Evolution

[Farsight one]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1629768' date='Aug 17 2008, 03:09 PM']You remind me of my high school biology teacher. He taught us in an evolutionary style, which he explained didn't mean we had to believe evolution, just that he'd be teaching us things using evolutions chronology. But he also said that he believed that God was in charge of it (I went to a Catholic school). He also asked us, "What's more impressive? A God who makes something that can only survive in specific conditions, or a God who makes creatures that change and adapt over the years so the species can survive?" I have to say, I think the God who makes evolution work seems more impressive to me![/quote]I don't know your high school biology teacher, but I'll take that as a compliment.

The way I see it is this:

Creationism is analogous(sp?) to God getting on his computer and spending half an hour looking for a really cool picture, printing it out on a high quality printer with high quality photo paper, framing it, and giving it to us as a gift.

Evolution and the big bang are analogous(sp?) to God getting out a huge slap of marble, a chisel, and a hammer, and spending a decade forming a priceless work of art out of junk, and then giving it to us as a gift.

Sure, they're both cool gifts and they'd both have sentimental value, but which one is more impressive and a better display of God's awesomeness?

[Farsight one]

I'm bumping this because I think a mod should take note of the end of post #105. I don't know if multi-accounts are against the rules, but if they are, it might be an important thing to note.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1633113' date='Aug 21 2008, 12:57 AM']I'm bumping this because I think a mod should take note of the end of post #105. I don't know if multi-accounts are against the rules, but if they are, it might be an important thing to note.[/quote]
I was trying to find the relevant info on this, but haven't found it yet. Anyway, I'm almost 100% certain that multiple accounts are not allowed; there are cases where people have wanted to change their SN and have done this by creating a new account, and that sometimes is allowed, but creating another account if you've been banned on a previous one isn't allowed. I don't know if that's also the case for those who have just been warned/suspended or whatever. Not sure if JIMSH was banned/suspended/left of his own accord/whatever. For what it's worth, I agree with your assessment that he sounds eerily like JIMSH, which would make this his 4th account or something like that, if it is he.

Edited August 22, 2008 by Archaeology cat

[iheartjp2]

That's true. We did come up with it, but creationists kind of stole it and redefined it. What it means to a creationist is not what it means to a scientist. We didn't contort it's meaning. You guys did. That should be obvious from the simple facts that we used it first, we still try to use it the way it was originally used, and you guys don't. And guess what? I believe in an intelligent designer who knew what He was doing when He created the world too. You've still got this false dichotomy issue here.

[color="#FF0000"][i]“You need to stop redefining evolution to support your argument. It is not evolutionists who try to legitimize things by compartmentalizing it. We don't want it compartmentalized. It is the creationists who are doing so. . . .”[/i]

Okay, not only can you not keep to what I’ve written, but you can’t even remain consistent with what you write yourself. That quote is yours from the last reply that you gave me. I also never said that anyone contorted the meaning of anything.

[i]“. . . . you’re the ones who continue to go through all sorts of stupid verbal contortions to push this theory that hasn’t been proven.” [/i]

No one’s going through verbal contortions in an effort to redefine anything. You guys are going through verbal contortions to make something that’s paradoxically “proven”, and is at the same time ridiculous, sound right to people. The fact that you believe in that God [i]could[/i] have created using the method that the theory of evolution puts forth is about as good as saying that God could have created the Easter Bunny. Where’s the scientific evidence? The only thing I’ve seen “going for you” are hoaxes, cover-ups, and outright lies.

[i]In memoriam[/i] of the section of our argument that dealt simply with the hyperbolic expression that I used concerning the transformation of species due to trait changes, I’m leaving this to simply say that a hyperbolic expression is a hyperbolic expression. It wasn’t a critical piece of the argument and I don’t know why you address it as if it were. As for newts not turning into lions, I’ll give you something completely idiotic that I [i]did[/i] see in a video that my biology teacher made me watch and take notes on in high school. This video claimed that there is enough evidence to research the evolution of some of the wolves into modern-day whales. I feel terrible that I can’t even remember the people who made it, but if I were to go back to my school for a visit, I would definitely look into it. I couldn’t believe it when I saw it. These are the nuts that you’re trying to defend.[/color]

I'm pretty sure I know what my own arguments are better than you. And you thought I was putting words into your mouth...

Well, since you want evidence, here's this link: [url="http://www.talkorigins.org"]http://www.talkorigins.org[/url] Here's a basic explanation of the evolution of the eye from that site: [url="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html"]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html[/url] And here's a more in depth explanation from wikipedia: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye[/url]

That'll take you several months to read through all of talkorigins, but I really don't think it'll help for a few reasons. First, because you said you refused to believe in evolution - which pretty much amounts to you coming out and telling me nothing will work. Second, understanding evolution to the degree you're demanding takes several years of learning. *I* don't even know that much about it yet, so some of this stuff you're asking for is stuff I don't have yet. And the last reason is that it doesn't matter. No matter what evidence I show a creationist, they always dismiss it by saying something to the effect of "God made it look that way". If I ask a young earth creationist about the light from stars billions of miles away, they just say that God made it in transit. If I ask one about the geological column, they say God made it look that way. If I ask them about similarities in genetic code, again, "Goddidit" It turns God into a mindless excuse and I don't like it.

[color="#FF0000"]You wanna know why nothing works? Because I’ve seen the “evidence” and it’s trash, absolute trash. It’s true, nothing will work. I haven’t seen anything that’s even remotely convincing. Telling me that I’m stupid and that I don’t know anything about evolution isn’t going to pin me against a wall and cause me to somehow believe. That’s exactly how you people operate: you derail your opponent with ad hominems and then you say “oh, by the way, agree with me”. How can I be trusted to agree with you when YOU’RE opinion is one-sided and I, apparently, don’t know anything? Wouldn’t I want to see both sides? That’s just another piece of evidence to prove that you people don’t like debate. You don’t even want to debate me, you just think you can call me stupid under the guise of not doing so and tear at my confidence (which just isn’t working) since you realize that I’m NOT stupid and I CAN’T be swayed by your “logic”. That explanation for why scientists who somehow “prove” evolution continually with experiments and hard work want you to “imagine” that this somehow happened was because we “stupid people” wouldn’t understand their extensive, scholarly language and lengthy explanations that you gave me was laughable!

I read the ridiculous article that you got off wikipedia. Nice try, but first of all, trying to get a reputable source from wikipedia is what high-schoolers do when they don’t know what to write and they want to BS something. It’s child’s play.

Second, the entire article was just a huge supposition of how the eye [i]may[/i] have come about. Darwin himself couldn’t even come up with an explanation for the eye. He believed that certain light-sensitive cells were randomly mutated into a cluster that started to randomly function together and then over aeons, an eye was created. That still doesn’t explain how it did, and it doesn’t explain where the light-sensitive cells came from in the first place. Do I have to “imagine” that, too? The article goes on to talk about how the Cambrian explosion was basically an “arms race” that started a “rapid spate of evolution”. Please, give me a break. Scientists still don’t know what cause the Cambrian explosion and they argue about it all the time. Somehow, all the phyla that we see today appeared on the face of the Earth out of life forms that were nothing like them. Still, there are more questions: why didn’t we ever find any random mutations of the eye in unusual places? Why haven’t there ever been more than one? Why haven’t animals with eyes stuck on the sides of their head evolved so that the eyes are somewhere more convenient with the ability to simply rotate like human eyes? Why don’t we have eyes on the backs of our heads? Those would’ve been useful, and after all those millennia, the possibility can’t possibly be downplayed. So why not? They haven’t been able to test any of this to see if it would actually work. I thought these were scientists. Here’s something to question, dude: why do scientists get paid to do what they do when all that hard work simply leads to more possibilities?

Third, their response to the intelligent design argument:
[i]“The eye is often used by creationists as an example of an organ which is irreducibly complex and so must have been created by a divine creator.
The concept of irreducible complexity has been criticised by some as being an argument from ignorance. If a particular author cannot imagine a way in which the eye evolved, this does not have any bearing upon whether or not the eye actually did evolve.
The available scientific evidence, summarised in this article, in the form of fossil and genetic evidence, demonstrates overwhelmingly that the complex eyes seen in some modern-day species evolved from much simpler forms over millions of years. In addition, many species alive today can be found which have significantly simpler eyes, disproving the notion of irreducible complexity as it applies to the eye.”[/i]

Uh, no. The article shows nothing but that at different points in history, different creatures had different types of eyes. There’s no evidence that the eye somehow gradually evolved into something better on the same creature over time, they simply assume that that’s how it went. Real science. Right.

What I find terribly amusing is the text in the middle. First, they call creationist scientists who have worked hard to get to where they are in their field “ignorant” for not being able to “imagine a way in which the eye evolved”. Of course not. Imagination has absolutely no bearing on reality. What, however, the heck does that have to do with evolution being real?[/color]

I have to seriously wonder where the heck you pulled this from. If God made evolution, there is NOTHING wrong with the theory of natural selection at all. It makes no statements for or against the existence or guidance of God - if it did, it could never be called science. Science is agnostic. Evolution, the big bang, string theory, M theory, etc - they all try to explain the how or the method. God can still be the cause of that method, whatever it may be.

