to write a book to counter it...
look up "evolution facts org" on google, I'm pretty sure(based on reading the book)--the entire book is somewhere in PDF on the website, where yet--I don't know. you can read it there.
I was speaking of the "big bang"--which most evolutionists believe because it supports spontaneous generation of energy/life/stars/galaxies out of nothing.. which is what evolution needs to be possible.. that... and time.
When did I say "spiritual lives"? I was just saying, don't comment til you've researched
So talking about how evolutionists don't believe in god (an assumption), is in fact not to take into account that their spiritual lives will make their science "go bad" from the bias?
But what does the big bang THEORY have to do with evolutionists? You're mixing fields and terms here that can only be related in a more philosophical frame... there is no collaboration of works in science connecting the two.
yes it is an assumption... most don't believe in a God. Not that they are using it spiritually, but because they think the natural world has no need for one through scientific fact. This is not in the book, so I don't know where it came from. Most scientists accept the Big Bang theory, or some variation of it... so it goes on to explain it.
I never said they were a collaboration. It's an assumption based on the field itself. I believe in God, you can reasonably assume I'm a creationist.
An assumption based on what field? Evolution or cosmology? It seems to me you want to place both under some form of evolution which in general means "development of a system"...
Based on the theory of Evolution... it explains this all in the PDF or book, I don't know why I have to type it out a 500 word comment---when you could go download it yourself instead of just replying to me. I haven't read the entire thing---and it's filled with so many ideas and facts I don't remember them all.
go read it---go research it---go understand all the facts and fakes that have been made to try to further the lies---then comment.
ah never mind, I found it---go to that website using google to search it... it's in the "free downloads" link.. you can get them plus others if you want to research both sides. And no, not every quote in the book is from a creationist viewpoint--many yes--as expected, but not all.
Okay then, fine--don't read it and assume if you're a scientist and you believe in a God--you're not making scientific claims when you believe in creation... if that's not illogical I don't know what is... if you're not going to read it, or even research the information... then again---don't comment. Your words are wasted ignorance if you refuse to understand one side(or even your own) but can make judgments on it without fully knowing both sides of evidence interpretation.
You assume that I am ignorant because I haven't read the book filled with creationist views. You assume that I have no knowledge of the theory of evolution or know any of the facts. You believe that evolution is a conspiracy of false evidence to further lies. Furthermore, you claim to be a creationist. I can not fathom how you can be so verbally fluent while being so scientifically illiterate. I believe that you have more intelligence than most creationists... but that isn't really a compliment.
I'm not here for compliments. I only came to answer your question about "The Big Bang" being in an evolution filled facts book...
No, you don't have to read a book by a creationist to realize that the theory itself is bullcrap... I know microevolution happens, macroevolution is the lie that's spread. Even when I was an atheist, the theory was too far fetched and more or less a philosophy than science.
Read whatever you wish, just read both sides--or wisdom is lost in the choice.
Do you speak another language? because there seems to be a barrier.. I never said the Big Bang was a book, I just explained your first question earlier..*why was 'the big bang' in a book about evolution?*
Again...read the book, then comment on it... it's quite ignorant to make those statements about it without having read it or researched it.
No... far fetched was just the best thing I could think of, impossible is more like it.
I don't know anything about QM... but maybe some day I'll learn.
I still haven't seen a satisfactory answer... tell me again, what is the big bang doing in a book on evolution?
I don't need to read this book. I know the Big Bang and Evolution theories well enough. Whatever this book has to say, is either repetition of the facts or a dishones spin on them.
It's as simple as you assuming if I believe in God, I probably believe in creation--or the great majority like me do
Evolution--needs time--billions of years--millions of years--do you agree? Because you and I both know it doesn't happen in individuals. So much time... is only given by a few select abiogenesis theories. the big bang being one. If you can prove the big Bang defies physics... then evolution is hurting?
It's like you trying to disprove the Bible.. belief God would be hurting
Reading the book's explanation of it.. makes it sound like a perfect mathematical theory.. not truth. Your right, it tries to explain, but it defies things we know about physics now. 1, if the big bang exploded... why would everything end up slowing down and revolving around one another(in different directions)(N 1st law). If the big bang has a central point, why is the background radiation pretty much even in directions all around earth? and there's about 50+ other facts that hurt this theory
Scientifically... I wasn't there, I can't observe it nor do I know enough about Cosmology to make a better guess. What makes sense to me is God creating it...
Now before you go off on circular reasoning-- I don't have to have a better answer to invalidate something. The fact is, the Big Bang defies much of natural laws and physics understanding... just because someone can disprove something--means they found the truth, not always the better answer or theory.
Of course God exists, since it's the only answer that makes any sense... do you realize the complications the word "sense" makes in this context?
If you can disprove something, it means you've found the truth?? Did you seriously mean to say this? Are you absolutely sure this is what you meant?
The Big Bang theory does not explain everything... but it defies by no means any natural law. Because you can find flaws in a theory, the whole thing has to go out the window? Are you insane?
Okay... try it this way, something in this world--has to be eternal in order for mortal things to live. We can prove the it's not our universe... so it must be something greater(energy?)... but energy with a purpose sounds like a God... not random chance?
Yes--if you think the sun goes around the earth, I can use cosmology to disprove that theory... but it doesn't mean I KNOW we revolve around the sun(there could be a greater planet)... I found the truth that it doesn't go around us though.
Something had to be eternal for mortal things to live? Why?
How do you prove that our universe is not eternal?
Energy with a purpose sounds like god? Well then you could pray to a galaxy. I would have no problem with that... just don't make a big thing out of like you do with this whole Christ deal.
You're saying that scientists are wrong - this being the "truth" - while you have no actual idea yourself? What do you suppose we do then?
Every natural thing has a beginning... and god is eternal... so god is unnatural?
Abiogenesis is life arising from chemicals - not from another living thing.
How do we "know" the universe has no purpose? Who did you ask? And what does entropy have to do with purpose? It doesn't even apply to most of the universe!
I don't know what Christ actually did, seeing as I don't take the Bible for fact.
You don't want to lie and make assumptions? Really? Then what are you doing right now?
@rehzon I don't know where exactly the chemicals formed life, but I'm throwing in with abiogenesis because it's been shown in laboratories that certain combinations of non-living chemicals can make amino acids, which is what reproductive molecules are made of.
... tl;dr: Yes, I'm saying that chemicals formed life, but I don't know where it happened.
What you're saying is actually tantamount to "This car is missing a door! That means we can't use it at all! I mean, how can we ever start the engine without a fucking door?"
Big Bang--- nothingness exploded from a central point in space and shot everything out until it his a certain point where gas clouds began to merge and rotate into planets and eventually stop and spin around on another?
that doesn't defy Newton's first law?
Let alone there is no central point known(background radiation is even all around the earth).
The speed redshift makes it look like WE'RE the central point.
The Big Bang theory - A quantum fluctuation started to expand at insane speeds (beyond the speed of light), this is an expansion of space. No explosion could ever go that fast.
Newton's first law - An object in motion stays in motion until it is interrupted by a force. It turns out that planets and stuff go around each other because of gravity!
Yes... things at the speed of light slowed down immensely because gravity created itself out of nothing by gas clouds that began contracting(which is wrong) and spinning around one another? (what gravity caused them to slow down?)
Again... gravity wasn't around--In FRICTIONLESS space, EXPLOSIONS don't slow down--nor was gravity even a factor. Try exploding a bomb and see if things start revolving and contracting after they get far away...this is a hilarious argument...really?
You're right... all the matter in the universe(that somehow already magically existed), compacted into a point smaller than a period(for whatever reason) expanded rapidly and then came to a slow down(for whatever reason), spun different ways, defied Newton's laws and any rational explanation any human can think of for possible existence that we have today... keep trying.
@josspretty No, the big bang theory does NOT say that before the big bang energy, time, and matter didn't exist. You've been hanging around creationist sites too much. Please visit reputable sites for your information.
I have heard atheist called closed minded about religion. Now, let me get this straight. Two people read a very old and loosely translated Book that makes extraordinary claims, that indorses slavery, brutality, and blind faith, without reason along with many other questionable views. One man accepts this as fact and wishes to spread it as such. The other, looks for evidence to collaborate the claims made, only to find there is none. Now who is the closed minded person here?
"...and I know how evolutionists work....they go to court."
1.Yes. The creationists tried to force creationism into the science classroom(see Kitzmiller v. Dover) by asserting it was an alternative theory to the MET. However they were soundly shown to be a bunch of con artists and liars in the court (particularly Dr Behe) and quite rightly creationism was not allowed to be treated as a scientific theory, therefore it had no place in a science class.
"...there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."
That was only one of the many facts he was forced to concede about creationism (now rebranded as Intelligent design) which showed him for what he had become; a pseudoscientist.
And there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for molecules to man evolution, and or Abiogenesis, supported by any pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigoruous accounts of how any formation of life, or any common descent from a single anscestor occured.....
By every definition that ToE is considered science Intelligent design is as well.....by every definition of science offered by which ID is not science, niether is ToE.
for the same freaks who yap about scientific method, and the objectivity of science they think they can win by going to court....LOL!!!
