How do you explain that an undigested food found in a frozen mammoth, that is supposed to be millions of years old


How do you explain the blood that was found in the bone of a T Rex that is supposed to be millions of years old.

How would you explain that no transitional form has been found for apes to man, cow to whale , etc

How would you explain that fresh lava/rock from a volcanic activity was dated and yet gave a result as if it has existed foer thousands or millions of years.

Even without big bang (cosmis evolution) there would be no biologic evolution, and yet without the prior existence of matter/energy bigbang is not possible.

What I like is how basically ignored my post and answers, ignored the questions I asked, and just rolled on with the pratt (point refuted a thousand times) machine. Nice.

SysUser:

The so called dinosaur bird transitional form that you are talking about have been shown to frauds made from the gluing togther of various bones by scrupulous idividuals who sold them.

Untrue. You're thinking of the archaeoraptor fossil. Incidentally, it was a fraud that was composed of genuine transitionals.

Can you explain why we have Stratafied fossils of tree trunks that are still standing uprigth and which go through different strata of coal.

What, specifically, do you mean? In some instances, the roots of a tree may keep "burrowing" even fter a upheaval.

What does this have to do with evolution?

I find it stupid the no scientific dating methods is accurate enough enough to give you consistent answers, yet you still go ahead to give you speculative dates for different fossils based on the geologic column.

Um, most scientific dating methods are accurate enough and do give consistent and supporting answers. What does this have to do with evolution?

About the geologic column, the geologic column is based on circular reasoning, e.g A saying A is true based on B , while at the same time B says B is true based on A.

Nonsense. That's not how the geologic colum works. What does this have to do with evolution?

how do you explain petrified clamps (in a closed position) that are found on the top of everest , please note that being in a closed position means that they were still alive before a catastrophe brought them to everest.

My guess would be the same way animals like fish and frogs have rained down because they got carried during evaporation What does this have to do with evolution?

How do you explain that even though there evidences bad mutations that show that animals are losing there genetic information, yet there is no evidence showing the existence of a beneficial mutation (which increases genetic information in an animal) that then makes an another become another animal.

Untrue. Some examples of beneficial mutation, include the ability to degrade nylon by a bacteria and the mutation of Apo-AI to Apo-AIM in an Italian family.

Why is it that dating methods could not accurately date the shell of a living snail and a freshly killed seal (for which we already know the correct age). Yet we are expected to believe (in faith) that they can accurately date fossil bones as millions of years.

What dating methods? Some dating methods can't be used for specific things, like for instance: carbon dating can't date a living thing, but it can be used for other specific datings that are within a particular range.

Explain to me why they found human foot prints and dinosaur foor prints within the rock,

They haven't. The paluxy tracks aren't wht Hovind wants you to believe that they are. Even AIG have conceded the point.

Please there is no single scientific evidence that you can use to proof evolution.

Proof is for maths and alcohol. If, however, it's strong evidence that hasn't been falsified that you're after, there are several to been seen. I mentioned a few in my last couple of posts.

You mentioned Archeoptrix , they have been shown not to be transitional forms as you have falsly claimed on this thread.

How so?

How come they are finding evidences of where children of isreal crossed the sea, evidences of desrtroyed chariots of the egyptians in the red sea, evidences of Noah's Ark.

Nonsense. Ron Wyatt's "findings" are a fraud. By the way, do you knwo how many chariot have ben found? The truth lies within the answer. There's no evidence of Noah's ark.

How come they are finding metal shapes and works inside coals that is supposed to be "millions and millions years".

I don't know.

The simple truth is that Evolution is a religion of those that do not want God to exist, so that they can do whatever they like.

Don't be silly. Many theists, including Christians, accept the theory of evolution. You haven't shown how evolution is a rligion, you've so far shown, though, that you know very little about it.

Even Charles Darwin himself knew that the "Eye" was to complexy to have occured by chance.

Evolution isn't chance.

Genetic scientists specify that without the presence of about 20 specific aminoacids a protein cannot be formed.
Yet atheist and evolutionist still think live came from a primordial soup by chance.

Not all "evolutionists" or, indeed, atheists acept abiogenesis. That doesn't mean that what you've written above is quite right, though. No one that accepts the possibility of abiogenesis thinks life came just by chance immediately from non-life. Several processes that follow the principle of an action coming from a reaction occured.

If the moon were to be millions of years old the dust accummulation on the moon would have swallowed up the american astronauts, yet they walked on a relativley thin dust layer.

Hovindite rubbish. I'd advise you to use a better source for your pratts.

The is not one evidence showing how life could have came from nonliving materials to living things. Instead all we keep hearing is "could have " "Should have "may have ""might have" "would have", speculations that we are expected to accept without at least one prove.

No one expects you to accept them without evidence.

There is no historian on this earth that can claim that the events that led to our belief in God did not take place they happened and most importantly that Christ walked the earth and he performed miracles and he said the things he said.

no missy, i'm talking about the theory of Genesis which has been disproved repeatedly. the bible is not historically accurate either.    there are many historians that would argue against the existence of jesus christ. how do we confirm the miracles do u have video, tapes, writings??


Logically and with the backing of history u cannot prove that God doesn't exist.

u are right,  using logic u can't proof God exist nor can u proof God doesn't exists. it's all "theory" that can't be confirmed.   can someone pls explain their personal relationship with God, how does he/she/it talk to u and why doesn't he/she/it tell u where it came from or how it came to being.


if anyone can SINCERELY look at nature (the impressive sun, the planets, the sea, the fishes, atoms, etc etc) and still claim that there is no God, there must be something blinding that person.

unlike u, i believe nature is controlled by the laws of physics and dynamics.  energy and matter is transformed from one form to another. always conserved and never destroyed.  the earth and the universe is made of matter. the intelligent creation theory is nothing but religious lunacy.

all i know is that God is a spirit

how do u know that God is a spirit, as God appeared to tell u he/she/it is a spirit.  i doubt u'd find a need for a God if ur parents didn't force u to read a bible.  if GOd is a spirit and made us in "his" own likeness then why aren't we spirits

If the evolution of man is a mystery (that has NO proof), then how are you able to write it down in textbooks and teach your kids such bull?

this is wrong, there is proof of evolution everywhere, bacteria and viruses evolve at a rapid rate.  humans have evolved over time in brain size and other features. there's fossil and anthropological records to proof. animals like the komodo dragon are proof of evolution.  where's ur proof of God and the garden of eden??