[color="#FF0000"]Yes, there fundamentally is. See, according to Darwin’s theory, natural selection is RANDOM and produces an trait that MAY or even MAY NOT help that creature survive and pass on the trait that was RANDOMLY SELECTED in its gene pool to change. Darwin’s theory isn’t compatible with Christianity at all because it shows something that’s intelligently created, designed, and operated to be assembled in a particular fashion by RANDOM. Catholic theology has nothing to do with randomness, it’s based on order and logic because that’s the way Catholic theology purports that God created the universe: orderly. Natural selection isn’t orderly. If it were, it wouldn’t be Darwin’s theory of evolution which may as well be some made-up pagan explanation for why little Tommy has the EXACT SAME face his mommy has. [/color]

Evolution would disagree with the exact same thing. Evolution is not just random mutations as I have already explained. Natural selection plays the most important part. Random mutation is only a secondary effect.

[color="#FF0000"]This is just too useless to comment on.[/color]

No, actually, I don't. I mean intentionally taking a line out of context to support an argument. Here, let me do it to you. You said all of the following quotes word for word:

"I lost" - oh. So you admit defeat then?
"made creatures able to adapt to their environments by traits being slightly modified" - so you accept evolution then?
"a newt could evolve into a lion" - no need for comment
"you’re right" - thank you for admitting it
"There's mounds of evidence for evolution"
"you’re so darned well-read on the subject" - why thank you.

Do you understand what I mean by quote mining now? It's frustrating, isn't it?

Btw - do you even understand what the word "theory" means in the world of science? Because you seem to be using the meaning the general public uses.

[color="#FF0000"]This as well. You really know how to argue from the point of logic and intellectual honesty, don’t you? Besides, if you were to quote me directly and correctly, you’d need elipses before and after each of those phrases. It would do you so much better to try to make me look foolish by actually answering my arguments with arguments. Nice try, though.[/color]

I saw it a couple months ago and can't remember where it was. If I find it, I'll post it.

[color="#FF0000"]Sure thing[/color]

Make money?!?! Are you really serious? No. They don't make money for this stuff. Its extremely rare to get a research grant at all, and they're never very big. You don't get payed for material that winds up in a science journal, and you don't get rich off of making discoveries. If a scientists wants to make money, they need to write books or become a college professor. I work in a hospital as what is essentially a nurse's secretary and I probably make about as much money in a year as a paleontologist.

[color="#FF0000"]And how many evolutionist scientists have published and hold tenure at some liberal madrass you call a college? I don’t have a clue, why don’t you supply that info since you’re the one making the argument. I’d also like the see the annual income index for both professions of a secretary and a paleontologist according to the U.S. Department of Labor. If you want to make rash claims, you’re responsible for holding them up. If you can’t hold them up, no one should believe you. I’m skeptically putting your claim to the test.[/color]

[color="#FF0000"]". . . . a peppered moth experiment that turned out to be a hoax. . . ."[/color]

It was not a hoax. The guy who took the picture places the moths on the trees to take the picture and fully admitted it. There is nothing "hoax" about it. There's an article someone on that talkorigins website I gave you that explains things quite well.

[color="#FF0000"]Yes, it was, indeed, a hoax. Peppered moths sleep during the day and come out at night. They don’t rest on tree trunks which is how they were positioned when the experiment took place, they rest on the underside of branches. Even the liberal [i]New York Times[/i] acknowledged that it was a hoax:

[url="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03EEDE153DF936A1575BC0A9649C8B63&scp=1&sq=The%20Moth%20That%20Failed&st=cse"]The Moth That Failed[/url]

[url="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06E1DA1E3CF93BA25755C0A9649C8B63&scp=1&sq=Staple%20of%20Evolutionary%20Teaching%20May%20Not%20Be%20Textbook%20Case&st=cse"]Staple of Evolutionary Teaching May Not Be Textbook Case[/url]

Besides, hoax or not, it didn’t turn into something else or change species which you, yourself claimed could happen because of genetic mutations. They simply “changed color”. They didn’t grow an arm or opposable thumbs or a central nervous system. They changed color, big woop.[/color]

Evolution is the change of life. You're talking about the creation of life here. That's abiogenesis - an entirely different realm.

[color="#FF0000"]Oh, don’t’ tell me you haven’t heard of the ridiculous creation of amino acids experiment. Scientists do it all the time, and they claim it proves we came from primordial goo. They, however can’t exactly come to terms with amino acids not being life and the step between amino acids and proteins which are life’s building blocks, much less life itself. Definitely rock solid.[/color]

I'm trying somewhat to be an adult here. Subtle insults under the guise of digression aren't exactly welcome here. Nor is calling us all "crackpots" and greedy and any other manner of insult you've tossed in my general direction.

[color="#FF0000"]Oh, please! Give me a break, seriously, I’m howling with laughter at this! You’re trying to be [i]an adult??[/i] “Question everything, dude!” Oh, very adult-like language, seriously, you could be the bastion of maturity we’ve been waiting for! You call me stupid, basically saying something to the effect of “I’m not going to call you stupid outright, but I may as well because that’s what I think and I’m just trying to cover it up with this convoluted verbal contortion to say ‘hi, I think you’re stupid’ : D”.

And greedy? Where’d you pull that from? Wait, don’t’ tell me, I don’t even want to know. [/color]

They are. On questions we don't already have a definitive answer to. But since evolution has been directly observed hundreds of times over, there is a definitive answer and thus absolutely nothing to debate.

[color="#FF0000"]Oh, like how the eye came into being from a gooey mass of light-sensitive cells that we can’t even begin to know the origins of? What about how a small amount of simple life forms somehow evolved into many different ones with abilities unseen before the Cambrian explosion? Or how about exactly how Michael Moore can still walk without eventually just getting lazy and rolling? What about that? Is that open to debate? [/color]

We're waiting. Creationists actually have a huge track record of setting up debates and then just not showing up with no warning. It's freaking ridiculous. The Dover v. Kitzmiller trial, presided over by a Creationist judge of all people, had six out of the nine Creationist big-wigs back out at the last moment and refused to give an explanation.

[color="#FF0000"]Okay, I’m talking about scientific debate and you give me a court trial that some people backed out of. People back out of legal proceedings for lots of different reasons. I don’t think it’s safe to see you have a tract record unless you can actually sort out a pattern, which you haven’t done for me. Do you have anything else? Where’s this huge tract record? I’d like to see it.[/color]

Some evolutionists won't debate creationists though, because they feel that it gives the creationist too much credit. If they debate a big time evolutionist like Ken Miller, then they can go around talking about their debate like unofficial credentials. If you hear about someone who debated a big time evolutionist, you'd instinctively think that they're a pretty knowledgeable creationist, wouldn't you? Of course, they don't tell you that they got their butt whupped in the debate, but that doesn't matter. It's publicity for them.

[color="#FF0000"]Oh wow! Now you’re afraid of giving us too much credit?? Geez, I thought they were OPEN to debate. They’re now somehow open to debating creationists, but don’t want to give them credit? They’re afraid that ideological opponents are going to walk around and say “I debated so-and-so so” and not give details? Does the truth even matter to these people? Does the alleged hard work and sweat that they put out to get to where they are and reach the convictions that they’ve reached mean anything to them? I thought these people were servants to the facts. Doesn’t that even count for something? They’re afraid to go against creationists because even though they’ve got the truth, the evidence, the credentials, and the knowledge, they’re going to be made to look like geniuses in front of the very people that they call geniuses for disagreeing with them? If that’s the case, these people aren’t only intellectually lazy, they’re intellectually lazy wimps and cowards. Creationists take more heat for their views everyday and get harangued and blasted in the news all the time. These evolutionists don’t even want people walking around saying that they debated a creationist because it somehow gave them too much credit. Everything you’re saying definitely makes sense to my feeble mind, yes sir![/color]

I did. That's why I'm no longer a creationist.

[color="#FF0000"]And that’s also probably why your posts are riddled with spelling errors. Why spell the way dictionaries dictate? Question everything, dude![/color]

1. You're being insulting and you know it.

[color="#FF0000"]Yes, the statement of the fact that you’re absolutely wrong does feel quite insulting, doesn’t it? Does it also feel mean or bigoted?[/color]

2. I never called you stupid

[color="#FF0000"]No, but you may as well have.

How about a little trip down memory lane. . . .

“Now I'm not saying you're stupid, but clearly, when it comes to evolution, it is not brains you are using to fight it.”

Remember that? Nice touch. That’s exactly what I meant by calling me stupid under the guise of not doing so because you “claimed” you didn’t. [/color]

3. I've turned six atheists into believers and a couple dozen creationists into "evolutionists". I'm pretty sure I've won some debates.

[color="#FF0000"]Really? Wow! Can I meet them? What’s the backslide rate? Did they just say that they were converted so you would leave them alone? That’s actually what I was kind of fed up enough to do.[/color]

4. You accuse me of having no sources when you yourself have yet to provide any. That's the pot calling the kettle black. But lucky you you have them now.

[color="#FF0000"]Well, I provided some news stories. You provided me with the equivalent of a high-schooler’s BS search engine. I’m still waiting on those U.S. Dept. of Labor statistics and that tract record of creationists backing out of debates repeatedly.[/color]

5. You have yet to give me one single logical argument. Not one. You have systematically misrepresented evolution and made blind accusations of falsehoods and conspiracies, but not once have you laid out an argument with an initial "assumption", syllogisms, and a conclusion. There is nothing of the kind in anything you said.

[color="#FF0000"]“You have yet to give me one single logical argument. Not one.”
Read that over again and tell me if you think it make sense. I’d say it doesn’t, though we should question everything, dude, you know?

