Still Stubbornly Refuse To Believe In Evolution? - Page 2

What do you mean? Modern medicine is a wonderful thing. The Bible speaks well of dotors. It is an honorable thing. The apostle Luke (author of Luke and Acts) was a doctor. Where do you get that the Bible is anti-medicine. it is not the case.

Just because some other folks than you look at science and don't accept some theories that have been falsely called science like evolutionism, they have a different definition for science? Surely you did not just try that cop-out. But yes, you did.

By science I mean the exact thing that you should know it to be and one basic thing that all science is to be judged on is the scientific method. i will not apologize for that.

You offer nothing of validity in your statement. You compeletely avoid providing anything of merit concerning the subject of this thread. All you do is say that I am not sceintific and that the Bible is weird (to paraphrase).

Well, certainly there are differences of beliefs amongst Bible believers just as there are amongst evolutionism beleivers. However, since many folks have not studied their Bibles, but feel like they have to say something about it. Unfortunately, you have weird takes on the bible just like you have people with weird takes on anything.

However, when people get down to it and really study, for the most part, they arrive at the same conclusions.

It is interesting that no one here wants to just get down to the science of it all. All you want to do is try to change the definition of science for me and call me an alien and whatever. Why don't you contribute somehting of value? Let's get into the pros and cons of each model. Let's look at what you think proof of evolution is?

The real stupid is the one who attacks anything different than what they want without understanding it. And that about sums up the majority of the posts on this thread. And I say this without trying to insult anyone. You call me stupid, but I don't attack you. I am trying to have us all take a serious look at what we believe and why.

There is an old saying: "If you throw a rock over a fence, the dog that barks loudest is the one that got hit".

With a topic like this, no doubt someone is going to get riled, but let's take that energy and be constructive with it.

I was going to make a strong coffee - but i think i'll grab a beer instead. Fancy a John Smiths?

I think you are lacking in refinement - you are a very angry person, there is no grace and contemplation in your last post. According to Zoroastrian mythlogy, the force of destruction and chaos is Angra Mainyu. I've often wondered if this is a joke. It sounds alot to me like 'Angry man you' - regardless of its pun on words - there is alot to be learned from this. Anger definately comes from a chaotic destructive place within us - even when in your case you feel you are doing the right thing to honour your beliefs. You don't seem to have learned the grace a proper contemplation of Jesus' words would bestow on one of his followers.

You're right, I cannot prove what I say - a wise person would realise that it isn't possible to prove 'anything'. The philosopher Socrates was once declared the wisest man alive, because he knew that he knew nothing. It might be a slightly arrogant thing to say - as obviously i think I know a few things, but it really should be thought about because there is something very fundamental you can learn about objective reality from that statement. Neither of us can 'prove' a damn thing, because we weren't there 2000 years ago.

As for my Jonah explanation, if you want to expand your understanding of the Bible, you could read this http://www.theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/...t/xt-preb2.htm

Bear in mind that its not necessarily the right answer, just an answer and many more are available to someone seeking out truth and knowledge.

Regardless of whether you think thats right or wrong, as neither you or me can prove a damn thing, the wise thing to do is keep it in mind along with all the other answers you could find before you go proclaiming things you have no way of knowing and seek to expand your understanding and knowledge.

I put it to you that every story in the bible has a deeper meaning than what is first learned by simply reading the surface text, and if you wanted to become wise with your years, you could seek out these deeper meanings. Regardless of whether you believe them or not, there is nothing to lose by chosing to expand the base of knowledge you draw from.

Really? Cause....


Doctors? Pffft. You obviously lack faith. God will heal your diseases and injuries, if you ask: the Bible couldn't be more clear. I guess you just believe in the Word of the Lord when it's convenient. Just ask the Christian Scientists. Or are they reading the Bible wrong? Uh oh.

\t

Wheeeee! It's fun when sentences turn into snakes that eat their own tail! And that little tsk-tsking at the end? It's like being scolded by a street loon for not avoiding the face-eating crab monsters!


And yet, strangely, I am not reassured.


The particulars of evolutionary theory, the voluminous data that supports it, and the striking ancillary support from other disciplines have been presented ad nauseum, in thread after thread after thread, on these boards and beyond, in every conceivable medium, stretching from here to Timbuktu.

The response from Jesus Land has pretty uniformly been some variation on "is not", so you'll forgive me if I forgo the lengthy process of yet again citing the readily available data on the off chance that this time you'll slap your hand to your forehead and go "Oh! That giant mountain of evidence! Man, what was I thinking!"