Science can always explain anything . . . they just have a problem proving that their explanation is indeed correct.

science is right when it comes to evolution, the answers are in fossils, caves once dwelled by humans, and our dna compared to that of other animals.  only ignorant people deny our ancestral link to apes. read about the bonobo.

neither has creationism been completely shut down. Until science can accurately demonstrate that their "theories" are correct then i still have a basis to hold on to creationism.

creationism has consistently being shut down by the US supreme court in repeated rulings.  creationism is considered pseudo-science among many intellectuals.

Evolution requires faith, because you expect people to believe things that hav no evidence whatsoever.

evolution doesn't require faith in a boogie man, evolution requires research. that's why missing links in the evolutionary chain continue to be filled to this day. do u think the dinosaur fossils found in niger republic are for entertainment??  according to the bible, the earth is supposed to be 6000yr old, evolution and research proves that is wrong. i recommend discovery and history channel

And please don't start me going on the lie that evolution is science, evolution is not science simply because it does not give any prove or scientific evidence that can be tested any where else,

evolution is tested in numerous labs using bacteria, fungi and viruses. the increasing resistance of virus to certain medication are signs of evolution.  

The earth's magnetic field is decreasing gradually at rate that if the earth were to be billions of years old, the early magnetic field would have been too strong for life.

humanity is millions of years old, not billions.

The is not one evidence showing how life could have came from nonliving materials to living things.

actually that would be reality soon due to work of many bioresearches, a bacterial genome was recently created from elements, in a couple of decades or so, artificial life would be created.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article3257051.ece

artificial life is a possibility.

one question by the way,  how did GOD create the whole universe, and how did God come into existence.

SysUser:

How do you explain that an undigested food found in a frozen mammoth, that is supposed to be millions of years old

Where did you get millions of years from? I suspect the food was undigested either because of the mammoths digestive process or because it got frozen before it could digest them; or even, a combination of both.

How do you explain the blood that was found in the bone of a T Rex that is supposed to be millions of years old.

Fossilisation

How would you explain that no transitional form has been found for apes to man, cow to whale , etc

Turkana boy for one says you're wrong. For another, cows didn't evolve into whales.

How would you explain that fresh lava/rock from a volcanic activity was dated and yet gave a result as if it has existed foer thousands or millions of years.

You'd have to be a lot more specific than that. I don't know what was being dated or what was used for the dating.

Even without big bang (cosmis evolution) there would be no biologic evolution, and yet without the prior existence of matter/energy bigbang is not possible.

Um, what? I didn't get that. Not necessarily an indication on you; I just didn't get what you were driving at. Could you perhaps clarify?

How would you explain that fresh lava/rock from a volcanic activity was dated and yet gave a result as if it has existed foer thousands or millions of years.

what's ur source for this?? why would one need to date a lava rock if it had already been considered "fresh".  the rocks studied are usually the ones deep in the earth core or volcanic rocks decomposed for millions of years in the sahara. u seem to be making up scenarios and avoid the main question. how did God come into existence. why worship something u can't seem to explain.  this comes to my main point. religion is based on faith in the unknown, while science is based on proving and explaining the unknown.

Even without big bang (cosmis evolution) there would be no biologic evolution, and yet without the prior existence of matter/energy bigbang is not possible.

lots of theory states that matter and energy have always existed. matter reacted to form the first forms of life which were unicellular organisms. they then evolved into what we have today.

Why is there a sense of who God is in diverse ethnicities?

Why is there a sense of who God is in diverse ethnicities?

mostly do millitary conquest and inability to explain things considered supernatural. there are actually a few agnostics societies. buddhism is a religion that is considered atheists at times, since buddhist pay homage to their ancestors and not GOD. i repeat again, where did this God come from and how can i have a conversation with he/she/it. if God is a spirit, have u seen it??

If you want to have a conversation with him, you have to believe first

this atheists sef. When are we going to issue a fatwa against them?
Maybe we shld threaten seun unless he shuts down this thread.

@ KAG

Please let me know the historians who would disprove Christ.

@ Bawomol

no missy, i'm talking about the theory of Genesis which has been disproved repeatedly. the bible is not historically accurate either. there are many historians that would argue against the existence of jesus christ. how do we confirm the miracles do u have video, tapes, writings??

I would like to know the historians and the basis of their claims.
How do we confirm that the big bang happened? do u have video, tapes, writings?

~Lady~:

@ KAG

Please let me know the historians who would disprove Christ.

Acharaya S. is one well known example. There are others. Really, though, that wasn't what I said. I said: "there's no evidence to support that Jesus performed miracles or that he said all that was claimed he said." The syntax is all over the place, but I believe it's still understandable.

We cannot all be arguing so heatedly about God unless He truly exists.

imhotep:

We cannot all be arguing so heatedly about God unless He truly exists.

How so?

First and foremost there is a propaganda being spread to make it look like scientists are the ones that believe in evolution and non-scientist are the ones
that believe in creation. That is entirely false, there are lot of scientist that are convinced that evolution is false.


---------------------------
The lies of Charles Darwin

check this link to find out about he scientists that believe that evolution is false, Charles Darwin was propagating falsehood,

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
www.doctorsdoubtingdarwin.com
http://www.discovery.org/csc/

The list of those scientist against Darwinism is given here:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Chaffin.pdf

Also there are a lot of scientific evidences that simply show that evolution is false.

so please don't try to use a smoke screen of saying evolution is science (it is not), evolution is just mere speculation based on the "prejudiced

interpretation of the individual", it is not supported by science.