That’s all fine and dandy, though I don’t think I can speak any better on your behalf. Why are you people so apt to accuse your opponent of the exact same thing that you’re doing yourself?[/color]

6. The problem I most have is that in rejecting evolution, you are calling pretty much every biologist, paleontologist, geneticist, and geologist a liar and a deceiver. Occam's razor applies here. What's more likely? That a conspiracy theory consisting of millions of scientists is perpetuating a lie onto society with little to no monetary gain to them, or that you, who would admit that you don't know a lot about the subject, are simply mistaken?

[color="#FF0000"]Well, no, I’m not calling all scientists to whom the theory of evolution is a concern a liar and a deceiver, only the lying and deceiving ones.

Who said anything about conspiracy? Conspiracy is plotting to thwart something. I never claimed that anyone was conspiring against anyone. I said that evolutionists are trying to push their wacky views on us, I never said that they were knowingly purporting a lie. I’m sure that they hold strong convictions. The fact that they won’t let up on them in the face of the truth doesn’t make them conspirers. Besides, in order for them to be conspiring, it would be assumed that they were plotting this together. To conspire comes from the latin verb [i]spire[/i], meaning “to breathe”. If you add the prefix [i]con[/i], a variation of the preposition [i]cum[/i], meaning “with”, you have a verb that means “to breathe with”, or “to breathe together”. I never claimed that they were all in on something together that no one else was. The whole conspiracy thing is something you purported, not me.

And if you’re telling me to apply Ockham’s razor to this theory, purported by you to be to me a “conspiracy”, then why don’t you apply Ockham’s razor to evolution? It’s all fanciful. Where’s the hard-core evidence?

I also want a source for your numbers. I don't believe there are millions of evolutionary scientists who are toiling away proving evolution repetatively.[/color]

7. You STILL didn't answer my questions. Here they are again:

Be honest with yourself - how can you possibly believe that something is wrong when you know almost nothing about it? Doesn't it frustrate you when anti-Catholics try and tell you your beliefs are wrong when they don't even understand them? And if so, how can you consider yourself fair minded when you do the exact same thing to evolutionists?

[color="#FF0000"]Doesn’t it trouble you that you mention that I should “question everything”, yet you took no time in questioning your initial evaluation of my knowledge of the subject? How about questioning the true motives of the scientists that you believe so strongly? I find that a bit hypocritical.
And fair-mindedness? There are times when you should be fair-minded. Where there’s debate and the victory lies with the facts, however, fairness has nothing to do with it. Fair-mindedness comes in handy when covering the news, not when debating a hoax. [/color]

Edited August 22, 2008 by iheartjp2

[Farsight one]

[color="#FF0000"]Okay, not only can you not keep to what I’ve written, but you can’t even remain consistent with what you write yourself. That quote is yours from the last reply that you gave me. I also never said that anyone contorted the meaning of anything.[/color]

I was perfectly consistent. Here's a history lesson. We can up with the terms mIcro and mAcro. The difference between them was simply one of scale - like the difference between a meter and a kilometer. Creationists came along and co-opted the terms, changing the meaning of them and popularizing the new meaning. To them, mIcro evolution is simply a minor change within a species and it is quite possible. MAcro evolution is a change from one "kind" to another. What constitutes a "kind"? Why, exactly what they say does. It never gets well defined, and so any change in an animal that they find acceptable, they call mIcro evolution. Any change that they don't like, they call mAcro, and dismiss it. Hence, compartmentalization, contortion of meaning, and consistence in my statements.

[color="#FF0000"]
No one’s going through verbal contortions in an effort to redefine anything. You guys are going through verbal contortions to make something that’s paradoxically “proven”, and is at the same time ridiculous, sound right to people. The fact that you believe in that God could have created using the method that the theory of evolution puts forth is about as good as saying that God could have created the Easter Bunny. Where’s the scientific evidence? The only thing I’ve seen “going for you” are hoaxes, cover-ups, and outright lies.[/color]

Again you have pretty much stated that you think there is some giant conspiracy theory involving millions of scientists consciously attempting to perpetuate a lie for some sinister reason that you can't figure out. It is proven because it has been directly observed literally thousands of times now. You can go to that talkorigins website and see some of it yourself. Give me time, I'll go find the chunk of transitional fossil that I personally own and show it to you myself. (I need time because it's 3 hours away hiding in a box somewhere). Sure, YOU haven't seen the evidence, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Have you ever personally looked in an electron microscope and seen an atom? No? Then how do you know those exist? I'll tell you how. Because your teacher told you they do and because you trust the scientists. But when it comes to evolution, you shut your eyes and ask people to show you proof. It ain't going to happen until you open them and actually LOOK around. You can google all the stuff your looking for. There's thousands of photos, evolutionary trees, gene information, abstracts of experiments. Have you ever looked for it? I would bet money no.

[color="#FF0000"]
This video claimed that there is enough evidence to research the evolution of some of the wolves into modern-day whales.[/color]

And that is, last I checked, perfectly in keeping with evolutionary theory. Remember, whales are mammals, not fish. Mammals began on land (coming from reptiles). Whales coming from a land animal is a must.

[color="#FF0000"]
You wanna know why nothing works? Because I’ve seen the “evidence” and it’s trash, absolute trash. It’s true, nothing will work. I haven’t seen anything that’s even remotely convincing. Telling me that I’m stupid and that I don’t know anything about evolution isn’t going to pin me against a wall and cause me to somehow believe.[/color]

Again, I never said you were stupid. Stop putting words in my mouth. And I highly doubt that you've seen all the evidence. Evolutionary theory encompasses half a dozen sciences with half a dozen specializations in each. So - do you have over 20 doctorates in those fields, or is this "evidence" you've seen on only creationist websites?

You don't know anything about evolution and that's not an ad hominem. That's just a fact. You express your ignorance of evolutionary theory post after post after post.

And like I already pointed out - when it matters most, it's the Creationists who back out of the debates like in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. And last but not least - evolution is not an "opinion". It's been observed directly many many many times. If evolution is an opinion, then so is gravity - a concept we actually have LESS evidence for.

[color="#FF0000"]I read the ridiculous article that you got off wikipedia. Nice try, but first of all, trying to get a reputable source from wikipedia is what high-schoolers do when they don’t know what to write and they want to BS something. It’s child’s play.[/color]

Great. You read a wikipedia article. Clearly, you didn't like what it has to say. So...why didn't you bother telling me exactly what was wrong with it's explanation of the evolution of the eye? If it's a poor explanation, it should be easy to pick apart - yet rather than do so, you attacked the site itself. That is a strawman. Sure, it may be wikipedia, but I wouldn't have cited it if it didn't properly explain things. Would you prefer I cite for you a medical BOOK where half the words are latin names for body parts and ask you to read that? And notice that I gave you another link, which you completely failed to mention.

[color="#FF0000"]Second, the entire article was just a huge supposition of how the eye may have come about. Darwin himself couldn’t even come up with an explanation for the eye.[/color]

1. You said eye evolution was impossible. I provided for you one explanation into how it could have happened. Yes, it was generally speculation, but it does show that eye evolution is possible - thus falsifying your statement.
2. Darwin lived 150 years ago. He is still mentioned today because he started it all, but like Freud, his findings are pretty much ignored since we have 150 years worth of information that he didn't.

[color="#FF0000"]The article goes on to talk about how the Cambrian explosion was basically an “arms race” that started a “rapid spate of evolution”. Please, give me a break. Scientists still don’t know what cause the Cambrian explosion and they argue about it all the time.[/color]

Not knowing what caused it or how it happened doesn't mean much. We know that it did happen, thus more support for evolution. Even if we are still trying to figure out exactly how.

[color="#FF0000"]Still, there are more questions: why didn’t we ever find any random mutations of the eye in unusual places? Why haven’t there ever been more than one? Why haven’t animals with eyes stuck on the sides of their head evolved so that the eyes are somewhere more convenient with the ability to simply rotate like human eyes? Why don’t we have eyes on the backs of our heads?[/color]

1. Unusual places such as? Our feet? Probably because there is no evolutionary advantage to that. It doesn't help a being adapt to their environment to be able to look at the ground right in front of them.

2. More than one? I'm pretty sure I have 2 eyes. Spiders have 8 or so.

3. Animals with eyes on the sides of their head actually evolved from animals with eyes on the front. It's actually an advantage because they have a much larger range of motion. Why don't we have eyes on the sides of our heads then? Because it's not advantageous for us.

4. Eyes in the backs of our heads would not be able to see anything with hair there.

Frankly, you're asking really silly questions which only tell me how very little you know about evolution.

[color="#FF0000"]I thought these were scientists. Here’s something to question, dude: why do scientists get paid to do what they do when all that hard work simply leads to more possibilities?[/color]

Why do they get paid? Gee...what would not have if there were no biologists. Penecilin. Flu shots. Vaccinations in general. The ability to give a man a pig's heart. Blood banks. A way to fight HIV. A cure(yes cure) for certain kinds of cancer. Should I go on?

[color="#FF0000"]Uh, no. The article shows nothing but that at different points in history, different creatures had different types of eyes. There’s no evidence that the eye somehow gradually evolved into something better on the same creature over time, they simply assume that that’s how it went. Real science. Right.[/color]

What you are essentially saying is that because they skipped a few steps, you reject the information. So...would you prefer to have them go into detail? That is to say give you each of several MILLION steps to explain the process? It was simplified for your understanding. This is one of the problems with creationists. If you explain it technically, they cry foul because they think you're making carp up to confuse them. Simplify it so they can understand, and they complain that it's all you're willing to give them. The only way to make you happy is to some how convince you to get a doctorate in evolutionary biology so that you may understand the technical explanations of everything. But what creationist would ever do that?