Anyway, as I say, the "scientific refutation" bit is not worth arguing with you folks, given your, uh, perspective on the nature of how science works and what a fact looks like as it sinks its teeth into your pious ass.

I have never called the Bible "weird", although that characterization is at least odd.


Yeah. Weird.


Gosh, that works out splendidly then, doesn't it? Disagreement equals failure to really study. So, like, will Jesus Land have special classes where failure is not an option? I believe they're called "reeducation camps". Christian Scientists, I'm looking at you!


See previous comment on the efficacy of same.


And you are the soul of discretion, friend. On the other hand, you're not arguing with the aggressively ignorant.


There's another: "Arguing with the aggressively ignorant is tedious to point of wanting to make you want to tear your face off".


I agree. Gather up the kin folk and get you to Jesus Land so you can enjoy the fruits of your faith unencumbered by the 21st century and its godless fake science.

Indeed. God heals. He is God after all. He made us and He heals us according to His sovereign will. there are cases in the bible where god heals and where God choosed to not heal (as with the Apostle Paul) becuase He has a greater purpose in allowing somehting to go on in someones life. So yes, he heals, but NO, there is nothing against doctors in the bible. The only place where anything even remotely negative is said is not even referring to doctors at all, but the fact that Asa sought only the doctors and not God. and the doctors were not able ot help him. he died. Jesus said "they that are well need not the physician, but they that are sick."

The Bible does not put down doctors. Doctors are good. In fact hospices started out as a ministry by Bible believing people. Hospitals sprang from that. Look it up.

Unfortunately, there are some who will try to ignore some parts of the Bible and say (like the Christian scientists do) that you can just "believe it away". That is not what the bible teaches.

Doctors have a good ministry and God heals. Both are true.



I Think we all know "Christian Scientists" are anything but. Their is no science to saying "If I don't believe it, it is not real".

They have different beliefs than than what the Bible plainly puts forward.

\t


And that has nothing to do with what I was quoted on. Thanks for sharing!


And yet, strangley, that was not my intent.


Ah. Voluminous data. there is always this claim of irrefutable tremendous amounts of data. too bad it is never put forth. When it is, it is historically dismantled. There are voluminous THEORIES, that's for sure, many of which contradict each other. None that help stem the confusion. Really, it is a shame.


Again, WHAT giant mountain? there is NO evidence. Only theory. they find a pigs tooth and theorize. they find a man with rickets and theorize. they find an ape looking skull... it came from an ape! they find a man who has some ape like features... whoa! it turns out to be the heavyweight champion of the world, Nicolai Valuev! today! There is simply no evidence. That is just the way it is.


Well, you have certainly spent a lot of time talking about nothing then. What you are saying is that you are copping out. You try to tell me that I don't know facts, yet you offer ZERO, while I have tried to offer relevant facts. that is alright I guess. That is just who you are. I have been trying to talk science. You can leave the Bible out if you want. Pure science. Let's go.



Neither have I, but what you put forth as biblical meaning was a weird take, that had nothing to do with what the passage was saying. It's just like making it up as you go along. You wouldn't do that with an instruction booklet or a history book, and you shouldn't do that with the Bible as it is both a historical record and an instruction for living.




That's what I said. Weird.



Uh... A Creation Scientist is not quite the same as a "Christian Scientist". Just thought you should know.



And then re-read the response.




ok... Actually, ignorance is usually passive, except when someone purposefully hides and closes their mind to something that challenges them, so I suppose you mean "actively ignorant"


Although, I sympathize with that quote, I am not at the point of trying to hurt myself.



while I find that comment pretty funny, it really is sad. Jesus Land will come soon enough. Life is not that long. science is science. thoery is theory and the thoeries that have some evidence to them should be looked at further. the ones that don't should be recognized as such. Evolutionism is in such a dillemma. This is evident in the numerous responses in this post with zero ammunition to them.

Evolution is a belief system. You have to believe in it to try to interpret the world around you. Unfortunatley, there is so much evidence to the contrary, that some even brilliant men are forced to sound foolish when they take a glorious discovery and then play make-believe. Darwin is a good example of this with the human eye. Even a one-celled paramecium is so complex that the chances for all of its features to have evolved at the same time are so far out that it is logically impossible. for the vacules and the nucleus and the spines that shoot out, etc to have formed at all are impossible. Then to try to account for them forming at the same time (because if they did not, the beginnings of that creature would have died, not being able to feed itself). Then, you have to account for how the food evolved and how all the parts of it had to form together at exactly the same time, etc. you can go on and on.. how carbon dioxide, hydrogen and oxygen all have to work together to support the various life forms that exist (and how they are perpetuated by those various life forms).