Even Charles Darwin himself was confused about he impossibilty that the "Eye" could have evolved, check out "Charles Darwin comments on the human eye.

http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/darwineye.htm"
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118

The unfortunate thing is that since those that believe in evolution ultimately do not believe in God, it simply influences their world view and decisions.

which ultimately leads to sadness, evil actions and violence for which they are simply accountable only to themselves.
Check out about Stalin : http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276
Check out about Karl Marx :


Like I have said random mutation can cause damage, but please can you tell me where random mutations can cause evolution of one animal to another (please

don't tell me it has happened millions of years ago, i am interested in repeatable evidence) . Check this weblink about the lies about mutation out:
http://www.pssiinternational.com/

---------------------
Ancient Dragons or Dinosaurs

Please let us understand that Dinosaurs where mentioned in the bible (Leviathan and Behemoth anyone). Also let us understand that the word Dinosaur is a

recent word, it is possible that Dinosaurs were called Dragons before,

Also were do you think the legends of Dragons in England came from , the legends of dragons in the Chinese culture.

Also ask yoursel how there are drawings of dinosuars in this particular ancient cambodian temple (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm), even

before the present day nonsense of evolution.

You can cross check for yourself occurences of dinosaurs in history, via ://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

Even the sumatrans had dinosaur pictures,
South American Nasca
Cree Indian art
Bambara peoples of Mali
A dragon was said to live in the wetlands near Rome
European reports of flying serpent living in Egypt persist through the 1600’s
Khmer civilization
Bushmanland, South Africa
A similar petroglyph (carved rock drawing) has been found in Arizona’s Havasupai Canyon (photo taken by Dr. DeLancy)
The January 2003 issue of National Geographic magazine presents an artifact described as a "cosmetic palette . . . from a cemetery of the first dynasties in

Manshaat Ezzathttp

-----------------------
Blood in T Rex. Bone

Blood found in T.Rex bone simply shows that the bone could not have been millions of years old, simply because Science says that DNA does not survice for

more that 100000 years.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=97jYngUaepA

The wrong notion about fossilisation does not explain the existence of testable blood in the TRex simply because DNA cannot survive as long a millions of

years. Hence the bone simply cannot be millions of years.


-----------------------
The Mammoth Conundrum

It is true that I might have wrongly stated that evolution says that mammoths were millions of years , nonetheless evolution still wants us to believe that

mammoths live many thousands of years, ago. Yet it becomes very difficult to comprehence how it was possible for an undigested food to be found in one of

the frozen mammoths.

The undigested food found in the Mammoth simply shows that:

1. The Mammoth died while eating

2. The Mammoth did not die for millions of years , or else the food would have rothed not be found at all.

More issues about how the mammoths fits with the bible and how the false view of evolution about mammoth is dicredited :

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/mammoth.html

http://corior..com/2006/02/part-2-polar-regions.html

-----------------------
Polystrata Fossils

I am sorry that I said Stratafied fossils (i did't remember the name then), the correct name for such fossils is "Polystrata Fossils". This means fossils

that are found extending different strata of layers. They have been found between Sedimentary rock and coal. Their existence simply shows that those layers

simply cannot be millions of years as false stated by geologic evolution. An the geologic evolution (geologic column) is the one which is used to try and

date fossils,

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_4/polystrate_fossils.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/yellowstone.html

How would explian that Whale skeleton was found standing upright through different layers that was supposed to be "millions" of years old, rather it simply

shows that the layers are not millions of years old as you want people to believe (cause evolution is based on baselles faith in the existence of things

which cannot be proven with science, ). Yet because evolution gives a reason to remove God from the equation people quickly want to believe it so that they

can continue living the same kind of self indulging lifestyle.

Look let us stop deceiving ourselves the presence of polystrata fossils and lack of transitional form of fossils, simply shows that there was a sudden

catastrophe (Noah's Flood) which buried all of this animals alive. Hence the position we are now finding most of them.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Polystrate_fossils_indicate_massive_sudden_deposition



-----------------------
Is it a Whale or no wait is it a Swimming Cow or a swimming Deer

Evolutionist say whales came from cows and/or deer, and that the small bone found in a whale is a vestigial organ. Well that is a lie is known that the

small bone found in the whale is used for sexual excapades in the whale, so that alone says it is not a vestigial organ as speculated by evolution.

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/manatee/sirenian_evolution.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html

http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2004-03-11-wonderquest_x.htm



----------------------
Falacy of the Dating Methods

The so called dating methods used to deceive people into believing that fossils are millions of years old, simply show that those dating methods are not

correct.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/geology.asp#table1


Variosu examples are shown of when wrong results are obtained from the dating methods on which the millions of years of evolution is based .e.g.


Ficticious results obtained from Mollusk Shells

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/141/3581/634


or


when they are used to test freshly killed seal,


or



Caborn dating methods have been giving bull shit dates, e.g. The dating of the shell of a snail (carbon dating methods have rated a snail shell at 2300

years old, yet it was known to have died only days before the examination),

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Living_snails_were_C14_dated_at_2,300_and_27,000_years_old

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

or


Potassium -Argon method is used to date/test fresh lava for which the age is certainly know

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/radiometricdating.html

http://www.icr.org/article/353/

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436

Ar-Ar dating assumes there is no excess argon? http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie024.html

200 year old lava dated 2.96 billion years old? http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie023.html

Fresh lava dated as 22 million years old. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/hawaii.html

http://www.wasdarwinright.com/dating-f.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/radiometric.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/dogma.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/radioactive-dating

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf


Look there is no need to keep hanging unto straws, about evolution. THE SIMPLE TRUTH IS THAT ALL THE PREVIOUS SPECULATIONS OF EVOLUTION ARE BEING SHOT DOWN

ONE BY ONE TRUE SCIENCE. The so called stratification of layers as being shown to be able to form rapidly throw flow process,

http://www.icr.org/article/261/ , this in itself kills off the speculation of evolution that stratas formed over "millions" or "billions" of years.

The expected erosion that is supposed to be in the ocean assuming the earth was millions of years old is not found, so explain to me what that means in

simple english.

http://www.wasdarwinright.com/dating-f.htm


Does it not sound disingenious that instead of dating the rocks or layers in which fossils are found, rather sometimes tend to date the rocks by the

assumed age of the kind of fossil found in them, even though (the inaccurate) dating methods shows that the dates given to the fossils is completely

different from the dates of the layers or rocks in which they were found.

