Creation vs. Evolution

[playa_chan]

Creation vs. Evolution - A Question of Origins

How did we get here? Were we created or did we evolve randomly? Are we the product of purposeful intelligence or are we merely the end result of countless cosmic accidents?

[alex1_phang3]

I seriously hope that we're created instead of evolved to what we are, because that ould mean god really exists

[Shuki]

I believe in both. I believe that God created man, as man, but as an earlier form... humans are evolving even to this day (kids being born without wisdom teeth, for example, as they have become unnecessary with our modern lifestyle), so it's impossible for me to think that we haven't changed. I refuse to believe I came from some primordial soup, but I DO believe that God is an incredibly intelligent being, so would he not be smart enough to create humans as able to evolve and adapt to their surroundings like other creatures?

[SVNightFall]

Both have their story and both have their evidences but ya most the time people say they conflict each other then both of them existing together but hmm due to both sides edvidences i would also say i believe in both.

[Sen-Chan]

I dont believe God created us at all, I dont believe in the big bang that bought around the universe in 7 days.. All the evidence from God creating us, doesnt even come close to what scientists have discovered about us actually originating from primates, they are who we use to be, they are actually hairier humans without an aposible thumb, they learn just as fast as we do.. i just dont get how people can say we were created by god in a big bang that happened thousands of years ago.... we werent... evolution is how we came to be... because we are still evolving to this day.

[alex1_phang3]

Yeah, males are evolving into having less masculine characteristics, I think I've hearfd somewhere that the Y chromosome is getting weaker and weaker by generation.

[BorixXx]

I believe in both..

My theory on life is that we were created.. and evolution + science are simply the mechanics the creator used to make life and existence. Everything has to work somehow right? A TV can't just operate as one piece; just because there are parts to a it doesn't mean we (it's creators) don't exist... They also "unnaturally" evolve as their environment get's more and more demanding in quality (Hi definition) thus they get better and better as they go. Yes it's not the best example.. but you get the idea ;).

I don't follow one religion.. I won't state which I was born to. What I will say is that I have my own grasp of god, and that all religions have their ups and downs; I simply apply the best of each. Why you say? Because if there is a god, he wouldn't seperate us into many different faiths to conflict with each other for no reason. But that's a whole different topic...

Most people (like me for example) want to believe in a creator because of hope that we may see our loved ones again after death (though some of my beliefs do involve reincarnation) in a place that is better than this world. Not to go emo on everyone here, but let's face it, this world is turning to shit! This also leads to the wanting there to be a higher being so that evil people and wrongdoers get punished for their deeds. It gets harder and harder everyday to keep your faith because every day you realize how the evil people are the ones who go further in life.. and that nice guys do sometimes finish last =/.

[wondering]

@playa_chan - just to make things clear for me, you're not trying to talk about darwinism, are you?

[sawreese]

I dont believe God created us at all, I dont believe in the big bang that bought around the universe in 7 days.. All the evidence from God creating us, doesnt even come close to what scientists have discovered about us actually originating from primates, they are who we use to be, they are actually hairier humans without an aposible thumb, they learn just as fast as we do.. i just dont get how people can say we were created by god in a big bang that happened thousands of years ago.... we werent... evolution is how we came to be... because we are still evolving to this day.

Actually, the theory of evolution that u are referring to would be just as crazy in your eyes as creationism. All of the different variations of the theory point back to some big bang like event which is just creation - god. its sayin somethin (which they call nothing) suddenly created particles. These particles have to assemble in a perfect formation of about 400 something parts. then the combined parts have to assemble with 20 somethin more perfect parts to make any kind of cell. the possibility of this is 1 in 200,000,000,000. 1 in 14,000,000,000 is considered physically impossible and 1 in 62,000,000,000 is considered impossible.

I like to think of it in terms of the theory " I think, therefore I am" meaning there is a god who realizes his existence and therefore has certain characteristics.

[rasg]

The creation theory came from religious point of view; there's no actual proof of it beside those that were given by religions. Therefore, all it needs is faith, no matter how illogical this theory may be to some.

The evolution theory, however, since it came from scientific point of view, it needs logical proofs. Scientists found very close similarities between humans and apes, therefore it's logical to think that humans came from apes, ... or is it really? How did apes change into humans? Did they in the ancient past suddenly decide to walk straight and think smarter? It's acceptable if in one generation, but can this decision survived many generations and in a very long period of time? .... I find that very illogical.

I truly believed we're intelligently created.

[AssassinXD]

the evolution is fake because theres a interview with a christian scientist he proved evolution was fake the primates evolving is nothing more of bullshit because they were no other evidencew to prove just because of a skull so whatever you do dont believe in this false stuff science might be fun but all the info u r learning is to brainwash you to think God doesnt exsisted

[chris-chan]

Yeah, males are evolving into having less masculine characteristics, I think I've hearfd somewhere that the Y chromosome is getting weaker and weaker by generation.
God, I hope thats true.

And I believe in both, but I don't believe in god. I believe there is a higher power creating what we have today, but I can't bring myself to believe that there is some guy sitting up there for over 7,000 years making life the way it is. I believe we evolved over time to beter fit our surrondings, and that the higher power took things out that weren't needed. Of course, every time I tell my friends who believe in god this, they claim god knew everything from the beginning. But, god also created everything, or so they claim. So, that means god created science as well as the man who came up with evolution (Darwin) and gave him the idea that things evolve. Now, they don't agree with that part. Also, for reference, for every part of the bible that says one thing, theres one that states something the complete opposite. Also, from the ending of the first paragraph in the bible, to the next sentence, I think its 1,000 years that had passed, so that means there was change in there! And personally, I believe when they say seven days, they are talking about the higher powers time, meaning probably 7,000 in ours or so, more than enough time to evolve and adapt. And for the record, I used to be strong into christianity and used to want to be a preachor.

[AssassinXD]

God, I hope thats true.

And I believe in both, but I don't believe in god. I believe there is a higher power creating what we have today, but I can't bring myself to believe that there is some guy sitting up there for over 7,000 years making life the way it is. I believe we evolved over time to beter fit our surrondings, and that the higher power took things out that weren't needed. Of course, every time I tell my friends who believe in god this, they claim god knew everything from the beginning. But, god also created everything, or so they claim. So, that means god created science as well as the man who came up with evolution (Darwin) and gave him the idea that things evolve. Now, they don't agree with that part. Also, for reference, for every part of the bible that says one thing, theres one that states something the complete opposite. Also, from the ending of the first paragraph in the bible, to the next sentence, I think its 1,000 years that had passed, so that means there was change in there! And personally, I believe when they say seven days, they are talking about the higher powers time, meaning probably 7,000 in ours or so, more than enough time to evolve and adapt. And for the record, I used to be strong into christianity and used to want to be a preachor.

yea but evolution wasnt proof later on life was created by God and no one else can do that and if he didnt send his holy son Jesus to die for our sin then we all wouldve been dead

[khaosmonk]

Hmm, both need work. Neither explains everything, but the slow evolution of animals seems pretty logical (animals today are visiblly doing it)

[chris-chan]

yea but evolution wasnt proof later on life was created by God and no one else can do that and if he didnt send his holy son Jesus to die for our sin then we all wouldve been dead
Do you believe in some sort of evolution, or that there are people that do believe in it and can prove it? And I know you believe in god, but do you believe the belief that god created everything and creates everyones thoughts and plans for life? If so, then evolution is immediately proven because god gave those people those ideas.

And like I said, I personally don't believe in god. I believe there is a higher power pulling the strings on life, but I find it hard to believe that some guy we call god exists creating everything.

[thatguyisbrett]

i am a 4th year biology/genetics major and i can tell you without a doubt that creationism is not a valid theory. all fossil records point to the gradual change over generations of organisms into their current forms. whether or not god is involved in guiding this process is subject to your own interpretation.

if you research you will find that every "scientist" who supports creationism is financially backed or related to creationist organizations which are themselves backed by religious organizations. there is no evidence whatsoever for the theory of creationism. the creationist solution to the origin of species is to say "how about god just put everything here and nothing has ever changed since the beginning of time?" well how about dog shit is money and a park bench is a mansion? its just not the case.

evolution on the other hand is backed by 3.5 billion years worth of fossil records and nearly every legitimate scientist on earth. i find it hard to believe that god would have hidden these fossils deep in the earth so that they could trick us into believing in evolution (1 belief of creationism). micro evolution in plants and microbes has been proven countless times in labs and in wildlife.

creationism tries to polarize science against religion and say that one is mutually exclusive to the other. that if you believe in evolution you are an atheist. this is simply not true. the theory and methods used for "proving" creationism are simply absurd.

but what do i know....?

[rasg]

Perhaps, we must differentiate the evolution theory into two types: the evolution in one certain species and the evolution form one species to another. I find the earlier somewhat quite logical, but the later still need to be proven.

[Yiew]

Hmm, I like my science but I'm also christian, so this raises a few eyebrows.

I personally like the idea of Darwins Theory, natural selection. It doesnt explain everything but atleast with science there are solid results, although sometimes those results bring more questions than answers.
Its a scary thought though. If science is correct, then what happens after we die? With a spiritual belief, we are taught that there is an afterlife if we are generally good people. Science, says why we're here, but not what happens. Faith says 'what we earn living is granted in the afterlife'.
I would like to believe we do go somewhere, but I cant believe its why we're here.

[thatguyisbrett]

Perhaps, we must differentiate the evolution theory into two types: the evolution in one certain species and the evolution form one species to another. I find the earlier somewhat quite logical, but the later still need to be proven.
your talking about macro and micro evolution. it is hard to explicitly prove macroevloution as it takes thousands or millions of years to occur. human science just hasnt been around long enough to directly observe it. however, the fossil records clearly support macro evolution. every species of animal from fish to humans to birds has the same sets of bone groups. the only difference is the dimensions of these bones.

fyi the pope has embraced evolution. even he can see that faith and science dont have to contradict eachother. creationism is an entire establishment based on distorting a scientific truth.

[thatguyisbrett]

Hmm, I like my science but I'm also christian, so this raises a few eyebrows.

I personally like the idea of Darwins Theory, natural selection. It doesnt explain everything but atleast with science there are solid results, although sometimes those results bring more questions than answers.
Its a scary thought though. If science is correct, then what happens after we die? With a spiritual belief, we are taught that there is an afterlife if we are generally good people. Science, says why we're here, but not what happens. Faith says 'what we earn living is granted in the afterlife'.
I would like to believe we do go somewhere, but I cant believe its why we're here.

this is what im talking about. who says there cant be evolution and god? the answer to that question is creationists. im sure if you looked you would see that most scientists are not atheists.

[chris-chan]

this is what im talking about. who says there cant be evolution and god? the answer to that question is creationists. im sure if you looked you would see that most scientists are not atheists.
Agreed. I believe that creationism and evolution are true.

[Yiew]

One should be the answer to how, and one should be the answer to why. Wouldnt that just be great? =)

[chris-chan]

One should be the answer to how, and one should be the answer to why. Wouldnt that just be great? =)
That would be. Personaly, I see evolution as how, and creation as why. The reason why I believe that we have evolution is because the higher being (still not gonna call it god) originally created creatures, then worked on his plan so that they would survive.

[Deekle]

the evolution is fake because theres a interview with a christian scientist he proved evolution was fake the primates evolving is nothing more of bullshit because they were no other evidencew to prove just because of a skull so whatever you do dont believe in this false stuff science might be fun but all the info u r learning is to brainwash you to think God doesnt exsisted

Sounds like the guy was highly biased. Anyways I've seen a Christian scientist believe in Evolution.

I like to base my beliefs on facts...and Evolution is accepted by most of the Scientific community.

[rasg]

your talking about macro and micro evolution. it is hard to explicitly prove macroevloution as it takes thousands or millions of years to occur. human science just hasnt been around long enough to directly observe it. however, the fossil records clearly support macro evolution. every species of animal from fish to humans to birds has the same sets of bone groups. the only difference is the dimensions of these bones.

fyi the pope has embraced evolution. even he can see that faith and science dont have to contradict eachother. creationism is an entire establishment based on distorting a scientific truth.

As you've said, it's hard to prove macroevolution, or in other words, it's yet to be proven. Therefore, scientificly, so far macroevolution is still unacceptable as a fact.

Since there are two types of evolution, we don't have to treat them both the same way. Faith may not contradict the microevolution, but it will with macroevolution.

[thatguyisbrett]

As you've said, it's hard to prove macroevolution, or in other words, it's yet to be proven. Therefore, scientificly, so far macroevolution is still unacceptable as a fact.

Since there are two types of evolution, we don't have to treat them both the same way. Faith may not contradict the microevolution, but it will with macroevolution.

this is splitting hairs. how many tiny changes does it take to equal one big change?

nothing in science can be proven. we can only disprove the opposite of something to give it more credit. yes macro evolution is a "theory" ... in the same way that gravity is a "theory"

[Deekle]

nothing in science can be proven. "

There are lots of things in science that have been proven. Unless your asking a different type of question

[thatguyisbrett]

theres a difference between proof and proven. a theory is an idea of something that is backed by consistent proof. in a scientific sense there is no such thing as proving a theory. you can only disprove the opposite or apposing predictions of a theory.

[Deekle]

Well that depends. I've found this in my textbook.

"For instance, there is little doubt that an object thrown into the air
will come back down (ignoring spacecraft for the moment). One could
make a scientific observation that "Things fall down". I am about to
throw a stone into the air. I use my observation of past events to
predict that the stone will come back down. Wow - it did!

But next time I throw a stone, it might not come down. It might
hover, or go shooting off upwards. So not even this simple fact has
been really proved. But you would have to be very perverse to claim
that the next thrown stone will not come back down. So for ordinary
everyday use, we can say that the theory is true."

[thatguyisbrett]

^^^^^^^^ exactly^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Galahad]

Interesting topic,
I am not much of a debater and I do not have the skill to debate either (I am even wondering why the hell I am here)
Here's what I think:
We are created by the accumulation of space materials, elements, fused into one organism and through the test of time we EVOLVED through our resilience to strive and to survive.

[Reat20]

cosmic accidents all the way, {im roman catholic} even though it goes agaisnt my religion, i have to say accidents. this is because if we were created by another worldly person, how did he get created, and how did all of this get created? its a question that man has been studying for years, but no where near to coming close to.

[chris-chan]

So, this thought has been in the back of my head for a while now. But, if you follow the evolution method and believe in the big boom belief (like me) then you know that life started on earth by meteors hitting earth with organisms on them from outer space. So, if you think about it, humans are aliens from another planet because those organisms evolved to become humans.

[Strawberry_Satochi]

Hm...I can't say I believe in god, and I can't believe we were evolved, if I were to believe in god...>.> Just...WHO created the god, did the "original one" make us because of boredom? Or to give us a reason to see how it is to be living a happy life...or...so it seem's to be a happy life. And as to what we were being evolved, when you think of it back then and now, when did we start the year 1? Who is it that started that year thing, days, everything, and like what Yiew asked...What happens when we do die...I always thought about afterlife, so many things that may happen, the afterlife...does our life get restarted with our minds completely wiped out? or does our "soul" just leave our body and get sent to space, meeting whatever created us, giving a choice to go with them, or to return back, but out of all of the questions....

WHO is it that created God?

[scylar]

evolution supporters, i dont blame you all for not knowing already that darwin is a loser and that its almost fifty years since evolution was disproved scientifically coz the media is still with Darwin.
they have to, as what better interesting story than the story of a monkey turning into man? i wont talk much. ill give proof. not just one but many. Hundreds if need be.

FIRST PROOF: -

Evolution says that reptiles evolved from fishes. like some fish slowly stared losing fins and started developing limbs etc etc crap. They claim that this is a slow process that took millions of years. if that is the case then there must be thousands of intermediate half- formed creatures with part fish and part reptilian characteristic in the fossils. I DARE any one to show me ONE such fossil proof. Look at these images: -
http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4611-angel-fsh-1.jpg

AngelFish Fossil : -
AGE : 95 Million Years
PERIOD:Cretaceous
LOCATION:Haqel, Lebanon

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4612-angl-fsh-1-real.jpg

REAL LIVING ANGELFISH

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4616-crock-f-n-r.jpg


CROCODILE
AGE: 90 Million years
PERIOD: Cretaceous
LOCATION: China

Do you see any difference? There is no difference at all. Fishes were always fishes and reptiles were always reptiles.

This is what an evolutionist scientist admitted regarding the failure of finding intermediate fossil evidence:-

Robert L. Carroll, author of the book Problems of the Origins of Reptiles, writes:

"Unfortunately not a single specimen of an appropriate reptilian ancestor is known prior to the appearance of true reptiles. The absence of such ancestral forms leaves many problems of the amphibian-reptilian transition unanswered."

(Robert L. Carroll, "Problems of the Origin of Reptiles," Biological Reviews of the
Cambridge Philosophical Society, Vol. 44, No. 3, July 1969, p. 393)


People, this is just ONE proof that i gave to disprove evolution. I have literally HUNDREDS. Yo! I'll post one by one.

And yo! i myself started a similar thread called as"evolution or God" just now. but sad. somebody already did it. Still cheers!!!!!. its all the same

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4568-051.jpg

[Deekle]

Sorry to say, but that is very ignorant thing you wrote there. If Evolution was disproved... it would not be taught in schools.

[chris-chan]

I have to agree with Deekle. Plus, there is a half fish, half reptile creature, plus I can show you fossil and modern proof.

Get ready for this.

*Drumroll* It's an amphibian!

Thats right, your everyday turtle, crocidle, alligator and amphibious iguana from the Gallapogas islands. They all have fish and reptile characteristics, yet are not either fish or reptile. So, that proves that there are animals that are half evolved from fishes.

[killerfool]

i agree with galahad and strawberry with their theorys. i dont believe in god but i do believe there is a good and evil. everyday we dig up things on our planet that point to only one thing that is evolution but you cant kick god out of the picture completely yet either. this is where you cant knock god because the word faith comes into focus. you cant prove nor disprove it

[scylar]

This is the 3rd and 4th proof iam giving to disprove evolution.

@ Deekle7. Evolution is taught in school coz the media is still with the old fashioned evolutionists. Also you must know that schools in many middle east and Asian countries teach evolution only for what it is - A THEORY and not as an absolute truth as most others are made to believe.

Also, you spoke about giraffe's neck being elongated slowly right. well, iam sorry to tell that what you saw was an artists painting so far. could you show me one fossil where there was a shortened giraffes neck?