And the big bang theory. where did the gas come from? How did that begin? In fact, that theory is so full of hot air :-) that it is ridiculous. It makes more sense to say there is an eternal God than eternal gas.

I was just playing around and made this (from an 80's cartoon)- then I read the latest episode of this thread - what can I say - divine prophetic intervention.

Looks like someone doesn't know the definitions of "theory" and "data".

The fact that you'd say "there is NO evidence. Only theory" in and of itself proves you haven't the faintest clue of what you're talking about -- you can't know anything about the scientific method or the meanings of the words "evidence" and "theory" and still say this.

When you've cured yourself interpreting the word "theory" only in the colloquial sense of "hunch" or "wild guess" or "something not yet proven", please come back and try again.

In the meantime, you might want to carry around some rope and grappling hooks to keep yourself securely anchored to the ground in case that crazy "theory of gravity" gives out on us.

I'm enjoying this thread.

I wonder if 9second knows that most mainline Christian denominations, not to mention the Catholic church, have issued official statements supporting biological evolution? Sure, they believe God started it, or even guides it, but they don't deny the processes of evolution as 9second does. I don't know of any mainline Christian denominations that have officially rejected evolution. So not only is 9second out of step with all of the earth sciences and biological sciences, he's also out of step with Christian churches.

Obviously, mainline Christian denominations have failed to read their Bibles closely enough and come away with weird ideas.

He's only out of step with so-called Christian churches which have lost their way, which have been led astray by Materialism and seduced by thinking their own intellects are better than God's Word!

(It's too damned easy to simulate fundy thinking sometimes.)

Beat me to it while I was still typing.

They look like cool Aliens that we might meet. If we meet aliens. Not the "greys" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greys) and what not. They're scary.

Speaking of more data, faster-than-light travel to neighbouring stars and galaxies will be cool, particularly meeting/ discovering other life-forms, then we can study *their* evolution. Or creation, whatevs.

//theory- "an idea used to justify a course of action or to account for a situation." that is the definition of the word.

//Evidence - "the available body of facts indicating whether a proposition [* read THEORY*] is true or valid."

Seems that somebody other than me is mistaken about the meanings of these words here..

Once again, there is NO evidence to support the THEORY of evolutionism.

Evolutionism is not science. It is a theory.

You say that evolution is fact, but cannot support it. Just becuase you say it many times does not make it true. there has to be factual support. There is none.

Every so called proof has been proven to either be bad science where the find was actually a creature we see today, or a fraud, where people got together, created something and flat out lied to support their belief in evolution. go check out Piltdown Man on that one and then go into you local school and ask yourself why that example is still in the textbooks after being proven to be a fraud.




I am aware that Catholicism has embraced evolution. i am also aware that Catholicism elevates Mary to the postiion of Jesus and that they teach that Mary was a virgin forever, somehow leaving the explanation of Jesus' brothers left to the pondereances of confusions everywhere. Only Jesus was virgin born. Then she went on to have a normal married life with Joseph and bore children the way all women do.

i am also aware that catholicism teaches that the bread and wine at communion actually somehow transform into real blood and flesh when you eat it. that in spite of the fact that it still looks, feels, smells and tastes the same and that the actualy ingredients of it never change.

in other words, I am aware that the catholic church says some interesting things that do not have any measureable basis in truth. embracing evolution is just a step of trying to look like they are relevant. Martin Luther made a break with the Catholic Church a long time ago. Most smart people do the same. No mainline christian denomination recognizes the catholic church as correct. Maybe the Episcopal church and possibly the methodists, but that is all.

I could care less what any denomination says. If I did, I could bring up Calvary Chapel, The Baptists, the Assemblies of God, and many more who share my view. I am not interested in who is right. I am interested in what is right. And so should you be.


Dude, it sounds like first you shoul invest in a dictionary to learn the meanings of theory and evidence. Next, take another look at the scientific method with the correct understanding of said terms. Finally, learn the difference between theory and scientific law. There is a law of gravity, not a theory.