------------------
Falsehood of the existence of Vestigial Organs

Vestigial organs being propagated by evolutionist is known to downright false or misguided ignorance,

http://www.uncommondescent.com/the-design-of-life/vestigial-organs-anyone-the-humble-appendix-begs-to-differ/


---------------------
Another issue for cosmological evolution

check out the following problem with evolution based view of cosmology:

http://www.icr.org/article/3472/



--------------------------------
More nonsense
Finally there are too many nonsense being peddled by evolutionist as if they were truths, which they are not. e.g. mutation, (I said that even though there

a destructive mutation, yet you have being unable to give me an example of when and how we have a beneficial mutation that would have turned a cow into a

whale)

http://www.icr.org/article/3466/

checkout this other links that will help you understand that you have been feed bullshit and dogma, which you have also decided to believe with out evidence,

because a person who calls himself (a scientist) claims that evolution is true. It is interesting to note that Darwin did not have the qualification to be

called a scientist, yet evolutionist try to vilify anyone that claims to use science to disprove evolution.

http://www.emjc3.com/evolution.htm

http://www.rodsgarden.50megs.com/evolution.htm

http://www.icr.org/article/1149/

http://exposingliesinevolution..com/2007/06/dr-jacksons-rebuttal.html

http://www.discovery.org/csc/


You can also try and check the following sources cited by some sites in their response to the lies of evolution.

Gish, Duane. 1985 Evolution, The Challenge of the Fossil Record.
Creation-life Publishers. El Cajon, Ca.

Huse, Scott. 1983. The Collapse of Evolution. Baker Book House. Grand Rapids, Mich.

Morris, Henry.1977. The Scientific Case for Creation. Master Books.
San Diego, Ca.

Sunderland, Luther.1988. Darwin's Enigma. Master Books.; San Diego, Ca.

Weiss, Mark, and Alan Mann. 1985. Human Biology and Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective. Little, Brown and Company. Boston.

Willis, John.1993. Law Professor, San Diego City College. Personal
interview 3/15/93.

---------------------------------

In conclusion anyone who is interested in finding out the truth for themselves can kindly check the links above and other links from them.

Relationship between Communism, Darwism, Karl Marx , Stalin, Hitler and Evolution:

Stalin's Brutal Faith (http://www.icr.org/article/276/)

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/chisholm.htm

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/Communism/10_planks.htm

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/devilution.htm

http://www.icr.org/article/285/

The Ascent of Racism (http://www.icr.org/article/268/)

Relationship between Communism, Darwism, Karl Marx , Stalin, Hitler and Evolution:

Stalin's Brutal Faith (http://www.icr.org/article/276/)

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/chisholm.htm

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/Communism/10_planks.htm

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evolution%20Hoax/devilution.htm

http://www.icr.org/article/285/

The Ascent of Racism (http://www.icr.org/article/268/)

And the pratt train just keeps a-rolling only this time it's chosen to hurl a garbage of links with it. hurray!

SysUser:

First and foremost there is a propaganda being spread to make it look like scientists are the ones that believe in evolution and non-scientist are the ones
that believe in creation. That is entirely false, there are lot of scientist that are convinced that evolution is false.

Oh no, most everyone knows that there are a few scientists that don't accept evolution. However, the number of scientists that reject the theory of evoluton is relatively low, and lower still in those involved in biological science.

---------------------------
The lies of Charles Darwin

check this link to find out about he scientists that believe that evolution is false, Charles Darwin was propagating falsehood,

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2732
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
www.doctorsdoubtingdarwin.com
http://www.discovery.org/csc/

The list of those scientist against Darwinism is given here:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Chaffin.pdf

Project Steve is still ahead:

http://www.natcenscied.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

Check out the Steve-o-meter.

Also there are a lot of scientific evidences that simply show that evolution is false.

so please don't try to use a smoke screen of saying evolution is science (it is not), evolution is just mere speculation based on the "prejudiced

interpretation of the individual", it is not supported by science.

Untrue. I've addressed that in my previous posts.

Even Charles Darwin himself was confused about he impossibilty that the "Eye" could have evolved, check out "Charles Darwin comments on the human eye.

http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/darwineye.htm"
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-06.html
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/survivalOfTheFakest.pdf
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=118

Not really. However, even if Darwin was confused, modern scientists aren't confused on how the eye - including human eyes - may have evolved and evolved again and again.

See: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

The unfortunate thing is that since those that believe in evolution ultimately do not believe in God, it simply influences their world view and decisions.

which ultimately leads to sadness, evil actions and violence for which they are simply accountable only to themselves.
Check out about Stalin : http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=276
Check out about Karl Marx :

Nonsense. Most of the people that accept the theory of evolution are theists. Marx wasn't influenced by Darwin and neither was Stalin. Stalin's biological basis was Lysenkoism (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism)

Like I have said random mutation can cause damage, but please can you tell me where random mutations can cause evolution of one animal to another (please

don't tell me it has happened millions of years ago, i am interested in repeatable evidence) . Check this weblink about the lies about mutation out:
http://www.pssiinternational.com/

Two examples:

Allopatric speciation in fruitflies: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_45

Speciation in African elephants: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/293/5534/1473

---------------------
Ancient Dragons or Dinosaurs

Please let us understand that Dinosaurs where mentioned in the bible (Leviathan and Behemoth anyone).

Leviathan and Behemoth weren't references to dragons. You've misinterpreted those verses.

Also let us understand that the word Dinosaur is a

recent word, it is possible that Dinosaurs were called Dragons before,

It's possible, but highly unlikely.

Also were do you think the legends of Dragons in England came from , the legends of dragons in the Chinese culture.

Same place the legends of unicorns, fairies, mermaids and leprechauns came from.

Also ask yoursel how there are drawings of dinosuars in this particular ancient cambodian temple (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm), even

before the present day nonsense of evolution.

That's not a dinosaur.