[color="#FF0000"]
What I find terribly amusing is the text in the middle. First, they call creationist scientists who have worked hard to get to where they are in their field “ignorant” for not being able to “imagine a way in which the eye evolved”. Of course not. Imagination has absolutely no bearing on reality. What, however, the heck does that have to do with evolution being real?[/color]

The creationist claim that the evolution of the eye is impossible could be refuted 2 ways. One - show them an eye actually evolving. Since we already have eyes, this is pretty much an impossibility. Two - show them a possible way for it to evolve. Thus, we actually can imagine here. We can speculate as to how it could have happened, and in doing so, show that it is possible for it to have happened in at least one way - the way we imagined.

You asked for a possible explanation as to how the eye evolved. You got that very thing, and now you reject it because it's not absolute proof? Well, you didn't ask for absolute proof, so stop demanding it.

[color="#FF0000"]Yes, there fundamentally is. See, according to Darwin’s theory, natural selection is RANDOM and produces an trait that MAY or even MAY NOT help that creature survive and pass on the trait that was RANDOMLY SELECTED in its gene pool to change. Darwin’s theory isn’t compatible with Christianity at all because it shows something that’s intelligently created, designed, and operated to be assembled in a particular fashion by RANDOM. Catholic theology has nothing to do with randomness, it’s based on order and logic because that’s the way Catholic theology purports that God created the universe: orderly. Natural selection isn’t orderly. If it were, it wouldn’t be Darwin’s theory of evolution which may as well be some made-up pagan explanation for why little Tommy has the EXACT SAME face his mommy has. [/color]

You again have it all wrong. Natural selection, as I have already told you half a dozen times, IS NOT RANDOM! And lets assume that it was - well, what appears to us as random, can still be guided by God. So again, no, there is nothing wrong with this. Remember, Darwin lived 150 years ago - his understanding of evolution is vastly out dated. Even Gould is outdated now.

[color="#FF0000"]This is just too useless to comment on.[/color]

I pretty much gave you the definition of evolution, and you dismissed it as useless. You can do better than that.

[color="#FF0000"]
This as well. You really know how to argue from the point of logic and intellectual honesty, don’t you? Besides, if you were to quote me directly and correctly, you’d need elipses before and after each of those phrases. It would do you so much better to try to make me look foolish by actually answering my arguments with arguments. Nice try, though.[/color]

The point of those quotes was not to anger you or make you look silly, but rather to give you an example of quote mining that you could relate to. You don't like being deceptively quoted, do you? Nor do the biologists. It's dishonest, wrong, and just plain unChristian. Hence, why I don't do it. You shouldn't do it either. Since you did do it, I pointed out what it was and why it was wrong in hopes that you wouldn't do it anymore.

[color="#FF0000"]And how many evolutionist scientists have published and hold tenure at some liberal madrass you call a college? I don’t have a clue, why don’t you supply that info since you’re the one making the argument. I’d also like the see the annual income index for both professions of a secretary and a paleontologist according to the U.S. Department of Labor. If you want to make rash claims, you’re responsible for holding them up. If you can’t hold them up, no one should believe you. I’m skeptically putting your claim to the test.[/color]

Well, if you want citation for my claims, then I want it for yours - which you made first, and thus should provide citation for first. So have at it. Where's all this information on the amazing income of biologists? No double-standards, ok?

[color="#FF0000"]
Yes, it was, indeed, a hoax. Peppered moths sleep during the day and come out at night. They don’t rest on tree trunks which is how they were positioned when the experiment took place, they rest on the underside of branches. Even the liberal New York Times acknowledged that it was a hoax:

The Moth That Failed

Staple of Evolutionary Teaching May Not Be Textbook Case

Besides, hoax or not, it didn’t turn into something else or change species which you, yourself claimed could happen because of genetic mutations. They simply “changed color”. They didn’t grow an arm or opposable thumbs or a central nervous system. They changed color, big woop[/color]

Did you even read what I said? The guy who took the photo explained exactly what he did, how he did it, and why he did it. A hoax is by definition, something that a person tries to pass of as true that is not or something someone perpetuates in a deceptive manner. Since the experimenter was completely straight forward about it, there is no way it can be called a hoax.

[color="#FF0000"]Oh, don’t’ tell me you haven’t heard of the ridiculous creation of amino acids experiment. Scientists do it all the time, and they claim it proves we came from primordial goo. They, however can’t exactly come to terms with amino acids not being life and the step between amino acids and proteins which are life’s building blocks, much less life itself. Definitely rock solid.[/color]

Again, you are talking about the origin of life. Evolution is about the change of life over time, not the origin of it. Amino acids becoming living organisms has nothing to do with evolution.

[color="#FF0000"]
Oh, please! Give me a break, seriously, I’m howling with laughter at this! You’re trying to be an adult?? “Question everything, dude!” Oh, very adult-like language, seriously, you could be the bastion of maturity we’ve been waiting for! You call me stupid, basically saying something to the effect of “I’m not going to call you stupid outright, but I may as well because that’s what I think and I’m just trying to cover it up with this convoluted verbal contortion to say ‘hi, I think you’re stupid’ : D”.[/color]

Use of the word "dude" does not mean that a person is not acting like an adult. My 90 year old grandfather used the word. And again, I never called you stupid. Now please stop with the ad hominem attacks.

[color="#FF0000"]
Oh, like how the eye came into being from a gooey mass of light-sensitive cells that we can’t even begin to know the origins of? What about how a small amount of simple life forms somehow evolved into many different ones with abilities unseen before the Cambrian explosion? Or how about exactly how Michael Moore can still walk without eventually just getting lazy and rolling? What about that? Is that open to debate?[/color]

Actually, yes. Those are open for debate. As you yourself said above, scientists are still debating on exactly how it happened. However, whether it does or does not happen is not up for debate.

[color="#FF0000"]Okay, I’m talking about scientific debate and you give me a court trial that some people backed out of. People back out of legal proceedings for lots of different reasons. I don’t think it’s safe to see you have a tract record unless you can actually sort out a pattern, which you haven’t done for me. Do you have anything else? Where’s this huge tract record? I’d like to see it. [/color]

You seem to misunderstand. This is not some random court trial. This was THE court trial. It is [b]the[/b] reason ID doesn't get taught in schools. And the ID advocates decided the day before the trial that they were unwilling to defend their own concept? I smell foul - especially since the judge was a creationist himself. But if you want more creationist backouts, look into Ken Miller's debates. He's shown up to empty audience halls and had to turn debates into lectures because his opposition didn't show on several occasions. And that's just one guy.

[color="#FF0000"]“Now I'm not saying you're stupid, but clearly, when it comes to evolution, it is not brains you are using to fight it.”

Remember that? Nice touch. That’s exactly what I meant by calling me stupid under the guise of not doing so because you “claimed” you didn’t. [/color]

I thought we already went over this. Quote mining, i.e. misquoting a person to change the meaning of what they said, is dishonest. Provide the whole quote next time.

[color="#FF0000"]Well, I provided some news stories. You provided me with the equivalent of a high-schooler’s BS search engine. I’m still waiting on those U.S. Dept. of Labor statistics and that tract record of creationists backing out of debates repeatedly[/color]
First of all, your statement is false. I gave you more than wikipedia. Second, I'm not doing your homework for you. You're starting to ask for information that would require several hours of pouring over documents and piecing together tidbits of information to find again. If you want this information, you can ask others for it, but not while you sit on your butt doing nothing. When half the information you're asking for can be found via google search, I know you're not genuinely interested - you simply seek to discredit my statements any way you can and I'm not playing that game. If I were, you'd have run off by now after discovering that there isn't any scientific evidence of ID.

[color="#FF0000"]And if you’re telling me to apply Ockham’s razor to this theory, purported by you to be to me a “conspiracy”, then why don’t you apply Ockham’s razor to evolution? It’s all fanciful. Where’s the hard-core evidence?[/color]

The "hardcore" evidence is everywhere. I've seen it. I've touched it. I've watched it happen. I own a chunk of it. If you want to ask where the evidence is, then you should next LOOK for it. Try and google "transitional fossil", "evidence for evolution", "observance of evolution", etc, etc, etc. I'm tired of you asking questions you don't actually want the answers to.

[color="#FF0000"]
Doesn’t it trouble you that you mention that I should “question everything”, yet you took no time in questioning your initial evaluation of my knowledge of the subject? How about questioning the true motives of the scientists that you believe so strongly? I find that a bit hypocritical.
And fair-mindedness? There are times when you should be fair-minded. Where there’s debate and the victory lies with the facts, however, fairness has nothing to do with it. Fair-mindedness comes in handy when covering the news, not when debating a hoax. [/color]

You STILL didn't even try to answer my questions. I'm just going to keep asking them until you do, so you might as well get it out of the way.

Be honest with yourself - how can you possibly believe that something is wrong when you know almost nothing about it? Doesn't it frustrate you when anti-Catholics try and tell you your beliefs are wrong when they don't even understand them? And if so, how can you consider yourself fair minded when you do the exact same thing to evolutionists?