There is a theory of evolution, not a law. you need to see repeatable, irrefutable evidence for that. Law in science is fact. Evolutionism will never acheive that. It is a glamourized fairy tale. There is however the 2nd law of thermodynamics which states that everything is slowing down and breaking down. That fits with the creation model that says everything was created a certain way and then winds down. According to evolution, laws of science dont' matter -- the world and universe is only getting better (yeah, that must be why the sun is losing so much of its mass every day and why we are debating global warming). Evolutionism has got to be one of the most UNscientific theories ever.


Me too.

You're using a dictionary to define scientific terms?



You're gonna get creamed.

This is going to be fun to watch.

Wow, you got it bad. I'm surprised the village elders let you use the internets. It's devil magic, you know.



OK, I'm really, really sorry we brought it up.... (double checks location of exits)


Right, the various tribes of Jesus Land. I'll just go and break it to the Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Mormons, Presbyterians, Amish, Quakers, and the United Church of Christ that they're not invited on account of not being, um, smart enough. I'm sure they'll be..... devastated.


See, this where you really shine, when you follow up on gibberish that suggests you have never, ever in your life been exposed to actual science by scolding people for not being sufficiently rigorous. It's sort of charmingly perverse, in a tear your face off of kind of way.


Bravo. Your closing flourish makes your previous gibberish look like tightly constructed argumentation, marshaling, as it does, whole new, vastly misconstrued nuggets from disciplines you know absolutely nothing about to support your primary area of ignorance.

It is.......well, actually it's just depressing.

Theories aren't science now? Oh, this is rich.

You quote one dictionary definition of "theory" which has nothing to do with the specialized scientific use of the word, and think you've proved something. Well, you have... that you're clueless.

Many specialties have specialized vocabulary, where words have special meanings either not found in standard dictionaries, or found only among the non-primary dictionary definitions. You're just showing your ignorance now, like someone vehemently insisting that a hockey player couldn't possibly have scored a hat trick because he never performed a trick with a hat.

Please don't convince yourself that dull-headed literalism using the wrong definitions of words amounts to some sort of victory.


There are both a theory and a law of gravity, actually. And curiously enough (curious only if you're laboring under common misconceptions), Newton's Law of Gravity proved to be less accurate than Einstein's Theory of Gravity.

A "law" is not greater, nor lesser, that a "theory". A "fact" is not greater, nor lesser, than a "theory". Each of those words applies to different conceptual domains, not to some linear scale of certainty vs. doubt.

A law is a descriptive. A fact is evidentiary. A theory is explanatory.

Wow, not only are you clueless about real science, you aren't even keeping up with trends (one might laughingly call them "advancements") in creation science.

Study more carefully what the Second Law of thermodynamics says. Pay special attention to the phrase "in a closed system". Please then take notice of the fact that the Earth is not a closed system. Realize, as finally even many wild-eyed creationists have eventually had to do, that you can't use the Second Law to rule out evolution because the Second Law doesn't apply to a non-closed system like the Earth, which is bathed in a constant influx of energy from the Sun.

Slap self on forehead and say, "d'oh!"

Its from this - a series of claymation shorts i loved from my childhood- in my spare time Im going to try to recreate an episode in cg.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe2vpM_eJRw

Its just fitting for this thread - in more ways than 1

"For there is always something down there, lurking in the dark waiting to come out...."

He clearly didn't get the memo. Everyone knows the formula:

1. Apply impenetrable and impossible to prove philosophy (materialism!)
2. When asked for clarification, refer to 10,000 pages of Christian Apologetics.
3. If all else fails, complain about judges. (A real crowd pleaser!)

You know.... the best test for a scientific theory is whether it is predictive or not... The theory of evolution predicts much better than the adjoint of creationism and poorly understood science.

I use evolutionary principles everyday in lab, and every day in lab those principles bear fruit and my science works.

If what works is truth, than well by god Evolution is truth...

And yet, to the chagrin of its supporters, evolution does not work. We have no evidence that it ever did, nor do we see it now, nor do we have any reason to believe it ever will. Therefore, it is not truth.

No doubt microevolution is seen every day. If I lift weights, I get stronger, if I live in a colder climate, I develop fat stores slightly different. there are a variety of different elephants and rhinoceri, but they never change from what they are. En elephant is still an elephant, whether it has shorter ears or longer ears...

What is at issue is macroevolution, otherwise known as the theory of evolutionism.

this states that actual species can become an entirely different species. This has never happened. Zero proof. Therefore, it can have no claim to truth.