No, it doesn't work that way....that is like flat earthers winning a court case against the idea that the earth maybe a sphere.....or that african americans (and in germany that jews) aren't human......If evolution were a real science it could win a scientific debate.....no scientists do science, evolutionists just go to court.
Now you obviously do not understand why the court case was bought about. You can read the transcript of the trial and see why the court case was bought, with ease. That you refuse to do so shows bigotry.
Also if we had people winning court cases to prove the world was flat or certain people weren't human (telling that you would bring black people and Jews into the conversation in this context...) you would have a point. However we don't see this so you do not have a point.
amazing get your ideas peer reviewed or shut the fuck up ! you lot are so annoying , please please please and please read what the scientific process is ,look it up on Google this is how scientist work , ahhhhhhh!!!!
Then you can also explain vestigial 'organs' in the context of the creator? I suppose they were put there to test our faith, just like fossils, because vestigial 'organs' are exactly what we would expect to see if species evolved.
No vestigal organs are what we would expect if we devolved.....like say if there was a fall from grace and decay entered through sin.....
but what vestigal organ do you want5 refuted....you do know that things like the appendix are now showing function???....is a vestigal organ just something you don't have any knowledge how it works and you assume it has no function????.....will an evolutionist ever evolve a good argument???
Actually you have just pointed to the strength of scientific inquiry (as opposed to theological bigotry) where the scientists keep looking, even after an apparent answer has been found.
What about the coccyx (tails) or the plica semilunaris ('third' eyelid) and what about the muscles in the ear. Those 3 were taken after a 30 second Google; just to make sure the information is out there for those who might not be informed yet on this subject. You have no excuse for continued ignorance.
well i'm sorry to put the nail in the coffin of your antitheological BIGOTRY, but real scientific inquiry would have led to the fact that the coccyx has full function anchoring the muscles that hold the anus in place (all evolutionists should have a huge coccyx connected to them, LOL), and in fact the coccyx is the anchor point for the muscles of the entire pelvic diaphram....and once again, the loss of function, if you ever find a real vestigal organ, is the opposite of evolution.
evolutionists like to ASSume that organs they are too stupid to understand do not have any function.....a few decades ago there were about 200 different so called human vestigal organs, there are now almost none that are being considered and the ones that are being discussed beg the question of our limited understanding..and again, for the evolutionary infected abnormal brain, a vestigal organ would mean loss of function fitting in perfectly in Christian world veiw, even if you find one you lose
Ah great. Quotes (taken out of context again perhaps?) and personal opinions (arguing from authority even when that authority goes against the evidence)...
Perhaps one day the anti evolutionary body will actually conduct some experiments and release the results to the general scientific community!
All these type of books rely on one thing; their target audience is ignorant of the topic they are so readily dismissing.
there are no quotes taken out of context, Gould didn't invent Punk eck with Eldrige to explain away all that evidence of transitions...they created it to explain why they don't have any.....
and we have have all the scientific data we need, all experiments into abiogeesis prove it can't happen, all experiments show mutation loses info and never creates it.....
evolutionists are the ones who need experimental data....we're good thanks.
No the MET is not even science.....okay, as usual when evolutionists are confronted by IDers who are vastly more capable than themselves, they try and disconnect abiogenesis from ToE.....cool, even though we all know that evolutionist propoganda will start with the primordial soup every time they aren't worried about being made to look stupid, we will seperate the 2, abiogenisis is impossible....the only source we have observed that creates highly specified information is intelligence....I win!
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth
I hear some people talk about Christian Evolutionist??? What is that??? Thats not possible... if you are a Christian and still believe in evolution than you are saying you don't believe the Bible. This is a passage from the Bible KJV.
Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
You know I thought of that passage when I read about evolutionists trying to explain away cell membranes by suggesting 1st life used clay as a membrane.....honestly, alice in wonderland sounds more plausible than evolutionary mythology.
I find it kind of funny how many of you posting comments haven't even read the book which itself doesn't use the Bible, just cold, hard scientific law.
That book is wrong. Evolution is fact. It is possible to reconcile our Christian faith with this factual science. I recommend books by Christian evolutionists, such as Francis Collins, Gordon Glover, Richard Colling, Hugh Ross, etc. They have very good arguments that make the Bible compatible with science.
With all due respect, the Bible cannot be viewed scientifically because it involves faith. Science has no need for faith because it is defined by facts and repeated testing. Evolution is fact. I am not bashing Christianity, but you need to research more. This handbook, is tainted with bias and science should be objective.
"Science has no need for faith because it is defined by facts and repeated testing"....were is your observations of highly specified information being created without intelligent cause?..where are your tests that confirm common descent?...since natural selection only acts on losses of info, where are your facts showing how it can add info to the genome? since natural selection can't be the mechanism for common descent, what experimentally proven mechanism have you got?
"With all due respect, the Bible cannot be viewed scientifically because it involves faith."
with all due respect evolution cannot be veiwed scientifically because it involves faith that life can arrise naturally, and that all species originated from a single anscestor, and that there is some mechanism that could allow it to happen.....I'm not bashing atheism, but you need to research more.....science should be objective.
the current sci am issue makes the direct connection from abiogenesis to ToE so if you want to whine like an evolutionist then whin to the editors of sci am for making the "mistake", but even if you want to disconnect aboigenesis from ToE, it has still been proven dead, that leaves you with no natural plausibility of life arrising in the 1st place and intelligent design is on the table from the beggining, so disconnect the 2 if it makes you feel better, but naturalism NEEDS abiogenesis.
You said "...evolution cannot be veiwed scientifically because it involves faith that life can arrise naturally..." These are your words and show your confusion. MET and Abiogenesis are separate theories.
Also do you know why the latest edition of SciAm states such things? You don't really go into any detail.
Humour us all and explain why Abiogenesis "...has still been proven dead..." or why MET is dead if that is what you were actually refering to.
"Evolution is not compatable with science.....it never happened"
There gos all the observable insistence of evolution. But seeing your talking about "never" as if in the past it, let me just give to you one of my fav's when it comes to evidence in the past it's called...Now get this its called "endogenous retrovirus" or ERV's for short. Feel free to learn about them.
all that observable insistance of evolution...my poor deluded fool, we can observe Dick Dawkins insisting all day long that evolution is true, but you still have no evidence it ever happened and you don't even have a speculative mechanism to make it happen.
"my poor deluded fool, we can observe Dick Dawkins insisting all day long that evolution is true"
Have not read your bible lately? Calling people fools is wrong. Anyway, don't believe me it has been observed? Feel free to use the a peace of technology science gives you and do a Google search for observed evolution. Then get back to me.
Christians don't believe that. No ancient peoples have either for that matter. Washington Irving put it in his book The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus to make his story more interesting and it took off from there. Oh, also, you're intelligence called. It doesn't like being insulted like that.
It can be proven that all animals on Earth had a common ancestor and that we as humans are an evolving race. The reason we don't see changes in us today is because evolution is a long process, but it can be proven that we are as a race evolving(eg. cavemen)
I believe that we are unable to comprehend many of lifes mysterys, so we come up with ways to explain the unexplainable such as religion. I do believe there is an afterlife, otherwise we would be a waste of time. But we cannot prove "God"
Why not? Could you explain these things to me: Why do chickens have DNA for teeth? Why do humans have onle less chromosome then the great apes, knowing we find 'endingmark' in the middle of one of the human chromosomes? How do you explain Nylon eating bacteria? If you don't believe species evolve in different 'kinds', define kind: Labrador? Great Dane? Chiauhua? Husky? Wolf? Jackal? Fox? Weasel? Skunk? Racoon?
again, this is just a bacteria.always was just a bacteria, through mutation it has lost info which allows it to consume nylon...once again this is micro evolution and is a dead end.4)"If you don't believe species evolve in different 'kinds', define kind: Labrador? Great Dane? Chiauhua? Husky? Wolf?Jackal? Fox? Weasel? Skunk? Racoon?"
Creationists believe you can get variation in dog breeds, but you can't get dogs from cats or vice versa.
3) Do we find this possibility in other bacteria? 4) You just skipped several species and kinds. How can you say Kinds don't evolve when nobody defines Kind. And now I'm at it: ERV's? Atavisms? Love to see creation explain these.
3) can losses of information through mutation cause changes in bacteria yes....can losses of information create anything but different bacteria.....no.
4) you don't have a definition for species either, just a couple of months ago sci am had an article were scientists had discoovered interbreeding between what they had thought were distinct canine species, but the truth is that they are simply a part of a larger canine kind.
but if you want we can use fruit flies or bacteria....scientist love to experiment on these because they can produce grotesque numbers of organisms, with many generations due to short life cycles......you know what you get when you breed bacteria???....more bacteria.....you know what you get when you breed fruit flies.....yep, you guessed it, more fruit flies......
What's your point? Evolution never says a Dog should give birth to a Cat. Sometimes the dog gives birth to offspring with SMALL changes. Apply Time. Apply natural selection. Apply Genetic Drift.