[MakeYouThink]

[quote name='Farsight one' post='1635098' date='Aug 22 2008, 06:49 PM'][color="#FF0000"]Okay, not only can you not keep to what I’ve written, but you can’t even remain consistent with what you write yourself. That quote is yours from the last reply that you gave me. I also never said that anyone contorted the meaning of anything.[/color]

I was perfectly consistent. Here's a history lesson. We can up with the terms mIcro and mAcro. The difference between them was simply one of scale - like the difference between a meter and a kilometer. Creationists came along and co-opted the terms, changing the meaning of them and popularizing the new meaning. To them, mIcro evolution is simply a minor change within a species and it is quite possible. MAcro evolution is a change from one "kind" to another. What constitutes a "kind"? Why, exactly what they say does. It never gets well defined, and so any change in an animal that they find acceptable, they call mIcro evolution. Any change that they don't like, they call mAcro, and dismiss it. Hence, compartmentalization, contortion of meaning, and consistence in my statements.

[color="#FF0000"]
No one’s going through verbal contortions in an effort to redefine anything. You guys are going through verbal contortions to make something that’s paradoxically “proven”, and is at the same time ridiculous, sound right to people. The fact that you believe in that God could have created using the method that the theory of evolution puts forth is about as good as saying that God could have created the Easter Bunny. Where’s the scientific evidence? The only thing I’ve seen “going for you” are hoaxes, cover-ups, and outright lies.[/color]

Again you have pretty much stated that you think there is some giant conspiracy theory involving millions of scientists consciously attempting to perpetuate a lie for some sinister reason that you can't figure out. It is proven because it has been directly observed literally thousands of times now. You can go to that talkorigins website and see some of it yourself. Give me time, I'll go find the chunk of transitional fossil that I personally own and show it to you myself. (I need time because it's 3 hours away hiding in a box somewhere). Sure, YOU haven't seen the evidence, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Have you ever personally looked in an electron microscope and seen an atom? No? Then how do you know those exist? I'll tell you how. Because your teacher told you they do and because you trust the scientists. But when it comes to evolution, you shut your eyes and ask people to show you proof. It ain't going to happen until you open them and actually LOOK around. You can google all the stuff your looking for. There's thousands of photos, evolutionary trees, gene information, abstracts of experiments. Have you ever looked for it? I would bet money no.

[color="#FF0000"]
This video claimed that there is enough evidence to research the evolution of some of the wolves into modern-day whales.[/color]

And that is, last I checked, perfectly in keeping with evolutionary theory. Remember, whales are mammals, not fish. Mammals began on land (coming from reptiles). Whales coming from a land animal is a must.

[color="#FF0000"]
You wanna know why nothing works? Because I’ve seen the “evidence” and it’s trash, absolute trash. It’s true, nothing will work. I haven’t seen anything that’s even remotely convincing. Telling me that I’m stupid and that I don’t know anything about evolution isn’t going to pin me against a wall and cause me to somehow believe.[/color]

Again, I never said you were stupid. Stop putting words in my mouth. And I highly doubt that you've seen all the evidence. Evolutionary theory encompasses half a dozen sciences with half a dozen specializations in each. So - do you have over 20 doctorates in those fields, or is this "evidence" you've seen on only creationist websites?

You don't know anything about evolution and that's not an ad hominem. That's just a fact. You express your ignorance of evolutionary theory post after post after post.

And like I already pointed out - when it matters most, it's the Creationists who back out of the debates like in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. And last but not least - evolution is not an "opinion". It's been observed directly many many many times. If evolution is an opinion, then so is gravity - a concept we actually have LESS evidence for.

[color="#FF0000"]I read the ridiculous article that you got off wikipedia. Nice try, but first of all, trying to get a reputable source from wikipedia is what high-schoolers do when they don’t know what to write and they want to BS something. It’s child’s play.[/color]

Great. You read a wikipedia article. Clearly, you didn't like what it has to say. So...why didn't you bother telling me exactly what was wrong with it's explanation of the evolution of the eye? If it's a poor explanation, it should be easy to pick apart - yet rather than do so, you attacked the site itself. That is a strawman. Sure, it may be wikipedia, but I wouldn't have cited it if it didn't properly explain things. Would you prefer I cite for you a medical BOOK where half the words are latin names for body parts and ask you to read that? And notice that I gave you another link, which you completely failed to mention.

[color="#FF0000"]Second, the entire article was just a huge supposition of how the eye may have come about. Darwin himself couldn’t even come up with an explanation for the eye.[/color]

1. You said eye evolution was impossible. I provided for you one explanation into how it could have happened. Yes, it was generally speculation, but it does show that eye evolution is possible - thus falsifying your statement.
2. Darwin lived 150 years ago. He is still mentioned today because he started it all, but like Freud, his findings are pretty much ignored since we have 150 years worth of information that he didn't.

[color="#FF0000"]The article goes on to talk about how the Cambrian explosion was basically an “arms race” that started a “rapid spate of evolution”. Please, give me a break. Scientists still don’t know what cause the Cambrian explosion and they argue about it all the time.[/color]

Not knowing what caused it or how it happened doesn't mean much. We know that it did happen, thus more support for evolution. Even if we are still trying to figure out exactly how.

[color="#FF0000"]Still, there are more questions: why didn’t we ever find any random mutations of the eye in unusual places? Why haven’t there ever been more than one? Why haven’t animals with eyes stuck on the sides of their head evolved so that the eyes are somewhere more convenient with the ability to simply rotate like human eyes? Why don’t we have eyes on the backs of our heads?[/color]

1. Unusual places such as? Our feet? Probably because there is no evolutionary advantage to that. It doesn't help a being adapt to their environment to be able to look at the ground right in front of them.

2. More than one? I'm pretty sure I have 2 eyes. Spiders have 8 or so.

3. Animals with eyes on the sides of their head actually evolved from animals with eyes on the front. It's actually an advantage because they have a much larger range of motion. Why don't we have eyes on the sides of our heads then? Because it's not advantageous for us.

4. Eyes in the backs of our heads would not be able to see anything with hair there.

Frankly, you're asking really silly questions which only tell me how very little you know about evolution.

[color="#FF0000"]I thought these were scientists. Here’s something to question, dude: why do scientists get paid to do what they do when all that hard work simply leads to more possibilities?[/color]

Why do they get paid? Gee...what would not have if there were no biologists. Penecilin. Flu shots. Vaccinations in general. The ability to give a man a pig's heart. Blood banks. A way to fight HIV. A cure(yes cure) for certain kinds of cancer. Should I go on?

[color="#FF0000"]Uh, no. The article shows nothing but that at different points in history, different creatures had different types of eyes. There’s no evidence that the eye somehow gradually evolved into something better on the same creature over time, they simply assume that that’s how it went. Real science. Right.[/color]

What you are essentially saying is that because they skipped a few steps, you reject the information. So...would you prefer to have them go into detail? That is to say give you each of several MILLION steps to explain the process? It was simplified for your understanding. This is one of the problems with creationists. If you explain it technically, they cry foul because they think you're making carp up to confuse them. Simplify it so they can understand, and they complain that it's all you're willing to give them. The only way to make you happy is to some how convince you to get a doctorate in evolutionary biology so that you may understand the technical explanations of everything. But what creationist would ever do that?

[color="#FF0000"]
What I find terribly amusing is the text in the middle. First, they call creationist scientists who have worked hard to get to where they are in their field “ignorant” for not being able to “imagine a way in which the eye evolved”. Of course not. Imagination has absolutely no bearing on reality. What, however, the heck does that have to do with evolution being real?[/color]

The creationist claim that the evolution of the eye is impossible could be refuted 2 ways. One - show them an eye actually evolving. Since we already have eyes, this is pretty much an impossibility. Two - show them a possible way for it to evolve. Thus, we actually can imagine here. We can speculate as to how it could have happened, and in doing so, show that it is possible for it to have happened in at least one way - the way we imagined.

You asked for a possible explanation as to how the eye evolved. You got that very thing, and now you reject it because it's not absolute proof? Well, you didn't ask for absolute proof, so stop demanding it.

[color="#FF0000"]Yes, there fundamentally is. See, according to Darwin’s theory, natural selection is RANDOM and produces an trait that MAY or even MAY NOT help that creature survive and pass on the trait that was RANDOMLY SELECTED in its gene pool to change. Darwin’s theory isn’t compatible with Christianity at all because it shows something that’s intelligently created, designed, and operated to be assembled in a particular fashion by RANDOM. Catholic theology has nothing to do with randomness, it’s based on order and logic because that’s the way Catholic theology purports that God created the universe: orderly. Natural selection isn’t orderly. If it were, it wouldn’t be Darwin’s theory of evolution which may as well be some made-up pagan explanation for why little Tommy has the EXACT SAME face his mommy has. [/color]

You again have it all wrong. Natural selection, as I have already told you half a dozen times, IS NOT RANDOM! And lets assume that it was - well, what appears to us as random, can still be guided by God. So again, no, there is nothing wrong with this. Remember, Darwin lived 150 years ago - his understanding of evolution is vastly out dated. Even Gould is outdated now.

[color="#FF0000"]This is just too useless to comment on.[/color]

I pretty much gave you the definition of evolution, and you dismissed it as useless. You can do better than that.

[color="#FF0000"]
This as well. You really know how to argue from the point of logic and intellectual honesty, don’t you? Besides, if you were to quote me directly and correctly, you’d need elipses before and after each of those phrases. It would do you so much better to try to make me look foolish by actually answering my arguments with arguments. Nice try, though.[/color]

The point of those quotes was not to anger you or make you look silly, but rather to give you an example of quote mining that you could relate to. You don't like being deceptively quoted, do you? Nor do the biologists. It's dishonest, wrong, and just plain unChristian. Hence, why I don't do it. You shouldn't do it either. Since you did do it, I pointed out what it was and why it was wrong in hopes that you wouldn't do it anymore.