Now neither Creation nor evolution can be seen happening now. All we have to go on is what currently exists, what is in the fossil record and the various archaeological findings that would support one theory or the other.

The theory of evolution has put forth the idea that we should see a huge number of 'missing link' subjects - of which we have found none (that have not proven to be blatant frauds by overzealous evolutionists). On the creation side, we see that there would seem to be a purpose for creation as it was intelligently designed. We see that in the example of the eye, the heart, the food that we eat, the relationship of oxygen to carbon dioxide and the intake and export of said molecules from plant life versus human and animal life. etc.

In fact to look at the history of evolutionism to speak of truth is anything but. The history of this theory is full of lies. Too many examples of bad science and outright lies. It must remain a theory.

What we need to do is take a look at paleontology, archaeology, and scientific evidence together and see how they match up with the two theories. I am biased toward creation as I see that the science of it would seem to support the idea that things were designed intelligently to not only exist, but to exist together. That simple idea combined with the hard facts of archaelogocial discovery which supports the Bible all the time ("Hittites anyone?)

by the way... using evolutionary principles in lab is really nonsensical. evolutionism is the idea that things cam eto exist in an arbitrary manner. In lab, you are trying, scientifically and intelligently to put things together and see what happens. To first intelligently put things together and then claim that what happens afterward is appluying evolutionary principles is anything but. You are in fact, creating a situation to have already created elements interact. No evolutionsism to it.

or try the evolutionsist version:

1) Apply a impenetrable and impossible to prove philosphy (whoa! materialism again!)
2) when asked for clarification, throw in "millions and billions of years" and refer to Darwin (but be sure to back away from that when his theories are proven wrong. Then return when some time has passed)
3) If all else fails, complain that the adamant person is acting contrary to his stance because he sounds "mean." (and then stand back as the place turns into an old-school Geraldo episode)

A theory is just what the dictionary says it is. Any scholar would tell you that we define our terms - that is what the dictionary is for. There is not a 'secret evolution dictionary' that has the same words with alternate meanings in it. Just because it is a theory that has been thought up to try to explain a scientific conundrum, does not make it any less a theory. it is simply a theory applied to science. therefore, it is a theory and yes, a few folks here still need to invest in a good dictionary. it remains a theory becuase it has not and cannot be proven and is ot repeatable.

A law will always be repeatable. that is why it is a law. A fact is proven and indesputable evidence. evolutinism in neither.

As far as your 'specialized terms' they are defined in the theory itself and then explained. All of these terms have been in the mainstream vernacluar for some time now (You can even hear it on animal planet or a second grade classrom for cryin out loud) However the broad term of theory applies. You cannot redefine your terms as you please and then claim that you have done so because they are 'special'. A theory is a theory. Evolutionism is a theory.

A Webster or Oxord Dictionary will do fine. You may also want to keep up on the various science journals that abound.

Oh, and just because it is interesting, but has nothing to do with this thread, check this out. Pretty interesting.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/12/mir....ap/index.html

And that is with a flawed heart.

9secondko,

Someone has to explain this slowly to you.

Read this.

I'm not surprised that you have such virulent anti-Catholic attitudes, but as you know, Catholicism was only one of the churches that I named. In fact, just yesterday was Evolution Sunday in Protestant churches across America: Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopals, Lutherans, Baptists, and on and on. Hundreds and hundreds of them. They all believe that the study of biological evolution is the study of God's world.

Look, the logical consequence of your belief that evolution has ZERO scientific evidence is that all the scientists are committing fraud. People like my brother-in-law the botanist, no atheist crusader, for whom biological evolution is the basis of absolutely everything he does in his field - he's in classification and does DNA tests on plants, and classifies them according to lineage and history. It's the same for legions of researchers in all of the life and earth sciences.

The simple fact is, if you, 9secondko on the internet, find it so obvious that evolution is false, they certainly must know it's false too, given that they work in the field every day. But they all accept it. It's only people outside those fields who post on the internet that say it's a fraud. The only explanation is that it's a massive conspiracy - they know the truth that it's a fraud, but they perpetrate it on the public in order to move them away from God.

But now, we have all these churches who have looked at it and accept it too. So they must be in on the conspiracy! That's really the only conclusion from your position - if it's so obvious to anyone with the internet that evolution is utterly ridiculous and without merit, surely those churches and those scientists must know it too, but have decided to back it anyway.

