Evolution is the process of change that transforms life.  Organisms pass on traits to their offsprings that help them survive in different environments. Individuals with traits conducive to the a particular environment pass them on to their offsprings and those without are eliminated gradually. Some of the surviving ones have gene mutations they pass on their offspring, if the mutation is beneficial it is passed on.
An example is a zoo in your neck of the woods, where a gorilla inherited a gene from it's father that lets it walk upright like a human.

Martian:

Homologies

Evolutionary theory predicts that related organisms will share similarities that are derived from common ancestors. Similar characteristics due to relatedness are known as homologies. Homologies can be revealed by comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences, studying embryological development, and studying vestigial structures within individual organisms.

Is this your answer to what you mean by evolution?  Are you predicting or assuming your theories?  I thought you said it is scientific.  The use of vestigial organs as evidence for evolution is a logical flaw called circular reasoning.  You first declare vestigial organs to be a result of evolution and in the same breath argue that their existence is evidence for evolution.  This kind of argument will hardly stand up in a court of  law.

There are more plausible and provable explanations to vestigial organs other than in terms of your so called evolution.  While it is quite easy to prove that a structure is a vestige of embryology, there can be no empirical evidence to support the speculation that an organ is a vestige of evolution.  There are several organs that function during the development of the embryo and foetus that appear to be no longer used after birth.  Remnants of these once-functional structures persist throughout life and they perfectly fit the definition of a vestige, but they are not vestiges of evolution. Read AiG for more details.

What are these several organs?

Vestigial structures lose their function over time as a species evolve, how is that circular reasoning if I say it's evidence if evolution. It's like goosebumps, when animals are aroused, cold or scared their fur/ hair rise up to trap their body heat or to make them appear bigger to a predator. Human ancestors were much more hairy than homo sapiens but we still retain the characteristic without the excess hair. Or do you have a better explanation for that according to intelligent design?

Martian:

What are these several organs?

Ligamentum arteriosum, Ligamentum teres hepatis and Median umbilical ligament to mention a few of examples of embryological vestiges.

These ligaments had their uses in the womb, that doesn't make them comparable to an appendix, which is said to be the shrunken remnant of a much larger organ and could still function as a store for beneficial bacteria.

Maybe the following would help if you have time to read it.

Evolution

What is the main argument given by scientists for why creationism should not be given 'equal time' in our science classes? Evolution and the Creationists

Science is not a democratic process. We should decide which scientific theory is superior and should be used in education by its power to explain successfully, not on how popular it is. Creationism is not a science, it is a religious belief system. As such, it may have its place in a humanities class, alongside other religious belief systems, but not in a science class.

What is the only state in the US, as of November, 2001, that mandates an anti-evolution warning in its textbooks? Evolution and the Creationists

Alabama. Similar laws have been thrown out in all other states that had them.

Creationists claim that fossils are the remains of the living organisms that perished in Noah's Flood. The Karoo Formation in Africa contains the remains of over 800 billion vertebrate animals. If this were a true representation of how many vertebrates were killed in the flood, how many vertebrate animals would each acre of land on Earth have held at the time of the flood? Evolution and the Creationists

2100. Obviously, this would be a very crowded Earth!

Why do men and other male mammals have nipples? Evolution and the Creationists

As embryos, all mammals start out phenotypically female. Only later in development, after the nipples have formed, does a hormonal surge form male sexual structures. This would be an odd thing for a perfect creator to explain, as male nipples are not only useless, they can be dangerous (males can get breast cancer!)

What one characteristic below do all mammals share? Evolution and the Creationists

Five digits per limb- either complete or vestigial. Yes, that includes whales that have five digits per flipper, bats that have five digits per wing, horses and antelopes that have vestigial remains of five digits, etc. Five digits isn't the most effective design for many of these creatures- so why should all show the remnants that are easily explained by theorizing that they all descended from a five-toed ancestor? The answer is not "Give birth to live young" because the monotreme mammals, the platypus and echidna, lay eggs.

Why do carnivores present a problem for creationist theory? Evolution and the Creationists

Supposedly, all animals were originally designed as herbivores, so why were the carnivore modifications (like fangs and claws) created in the original animals?. In the supposed idyll of Eden, all animals were herbivores, implying that all were created as herbivores and were to remain so. Then, of course, Adam messed things up. But, if all the original animals were herbivores, why would they need fangs, claws, poison, webs? And why would herbivores need great speed, chemical defenses, quills or bad tastes?

We humans have lower back pain, varicose veins, and childbirth difficulties- what do these have to do with evolution? Evolution and the Creationists

They are examples of inferior design. One would expect that if humans were created by a perfect creator , in his image, as the pinnacle of his creation, that they would be examples of perfection in design. Alas, it isn't so. We, along with all other living things, have plenty of 'jury-rigged' and non-optimal designs that do the job, but lack elegance. Our aching backs and varicose veins are legacies of our four-footed ancestors. Humans are relatively recent bipeds, and our structure is still very much like that of a four-legged animal. We lack the necessary musculature to strengthen our backs, and our veins are not well-designed for the pressures that an upright stance puts on them. Female pelvises are not optimally designed for the passage of large-headed infants, as the human species has only recently undergone a tremendous spurt in brain growth.

What do goosebumps have to do with evolution? Evolution and the Creationists

Our ancestors were warmer when they fluffed up their hair. Again, this is easily observable in modern-day birds and mammals. Also, again, it's easily explainable by evolution, but not by creation. As one scientist put it, 'Goosebumps were obviously 'created' to erect and 'fluff up' the hair or fur on a hairy or furry mammal ancestor, thereby improving its insulation value against the cold. Since most of us nowadays have so little body hair as to render it useless for insulation purposes, goosebumps are another vestigial reaction whose tool (fur) is no longer with us.'