@chris -chan. Amphibians are not half fish half reptiles. They are complete and perfect creatures. By part fish and part reptile i meant for u to show me a creature (lets say) with three fins and one odd limb sticking out, with a bit of gills and at the same time partly formed lungs, with some scales on it like fish and yet leathery skin like reptiles. This is what an intermediate species is and not amphibians. Where has all your imagination gone people? Think. and show me such a fossil. Take it up as a challenge if you don't believe me and show ONE fossil evidence.


http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4619-str-fsh-and-crab.jpg

What sort of evolution do you see here? is there ANY? there is none. And just observe the time period. its almost 500 million years and still we have no sign of any sort of evolution. Crabs were always crabs and star fishes were always star fishes.

Theory of evolution is just like harry potter. (remember serius black turning into a dog?). The difference between Harry potter and the theory of evolution is that while the theory of evolution is allegedly slow, Harry potter is instant evolution.

I REPEAT AGAIN. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE FOSSIL EVIDENCE OF INTERMEDIATE SPECIES THAT SUPPORTS EVOLUTION.

Well, I ll be glad to share more proofs. Just subscribe to this thread and keep visiting it.

ps for new people : In 1st and 2nd proof i proved that crocs were always crocs and fish were always fish.

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4568-051.jpg

[Yulok]

Here's food for thought: We are just simply water that chose to move around... since all life on this planet depends entirely on good ol' H2O.

I strongly believe in this, though to many it seems filled with void, it certainly helps me deal with every day **** just living in this mentality :) So what I think is whether it be evolution or god, what really matters is how you spend your time here. When reading everyone's responses I can see who may be wasting time worrying about either getting heard or impressing ideas...

I love debating between the two, and I am 100% Athiest because people can try to show proof based on science trying to disprove or prove our own existence, but honestly science's definition is research based on what we can experience with our senses, as in see and touch, etc. So as we don't have a clue about what else is floating around in that empty space, what really matters is what's here and now and what most we can make of it. So go take a sip of water, realize that's all you are and make the best of it.
I kinda went for a ride on a tangent, but I believe in the here and now instead of the popular choices ;)

[Yulok]

No offense scylar, it's fish, not fishes. Excessive incorrect spelling doesn't help prove a point :/

[scylar]

5th PROOF TO DISPROVE EVOLUTION

yeah thanks Yulok . point taken. my English is pretty dumb and prone to mistakes. I am glad that you are an atheist. At least you have made your choice independent of religious prejudices. Anyway enjoy the proof: -

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4613-shrmp-real-anf-fos.jpg

SHRIMP
AGE: 206 to 144 Million Years
PERIOD: Jurassic
LOCATION:Solnhofen, Bavaria, Eichstatt, Germany

Where is evolution? 206 million years and yet we find no change in the shrimp. people, evolution is moonshine.

see my other posts to get more fossil proofs.

1st proof - I proved that crocs were always crocs (90 million years)
2nd proof - i proved fish were always fish (anglefish) (95 million years)
3rd proof - I proved star fish were always star fish (490 million years)
4th proof - I proved crabs were always crabs. (38 million years)
5th proof - I proved shrimps were always shrimps (206 million years)

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4568-051.jpg

[AssassinXD]

Do you believe in some sort of evolution, or that there are people that do believe in it and can prove it? And I know you believe in god, but do you believe the belief that god created everything and creates everyones thoughts and plans for life? If so, then evolution is immediately proven because god gave those people those ideas.

And like I said, I personally don't believe in god. I believe there is a higher power pulling the strings on life, but I find it hard to believe that some guy we call god exists creating everything.


Like i said all those evidence all fake and Lies on evolution im not forcing you on this but tell this which came first? Jesus dying by the romans or Evolution?Moses leading Israel People or Evolution? Adam and Eve or evolution? and trust me when i say the answer its all Jesus and Moses time

but
5th PROOF TO DISPROVE EVOLUTION

yeah thanks Yulok . point taken. my English is pretty dumb and prone to mistakes. I am glad that you are an atheist. At least you have made your choice independent of religious prejudices. Anyway enjoy the proof: -

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4613-shrmp-real-anf-fos.jpg

SHRIMP
AGE: 206 to 144 Million Years
PERIOD: Jurassic
LOCATION:Solnhofen, Bavaria, Eichstatt, Germany

Where is evolution? 206 million years and yet we find no change in the shrimp. people, evolution is moonshine.

see my other posts to get more fossil proofs.

1st proof - I proved that crocs were always crocs (90 million years)
2nd proof - i proved fish were always fish (anglefish) (95 million years)
3rd proof - I proved star fish were always star fish (490 million years)
4th proof - I proved crabs were always crabs. (38 million years)
5th proof - I proved shrimps were always shrimps (206 million years)

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4568-051.jpg


but these dont mean anything for all i know these pictures couldve been a fraud and evolution if it was real wouldnt monkeys talk if humans every evolve from them but they dont...it may take alot more evidence of pictures they need to have the bones items actually evolved they need to have alot of data and yours is just theory no offense. My dad has a friend who was my sunday school teacher and shes a scientist she researched on evolution and proved evolution is crap and no offense=)

[scylar]

Dude AssasinXD. you have mistaken me. I am supporting your view by disproving evolution. cant you see? i strongly believe in the existence of God and every proof that i give to disprove evolution is a proof in proving the existence of God.

And God bless your teacher. She has truly come out of the delusions that some influential media sections weave. She's gutsy.

And God bless you to. But next time please do read my posts before quoting them.

As to the authenticity of these fossils pictures, just Google them. The internet is littered with these pictures.


http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4568-051.jpg

[skullreken]

I have my own religious beliefes the origin of the world and the Universe for me is completely differnt to waht the beliefes expressed here, I'm not forcing them on others so i dont want thoes of others forced on me.

I still believe in my religion even though I believe in evolution to me how life got to were it is does not take from its
sacredness nor does it make me doubt my sou.l Religion is a personal relationship between you and who or what you
believe in so with that in mind I beilive you have the right to believe what you want to but not to insult the beliefes of
others

this is some of the evidence that convinves me of the validity of evolution it includes fossiles and research carried out
on the development of embryos of different species

this one is called sinornithosaurus

kingdom - animalia
phylum - cordata
class - sauropsidia
superorder - dinosauria
order - Saurischiasuborder - theropoda
Family - Dromaeosauridae
genus - Sinornithosaurus

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/images/feathered_dinosaur.gif

other freature to note is that the theropod dinosaur'ss forelimbs have the same bone structure of thoes found in modern day birds wings the reminants of the 3 fingers now shortened and often fused due to redundancy are still viible also the dinosaurs pelvis hips and legs have the same structre as thoes belonging to a bird you can see it mos clearel on the Microrattor below

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/DKIMAGES/Discover/previews/889/80001072.JPG

here is another specein called Sinosauropteryx
kingdom - animalia
phylum - cordata
class - sauropsidia
superorder - dinosauria
order - Saurischiasuborder - theropoda
Family - Dromaeosauridae
genus - Sinosauropteryx
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Sinosauropteryxfossil.jpg

here is one of a microraptor
kingdom - animalia
phylum - cordata
class - sauropsidia
superorder - dinosauria
order - Saurischiasuborder - theropoda
Family - Dromaeosauridae
genus - microraptor

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Microraptor_gui_%28dinos%29.jpg

a note about the phylum cordata. Chordates are a group of animals that includes the vertibrate, together with several closely related invertibrates. They are united by having, at some time in their life cycle, a notachord, a hollow dorsal berve chord, pharyngal slits, an endo style, and a post-anal tail. In the early stages of development the embryos of chordates including Humans mamals birds reptiles and anphibians posess all of these trates and are practically indistinguishable from one another in physica apearance it is only during feotal growth when the cells start to differenciate permantly do physical differences appear.

During their development the nontachord segments and becomes the vretibrate, the hollow dorsal never chord swells and at one end becoming the brain and spinal chord, the pharyngeal slits are used for filter feeding by primative chordates in more complex chordates they close during feotal development and are lost. the post anal tail is evident in primitive chordates and the skeletons of complex chordates even humans have tail bones. the endo style remains as a feeding aperatus in primitive chordates but in more complex chordates it metamorphoses into the thyrod gland.

[Deekle]

@scrylar


Alright first of all evolution is not disproved. Second, google is not something for backing up evidence. I will only accept Scientific journals and essays. The internet is not always true.

Second Evolution was never disproved.

Explain to me what you think neanderthals are. There are skeletons to back them up, and they are our cousins.

How old do you think the Earth is?

[Murasame]

5th PROOF TO DISPROVE EVOLUTION

yeah thanks Yulok . point taken. my English is pretty dumb and prone to mistakes. I am glad that you are an atheist. At least you have made your choice independent of religious prejudices. Anyway enjoy the proof: -

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4613-shrmp-real-anf-fos.jpg

SHRIMP
AGE: 206 to 144 Million Years
PERIOD: Jurassic
LOCATION:Solnhofen, Bavaria, Eichstatt, Germany

Where is evolution? 206 million years and yet we find no change in the shrimp. people, evolution is moonshine.

see my other posts to get more fossil proofs.

1st proof - I proved that crocs were always crocs (90 million years)
2nd proof - i proved fish were always fish (anglefish) (95 million years)
3rd proof - I proved star fish were always star fish (490 million years)
4th proof - I proved crabs were always crabs. (38 million years)
5th proof - I proved shrimps were always shrimps (206 million years)

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4568-051.jpg

Two parts of a population can evolve into distinct species only if some sort of barrier prevents gene flow between them. Like isolation on an island or heavy fragmenting. This will cause them to adapt to the local environment and eventually form a completely new species, that is incapable of hybridize with each other.

In other words: just because specie won’t evolve doesn’t mean the evolution theory is false. I believe that many marine species hasn’t evolved as a result of lack of barriers, that prevent the exchange of genes between different populations.

[jsc315]

Well Evolution is based off of scientific theory and Darwinism.
Creationism is the religious Belief that Humanity, life, the Earth, and the Universe were Created. Creationism is a belief not fact. We all know Dinosaurs and Jesus were around the same era.
I agree more scientific evidence and what Darwin theories that evolution exists then some belief of what some religious people think happened with the factual evidence.

Also there are 3 different types of creationism that people believe in. Witch one are we talking about.
Young Earth creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism) ?
Gap creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gap_creationism) ? or
Progressive creationism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_creationism) ?

Read 1859 Darwin's On the Origin of Species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species) and then get back to me. You can't tell me the guy was not a genius for his time. Also Creation was not even accepted back in the 1840's as science fact when it was written about and we all know how religious people were back then they are today.
I will leave you with this mildly amusing pic of dino Jesus.
http://www.ericdsnider.com/images/dinosaur.JPG

[chris-chan]

Actaully Scylar, amphibians are part fish and part reptiles. They contain characteristics of both, but are not one or the other, thus making them amphibians. Who are we to say that they wer either made that way or evolved from fish and stopped halfway when they were able to succed.

AssassinXD, i'm gonna have to disagree with you on which came first. Evolution came before all of those. You can not say man has not evolved through centuries of life. Also, there is no proof other than some book to tell us that these people lived. Plus, a lot of those stories were passed down through generations by word of mouth, so meanings, names, and other parts could've been lost. Also, they coul've been stories just made up by people and then compiled together to create a book that is claimed to be the word of mans biggest invention, your so called God. I still can't bring myself to believe that some person is controlling everyting. Someone one time brought up a neat saying to me, the definition of God is always present, the creator of all things, and is inside all matter. Also, they went on to say that the definition of energy is that it is always present, is the creator of everything, and is present in all matter. Therefore, God and energy share the same definition.

[scylar]

6th PROOF - DINO BIRD HOAXES

@Deekle7 First - Evolution was disproved long ago. Thats old news. If you are late to catch up that then don't worry, it is being disproved now by me. As an anime friend, the least i can do is to tell you the truth.

Second - I haven't quoted even ONE web page as evidence. ALL of my Quotes are from the highest possible scientific sources. Just check out my posts for confirmation.

Third - about neanderthals. Dude common. Lets take things one by one ok? neanderthals is such a fascinating subject that i dont want to spoil the surprize.

@skullreken . My apologies if I unintentionally hurt your feelings. I respect your belief as much as I respect my own. That is why I devout equal time to both. I am glad that you took up the topic of these Dino – birds. Well its time you learnt the actual truth behind them – The truth that most established paleontologists and Geologists know already but which the media suppresses.

@Murasame - Iam glad that you agreed that many marine species haven't evolved. I thought i needed to post more proofs. Anyway, my next post will be regarding land. We can always get back to marine whenever you want.

Sinosauropteryx

The first dino-bird claim was the story of "feathered dinosaur fossils unearthed in China," which was put forward in 1996 with a great media fanfare (National Geographic magazine). Areptilian fossil called Sinosauropteryx was found, and some evolutionist paleontologists who examined the fossil said that it had bird feathers, unlike known reptiles.Examinations conducted one year later, however, showed that the fossil actually had no structure similar to a bird's feather.

A Science article titled "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur" stated that the structures named as "feathers" by evolutionary paleontologists definitely had nothing to do with feathers:

"Exactly 1 year ago, paleontologists were abuzz about photos of a so-called "feathered dinosaur," which were passed around the halls at the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. The Sinosauropteryx specimen from the Yixian Formation in China made the front page of The New York Times, and was viewed by some as confirming the dinosaurian origins of birds. But at this year's vertebrate paleontology meeting in Chicago late last month, the verdict was a bit different: The structures are not modern feathers, say the roughly half-dozen Western paleontologists who have seen the specimens. ...Paleontologist Larry Martin of Kansas University, Lawrence, thinks the structures are frayed collagenous fibers beneath the skin—and so have nothing to do with birds."

Ann Gibbons, "Plucking the Feathered Dinosaur," Science, vol. 278, no. 5341, 14 November 1997, pp. 1229 - 1230.


Microraptor

In January 2003, a 130-million-year-old fossil called Microraptor was announced to the world. It was suggested that this fossil belonged to a four-winged dinosaur which glided from tree to tree, and that this discovery confirmed that birds had evolved from dinosaurs. However, scientists soon announced that the new species did not constitute evidence to support this claim.

For example, "Lord of the Wings," an article by Christopher P. Sloan that appeared in the May 2003 edition of National Geographic magazine, stated that Microraptor continued to puzzle evolutionists and that many scientists took the view that this creature was flightless.

Sloan writes:
"But the Chinese team that studied Microraptor gui, led by Xu Xing and Zhou Zhonghe of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, doesn't think this animal ran or flapped well enough to take off. Its leg feathers would've tripped it up like a hurdler in a ball gown. Instead, the ample feathers could have formed an airfoil or parachute similar to those of flying squirrels and other tree-dwelling gliders, the scientists say."

Christopher P. Sloan, "Kanatlar›n Efendisi," National Geographic Turkey, May 2003
http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4742-microraptor.jpg





A drawing and fossil of Microraptor gui







“Other scientists also object to the thesis that this creature began to fly while gliding from tree to tree: They do not regard it as reasonable for these creatures to waste energy by beating their wings when there was an easier alternative. Other researchers also maintain that Microraptor gui's feet feathers were unsuited to flight, even by gliding.”

-Harun yahya, “The transitional Form Dilemma”, p 156

In short, the dino-bird theory is a dogma kept alive by means of propaganda and preconception. As we have seen in the example of Microraptor, speculation along those lines has eventually been disproved and condemned to abandonment.

Sinornithosaurus

With every new fossil discovery, evolutionists engage in speculation on the link between birds and dinosaurs. However, detailed analyses constantly refute the conjecture that these fossils constitute evidence for reptile-to-bird evolution.

As said earlier, the report titled “Feathered Dinosaur Fossils Unearthed in China” in National Geographic magazine in 1996 was thought to represent definitive proof of evolution. But there was an error and a lack of knowledge here. Since there is no evidence that feathered dinosaurs evolved, the report concerning them later proved fictitious.

Following the failure of their speculation with regard to Sinosauropteryx, evolutionists moved their attention to new fossil discoveries known as ArchBEoraptor, Sinornithosaurus and Beipiaosaurus. A dogmatic approach to evolution, a lack of thought and belief in a preconception lead to such errors and erroneous interpretations. The fossils in question establish no connection between birds and dinosaurs, but rather raise a number of inconsistencies and contradictions, some of which may be summed up as follows:

Sinornithosauruswas depicted as part bird and part dinosaur. The evolutionist paleontologist Chris Sloan who interpreted the fossils suggests that these creatures were unable to fly, but used their wings for balance when running. In other words, they need to be regarded as the forerunners of birds and were as yet incapable of flight.

Christopher P. Sloan, "Kanatlar›n Efendisi," National Geographic Turkey, May 2003

There is an enormous inconsistency here, because these fossils are only 120 million years old. Yet Archaeopteryx, the oldest known bird, is already 150 million years old. Archaeopteryx had exactly the same flying ability as modern-day birds. It possessed the requisite broad wings, asymmetric and complex feather structure and sternum (breast) bone for flight. Evolutionists have for long attempted to portray Archaeopteryx as the primitive forerunner of birds. Yet the greatest problem they face is that this vertebrate already possessed all bird-like features and was fully capable of flight.

In short, Archaeopteryx proves that ancient birds were flying through the air 150 million years ago. This naturally makes it impossible for fossil dinosaurs that are younger by 30 million years to be regarded as the primitive forerunners of birds that were as yet incapable of flight. This shows an evident contradiction in evolutionist claims regarding Sinornithosaurus.

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4568-051.jpg

[scylar]

7th PROOF - Dragon fly never evolved

I am glad that few people have been convinced that there was no evolution regarding the marine creatures that i dealt with in my previous posts. I guess i just have to post evidence regarding the remaining creatures.

So lets move on to land and air from water - The Dragonfly: -

Observe these fossils and the original living Dragon fly: -

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4669-dragon-fly-6-f-n-r.jpg


http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4746-dragon-fly-6-f.jpg

Age: 156 to 150 million years old
Size: wingspan: 11.4 centimeters (4.5 in); body: 7.6 centimeters (3
in); matrix:16.5 centimeters (6.5 in) by 13.7 centimeters (5.4 in)
Location: Beipiao, Liaoning Province
Period: Upper Jurassic

Any evolution here? None. Now lets look at dragonfly larvae fossil

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4747-dragonfly-larva-f-n-r.jpg

Where is any evolution here? We find no evolution in both the adult form and in the larval form.

Like their fossilized adults, the fossils of dragonfly larvae show that evolution never happened. There is no difference between the 10-million-year-old dragonfly larva pictured and today's larvae. This reveals that the theory of evolution is a myth.