Evolution. Micro = Macro + Time. Unless you can proof there is a limit to 'Microevolution', there is NO reason to assume it would 'stop/stay small changes'.
retro viruses could have easily been designed for a productive purpose, the fact that insertions can occur in similarly designed DNA, in a code that shows evidence of insertional biases, then they are no problem at all......furthermore everyday we are finding function in so called psuedo genes further suggesting bias in mutations......so once again we are back to a similarity argument.
I must admit I fail to see your point. Keep in Mind ERV's were discovered after the 'tree of life' has been laid out. Mapping the ERV's on the tree we find it matches PERFECTLY, the chances of this happening randomly are gargantuan. We share the same ERV's with closer related organisms and none with others. This would have been THE major downfall for evolution, but it matched. As did every other discovery for the last 150 years.
1) Why not? We have oserved small gains from mutation, what's holding it back? 2) You missed the important part. This was a creationist talking point for many years 'where did it go? how could we lose a wholo chromosome? ...' We didn't. It' fused. We find the chromosomes with the 'SAME' information fused together, the ending marks are in the middle of the chromosome. watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
1) no we have never observed information being created, furthermore mutation is almost always harmful and even when it does aid an organism in a certain environment it creates an overall less fit organism ie, bacterial resistance to antibiotics, and sickle cell defense from malaria in humans....mutation does not create information it destroys it.
2) no, I didn't miss the point you did, similarity is no evidence of common anscestor anymore than it is evidence for common designer.
1) Are you familiar with the lizard population set out on a Croatian island. Where rapid evolution occurred? Increases have occurred, saying otherwise is dishonest. Even most 'micro evolutionist' agree on this. The Nylon eating bacteria is a perfect example of increased information. They're able to form a vastly different enzyme that allows them to digest nylon. Yes, it would have died out if no Nylon was present, but it was and a they jumped in the unused niche.
All that would be needed to enable an enzyme to digest nylon is a mutation causing loss of specificity in a proteolytic (protein-degrading) enzyme. This may seem surprising—how would a loss of information create a new ability? Answer: enzymes are usually tuned very precisely to only one type of molecule (the substrate). Loss of information would reduce the effectiveness of its primary function, but would enable it to degrade other substrates, too.
Since both nylon and proteins are broken down by breaking amide linkages, a change in a proteolytic enzyme could also allow it to work on nylon. If this process were continued, the result would be a general enzyme with a weakly catalytic effect on the hydrolysis of too many chemicals to be useful where much selectivity is required.
To put it into perspective, acids and alkalis also catalyze many hydrolysis reactions, but they also lack specificity. Indeed, an inhibitor of a protein degrading enzyme also inhibits the action of the nylon degrading enzyme.
Can digest nylon. Please tell me how information was lost? The DNA code changes, the enzymes responded, a new niche was found, the bacteria flourished.
2) HOW is this evidence for a 'common designer'? Why would the rigid DNA structured used in all life forms be suddenly disrupted in this fashion? If the 'common designer' hypothesis sees this as evidence, it's impossible to falsify it. Evolution on the other hand does not predict this would happen, but does predict we'd need to find where this chromosome went. Losing a full chromosome would kill the organism, evolution cannot explain it.
similarity in code is just as easily described by a common designer as it is by common descent....would you expect the team at toyota to come up with something other than tires just because it had already been done???
If that is a proof of evolution it can never be falsified.
obviously losing (OR FUSING TWO INTO ONE) a chromosome will not kill an organism, the point is it only happened in humans...this saqys nothing about origins of man, only that human history contains a fusion event.
the chromosome fusion argument is simply reheated similarity argument....let me see if I can slow this down so even an evolutionist can get it....if the fusion event is only found in humans how can it be evidence of common descent from creatures who don't have the same fusion???
that is a great fairy tale, now all you need is evidence that mutation can add information required to create the variety of life in the world, or you need to find a mechanism that can work...for your fairy tale to be true all of the information would need to already exist in DNA from the beggining, and that my friend would slam the door on naturalism for good.
Then you can also explain vestigial 'organs' in the context of the creator? I suppose they were put there to test our faith, just like fossils, because vestigial 'organs' are exactly what we would expect to see if species evolved.
what vestigal organs???.....do you mean things like the appendix???...the one that we now know does have function in the immune system.....just because an evolutionist is too stupid to know what something does, does not mean it doesn't function.....we have found hundreds of so called vestigal orgins that function, and even if you did find one that no longer function, that would be an example of devolution.....you need to make stuff, not lose it.
Can anyone show me any evidence for evolution? Actually if you can, and you want monney for it, search up Kent Hovind, he has a $250000 reward for somone who can! But guess what... There is none, aww to bad for you... =|
Will the reward be paid while he serves his ten year sentence or afterward?! By the way, Homo
Australopithecus Aforensis DNA shows to be our ancestor. I think that's pretty conclusive evidence of Evolution. That hominid is 3.9 million years old and from north Africa. If that's not enough evidence of evolution then your standard for this test is far greater than other tests. You might as well reject the Theory of Gravity.
Gravity as a "Law" was disproved by Einstein. Laws don't keep being laws once exceptions are found. So, yes, Gravity is a Law unless that has since changed. And judging but some of the grammar used here, I would conclude that some people are closer to apes than they think...
if it did the monkeys we know today would not exist just because the DNA is relatively close does not mean it is human
also how can the actual human Evolve any further no one knows...gee thought so
like a great story life has its beggnings and its ends and one day it will end...life can adapt but not survive for ever unless God says so IM NO MONKEY PAL
Who said Evolution was sequential?! You can have monkeys and people existing together. This is a common misconception about the whole Theory. Which is a Scientific Theory... not a hunch which is a stupid misinterpretation of the defition of a Scientific Theory. Oh, and pretending you're not a monkey doesn't change the facts...
has already been dismissed as an anscestor of man.....the only reason they looked at 'lucy' was because of the latoli footprints.....lucy was a tree dwelling chimp....her pelvis was chimplike so she couldn't walk upright....so who made the latoli footprints??? were humans with perfect feet around 3.5 million years ago, or are the geologists wrong in dating the rock???.....hmmmm
Harvard has a contest worth $1,000,000 to prove abiogenesis.....interestingly even though they deny intelligent design is science the winning applicant must address questions raised by intelligent design, specifically Dembski's information theory.....
They won't publicly advertize the contest, at least till they get a winner (never will).....obviously because they don't want to embarrass their priests of evolution.
Do a search, there are many articles dissmissing Lucy as an anscestor of man...and Harvard hasn't placed a bet, it is a secret award for a $1,000,000 grant to be awarded to anyone who can save naturalism and abiogenesis from its current state of doom.....so you can call bullshit all you like but you will lose.
Well, then help me out here... which journal article dismiss Lucy? Also, where is the link to the Harvard award? You're making the same evidenceless claims yet never providing a source... you're just saying things like: "Do a search, there are many articles..." Well, I've been doing searches and I've yet to find an article stating that Lucy was a fake. Also, I can not find any single reference anyway to a one million dollar unclaimed award from Harvard. I didn't make the claim... you did.
If there is an article dismissing A. Aferensis (your "Lucy"), I am certain it was written by a young-earther who never picked up a bone in his life.
I find it quite remarkable for those who make these aruments, does not seem to have the qualifications to pour pee out of a boot, with the instructions written underneath.
But, this disucssion is most entertaining for a cold and snowy day.
Information theory eh? Ok then, smartie pants, answer these 5 questions:
Q1: Can information be created by gene duplication or polyploidy? More specifically, if x is a string of symbols, is it possible for xx to contain more information than x?
Q2: Can information be created by point mutations? More specifically, if xay is a string of symbols, is it possible that xby contains significantly more information? Here a, b are distinct symbols, and x, y are strings.
Q3: Can information be created by deletion? More specifically, if xyz is a string of symbols, is it possible that xz contains signficantly more information?
Q4: Can information be created by random rearrangement? More specifically, if x is a string of symbols, is it possible that some permutation of x contains significantly more information?
Q5. Can information be created by recombination? More specifically, let x and y be strings of the same length, and let s(x, y) be any single string obtained by "shuffling" x and y together. Here I do not mean what is sometimes called "perfect shuffle", but rather a possibly imperfect shuffle where x and y both appear left-to-right in s(x, y) , but not necessarily contiguously.
Cont... For example, a perfect shuffle of 0000 and 1111 gives 01010101, and one possible non-perfect shuffle of 0000 and 1111 is 01101100. Can an imperfect shuffle of two strings have more information than the sum of the information in each string?
no duplication does not provide new information.....a copy is a copy, a copy with mistakes in it is a copy with a loss of information......
I'll tell you what, lets cut to the chase here...science is about repeatable falsifiable experiment and observation, show us the proof that information has been added to the genome, I'll warn you to avoid assumptions in order to avoid having me humiliate you again.....good luck!!!
"...I'll warn you to avoid assumptions in order to avoid having me humiliate you again..."
Assumptions like the MET isn't 'science'?
Anyway, after typing in "proof that information has been added to the genome" into Google Uk the fifth hit is titled "Streptomyces". Being an educated person I am sure you know what this is. The article even provides the source information so you can read more into its findings. That was one example, which took me 20 seconds to find. Have fun...
watchmannow is part of your ilk. the 'SOMETHING CAME FROM NOTHING' argument is the ultimate cowards' way of dodging the discussion.