The hair stands up on the back of our necks when we are afraid. What does this have to do with evolution? Evolution and the Creationists

Our ancestors looked bigger when they were frightened if their hair stood up. To get an example of this physiological phenomenon, one need look no further than the family cat when it's scared by a dog, puffing up and hissing. This 'piloerection' is nearly universal among mammals- chimpanzees do it too. However, in modern-day short-haired humans, the gesture has lost its original significance. If it is not an evolved response, why should we have it at all?

A popular argument by creationists is that evolution could never have occurred because it is so unlikely. As one example, they have stated,' There are n! (n-factorial: n x n-1 x n-2 x, x 1) ways of an enzyme or DNA strand of n parts forming prebiotically. Since the smallest proteins have at least 100 amino acids, the chance of forming a particular enzyme prebiotically is at most 1divided by 100!, which is small enough to be disregarded.' What is wrong with this argument? Evolution and the Creationists

Complex molecules don't form by chance alone. While this argument correctly demonstrates that no given protein could have come into existence all at once by pure chance, such a demonstration is irrelevant to current origin-of-life research. As Iris Fry points out, 'origin-of-life theories rely on various organizing principles, including selection mechanisms and catalysis, that are supposed to have limited and constrained the wide scope of possible prebiotic possibilities, thus constructing the scaffolding out of which the living arch eventually emerged'

What, exactly, is the theory of evolution? Evolution and the Creationists

Living things are related to each other through common ancestry from earlier forms that were different from them. In order to understand the arguments over evolution, we must first understand what it is! It is a theory that encompasses all living things, not just humans.

The transition from reptiles to mammals is another sequence with many well-documented examples. Which is NOT a pattern documented in this fossil sequence? Evidence for Evolution- Transitional Fossils

Transition from the three-chambered reptilian heart to the four-chambered mammalian heart. Hearts do not fossilize well, thus we don't have a fossil record of this transition. Reptiles have teeth that look the same, have no roots, and regrow continuously, while mammals have the familiar canines, incisors and molars, rooted teeth, and usually 2 sets of teeth in a lifetime. Transitional fossils document the evolution of all of these characteristics. For a detailed explanation, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html

One of the most interesting transitional series is that between fish and amphibians. What surprising discovery does this series reveal? Evidence for Evolution- Transitional Fossils

That legs evolved in fish long before amphibians emerged on land. The limbs of amphibians first evolved in fish that crawled along the sea floor. The first fish on the path to amphibians, the paleoniscoids, resembled today's coelacanth, with thick fins and lungs. The next fish, Osteolepis, had leg-like, bendable fins, and an amphibian-like skull. The next step, the rhipidistian lobe-finned fish, had fins that resembled legs, with joints, and an even more amphibian-like skull. The next fish, the panderichthyids , looked very amphibian-like, with legs with feet and a straight tail. Next we have fish such as Ichthyostega, , which most people would think to be amphibians. They had legs, feet, tails and skulls that were very amphibian-like. The next group, the labyrinthodonts, are recognized as the first amphibians. But they still had vestiges of their fish ancestry, such as some gill-like structures and a skull hinge that was found in fish. Some even had internal gills. Their feet were build like modified fish flippers with the rays serving as toes- some early amphibians had seven or eight toes per foot!

Creationists often criticize the fossil record because it has large gaps in it. Which is NOT a scientific reason that such gaps occur? Evidence for Evolution- Transitional Fossils

Fossil-bearing strata were often destroyed in volcanic eruptions. What is amazing is that we have found so *many* clear and beautiful examples of transitional fossils, not so few! Fossilization is a rare process that requires exact conditions to occur. Let's discuss animal fossilization as an example. In order to fossilize, the animal must die in an area where it will be quickly buried in large amounts of mud. Note how rarely that must happen! It must also not be eaten before the mud covers it. Then, the mud must be subjected to just the right amount of pressure to become sedimentary rock. Many animals do not fossilize well. Only hard structures, like bones, can fossilize, thus a jellyfish fossil, for example, would not be easy to find. The vast majority of the world has not been explored for fossil-bearing strata. Most major fossil discoveries of today are made during massive excavations, such as road-building.

Creationists try to dispute the very clearly documented evolution of horses, which includes a superb series of transitional fossils, by using several arguments. Which is NOT an argument that they use? Evidence for Evolution- Transitional Fossils

The shape of the eye orbit in modern horses is unique and not found in any of the animals said to be ancestral to the horse. Hyracotherium was not a hyrax (a member of an Old World family of small mammals resembling rodents, but probably related to the elephants); no modern paleontologist has even suggested that it is. Its skull, including the tooth formula (one of the most important ways of determining what family a mammal is in) is completely different from a hyrax. The idea that fossils of Hyracotherium and later horses are found together in the strata appears to be a misreading of a book published in the 1930's, according to an extensive investigation by paleontologist Kathleen Hunt. Even if it were to occur, it is not impossible to have occurred naturally. Remember, as we've stated before, evolution is a bush, not an arrow. It's entirely possible for one branch of the bush to split off and diversify, while the root of the branch still survives. Even modern horses have varying numbers of pairs of ribs; Arabian horses, for example, usually have one less pair than most other horse breeds. Even a small amount of research into truly scientific sources will discredit the creationist claims, yet the same claims are made over and over (usually copied word for word from each other!) When evaluating such claims, always look for evidence- what papers or books do they cite to back their claim? Are they creationist sources or true scientific journals?

One of the most exciting developments in evolutionary biology was the discoveries of Pakicetus and Ambulocetus. These fossils were clearly transitional forms in the evolution of what group of mammals? Evidence for Evolution- Transitional Fossils

Whales. Pakicetus ("whale from Pakistan" was discovered in 1979. Ambulocetus ("walking whale" was discovered in 1995. Pakicetids did not look like whales at all. They had four legs, a long tail and snout, and were about the size of a large dog. What they had in common with the whales of today was the structure of the inner ear, which was adapted for hearing underwater. The whales are the only mammals that have developed this specialization. Their descendants, the ambulocetids, had more adaptations to aquatic life and resembled a mammalian crocodile. They retained the special inner ear. As whales continued to evolve, subsequent species became more and more perfectly adapted to aquatic life.