My dear anime friends, you are the coolest of all. We all know that. Its high time you stop getting influenced by crayon sketches and artists impressions regarding evolution and instead start demanding actual fossil proofs from the evolutionists.

I 've spent 5 years researching these things hence i am in a position to tell that many people have got the wrong idea about evolution thanks to successive sensationalizing by the media. Its high time you come out of it.

Ps: For new comers. see my previous posts for more awesome undeniable evidence regarding the deception of evolution.

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4568-051.jpg

[Deekle]

Scylar you fail to answer any of my questions. You did not tell me HOW evolution was disproved. Many many scientist are Atheist today, and believe in Evolution. Explain to me what neanderthals are. I don't believe the Bible ever mentioned them.

Lastly answer this...How old do you think the earth is?

[Pherphq]

I'm not sure why or how were here.But here's what I think (which would probably not make a point) I think were by the evolutionary forumula.These forumulas are Dirt + water + time = living creatures.As for the bible some say "The first man was formed from the dust of the earth" , "God personally breathed life into him", "The first woman was made from the first man".Read some facts that according to the evolutionary view this is all nonsense.It is not correct scientifically cause water is both essential to life but toxic to life outside of the cell.It is supposed to make it more plausible by pushing it to some unknown planet inhabited by unknown creatures who seeded earth many millions of years ago and then left life to evolve alone. But if life could not have evolved here where conditions are 'perfect' how did it evolve in a much harsher unknown universe.




As the earth I think it' should be young Evidence from the stars
451


:The Star Clusters Each one is a circular ball composed of billions upon billions of stars, each with its own orbit. But the these clusters—with their stars—are moving so rapidly, together, in a certain direction that it should be impossible for them to remain together if the universe were very old.

:HIGH-ENERGY STARS
452
Radiation levels of 100,000 to 1 million times as much as our own sun are emitted by these stars. Yet, by the standard solar energy theory, they do not contain enough hydrogen to perpetuate atomic fusion longer than approximately 50,000 to 300,000 years.

:BINARY STARS
453

Many of these binary systems point us to a young age for the universe, because they consist of theoretically "young" and "old" stars circling one another.

Another reason should be the solar system. I Research studies indicate that our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate of seconds of arc per century. At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. But in far less a time than 50,000 years, life here would have ceased to exist. Recent studies have disclosed that neither the size of the sun, nor our distance from it, could be much greater or smaller—in order for life to be sustained on our planet.

Another should be The Earth Rotation ,the spin of the earth which is now about 1,000 miles [1609 km] an hour—is gradually slowing down. Gravitational drag forces of the sun, moon, and other factors cause this. If the earth were really billions of years old, as claimed, it would already have stopped turning on its axis. This is yet another evidence that our world is not very old.

[Deekle]

I could see how the sun could be shrinking as it exhaust it's fuel, but If that was big in the scientific community then It would be more known.

Also if the Sun was shrinking the gravitation pull would be less on the earth, so wouldn't that cause the Earth to spin faster if anything.

[skullreken]

scylar you dont understand evolution your posts demonstrate this evolution
is not something that happens like in pokemon or a single process it is a
combination of different processes enviromental factors acting on an organism
over 100's and thousands of years the evolution tiny changes occur over time
and they accumulate to creat something different.

The basic law of nature is survival of the fittest any animal that posesses
a feature that allows it to out compete it's rivals for resorces and survive
it's natural predators will mate and pass it's positive traits to the next
generation. For example if an antelope is born with short legs it is not able
to run as fast as the others it will be more susceptable to predators so it
will most likely die and not pass this disadvantagous trait onto the next
genration

Because of the heterozygotic nature of the genes and their expression
adventagous genes that cause a phenotypical difference may not be
expressed for a generation or two and it would require dozens or hundreds
of generations before these traits spread through the population in any
significant number to creat a split or perminant departure from the parent
population.


heres an example a parent population produces three types of offspring
A. thoes that match the parent population exactly B. thoes that have a physical
traith that leaves them less effective at competing for survival and C. thoes that
have a physical traith that allows them to out compete their parents. During stable
times with favourable conditions all three could survive but one something hppens
to change their ecosystem such as climate change or the arival of a new predator
competiton will become more serious.

Offspring type B will die out quickely as it is unable to compete as well as type A and
C with prolonged exposure to these harsh condidtions the population of type C will
grow eventually surpassig type A in number untill type A ceases to be. Even if
favourable condtions returned after a prolonged exposure to the harsh conditions
(many generations) before this occurs type C would be so fine tuned to the
enviroment that to produce offspring of type A would be a dissadvantage and be in
such numbers that type A would never reach the umbers it had when it was the
dominant phenotype and eventually it's numbers would dwindle untill offspring of
pheonotype A stopped being produced altogether

when this happens a new spiecies has evolved. They may appear simillar but they
are differnt enough genetically physically to be too toally different animals. we have
animals who bare physical resembelance to their ancestors crocodiles dragon flys etc
but comparisons show of the fossils show that these extinct versions although related
are not the same animals that exist today for example the meganeura was a giant
dragonfly with a wingspan of nearly 2.5 feet (75cm) in the end it is obvious that it's
size was it's downfall as all the dragonfles that exist today are so small in comparison
being so large proved to be a disadvantage and hindered it's abilitie to compete as it
did for all the giant insects that existed over 300 million years ago

The arguments against the evolution of Dinosaurs into birds that you presented is
interesting but it should be noted that these are not writen by people who dissagree
with evolution they are written by people who believe something different happened
to the dinosaurs this is the beauty of Science science strives to discover the truth
and a greater understanding peple are free to question things and to ponder how
things work they may be able to form their new theories or disprove new ones maybe
even discover something that is kannon.

To be honest I wouldnt put much weight into what national geographic publishes
as a basis of an argument it publishes articles not scientific papers and more ofthen
than not they deal with work that is currently ongoing A proper scientific journal such
as Nature has strick vetting programs in place for what they publish whih all papers
submitted must be proof read reviewed and even have the experiments they describe
sucessfully duplicated before the paper is published this prcess can take anything
from 7 months to a year while what gets published in national geographic is often
little more than the outline for an unverified theory

[chris-chan]

So, honestly, Scylar's little proof things are starting to piss me off. Not because he is trying to disprove evolution, but because i'm really just tired of coming on and seeing that he has posted up like two long posts about it and is not willing to accept other peoples beliefs and fight that his is the only right one and there could be no other possiblity. Also, I have a feeling that he's getting his posts from a biased source and until he can prove he's getting them from reputable sources, he's just posting words and pictures. Oh, and real quick Scylar, not to say that evolution is the answer and god doesn't exist or anything, but if you believe that evolution is fake and that god created man in his image and that we never evolved or changed, how come we all don't look alike and think the same way? Just some food for thought.

[Yulok]

All agreed. I believe it said share your belief, not your passionate disbelief.

I'd rather hear what you like, not dislike. And I mean no offense, this subject is simply a hard one for people to not take personally, since it can hold a very delicate position in one's life. When I was about 13 and on my way to church, I pondered to myself "what if God doesn't exist?" and my immediate reaction was fear of being placed in hell for it. After thinking about it more I felt that Christianity invoked a strong bias on the way I dealt with several components of my lifestyle, and to be honest I haven't felt as free as I do now.
What I cannot express enough is how when I ask, on evolution's behalf for this topic, someone what they would do differently if, just if, God didn't exist, I get an almost entirely vacant response, like they have never really considered the possibility when phrased in a means they(no specific group) can soak in without defensive parameters.

Coming to at least recognize what evolution is about as well as creationism is more important than choosing one or the other in my opinion.

[chris-chan]

All agreed. I believe it said share your belief, not your passionate disbelief.

I'd rather hear what you like, not dislike. And I mean no offense, this subject is simply a hard one for people to not take personally, since it can hold a very delicate position in one's life. When I was about 13 and on my way to church, I pondered to myself "what if God doesn't exist?" and my immediate reaction was fear of being placed in hell for it. After thinking about it more I felt that Christianity invoked a strong bias on the way I dealt with several components of my lifestyle, and to be honest I haven't felt as free as I do now.
What I cannot express enough is how when I ask, on evolution's behalf for this topic, someone what they would do differently if, just if, God didn't exist, I get an almost entirely vacant response, like they have never really considered the possibility when phrased in a means they(no specific group) can soak in without defensive parameters.

Coming to at least recognize what evolution is about as well as creationism is more important than choosing one or the other in my opinion.

Nicely put.

And I was like you, thought one day what if god disn't exist, then got scared thinking I was damned for eternity. I was raised under christian belief's, but never in a really big church going family. There was a point where I did want to become a minister (my family is methodist and I have been baptised as well as [can't remember what it is called, but it's whn you're in your teens and learn more about the church and to except god] methodist) and I used to read the bible regularly and thought people were crazy when they said god didn't exist and all. I don't consider myself atheist because I know ther is a higher power in life, but I can't bring myself to believe that some guy created everything and made it perfect the right time around like the bible says and what the church teaches you. There are some things I agree with and then there are others with which I don't.

Anyway, the big thing that gets me is when people just say that one or the other [evolution or creationism] doesn't exist and don't even give it a thought.

So, this is something that just came up in my mind, if there really is a higher being that created life, how come we are the only planet that contains life?

[jsc315]

I find it funny that some one on the internet has disproved evolution. You cant disprove evolution.
I googled dino bird hoax and i come up with this. http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_2_09.html
This website couldnt be more biased if it tried.
I also did some research of this Sinosauropteryx and most paleontologists(the study of prehistoric life) do not consider Sinosauropteryx to be a bird.

Also Here a few quotes people have complained about the article in National Geographic. What is said may actually shock you.
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/1075/123200812308amoz9.th.png (http://img514.imageshack.us/my.php?image=123200812308amoz9.png)
Check out the website as well it has a few interesting things that disprove what you say. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4208news2-3-2000.asp

Also Skull excellent post. Its the basic idea of what Darwin wrote about. and thanks to whoever gave me a rep for the funny dino jesus pic.

[scylar]

8th PROOF - HORSESHOE CRABS NEVER EVOLVED

@Deekle7- Just keep seeing my posts and you will get your answer. I ll start looking into neanderthals very soon. i promise.

@skullreken - about survival of the fittest. Well, sorry to tell you but it is one of the major drawbacks of theory of evolution. Maybe my next post should clear up the air to you. But hey, your article was nice and informative.


The arguments against the evolution of Dinosaurs into birds that you presented is
interesting but it should be noted that these are not writen by people who dissagree with evolution Iam glad that you noticed this. I hope you understand my position. If ever i were to give proofs from creationist sources people would say i am being biased. So i have to resort to evolutionists. In fact this is my trump card.

@jac315 - You are brilliant and thanks for giving yet another proof about the dino - bird hoax. I highly recommend people to visit the links posted by jac315 especially the second. The first one, though exhaustive, is general.

@Yulok -
Coming to at least recognize what evolution is about as well as creationism, is more important than choosing one or the other in my opinion.
Yes. I totally agree with you. We need to recognize each for what it is.

@chris -chan -
So, honestly, Scylar's little proof things are starting to piss me off. Not because he is trying to disprove evolution, but because i'm really just tired of coming on and seeing that he has posted up like two long posts about it and is not willing to accept other peoples beliefs what is there for me to accept? I have been burning my ass day long to give you crystal clear proofs. None of the people except perhaps skullreken and jac315 have bothered to give some credible proof. Do you mean to say that i should believe that over millions and millions of years somehow, by some great luck of super improbable proportions a living cell was formed? For me, this is not sceince, instead it is called as blind belief.

This is my 8th proof towards proving that evolution never happened .I am not asking anyone to believe in what i believe. Just have a good look at these fossil evidences that i have been giving and decide for yourselves.

The following is a blatant confession by National Geographic regarding a 455 million year old fossil: -

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4750-horshoe-crab-f-n-r-7.jpg

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/44871341.html

Read the text under the pic. I re - quote them "The ancient animal is remarkably similar to modern horseshoe crabs(right),...."

Another 450 Million year old fossil and yet no evolution at all: -

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4754-horsehoe-crab-f-7.jpg



http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4668-trilobite-r.jpg


A Living Horseshoe Crab

I don't see any evolution anywhere. 450 million years and yet no sign of any change. Where is any evolution here that so many people talk about?

Anyway, see my other posts to get more fossil proofs.

1st proof - I proved that crocs were always crocs (90 million years)

2nd proof - i proved fish were always fish (angelfish) (95 million years)

3rd proof - I proved star fish were always star fish (490 million years)

4th proof - I proved crabs were always crabs. (38 million years)

5th proof - I proved shrimps were always shrimps (206 million years)

6th proof - Dino - bird hoaxes. I proved that there was no link between reptiles and birds.

7th proof - Proved that dragon flies were always dragon flies. (156 million years)

8th proof - proved that Horseshoe Crabs were always Horseshoe Crabs (455 million years)

There was no evolution at all. At least that's what these fossils tell me. But like again. I am not asking anyone to believe in what i believe. I respect your beliefs as much as i respect my own. In the end its up to to you to make your own decisions.

ps: National Geographic is my 2nd fav channel. Of course Animax is 1st.

[scylar]

Survival of the fittest misconception: -

@To all - I am extremely glad that we have made this "creation vs evolution" into a worthy debatable topic. Three cheers to all of us! And we shall continue to maintain the DDD (decent debatable decorum ).

Consider the bird reptile scenario. Let me begin with the evolutionist assumption that Long long ago there was one dino that slowly started to turn itself into a bird. Of course it needs millions of years for any visible change to occur. Lets say, millions of years did pass by and the successive generations of that dino managed to partly change their two forelimbs into wings.

But wait - the wings are not yet fully developed. So the dino is unable to fly yet. But at the same time, it is unable to run or catch prey properly either because of its two de-formed forelimbs.

Such an animal, which can neither catch prey properly nor escape its enemies, which can neither fly nor run properly is THE LEAST FIT ANIMAL OF ALL.

So by Darwins logic of "survival of fittest", this animal should be the first one to perish. The same thing applies to ALL animals undergoing transformation.

This is the flaw in the concept of "survival of fittest".

Unless of course someone comes up with things like "somehow" "by great luck" or "by chance" few of those animals survived and passed on their traits to their siblings etc etc - then that's a different matter all together. You are most welcome to believe in this "somehow", "by luck" or "by chance" concept. But please don't call it science. It is called as blind dogmatic belief.


ps: I am working on human evolution right now. They are more fascinating and more lengthy (sad. i know). so i thought i would finish off with the other things and most importantly i have to go in chronological order as much as possible. so please be patient.

[alex1_phang3]

Okay, how about this "god" person created living beings and then living things evolve by themselves? (its just a thought. of mine)

[skullreken]

to be honest I cant take scylars argument seriously it's based on blind faith and quotes
from biased and unverifiyed sources that provide feeble arguments against actual scientific
research. Basically what I'm saying is that what he presents us with is stuff made up by
people to prove their beliefes ignoring evidence that goes against their theory inorder to
make it look correct. The fact that these theories never make it into journals and are often
published on the internet or other mediums that do not validate what they claim.

Now dont get me wrong I do believe in a religion but I dont believe stuff like the univese
came to be as it is all at once I believe there was a spark that ignighted all of this but I think
it all happened gradually, it doesnt matter to me if we were created as we are or if we evolved
from a distant common ancesstor what is important in my beliefe is that we have souls and
sententiance to make concious decisions on moral issues in our day to day lives unlike animals
which act outof instinct to protect themselves nad their own in the case of thoes that live in
family units

[scylar]

CONFESSIONS FROM DARWIN HIMSELF REGARDING THE ABSENCE OF FOSSILS OF INTERMEDIATE LIFE FORMS: -

I have been persistently showing spectacular images of fossils and their living counterparts with no difference in them. All i have been asking the evolutionists is to give me fossil proofs of intermediate species. In fact since this alleged evolution takes millions of years, the number of fossils of these imaginary intermediate species must be almost 1000 times more than their living counter parts. Their absence is the biggest blow to the theory of evolution.

@skullreken i appreciate your thoughts. But weren't you the one who said this.
The arguments against the evolution of Dinosaurs into birds that you presented is interesting but it should be noted that these are not writen by people who dissagree with evolution. Perhaps it would be fine for me to Quote Darwin himself?

1. "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?"

-Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, p. 179

2. "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."

-Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, p. 179

3. "First, 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?"

-Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, New York: The Modern Library, pp. 124-25

4. "But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why, then, is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory"

-Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, New York: The Modern Library, pp. 124-25

5. "From these several considerations, it cannot be doubted that the geological record. . . becomes much more difficult to understand why we do not therein find closely graduated varieties between the allied species which lived at its commencement and at its close"

- Darwin, C.R., The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, [1872], Everyman's Library, London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, pp. 303-04

6. "But I do not pretend that I should ever have suspected how poor was the record in the best preserved geological sections, had not the absence of innumerable transitional links between the species which lived at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory"

-Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species and the Descent of Man (New York: The Modern Library, Random House) p. 249

7. "On this doctrine of the extermination of an infinitude of connecting links, between the living and extinct inhabitants of the world, and at each successive period between the extinct and still older species, why is not every geological formation charged with such links? Why does not every collection of fossil remains afford plain evidence of the gradation and mutation of the forms of life? "

-Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Chapter XV, “Recapitulation and Conclusion.”

Did you know of these things? Why weren't you taught in school about this? Do you realize that absence of intermediate fossil evidence is the final blow to this theory? It makes me laugh. Its like someone telling me the story of harry potter without harry potter in it.

@skullreken - Dear friend, werent you the one who said that we are capable of making our own decisions? so why weren't such serious drawbacks of the theory of evolution taught to us at school? Why does the media make us believe what they want to. They should have given us both sides of the story and left us to make our own decisions. But they did not. look what has happened to us. we beleived in this story by just looking at crayon sketches and colorful water paintings of water creatures walking on to land etc etc at school, but we refuse to beleive when someone gives us actual fossil evidence that proves the contrary.

Are pictures like these more convincing?

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4800-early-men-pic.jpg

ps: All iam trying to do is to give you the other side of the story. i hope you (and everybody else) abstain from taking it personally.

[IvyLeaguer]

Heh heh. It's so funny how we as people want to know so much where we come from. It's really something we won't ever know until we die-- and maybe not even then.

Even if we decided if that it was the primordial soup and evolution from ape like species or that God created a man Adam or a combo where a god guided evolution or however else you want to put it together-- we can't ever know or understand.

It always comes back to the very beginning. Where people put big bang or God creating the world-- What was there before then? Absolute nothing that explodes out? A god that created everything-- but where did that being come from?