First of all, you don't actually understand microevolution. It isn't simply the changing of external features. The easiest example of microevolution would be HIV, whereby the selection pressure of drug treatment selects for resistant virii which have a higher fecundity. Similarly, the best examples of macroevolution is the HIV family of viruses ranging from SIV to FIV, all of which are highly related but distinguishable in that they CANNOT reproduce in differing environments -- you cannot be infected by FIV, they are different species of viruses if you will. We have direct evidence of this sort of evolution with the influenza virus from 1918. We are watching the same evolutionary steps being taken by the bird flu. So to be honest, your claim of no evidence of evolution from one species to another is quite frankly bullshit. We have observed, directly, the transformation of species of viruses into NEW species of virus, we have observed, directly, the transformation of species of bacteria into NEW species of bacteria, we have seen incremental changes of the genome of certain rapidly reproducing animals that strongly support evolutionary theory.

Second. You have no idea what I do in a laboratory. And your problem with the setup of experimentation reveals a misunderstanding of where selection pressure arises from. There needs to be no intelligence involved. Bacteria have the means to adapt and change their genome to meet a selection pressure. This ability is built in, I didn't need to give it to them, no one needed to give it to them. Some do it better than others, some can have it eliminated (but they don't survive as well)... Let me give you an example:

I am trying to express a gene in a bacterial strain that is under selection pressure of an antibiotic whose resistance is coupled to gene expression. The gene product, a protein, has a specific function but is very very toxic. The cells have responded by excizing a part of the gene which reduces its toxicity, but it didn't happen rationally. The cells which expressed the full length protein were sicker than the cells which had randomly modified the gene. Those with the modified gene grew faster, eventually coming to dominate the culture. Now this is microevolution, the selection pressure was partially internal (toxicity of expressed protein) and external (antibiotic), the bacterium which happened to have cut out part of the gene had its progeny better survive these pressures...

A little off topic but today is Darwin's 198th birthday! Here's a digg article that was submitted and I think it would be great to have it land on the front page. The back and forth in the comments (blog) section is great.

http://digg.com/general_sciences/Happy_Darwin_Day_2

http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2007/02...estivities.php

btw, 9secondko, no matter how many times you say there is no evidence for evolution, it doesn't become true.

Edit: I could have gone on and replaced all of the words in my post, but really... there is no point. ONE piece of evidence for evolution proves you wrong... so... you are wrong...

And yet, that does nothing to differ from the term.

it is still a theory. A possible explanation for the evidence. It is not fact. It is not law. That is the point. Score one for the dictionary. wikipedia...

Virulent. Wow. That sounds more like you toward any mention of creation or [*GASP*] God Himself.

I will say that I totally reject the Catholic belief system because it is so steeped in tradition that it disregards the authority of the bible and makes man (the pope) greater than God (in terms of altering the Word of God - which God says never to do) and has to change its beleifs to fit the times. IT is a religion of compromise, where the facts of science fly in direct contrast. I gave some examples earlier. that is why I and many other thinking people take what the pope says with a grain of salt. I am not here to defend the various denominations with their various problems. In fact, i will point out those problems where they exist. I am here in the defense of the Bible and the science of creation. And that is because I think it is the truth. I am a christian and I make no apologies for that. I am not bound to defend the pope, nor am I bound to remain silent when he says something so totally contrary to the Bible and to science (referring to evolution and the eucharist).


And to take your view (you, person on the internet), then all scientists that see the evidence points to intelligent design also must have a conspiracy theory. The fact of the matter is, all people are biased. Even the scientists that you would like to beleive are correct. They have committed to a theory and will try to see it in what is before them. The problem with that is that there is ZERO evidence. The theory itself demands that there be many transitional forms, but there is not one. Not even ONE. thus, the search continues in the hope that something, anything, would validate evolutionism. Many of these supposedly unbiased scientists livelihoods depend on it, because they would no longer get paychecks if it was admitted to be wrong. I know personally a few scientists in various fields and this is how the industry works. If you want funding, you must come up with a compelling reason to secure it.

the scientists of the world once thought Earth was flat. Interesting that the Bible held the knowledge all along that it was round.