Creationists often criticize transitional fossils by stating that there is no proof that a given fossil is the ancestor of a given species. What is one thing that is wrong with such criticisms? Evidence for Evolution- Transitional Fossils

Evolution is rarely a straight-line process; it's a bush rather than an arrow. For example, the horse family tree has many branches (see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html for a great discussion of this.) Therefore, some of the branches were indeed not direct ancestors of the modern horse. But all of the branches were part of the same family tree, and a path (including all of the transitional fossils) can be traced from the "root" of the tree to the horse of today.

How do transitional fossils best serve as evidence for evolution? Evidence for Evolution- Transitional Fossils

They show the intermediate steps in the evolution of a species. Transitional fossils document the evolution of species. For example, most people are familiar with the evolution of horses from small, multi-toed animals to large, hoofed animals. The many species in between Eohippus (now known as Hyracotherium,) the dawn horse, and Equus, the horse of today, are transitional fossils.

What is a transitional fossil? Evidence for Evolution- Transitional Fossils

A fossil intermediate between two other fossils. Transitional fossils show the pathway of evolution from one type of animal to another. For example, Archaeopteryx was a fossil that showed characteristics of both its reptilian forebears and its avian descendants.

Humans have quite a few instances of suboptimal design and evolutionary quirks. Like most animals, we have vestigial structures- things that evolved for a specific purpose at one point in our evolution, but are no longer useful for that purpose. What troublesome human organ is properly regarded as vestigial? Evidence for Evolution- Unintelligent Design

Appendix. The often-infected appendix is a vestigial remnant of part of the cecum, a section of intestine at the junction of the small and large intestine that, in many other animals, serves as a pouch to enhance digestion of fibrous plant material. Humans have lost the capacity to digest such material, and thus this section of the digestive system has atrophied. Interestingly enough, the great apes all have the same intestinal configuration, and can also get appendicitis, just like humans! Creationists will claim that the appendix is not vestigial because it may serve some function in the immune system (it should be noted that this has not been proven through research.) This is not an argument against evolution, as vestigial organs can serve some function- they just are no longer necessary for their original function. There is no question that the cecum is present, large, and active in many herbivorous mammals. There is equally no question (even the creationists admit this) that it is atrophied in both man and the great apes, and no longer serves its cellulose-digesting function. For some great illustrations and discussion, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html

Researchers working with chicken embryos in Britain and France were able to stimulate the embryos to do what? Evidence for Evolution- Unintelligent Design

Grow teeth. The researchers injected cells from mice into the chicken embryos. The mouse cells could not "tell" the embryo how to produce teeth, but they could "translate" any available instructions to grow teeth. The embryos grew teeth, which indicated that the genetic instructions for tooth formation were still present in the chicken embryo. This makes sense if birds evolved from reptilian ancestors that had teeth. Indeed, the teeth formed in succeeding experiments were undifferentiated, conical teeth like those of reptiles.

Genes are wonderful things. However, much of our genome is composed of "junk DNA," and things that just don't work. One gene that doesn't work in humans is the LGGLO gene. It should produce an enzyme that allows the body to synthesize Vitamin C, necessary for our survival- but it doesn't work. How is this evidence for evolution? Evidence for Evolution- Unintelligent Design

The gene also doesn't work in monkeys and apes- and it's broken in the same way in them. In most other mammals, the LGGLO gene is vital, because their diets are low in Vitamin C. The LGGLO gene in all primates- including humans- is nonfunctional. Primates can survive with a non-functional LGGLO gene, because their diets are rich in fruits and other Vitamin C-rich foods. What is even more interesting is that the gene in every primate is rendered useless in exactly the same way- a single sequence of three amino acids is omitted. The only explanation for this that makes sense is that the original DNA error occurred in an animal ancestral to the primates. In most animals, this error would have been fatal, but in this fruit-eating creature, the error was non-lethal, and passed on to its offspring- the ancestors of all of today's primates. Guinea pigs also have a broken LGGLO gene- but it's broken in a completely different way.

In Arizona, there live some strange little whiptail lizards that are one of the few parthenogenic reptiles- the females can lay fertile eggs all by themselves, without males. What odd quirk, explainable through evolution, do these lizards have? Evidence for Evolution- Unintelligent Design

The female lizards are much more fertile if they are courted by another female. The ancestral species of the parthenogenic whiptails is still around. In this ancestral species, the males court the females, as in most other lizard species. This courting causes the female to release hormones that boost her fertility. Even though several species of whiptail no longer require males to lay eggs, they still require the same courtship ritual to stimulate hormone production. So the parthenogenic whiptails pair up, and one female will first assume the part of the male, then they switch roles.

The recurrent laryngeal nerve, which travels from the brain to the larynx (voicebox) in mammals, is often used as an example of imperfect design. Why? Evidence for Evolution- Unintelligent Design

It takes a much more circuitous path than is necessary. In mammals, the recurrent laryngeal nerve runs from the vagus nerve, down the neck, into the chest, under the aorta, around a ligament in the lung, then back up to the larynx in the throat. This is clearly an inefficient design, especially in a mammal like a giraffe! In a fish, the path of the recurrent laryngeal nerve is a straight line. As mammals evolved, the positions of the various organs changed (such as the heart moving down into the chest,) but the path of the nerve did not, and thus assumed the tortuous route that it now has.

"Imperfect design" is a concept that makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, but not a creationist one. Many living things have parts that seem to be suboptimal or jury-rigged, because they have evolved these parts from the "toolbox" that they had. Perhaps the most famous example of imperfect design is the giant panda's thumb. Why is it used as an example? Evidence for Evolution- Unintelligent Design

It isn't a thumb at all, it's a modified wrist bone. A giant panda appears to have six digits on its front paws- the normal five claws of a carnivore plus a thumb. The thumb is, in reality, a modified sesamoid bone from the wrist. The vegetarian giant panda evolved from carnivores, and carnivores don't need thumbs. Bamboo-stripping pandas do.