We study through research, develop philosophy, and debate and discuss.. but it all just comes down to people's personal perceptions and beliefs.

Heh. but it is such an intriguing matter to mull over.

As far as scylar's points about evolution-- how do you explain the changes of species over time then, if not survival of the fittest making transitions? And while we don't always find the links, it's not like everything that dies leaves a fossil, and we are always finding more fossils to add to document the changing of species over time.

on the earlier notes about dinosaurs to birds and being the least fit-- it's not like wings sprung from just stumpy awkward arms. The animals that survive are the ones with advantages-- I haven't studied the evolution of dinosaurs to birds personally [have they even for sure proven it?] but the basis of your argument isn't sound. Picture develop of webbing/skin that is underarms in a way that could be used for balance/speed or whatever dinosaurs dealed with at the time-- it's not like these changes happen over a few generations, we're talking millions of years [well.. that could be debated but working off that premise that we went through all those eras] where bones also evolved to me lighter and the shape of the body to be more aerodynamic.

I'm not making any comments about the evolution [or lack thereof] of man. I'm just working from the fact that we've found fossils showing that animals have changed even if we can't find every transition--

but I think it's really hard to argue over survival of the fittest-- look at tuberculosis or the common cold-- species can change over time to survive their environment [i'm referring to how those microbes are becoming drug resistant]. . we've seen this in just the last century.

[chris-chan]

Scylar, seriously come up with proof that your posts are from reputable sources! And to your question of what is there to accept, how about the fact that not everyone is christian and don't believe in god. Just because they don't believe the same thing as you doesn't mean they are wrong! If you can prove it with proof that majority will believe (theres no way you'll get 100% approval), you're just making assumptions, and fortunaetly, majority of people will believe reputable scientific research, but if it's biased then they won't. (and if they do, then they are too close minded and simple) Also, you never answered my questions that I put in two posts, which those are the things I really want to hear you try to disprove.

And Alex, I have the same feeling. We originally were created by some higher power, whether it put us here or put something into motion that put us here, I don't know. But, over time I believe that we evolved to fit our surrondings so that we would live longer.

[scylar]

@chris-chan
Scylar, seriously come up with proof that your posts are from reputable sources!Dont make me laugh. Is the mouth of Charles Darwin himself not reputable enough? Perhaps i should ask you to make a list of sources THAT YOU THINK ARE REPUTABLE and then narrow down my quotes to them. If i were to follow every whim of yours then i would be just like others - one among the crowd of decieved people. you only talk. Did you or any of the evolution believer (except jsc315 and skullreken) bother to give EVEN ONE proof to substantiate your claim? As far as your questions are concerned i will answer them in due time. Why don't you just re-read the posts of other people and see for yourselves how much they substantiate their claims, starting from page 1. One example is given below.

@chris-chan - But wait, I have an idea. You don't have to look at the fossil evidences that i give you here. Just take down the names. Google them out. You will get results from thousands of sources. Decide which of them is reputable enough to you. And check them out. I am sure the creatures that i have covered here would be the same no matter where you check them out.Start from the first one that i covered - the crocodile. Seriously. Check out every one of them. Anyway, here is the example: -

@ivyleaguer
I'm just working from the fact that we've found fossils showing that animals have changed even if we can't find every transition--I am sorry we havent found any that shows that animals have changed. This is what i am asking every evolutionist 5 years since my research began.

@ivyleaguer
We study through research, develop philosophy, and debate and discuss.. but it all just comes down to people's personal perceptions and beliefs.You are alas right! it does finally come down to that. When people are stooped in denial so much, that even words from the mouth of Charles Darwin are considered as disreputable, i have to agree with you. It does come down to "belief".

Continuing with evolution deception. Check this out. Another star fish fossil: -

Since i have already covered star fish in the third post i am not labelling this as 9 th proof even though this star fish is of different species than the previous one.

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4753-str-fsh-r-n-f-10.jpg

Starfish
Age: 206 to 144 million years
Period : Jurassic

Almost 200 million years and yet i dont find ANY EVOLUTION here. Dear People, come out of it.

Anyway for late comers: - see my other posts to get more fossil proofs.

1st proof - I proved that crocs were always crocs (90 million years)

2nd proof - i proved fish were always fish (angelfish) (95 million years)

3rd proof - I proved star fish were always star fish (490 million years)

4th proof - I proved crabs were always crabs. (38 million years)

5th proof - I proved shrimps were always shrimps (206 million years)

6th proof - Dino - bird hoaxes. I proved that there was no link between reptiles and birds.

7th proof - Proved that dragon flies were always dragon flies. (156 million years)

8th proof - proved that Horseshoe Crabs were always Horseshoe Crabs (455 million years)

Apart from this you will find posts regarding how flawed the concept of "Survival of fittest" is and a post regarding The confessions of Charles Darwin himself concerning the only things that could prove his theory - fossil evidence of Intermediate and transitional life forms.

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4568-051.jpg

[Deekle]

Scylar pictures will not cut it. You need scientific journals or other writings to prove. Pictures can be EASILY photoshoped.

Another thing, Carbon dating. How do you disprove that? That can prove the earth is over millions of years old . Disprove that. Does the Bible mention Dinosaurs no, but it mentions a man rising from the dead after three day.

You can read about a the evolution of a woman here http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16037-rare-fossil-find-sheds-light-on-evolution-of-women.html


Reptiles crossopterygians said to be the base of Reptiles, these fish had bones and an early form of lungs http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/144280/crossopterygian

Crossopterygian included
· A more impervious skeleton
· Enhanced nostril development
· Leg-like bone features in their fins

A strand of these were Ichthyostega -cross between a fish and an amphibian.
-They had lungs to get oxygen
-Stronger skin to retain fluids
-Had legs
-Stronger Skeleton

SOURCE http://www.davo.com/staff/michelle/linkfiles/scaredcricket/articles/other/evolution.html



Are pictures like these more convincing?

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4800-early-men-pic.jpg



No but this is. http://www.foxnews.com/images/308265/0_62_070912_human_neand.jpg Neanderthal(Left)

Skull http://www.foxnews.com/images/281016/1_61_neanderthal_human.jpg

Source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270115,00.html

[Yulok]

Hi scylar. So I read your quotes by darwin himself, and I believe that he said those words. So, think about it. He never said "Oh, I don't believe what I have been saying this whole time." He still believes in his work and findings, just cannot pull together every piece of the puzzle. So your only negative response to this would be "Well then he was stupid." in which case, why would you be using his quotes? Hope that wasn't confusing.

If God chose to end this world and bring everyone alive to heaven, you seem like you'd be the first one to point out that the gate squeaks.

[chris-chan]

So Scylar, I went back and re-read your post on Darwin himself, and I have to agree with Yulok both on him sounding like he's not disagreeing with his theroy, and that you would be the one that complained that the gate squeaked.

To me, it sounds like he is admitting that his theory is not 100% perfect and could use more evidence to make it scientific fact. A theory is not proven, fact is. Just like the theory of creationism, there isn't enough evidence to back it up and say it is true (hell, I don't even know if theres any evidence to say it's true) and there isn't enough to back up evolution and say it's true. Which is why they are theory's and not fact. Oh, and you can't use google as a reference, nor wikipedia for that matter (just in case you decided to tell someone to go check wikipedia). The internet is open to everyone so that they can post what ever they want, same with Wikipedia, so you'll get biased information. Now, online databases are references and can be used. But, in order to get to them, you have to have access to them, which means going to a school that pays for them, paying for them yourself, or having access to someone who has access to them. The internet and Wikiedia are good places to start looking, but are not references. When you go to college, they teach you that (hell, my teacher in high school taught us that).

[Yulok]

BANG!

Are we on proof 10 or 11? I lost count...

I hope the next one is about the platypus ;D

[skullreken]

you can't use google as a reference, nor wikipedia for that matter. The internet is open to everyone so that they can post what ever they want, same with Wikipedia, so you'll get biased information. Now, online databases are references and can be used. But, in order to get to them, you have to have access to them, which means going to a school that pays for them, paying for them yourself, or having access to someone who has access to them. The internet and Wikiedia are good places to start looking, but are not references. When you go to college, they teach you that (hell, my teacher in high school taught us that).

100% correct Chris the first thing you will be told when you start doing a research project or your
thesis in university is only use Wikipedia and google to get some back ground information to understand
what your doing not the information you are going to base your argumet on. The only capacity I use
wikipedia for, is to find references to actual scientific papers which I obtain then I use their references
and so on untill I have obtained all the knowlege on the subject that I require.

This doesn't just limit itself to science doing research i any field such as english histoy theology ethics
(which I deal with as part of genetics) philosophy will require you to refere to primary sorces that can
be verified and draw their opinions from reputable evidencefor your information

[chris-chan]

100% correct Chris the first thing you will be told when you start doing a research project or your
thesis in university is only use Wikipedia and google to get some back ground information to understand
what your doing not the information you are going to base your argumet on. The only capacity I use
wikipedia for, is to find references to actual scientific papers which I obtain then I use their references
and so on untill I have obtained all the knowlege on the subject that I require.

This doesn't just limit itself to science doing research i any field such as english histoy theology ethics
(which I deal with as part of genetics) philosophy will require you to refere to primary sorces that can
be verified and draw their opinions from reputable evidencefor your information

Yeah, I learned not to use it back in like 11th grade, now i'm in my first year of college and my teachers are stressing it. I get upset when people use Wikipedia as a reference for projects, and supposedly a few people used it as a refernce for their research paper for english. I personally used the databases that the school supply's and nothing else. Got an 85% on it too. Not the best, but not too bad for something that didn't have all 5 references yet made a really good argument.

[scylar]

CROSSOPTERYGIANS - NOT THE ANCESTORS OF AMPHIBIANS: -

ICHTHYOSTEGA – AN AMPHIBIAN - AND NOT A CROSS BETWEEN FISH AND AMPHIBIAN.

Many people here seem to believe that the entire world is photoshopping fossil pics. If you are not convinced from one source, I don’t have to tell you that you can always look up to other sources. But if you find that almost every source has the same thing (which I am dead sure is the case) then instead of giving excuses like "photoshopping" or labeling them as "biased sources" it is wise to stand up and accept the truth.

@Deekle7 - A correction - Evolutionists believe Crossopterygians are direct ancestors to amphibians and not reptiles. For clarification, you can re-look into the link that you posted.

We have already dealt with reptile - bird or dino-bird theory and I have proved how shallow the theory is. Now let me look into the Fish - Amphibian theory.

INTRO: -

According to this theory, Amphibians evolved from fishes. These fish come under the Crossopterygian subclass - The one Deekle7 brought up.

Huge anatomical differences exist between the fish most likely to be taken as amphibian ancestors and the amphibians taken to be their descendants. Two examples are Eusthenopteron (an extinct fish) and Acanthostega (an extinct amphibian), the two favorite subjects for most of the contemporary evolutionary scenarios regarding tetrapod origins (4 limbed creatures).

Robert Carroll - a vertebrate paleontologist who specializes in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians and reptiles, McGill University., in his Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, makes the following comment about these allegedly related forms:

"Eusthenopteron and Acanthostega may be taken as the end points in the transition between fish and amphibians. Of 145 anatomical features that could be compared between these two genera, 91 showed changes associated with adaptation to life on land… This is far more than the number of changes that occurred in any one of the transitions involving the origin of the fifteen major groups of Paleozoic tetrapods"

-Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 301 .

Ninety-one differences over 145 anatomical features… And evolutionists believe that all these were redesigned through a process of random mutations in about 15 million years.

-This time frame is also given by Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 304.

To believe in such a scenario may be necessary for the sake of evolutionary theory, but it is not scientifically and rationally sound. This is true for all other versions of the fish-amphibian scenario, which differ according to the candidates that are chosen to be the transitional forms.

Henry Gee, the editor of Nature, makes a similar comment on the scenario based on Ichthyostega, another extinct amphibian with very similar characteristics to Acanthostega:

"A statement that Ichthyostega is a missing link between fishes and later tetrapods reveals far more about our prejudices than about the creature we are supposed to be studying. It shows how much we are imposing a restricted view on reality based on our own limited experience, when reality may be larger, stranger, and more different than we can imagine."

-Henry Gee, In Search Of Deep Time: Going Beyond The Fossil Record To A Revolutionary Understanding of the History Of Life, The Free Press, ADivision of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1999, p. 54

Another remarkable feature of amphibian origins is the abrupt appearance of the three basic amphibian categories. Regarding these, his is what Robert L. Carroll has to say: -

"The earliest fossils of frogs, caecilians, and salamanders all appear in the Early to Middle Jurassic. All show most of the important attributes of their living descendants."

-Robert L. Carroll, Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution, Cambridge University Press, 1997, pp. 292-93.

In other words, these animals appeared abruptly and did not undergo any "evolution" since then. So to take Crossopterygians or Ichthyostega as a link between fish and amphibians is a jaundiced view originating more from biased prejudices than for the love of science as admitted by evolutionists themselves.

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4568-051.jpg

[scylar]

COELACANTH – A PERFECT HIGHLY DEVELOPED FISH WITH NO CONNECTION TO AMPHIBIANS

@Deekle7 – Coelacanth - I was waiting for this - Thanks.

@To All - I am extremely sorry for the length of the post. I have a bad habit of being utterly thorough in my research. Please forgive me.

The link that Deekle7 mentions shows a Coelacanth. So I thought to take up the topic. The evolutionists themselves have abandoned Coelacanth as a transitional form after living coelacanths were caught. But I see that this news hasn’t reached the general masses properly.

INTRO:-

Coelacanth was previously thought to be extinct. So it was published with tremendous fanfare as a transitional link between fish and amphibians accompanied by various drawings of coelacanth walking on to land from water. Well - the fun lasted only until a living coelacanth was caught on December 22, 1938 in the Indian Ocean.

The discovery of a "living" prototype of the coelacanth undoubtedly gave evolutionists a severe shock. The evolutionary paleontologist J. L. B. Smith said,

"If I'd meet a dinosaur in the street I wouldn't have been more astonished."

-Jean-Jacques Hublin, The Hamlyn Encyclopædia of Prehistoric Animals, The Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd., New York, -1984, p. 120.

1. COECALANTH WAS A BOTTOM DWELLING FISH AND NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS ABOUT TO WALK ON LAND AS PORTRAYED BY EVOLUTIONISTS

Living coelacanths revealed how groundless the speculation regarding them was. The coelacanth, which was introduced as "a reptile candidate preparing to pass from sea to land," was in reality a fish that lived in the depths of the oceans and never approached nearer than 600 feet (180 meters) from the surface.

-http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9809/23/living.fossil/index.html

In the same report, speaking about the unique fleshy limbs of coelacanths, Roy Caldwell, a biologist at UC-Berkeley says

"One reason for the coelacanth's ancient popularity was its fleshy fins that reminded people of human limbs, Caldwell said. Those fins led to speculation that the fish were direct ancestors of land vertebrates. The fish did not turn out to be the ancestor of humans, but did manage to outlive the dinosaurs. "

-http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9809/23/living.fossil/index.html

2. COELACANTH HAD HIGHLY DEVELOPED INTERNAL ORGANS

A second Coelacanth was caught in 1952 in the Comores Islands in southwestern Madagascar. Unlike the first whose internal organs couldn’t be preserved, the researchers managed to preserve the internal organs of this one.

"The reality encountered by the investigating team, led by Dr.Jacques Millot, was very different to that which had been expected.Contrary to expectations, the fish's internal organs had no primitive features at all, and it bore no features of being an intermediate form, nor of a supposedly primitive ancestor. It had no primitive lung, as evolutionists had been claiming. The structure that evolutionist investigators imagined to be a primitive lung was actually a fat-filled swimbladder."

Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp. 97, 98.

3. THE IMAGINARY LUNG OF COELACANTH TURNED OUT TO BE A SWIM BLADDER

"The structure that evolutionist investigators imagined to be a primitive lung was actually a fat-filled swimbladder."

Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, pp. 97, 98.

4. EVOLUTIONIST ADMITS THAT COELACANTH IS NOT A TRANSITIONAL FORM

Following this, the coelacanth suddenly lost all its popularity in evolutionist publications. Peter Forey, an evolutionary paleontologist, says in an article of his in “Nature”:

"The discovery of Latimeria raised hopes of gathering direct information on the transition of fish to amphibians, for there was then a long-held belief that coelacanths were close to the ancestry of tetrapods. ...But studies of the anatomy and physiology of Latimeria have found this theory of relationship to be wanting and the living coelacanth's reputation as a missing link seems unjustified."

-P. L. Forey, Nature, vol. 336, 1988, p. 727.

This meant that the only serious claim of a transitional form between fish and amphibians had been demolished.

5. ANOTHER EVOLUTIONIST ADMITS THE MISTAKE OF COELACANTH BEING PORTRAYED AS A FISH ABOUT TO WALK ON LAND

The idea that the creature had fins undergoing a process of change to enable it to walk was no more than a deception. As the German evolutionist and biologist Hans Fricke, from the Max Planck Institute, said,

"I confess I'm sorry we never saw a coelacanth walk on its fins."

Stephen C. Meyer, P. A. Nelson, and Paul Chien, The Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang, 2001, p. 2.

6. COELACANTHS REMAIN UNCHANGED FOR 400 MILLION YEARS

"According to the scientific facts, all the continents were joined together some 250 million years ago. This enormous area of land was surrounded by a single giant ocean. Around 125 million years ago, the Indian Ocean opened up as the result of continents changing places. The volcanic caves in the Indian Ocean, which form a large part of the coelacanth's natural habitat, came about under the influence of this movement of continents. An important truth emerges in the light of all these facts. These animals, which have been in existence for some 400 million years, have remained unchanged despite the many changes in their natural environment!"

Richard Monastersky, "Mysteries of the Orient," Discover, April 1993, p. 40.


http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4995-sf0024-25-coelacanth.jpg

FOSSIL NO: SF0024-25
AGE: 240 million years
TERM: Triassic
LOCATION: Ambilobe, Madagascar

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4996-coelacanth-r-r.jpg

A LIVING COELACANTH

7. ABSURDITY OF AN ALLEGED PRIMITIVE BEING TO HAVE COMPLEX INTERNAL ORGANS: -

"According to fossils, fish emerged some 470 million years ago. The coelacanth emerged 60 million years after that. It is astonishing that this creature, which would be expected to possess very primitive features, actually has a most complex structure."

-Phillip E. Johnson, "Darwinism's Rules of Reasoning," in Darwinism: Science or Philosophy by Buell Hearn,Foundation for Thought and Ethics, 1994, p. 12.