After checking the link you give, it only proves my point of the denominations I said that back evolutionism. Catholics of course, episcopalians (read catholic) and methodist. Church of Christ. but I don't see any Baptists. And if there were, they would not remain such. again, that list is not surprise. it only proves my point who I said backs this stuff. So I don't really understand your point here. also, the web site is one that pushes this idea of Evolution Sunday and then shows the churches to show how successful it is. Kind of lame actually. The number of churches on that page is not even as many churches in my city and the next two cities, so I don't see how this is taking the world by storm. Just a few whose denominations were already known for this.

Scientists of the world since written language was developed have realized the world is round. They knew this based upon shadows on the surface and the fact that sun set isn't the same time all around the world. So your lies continue. But grouping all scientists together is about as absurd as grouping all Christians together.

Do you really believe there is no contention in science and it isn't vetted publicly? Ever hear of Relativity? or quantum theory? or DNA as genetic material? These are scientific theories that effectively replaced the scientific theories that came before. So the scientists you know are either lying or strongly misrepresenting the truth.

Evolution does not require small incremental changes -- just changes that can be explained by physical phenomena like the doubling of an entire chromosome. If you followed any of the links I provided, you would understand that. Not only does it not require small changes, it doesn't require that the geological record has fossil evidence of slow change. Formation of fossils is rare, especially on dry earth. It is amazing that we have found ANY ancestral human forms let alone a fairly complete lineage. This is true of a number of fossil records for a number of different higher order species. Did you see the report of the discovery of a fossil of a semiaquatic mammal that existed before sea-bound mammals that has features similar to terrestrial animals of the same era and some of later sea-bound mammals? Transitional proof, as it were.

You can continue to BELIEVE there is no geologic evidence, but that won't make it true.

Wow. The last link refers to Hybrids. kind of like the wrinkle dog. that is hardly evolution my freind. A bluegill fish is still a fish. A wrinkle dog or a poodle is still a dog. Wow. Overwhelming evidence for sure.

The second to last link talks about something I already have mentioned. microevolution. Teh ability of intelligently designed beings to adapt. When I lift weights I get stronger, etc. But here it is more complex. More along the lines of a study done athletes who have demonstrated hyperplasia (which is usually only seen in cancerouse situations) in their muscles where they actually develop more muscle cells. We are each born with only so many and they grow in size but not number. this is an adaptive trait.

Regarding the Peppered mothe, see here (a link for a link)

Again no proof of molecules to man evolution, just more proof that what we all know as changing to meet the needs inherent to living wherever we find ourselves. Everyone agrees on these things. Plants do it, people do it, and animals do it. It never changes what the subject is. We are still people, the moth is still a moth and the flower is still a flower. Again no evidence for evolutionism (the theory that is used to explain origins)

The wikipedia description of evidence is chick full of more theory. Read it. it's pretty funny. it even goes on to cite the lack of evidence in the fossil record. Wow. score one for evolutionism there! So don't try to weasel out and say the evolutionism does not need to have fossil evidence. It DOES and its pioneers knew it. You are out on that one.

Oh, so a plane has wings and a bird has wings. they must be related right. No, they both just fly. The plane was designed with the knowledge that this is how birds stay aloft. Really more evidence for intelligent design. when a designer makes many things, some traits are passed on to a variety of other designs.

Also, no one disputes the existence of dinosaurs, (they are even in the Bible)
but again, there is no evidence that they became anything else. they died as dinosaurs. A crocodile is long and slender like a shark and has a long nose and sharp teeth and it is a semiaquatic animal, but does that make me think it became a shark? nope. I remember seeing a show that had a theory about how dolphins used to be somehting else and they had these really cool CG graphics, but yet again, not evidence.

What are you talking about?

Evidence in the fossil record.

Wait. Because we designed an airfoil based upon studies of forces in flowing water (it wasn't by observing birds), birds wings are intelligently designed. That makes no sense. There isn't a flow of logic connecting these events. Not only that, but the way various insects fly is COMPLETELY different than the ways birds fly, are they stupidly designed?

You do understand that we assign species not on their behavioral features alone, but on genetics, and in the case of fossils the bone arrangement and imprints of soft tissue... bats fly, so do flies, but we realize they are different species. How stupid do YOU have to be to prove your point?

Well if you can't see the plain difference between the colloquial (dictionary) and scientific uses of the term then there's obviously no point in continuing any sort of discussion with you. But here's hoping: This further explains the difference, and also gets into how evolution *is* both fact and theory.

Do you even understand what genetic hybrids are (hint: they have nothing to do with breeds)?

In other words, you split the world into dogs, fish, and not dogs or fish?