[color="#FF0000"]And how many evolutionist scientists have published and hold tenure at some liberal madrass you call a college? I don’t have a clue, why don’t you supply that info since you’re the one making the argument. I’d also like the see the annual income index for both professions of a secretary and a paleontologist according to the U.S. Department of Labor. If you want to make rash claims, you’re responsible for holding them up. If you can’t hold them up, no one should believe you. I’m skeptically putting your claim to the test.[/color]

Well, if you want citation for my claims, then I want it for yours - which you made first, and thus should provide citation for first. So have at it. Where's all this information on the amazing income of biologists? No double-standards, ok?

[color="#FF0000"]
Yes, it was, indeed, a hoax. Peppered moths sleep during the day and come out at night. They don’t rest on tree trunks which is how they were positioned when the experiment took place, they rest on the underside of branches. Even the liberal New York Times acknowledged that it was a hoax:

The Moth That Failed

Staple of Evolutionary Teaching May Not Be Textbook Case

Besides, hoax or not, it didn’t turn into something else or change species which you, yourself claimed could happen because of genetic mutations. They simply “changed color”. They didn’t grow an arm or opposable thumbs or a central nervous system. They changed color, big woop[/color]

Did you even read what I said? The guy who took the photo explained exactly what he did, how he did it, and why he did it. A hoax is by definition, something that a person tries to pass of as true that is not or something someone perpetuates in a deceptive manner. Since the experimenter was completely straight forward about it, there is no way it can be called a hoax.

[color="#FF0000"]Oh, don’t’ tell me you haven’t heard of the ridiculous creation of amino acids experiment. Scientists do it all the time, and they claim it proves we came from primordial goo. They, however can’t exactly come to terms with amino acids not being life and the step between amino acids and proteins which are life’s building blocks, much less life itself. Definitely rock solid.[/color]

Again, you are talking about the origin of life. Evolution is about the change of life over time, not the origin of it. Amino acids becoming living organisms has nothing to do with evolution.

[color="#FF0000"]
Oh, please! Give me a break, seriously, I’m howling with laughter at this! You’re trying to be an adult?? “Question everything, dude!” Oh, very adult-like language, seriously, you could be the bastion of maturity we’ve been waiting for! You call me stupid, basically saying something to the effect of “I’m not going to call you stupid outright, but I may as well because that’s what I think and I’m just trying to cover it up with this convoluted verbal contortion to say ‘hi, I think you’re stupid’ : D”.[/color]

Use of the word "dude" does not mean that a person is not acting like an adult. My 90 year old grandfather used the word. And again, I never called you stupid. Now please stop with the ad hominem attacks.

[color="#FF0000"]
Oh, like how the eye came into being from a gooey mass of light-sensitive cells that we can’t even begin to know the origins of? What about how a small amount of simple life forms somehow evolved into many different ones with abilities unseen before the Cambrian explosion? Or how about exactly how Michael Moore can still walk without eventually just getting lazy and rolling? What about that? Is that open to debate?[/color]

Actually, yes. Those are open for debate. As you yourself said above, scientists are still debating on exactly how it happened. However, whether it does or does not happen is not up for debate.

[color="#FF0000"]Okay, I’m talking about scientific debate and you give me a court trial that some people backed out of. People back out of legal proceedings for lots of different reasons. I don’t think it’s safe to see you have a tract record unless you can actually sort out a pattern, which you haven’t done for me. Do you have anything else? Where’s this huge tract record? I’d like to see it. [/color]

You seem to misunderstand. This is not some random court trial. This was THE court trial. It is [b]the[/b] reason ID doesn't get taught in schools. And the ID advocates decided the day before the trial that they were unwilling to defend their own concept? I smell foul - especially since the judge was a creationist himself. But if you want more creationist backouts, look into Ken Miller's debates. He's shown up to empty audience halls and had to turn debates into lectures because his opposition didn't show on several occasions. And that's just one guy.

[color="#FF0000"]“Now I'm not saying you're stupid, but clearly, when it comes to evolution, it is not brains you are using to fight it.”

Remember that? Nice touch. That’s exactly what I meant by calling me stupid under the guise of not doing so because you “claimed” you didn’t. [/color]

I thought we already went over this. Quote mining, i.e. misquoting a person to change the meaning of what they said, is dishonest. Provide the whole quote next time.

[color="#FF0000"]Well, I provided some news stories. You provided me with the equivalent of a high-schooler’s BS search engine. I’m still waiting on those U.S. Dept. of Labor statistics and that tract record of creationists backing out of debates repeatedly[/color]
First of all, your statement is false. I gave you more than wikipedia. Second, I'm not doing your homework for you. You're starting to ask for information that would require several hours of pouring over documents and piecing together tidbits of information to find again. If you want this information, you can ask others for it, but not while you sit on your butt doing nothing. When half the information you're asking for can be found via google search, I know you're not genuinely interested - you simply seek to discredit my statements any way you can and I'm not playing that game. If I were, you'd have run off by now after discovering that there isn't any scientific evidence of ID.

[color="#FF0000"]And if you’re telling me to apply Ockham’s razor to this theory, purported by you to be to me a “conspiracy”, then why don’t you apply Ockham’s razor to evolution? It’s all fanciful. Where’s the hard-core evidence?[/color]

The "hardcore" evidence is everywhere. I've seen it. I've touched it. I've watched it happen. I own a chunk of it. If you want to ask where the evidence is, then you should next LOOK for it. Try and google "transitional fossil", "evidence for evolution", "observance of evolution", etc, etc, etc. I'm tired of you asking questions you don't actually want the answers to.

[color="#FF0000"]
Doesn’t it trouble you that you mention that I should “question everything”, yet you took no time in questioning your initial evaluation of my knowledge of the subject? How about questioning the true motives of the scientists that you believe so strongly? I find that a bit hypocritical.
And fair-mindedness? There are times when you should be fair-minded. Where there’s debate and the victory lies with the facts, however, fairness has nothing to do with it. Fair-mindedness comes in handy when covering the news, not when debating a hoax. [/color]

You STILL didn't even try to answer my questions. I'm just going to keep asking them until you do, so you might as well get it out of the way.

Be honest with yourself - how can you possibly believe that something is wrong when you know almost nothing about it? Doesn't it frustrate you when anti-Catholics try and tell you your beliefs are wrong when they don't even understand them? And if so, how can you consider yourself fair minded when you do the exact same thing to evolutionists?[/quote]

[quote name='iheartjp2' post='1634902' date='Aug 22 2008, 04:51 PM']That's true. We did come up with it, but creationists kind of stole it and redefined it. What it means to a creationist is not what it means to a scientist. We didn't contort it's meaning. You guys did. That should be obvious from the simple facts that we used it first, we still try to use it the way it was originally used, and you guys don't. And guess what? I believe in an intelligent designer who knew what He was doing when He created the world too. You've still got this false dichotomy issue here.

[color="#FF0000"][i]“You need to stop redefining evolution to support your argument. It is not evolutionists who try to legitimize things by compartmentalizing it. We don't want it compartmentalized. It is the creationists who are doing so. . . .”[/i]

Okay, not only can you not keep to what I’ve written, but you can’t even remain consistent with what you write yourself. That quote is yours from the last reply that you gave me. I also never said that anyone contorted the meaning of anything.

[i]“. . . . you’re the ones who continue to go through all sorts of stupid verbal contortions to push this theory that hasn’t been proven.” [/i]

No one’s going through verbal contortions in an effort to redefine anything. You guys are going through verbal contortions to make something that’s paradoxically “proven”, and is at the same time ridiculous, sound right to people. The fact that you believe in that God [i]could[/i] have created using the method that the theory of evolution puts forth is about as good as saying that God could have created the Easter Bunny. Where’s the scientific evidence? The only thing I’ve seen “going for you” are hoaxes, cover-ups, and outright lies.

[i]In memoriam[/i] of the section of our argument that dealt simply with the hyperbolic expression that I used concerning the transformation of species due to trait changes, I’m leaving this to simply say that a hyperbolic expression is a hyperbolic expression. It wasn’t a critical piece of the argument and I don’t know why you address it as if it were. As for newts not turning into lions, I’ll give you something completely idiotic that I [i]did[/i] see in a video that my biology teacher made me watch and take notes on in high school. This video claimed that there is enough evidence to research the evolution of some of the wolves into modern-day whales. I feel terrible that I can’t even remember the people who made it, but if I were to go back to my school for a visit, I would definitely look into it. I couldn’t believe it when I saw it. These are the nuts that you’re trying to defend.[/color]

I'm pretty sure I know what my own arguments are better than you. And you thought I was putting words into your mouth...

Well, since you want evidence, here's this link: [url="http://www.talkorigins.org"]http://www.talkorigins.org[/url] Here's a basic explanation of the evolution of the eye from that site: [url="http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html"]http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html[/url] And here's a more in depth explanation from wikipedia: [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye[/url]

That'll take you several months to read through all of talkorigins, but I really don't think it'll help for a few reasons. First, because you said you refused to believe in evolution - which pretty much amounts to you coming out and telling me nothing will work. Second, understanding evolution to the degree you're demanding takes several years of learning. *I* don't even know that much about it yet, so some of this stuff you're asking for is stuff I don't have yet. And the last reason is that it doesn't matter. No matter what evidence I show a creationist, they always dismiss it by saying something to the effect of "God made it look that way". If I ask a young earth creationist about the light from stars billions of miles away, they just say that God made it in transit. If I ask one about the geological column, they say God made it look that way. If I ask them about similarities in genetic code, again, "Goddidit" It turns God into a mindless excuse and I don't like it.