From Intelligent Design(http://www.intelligentdesign.org/aboutus.html): "The flagellum is quite literally an outboard motor that some bacteria use to swim. It is a rotary device that, like a motorboat, turns a propeller to push against liquid, moving the bacterium forward in the process. It consists of a number of parts, Like a mousetrap, the flagellum is irreducibly complex. And again like the mousetrap, its evolutionary development by "numerous, successive, slight modifications" is quite difficult to envision. In fact, if one examines the scientific literature, one quickly sees that no one has ever proposed a serious, detailed model for how the flagellum might have arisen in a Darwinian manner, let alone conducted experiments to test such a model." What is the biggest problem with these statements? Evidence for Evolution- Refuting Arguments

Scientists do have an explanation for how the flagellum could have evolved. The bacterial flagellum is indeed a marvel of engineering, but it is not irreducibly complex. It may have originally evolved as an organ to transport and inject toxins into cells. For example, the plague bacterium, Yersinia pestis, has no flagella but has an organ that resembles a flagellum but is instead used as a needle. This organ is composed of many, but not all, the same parts that make up a flagellum. Further evidence for the origin of the flagellum in bacterial transport systems is that it still acts to secrete proteins even as it moves the cell around. For a couple of good articles on the evolution of flagella, see: http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrave/essays/flagella.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

From "The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution" (http://www.harunyahya.com/evolution03.php): "Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by the people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature. The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure and random effects can only cause harm to this structure, Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been observed so far. All mutations have proved to be harmful." What is the biggest problem with these statements? Evidence for Evolution- Refuting Arguments

Beneficial mutations have been observed. In reality, most mutations either do not affect the organism, for better or for worse, or confer advantages in at least some circumstances. Beneficial mutations are rarely observed because scientists are rarely looking for them. Sensibly enough, deleterious mutations are more apt to be noted and researched. But beneficial mutations have been found and documented in organisms from protozoans to people. A few examples: - Mutations in bacteria lead to antibiotic resistance. Although this is bad for humans, it's great for the bacteria! - A type of bacteria possesses a mutation that allows it to "eat" molecules that make up nylon. These bacteria thrive in the waste water of nylon plants. -Some flatworms have a mutated gene that allows them to use energy more efficiently and live much longer than flatworms without the mutation. - In humans, tolerance to lactose (milk sugar) is actually a mutation that allows adults to drink milk- "lactose intolerance" is the natural state! Only some human populations commonly have this mutation. - In Italy, some people possess a gene mutation that makes them immune to atherosclerosis. All people who have this gene trace their ancestry to one ancestor in the 1700s. - Some people possess a mutant version of a gene known as CCR5. People with this mutation are much more resistant to AIDS than people with the unmutated gene.

From the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/bible/bhta34.html): "Nor does it help any to attribute these changes all to the prehistoric past, the world of the fossils, because the same great "gaps" exist between basic kinds in the fossil world that exist in the modern world. There are new varieties of dogs and new varieties of cats found in the fossil world, but still nothing between a dog and a cat! The "missing links" are still missing, despite the innumerable fossils of animals and plants that have been excavated over the centuries." What is the biggest problem with these statements? Evidence for Evolution- Refuting Arguments

No evolutionist would expect to find a link between dogs and cats, only a common ancestor. There is no reason to expect a "missing link" between dogs and cats. Evolution is like a branching bush- remember the Tree of Life? Dogs and cats are separate branches on the carnivore bush. Instead, what we would look for is an animal ancestral to both dogs and cats. The carnivores arose from a group of mammals called the creodonts. The creodonts split into two groups-one, the bulky, long-jawed arctoid carnivores, were the ancestors of bears, mustelids and dogs; the other group, the slim, shorter-jawed aeluroid carnivores, were the ancestors of cats, hyenas, and mongooses. As dogs and cats diverged long ago, we do not expect to see any intermediate forms between them.

From the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-342.htm): "Only 13 days after the act of terrorism on NewYork, Public Broadcasting Stations delivered a different, but another event of grave importance that was witnessed by millions of Americans-a seven-part, eight hour special entitled "Evolution." PBS, televised one of the boldest assaults yet upon both our public schools with the millions of innocent school children and the foundational worldview on which our nation was built. These two "assaults" have similar histories and goals. The public was unaware of the deliberate preparation that was schemed over the past few years leading up to these events. And while the public now understands from President Bush that, "We're at War" with militant Islamics around the world, they don't have a clue that America is being attacked from within through its public schools by a militant religious movement of philosophical naturalists (i.e., atheists) under the guise of secular Darwinism. Both desire to alter the life and thinking of our nation." What is the biggest problem with these statements? Evidence for Evolution- Refuting Arguments

All of these (Evolutionists are not a group of atheists, and evolution is not a militant religious movement, The history and goals of radical Islam and of evolutionists are quite different, Scientists researching evolution have never crashed planes into buildings, used car bombs or otherwise killed people because of their beliefs). Frankly, a statement like this shouldn't need to be refuted. Comparing scientists who research evolution to deadly terrorists would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that some truly believe that scientists are agents of evil, bent on corrupting children. The issue at hand here was the airing by PBS of the series mentioned above, "Evolution," which, not surprisingly, discussed evolution. The series was produced without the customary foundation backing that PBS programs receive, as the foundations considered it "too controversial." Creationists began protesting the series months before it aired, and continued their attacks long after the series was over. For some resources on the program, please see the PBS website http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

From "Scientific Evidence for Creation" (http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud-dawn-horse-eohippus.htm): "We charge any school textbook with fraud and gross misrepresentation, If they fail to mention the fact that the extinct Hyracotherium (Eohippus) was almost identical in body design, feet, toes and size, to the modern living Hyrax, except for the skull and tail." What is the biggest problem with this statement? Evidence for Evolution- Refuting Arguments

The skull is by far the most important part to look at when determining if animals are related, The claim that Hyracotherium=hyrax is rampant in creationist literature. It's also wrong. When scientists try to determine how animals are related, the skull is absolutely the most important evidence that they examine. The most important part of the skull is the teeth. Teeth tell us many things about an animal- what it ate, for example. Animals that are closely related will have the same "tooth formula"- number of teeth in each side of the jaw, upper and lower, listed in order of incisors, canines, molars and premolars. The tooth formula for Hyracotherium is: 3 . 1 . 4 . 3 3 . 1 . 4 . 3 The tooth formula for a hyrax is: 1 . 0 . 4 . 3 2 . 0 . 4 . 3 Not similar at all. Without similarity in the teeth, it is certain that Hyracotherium is not a hyrax.