IS there a 'god'? Perhaps. Are WE the ultimate result? Unlikely.
This is a VERY, VERY big Universe. Is the Bible perfect? Nope. Too many inconsistencies, just read it and learn. It's a collection of stories, by various authors, over hundreds of years. Mis-translated too.
an evolutionoist shouldn't speak about evolution because they know nothing, but they should never ever try and attack the bible as they really do not know anything.....the Old testament contains hundreds of prophecies all coming true in the central figure of the new testament, which documents were written early and unlike 'origin of species' have been shown to be reliable....if you are even the most basic of historian you can easily defend bilical authority.
Gould was misquoted, which seems to be a very nasty habit for you YECers. It is amazing that you wish to advance this "theory" in the name of God, yet you seem to have no problem with lying. Why is that?
lawilson200, " '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 mismash of guessing games and figure juggling." Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].
Really, this is an interesting conspracy. You will need to go more into depth with it. Why would hundred of thousands of people who enter into the sciences, wish to advance what you say is a hoax. You telling me that every scientists who ever lived are party to a hoax? That is a neat trick. Any ideas how it is pulled off?
PS-My parents are microbiologists. My father even holds a PhD in microbiology. They are also the two both religious people I happen to know. Are you telling me that they are advancing a lie? PS2-Find a new quote. As I said, don't toss me junk that was written 48 years ago. I think the sceinces has advanced quite abit since then.
Final PS - I happen to be a geologists. Are suggesting I am advancing a hoax. Are my friends and co-workers advancing the same hoax? We get into the sciences because there is something about nature we wish to explore and understand. We go here the evidence leads us. In the end, there is no conspiracy being advanced.
I can't help but laugh myself to death when I'm reminded of this pristine, top of the line irony that you cant buy anywhere. Do the Christians that put all the effort into disproving evolution understand that they are, as a living metaphor, acting out evolution? The world has changed very fast over the last century and a half, and many of these Christians, whether they've read Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" or not, that they see they must adapt. This is how some Christians chose to adapt...
Goldmageman 1 year ago
this book is amazing, i've just been reading this and can't put it down now.
josspretty 1 year ago
evolution is proven already would it kill you to not believ that God creaed the world in 7 days i know plenty of christians and catholics and so on that do
Dragonwing16 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dragonwing16 you obviously haven't read this book
josspretty 1 year ago
Yeah, but those lab amino acids don't last long or create, bond with natural
ones. Placing them in water breaks them up. Only one type can be made in a
lab, but it takes left & right amino acids (only found in already living beings)
to build anything.
rehzon 1 year ago
@rehzon
Not a single clause of that was correct.
AdNeeb 1 month ago
The Evolution Handbook.
Nearly 1000 pages of over 3000 out-of-context scientific facts, from writers, theologians, pastors, other non-scientists.
Including 1350 scientific quotemines.
43 pages of illustrations that are strangely insufficient for Christians when supporting Evolution Theory. ("they think cartoons of cave-men are proof of evolution" - Fuckwit Creationist)
Such irony. Such intellectual dishonesty. Same old, same old.
ChickenHawk110 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
How many pages is this book, where can I buy it, and is it really in the $3-$10 range?? If it is I will be exceptionally pleased :)
macroheart 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How many pages is this book, where can I buy it, and is it really in the $3-$10 range?? If it is I will be exceptionally pleased :)
macroheart 1 year ago
Did you know this book is produced by Seventh Day Adventists who also promote many of their heretical doctrines on the same website that sells this book?
realirishdude 2 years ago
Most humans do not have an intelligence evolved to understand how it could evolve. Why do they not leave these matters up to those who can? Because they are egotistical fascists. This answer you will probably not find in Genesis.
Koujinkamu 2 years ago
What is STELLAR evolution doing in a book on BIOLOGICAL evolution? 0:26
Koujinkamu 2 years ago
Because, most evolutionists don't believe God created the world... so it goes on to explain other theories/ideas that most evolutionists accept to back their own.... which in turn do not through facts.
If you want to make fun of everyone about evolution, go pick up the book and give it a read---then comment. It's full of so many ideas and facts that dispute the theory(not evolution itself) that you'll have to write a book to counter it...
droptozro 2 years ago
That's a very good story, but you're going to have to give me some examples. Also, there isn't just one book.
"which in turn do not through facts" what does this mean?
What does evolutionists' spiritual lives have to do with the facts of evolution?
Koujinkamu 2 years ago
look up "evolution facts org" on google, I'm pretty sure(based on reading the book)--the entire book is somewhere in PDF on the website, where yet--I don't know. you can read it there.
I was speaking of the "big bang"--which most evolutionists believe because it supports spontaneous generation of energy/life/stars/galaxies out of nothing.. which is what evolution needs to be possible.. that... and time.
When did I say "spiritual lives"? I was just saying, don't comment til you've researched
droptozro 2 years ago
So talking about how evolutionists don't believe in god (an assumption), is in fact not to take into account that their spiritual lives will make their science "go bad" from the bias?
But what does the big bang THEORY have to do with evolutionists? You're mixing fields and terms here that can only be related in a more philosophical frame... there is no collaboration of works in science connecting the two.
Koujinkamu 2 years ago
yes it is an assumption... most don't believe in a God. Not that they are using it spiritually, but because they think the natural world has no need for one through scientific fact. This is not in the book, so I don't know where it came from. Most scientists accept the Big Bang theory, or some variation of it... so it goes on to explain it.
I never said they were a collaboration. It's an assumption based on the field itself. I believe in God, you can reasonably assume I'm a creationist.
droptozro 2 years ago
An assumption based on what field? Evolution or cosmology? It seems to me you want to place both under some form of evolution which in general means "development of a system"...
Koujinkamu 2 years ago
Based on the theory of Evolution... it explains this all in the PDF or book, I don't know why I have to type it out a 500 word comment---when you could go download it yourself instead of just replying to me. I haven't read the entire thing---and it's filled with so many ideas and facts I don't remember them all.
go read it---go research it---go understand all the facts and fakes that have been made to try to further the lies---then comment.
droptozro 2 years ago
ah never mind, I found it---go to that website using google to search it... it's in the "free downloads" link.. you can get them plus others if you want to research both sides. And no, not every quote in the book is from a creationist viewpoint--many yes--as expected, but not all.
droptozro 2 years ago
The fact that ANY creationist viewpoint enters the book renders it pointless to me in purely scientific terms.
Koujinkamu 2 years ago
Okay then, fine--don't read it and assume if you're a scientist and you believe in a God--you're not making scientific claims when you believe in creation... if that's not illogical I don't know what is... if you're not going to read it, or even research the information... then again---don't comment. Your words are wasted ignorance if you refuse to understand one side(or even your own) but can make judgments on it without fully knowing both sides of evidence interpretation.
droptozro 2 years ago
You assume that I am ignorant because I haven't read the book filled with creationist views. You assume that I have no knowledge of the theory of evolution or know any of the facts. You believe that evolution is a conspiracy of false evidence to further lies. Furthermore, you claim to be a creationist. I can not fathom how you can be so verbally fluent while being so scientifically illiterate. I believe that you have more intelligence than most creationists... but that isn't really a compliment.
Koujinkamu 2 years ago
I'm not here for compliments. I only came to answer your question about "The Big Bang" being in an evolution filled facts book...
No, you don't have to read a book by a creationist to realize that the theory itself is bullcrap... I know microevolution happens, macroevolution is the lie that's spread. Even when I was an atheist, the theory was too far fetched and more or less a philosophy than science.
Read whatever you wish, just read both sides--or wisdom is lost in the choice.
droptozro 2 years ago
The Big Bang is NOT a book and it has NOTHING to do with the theory of evolutiion.
This, however, is a book and it's one of the biggest turds ever laid on what is supposed to be an intelligent discussion.
So things that are "far fetched" in your opinion automatically prove themselves to be bullshit, because you don't understand how it can be possible?
Quantum mechanics would just blow your face right off. :P
Koujinkamu 2 years ago
Do you speak another language? because there seems to be a barrier.. I never said the Big Bang was a book, I just explained your first question earlier..*why was 'the big bang' in a book about evolution?*
Again...read the book, then comment on it... it's quite ignorant to make those statements about it without having read it or researched it.
No... far fetched was just the best thing I could think of, impossible is more like it.
I don't know anything about QM... but maybe some day I'll learn.
droptozro 2 years ago
I still haven't seen a satisfactory answer... tell me again, what is the big bang doing in a book on evolution?
I don't need to read this book. I know the Big Bang and Evolution theories well enough. Whatever this book has to say, is either repetition of the facts or a dishones spin on them.
You should be careful with the word impossible...
Koujinkamu 2 years ago
It's as simple as you assuming if I believe in God, I probably believe in creation--or the great majority like me do
Evolution--needs time--billions of years--millions of years--do you agree? Because you and I both know it doesn't happen in individuals. So much time... is only given by a few select abiogenesis theories. the big bang being one. If you can prove the big Bang defies physics... then evolution is hurting?