You can cross check for yourself occurences of dinosaurs in history, via ://www.genesispark.org/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

Even the sumatrans had dinosaur pictures,
South American Nasca
Cree Indian art
Bambara peoples of Mali
A dragon was said to live in the wetlands near Rome
European reports of flying serpent living in Egypt persist through the 1600’s
Khmer civilization
Bushmanland, South Africa
A similar petroglyph (carved rock drawing) has been found in Arizona’s Havasupai Canyon (photo taken by Dr. DeLancy)
The January 2003 issue of National Geographic magazine presents an artifact described as a "cosmetic palette . . . from a cemetery of the first dynasties in

Manshaat Ezzathttp

What I find interesting is that the most inocuous of drawings - which on close review indicates something other that what you suppose - is all the evidence you need that dinosaur were dragons and coexisted with humans, but scientific evidence is dismissed out of hand.

-----------------------
Blood in T Rex. Bone

Blood found in T.Rex bone simply shows that the bone could not have been millions of years old, simply because Science says that DNA does not survice for

more that 100000 years.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=97jYngUaepA

The wrong notion about fossilisation does not explain the existence of testable blood in the TRex simply because DNA cannot survive as long a millions of

years. Hence the bone simply cannot be millions of years.

Not quite. It was assumed that organic matter couldn't survive fossilistion. that was the wrong assumption. That collagen was found in the bone of the t-rex is no indication of its age, nor does it change the dating of the fossil.

See also: http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,21549748-948,00.html

-----------------------
The Mammoth Conundrum

It is true that I might have wrongly stated that evolution says that mammoths were millions of years , nonetheless evolution still wants us to believe that

mammoths live many thousands of years, ago. Yet it becomes very difficult to comprehence how it was possible for an undigested food to be found in one of

the frozen mammoths.

Um, the mammoth was frozen!

The undigested food found in the Mammoth simply shows that:

1. The Mammoth died while eating

2. The Mammoth did not die for millions of years , or else the food would have rothed not be found at all.

Why? Why would the state of the mammoth and its inards change if it was completely frozen?

More issues about how the mammoths fits with the bible and how the false view of evolution about mammoth is dicredited :

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/mammoth.html

http://corior..com/2006/02/part-2-polar-regions.html

Wrong. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mammoths.html

-----------------------
Polystrata Fossils

I am sorry that I said Stratafied fossils (i did't remember the name then), the correct name for such fossils is "Polystrata Fossils". This means fossils

that are found extending different strata of layers. They have been found between Sedimentary rock and coal. Their existence simply shows that those layers

simply cannot be millions of years as false stated by geologic evolution.

An the geologic evolution (geologic column) is the one which is used to try and

date fossils,

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_4/polystrate_fossils.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/yellowstone.html

How would explian that Whale skeleton was found standing upright through different layers that was supposed to be "millions" of years old, rather it simply

shows that the layers are not millions of years old as you want people to believe (cause evolution is based on baselles faith in the existence of things

which cannot be proven with science, ). Yet because evolution gives a reason to remove God from the equation people quickly want to believe it so that they

can continue living the same kind of self indulging lifestyle.

Look let us stop deceiving ourselves the presence of polystrata fossils and lack of transitional form of fossils, simply shows that there was a sudden

catastrophe (Noah's Flood) which buried all of this animals alive. Hence the position we are now finding most of them.

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Polystrate_fossils_indicate_massive_sudden_deposition

I think it would be best if you read a few of the links you provided:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/yellowstone.html
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Polystrate_fossils_indicate_massive_sudden_deposition

Also, they don't indicate a worldwide flood, they indicate exactly what they state in the above.

Whale polystrata which you helpfully provide below: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html

-----------------------
Is it a Whale or no wait is it a Swimming Cow or a swimming Deer

Evolutionist say whales came from cows and/or deer, and that the small bone found in a whale is a vestigial organ. Well that is a lie is known that the

small bone found in the whale is used for sexual excapades in the whale, so that alone says it is not a vestigial organ as speculated by evolution.

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/manatee/sirenian_evolution.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html

http://www.trueorigin.org/ng_whales01.asp

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2004-03-11-wonderquest_x.htm

It's vestigial because it's reduced in function. Not a cow nor a deer.

----------------------
Falacy of the Dating Methods

The so called dating methods used to deceive people into believing that fossils are millions of years old, simply show that those dating methods are not

correct.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/geology.asp#table1


Variosu examples are shown of when wrong results are obtained from the dating methods on which the millions of years of evolution is based .e.g.


Ficticious results obtained from Mollusk Shells

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/141/3581/634


or


when they are used to test freshly killed seal,


or



Caborn dating methods have been giving bull shit dates, e.g. The dating of the shell of a snail (carbon dating methods have rated a snail shell at 2300

years old, yet it was known to have died only days before the examination),

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Living_snails_were_C14_dated_at_2,300_and_27,000_years_old

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

or


Potassium -Argon method is used to date/test fresh lava for which the age is certainly know

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/radiometricdating.html

http://www.icr.org/article/353/

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=436

Ar-Ar dating assumes there is no excess argon? http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie024.html

200 year old lava dated 2.96 billion years old? http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie023.html

Fresh lava dated as 22 million years old. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/hawaii.html

http://www.wasdarwinright.com/dating-f.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/radiometric.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/dogma.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/radioactive-dating

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/Helium_ICC_7-22-03.pdf


Look there is no need to keep hanging unto straws, about evolution.

Seal's dating: reservoir effect: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_4.html

Snail's: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html

potassium-argon dating and lava: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html

THE SIMPLE TRUTH IS THAT ALL THE PREVIOUS SPECULATIONS OF EVOLUTION ARE BEING SHOT DOWN

ONE BY ONE TRUE SCIENCE.

Actually, no such thing has occured. And true to form, a great deal of your pratts still have nothing to do with evolution.

Furthermore, you do know that your "arguments" are based on misinformation and poor understanding, right?


I'm tired so I'm stopping now.

@bawol

what is matter?
In science, matter is commonly defined as the substance of which physical objects are composed, not counting the contribution of various energy or force-fields, which are not usually considered to be matter per se (though they may contribute to the mass of objects). Matter constitutes much of the observable universe, although again, light is not ordinarily considered matter. Unfortunately, for scientific purposes, "matter" is somewhat loosely defined. It is normally defined as anything that has mass and takes up space.

your answer

how did the earth come into existence?

u are the one that claims GOd exists, the burden of PROOF is on u. all i know, is that the earth is made of matter. matter may have always existed through eternity for all we know.

from what i understand it shows that u are not sure whether matter existed.



lots of theory states that matter and energy have always existed. matter reacted to form the first forms of life which were unicellular organisms. they then evolved into what we have today.

lets analyse your answer,
lots of theory states that matter and energy have always existed.