From "Creation Tips" (http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/CrabMystery.html): "One of the most intriguing facts about crustaceans, as far as creation scientists are concerned, is that evolutionists have no idea how crustaceans could have evolved." Is it true that evolutionists have no idea how crustaceans could have evolved? Evidence for Evolution- Refuting Arguments

No. Crustaceans are arthropods, the most successful phylum of animals on the planet, that also includes everything from spiders to insects to pillbugs. Arthropods are presumed to have the annelid worms (like earthworms) as their ancestors. Annelid worms, like insects, are segmented, and some marine annelid worms have leglike structures on their segments. The first arthropods were worm-shaped, but had better developed legs than the annelids. Later arthropods added a harder exoskeleton. The arthropod ancestors diversified into many forms, including the crustaceans, which remained primarily aquatic. Many scientists today are researching crustacean and other arthropod DNA to determine the relationships in this huge group of animals.

Martian:

These ligaments had their uses in the womb, that doesn't make them comparable to an appendix.

According to you evolutionists, the appendix is a vestige of the caecum left over from our plant-eating ancestors.  But since humans have a well-developed caecum as well as an appendix, the appendix can then hardly be considered a vestigial caecum.  So, the presence or absence of an appendix or a caecum reveals no evolutionary pattern whatever.  An appendix is not found in any invertebrate, amphibian, reptile or bird.  Only a few diverse mammals have an appendix.  Recent evidence suggests that the appendix is well suited to serve as a "safe house" for mutually beneficial bacteria in the large intestine.  It is also believed to provide support for beneficial bacterial growth by facilitating re-inoculation of the colon with essential bacteria in the event that the contents of the intestinal tract are purged following exposure to a pathogen. (Read more on this from R.R. Bollinger et al., "Biofilms in the Large Bowel Suggest an Apparent Function of the Human Vermiform Appendix," Journal of Theoretical Biology 249 no. 4 (2007): 826-831 )

Martian:

Evolution is the process of change that transforms life. Organisms pass on traits to their offsprings that help them survive in different environments. Individuals with traits conducive to the a particular environment pas it on their offsprings and those without are eliminated gradually. Some of the surviving ones have gene mutations they pass on their offspring, if the mutation is beneficial it is passed on.
An example is a zoo in your neck of the woods, where a gorilla inherited a gene from it's father that lets it walk upright like a human.

Thanks for your effort. Can you kindly tell me the ultimate cause of the universe and how did life originate according to your evolution?

Martian:

Evolution is the process of change that transforms life. Organisms pass on traits to their offsprings that help them survive in different environments. Individuals with traits conducive to the a particular environment pas it on their offsprings and those without are eliminated gradually. Some of the surviving ones have gene mutations they pass on their offspring, if the mutation is beneficial it is passed on.
An example is a zoo in your neck of the woods, where a gorilla inherited a gene from it's father that lets it walk upright like a human.

Thanks for your effort.  Can you kindly tell me the ultimate cause of the universe and how did life originate according to your evolution?

No one knows the ultimate cause of the universe and evolution is not about the cause of the universe. Life could very well could be as a result of chance since cell membranes form spontaneously when phospholipids connect their hydrophobic tails to form bilayers where proteins are embedded.

Abiogenesis and the miller urey experiments are examples of studies to understand how life arose on earth.

Martian:

Evolution is the process of change that transforms life.  Organisms pass on traits to their offsprings that help them survive in different environments. Individuals with traits conducive to the a particular environment pass them on to their offsprings and those without are eliminated gradually. Some of the surviving ones have gene mutations they pass on their offspring, if the mutation is beneficial it is passed on.
An example is a zoo in your neck of the woods, where a gorilla inherited a gene from it's father that lets it walk upright like a human.

One should laugh at People that think like this,

read this illustration


VEDA: atheist, what is your thought on the Position of the earth in relation to the sun? the Positionof Jupiter in relation to the earth? the conditions that made life viable on the earth like the amount of carbondioxide, which was sufficient enough for life to thrive on earth . . .
atheist (cuts in,Most probable answer): It is all a coincidence, what can i say it just happened, in essence Coincedence explains it all.
Veda: Really
atheist: Yep, everything just happened.
Veda: what is the probability of the right things happenening just like that?
Atheist: I am not a statistician/biologist
Veda: Ok, what is your take on evolution?
Atheist: Evolution, it is simple everything have what this guy calls :

Homologies

Evolutionary theory predicts that related organisms will share similarities that are derived from common ancestors. Similar characteristics due to relatedness are known as homologies. Homologies can be revealed by comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences, studying embryological development, and studying vestigial structures within individual organisms.