It's like you trying to disprove the Bible.. belief God would be hurting
droptozro 2 years ago
I completely agree with most of this... but the Big Bang does not defy physics. It attempts to explain it.
Koujinkamu 2 years ago
Reading the book's explanation of it.. makes it sound like a perfect mathematical theory.. not truth. Your right, it tries to explain, but it defies things we know about physics now. 1, if the big bang exploded... why would everything end up slowing down and revolving around one another(in different directions)(N 1st law). If the big bang has a central point, why is the background radiation pretty much even in directions all around earth? and there's about 50+ other facts that hurt this theory
droptozro 2 years ago
If you want the Big Bang theory to be wrong, what is your alternative? The best way to invalidate a theory is to present a better one.
Koujinkamu 2 years ago
True, I understand your point.
Scientifically... I wasn't there, I can't observe it nor do I know enough about Cosmology to make a better guess. What makes sense to me is God creating it...
Now before you go off on circular reasoning-- I don't have to have a better answer to invalidate something. The fact is, the Big Bang defies much of natural laws and physics understanding... just because someone can disprove something--means they found the truth, not always the better answer or theory.
droptozro 2 years ago
Of course God exists, since it's the only answer that makes any sense... do you realize the complications the word "sense" makes in this context?
If you can disprove something, it means you've found the truth?? Did you seriously mean to say this? Are you absolutely sure this is what you meant?
The Big Bang theory does not explain everything... but it defies by no means any natural law. Because you can find flaws in a theory, the whole thing has to go out the window? Are you insane?
Koujinkamu 2 years ago
Okay... try it this way, something in this world--has to be eternal in order for mortal things to live. We can prove the it's not our universe... so it must be something greater(energy?)... but energy with a purpose sounds like a God... not random chance?
Yes--if you think the sun goes around the earth, I can use cosmology to disprove that theory... but it doesn't mean I KNOW we revolve around the sun(there could be a greater planet)... I found the truth that it doesn't go around us though.
droptozro 2 years ago
Something had to be eternal for mortal things to live? Why?
How do you prove that our universe is not eternal?
Energy with a purpose sounds like god? Well then you could pray to a galaxy. I would have no problem with that... just don't make a big thing out of like you do with this whole Christ deal.
You're saying that scientists are wrong - this being the "truth" - while you have no actual idea yourself? What do you suppose we do then?
Koujinkamu 2 years ago
Every natural thing... has a beginning...
Show me something that's living that didn't come from another living thing? there...something has to be eternal... what other explanation do you have?
Okay... energy with a purpose, okay... well we KNOW the universe doesn't have a purpose... welcome to thermodynamics--entropy.
Do you know what Christ did? or is that just mocking? I mean, I did mock too until I understood it.
I suppose we shouldn't lie and make assumptions... that's all.
droptozro 2 years ago
Every natural thing has a beginning... and god is eternal... so god is unnatural?
Abiogenesis is life arising from chemicals - not from another living thing.
How do we "know" the universe has no purpose? Who did you ask? And what does entropy have to do with purpose? It doesn't even apply to most of the universe!
I don't know what Christ actually did, seeing as I don't take the Bible for fact.
You don't want to lie and make assumptions? Really? Then what are you doing right now?
Koujinkamu 2 years ago
@Koujinkamu
"Abiogenesis is life arising from chemicals - not from another living thing."
Are you saying those "chemicals" formed life in the ocean?
rehzon 1 year ago
@rehzon I don't know where exactly the chemicals formed life, but I'm throwing in with abiogenesis because it's been shown in laboratories that certain combinations of non-living chemicals can make amino acids, which is what reproductive molecules are made of.
... tl;dr: Yes, I'm saying that chemicals formed life, but I don't know where it happened.
Koujinkamu 1 year ago
What you're saying is actually tantamount to "This car is missing a door! That means we can't use it at all! I mean, how can we ever start the engine without a fucking door?"
You can see how stupid that sounds, right?
Koujinkamu 2 years ago
Actually... they do, Newton's first law...
Object in motion stays in motion.
Big Bang--- nothingness exploded from a central point in space and shot everything out until it his a certain point where gas clouds began to merge and rotate into planets and eventually stop and spin around on another?
that doesn't defy Newton's first law?
Let alone there is no central point known(background radiation is even all around the earth).
The speed redshift makes it look like WE'RE the central point.
droptozro 2 years ago
The Big Bang theory - A quantum fluctuation started to expand at insane speeds (beyond the speed of light), this is an expansion of space. No explosion could ever go that fast.
Newton's first law - An object in motion stays in motion until it is interrupted by a force. It turns out that planets and stuff go around each other because of gravity!
Koujinkamu 2 years ago
Yes... things at the speed of light slowed down immensely because gravity created itself out of nothing by gas clouds that began contracting(which is wrong) and spinning around one another? (what gravity caused them to slow down?)
Again... gravity wasn't around--In FRICTIONLESS space, EXPLOSIONS don't slow down--nor was gravity even a factor. Try exploding a bomb and see if things start revolving and contracting after they get far away...this is a hilarious argument...really?
droptozro 2 years ago
Big Bang does NOT say nothingness exploded from a central point in space, do your homework before parading your ignorance for all to see.
karnaktwo 2 years ago
You're right... all the matter in the universe(that somehow already magically existed), compacted into a point smaller than a period(for whatever reason) expanded rapidly and then came to a slow down(for whatever reason), spun different ways, defied Newton's laws and any rational explanation any human can think of for possible existence that we have today... keep trying.
droptozro 2 years ago
@karnaktwo i was doing my homework, and the big bang theory states that before the big bang, energy, time, and matter didn't exist.
what is your homework?
josspretty 1 year ago
@josspretty No, the big bang theory does NOT say that before the big bang energy, time, and matter didn't exist. You've been hanging around creationist sites too much. Please visit reputable sites for your information.
karnaktwo 1 year ago
@karnaktwo could you point me to some of those sites please? :)
josspretty 1 year ago
@josspretty Certainly, here are a few:
umich.e_d_u/~gs265/bigbang.h_t_m
science.howstuffworks.c_o_m/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory.h_t_m
scienceandreason.n_e_t/oq/oq-co008.h_t_m
The last link is a very thorough investigation of the Big Bang, you can go all the way to the end to "what caused the big bang"
Youtube won't let you post links, just remove all underscore characters to make them real links.
karnaktwo 1 year ago
I should have guessed by the ratting. lmao. Only Sheep need a shepherd.
"Gods are fragile things; they may be killed by a whiff of science or a dose of common sense."
-- Chapman Cohen
4me2cclearly 2 years ago 2
I have heard atheist called closed minded about religion. Now, let me get this straight. Two people read a very old and loosely translated Book that makes extraordinary claims, that indorses slavery, brutality, and blind faith, without reason along with many other questionable views. One man accepts this as fact and wishes to spread it as such. The other, looks for evidence to collaborate the claims made, only to find there is none. Now who is the closed minded person here?
4me2cclearly 2 years ago
This book epitomized creationist "research."
TheFallibleFiend 3 years ago
"...and I know how evolutionists work....they go to court."
1.Yes. The creationists tried to force creationism into the science classroom(see Kitzmiller v. Dover) by asserting it was an alternative theory to the MET. However they were soundly shown to be a bunch of con artists and liars in the court (particularly Dr Behe) and quite rightly creationism was not allowed to be treated as a scientific theory, therefore it had no place in a science class.
Then along came ID...
busybusy123456 3 years ago
Michael Behe was forced to concede:
"...there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred."
That was only one of the many facts he was forced to concede about creationism (now rebranded as Intelligent design) which showed him for what he had become; a pseudoscientist.
busybusy123456 3 years ago
And there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for molecules to man evolution, and or Abiogenesis, supported by any pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigoruous accounts of how any formation of life, or any common descent from a single anscestor occured.....
By every definition that ToE is considered science Intelligent design is as well.....by every definition of science offered by which ID is not science, niether is ToE.
eeritated 3 years ago
Name one prediction made by ID.
busybusy123456 3 years ago
That biological systems show irreducible complexity (they do), That life would be based on highly specified information (it is)....
Now what predictions does abiogenesis, and molecules to man evolution make???
eeritated 2 years ago
for the same freaks who yap about scientific method, and the objectivity of science they think they can win by going to court....LOL!!!
No, it doesn't work that way....that is like flat earthers winning a court case against the idea that the earth maybe a sphere.....or that african americans (and in germany that jews) aren't human......If evolution were a real science it could win a scientific debate.....no scientists do science, evolutionists just go to court.
eeritated 3 years ago
Now you obviously do not understand why the court case was bought about. You can read the transcript of the trial and see why the court case was bought, with ease. That you refuse to do so shows bigotry.
Also if we had people winning court cases to prove the world was flat or certain people weren't human (telling that you would bring black people and Jews into the conversation in this context...) you would have a point. However we don't see this so you do not have a point.
busybusy123456 3 years ago
amazing get your ideas peer reviewed or shut the fuck up ! you lot are so annoying , please please please and please read what the scientific process is ,look it up on Google this is how scientist work , ahhhhhhh!!!!
sausage4mash 3 years ago 3
I know how scientists work.....they observe the scientific method....
and I know how evolutionists work....they go to court.