Q. from what did matter and energy come from?

matter reacted to form the first forms of life which were unicellular organisms.
how do u know that it reacted and with what did it react with? source please


@kag
Quote
If u want to believe that there's no God, then ask yourself why is it that all these things have happened and there are witnesses to it.

It's likely they didn't happen. What witnesses? Are supposed witnesses always a reliable source, especially when they are biased?


lets see if u consider that witnesses given are not true, then who were the witness when according to evolution theory, the earth formed out of disk of gas and dust.? where they there when it was formed or it was just assumed to be??

and please quote it completely

It is not known with certainty how planets are formed. The prevailing theory is that they are formed during the collapse of a nebula into a thin disk of gas and dust.


so its not certain how it was formed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet#Formation


@kag
- shared genetic sequences and genes between species, and in particular, the presence of chromosome no.2 in humans. A very strong indication of the shared ancestry between chimps and humans.

Quote
If humans are not descendants of living apes then which apes were we descendant from?

Extinct apes. humans and other currently living apes share distant common ancestors.

hello are u not contradicting yourself?

You did not talk about polystrata fossil details.

You have also started making personal attacks instead of basing the discussion solely on the information at hand, By d way I have a first class degree in engineering and I am soon going to start a PhD program in Robust Control System, so look before you when trying to play the crap academic intelligence card and insult.

By the way who told you that a lot of scientist believe in evolution, give me a poll result data showing that, also a lot of people believed the sun was once going round the earth, it was later found to be false. Galileo was isolated because his science did not tally with the popular opinion.
Abeg popular opinion has nothing to do facts and figures. Also dat the supreme court declared something to illegal does not make it wrong. Racism was wrong and yet supported by law for a while. Communism was wrong and yet supported by law, Nazism was wrong and yet supportef by law.
Scientific facts do not need a court of law to justify whether or not they are true, (The fact would prove itself and stand firm in the face of opposition.)

luvus:

@kag
Quote
If u want to believe that there's no God, then ask yourself why is it that all these things have happened and there are witnesses to it.

It's likely they didn't happen. What witnesses? Are supposed witnesses always a reliable source, especially when they are biased?

lets see if u consider that witnesses given are not true, then who were the witness when according to evolution theory, the earth formed out of disk of gas and dust.? where they there when it was formed or it was just assumed to be?? and please quote it completely

You lost me. The witnesses portion was for something different. In any case, never mind. First, the theory of evolution makes no judgement about planetary formation. It deals, instead, with biodiversity.

Second, witnesses aren't necessary in order to deduce scientifically what may have occured in the past.

Finally, quote what completely?

It is not known with certainty how planets are formed. The prevailing theory is that they are formed during the collapse of a nebula into a thin disk of gas and dust.


so its not certain how it was formed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet#Formation

Yes, it's not known for certain.

@kag
- shared genetic sequences and genes between species, and in particular, the presence of chromosome no.2 in humans. A very strong indication of the shared ancestry between chimps and humans.

[Quote]
If humans are not descendants of living apes then which apes were we descendant from?

Extinct apes. humans and other currently living apes share distant common ancestors.

hello are u not contradicting yourself?[/quote]

Um, no. Where do you see a contrdiction?

SysUser:

You did not talk about polystrata fossil details.

I didn't need to, the links that, well, you provided but didn't read gave the answers.

You have also started making personal attacks instead of basing the discussion solely on the information at hand,

What personal attacks? What discussion?

By d way I have a first class degree in engineering and I am soon going to start a PhD program in Robust Control System, so look before you when trying to play the crap academic intelligence card and insult.

I'm happy for you. I don't remember talking about your academic intelligence etc. So, um, paranoid much?

By the way who told you that a lot of scientist believe in evolution, give me a poll result data showing that,

Here you go: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm#earth

also a lot of people believed the sun was once going round the earth, it was later found to be false. Galileo was isolated because his science did not tally with the popular opinion.

That's right. However, it was the church that isolated him, and after most scientists and people accepted what the evidence was showing, it was still the Bible literalists that held on to the belief that the Earth is stationary.

Abeg popular opinion has nothing to do facts and figures.

I didn't say it did. You were the one that initiated an argument based on popularity.

Also that the supreme court declared something to illegal does not make it wrong. Racism was wrong and yet supported by law for a while. Communism was wrong and yet supported by law, Nazism was wrong and yet supportef by law.

Okay? What does any of that have to do with nything?

Scientific facts do not need a court of law to justify whether or not they are true, (The fact would prove itself and stand firm in the face of opposition.)

Exactly.

most of the time we just sway of the topic any ways



We can only partially comprehend the notion of God's existence. To do so, we must use human concepts to speak of God: "without beginning or end"; "eternal"; "infinite", etc. The Bible says that He has always existed: " . . . even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God" (Psalm 90:2). And, "Your throne is established from of old; Thou art from everlasting" (Psalm 93:2). Quite simply, God has no beginning and no end. So, where did God come from? He didn't. He always was.
To us, the notion of time is linear. One second follows the next, one minute is after another. We get older, not younger and we cannot repeat the minutes that have passed us by. We have all seen the time lines on charts: early time is on the left and later time is on the right. We see nations, people's lives, and plans mapped out on straight lines from left to right. We see a beginning and an end. But God is "beyond the chart." He has no beginning or end. He simply has always been.
Also, physics has shown that time is a property that is the result of the existence of matter. Time exists when matter exists. Time has even been called the fourth dimension. But God is not matter. In fact, God created matter. He created the universe. So, time began when God created the universe. Before that, God was simply existing and time had no meaning (except conceptually), no relation to Him. Therefore, to ask where God came from is to ask a question that cannot really be applied to God in the first place. Because time has no meaning with God in relation to who He is, eternity is also not something that can be absolutely related to God. God is even beyond eternity.
Eternity is a term that we finite creatures use to express the concept of something that has no end -- and/or no beginning. Since God has no beginning or end, He has no beginning. This is because He is outside of time.