Veda: But couldn't the similarities be as well a coincidence?
atheist: No, no there is no room for coincidence here.
Veda:Really, a more complex event to you is simply explained away by coincidence yet a seamingly simple process cannot be explained by coincidence.
atheist: Look, coincidence is not the cause
Veda: but how are you sure, since Scientist are yet to demonstrate Evolution in real time, it remains a theory not a fact.
atheist: Evolution is fact, fact fact fact
Veda: Evolution appears to be a ruse based on similarities between organism, Science I understand is exact, You evolutionist are simply making a religion out of a theory.

and believe me this is how an attheist reasons, Processess that are more complex are easily explained as conincidence, while processess that are simple, coincidence is too far fetch to explain them, with thinking like this it is no wonder that this people cannot Believe in the supreme fact of life, because them atheist are false to themselves.

vedaxcool:


One should laugh at People that think like this,

read this illustration


VEDA: atheist, what is your thought on the Position of the earth in relation to the sun? the Positionof Jupiter in relation to the earth? the conditions that made life viable on the earth like the amount of carbondioxide, which was sufficient enough for life to thrive on earth .  .   .
atheist (cuts in,Most probable answer): It is all a coincidence, what can i say it just happened, in essence Coincedence explains it all.
Veda: Really
atheist: Yep, everything just happened.
Veda: what is the probability of the right things happenening just like that?
Atheist: I am not a statistician/biologist
Veda: Ok, what is your take on evolution?
Atheist: Evolution, it is simple everything have what this guy calls :

Homologies

Evolutionary theory predicts that related organisms will share similarities that are derived from common ancestors. Similar characteristics due to relatedness are known as homologies. Homologies can be revealed by comparing the anatomies of different living things, looking at cellular similarities and differences, studying embryological development, and studying vestigial structures within individual organisms.

Veda: But couldn't the similarities be as well a coincidence?
atheist: No, no there is no room for coincidence here.
Veda:Really, a more complex event to you is simply explained away by coincidence yet a seamingly simple process cannot be explained by coincidence.
atheist: Look, coincidence is not the cause
Veda: but how are you sure, since Scientist are yet to demonstrate Evolution in real time, it remains a theory not a fact.
atheist: Evolution is fact, fact fact fact
Veda: Evolution appears to be a ruse based on similarities between organism, Science I understand is exact, You evolutionist are simply making a religion out of a theory.

and believe me this is how an attheist reasons, Processess that are more complex are easily explained as conincidence, while processess that are simple, coincidence is too far fetch to explain them, with thinking like this it is no wonder that this people cannot Believe in the supreme fact of life, because them atheist are false to themselves.

Lol, Allah did it, she is great. Mohammed also recorded it by dictating it to his child bride. Praise be unto allah. Yea, evolution is a religion and atheists worship the fossil evidence buried by allah in order to fool them.
Are you happy now?

^^^^^^
Inchoherent Ramblings.

vedaxcool:

^^^^^^
Inchoherent Ramblings.

hey, its just like the quran. Isn't allah responsible for everything?

Columnist George Caylor once interviewed a molecular biologist for an article entitled "The Biologist," that ran on February 17, 2000, in The Ledger (Lynchburg, VA), and is in part reprinted here as a conversation between "G" (Caylor) and "J" (the scientist). We joined the piece in the middle of a discussion about the complexity of human code.

G: "Do you believe that the information evolved?"

J: "George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise." 

G: "Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?" 

J: "No, I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don't believe evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I'd be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn't earn a decent living."

G:  "I hate to say it, but that sounds intellectually dishonest".

J:  "The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind's worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room." 

G: What elephant"?

G: Creation design. It's like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn't there!

The Ever-missing Links

According to the theory of evolution, every living species has emerged from a predecessor. One species which existed previously turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.

If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms".

If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin of Species, Darwin accepted this fact and explained:

If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed, Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.23

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism, he realised that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory. That is why he wrote the following in the chapter of the The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties of the Theory":

…Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.24

The only explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate. He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found.


http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter5.php

I hope martian can still read? keep hinging your godlessness on evolution, a theory at best.

vedaxcool:

The Ever-missing Links

According to the theory of evolution, every living species has emerged from a predecessor. One species which existed previously turned into something else over time and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.

If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms".

If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record. The number of these transitional forms should have been even greater than that of present animal species, and their remains should be found all over the world. In The Origin of Species, Darwin accepted this fact and explained:

    If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking most closely all of the species of the same group together must assuredly have existed,  Consequently evidence of their former existence could be found only amongst fossil remains.23

Even Darwin himself was aware of the absence of such transitional forms. He hoped that they would be found in the future. Despite his optimism, he realised that these missing intermediate forms were the biggest stumbling-block for his theory. That is why he wrote the following in the chapter of the The Origin of Species entitled "Difficulties of the Theory":

    …Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?… But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?… But in the intermediate region, having intermediate conditions of life, why do we not now find closely-linking intermediate varieties? This difficulty for a long time quite confounded me.24

The only explanation Darwin could come up with to counter this objection was the argument that the fossil record uncovered so far was inadequate. He asserted that when the fossil record had been studied in detail, the missing links would be found.


http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter5.php

I hope martian can still read? keep hinging your godlessness on evolution, a theory at best.

Lol, im done with you people man. But since you agree with the creationists, is it allah or jehovah that's responsible for intelligent design. There are fossil evidence whether you care to admit it or not.
I don't hinge my atheism on evolution, just on the lack of evidence that none of your gods exist.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/tran-nf.html

This is from PBS, it's a publicly funded media organization and they don't have any agendas but report the facts as is without any embellishments.

Darwin was worried about a lack of fossil evidence but that was over 120 years ago. Unlike religion, scientific work continue perpetually and the search for evidence to support theories or discard them never stops.
Here's a lesson on fossil evidence, how rare it is for organisms to fossilize and how they are found.

http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossilrecord.htm

 
I'm done.

Martian:

No one knows the ultimate cause of the universe and evolution is not about the cause of the universe.

Are you admitting that you and all evolutionists haven't got a clue as to the ultimate cause of the universe?

Martian:

Life could very well could be as a result of chance since cell membranes form spontaneously when phospholipids connect their hydrophobic tails to form bilayers where proteins are embedded.

Are you saying evolution is all about speculation, or are you talking as a matter of fact?

Martian:

Abiogenesis and the miller urey experiments are examples of studies to understand how life arose on earth.

Can you categorically say that the urey experiments can stand the test of scrutiny?  If yes, why have they not created life in the laboratory till date?