For evolutionists expect a gradual evolutionary process. The appearance of the coelacanth with its complex structures, at a time when they expect fictitious primitive life forms to have existed, is of course astonishing and a death blow to the theory of evolution.

8. NO PHYSICAL RELATION BETWEEN CEOLACANTH FINS AND LAND WALKER’S LIMBS

Sea-dwelling creatures have no problem in bearing their own weight in the sea, although the structures of their bodies are not made for such a task on land. However, most land-dwelling creatures consume 40 percent of their energy just in carrying their bodies around. Creatures making the transition from water to land would at the same time have had to develop new muscular and skeletal systems to meet this energy need, and this could not have come about by chance mutations.

The basic reason why evolutionists imagine the coelacanth and similar fish to be the ancestors of land-dwelling creatures is that their fins contain bones. It is assumed that over time these fins turned into load bearing feet.

However, there is a fundamental difference between these fish's bones and land-dwelling creatures' feet.

It is impossible for the fish's (ex - Coelacanth's) to take on a load-bearing function, as they are not linked to the backbone. Land-dwelling creatures' bones, in contrast, are directly connected to the backbone.

For this reason, the claim that these fins slowly developed into feet is unfounded.

This is illustrated below:-

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4992-coelacanth-diff-spine.jpg

Coelacanth was a highly developed fully formed fish with no connection whatsoever to amphibians.

[skullreken]

Yeah, I learned not to use it back in like 11th grade, now i'm in my first year of college and my teachers are stressing it. I get upset when people use Wikipedia as a reference for projects, and supposedly a few people used it as a refernce for their research paper for english. I personally used the databases that the school supply's and nothing else. Got an 85% on it too. Not the best, but not too bad for something that didn't have all 5 references yet made a really good argument.


Not bad I had a similar situation I had to write a Disertation on A.R Wallace he independantly came up with the exact same theory as Darwin and published it at the same time, but he decided to step out of the light and allow Darwin to take all the glory as he had come up with theory a decade before hand. Infact he became Darwin's stronest supporter in the early days coining the term Darwinism he published many papers which were requested by people as popular reading at the time despie ths he fell into obscurity after his death, when I did my project I coyld find very little about him most books gave passing reference to him in respect to Darwin I managed to find two of his papers in a museum data base one book by him but my library couldnt get it and a paper writen by a man who visited the wallace line described it physically and pointed out the features wallace used to make his theory dispite this I came out with 75% I still have that paper if your interested in geography zoology and evolution I can forward a copy onto you

[Deekle]

Scrylar , one animal can not prove an entire species wrong. Many animals never evolved and you can see, they are dead now.

I actually can get onto school certified sources, and I'll use them soon as I get the time.

[skullreken]

@Deekle

Seriously dont bother I stopped reading his posts after the dragon fly one
he has s no interested in debating just telling us that he is right and everyone else is
wrong of because "holy book" says he is I wouldnt put much weight in the bible
it is selectively writen by man lets face it, it is. The second half of the bible
contridicts the first half and there are way more gospals that were excluded from
the final bible such as the gospal of Thomas and the gospal of Judas which claims
that Judas was Jesus's chosen deciple and that the betrayal had been organized
by Jesus himself with Judas carying out his orders because he was the most trusted
deciple. Also the so called evidence he is showing is from biased sorces or
manipulated to make it look like in the big picture it proves what he said is right

[Deekle]

Alright Skullren, I will obey. I'll close with,

How can you prove there was a Jesus/god/holy spirit if you have no physical proof? At least there is some for evolution, hard evidence. I will believe hard evidence over any idea any day.

[chris-chan]

@Deekle

Seriously dont bother I stopped reading his posts after the dragon fly one
he has s no interested in debating just telling us that he is right and everyone else is
wrong of because "holy book" says he is I wouldnt put much weight in the bible
it is selectively writen by man lets face it, it is. The second half of the bible
contridicts the first half and there are way more gospals that were excluded from
the final bible such as the gospal of Thomas and the gospal of Judas which claims
that Judas was Jesus's chosen deciple and that the betrayal had been organized
by Jesus himself with Judas carying out his orders because he was the most trusted
deciple. Also the so called evidence he is showing is from biased sorces or
manipulated to make it look like in the big picture it proves what he said is right

I be;lieve the same thing. We have proof of evolution, but no proof that the bible is real. Man writes down stories, that over time get lost in translation. Which, is the reason why there are stories that sound alike in every religion across the world. Now, ones that can prove their deity did exist, i'm okay with those. And seriously, what d owe have to say that god did exist besides just abook and peoples word?

Oh, and I stopped reading his posts before the dragon fly one. I read the Darwim one because he tried arguing with me that it was saying that Darwin himself did not believe in his theory, btu that's not what it says. Maybe he should re-read everything before puting it up.

Also, i've been trying to get him to answer me straightly (instead of his smug, "keep waiting, i'll get to it" reply) why if evolution is not real, then humans don't all look the same and how come we don't look just like our ancestors, both in exterior looks and bone structure? Also, if his so called god could (seriously, I can't believe in the theory that some guy created all of this) create life anywhere and make it work, how come he only created life on Earth and nowhere else? (creationism argument really.)

[Yulok]

Well stated, all of you. I hope scylar realizes I am not including him...
I've read most of every post by scylar(can't bring myself to finish any of them), and every single one sends the same message: Here's some evidence, EVIDENCE, that some fossils don't quite fit into the picture we have thought for a long time. How many thoughts that humans have had have been revised over the years? I'd have to say about... EVERY single one. In 1676, a huge thigh bone (femur) was found in England by Reverend Plot... The first major discovery that lead to dinosaurs... Please reference this as much as you can, I did my best though.

So think hard and long and just imagine how many missing pieces we still have to realize until we understand. My guess from our history of unbelievable misinterpretations would be we have found out about 25% of the whole picture at most, and that's high in my opinion. We're stupid, all of us. Even the geniuses from the past can be considered idiots in comparison to what we know now. So how can you say so definitely what anything is or means? Enjoy what's in front of you while you're alive, because dead means dead.

"Always keep an open mind, because what you learn may be something you never expected."

[scylar]

10th PROOF - SPIDERS NEVER EVOLVED

Talk all you want. Refusal to read my posts only shows how much biased, unjust and unfair you are.

SPIDERS EVOLUTION FANTASY: -

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5033-spider-f-1.jpg

PIRATE SPIDER FOSSIL TRAPPED IN AMBER
FOSSIL NO: AI0987
AGE: 50 million years
TERM: Eocene
LOCATION: Poland

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5036-pirate-spidey-living.jpg

A LIVING PIRATE SPIDER



http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5034-spider-f-2.jpg

ANOTHER SPIDER FOSSIL TRAPPED IN AMBER (ENLARGED VIEW). SEE BELOW FOR FULL VIEW


http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5035-spider-f-3.jpg

FOSSIL NO: AI0376
AGE: 50 million years
TERM: Eocene
LOCATION: Poland



http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5037-soidey-f-355-m.jpg

A 355 TO 295 MILLION YEAR OLD FOSSIL SPIDER

The spider evolution is moonshine. So is the rest of the evolution. Look into whatever source you want and you will find that spiders were always spiders.

I OPENLY CHALLENGE ANYONE TO SHOW ME AN INTERMEDIATE SPIDER FOSSIL

Note: My Coelacanth post was the 9th proof as i had proved in detail that Coelacanths were always Coelacanths.

[Yulok]

So spiders are weird.

Me - "I've read most of every post by scylar(can't bring myself to finish any of them), and every single one sends the same message: Here's some evidence, EVIDENCE, that some fossils don't quite fit into the picture we have thought for a long time."

Scylar - "Talk all you want. Refusal to read my posts only shows how much biased, unjust and unfair you are."

I said I have read your posts, don't talk to me like you read everything I say, because that's obviously not true, so don't expect others to look at what you post as anything but trash by this point.

Agree to disagree. What are you looking for? This is why this topic cannot be handled even by adults, because one person either cannot get the message or is so inclined to push their point that they lose the motive altogether. So Scylar, what do you want us to say so that you will stop? I'll break down and say it, how's this - Oh my God Scylar, I see the light! You have totally enlightened me to an entire new way of thinking! How can I ever repa... sorry, can't actually do it :D

But seriously, what are you wanting us to say? Or will you just keep doing this until the 1,000th proof even if every person on here were creationists?

[scylar]

@Yulok - Look, First of all lets not hate each other ok? i have repeatedly said that i am not asking anyone to believe in anything. I am merely conveying my views and wherever necessary defending them. (ex dino - hoax, coelacanth and "disreputable sources - quotes from Darwin incidents etc). So Yulok my friend, please do not make me an object of hate. Have i said even a single thing about any religion in these posts? Do i even mention the word "god" here except once? No i haven't. My posts tend to be a bit lengthy merely because i have to reply to almost everyone of you. And i do reply to them. That's how courteous I am. Please do understand my position. On the other hand, if you are so bugged by looking at fossil evidence that are contrary to your expectations then please do not visit this thread anymore. Because, like you said, i may not stop till i have given the 1000th proof. I can do that. I am serious.

Also, I am using science to disprove evolution and not some lame, outdated religious text. Doesn't that show you people that i live an objective life guided by science and not by esoteric and obscure teachings of some religion?

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4568-051.jpg

11th PROOF - SEA URCHINS HAVE ALWAYS REMAINED AS SEA URCHINS

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5046-sea-urchin.jpg

SEA URCHIN
Age: 295 million years old
Size: Matrix: 110 millimeters by 163 millimeters (4.3 in
by 6.4 in)
Location: Brown County, Texas
Formation: Winchell Formation
Period: Carboniferous

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5045-sea-urchin-r.jpg


A LIVING SEA URCHIN

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture4568-051.jpg

[Yulok]

Scylar, I mean no offense in anything I say, and I'd be a hypocrite if I were treating you on a different level than anyone else here. You bring up very consistent points, but I don't agree with how you are using your knowledge. It's not the amount of knowledge one has that makes it valueable, it's how they use it, and you must realize that it's difficult for anyone that doesn't believe what you believe to keep seeing proofs about it. If there was someone doing the same thing with my own beliefs I would speak the same words to him/her that I have to you.

Off subject :), so here's a good question: What would you believe and what do you think would happen if for real another miracle man appears before us, like written in the bible? I would, after seeing for myself, have to wait until we did the numerous autopsies lol and then if we see anything glowing inside or extremely unusual I'd believe in phenomenons at most. I think Jesus^2 would be promoted to ruler of the world and then somebody'd kill him. We never learn.

I'd wanna meet him with my own eyes and have him heal my knee problems so that I can play soccer again :) and probably a billion dollars, that's not hard for a man of his caliber lol.

[skullreken]

If he-man is the master of the universe then who is this god and why is he so unoriginal?

but seriously I dont believe in the god the father of the Isrealites Christians and
Muslims believe in it's such a shame they believe in the exact same god but choose
differnt paths to reach him and fight with each other because of it.

My religion believes in a personal relationship with ones deity nobody tells you how
you should develope that relationship it is totally up to you and nobody has the right
to tell you what to do or how to do it nor do they have they right to question your
practices or beliefs with in our religion everyones aproach is just as valid as yours

The fundimental core to ou religion is to choose the deities your most closely associate
yourself with and pay them hommage by emulating what they stand for in your daily life
as well as observing the feast days associated with them

[Deekle]

Do i even mention the word "god" here except once? No i haven't.









i strongly believe in the existence of God and every proof that i give to disprove evolution is a proof in proving the existence of God.

And God bless your teacher. She has truly come out of the delusions that some influential media sections weave. She's gutsy.

And God bless you to. But next time please do read my posts before quoting them.




You mentioned him there. Like I've said before unless you have a source that is non biased or we can take for the truth(school approved sources.) Then we can't take any of what your saying as truth

[marcelstewart]

4 me it's either byakuya's or ichigo's tensa zangetsu:shake:

[Deekle]

What are you talking about. This is not about Anime. Watch where you post.

[Jagon-eye]

scylar. you rock on! though i dont subscribe to your view it is easy to notice that you have left behind everyone in terms of your reasoning and research.
Its a shame that prejudices are hard to overcome. I checked out a few of your proofs and they are well constructed. There isnt a better way to put them forth.

But isnt it true that embryos of humans closely resemble those of fish and reptiles during their development in the womb? This clearly indicates that their must be some truth in evolution after all.

[scylar]

ERNST HAECKEL AND HIS FAKE EMBRYO DRAWINGS:

@jagon-eye - thanks dude for those words. That was encouraging indeed. Your point about human embryos resembling those of fish and reptiles during development was a good one. I ll try here to shed some light on it.

Intro: - the "recapitulation theory" of Haeckel postulates that living embryos re-experience the evolutionary process that their ancestors underwent. According to this theory, the human embryo during its development in its mother's womb, first displays the characteristics of a fish, and then those of a reptile, and finally those of a human.

These are his famous drawings which I am sure most of you have already seen.


http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/shamars-albums-animesss-picture5095-fake-embryo-drawings.jpg


I thought you were all aware that evolutionists themselves have abandoned this theory long ago.

1. HAECKEL'S MISTAKES

It is now known that the "gills" that supposedly appear in the early stages of the human embryo are in fact the initial phases of the middle-ear canal, parathyroid, and thymus.

That part of the embryo that was likened to the "egg yolk pouch" turns out to be a pouch that produces blood for the infant.

The part that was identified as a "tail" by Haeckel and his followers is in fact the backbone, which resembles a tail only because it takes shape before the legs do.

These are universally acknowledged facts in the scientific world, and are accepted even by evolutionists themselves. Two leading neo-Darwinists, George Gaylord Simpson and W. Beck have admitted:

"Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny."

-G. G. Simpson, W. Beck, An Introduction to Biology, Harcourt Brace and World, New York, 1965, p. 241.

Ontogeny means - The origin and development of an individual organism from embryo to adult

Phylogeny means - The evolutionary development and history of a species.

So it is incorrect to support the theory of evolution using this.

The following was written in an article in New Scientist dated October 16, 1999:

“[Haeckel] called this the biogenetic law, and the idea became popularly known as recapitulation. In fact Haeckel's strict law was soon shown to be incorrect. For instance, the early human embryo never has functioning gills like a fish, and never passes through stages that look like an adult reptile or monkey.”

-Ken McNamara, "Embryos and Evolution," New Scientist, vol. 12416, 16 October 1999.

2. HAECKEL HIMSELF CONFESSED THAT HE FAKED HIS DRAWINGS: -

Yes. It’s true that he turned out to be a faker. Haeckel's forgeries were meant to show that fish and human embryos resembled one another. When he was caught, the only defense he offered was that other evolutionists had committed similar offenses:

The following are the words from the mouth of Haeckel himself:-

"After this compromising confession of 'forgery' I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of fellow - culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of 'forgery,' for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed."

-Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, Ticknor and Fields, New York, 1982, p. 204.

3. "Science" JOURNAL EXPOSES HAECKEL'S FRAUD: -

In the September 5, 1997, edition of "Science“ journal an article was published revealing that Haeckel's embryo drawings were the product of a deception. The article, called "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," had this to say:

"The impression they [Haeckel's drawings] give,that the embryos are exactly alike, is wrong, says Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George's Hospital Medical School in London… So he and his colleagues did their own comparative study, reexamining and photographing embryos roughly matched by species and age with those Haeckel drew. Lo and behold, the embryos "often looked surprisingly different," Richardson reports in the August issue of Anatomy and Embryology."

-Elizabeth Pennisi, "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," Science, 5 September,1997.

4. HAECKEL DELIBERATELY REMOVES ORGANS AND ADDS IMAGINARY ONES TO PROVES HIS POINT: -

Science explained that, in order to be able to show the embryos as similar, Haeckel deliberately removed some organs from his drawings or else added imaginary ones. Later in this same article, the following information was revealed:

"Not only did Haeckel add or omit features, Richardson and his colleagues report, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals. In reality, Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their appearance and developmental pathway. "It (Haeckel's drawings) looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology," Richardson concludes."

-Elizabeth Pennisi, "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," Science, 5 September, 1997.

5. THE CENTURY DECEPTION

The same Science article goes on to discuss how Haeckel's confessions on this subject were covered up from the beginning of the last century, and how the fake drawings began to be presented in textbooks as scientific fact:

"Haeckel's confession got lost after his drawings were subsequently used in a 1901 book called Darwin and After Darwin and reproduced widely in English language biology texts".

-Elizabeth Pennisi, "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," Science, 5 September, 1997.

In short, the fact that Haeckel's drawings were falsified had already emerged in 1901, but the whole world of science continued to be deceived by them for a century.

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/shamars-albums-animesss-picture5096-science-exposes-haeckels-deception-1.jpg


Well, this is it. It’s sad to know that people are still deceived by these drawings. Haeckel and his fake drawings only prove the extent to which evolutionists can go to prove there deception.

@jagon -eye - I hope this answer satisfies you.

[jugglindrew]

I believe that, to a certain extent, evolution is true but that it was guided by an intelligent being. I don't believe in a 6 day creation and if God did then it was created to look as if the world was created over millions of years. My dad is a geologist and if we forget humans and animals, the rocks themselves point toward this planet being very old. Then we look at fossils that are in the rocks. So we know that there were things alive millions of years ago. My dad has also shown me evidence (trilobite fossils mainly) of evolution in fossil records. The mistake that most people make, according to him, is that they see these in-between-stage creatures as a completely different species.

I don't think that humans were evolved from monkeys or fish or whatever. I do think that we are special and hence our ability to think and reason are far beyond any animals, even monkeys. I am a registered nurse and I have studied the human body quite a bit. I find it very unlikely that our bodies were the product of chance. There are too many things in our bodies that if it wasn't exactly like it is then our bodies could not function and we wouldn't exist. So there has to be some kind of higher being with the ultimate knowledge. I also don't think that He just watches over us but that is a different discussion.

Sorry this only includes my personal feelings and I don't have any proofs but that is kinda what this thread is. I might try to dig some up later.

[jugglindrew]

Oh and Scylar, I totally agree with you about those pictures. From really early on human embryos look like humans, go figure, right? It would be cool if you could find some real ultrasound pics of embryos from the first 14 weeks of life (week 14 is when the sex can be determined) to post on here to more prove your point.

[scylar]

@jugglindrew
I find it very unlikely that our bodies were the product of chance. Jugglindrew you are absolutely right in this. I myself cant picturize a BMW car to get assembled on its own "by chance" even if a billion years passed by. But the sad thing is that many people believe that we - human beings - probably the most complicated organic thing, were formed in this fashion.