hi kag
nice to hear from u. i can see ure still an evolutionist.

anyways @poster
something must have come from nothing, so asking what/ where God came from isnt  enough in your attempt to cast doubts on Gods existence.
And since people never get tired of these 'prove to me that God exists threads' may i add that i believe that it is scientifically impossible to prove that God exists. neither is it possible to disprove his existence, religion is faith based which is quite the opposite of the seeing is believing philosophy of science. if i wasnt a xtian i think i lld be agnostic. the truth is that we all have absolutely no idea how this world came to be. if i had all the answers i wouldnt have to believe!!! i believe in God i.e i can't prove He exists yet i believe! now how can i prove to someone esle something i can't prove to myself,  if i see a vision or hear God speaking to me or feel His comforting prescence psychologists will have field day explaining away what psycopathic problems im contending with.

Evolutionists have no idea how we came to be either. the whole theory is a mass of confused scientific mumbojumbo. too many loose ends, yet the sceintific community turns a blind eye to these loose ends because they are repelled by the idea of a God. Xtians also should stop trying to prove the existence of a God scientifially. xtianity is not a science. advocates of intelligent design had the right approach as far as im concerned though and from the little i know it is far more likely that the world was created by something or someone directly than the indirect hand of blind but intelligent darwinian chance

Why do you want to test Fresh Lava flows

Well it is necessary to test fresh lava flows because:
1. We know that fresh lava flows are ones the later go on to form new layers of forcks.

2. We already know the age of the fresh lava from the fact that they "are fresh"

3. We want to use the fact that we know the age of fresh lave flows to determine whether or not the dating methods used to date rocks are accurate or not.

4. If the dating methods used to date the fresh lave flow gives a different age, apart from the observed age of the fresh "rock", the it becomes easy to dismiss the accuracy of the dating methods.

5. Does it make sense that a dating methods fails to give the correct age for a rock materials made from fresh lava flow and yet evolution wants to assument that the same dating method would be able to give the correct age for fossils or layers or rocks in which fossils are found.

This becomes easy to see why it is difficult to believe the potassium - argon dating methods, since it messed up during the dating of fresh lava flow.

About the Artificial Organism

please can you kindly let me know:

1. Where they got the elements or materials to create the artificial organism. (did they create their own big band and big boom)

2. Did they use elements in the periodic table that have already existed to make the artificial organism or did they create their own entirely new , elemeents

3. Did they leave those materials to evolve on their own to become the artificial organism or did the scientist use their intelligence to create the artificial organism.

4. From what stage did they start with the artificial organism, since it is a well known fact that even ordinary proteins cannot be made by random chance from amino acids. So if the structure of the artificial organism did not occure by random chance how come it is being attributed to evolution or rather to a design.

You mentioned that resistant Viruses and Bacteria are examples of beneficial mutation

, well is not true, what you are talking about is ADAPTATION, not beneficial mutation.
This is not true because a human drug addict who starts with a cigarette a day, who then transforms into smokig a pack of cigarettes a day and then into smoking marijuana and then into cocaine. What that tells us is not that the drug addict has "evolved" rather it tells us that the drug addict has adapted to the presence of harmful materials that are either stimulating him or killing him. As such since you cannot say that the drug addict has evolved via the addition of extra  genetic information into their genetic information pool has increased as a result of "resistance to stimulation from ordinary cigarette". You also cannot say that the viruses and bacteria have evolved by adding genetic information into their genetic information pool, simply because they have also become "resistant to certain drugs".

I would thus be happy to see , whether a scientific report says that , a virus or bacterium's genetic information is increasing due, due to the development of resistance to drugs.

All that were are still seein evidence of is "lose of information" which is the destructive mutations that we are talking about,


it seems you are trying to use adaptation of an organism to his environment (variation without addition of self addition of genetic information by chance but with removal of genetic information) as an evidence for evolution.  That I breed two different types of dogs to produce does not mean that the new dog has evolved, instead it simply means that by using my own "intelligence", I have being able to manipulate the already existing genetic information in the two dogs to gring about another type of dog, not anothe type of cow, not another type of whale. The information into those dogs is there to produce a dog.

If you want to have a conversation with him, you have to believe first

no i'm asking folks like u who have had a conversation with God, how was the conversation. was God touching u, whispering in ur head. how did u recognize the voice of God from an hallucination??


I would like to know the historians and the basis of their claims.
How do we confirm that the big bang happened? do u have video, tapes, writings?

no i asked u for the confirmation, stop dodging it. the coffin of jesus claimed to have been found was determined to be a hoax, christianity today has been determined to be a combination of Greek,roman and Egyptian pagan religions. as per the big bang, there are evidence deep in the earth's crater that show a massive collision between planetary bodies happens millions of years ago. the big band is a theory still being modified the more we understand the universe.

We cannot all be arguing so heatedly about God unless He truly exists.

we actually can arguing about something that doesn't exist. mathematics argue about imaginary numbers and set theory everyday. does that mean the square root of -1 is a real number??

from what i understand it shows that u are not sure whether matter existed.


we wouldn't be having this debate if we were SURE. the truth is science is looking for a credible explanation but the universe is so vast to study. ur religion gives an ASSUMPTION that God created the universe. so who created God and how did God come into existence.


Q. from what did matter and energy come from?

matter and energy didn't come from anywhere if they have had ALWAYS existed.

then who were the witness when according to evolution theory, the earth formed out of disk of gas and dust.?

evolution theory has nothing to do with creation. evolution theory deals with how living things transform and not how living things were created. go ask physicists about creation, while the biologists deal with evolution. u guys seem to have little clue about what u talk about

where they there when it was formed or it was just assumed to be??

the earth was formed from a collision and the reaction of matter. how exactly, we don't know. there's evidence in the earths geography to support this. is there evidence that some boogie man created the earth in 7days??

Galileo was isolated because his science did not tally with the popular opinion

galileo was isolated by the catholic church not his fellow scientists. again religion lags behind science.