Molecules to man evolution is not science and suggesting it is science is insulting to real scientists.
eeritated 3 years ago
"amazing get your ideas peer reviewed or shut the fuck up ! "
evolution is a fuck scintific theory you bloody ignorant half witt , ahhh! evolutionist wtf u talking about gravitist anyone .
your a idiot get a education and stop spreading ignorance !
sausage4mash 3 years ago 2
Then you can also explain vestigial 'organs' in the context of the creator? I suppose they were put there to test our faith, just like fossils, because vestigial 'organs' are exactly what we would expect to see if species evolved.
Numpty...
busybusy123456 3 years ago
No vestigal organs are what we would expect if we devolved.....like say if there was a fall from grace and decay entered through sin.....
but what vestigal organ do you want5 refuted....you do know that things like the appendix are now showing function???....is a vestigal organ just something you don't have any knowledge how it works and you assume it has no function????.....will an evolutionist ever evolve a good argument???
eeritated 3 years ago
Actually you have just pointed to the strength of scientific inquiry (as opposed to theological bigotry) where the scientists keep looking, even after an apparent answer has been found.
What about the coccyx (tails) or the plica semilunaris ('third' eyelid) and what about the muscles in the ear. Those 3 were taken after a 30 second Google; just to make sure the information is out there for those who might not be informed yet on this subject. You have no excuse for continued ignorance.
busybusy123456 3 years ago
well i'm sorry to put the nail in the coffin of your antitheological BIGOTRY, but real scientific inquiry would have led to the fact that the coccyx has full function anchoring the muscles that hold the anus in place (all evolutionists should have a huge coccyx connected to them, LOL), and in fact the coccyx is the anchor point for the muscles of the entire pelvic diaphram....and once again, the loss of function, if you ever find a real vestigal organ, is the opposite of evolution.
eeritated 3 years ago
and as for ear muscles, two of the smallest muscles in the body, the
stapedius and the tensor tympani, serve to dampen the
movements of the auditory ossicles and the tympanic
membrane (respectively) preventing loud sounds from
overloading these delicate structures of the middle ear. In
general, most small, short muscles of the body produce fine
adjustments in the movement of larger muscles.
eeritated 3 years ago
evolutionists like to ASSume that organs they are too stupid to understand do not have any function.....a few decades ago there were about 200 different so called human vestigal organs, there are now almost none that are being considered and the ones that are being discussed beg the question of our limited understanding..and again, for the evolutionary infected abnormal brain, a vestigal organ would mean loss of function fitting in perfectly in Christian world veiw, even if you find one you lose
eeritated 3 years ago
Ah great. Quotes (taken out of context again perhaps?) and personal opinions (arguing from authority even when that authority goes against the evidence)...
Perhaps one day the anti evolutionary body will actually conduct some experiments and release the results to the general scientific community!
All these type of books rely on one thing; their target audience is ignorant of the topic they are so readily dismissing.
busybusy123456 3 years ago
there are no quotes taken out of context, Gould didn't invent Punk eck with Eldrige to explain away all that evidence of transitions...they created it to explain why they don't have any.....
and we have have all the scientific data we need, all experiments into abiogeesis prove it can't happen, all experiments show mutation loses info and never creates it.....
evolutionists are the ones who need experimental data....we're good thanks.
eeritated 3 years ago
What has abiogenesis got to do with Evolutionary Theory? Do you understand the differences between the two?
The rest of your post is either one great lie or you are uninformed. I'll presume the latter as I like to give the benefit of the doubt at first.
Talkorigins (.org) is a good place to start if you have little knowledge on the background of the MET.
Regards
P.S The MET is one of the best supported scientific theories going...
busybusy123456 3 years ago
No the MET is not even science.....okay, as usual when evolutionists are confronted by IDers who are vastly more capable than themselves, they try and disconnect abiogenesis from ToE.....cool, even though we all know that evolutionist propoganda will start with the primordial soup every time they aren't worried about being made to look stupid, we will seperate the 2, abiogenisis is impossible....the only source we have observed that creates highly specified information is intelligence....I win!
eeritated 3 years ago
Is it impossible? You have proven as much and released the findings to the scientific community for peer review? What nonsense...
"The MET is not even science"
That you would quite happily write such foolishness on here for everyone to see shows just have deep your ignorance goes.
busybusy123456 3 years ago
it does have the bible in it ive read it
cejnsen0814 3 years ago 2
fucking homos evolution is real you fuckwhores
phattbilly 3 years ago
"fucking homos evolution is real you fuckwhores"
This is about the most cogent argument I have seen from the "mind" of an evolutionists.....we have some real mental giants here, don't we???
LOL
eeritated 3 years ago
Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth
MarkSutherin87 3 years ago
I hear some people talk about Christian Evolutionist??? What is that??? Thats not possible... if you are a Christian and still believe in evolution than you are saying you don't believe the Bible. This is a passage from the Bible KJV.
Genesis 2:7
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
MarkSutherin87 3 years ago
You know I thought of that passage when I read about evolutionists trying to explain away cell membranes by suggesting 1st life used clay as a membrane.....honestly, alice in wonderland sounds more plausible than evolutionary mythology.
eeritated 3 years ago
I find it kind of funny how many of you posting comments haven't even read the book which itself doesn't use the Bible, just cold, hard scientific law.
firstwesbass 3 years ago
there is no such thing as cold hard scientific law anywhere near molecules to man evolution.
eeritated 3 years ago
you are gayt as hell fartknocker
homo
murisfurder 3 years ago
That book is wrong. Evolution is fact. It is possible to reconcile our Christian faith with this factual science. I recommend books by Christian evolutionists, such as Francis Collins, Gordon Glover, Richard Colling, Hugh Ross, etc. They have very good arguments that make the Bible compatible with science.
cre8ivmind 3 years ago
The Bible already was compatable with science.....
Evolution is not compatable with science.....it never happened and furthermore we have no mechanism which can allow it to happen.
eeritated 3 years ago
Ignorance sure is bliss for you ey?
With all due respect, the Bible cannot be viewed scientifically because it involves faith. Science has no need for faith because it is defined by facts and repeated testing. Evolution is fact. I am not bashing Christianity, but you need to research more. This handbook, is tainted with bias and science should be objective.
xawesomexelix 3 years ago
"Science has no need for faith because it is defined by facts and repeated testing"....were is your observations of highly specified information being created without intelligent cause?..where are your tests that confirm common descent?...since natural selection only acts on losses of info, where are your facts showing how it can add info to the genome? since natural selection can't be the mechanism for common descent, what experimentally proven mechanism have you got?
eeritated 3 years ago
"With all due respect, the Bible cannot be viewed scientifically because it involves faith."
with all due respect evolution cannot be veiwed scientifically because it involves faith that life can arrise naturally, and that all species originated from a single anscestor, and that there is some mechanism that could allow it to happen.....I'm not bashing atheism, but you need to research more.....science should be objective.
eeritated 3 years ago
Abiogenesis vs. MET confusion raises its ignorant head again...
busybusy123456 3 years ago
the current sci am issue makes the direct connection from abiogenesis to ToE so if you want to whine like an evolutionist then whin to the editors of sci am for making the "mistake", but even if you want to disconnect aboigenesis from ToE, it has still been proven dead, that leaves you with no natural plausibility of life arrising in the 1st place and intelligent design is on the table from the beggining, so disconnect the 2 if it makes you feel better, but naturalism NEEDS abiogenesis.
eeritated 3 years ago
You said "...evolution cannot be veiwed scientifically because it involves faith that life can arrise naturally..." These are your words and show your confusion. MET and Abiogenesis are separate theories.
Also do you know why the latest edition of SciAm states such things? You don't really go into any detail.
Humour us all and explain why Abiogenesis "...has still been proven dead..." or why MET is dead if that is what you were actually refering to.
busybusy123456 3 years ago
"Evolution is not compatable with science.....it never happened"
There gos all the observable insistence of evolution. But seeing your talking about "never" as if in the past it, let me just give to you one of my fav's when it comes to evidence in the past it's called...Now get this its called "endogenous retrovirus" or ERV's for short. Feel free to learn about them.
LittleTruckingBozo 3 years ago
all that observable insistance of evolution...my poor deluded fool, we can observe Dick Dawkins insisting all day long that evolution is true, but you still have no evidence it ever happened and you don't even have a speculative mechanism to make it happen.
Observable insistance!!!....LOL!!!
eeritated 3 years ago
"my poor deluded fool, we can observe Dick Dawkins insisting all day long that evolution is true"
Have not read your bible lately? Calling people fools is wrong. Anyway, don't believe me it has been observed? Feel free to use the a peace of technology science gives you and do a Google search for observed evolution. Then get back to me.
LittleTruckingBozo 3 years ago
The fool hath said in his heart, "There is No God".
The fool hates repremand, The Wise take scorn and make themselves better.
Tonkadude1001 3 years ago
Matthew 5:22 "Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
LittleTruckingBozo 3 years ago
by the way how did all of that observable insistance in a flat earth work out for ya???