I too don't believe in the six day creation of the universe. Ill see what i can do about the pictures that you have asked.

[MUNA-SAMA]

those evidences proofs without a doubt that we were created as humans and not evolved from other creatures.
no way that the chance created us,is u take one of the smallest creature in the world let's say the mosquito and look at it's structure do u know that it has 2 hearts for each wing and a very complicated nervous system an i dont know how many million eyes.
another example; the fly, in one of it's wings carry viruses and diseases and the other one has the medicine 4 it,do u think it's just a coincidence!!!! now way there must be GOD who has the ability to create this universe and hence the ability to creat him self without a creator 4 him.


keep the good work scylar.....

[Yulok]

I like the post about embryos, very fascinating, but it proves nothing. I will agree that the proofs are all good arguments, but you cannot make such a decisive fact out of fossils; every paleontologist will agree. If we discover tomorrow all of the fossils that show proof that evolution did happen, would you still argue your point? What would you do? It's obvious that the reason why we are still researching and digging is because we DO NOT have the answer yet.

It's as obvious as the sun itself...

I pose this question because it's something I think everyone needs to ask themselves, despite the situation. It's obviously not impossible, so why be so die hard toward a proof of a variable? If I may pull a definition: Bias - a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation. Everyone agree?
So let me ask you again. What are you posting proofs that all point to the same partiality for? Explain how God created everything. So far I have seen no evidence, so I will go with evolution's partial take on the matter, since it has the most solid foundation, even if it is flawed. I am simply asking questions, it is not meant personally, and i am not focusing on you Scylar, rather everyone, creationism or evolution.
I'd love to hear what everyone has to say :)

[Yulok]

And again for good measure: Are you trying to prove a variable?

[scylar]

Iam glad that you admit that evolution is not absolute. And if tomorrow if somebody did show me that all of the fossils point to evolution then yes, i would agree. I did agree before when i was at school about evolution. But back then i wasn't aware of its serious flaws.

At this point you might see evolution as a partially proven theory whereas creationism as total non-sense. But the way i see it is that every proof that i present in disproving evolution is a proof in favor of creationism.

My dear friend, If evolution is correct and if still you have faith in God then you lose nothing. But if evolution happens to be wrong and you have no faith in God, then i must say that you are in trouble. That's how i see things Anyway.

As for answering your question of how God created everything, If God had told his every secret to us then everyone of us would have become a believer in God. But what about faith? that is not called as true faith.

If you are my best friend, i would believe if you say that you have a PSP in your pocket even if you don't take it out and show me. This behavior is called as "having faith in someone".

So if you have faith in God, your questions would be answered. If not here, then at least in the hereafter.

I am not a philosopher. Unlike science, I am hopeless in philosophy. So i don't expect anyone to believe in what i just said.

[Jagon-eye]

scylar, Your post about embryos was awesome and so were your other posts. I cant believe i saw the same embryo pictures in my school textbook. I did verify your quotes and they were correct. Can i expect more proofs about evolution in general from you.? Your posts are eyeopeners!

But what i dont undersatnd is that the general populace is so comfortable with evolution. How come a theory so popular doesnt go well with you? Fossil evidences are the only saviors to this theory. But apparently from ur posts they seem to prove the opposite. So is there any other way to disprove evolution other than the fossils? (more fossils proofs are fine with me).

[Yulok]

So I take a bite out of an apple, and because I have tasted a fruit I know what to expect from eating an orange? I more or less believe in nature, the real substance to our lives. It controls our every day life, from a bright day to pouring rain to hurricanes. Because we are so connected to mother earth, we must acknowledge its beauty and demands. This is the best way I can present my own belief, or take on life I'd rather phrase it, because I know it will change.

But to say that a proof against evolution is a proof in favor of creationism is far fetched. If you say that it is a proof in favor of every other theory within evolution's, or let's just say how life came to be, spectrum then I'd maybe agree, but that's twisted(not evil lol) logic. That's the same way of thought as saying two wrongs make a right, and that kind of reasoning is why we don't live in the wonderland we could.

[AssassinXD]

Alright Skullren, I will obey. I'll close with,

How can you prove there was a Jesus/god/holy spirit if you have no physical proof? At least there is some for evolution, hard evidence. I will believe hard evidence over any idea any day.


Believe it or not Jesus and God are real, but evidence of evoluytion is fake because all those evidence were based on theory and if you know during the christian era you should Jesus in fact exsited

[Deekle]

Believe it or not Jesus and God are real, but evidence of evoluytion is fake because all those evidence were based on theory and if you know during the christian era you should Jesus in fact exsited

I know Jesus did exist, that has been proven. But I don't believe he was a savior or anything. He was probably just an ordinary man who did good things, wrote them down. Over the years a book was made out of his good deeds and was turned into some religion.

Evidence is not based on theory. I'm not even sure what you are trying to say there. Evidence is what you use to back something you claim. There is plenty of evidence in fossils and humans alike(look at your teeth, they were not always made to eat meat.)

How would you go about proving Jesus or a "God?"

[MUNA-SAMA]

Yulok and Deekle u both wants proofs on the existance of God,i can give u some but they will be n more philosophical way than the way Scylar is using coz this is the only way i think to put proofs that specks ur mind.

1. do u believe the earth was created before human did ?
the universe(earth)was created b4 we did and all the things we need to be able to live in it were created b4 us.
that implys that the creator created this universe without the help of any other creatures.

2. the power of the univers is greator than ours &beyond our abilities. the sun 4 example is much more powerful than us we cant control to prevent it to stop shining or to give the light to some ppl ant to prevents it from the others and so the seas,mountains....etc so these things must be obeyed to us not bcoz of our powers but bcoz of it's creator powers.
that implys we cant interfer with the balance in the universe and it's continuty that has been like this 4 millions of years so they r not affected with our own abilities or our power.

3. can u say that u created ur self or created someone else?
can u say that the coinsidence created u?
if it's the coinsidence then if i told u as Scylar said that this BMW car was made by it self all it's parts were joind togother by coinsidence to make a car u will say i'm crasy so how about ur self?

if u want more i can give u but they will be in the same way.

[chris-chan]

Yulok and Deekle u both wants proofs on the existance of God,i can give u some but they will be n more philosophical way than the way Scylar is using coz this is the only way i think to put proofs that specks ur mind.

1. do u believe the earth was created before human did ?
the universe(earth)was created b4 we did and all the things we need to be able to live in it were created b4 us.
that implys that the creator created this universe without the help of any other creatures.

2. the power of the univers is greator than ours &beyond our abilities. the sun 4 example is much more powerful than us we cant control to prevent it to stop shining or to give the light to some ppl ant to prevents it from the others and so the seas,mountains....etc so these things must be obeyed to us not bcoz of our powers but bcoz of it's creator powers.
that implys we cant interfer with the balance in the universe and it's continuty that has been like this 4 millions of years so they r not affected with our own abilities or our power.

3. can u say that u created ur self or created someone else?
can u say that the coinsidence created u?
if it's the coinsidence then if i told u as Scylar said that this BMW car was made by it self all it's parts were joind togother by coinsidence to make a car u will say i'm crasy so how about ur self?

if u want more i can give u but they will be in the same way.

***CENSORED BY GALGALID*******. Secondly, to your first point, the universe is not earth, earth is a part of the universe. The universe is the vast space that our planet, and many more reside in. Also, you can't just say that since things were created before us, that it was created by some guy named god so that we could survive, you have no proof of so, but there is scientific proof that creatures were on earth before us and have made it to how it is today, as well as proof of enviromental catastrophies that have sculpted the earth. Now, with the universe being more powerful than us, the universe is just a location, and locations do not hold power. Now, the sun being a item we can not control, I agree with you there, because at the present time, we can't, but that doesn't mean that one day we will be able to. But, saying that the creator tells the sun to shine, the moon to rise and the waves to break is just jumping to conclusions. The sun is energy, pure and simple. Composed of mainly Hydrogen and Helium with constant fission reactions happening that make it produce the energy in the form of heat and light, which travels vast distances to get to us. Also, the sun is dying. Just like any other star, it will die out in time and life will no longer be substainable on Earth. Also, the sun is billions of years old, not millions, just like Earth is Billions of years old and not millions. As for me making myself, I have made myself the person I am today, but I did not create myself, my parents did that with help from nature. One day I will create someone along with someone else, thus continuing the circle of life. As for the BMW putting itself together, now a days, they pretty much do. Everything is put together by machines with little help from humans. And how did that all go together in the first place, pretty much by chance. Someone tried an idea of theirs, tweeked it to make it work, and came out with a engine. Now a days it's more advance where you have engineers looking it over to figure out how to get the most out of it, by at first it was jsut chance. Hell, look at the microwave oven. Created by a high school drop out by accident. Pure chance.

@Deekle, I'm right with you. We can say that some guy named Jesus did live at some point in time, but we have no proof other than that he was some guy that decided to rebel against the government and beliefs at the time, and just like any other leader, gathered followers who believed every word he said. For all we know, the story of him being the son of god could have been one of his ways to pick up chicks or angry the government. As for saying god exists, we have no proof whats so ever, just like you said.

[MUNA-SAMA]

wow that's amazing chris u really convinced me -ya n ur dreams dude-so plz if u want to make a conversation with someone who is against u be more polite.
1. when i put it this way (earth) i meant as a part not as a whole and this is obvious.
2.u r trying to tell me that the coincidence made the earth like this?and i didnt say that there had been no creatures b4 we were created but how they got there?can u tell me?
3.it was just a mistake when i said millions not billions.
4.it's obvious the earth wasnt created from the beginnig like the way it's now everyone knows this truth,like the atmosphere it was developed through the evaporation of water, breathing of the seeweeds and co2 coming from other creatures besides the N2 and CO2 COMING FROM volcanos and other factors.
5. u r right the sun is an item and we cant controle but it has a power,the nuclear weapon has a great power but who gave it this power?or n another words who put this power n it?isn't us the human beign?
yes it's dying coz every thing has an end,the earth eventually will be distroied coz now it's revolving in a radiuse closer to the sun that it;s used to be.
6.dont paly with words,u created ur self the way u r now!!!this is not creation ,dont make me laugh and if u cant creat ur self u cant creat any one else.and if u can do so u will use materials that have been created before like living cells so this is not creation my friend.
7.as for the BMW having machines putting it togother is not a coinsidence coz we programmed these machines to do so and u r trying to say that this metal came to the BMW owner to told him plz make me a car!!! u must be kidding.

P.S: not all the members here speack english very will, and i dont care if u dont like how do i spell things.

SO PROVE TO ME THAT GOD DOESNT EXISIST IF U CAN.....

[Deekle]

Alright, where is the HARD evidence of God? Haven't seen any yet.

BTW the whole BMW thing, that is not a living organism and it is simple compared to humans. There are many theories of the universe being created but the Big Bang does explain a lot. Then single cellular organisms could of formed (prokaryotic.) Since cells are the basis of all life they evolved and so on.

Humans evolved over time, they were just created by a mistake or some greater being. There has been bad evolution cases(See 99.9% of species extinct on the earth that ever lived.) The sun is dieing because it is running out of fuel no other reasons. That is why it goes through the stages before it dies. Actually if you want to get technical , Robert Oppenheimer chief of the Manhattan project(First Nuclear bomb in history) created it by enriching uranium.



"dont paly with words,u created ur self the way u r now!!!this is not creation ,dont make me laugh and if u cant creat ur self u cant creat any one else.and if u can do so u will use materials that have been created before like living cells so this is not creation my friend"
Well, I've met a "test tube baby" which he was made by his mother's egg being mixed with a sperm cell being raised in a test tube as an embryo then sent into his mothers womb.

[chris-chan]

wow that's amazing chris u really convinced me -ya n ur dreams dude-so plz if u want to make a conversation with someone who is against u be more polite.
1. when i put it this way (earth) i meant as a part not as a whole and this is obvious.
2.u r trying to tell me that the coincidence made the earth like this?and i didnt say that there had been no creatures b4 we were created but how they got there?can u tell me?
3.it was just a mistake when i said millions not billions.
4.it's obvious the earth wasnt created from the beginnig like the way it's now everyone knows this truth,like the atmosphere it was developed through the evaporation of water, breathing of the seeweeds and co2 coming from other creatures besides the N2 and CO2 COMING FROM volcanos and other factors.
5. u r right the sun is an item and we cant controle but it has a power,the nuclear weapon has a great power but who gave it this power?or n another words who put this power n it?isn't us the human beign?
yes it's dying coz every thing has an end,the earth eventually will be distroied coz now it's revolving in a radiuse closer to the sun that it;s used to be.
6.dont paly with words,u created ur self the way u r now!!!this is not creation ,dont make me laugh and if u cant creat ur self u cant creat any one else.and if u can do so u will use materials that have been created before like living cells so this is not creation my friend.
7.as for the BMW having machines putting it togother is not a coinsidence coz we programmed these machines to do so and u r trying to say that this metal came to the BMW owner to told him plz make me a car!!! u must be kidding.

P.S: not all the members here speack english very will, and i dont care if u dont like how do i spell things.

SO PROVE TO ME THAT GOD DOESNT EXISIST IF U CAN.....

When i'm talking about using correct english, im talking about cause (or becasue) instead of coz, before instead of b4, and the word for a number instead of just the numbe. Like when you said the sun had been around for millions of years, someone might read that as 4 million years instead of for millions of years. I know not everyone on here speaks english daily or is perfect on it, but at least us it when typing instead of the slang, just makes you sound less credible.

As for your opening statement, i'm not telling you to believe what i'm saying, i'm just pointing out proof. So, saying that I convinced you and then saying yeah right in your dreams, is just making you out to sound like some little punk kid who thinks he knows it all. As for me being polite, I think besides from saying learn to fucking spell, I was pretty polite. But, you have to understand, I can not stand slang terms (or whatever you want to call them) because they fill up threads with pointless and idiotic words that make no sense and confuse the reader. Maybe you should learn to be more polite while trying to make an argument. If you can't handle constructive criticism though, you probably shouldn't be posting on here.

Now, on to your counterpoints. For your first one, it was not obvious because you didn't make it obvious.
the universe(earth) Those were your exact words. To me it looks like you are saying that the Earth is the whole universe, or the whole universe is Earth, not that Earth is part of the universe. Small things like that make a big difference in the end.


all the things (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:void%280%29) we need to be able to live in it were created b4 us.
that implys that the creator created this universe without the help of any other creatures.
Again, small things make a big difference. I read that as you implying that some creator created this without any help, then put everything here to survive all at the same time. As for everything being coincidence that we survive here, who knows. The air could have coincidently formed into the compund it is and over millenia could have killed off, then gave life to organisms until it leveled out at a point where we can survive. At the beginning of the Earth, nothing could live on the surface because it was so toxic. As for how the creatures got here, I believe the scientific way of saying that a meteor shower rained down on earth, and on those meteors were organisms that survived the trip, then survived on earth over the course of millenia, evolving to better suit their surrondings.

Next, it's okay if it was a mistake, we all make them, that's what makes us human.

As for everyone knowing the truth, if you believe the bible, then you would believe that god created it the way it is and that it has not changed since he created it, including enviroment. Also, you are right that it has changed since the beginning to the atmosphere it has today.

The nuclear weapon does have massive power, and I personally believe it should never be used. As for who gave it the power, science. Science tells us about the elements that are on earth and what they are capable of. Those elements could have been here since the big bang that created the universe, or they could have been there from when the meteors hit earth from some other planet. No one knows for sure.

As for creating myself as the person I am today, i'm talking about my morals, beliefs and values. Also my hair color, and weight. All of those things I can change at any point because I created them in myself. I don't have my natural hair color, I have los weight as well as gained it, broken some of my values and made more. As for me creating someone, it's called sex, and they teach it in school here in america in sex ed. I don't know if they teach it where y'all are at though. It's quite simple that a man and woman love each other, have sex, his sperm impregnat's her egg, then nine months later she gives birth to a child, unless she has a still birth or miscarriage. The man and woman had 100% responibility for that baby and created it together along with natures help. So, in reality, i'm not playin with words, but stating what I believe and what science tells us.

Yes, we did program those machines, but it was coincidence that someone created them. I'm not saying some piece of metal came up and said, "Hey, turn me into a piece of machinery." I'm saying that some guy coincidently saw a need for the machine when the industry needed it. Coincidences happen all the time.

As for me proving that god doesn't exist, science says it is impossible, the bible just states him, but never says where he comes from or where he is. No one has seen him, just said they dreamed him. If that isn't enough proof for you, oh well. I'm not gonna be like scylar and go around looking for proof that something doesn't exist, and post long posts on here from unreputable sources and try to make people believe.

[MUNA-SAMA]

what? u didn't prove the opposite neither.
and what about the test tube baby? creation means making things from scratch,to make nothing a thing if i can say so.this thing that u call creation is made of something have been created b4 like living cells and from where did they get this sperm?!

but can any one give me proves that God doesn't exists?

[chris-chan]

what? u didn't prove the opposite neither.
and what about the test tube baby? creation means making things from scratch,to make nothing a thing if i can say so.this thing that u call creation is made of something have been created b4 like living cells and from where did they get this sperm?!

but can any one give me proves that God doesn't exists?


How about you give us poof that god does exist. No one seems to have done that yet.

[Deekle]

I agree with Chris-chan here. God is a theory.

Evolution has fossils to back it. God...not so much

[MUNA-SAMA]

ok but dont be so aggressive it's just a friendly conversation and if u hate slang that much then i wont use it in my conversation with you,happy now?

any way back to the subject. if u can define what creation means this may solve a big part of the problem.
any couple who makes children this is not creation,like i said before-not b4-to make something from scratch this is creation and why science says it's impossible that God exists? on the contrary.

why can't i say it was meant to be for him to think about making a car?

why we cant creat our selves again or the coinsidence when we die though there still a part of our bodies called coccyx i think-the small part at the end of your spiral core- which doesnt disolute and it has our full DNA?

[MUNA-SAMA]

The Most Perfect Clock


You probably have a watch. Without it, you would be lost in a world that demands that people “be on time.”


Some watches are more accurate than others. How accurate is yours? How long before it loses a second? When this happens, you adjust it by reckoning from a more accurate source. That source, whatever it is, is also imperfect and has to be regularly updated, though not as often, to be in accord with the Master Clock of the United States at the Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C.


For many years, until 1967, Naval Observatory astronomers “observed” the motion of the earth, in relation to the heavens, to accurately measure time. All clocks in this country were set in relation to these very precise measurements. It was God who made this Master Clock of the Universe! He set the heavens in motion and mankind learned how to use its wonderful accuracy. As marvelous as this Great Clock is, the story does not end here.