Quite simply, God has no beginning and no end. So, where did God come from? He didn't. He always was.

my question is did God say those exact words to u?? did he whisper it to ur ear or where u reading a bible that written by fellow humans and is known to have many errors. the bible says keeping slaves is fine as long as u treat them decently. in other words, slavery is cool then right??

In fact, God created matter. He created the universe

it's not a fact, if there's no evidence to back such statement. an ifa priest could claim his oduduwa theory as fact then right.??

Carl's work tackles the very real problem of the evolution of antibiotic resistance by bacterial populations in hospitals. Antibiotics, such as penicillin, are drugs that kill or prevent the growth of bacteria. When antibiotics were first discovered, they seemed to represent a miracle cure for human diseases like pneumonia, typhoid, bubonic plague, and gonorrhea. However, almost immediately after the introduction of antibiotics, bacteria began to up the stakes — resistant strains of bacteria soon evolved that could grow even in the presence of a particular antibiotic, rendering our drugs ineffective in battling these resistant infections.


How does evolution impact my life? Medicine << previous | next >>

Resisting our drugs
Carl's work tackles the very real problem of the evolution of antibiotic resistance by bacterial populations in hospitals. Antibiotics, such as penicillin, are drugs that kill or prevent the growth of bacteria. When antibiotics were first discovered, they seemed to represent a miracle cure for human diseases like pneumonia, typhoid, bubonic plague, and gonorrhea. However, almost immediately after the introduction of antibiotics, bacteria began to up the stakes — resistant strains of bacteria soon evolved that could grow even in the presence of a particular antibiotic, rendering our drugs ineffective in battling these resistant infections.

Amount of Enterococcus bacteria in U.S. hospital intensive care resistant to the antibiotic Vancomycin
bacteria and antibiotics
The problem is much like running on a treadmill — medical researchers must sweat just to stay in the same place in their race against the bacteria. Drug companies develop and introduce a new antibiotic, only to see the evolution of resistant bacterial strains within a few years. This necessitates the development of yet another antibiotic, which, in turn, becomes useless in the face of newly evolved resistant bacteria.

The cycle of drug development and the evolution of resistance is a costly one, both in terms of mortality and economics. Over one million resistant infections are acquired each year in U.S. hospitals at an estimated financial cost of 4-5 billion dollars (not to mention increased mortality)! And because they are harder to treat than susceptible infections, antibiotic resistant infections cause more days of hospitalization and missed work. Various sources estimate that in the U.S., we experience 400,000 additional days of diarrhea due to bacterial infections resistant to a single antibiotic alone and more than 8000 additional days of hospitalization due to resistant salmonella strains.

How exactly does antibiotic resistance evolve? How have such small and simple organisms managed to repeatedly outpace our drugs? The process is quite simply evolution by natural selection. Imagine a population of bacteria infecting a patient in a hospital. The patient is treated with an antibiotic. The drug kills most of the bacteria but there are a few individual bacteria that happen to carry a gene that allows them to survive the onslaught of antibiotic. These survivors reproduce, passing on the gene for resistance to their offspring, and soon the patient is populated by an antibiotic resistant infection — one that not only affects the original patient but that can also be passed on to other patients in the hospital.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/bergstrom_03

who should we believe, a biologists from university of california. now that we have show proof, why don't theists show some proof of God existence or characteristics.

Don't try and say , you did bring up insults when it was mentioned that , "those that don't believe evolution lack understanding" (same thing as saying we cannot understand the noneexistent scientific and academic evidences for evolution. ). Therefore I decided to make my academic standing known so that anyone who likes to make a personal insult to me (for not supporting evolution) based on wrong assumption that creationist do not have sound scientific background, would at least think twice before doing so.

Well it doesn't really matter whether you insult me or not , you would not be the first evolutionist to insult a believer in God , based on intellectual prejudices.

Also I did not institute an argument based on popularity, i was just trying to mention the example of the scientist that believe in God as against those evolutionist who always imply that only those very stupid people and non-scientist believe in creation. Since you have stated that I was the one who based the argument on popularity, I would be happy if you can point it out from any of my previous post where I did that, instead of accussing me again!

Also that the supreme court declared something to illegal does not make it wrong. Racism was wrong and yet supported by law for a while. Communism was wrong and yet supported by law, Nazism was wrong and yet supportef by law.

Okay? What does any of that have to do with nything?

Well it has a lot to do with the discussion , because someone support evolution insinuated that evolution was right and creation was wrong simply because the supreme court ruled that creation was pseudoscience.
Hence I was simply trying to point ot that , in matters of science, , a court rulling is irrelevant, in the determination of what is actually scientifically true.

Some of the answers that you are giving are still based on "uncertainties", yet you expect people to dogmatic accept it as facts and reasons as to why evolution is true. Please come on,

@sys user
i once had this very same argument about evolution with kag about 2 years ago. since then ive come to believe that evolution occurs i.e
i have 'evolved' since i was born. i changed from a baby to a toddler to a boy to a teen to a young man. i will 'evolve' further to a muiddle aged man and an old man. then one day i will die (100 and above hopefully) and my body will decompose into the basic elements. if that s not evolution, then tell me what is.however al these evolutionary changes i have specified are all MICRO, evolution which happens everyday, all adaptations shown by organisms are micro evolutionary in nature. However Darwin took this preety basic fact of life and applied it in a concept which is now known as MACRo evolution. which does not occur in nature. Absolutely no shred of evidence exists to support macro evolution, speciation? any new monkeys or mammala or even bacteria or virus? no sir. however we see millions and millions of examples of micro evolutionary adaptations everyday and scientists look and these and say aha! evolution!! yep, theyre right but micro not macroi evolution. there s a big difference

there's evidence to support to support macro-evolution. there's fossils of termites and insects that were as long as 6feet millions of years ago, now termites are tiny compared to humans. macro-evolution can be seen in ur brain size. why are people threatened by evolution??

in matters of science, , a court rulling is irrelevant, in the determination of what is actually scientifically true.

you are right, in science, PEER REVIEWED STUDIES that support evolution are more important than court ruling. how many internationally recognized science journals disprove evolution

@bawomol

Any being that can fit into your finite intelligence is not [/b]the [b]Infinite God. Mark my words.