LOL!!!!
eeritated 3 years ago
"by the way how did all of that observable insistance in a flat earth work out for ya???"
I don't know. Ask the Christians that happen to be stupid enough to believe that.
LittleTruckingBozo 3 years ago
Christians don't believe that. No ancient peoples have either for that matter. Washington Irving put it in his book The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus to make his story more interesting and it took off from there. Oh, also, you're intelligence called. It doesn't like being insulted like that.
firstwesbass 2 years ago
*your, sorry
firstwesbass 2 years ago
"Christians don't believe that. No ancient peoples have either for that matter"
Google: "Flat earth society."
LittleTruckingBozo 2 years ago
It can be proven that all animals on Earth had a common ancestor and that we as humans are an evolving race. The reason we don't see changes in us today is because evolution is a long process, but it can be proven that we are as a race evolving(eg. cavemen)
I believe that we are unable to comprehend many of lifes mysterys, so we come up with ways to explain the unexplainable such as religion. I do believe there is an afterlife, otherwise we would be a waste of time. But we cannot prove "God"
meanman27 4 years ago
"It can be proven that all animals on Earth had a common ancestor"
LOL
No it can't!!!!
eeritated 3 years ago
Why not? Could you explain these things to me: Why do chickens have DNA for teeth? Why do humans have onle less chromosome then the great apes, knowing we find 'endingmark' in the middle of one of the human chromosomes? How do you explain Nylon eating bacteria? If you don't believe species evolve in different 'kinds', define kind: Labrador? Great Dane? Chiauhua? Husky? Wolf? Jackal? Fox? Weasel? Skunk? Racoon?
wimscheers 3 years ago
3)"How do you explain Nylon eating bacteria?"
again, this is just a bacteria.always was just a bacteria, through mutation it has lost info which allows it to consume nylon...once again this is micro evolution and is a dead end.4)"If you don't believe species evolve in different 'kinds', define kind: Labrador? Great Dane? Chiauhua? Husky? Wolf?Jackal? Fox? Weasel? Skunk? Racoon?"
Creationists believe you can get variation in dog breeds, but you can't get dogs from cats or vice versa.
eeritated 3 years ago
3) Do we find this possibility in other bacteria? 4) You just skipped several species and kinds. How can you say Kinds don't evolve when nobody defines Kind. And now I'm at it: ERV's? Atavisms? Love to see creation explain these.
wimscheers 3 years ago
3) can losses of information through mutation cause changes in bacteria yes....can losses of information create anything but different bacteria.....no.
4) you don't have a definition for species either, just a couple of months ago sci am had an article were scientists had discoovered interbreeding between what they had thought were distinct canine species, but the truth is that they are simply a part of a larger canine kind.
eeritated 3 years ago
but if you want we can use fruit flies or bacteria....scientist love to experiment on these because they can produce grotesque numbers of organisms, with many generations due to short life cycles......you know what you get when you breed bacteria???....more bacteria.....you know what you get when you breed fruit flies.....yep, you guessed it, more fruit flies......
eeritated 3 years ago
What's your point? Evolution never says a Dog should give birth to a Cat. Sometimes the dog gives birth to offspring with SMALL changes. Apply Time. Apply natural selection. Apply Genetic Drift.
Evolution. Micro = Macro + Time. Unless you can proof there is a limit to 'Microevolution', there is NO reason to assume it would 'stop/stay small changes'.
wimscheers 3 years ago
retro viruses could have easily been designed for a productive purpose, the fact that insertions can occur in similarly designed DNA, in a code that shows evidence of insertional biases, then they are no problem at all......furthermore everyday we are finding function in so called psuedo genes further suggesting bias in mutations......so once again we are back to a similarity argument.
eeritated 3 years ago
I must admit I fail to see your point. Keep in Mind ERV's were discovered after the 'tree of life' has been laid out. Mapping the ERV's on the tree we find it matches PERFECTLY, the chances of this happening randomly are gargantuan. We share the same ERV's with closer related organisms and none with others. This would have been THE major downfall for evolution, but it matched. As did every other discovery for the last 150 years.
wimscheers 3 years ago
1)"Why do chickens have DNA for teeth?"
they lost function through mutation, they didn't gain.
2)"Why do humans have onle less chromosome then the great apes"
good question, why don't great apes have the same mutationnif we share a common anscestor???...the chromosomal fusion is a solely human event.
eeritated 3 years ago
1) Why not? We have oserved small gains from mutation, what's holding it back? 2) You missed the important part. This was a creationist talking point for many years 'where did it go? how could we lose a wholo chromosome? ...' We didn't. It' fused. We find the chromosomes with the 'SAME' information fused together, the ending marks are in the middle of the chromosome. watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk
wimscheers 3 years ago
1) no we have never observed information being created, furthermore mutation is almost always harmful and even when it does aid an organism in a certain environment it creates an overall less fit organism ie, bacterial resistance to antibiotics, and sickle cell defense from malaria in humans....mutation does not create information it destroys it.
2) no, I didn't miss the point you did, similarity is no evidence of common anscestor anymore than it is evidence for common designer.
eeritated 3 years ago
1) Are you familiar with the lizard population set out on a Croatian island. Where rapid evolution occurred? Increases have occurred, saying otherwise is dishonest. Even most 'micro evolutionist' agree on this. The Nylon eating bacteria is a perfect example of increased information. They're able to form a vastly different enzyme that allows them to digest nylon. Yes, it would have died out if no Nylon was present, but it was and a they jumped in the unused niche.
wimscheers 3 years ago
All that would be needed to enable an enzyme to digest nylon is a mutation causing loss of specificity in a proteolytic (protein-degrading) enzyme. This may seem surprising—how would a loss of information create a new ability? Answer: enzymes are usually tuned very precisely to only one type of molecule (the substrate). Loss of information would reduce the effectiveness of its primary function, but would enable it to degrade other substrates, too.
eeritated 3 years ago
Since both nylon and proteins are broken down by breaking amide linkages, a change in a proteolytic enzyme could also allow it to work on nylon. If this process were continued, the result would be a general enzyme with a weakly catalytic effect on the hydrolysis of too many chemicals to be useful where much selectivity is required.
eeritated 3 years ago
To put it into perspective, acids and alkalis also catalyze many hydrolysis reactions, but they also lack specificity. Indeed, an inhibitor of a protein degrading enzyme also inhibits the action of the nylon degrading enzyme.
eeritated 3 years ago
Normal enzyme:
Digest normal bacterial food source.
Is UNABLE to digest nylon. Mutated enzyme:
Is UNABLE to digest normal bacterial food source
Can digest nylon. Please tell me how information was lost? The DNA code changes, the enzymes responded, a new niche was found, the bacteria flourished.
wimscheers 3 years ago
Lizards are still lizzards....change by loss of information is not what you need.
and no most micro biologists do not agreee that mutation leads to increasing info.....to say otherwise is dishonest.
eeritated 3 years ago
Do you know Project Steve? "Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence in
morphology and performance associated with
exploitation of a different dietary resource" "rapidly evolved
differences in head morphology, bite strength, and digestive tract
structure"
wimscheers 3 years ago
2) HOW is this evidence for a 'common designer'? Why would the rigid DNA structured used in all life forms be suddenly disrupted in this fashion? If the 'common designer' hypothesis sees this as evidence, it's impossible to falsify it. Evolution on the other hand does not predict this would happen, but does predict we'd need to find where this chromosome went. Losing a full chromosome would kill the organism, evolution cannot explain it.
wimscheers 3 years ago
similarity in code is just as easily described by a common designer as it is by common descent....would you expect the team at toyota to come up with something other than tires just because it had already been done???
If that is a proof of evolution it can never be falsified.
obviously losing (OR FUSING TWO INTO ONE) a chromosome will not kill an organism, the point is it only happened in humans...this saqys nothing about origins of man, only that human history contains a fusion event.
eeritated 3 years ago
the chromosome fusion argument is simply reheated similarity argument....let me see if I can slow this down so even an evolutionist can get it....if the fusion event is only found in humans how can it be evidence of common descent from creatures who don't have the same fusion???
eeritated 3 years ago
We have Specie A
Some live in the forest (A'), but overpopulation forces some to star dwelling the plains(A").
Specie A' stays pretty fine, and keeps going on its evolutionary way to become B (Or A'''''' if you like)
Specie A" on the other hand changes more dramatically. Say walking upwards, developing a bigger brain, .merging chromosomes together,
Because specie A" & A' stop mating (territorial difference, appearance, social behavior)
A" takes a different path A""**¨ or C if you like.
wimscheers 3 years ago
that is a great fairy tale, now all you need is evidence that mutation can add information required to create the variety of life in the world, or you need to find a mechanism that can work...for your fairy tale to be true all of the information would need to already exist in DNA from the beggining, and that my friend would slam the door on naturalism for good.
eeritated 3 years ago
I have to ask this: Do you think God created eveything at the same time? Or popped extra 'kinds' into existence once in a while?
wimscheers 3 years ago
Then you can also explain vestigial 'organs' in the context of the creator? I suppose they were put there to test our faith, just like fossils, because vestigial 'organs' are exactly what we would expect to see if species evolved.