Ok, you know the answer and it's jebus. Like I said before, this is an exercise in futility. You're a creationist and that's not going to change non matter what you read.

Martian:

Ok, you know the answer and it's jebus. Like I said before, this is an exercise in futility. You're a creationist and that's not going to change non matter what you read.

All you need to do is to answer my questions, there is no need of all these emotional blackmail.  I thought you are the guys that have the rational arguments on your side?  Can you logically answer my questions if its not too much to ask?

OLAADEGBU:

All you need to do is to answer my questions, there is no need of all these emotional blackmail.  I though you are the guys that have the rational arguments on your side?  Can you logically answer my questions if its not too much to ask?

For what? All the answers I gave before and all you did was go to another creationist website and post an interview between some creationist and a mysterious molecular biologist who thinks the foundation of his expertise is lunacy!!!!
You say there's no fossil evidence, when some is shown to you, all you'll say is that noah's flood did it even though argued that fossil records are not existent.

Read the PBS link or the one about fossil records.

Evolution explains the diversity of life NOT the origin. I said that before!!!!!! I guess you Christians know the origin of life, good for you!

I said the miller urey experiments were examples of studies,I didn't endorse it. Like I said, no one knows beyond a reasonable doubt YET except Christians, Muslims, Scientologists, Zoroaatrianism, judaism, and the likes. You people know because it says so in your books. Also every culture that has a creation story, they also know the origin of life. I wonder who's wrong though.

Martian:
 
For what? All the answers I gave before and all you did was go to another creationist website and post an interview between some creationist and a mysterious molecular biologist who thinks the foundation of his expertise is lunacy!!!!

The answer you gave about the ultimate cause of the universe is what I replied to, the interview posted was just an interlude.

Martian:

You say there's no fossil evidence, when some is shown to you, all you'll say is that noah's flood did it even though argued that fossil records are not existent.
Read the PBS link or the one about fossil records.

I don't recall asking for the evidence of fossils as I haven't even got there yet, what I am establishing is your understanding of evolution starting from the very foundation.

Martian:

Evolution explains the diversity of life NOT the origin. I said that before!!!!!! I guess you Christians know the origin of life, good for you!

The question of what caused the universe to come into existence and where it got the original energy or matter from is an important question which you cannot brush aside because it aims at the very foundation or beginning of the entire evolution worldview.  Without a mass/energy source there can be no big bang, the evolution of stars or life.

Martian:

I said the miller urey experiments were examples of studies,I didn't endorse it. Like I said, no one knows beyond a reasonable doubt YET except Christians, Muslims, Scientologists and the likes. You people know because it says so in your books.

Why don't you endorse the miller-urey experiments, were they not scientific?  Don't let me encumber you with too much tasks, lets stay with the ultimate cause of the universe as there can only be 3 possible answers as to what caused it to be and they are

1. The universe created itself;
2. The universe has always existed;
3. The universe had to be created.

Pick your choice and lets debate about it.

I don't know the cause of the universe and you're probably going to use the cosmological argument about god being the prime mover and it's going to be one endless  argument about causality and I'm not going down that road again.
An idea i like though is that this universe could be as a  result of a black hole from another universe that became so compacted and hot that it expanded and formed another universe. Since the big bang theory is actually just expansion of the primeval atom and black holes suck everything into it and compresses them into a singularity, that could be the source of the energy and matter. In that case, the universe probably created itself. 

The human race  is  just another insignificant part of the universe, once our sun burns out, life on earth will cease and we'll be gone but the universe will still remain. Religion is what makes people think we are some kind of special species and everything is here because of us when we are just one of billions of organisms on this planet. That's why your church was resistant when galileo came up with the theory that the earth revolves around the sun and that the earth is not the center if the universe.

Fossil evidence are relevant because you said evolution is a myth and I just provided you with a site where fossilization is  explained. 

The miller urey experiments had some flaws, that's why it's not universally accepted in scientific circles. Read about it yourself if you want details.

The interview you posted is silly, who is J anyway?

Martian:
 
I don't know the cause of the universe and you're probably going to use the cosmological argument about god being the prime mover and it's going to be one endless  argument about causality and I'm not going down that road again.
An idea i like though is that this universe could be as a  result of a black hole from another universe that became so compacted and hot that it expanded and formed another universe. Since the big bang theory is actually just expansion of the primeval atom and black holes suck everything into it and compresses them into a singularity, that could be the source of the energy and matter. In that case, the universe probably created itself. 

For something to create itself it would have to both exist and not exist at the same time.  This is a contradiction and an illogical option to take.  Based on all known scientific understanding and logic we know that from nothing, nothing comes.  Therefore, your option is not a legitimate option.  For you to take this position you will have to violate the law of non-contradiction and that will be ignoring good science. Remember, where did the original energy or matter come from?

Martian:

The human race  is  just another insignificant part of the universe, once our sun burns out, life on earth will cease and we'll be gone but the universe will still remain. Religion is what makes people think we are some kind of special species and everything is here because of us when we are just one of billions of organisms on this planet. That's why your church was resistant when galileo came up with the theory that the earth revolves around the sun and that the earth is not the center if the universe.

It was actually the then known scientist that thought that the earth was flat and that the sun was static, the Bible had all along stated that the earth was round and that the sun moved in its own circuit.  Galileo was just catching up on what the Bible said.  The Roman Catholic church has always got it wrong as they now believe in the theory of evolution as fact despite what the Bible teaches.

Martian:

Fossil evidence are relevant because you said evolution is a myth and I just provided you with a site where fossilization is  explained. 

When we get to that bridge we will cross it.

Martian:

The miller urey experiments had some flaws, that's why it's not universally accepted in scientific circles. Read about it yourself if you want details.

The science textbooks you use in schools still refer to the miller urey experiments as facts despite the flaws that it has.

Martian:

The interview you posted is silly, who is J anyway?

We shall keep his identity anonymous since he chooses to remain so for reasons best known to him.