[color="#FF0000"]You wanna know why nothing works? Because I’ve seen the “evidence” and it’s trash, absolute trash. It’s true, nothing will work. I haven’t seen anything that’s even remotely convincing. Telling me that I’m stupid and that I don’t know anything about evolution isn’t going to pin me against a wall and cause me to somehow believe. That’s exactly how you people operate: you derail your opponent with ad hominems and then you say “oh, by the way, agree with me”. How can I be trusted to agree with you when YOU’RE opinion is one-sided and I, apparently, don’t know anything? Wouldn’t I want to see both sides? That’s just another piece of evidence to prove that you people don’t like debate. You don’t even want to debate me, you just think you can call me stupid under the guise of not doing so and tear at my confidence (which just isn’t working) since you realize that I’m NOT stupid and I CAN’T be swayed by your “logic”. That explanation for why scientists who somehow “prove” evolution continually with experiments and hard work want you to “imagine” that this somehow happened was because we “stupid people” wouldn’t understand their extensive, scholarly language and lengthy explanations that you gave me was laughable!

I read the ridiculous article that you got off wikipedia. Nice try, but first of all, trying to get a reputable source from wikipedia is what high-schoolers do when they don’t know what to write and they want to BS something. It’s child’s play.

Second, the entire article was just a huge supposition of how the eye [i]may[/i] have come about. Darwin himself couldn’t even come up with an explanation for the eye. He believed that certain light-sensitive cells were randomly mutated into a cluster that started to randomly function together and then over aeons, an eye was created. That still doesn’t explain how it did, and it doesn’t explain where the light-sensitive cells came from in the first place. Do I have to “imagine” that, too? The article goes on to talk about how the Cambrian explosion was basically an “arms race” that started a “rapid spate of evolution”. Please, give me a break. Scientists still don’t know what cause the Cambrian explosion and they argue about it all the time. Somehow, all the phyla that we see today appeared on the face of the Earth out of life forms that were nothing like them. Still, there are more questions: why didn’t we ever find any random mutations of the eye in unusual places? Why haven’t there ever been more than one? Why haven’t animals with eyes stuck on the sides of their head evolved so that the eyes are somewhere more convenient with the ability to simply rotate like human eyes? Why don’t we have eyes on the backs of our heads? Those would’ve been useful, and after all those millennia, the possibility can’t possibly be downplayed. So why not? They haven’t been able to test any of this to see if it would actually work. I thought these were scientists. Here’s something to question, dude: why do scientists get paid to do what they do when all that hard work simply leads to more possibilities?

Third, their response to the intelligent design argument:
[i]“The eye is often used by creationists as an example of an organ which is irreducibly complex and so must have been created by a divine creator.
The concept of irreducible complexity has been criticised by some as being an argument from ignorance. If a particular author cannot imagine a way in which the eye evolved, this does not have any bearing upon whether or not the eye actually did evolve.
The available scientific evidence, summarised in this article, in the form of fossil and genetic evidence, demonstrates overwhelmingly that the complex eyes seen in some modern-day species evolved from much simpler forms over millions of years. In addition, many species alive today can be found which have significantly simpler eyes, disproving the notion of irreducible complexity as it applies to the eye.”[/i]

Uh, no. The article shows nothing but that at different points in history, different creatures had different types of eyes. There’s no evidence that the eye somehow gradually evolved into something better on the same creature over time, they simply assume that that’s how it went. Real science. Right.

What I find terribly amusing is the text in the middle. First, they call creationist scientists who have worked hard to get to where they are in their field “ignorant” for not being able to “imagine a way in which the eye evolved”. Of course not. Imagination has absolutely no bearing on reality. What, however, the heck does that have to do with evolution being real?[/color]

I have to seriously wonder where the heck you pulled this from. If God made evolution, there is NOTHING wrong with the theory of natural selection at all. It makes no statements for or against the existence or guidance of God - if it did, it could never be called science. Science is agnostic. Evolution, the big bang, string theory, M theory, etc - they all try to explain the how or the method. God can still be the cause of that method, whatever it may be.

[color="#FF0000"]Yes, there fundamentally is. See, according to Darwin’s theory, natural selection is RANDOM and produces an trait that MAY or even MAY NOT help that creature survive and pass on the trait that was RANDOMLY SELECTED in its gene pool to change. Darwin’s theory isn’t compatible with Christianity at all because it shows something that’s intelligently created, designed, and operated to be assembled in a particular fashion by RANDOM. Catholic theology has nothing to do with randomness, it’s based on order and logic because that’s the way Catholic theology purports that God created the universe: orderly. Natural selection isn’t orderly. If it were, it wouldn’t be Darwin’s theory of evolution which may as well be some made-up pagan explanation for why little Tommy has the EXACT SAME face his mommy has. [/color]

Evolution would disagree with the exact same thing. Evolution is not just random mutations as I have already explained. Natural selection plays the most important part. Random mutation is only a secondary effect.

[color="#FF0000"]This is just too useless to comment on.[/color]

No, actually, I don't. I mean intentionally taking a line out of context to support an argument. Here, let me do it to you. You said all of the following quotes word for word:

"I lost" - oh. So you admit defeat then?
"made creatures able to adapt to their environments by traits being slightly modified" - so you accept evolution then?
"a newt could evolve into a lion" - no need for comment
"you’re right" - thank you for admitting it
"There's mounds of evidence for evolution"
"you’re so darned well-read on the subject" - why thank you.

Do you understand what I mean by quote mining now? It's frustrating, isn't it?

Btw - do you even understand what the word "theory" means in the world of science? Because you seem to be using the meaning the general public uses.

[color="#FF0000"]This as well. You really know how to argue from the point of logic and intellectual honesty, don’t you? Besides, if you were to quote me directly and correctly, you’d need elipses before and after each of those phrases. It would do you so much better to try to make me look foolish by actually answering my arguments with arguments. Nice try, though.[/color]

I saw it a couple months ago and can't remember where it was. If I find it, I'll post it.

[color="#FF0000"]Sure thing[/color]

Make money?!?! Are you really serious? No. They don't make money for this stuff. Its extremely rare to get a research grant at all, and they're never very big. You don't get payed for material that winds up in a science journal, and you don't get rich off of making discoveries. If a scientists wants to make money, they need to write books or become a college professor. I work in a hospital as what is essentially a nurse's secretary and I probably make about as much money in a year as a paleontologist.

[color="#FF0000"]And how many evolutionist scientists have published and hold tenure at some liberal madrass you call a college? I don’t have a clue, why don’t you supply that info since you’re the one making the argument. I’d also like the see the annual income index for both professions of a secretary and a paleontologist according to the U.S. Department of Labor. If you want to make rash claims, you’re responsible for holding them up. If you can’t hold them up, no one should believe you. I’m skeptically putting your claim to the test.[/color]

[color="#FF0000"]". . . . a peppered moth experiment that turned out to be a hoax. . . ."[/color]

It was not a hoax. The guy who took the picture places the moths on the trees to take the picture and fully admitted it. There is nothing "hoax" about it. There's an article someone on that talkorigins website I gave you that explains things quite well.

[color="#FF0000"]Yes, it was, indeed, a hoax. Peppered moths sleep during the day and come out at night. They don’t rest on tree trunks which is how they were positioned when the experiment took place, they rest on the underside of branches. Even the liberal [i]New York Times[/i] acknowledged that it was a hoax:

[url="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03EEDE153DF936A1575BC0A9649C8B63&scp=1&sq=The%20Moth%20That%20Failed&st=cse"]The Moth That Failed[/url]

[url="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B06E1DA1E3CF93BA25755C0A9649C8B63&scp=1&sq=Staple%20of%20Evolutionary%20Teaching%20May%20Not%20Be%20Textbook%20Case&st=cse"]Staple of Evolutionary Teaching May Not Be Textbook Case[/url]

Besides, hoax or not, it didn’t turn into something else or change species which you, yourself claimed could happen because of genetic mutations. They simply “changed color”. They didn’t grow an arm or opposable thumbs or a central nervous system. They changed color, big woop.[/color]

Evolution is the change of life. You're talking about the creation of life here. That's abiogenesis - an entirely different realm.

[color="#FF0000"]Oh, don’t’ tell me you haven’t heard of the ridiculous creation of amino acids experiment. Scientists do it all the time, and they claim it proves we came from primordial goo. They, however can’t exactly come to terms with amino acids not being life and the step between amino acids and proteins which are life’s building blocks, much less life itself. Definitely rock solid.[/color]

I'm trying somewhat to be an adult here. Subtle insults under the guise of digression aren't exactly welcome here. Nor is calling us all "crackpots" and greedy and any other manner of insult you've tossed in my general direction.

[color="#FF0000"]Oh, please! Give me a break, seriously, I’m howling with laughter at this! You’re trying to be [i]an adult??[/i] “Question everything, dude!” Oh, very adult-like language, seriously, you could be the bastion of maturity we’ve been waiting for! You call me stupid, basically saying something to the effect of “I’m not going to call you stupid outright, but I may as well because that’s what I think and I’m just trying to cover it up with this convoluted verbal contortion to say ‘hi, I think you’re stupid’ : D”.

And greedy? Where’d you pull that from? Wait, don’t’ tell me, I don’t even want to know. [/color]

They are. On questions we don't already have a definitive answer to. But since evolution has been directly observed hundreds of times over, there is a definitive answer and thus absolutely nothing to debate.