In 1967, scientists built an “Atomic Clock.” It uses Cesium 133 atoms because they oscillate (vibrate) at the rate of 9,192,631,770 times per second. This produces accuracy within one second every 30 million years! Wouldn’t you love a watch that accurate? Cesium 133 atoms never vary a single vibration. They are steady—constant—reliable—and cannot be an accident of nature that just “happens” to always turn out exactly the same. God had to design the complexity and reliability of these atoms. No honest mind can believe otherwise. Men merely learned how to capture what God designed, for use in time measurement. Again, the story continues.


Doubters, consider this!


Scientists in Boulder, Colorado, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, have built an optical clock that is even more accurate. How? By measuring time with light. Time is now measured in what are called femtoseconds—or a


million-billionth of a second. These clocks use mercury ions at their “heart” to count the number of times they vibrate in a second.


Optical frequencies regularly oscillate at one million-billion (1,000,000,000,000,000—one quadrillion) times per second. By using lasers and “cooled down” mercury ions, scientists have harnessed God’s precision to better measure time. Optical clocks only slip by one second every 30 BILLION years! This is 1,000 times more accurate than atomic clocks!


All human watchmakers use extraordinary precision in their work. Quartz watches measure time by counting the exact number of oscillations of a quartz crystal through use of a digital counter. Digital clocks use the oscillations of quartz crystals or power lines (60 cycles per second in the United States), but may also count through use of digital counters. Grandfather clocks use the swing of a pendulum, once every second and recorded by metal gears inside the clock, to keep time.


As with the movement of the heavens, men have learned to capture the reliability of Cesium 133 atoms and the movement of cooled mercury ions to count time. Their number of oscillations per second never varies. Could this perfect order be the product of an accident?


In summary, only with great time and effort, the finest watchmakers in the world can, at best, devise several kinds of relatively imprecise clocks. Can any honest, fair-minded person then believe that the three highly precise clocks—the heavens, atomic and optical clocks—came about by accident? In other words, are we to believe that while very sophisticated, humanly devised watches required the effort and ingenuity of skilled, intelligent men to create them, clocks of far greater sophistication, precision and design developed on their own? How utterly ridiculous!


You have seen absolute proof that only the “Greatest Watchmaker” could have devised these “greatest watches.”




by the way no one of you answered to any of my questions

[skullreken]

well my religion doesnt believe in god the father so why should I or anyone else have to
accept that he exists and that what we believe is wrong just going by what followers
of his religion say. After all it is known that the books of his religion have been written
by man and have changed over periods of time due to errors in transcription and
translation. Also the so called scientific evidence that supposably proves that
evolution didnt happen keep turning out to be narrow sections of a bigger argument
that have been taken and doctored to look like they are huge proof against evolution

[Deekle]

Well Stem cells can actually create organs or any cells on a human body. We can create cells for humans.

That quote is from a scientist who said God in his findings. That is a biased source.

Creation(N) The divine act by which, according to various religious and philosophical traditions, the world was brought into existence.

Creation Noun
Christianity
1. God's act of bringing the universe into being
2. the universe as thus brought into being by God

[chris-chan]

Actually, I think we do have to get aggresive. People keep denying what we say even though we can back it up, yet people won't give any proof that god exists. Also, thanks for not using slang.

As for the definition of creation. Meriam-Webster (a nice, unbiased source) defines creation as 1: the act of creating (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creating) ; especially : the act of bringing the world into ordered existence, 2: the act of making, inventing, or producing: as a: the act of investing with a new rank or office b: the first representation of a dramatic role, 3: something that is created: as a: world (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/world) b: creatures (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creatures) singly or in aggregate c: an original work of art d: a new usually striking article of clothing.

As for your post about the clocks, it was very interesting, but didn't prove anything other than there are very accurate clocks. Like I said, those elements could have come from another planet. You were just jumping to conclusions that they were made by god.

Oh, and to the "not one of you answered my questions" comment, join the club. I've been trying to have scylar answer mine, yet he keeps putting around it. Tell me your question and i'll try to answer it the best I can.

Skullreken, thank you! I've been trying to say the same thing for a long time now, yet no one was listening to me!

[skullreken]

Chris no problem
I dont accept everything my religion says as absolute Kannon because I know
that it has been subjected to change by the religious leaders over the gnerations
I dont force my beliefes on other and I use it as a moral guide to help me make
the decisions I feel are right in my day to day life. I think the fact that i study
Biology says that.

[chris-chan]

Out of curiosity, what religion are you? I think i've said it before, but I don't consider myself atheist, but I don't follow any religion either. I'm pretty open minded, so it works out.

[skullreken]

I follow the druidic religion of anchient Ireland our method of worship is to meditate and
to try to emulate our chosen dieties in our day to day lives for example if you were to
worship Lugh you should try to learn skills like music because he is the god skill you must
also try to be just and right any wrongs you commit because he stands for unrelenting
justice, Lugh's justice is harsh and merciless so to offset this you may wish to choose to
emulate Brigid she also seeks to right wrong but unlike Lugh she also stands for mercy and
compassion.

It shuld be noted that Saint Brigid from Christianity is actually the Godess Brigid, she
shares the exact same feast day as the Godess and is from the region of Ireland that
the Godess was mostly worshipped in, it was very common practice for the Catholic
church to ecorporate Celtic feasts into Christianity as a ploy to convert the Celts of
Ireland, The all saints and all souls feast days all occur at the same time of the
Samhain festival which marks the start of the Celtic new year in November and the
rememberence of the souls of the dead which is the exact purpose that the two
christian feast days serve

these are just my beliefes and facts about them because Chris was interested in
knowing normally I prefer to keep them to myself rather than force them on others

[chris-chan]

Wow, that sounds pretty interesting. Now I am wishing I did take that world religion class.

[thatguyisbrett]

The Most Perfect Clock


You probably have a watch. Without it, you would be lost in a world that demands that people “be on time.”


Some watches are more accurate than others. How accurate is yours? How long before it loses a second? When this happens, you adjust it by reckoning from a more accurate source. That source, whatever it is, is also imperfect and has to be regularly updated, though not as often, to be in accord with the Master Clock of the United States at the Naval Observatory in Washington, D.C.


For many years, until 1967, Naval Observatory astronomers “observed” the motion of the earth, in relation to the heavens, to accurately measure time. All clocks in this country were set in relation to these very precise measurements. It was God who made this Master Clock of the Universe! He set the heavens in motion and mankind learned how to use its wonderful accuracy. As marvelous as this Great Clock is, the story does not end here.


In 1967, scientists built an “Atomic Clock.” It uses Cesium 133 atoms because they oscillate (vibrate) at the rate of 9,192,631,770 times per second. This produces accuracy within one second every 30 million years! Wouldn’t you love a watch that accurate? Cesium 133 atoms never vary a single vibration. They are steady—constant—reliable—and cannot be an accident of nature that just “happens” to always turn out exactly the same. God had to design the complexity and reliability of these atoms. No honest mind can believe otherwise. Men merely learned how to capture what God designed, for use in time measurement. Again, the story continues.


Doubters, consider this!


Scientists in Boulder, Colorado, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, have built an optical clock that is even more accurate. How? By measuring time with light. Time is now measured in what are called femtoseconds—or a


million-billionth of a second. These clocks use mercury ions at their “heart” to count the number of times they vibrate in a second.


Optical frequencies regularly oscillate at one million-billion (1,000,000,000,000,000—one quadrillion) times per second. By using lasers and “cooled down” mercury ions, scientists have harnessed God’s precision to better measure time. Optical clocks only slip by one second every 30 BILLION years! This is 1,000 times more accurate than atomic clocks!


All human watchmakers use extraordinary precision in their work. Quartz watches measure time by counting the exact number of oscillations of a quartz crystal through use of a digital counter. Digital clocks use the oscillations of quartz crystals or power lines (60 cycles per second in the United States), but may also count through use of digital counters. Grandfather clocks use the swing of a pendulum, once every second and recorded by metal gears inside the clock, to keep time.


As with the movement of the heavens, men have learned to capture the reliability of Cesium 133 atoms and the movement of cooled mercury ions to count time. Their number of oscillations per second never varies. Could this perfect order be the product of an accident?


In summary, only with great time and effort, the finest watchmakers in the world can, at best, devise several kinds of relatively imprecise clocks. Can any honest, fair-minded person then believe that the three highly precise clocks—the heavens, atomic and optical clocks—came about by accident? In other words, are we to believe that while very sophisticated, humanly devised watches required the effort and ingenuity of skilled, intelligent men to create them, clocks of far greater sophistication, precision and design developed on their own? How utterly ridiculous!


You have seen absolute proof that only the “Greatest Watchmaker” could have devised these “greatest watches.”


by the way no one of you answered to any of my questions




sorry but this doesnt prove gods existence any more then evolution disproves gods existence. its just some laws of science thrown in there and then at the end you say "so god exists". just doesnt make sense to me.

[thatguyisbrett]

Yulok and Deekle u both wants proofs on the existance of God,i can give u some but they will be n more philosophical way than the way Scylar is using coz this is the only way i think to put proofs that specks ur mind.

1. do u believe the earth was created before human did ?
the universe(earth)was created b4 we did and all the things we need to be able to live in it were created b4 us.
that implys that the creator created this universe without the help of any other creatures.

2. the power of the univers is greator than ours &beyond our abilities. the sun 4 example is much more powerful than us we cant control to prevent it to stop shining or to give the light to some ppl ant to prevents it from the others and so the seas,mountains....etc so these things must be obeyed to us not bcoz of our powers but bcoz of it's creator powers.
that implys we cant interfer with the balance in the universe and it's continuty that has been like this 4 millions of years so they r not affected with our own abilities or our power.

3. can u say that u created ur self or created someone else?
can u say that the coinsidence created u?
if it's the coinsidence then if i told u as Scylar said that this BMW car was made by it self all it's parts were joind togother by coinsidence to make a car u will say i'm crasy so how about ur self?

if u want more i can give u but they will be in the same way.

1. yes. the universe has existed for about 13.5 billion years. solar systems and planets are created by gravity attracting particles into a solar disk which spins untill most of the particles collide resulting in planets. this process is readily observed today. how does this process prove there is a god or that our world was created by anything other than a series of random occurences?

2. still this doesnt imply anything to me. i cant stop a nuclear blas but it doesnt mean that god created it. and we kinda have interfered with the levels of the oceans.

3. several organic compounds form readily in lab solutions of inorganic molecules. this is the lowest form of life. so i guess, yea i could create life.

[MUNA-SAMA]

first of all ppl no one here is trying to force any one to believe in something he/she doesnt want.every single person in this life has the choice to believe in whatever he wants. we are here just discussing things and if you dont want that it's your choice but why we have general discussion section while no one wants to discuss and share our thoughts?

do you guys believe in the big bang theory??


The First Law of Thermodynamics

What is the truth of modern science regarding the origin of all matter in the universe? Do scientists tell us that it has always existed? Or have they determined that there was a moment in time in which all matter came into existence? The answer to the second question is, yes! But what is the proof that this is true?

The First Law of Thermodynamics is stated as follows: Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. There are no natural processes that can alter either matter or energy in this way. This means that there is no new matter or energy coming into existence and there is no new matter or energy passing out of existence. All who state that the universe came into existence from nothing violate the first law of thermodynamics, which was established by the very scientific community who now seem willing to ignore it. In summary, this law plainly demonstrates that the universe, and all matter and energy within it, must have had a divine origin—a specific moment in which it was created by someone who was all-powerful.

With the coming of the Atomic Age, beginning with the discovery of radium in 1898 by Madame Curie, came the knowledge that all radioactive elements continually give off radiation. Consider! Uranium has an atomic weight of 238.0. As it decomposes, it releases a helium atom three times. Each helium atom has a weight of 4. With the new weight of 226.0, uranium becomes radium. Radium continues to give off additional atoms until eventually the end product becomes the heavy inert element called lead. This takes a tremendous amount of time. While the process of uranium turning into radium is very long, the radium turns into lead in 1,590 years.

What are we saying? There was a point in time when the uranium could not have existed, because it always breaks down in a highly systematic, controlled way. It is not stable like lead or other elements. It breaks down. This means there was a specific moment in time when all radioactive elements came into existence. Remember, all of them—uranium, radium, thorium, radon, polonium, francium, protactinium and others—have not existed forever. This represents absolute proof that matter came into existence or, in other words, matter has not always existed!

This flies directly in the face of evolutionary thought—that everything gradually evolved into something else. Here is the problem. You cannot have something slowly come into existence from nothing! Matter could not have come into existence by itself. No rational person could believe that the entire universe—including all of the radioactive elements that prove there was a specific time of beginning—gradually came into existence BY ITSELF!
Through your own efforts, try to build something—anything—from nothing. Even with your creative power engaged in the effort, you would never be able to do it. You will not be able—in a hundred lifetimes of trying—to produce a single thing from nothing! Then, can any doubter believe that everything in the entirety of the universe, in all of its exquisite detail, came into existence completely by itself?

[chris-chan]

eres the first problem, we don't know how old the universe really is, just a rough estimate. No one was around at that point.

Now, as for creating something from nothing, you yourself said that is what creationism is. But, in that post you just wrote, you said it is impossible. So, you have jsut admitted that creationism is impossible, therefore could not have happened.

Also, who's to say there isn't another universe somewhere that has helped our unverse establish itself? No one can say yes or no, but only think and imagine.

Also, if no one here is trying to force us to think in their way, then why do you and Scylar keep putting up posts like that? That's the reason why we don't like scylar. Granted, you seem to have better ideas then him, but still jump to conclusons. In a way, I like you, so please don't turn into Scylar.

[MUNA-SAMA]

i was thinking of stopping this conversation coz-sorry because- we are getting no where but i'll say it once more i'm just discussing things with you guys and when you do so it's either you convince the others or you will be convinced or every thing will stay the same like it was before the conversation.
any ways we choose what we find right in this life so i hope you all find the right way-me to-.
oh by the way you are right creation is not making things from scratch this is a wrong definition because i thought of it in a different way,sorry so i'll stick with scientific definition-the one i've posted-according to the first law of thermo dynamics.
i still have more evidences if you want.


see u in another debate xD

[Deekle]

The big bang was just a mass of matter exploding. Not new matter being created...

@Muma. I'm on the debate team, you don't get a chance to look up evidence you got to know a lot right on the spot. You are just not listening : /

[jugglindrew]

After all it is known that the books of his religion have been written by man and have changed over periods of time due to errors in transcription and translation.
Actually, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is proved that there has not been any changes in the new testament in the past 2000ish years.


A bit of a history lesson...mainstream Christianity only started to believe in a literal 6 day creation 100 years ago.

[sym26]

www.drdino.com (http://www.drdino.com) check it out!! Its a really good site for this kind of debate

[skullreken]

Actually, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is proved that there has not been any changes in the new testament in the past 2000ish years.

Then what about the lost gospels like the gospels of Judas and Thomas
these were preached during the early days of the Christianity and were
purposly omitted from the bible my point is that allot of the fluff haning
arround relgion is man made and it is best to take it from it's core values
bible thumpers fro te deep south and other extreamists illustrate my point

[scylar]

13th PROOF - RHINOS NEVER EVOLVED

I dont know whats been going on here since two days. Many people are asking to prove the existence of God. Good news. I can. Bad News. Dont expect a one line or one page answer. Just like how you cannot disprove the existence of God in one line or one post, even i need time.

Anyway like i said. Every proof that i give to disprove evolution is a proof to support creationism. The moment i prove to you that none of the creatures that you know have evolved it means i have proved to you that All creatures were created perfectly by God and hence did not need any evolution.

Continuing with my never ending proofs, i present to you the skull of a rhinocerous: -

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5211-rhino-skull-f.jpg


RHINO SKULL
Age: 33 million years old
Size: 38.1 centimeters (15 in) by 25.4 centimeters (10 in) by
5.08 centimeters (2 in)
Location: Converse County, Wyoming
Period: Oligocene



http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5212-rhino-skull-r.jpg

A LIVING RHINO

33 million years and no evident evolution.

My evolutionist friends. It is merely by choice that you have chosen to believe in evolution and not by science or logical evidences. You can very well proove me wrong. I ll be waiting. This is my 12th proofs. So you are 13 proofs due to get even.

Anyway for new people: - see my other posts to get more fossil proofs.

1st proof - I proved that crocs were always crocs (90 million years)

2nd proof - i proved fish were always fish (angelfish) (95 million years)

3rd proof - I proved star fish were always star fish (490 million years)

4th proof - I proved crabs were always crabs. (38 million years)

5th proof - I proved shrimps were always shrimps (206 million years)
6th proof - Dino - bird hoaxes. I proved that there was no link between reptiles and birds.

7th proof - Proved that dragon flies were always dragon flies. (156 million years)
8th proof - proved that Horseshoe Crabs were always Horseshoe Crabs (455 million years)

9th proof - Proved that Coelacanth was a proper fish with no connection to reptiles whatsoever. (240 million years)

10th proof - Proved that spiders were always spiders. (355 million years)

11th proof - proved that sea - urchins were always sea - urchins. (295 million years)

12th proof - Proved that human embryo does not resemble that of fish or reptile during devepment. (Exposing haeckel's fake drawings)

13th proof - Proved that Rhinos were always Rhinos. (33 million years)

Other posts involve : -

1. Flaw of "survival of fittest" theory
2. Dino bird hoaxes ( many specimens dealt with)
3. Confessions of the serious flaws of this theory by Darwin himself

I think there are one or two more posts that i have missed.

[MUNA-SAMA]

first of all deekle my name is MUNA not the one you said.
second i'll tell u later about an interisting thing about the big bang.
about the bible it was written by humans-the bible we have now-so it doesnt prove anything.
@ dekle what i'm not listining to? and read my last post about creating a new matter, i've corrected it.
ok then i'll conti this with u guys and it's better if someone put a question the others try to answer it and not to keep things open.

[MUNA-SAMA]

In speaking of the existence of God we should underline that we are not speaking of proofs in the sense implied by the experimental sciences. Scientific proofs in the modern sense of the word are valid only for things perceptible to the senses since it is only on such things that scientific instruments of investigation can be used.
for example did any one saw an electrical charges? but it's a scientific fact that we have positive and negative charges.
in the same way the scientific evidences proofs the existence of God.


The Second Law of Thermodynamics

The Second Law of Thermodynamics is best summarized by saying that everything moves toward disorder—or a condition known as entropy. This bears some explanation and we will consider several examples.