[img width=500 height=500]http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/after-eden/20051121.gif[/img]

Martian:

There's no broad consensus about the experiments and the people who study such are still working on it. I'm not going to claim something that's inconclusive as fact. There's a school of thought that support the position that the organic materials necessary for life came from a comet. That's possible too considering the way our moon came into existence.
The difference between religious people and secular people is that the latter aren't afraid to say "I don't know yet" while the former claim infallible knowledge based on mythology.

Secular people are not only bold to say that they don't know they also boldly mislead and deceive students as you can see with the Miller experiment. The common perception left by many textbooks and journals is that the urey and Miller scientists were successful in producing the amino acids necessary for life. The textbooks and media fail to mention that what they had actually produced was a mixture of left and right handed amino acids, which is detrimental to life. Despite all these flaws they continue to promote the idea that life could have originated by natural processes even as you have claimed by bringing up their experiment to buttress your point.

Martian:

The big bang being as a result of a black hole isn't as far fetched as you think but it will of course bring about questions about the universe where that original black hole was. But the thing is why can't the universe have created itself and always existed when you claim that your god has exactly the same attributes? The difference is that we know for certain that the universe exists while your god can't and will never be proven. That's why you have FAITH. Another thing about your god is that it's claimed to be a spirit but spirits or souls do not exist.

Let us stay with what you know, that is, the universe exists and let us move on from there to the unknown. Are you now saying that the universe has always existed, which is the second option?

Martian:

The bible claims that the earth came before the sun and that the sun, other stars and the moon are all in the firmament(earth's atmosphere). So when whoever wrote the bible says it moves in it's own circuit, it meant it was moving across the sky not that its revolving around the center of the milky way. you can't change the story now. Science doesn't have to catch up with bible because bible is largely a book of Jewish folklores and has NOTHING to do with science. Didn't one of the stories involve the sun standing still so the Jews could murder some people?

See how you brought your speculation and assumptions to misinterprete and mix things up. The book of Job is one of the oldest books in the world, yet it contains numerous references to natural systems and phenomena, some involving facts of science not discovered by scientists until recent centuries, yet recorded in Job almost 4,000 years ago.

A good example is in 26:7. "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." While ancient mythologies may imagine the earth to be carried on the shoulders of Atlas or on the back of a giant turtle, Job correctly noted that it is suspended in space. The force of "gravity" is still not understood, and it is quite reasonable to believe that God Himself holds it in the assigned place in His creation.

There is a reference to the rotation of the earth in Job 38:14. "It is turned as clay to the seal." This speaks of the smooth turning of the globe to receive the sun's daily illumination.

Martian:

Galileo wasn't catching up with the bible, he was contradicting it, hence the persecution by the church. That's the same reason they accept evolution now and call the garden of Eden story an allegory.

The reason why you skeptics often try to ridicule the Bible by saying that the Christian Church persecuted Galileo when he maintained that the earth circled the sun is because you often misplace them with the RCC.

As a professor of astronomy at the University of Pisa, Galileo was required to teach the accepted theory of his time that the sun and all the planets revolved around the Earth. Later at the University of Padua he was exposed to a new theory, proposed by Nicolaus Copernicus, that the Earth and all the other planets revolved around the sun. Galileo's observations with his new telescope convinced him of the truth of Copernicus' sun - centred theory. Galileo's support for the heliocentric theory got him into trouble with the RCC. In 1633 during the inquisition he was convicted of heresy and ordered to publicly withdraw his support for Corpernicus. The RCC sentenced him to life imprisonment, but because of his advanced age allowed him to serve his term under house arrest at his villa outside of Florence, Italy. The Christian Church should not be mixed up with the RCC and therefore should not be blamed for his imprisonment. It was the Roman Catholic church that persecuted Galileo.

Martian:

There would be no Christianity without the roman catholic church and that includes whatever version of christianity you follow. So if the catholic church has always had it wrong, all christians have always had it wrong

This is another assumption and misrepresentation of yours, another speculation which no iota of truth in it.

Martian:

As for the scientist called J, keep his identity secret because he's probably as real as your god.

If you really want to know his identity maybe you should try contacting the newspaper it was reported in, I gave the name and time it was published.

You don't have nothing to say about papal bulls? You can't distance yourself from the RCC because without it bible wouldn't exist. Don't they claim that the jesus disciple called Peter is the founder of their church.

The church's history is well known, all Christian sects are as a result of luther's split from the church.

Scientists are not trying to deceive anybody,you people just cry foul and get defensive whenever science contradicts our false preconceived notions.

The book of job is just another psychotic story.

The universe is approximately 17 billion years old and the earth is 4 billion years old. The figures are as a result of extensive studies and not some Jew writing tall tales about the world be only 6000 years old.

"Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.  In them has he set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom going out of his chamber, and rejoices as a strong man to run a race.  His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof." -- Psalms 19:4-6 The Evidence Bible

For many years critics scoffed at these verses, claiming that they taught that the sun revolves around the earth, even the then scientists thought that the sun was stationary.  Then it was discovered in recent years that the sun is in fact moving through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour which will take about 200 million years to complete one orbit.  Didn't I say that scientist are playing catch up with the Bible?

OLAADEGBU:

"Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.  In them has he set a tabernacle for the sun, which is as a bridegroom going out of his chamber, and rejoices as a strong man to run a race.  His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof." -- Psalms 19:4-6

For many years critics scoffed at these verses, claiming that they taught that the sun revolves around the earth, even the then scientists thought that the sun was stationary.  Then it was discovered in recent years that the sun is in fact moving through space at approximately 600,000 miles per hour which will take about 200 million years to complete one orbit.  Didn't I say that scientist are playing catch up with the Bible?

Lol, your quote refers to the sun as a HE, are you sure it's not talking about a person. In fact, that verse makes no sense. I don't see anything about the sun being the closest star to us, all I see is someone going forth from the end of the heaven, which I'm sure is meant to be the sky and not space. Again, the bible isn't science. But I see you quote scientists when it suits you. Are you sure they are not trying to deceive you?