[color="#FF0000"]Oh, like how the eye came into being from a gooey mass of light-sensitive cells that we can’t even begin to know the origins of? What about how a small amount of simple life forms somehow evolved into many different ones with abilities unseen before the Cambrian explosion? Or how about exactly how Michael Moore can still walk without eventually just getting lazy and rolling? What about that? Is that open to debate? [/color]

We're waiting. Creationists actually have a huge track record of setting up debates and then just not showing up with no warning. It's freaking ridiculous. The Dover v. Kitzmiller trial, presided over by a Creationist judge of all people, had six out of the nine Creationist big-wigs back out at the last moment and refused to give an explanation.

[color="#FF0000"]Okay, I’m talking about scientific debate and you give me a court trial that some people backed out of. People back out of legal proceedings for lots of different reasons. I don’t think it’s safe to see you have a tract record unless you can actually sort out a pattern, which you haven’t done for me. Do you have anything else? Where’s this huge tract record? I’d like to see it.[/color]

Some evolutionists won't debate creationists though, because they feel that it gives the creationist too much credit. If they debate a big time evolutionist like Ken Miller, then they can go around talking about their debate like unofficial credentials. If you hear about someone who debated a big time evolutionist, you'd instinctively think that they're a pretty knowledgeable creationist, wouldn't you? Of course, they don't tell you that they got their butt whupped in the debate, but that doesn't matter. It's publicity for them.

[color="#FF0000"]Oh wow! Now you’re afraid of giving us too much credit?? Geez, I thought they were OPEN to debate. They’re now somehow open to debating creationists, but don’t want to give them credit? They’re afraid that ideological opponents are going to walk around and say “I debated so-and-so so” and not give details? Does the truth even matter to these people? Does the alleged hard work and sweat that they put out to get to where they are and reach the convictions that they’ve reached mean anything to them? I thought these people were servants to the facts. Doesn’t that even count for something? They’re afraid to go against creationists because even though they’ve got the truth, the evidence, the credentials, and the knowledge, they’re going to be made to look like geniuses in front of the very people that they call geniuses for disagreeing with them? If that’s the case, these people aren’t only intellectually lazy, they’re intellectually lazy wimps and cowards. Creationists take more heat for their views everyday and get harangued and blasted in the news all the time. These evolutionists don’t even want people walking around saying that they debated a creationist because it somehow gave them too much credit. Everything you’re saying definitely makes sense to my feeble mind, yes sir![/color]

I did. That's why I'm no longer a creationist.

[color="#FF0000"]And that’s also probably why your posts are riddled with spelling errors. Why spell the way dictionaries dictate? Question everything, dude![/color]

1. You're being insulting and you know it.

[color="#FF0000"]Yes, the statement of the fact that you’re absolutely wrong does feel quite insulting, doesn’t it? Does it also feel mean or bigoted?[/color]

2. I never called you stupid

[color="#FF0000"]No, but you may as well have.

How about a little trip down memory lane. . . .

“Now I'm not saying you're stupid, but clearly, when it comes to evolution, it is not brains you are using to fight it.”

Remember that? Nice touch. That’s exactly what I meant by calling me stupid under the guise of not doing so because you “claimed” you didn’t. [/color]

3. I've turned six atheists into believers and a couple dozen creationists into "evolutionists". I'm pretty sure I've won some debates.

[color="#FF0000"]Really? Wow! Can I meet them? What’s the backslide rate? Did they just say that they were converted so you would leave them alone? That’s actually what I was kind of fed up enough to do.[/color]

4. You accuse me of having no sources when you yourself have yet to provide any. That's the pot calling the kettle black. But lucky you you have them now.

[color="#FF0000"]Well, I provided some news stories. You provided me with the equivalent of a high-schooler’s BS search engine. I’m still waiting on those U.S. Dept. of Labor statistics and that tract record of creationists backing out of debates repeatedly.[/color]

5. You have yet to give me one single logical argument. Not one. You have systematically misrepresented evolution and made blind accusations of falsehoods and conspiracies, but not once have you laid out an argument with an initial "assumption", syllogisms, and a conclusion. There is nothing of the kind in anything you said.

[color="#FF0000"]“You have yet to give me one single logical argument. Not one.”
Read that over again and tell me if you think it make sense. I’d say it doesn’t, though we should question everything, dude, you know?

That’s all fine and dandy, though I don’t think I can speak any better on your behalf. Why are you people so apt to accuse your opponent of the exact same thing that you’re doing yourself?[/color]

6. The problem I most have is that in rejecting evolution, you are calling pretty much every biologist, paleontologist, geneticist, and geologist a liar and a deceiver. Occam's razor applies here. What's more likely? That a conspiracy theory consisting of millions of scientists is perpetuating a lie onto society with little to no monetary gain to them, or that you, who would admit that you don't know a lot about the subject, are simply mistaken?

[color="#FF0000"]Well, no, I’m not calling all scientists to whom the theory of evolution is a concern a liar and a deceiver, only the lying and deceiving ones.

Who said anything about conspiracy? Conspiracy is plotting to thwart something. I never claimed that anyone was conspiring against anyone. I said that evolutionists are trying to push their wacky views on us, I never said that they were knowingly purporting a lie. I’m sure that they hold strong convictions. The fact that they won’t let up on them in the face of the truth doesn’t make them conspirers. Besides, in order for them to be conspiring, it would be assumed that they were plotting this together. To conspire comes from the latin verb [i]spire[/i], meaning “to breathe”. If you add the prefix [i]con[/i], a variation of the preposition [i]cum[/i], meaning “with”, you have a verb that means “to breathe with”, or “to breathe together”. I never claimed that they were all in on something together that no one else was. The whole conspiracy thing is something you purported, not me.

And if you’re telling me to apply Ockham’s razor to this theory, purported by you to be to me a “conspiracy”, then why don’t you apply Ockham’s razor to evolution? It’s all fanciful. Where’s the hard-core evidence?

I also want a source for your numbers. I don't believe there are millions of evolutionary scientists who are toiling away proving evolution repetatively.[/color]

7. You STILL didn't answer my questions. Here they are again:

Be honest with yourself - how can you possibly believe that something is wrong when you know almost nothing about it? Doesn't it frustrate you when anti-Catholics try and tell you your beliefs are wrong when they don't even understand them? And if so, how can you consider yourself fair minded when you do the exact same thing to evolutionists?

[color="#FF0000"]Doesn’t it trouble you that you mention that I should “question everything”, yet you took no time in questioning your initial evaluation of my knowledge of the subject? How about questioning the true motives of the scientists that you believe so strongly? I find that a bit hypocritical.
And fair-mindedness? There are times when you should be fair-minded. Where there’s debate and the victory lies with the facts, however, fairness has nothing to do with it. Fair-mindedness comes in handy when covering the news, not when debating a hoax. [/color][/quote]

And how does God receive any glory from the attacks of both of you.

You guys need to calm down.

I don't believe evolution happened, I believe in 6-day creationism because if we can agree God flooded the entire planet with billions upon billions up billions of gallons of water, it would have dramatically changed the sediment layers, so we can't really trust the 'fossil' record, as it shouldn't be so cut and dry!

Atheists argument to this is that the flood didn't happen.

That isn't yours, right Farsight?

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='MakeYouThink' post='1635109' date='Aug 22 2008, 09:04 PM']And how does God receive any glory from the attacks of both of you.

You guys need to calm down.

I don't believe evolution happened, I believe in 6-day creationism because if we can agree God flooded the entire planet with billions upon billions up billions of gallons of water, it would have dramatically changed the sediment layers, so we can't really trust the 'fossil' record, as it shouldn't be so cut and dry!

Atheists argument to this is that the flood didn't happen.

That isn't yours, right Farsight?[/quote]
Kindly do not quote entire posts before you unless you are responding to specific sections of it, you are wasting internet space.

Nobody is requiring you to believe in evolution, or trust the fossil records. We don't agree that God flooded the entire planet with billions of gallons of water that dramatically altered sediment layers. Have you ever seen a sediment layer? Pulled and cleaned fossils from it? Sediment layers are rock, they don't melt in water. Do you think God planted fossils to play tricks on you?
You have made it perfectly clear you don't trust scientists to tell the truth. Tell me, how can you use a computer or drive a car. .

[MakeYouThink]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1635226' date='Aug 22 2008, 09:16 PM']Kindly do not quote entire posts before you unless you are responding to specific sections of it, you are wasting internet space.

Nobody is requiring you to believe in evolution, or trust the fossil records. We don't agree that God flooded the entire planet with billions of gallons of water that dramatically altered sediment layers. Have you ever seen a sediment layer? Pulled and cleaned fossils from it? Sediment layers are rock, they don't melt in water. Do you think God planted fossils to play tricks on you?
You have made it perfectly clear you don't trust scientists to tell the truth. Tell me, how can you use a computer or drive a car. .[/quote]

Then what other parts of the bible shouldn't I believe? Should I not believe Jesus came in the flesh then? Because that to is said in scripture.

So, if you don't believe the flood, which your scribes took very good care to make sure people read about it in the Bible, how can you say you respect their work?

I am not a person who thinks God planted fossils to play tricks. He created them when he flooded the entire planet with billions and billions and billions of gallons of water. With all the sediment, ground and organic debris flowing around in the same places, they all collessed into the fossils and fossil fuels we have today.

It's okay to believe that, right?

You need to stop insulting people who disagree with you.

And internet space is not worth much, pennies to the dollar.