Numpty...
busybusy123456 3 years ago
what vestigal organs???.....do you mean things like the appendix???...the one that we now know does have function in the immune system.....just because an evolutionist is too stupid to know what something does, does not mean it doesn't function.....we have found hundreds of so called vestigal orgins that function, and even if you did find one that no longer function, that would be an example of devolution.....you need to make stuff, not lose it.
eeritated 3 years ago
I appreciate the recommendation BereanBeacon.
I assure you I'll be picking up a copy of it. At that price, why not?
It does look like an interesting read.
Thanks again!
qabala 4 years ago
Oh!
I just found it online.
I guess I won't be buying it.
qabala 4 years ago
No sound - no rating... please correct.
777Dangerous 4 years ago
777Dangerous, hi Dan. There isn't supposed to be sound. Dave
BereanBeacon 4 years ago
Can anyone show me any evidence for evolution? Actually if you can, and you want monney for it, search up Kent Hovind, he has a $250000 reward for somone who can! But guess what... There is none, aww to bad for you... =|
heavyt0ne 4 years ago
Will the reward be paid while he serves his ten year sentence or afterward?! By the way, Homo
Australopithecus Aforensis DNA shows to be our ancestor. I think that's pretty conclusive evidence of Evolution. That hominid is 3.9 million years old and from north Africa. If that's not enough evidence of evolution then your standard for this test is far greater than other tests. You might as well reject the Theory of Gravity.
cboxgo 4 years ago
humm, banana DNA is similiar to our DNA so it can be our ancestor and gravity is not a theory, it is a law.
majesticguitar2 4 years ago
Gravity as a "Law" was disproved by Einstein. Laws don't keep being laws once exceptions are found. So, yes, Gravity is a Law unless that has since changed. And judging but some of the grammar used here, I would conclude that some people are closer to apes than they think...
cboxgo 4 years ago
Oh really
Bull shit
all that crap means nothing
if it did the monkeys we know today would not exist just because the DNA is relatively close does not mean it is human
also how can the actual human Evolve any further no one knows...gee thought so
like a great story life has its beggnings and its ends and one day it will end...life can adapt but not survive for ever unless God says so IM NO MONKEY PAL
gamefox120 4 years ago
Who said Evolution was sequential?! You can have monkeys and people existing together. This is a common misconception about the whole Theory. Which is a Scientific Theory... not a hunch which is a stupid misinterpretation of the defition of a Scientific Theory. Oh, and pretending you're not a monkey doesn't change the facts...
cboxgo 4 years ago
the difference between the dna of a fly and that of a humans is a meer 5% margin ... enough said
criminaljay 4 years ago
Where is your source for this figure?
cboxgo 4 years ago
They don't understand that evolution isn't a step-ladder, it is a branching tree.
melancholyid 4 years ago
has already been dismissed as an anscestor of man.....the only reason they looked at 'lucy' was because of the latoli footprints.....lucy was a tree dwelling chimp....her pelvis was chimplike so she couldn't walk upright....so who made the latoli footprints??? were humans with perfect feet around 3.5 million years ago, or are the geologists wrong in dating the rock???.....hmmmm
eeritated 3 years ago
Harvard has a contest worth $1,000,000 to prove abiogenesis.....interestingly even though they deny intelligent design is science the winning applicant must address questions raised by intelligent design, specifically Dembski's information theory.....
They won't publicly advertize the contest, at least till they get a winner (never will).....obviously because they don't want to embarrass their priests of evolution.
eeritated 3 years ago
When and by whom was Lucy dismissed? Also, since when do colleges waste foundation money on bets? I call bullshit on that!
cboxgo 3 years ago
Do a search, there are many articles dissmissing Lucy as an anscestor of man...and Harvard hasn't placed a bet, it is a secret award for a $1,000,000 grant to be awarded to anyone who can save naturalism and abiogenesis from its current state of doom.....so you can call bullshit all you like but you will lose.
eeritated 3 years ago
Well, then help me out here... which journal article dismiss Lucy? Also, where is the link to the Harvard award? You're making the same evidenceless claims yet never providing a source... you're just saying things like: "Do a search, there are many articles..." Well, I've been doing searches and I've yet to find an article stating that Lucy was a fake. Also, I can not find any single reference anyway to a one million dollar unclaimed award from Harvard. I didn't make the claim... you did.
cboxgo 3 years ago
You mean we have another ID proponent making unsupported claims again?
Well I never; that just isn't like them is it!
busybusy123456 3 years ago
My you are a busy bee eeritated.
If there is an article dismissing A. Aferensis (your "Lucy"), I am certain it was written by a young-earther who never picked up a bone in his life.
I find it quite remarkable for those who make these aruments, does not seem to have the qualifications to pour pee out of a boot, with the instructions written underneath.
But, this disucssion is most entertaining for a cold and snowy day.
lawilson200 3 years ago
Information theory eh? Ok then, smartie pants, answer these 5 questions:
Q1: Can information be created by gene duplication or polyploidy? More specifically, if x is a string of symbols, is it possible for xx to contain more information than x?
Q2: Can information be created by point mutations? More specifically, if xay is a string of symbols, is it possible that xby contains significantly more information? Here a, b are distinct symbols, and x, y are strings.
busybusy123456 3 years ago
Q3: Can information be created by deletion? More specifically, if xyz is a string of symbols, is it possible that xz contains signficantly more information?
Q4: Can information be created by random rearrangement? More specifically, if x is a string of symbols, is it possible that some permutation of x contains significantly more information?
busybusy123456 3 years ago
Q5. Can information be created by recombination? More specifically, let x and y be strings of the same length, and let s(x, y) be any single string obtained by "shuffling" x and y together. Here I do not mean what is sometimes called "perfect shuffle", but rather a possibly imperfect shuffle where x and y both appear left-to-right in s(x, y) , but not necessarily contiguously.
Cont...
busybusy123456 3 years ago
Cont... For example, a perfect shuffle of 0000 and 1111 gives 01010101, and one possible non-perfect shuffle of 0000 and 1111 is 01101100. Can an imperfect shuffle of two strings have more information than the sum of the information in each string?
busybusy123456 3 years ago
If you don't already know the answer, go to
pandasthumb (.org/)
For those who like to educate themselves to the truths of this world; truths no matter what your worldview may be.
Regards
busybusy123456 3 years ago
no duplication does not provide new information.....a copy is a copy, a copy with mistakes in it is a copy with a loss of information......
I'll tell you what, lets cut to the chase here...science is about repeatable falsifiable experiment and observation, show us the proof that information has been added to the genome, I'll warn you to avoid assumptions in order to avoid having me humiliate you again.....good luck!!!
eeritated 3 years ago
"...I'll warn you to avoid assumptions in order to avoid having me humiliate you again..."
Assumptions like the MET isn't 'science'?
Anyway, after typing in "proof that information has been added to the genome" into Google Uk the fifth hit is titled "Streptomyces". Being an educated person I am sure you know what this is. The article even provides the source information so you can read more into its findings. That was one example, which took me 20 seconds to find. Have fun...
busybusy123456 3 years ago
watchmannow is part of your ilk. the 'SOMETHING CAME FROM NOTHING' argument is the ultimate cowards' way of dodging the discussion.
IS there a 'god'? Perhaps. Are WE the ultimate result? Unlikely.
This is a VERY, VERY big Universe. Is the Bible perfect? Nope. Too many inconsistencies, just read it and learn. It's a collection of stories, by various authors, over hundreds of years. Mis-translated too.
767Captain 4 years ago
an evolutionoist shouldn't speak about evolution because they know nothing, but they should never ever try and attack the bible as they really do not know anything.....the Old testament contains hundreds of prophecies all coming true in the central figure of the new testament, which documents were written early and unlike 'origin of species' have been shown to be reliable....if you are even the most basic of historian you can easily defend bilical authority.
eeritated 3 years ago
Gould was misquoted, which seems to be a very nasty habit for you YECers. It is amazing that you wish to advance this "theory" in the name of God, yet you seem to have no problem with lying. Why is that?
lawilson200 4 years ago
lawilson200, " '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 mismash of guessing games and figure juggling." Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].
BereanBeacon 4 years ago
Really, this is an interesting conspracy. You will need to go more into depth with it. Why would hundred of thousands of people who enter into the sciences, wish to advance what you say is a hoax. You telling me that every scientists who ever lived are party to a hoax? That is a neat trick. Any ideas how it is pulled off?
lawilson200 4 years ago
PS-My parents are microbiologists. My father even holds a PhD in microbiology. They are also the two both religious people I happen to know. Are you telling me that they are advancing a lie? PS2-Find a new quote. As I said, don't toss me junk that was written 48 years ago. I think the sceinces has advanced quite abit since then.
lawilson200 4 years ago
Final PS - I happen to be a geologists. Are suggesting I am advancing a hoax. Are my friends and co-workers advancing the same hoax? We get into the sciences because there is something about nature we wish to explore and understand. We go here the evidence leads us. In the end, there is no conspiracy being advanced.
lawilson200 4 years ago
since you are a geologist how do you defend the assumptions of initial ratios of parent daughter elements for the purpose of radiometric dating???
eeritated 3 years ago