Remember that evolutionists teach that everything is constantly evolving into a higher and more complex order. In other words, they believe things continue to get better and better instead of worse and worse.

If water being heated on a stove is at 150 degrees Fahrenheit, and the burner is turned off, the temperature will drop instead of rise. It will move toward colder rather than hotter. If a ball is placed on a hill, it will always roll downhill and not uphill. Energy used to perform any particular task changes from usable energy to unusable in the performing of that task. It will always go from a higher energy level to a lower energy level—where less and less energy is available for use.

When applied to the universe, the second law of thermodynamics indicates that the universe is winding down—moving toward disorder or entropy—not winding up or moving toward more perfect order and structure. In short, the entire universe is winding down!

Even evolutionists admit that the theory of evolution and the second law of thermodynamics are completely incompatible with each other. Consider: “Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (universally accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will tend to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, ‘It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As (Aldous) Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true’” (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967, p. 35).

Like a top or a yo-yo, the universe must have been “wound up.” Since the universe is constantly winding down, the second law of thermodynamics looms before us in the form of a great question: Who wound it up? The only plausible answer is.........

[scylar]

14th proof - second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution

@MUNA-SAMA - I was about to come to thermodynamics. Your post is brilliant: -

@jagon-eye - Thanks. You were asking me to disprove evolution using a different approach. Muna-sama has done it beautifully. Ill be shedding more light here.

Summerizing the law : -

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy.

entropy - It is a measure of the randomness of molecules in a system.

Accordingly, systems, left naturally, move from orderly state to a disorderly state.


BUT


Evolution states just the opposite. According to it, things left naturally go from a disorderly state to an orderly state by some freak miracle of nature.

Evolution goes against an established law of physics. The evolutionists haven't kept quite either. They have tried to move heaven and earth together in order to come out of this tight situation. Just Google and see for yourselves how embarrassingly they try to cover this up.

EVOLUTIONIST CONFESSIONS ABOUT SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: -

1. The evolutionist author Roger Lewin expresses the thermodynamic impasse of evolution in an article in "Science":

"One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more, order"

-Roger Lewin, "A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity," Science, vol. 217, 24 September, 1982, p. 1239.

2.Another defender of the theory of evolution, George Stravropoulos, states

"Yet, under ordinary conditions, no complex organic molecule can ever form spontaneously, but will rather disintegrate, in agreement with the second law. Indeed, the more complex it is, the more unstable it will be, and the more assured, sooner or later, its disintegration. Photosynthesis and all life processes, and even life itself, cannot yet be understood in terms of thermodynamics or any other exact science, despite the use of confused or deliberately confusing language."

-George P. Stravropoulos, "The Frontiers and Limits of Science," American Scientist, vol. 65, November-December 1977, p. 674.

3. well-known evolutionist Jeremy Rifkin notes his belief that evolution overwhelms this law of physics with a "magical power":

"The Entropy Law says that evolution dissipates the overall available energy for life on this planet. Our concept of evolution is the exact opposite. We believe that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order on earth."

-Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View, Viking Press, New York, 1980, p. 55.

These words well indicate that evolution is a dogmatic belief rather than a scientific thesis.

Belief in God doesnt make anyone unscientific. Apparent absence of something doesnt prove that it doesnt exist. But when valid proofs are presented to negate something, then you must think over it seriously

[chris-chan]

entropy - It is a measure of the randomness of molecules in a system.


Um, wrong. Entropy is 1: a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies directly with any reversible change in heat in the system and inversely with the temperature of the system ; broadly : the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system2 a: the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity b: a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder (Meriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entropy)

No where does it say that "It is the measure of the randomness of molecules in a system."

Also, to be completely honest, Muna did put up a good post with reference that can be checked to be certain if it is biased or not. Good going Muna!

With all that being said, no headway is really being made. Like Muna, othaers and I have stated, everyone has their own beliefs and we are not pressuring each other to think a certain way. So, because i'm kind of getting tired of coming on and arguing (even though it is fun) I have decided to watch from the sidelines, and every now and then you might hear from me.

[Yulok]

"I dont know whats been going on here since two days." -Scylar... so that's straight up not listening to others... Thanks I guess.

Great posts everyone, we have resumed discussion instead of unheard voices. I love that the laws of physics have come into play, because I was going to bring that up myself. Creation=many definitions, none precise enough to use definitely. I got that much lol. In the literal sense, creation is impossible since matter cannot be created, so the only other closest definition is manipulation of what has already been created, correct me if I'm wrong. In this sense, we humans sure have created a lot :)
I read all of the post except scylar's most recent one and each side has respectable views. I agree that the bible is not a source, it has been translated so many times that it is absolutely not a qualifying reference. Look at how every subbing/dubbing of videos is not good enough to really describe what the source describes, and we only get better as time goes by. That should say enough about any religion using the bible as a source.
"With all that being said, no headway is really being made" -Chris-chan. Perfectly stated. I spent some time on the last few pages feeling the same way.
I am really interested in hearing why you all follow your beliefs. I am the kind of person that won't settle for a single answer. I think every question has two answers and being able to find the better solution is what motivates me. I think both sides have respectable arguments, but most religions have one answer, and that's "just have faith", which doesn't even answer the real question. Why do you all believe what you believe?

[thatguyisbrett]

14th proof - second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution

@MUNA-SAMA - I was about to come to thermodynamics. Your post is brilliant: -

@jagon-eye - Thanks. You were asking me to disprove evolution using a different approach. Muna-sama has done it beautifully. Ill be shedding more light here.

Summerizing the law : -

The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal law of increasing entropy.

entropy - It is a measure of the randomness of molecules in a system.

Accordingly, systems, left naturally, move from orderly state to a disorderly state.


BUT


Evolution states just the opposite. According to it, things left naturally go from a disorderly state to an orderly state by some freak miracle of nature.

Evolution goes against an established law of physics. The evolutionists haven't kept quite either. They have tried to move heaven and earth together in order to come out of this tight situation. Just Google and see for yourselves how embarrassingly they try to cover this up.

EVOLUTIONIST CONFESSIONS ABOUT SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: -

1. The evolutionist author Roger Lewin expresses the thermodynamic impasse of evolution in an article in "Science":

"One problem biologists have faced is the apparent contradiction by evolution of the second law of thermodynamics. Systems should decay through time, giving less, not more, order"

-Roger Lewin, "A Downward Slope to Greater Diversity," Science, vol. 217, 24 September, 1982, p. 1239.

2.Another defender of the theory of evolution, George Stravropoulos, states

"Yet, under ordinary conditions, no complex organic molecule can ever form spontaneously, but will rather disintegrate, in agreement with the second law. Indeed, the more complex it is, the more unstable it will be, and the more assured, sooner or later, its disintegration. Photosynthesis and all life processes, and even life itself, cannot yet be understood in terms of thermodynamics or any other exact science, despite the use of confused or deliberately confusing language."

-George P. Stravropoulos, "The Frontiers and Limits of Science," American Scientist, vol. 65, November-December 1977, p. 674.

3. well-known evolutionist Jeremy Rifkin notes his belief that evolution overwhelms this law of physics with a "magical power":

"The Entropy Law says that evolution dissipates the overall available energy for life on this planet. Our concept of evolution is the exact opposite. We believe that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order on earth."

-Jeremy Rifkin, Entropy: A New World View, Viking Press, New York, 1980, p. 55.

These words well indicate that evolution is a dogmatic belief rather than a scientific thesis.

Belief in God doesnt make anyone unscientific. Apparent absence of something doesnt prove that it doesnt exist. But when valid proofs are presented to negate something, then you must think over it seriously



you missed something here... its a NET neutral entropy. people die. leading to a trend towards neutral entropy. surges in entropy occur readily in any controlled experiment and slowly dissipate, just like all life. life is a surge in entropy caused by a buildup of energy in the system. the lowest form of life is a molecule that can replicate itself by binding with chemicals in its suroundings. a positive feedback loop occurs due the built in predisposition of life to replicate itself. whether this buildup is random (as occurs in controlled experiments) or because god did it is subject to your own interpretation.

2. is a falsehood. complex organic molecules have been found to form under favorable conditions in laboratory experiments.

im definitely not big on these quotes using scientific terms to try and prove the existence of god. no matter how much creationists want to believe it, science can never prove the existence of god unless by some unknown science we actually find a physical god. by that token science also can not disprove the existence of god. the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Yulok]

Ha I looked up the only source for the line scylar posted "entropy - It is a measure of the randomness of molecules in a system." and it refers only to gerontology, which "Relates to the study of human aging and the aged" lib.ucr.edu/depts/acquisitions/YBP%20NSP%20GLOSSARY%20EXTERNAL%20revised6-02.php (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=4&oi=define&q=http://lib.ucr.edu/depts/acquisitions/YBP%2520NSP%2520GLOSSARY%2520EXTERNAL%2520revised6-02.php&usg=AFQjCNE5aoIVdYEWXiPP818lC88yOws0Ew).
and this source was the most simply stated source of the following:
openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/glossary/view.php (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=0&oi=define&q=http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/glossary/view.php%3Fid%3D227127%26mode%3Ddate%26hook%3D%26s ortkey%3DUPDATE%26sortorder%3Dasc%26fullsearch%3D0 %26page%3D-1&usg=AFQjCNHO-NoCi_TUHdlkVMoaqTzOm4EuNA)
www.grg.org/resources/glossary.html (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=1&oi=define&q=http://www.grg.org/resources/glossary.html&usg=AFQjCNGr3t8s1MJFp84Tv8lE3zy5h5S8xQ)
www.wiley.com/legacy/products/worldwide/canada/davison/student/s_glossary_g.html (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=2&oi=define&q=http://www.wiley.com/legacy/products/worldwide/canada/davison/student/s_glossary_g.html&usg=AFQjCNGY30Q7h4kHdFzW-xbNGf7NlsJyhg)
www.senescence.info/glossary.html (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=3&oi=define&q=http://www.senescence.info/glossary.html&usg=AFQjCNEQ0kS4uvZlhDEibib5Y-xZZIk5Zw)
lib.ucr.edu/depts/acquisitions/YBP%20NSP%20GLOSSARY%20EXTERNAL%20revised6-02.php (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=4&oi=define&q=http://lib.ucr.edu/depts/acquisitions/YBP%2520NSP%2520GLOSSARY%2520EXTERNAL%2520revised6-02.php&usg=AFQjCNE5aoIVdYEWXiPP818lC88yOws0Ew)
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn (http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=9&oi=define&q=http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dgerontology&usg=AFQjCNEo9jSc6mqqOuHE_tOdkbdOkb7drA)
...and many more. lol

the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... best Sagan quote ever.

[thatguyisbrett]

13th PROOF - RHINOS NEVER EVOLVED

I dont know whats been going on here since two days. Many people are asking to prove the existence of God. Good news. I can. Bad News. Dont expect a one line or one page answer. Just like how you cannot disprove the existence of God in one line or one post, even i need time.

Anyway like i said. Every proof that i give to disprove evolution is a proof to support creationism. The moment i prove to you that none of the creatures that you know have evolved it means i have proved to you that All creatures were created perfectly by God and hence did not need any evolution.

Continuing with my never ending proofs, i present to you the skull of a rhinocerous: -

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5211-rhino-skull-f.jpg


RHINO SKULL
Age: 33 million years old
Size: 38.1 centimeters (15 in) by 25.4 centimeters (10 in) by
5.08 centimeters (2 in)
Location: Converse County, Wyoming
Period: Oligocene



http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5212-rhino-skull-r.jpg

A LIVING RHINO

33 million years and no evident evolution.

My evolutionist friends. It is merely by choice that you have chosen to believe in evolution and not by science or logical evidences. You can very well proove me wrong. I ll be waiting. This is my 12th proofs. So you are 13 proofs due to get even.

Anyway for new people: - see my other posts to get more fossil proofs.

1st proof - I proved that crocs were always crocs (90 million years)

2nd proof - i proved fish were always fish (angelfish) (95 million years)

3rd proof - I proved star fish were always star fish (490 million years)

4th proof - I proved crabs were always crabs. (38 million years)

5th proof - I proved shrimps were always shrimps (206 million years)
6th proof - Dino - bird hoaxes. I proved that there was no link between reptiles and birds.

7th proof - Proved that dragon flies were always dragon flies. (156 million years)
8th proof - proved that Horseshoe Crabs were always Horseshoe Crabs (455 million years)

9th proof - Proved that Coelacanth was a proper fish with no connection to reptiles whatsoever. (240 million years)

10th proof - Proved that spiders were always spiders. (355 million years)

11th proof - proved that sea - urchins were always sea - urchins. (295 million years)

12th proof - Proved that human embryo does not resemble that of fish or reptile during devepment. (Exposing haeckel's fake drawings)

13th proof - Proved that Rhinos were always Rhinos. (33 million years)

Other posts involve : -

1. Flaw of "survival of fittest" theory
2. Dino bird hoaxes ( many specimens dealt with)
3. Confessions of the serious flaws of this theory by Darwin himself

I think there are one or two more posts that i have missed.


you have a lot of these posts about things that "didnt evolve" but these are not proof that evolution didnt occur. 1 thing does not just turn into another. its a branching effect. part of a population acquires new attributes slowly, occupies a different ecological niche and becomes different from the other part of the population. distance and genomic difference become a mating boundry untill the populations become new species.

you are using the age old evolutionary argument: "if humans evolved from monkeys then why are there still monkeys?" in truth it is a rather uneducated question.

[thatguyisbrett]

ERNST HAECKEL AND HIS FAKE EMBRYO DRAWINGS:

@jagon-eye - thanks dude for those words. That was encouraging indeed. Your point about human embryos resembling those of fish and reptiles during development was a good one. I ll try here to shed some light on it.

Intro: - the "recapitulation theory" of Haeckel postulates that living embryos re-experience the evolutionary process that their ancestors underwent. According to this theory, the human embryo during its development in its mother's womb, first displays the characteristics of a fish, and then those of a reptile, and finally those of a human.

These are his famous drawings which I am sure most of you have already seen.


http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/shamars-albums-animesss-picture5095-fake-embryo-drawings.jpg


I thought you were all aware that evolutionists themselves have abandoned this theory long ago.

1. HAECKEL'S MISTAKES

It is now known that the "gills" that supposedly appear in the early stages of the human embryo are in fact the initial phases of the middle-ear canal, parathyroid, and thymus.

That part of the embryo that was likened to the "egg yolk pouch" turns out to be a pouch that produces blood for the infant.

The part that was identified as a "tail" by Haeckel and his followers is in fact the backbone, which resembles a tail only because it takes shape before the legs do.

These are universally acknowledged facts in the scientific world, and are accepted even by evolutionists themselves. Two leading neo-Darwinists, George Gaylord Simpson and W. Beck have admitted:

"Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny."

-G. G. Simpson, W. Beck, An Introduction to Biology, Harcourt Brace and World, New York, 1965, p. 241.

Ontogeny means - The origin and development of an individual organism from embryo to adult

Phylogeny means - The evolutionary development and history of a species.

So it is incorrect to support the theory of evolution using this.

The following was written in an article in New Scientist dated October 16, 1999:

“[Haeckel] called this the biogenetic law, and the idea became popularly known as recapitulation. In fact Haeckel's strict law was soon shown to be incorrect. For instance, the early human embryo never has functioning gills like a fish, and never passes through stages that look like an adult reptile or monkey.”

-Ken McNamara, "Embryos and Evolution," New Scientist, vol. 12416, 16 October 1999.

2. HAECKEL HIMSELF CONFESSED THAT HE FAKED HIS DRAWINGS: -

Yes. It’s true that he turned out to be a faker. Haeckel's forgeries were meant to show that fish and human embryos resembled one another. When he was caught, the only defense he offered was that other evolutionists had committed similar offenses:

The following are the words from the mouth of Haeckel himself:-

"After this compromising confession of 'forgery' I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of fellow - culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of 'forgery,' for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed."

-Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, Ticknor and Fields, New York, 1982, p. 204.

3. "Science" JOURNAL EXPOSES HAECKEL'S FRAUD: -

In the September 5, 1997, edition of "Science“ journal an article was published revealing that Haeckel's embryo drawings were the product of a deception. The article, called "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," had this to say:

"The impression they [Haeckel's drawings] give,that the embryos are exactly alike, is wrong, says Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George's Hospital Medical School in London… So he and his colleagues did their own comparative study, reexamining and photographing embryos roughly matched by species and age with those Haeckel drew. Lo and behold, the embryos "often looked surprisingly different," Richardson reports in the August issue of Anatomy and Embryology."

-Elizabeth Pennisi, "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," Science, 5 September,1997.

4. HAECKEL DELIBERATELY REMOVES ORGANS AND ADDS IMAGINARY ONES TO PROVES HIS POINT: -

Science explained that, in order to be able to show the embryos as similar, Haeckel deliberately removed some organs from his drawings or else added imaginary ones. Later in this same article, the following information was revealed:

"Not only did Haeckel add or omit features, Richardson and his colleagues report, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals. In reality, Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their appearance and developmental pathway. "It (Haeckel's drawings) looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology," Richardson concludes."

-Elizabeth Pennisi, "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," Science, 5 September, 1997.

5. THE CENTURY DECEPTION

The same Science article goes on to discuss how Haeckel's confessions on this subject were covered up from the beginning of the last century, and how the fake drawings began to be presented in textbooks as scientific fact:

"Haeckel's confession got lost after his drawings were subsequently used in a 1901 book called Darwin and After Darwin and reproduced widely in English language biology texts".

-Elizabeth Pennisi, "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," Science, 5 September, 1997.

In short, the fact that Haeckel's drawings were falsified had already emerged in 1901, but the whole world of science continued to be deceived by them for a century.

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/shamars-albums-animesss-picture5096-science-exposes-haeckels-deception-1.jpg


Well, this is it. It’s sad to know that people are still deceived by these drawings. Haeckel and his fake drawings only prove the extent to which evolutionists can go to prove there deception.

@jagon -eye - I hope this answer satisfies you.

humans dont become fish then reptiles then mamals. they merely pass through stages of development where their embryos resemble embryos of other life forms. fish vertebrae evolved into our veterbrae. fish gills evolved into lungs and ears. "yolk", or amnion, evolved into the amniotic sac. these are all suported scientific theories but your quotes seem to leave those bits out.

i dont know why you seem to think that all scientists are organizing a conspiracy to prove there is no god. what would they have to gain? i believe there must be a god, but on evolution i cannot waiver.

heres a short excerpt from a scientific journal if you car to read it.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2455007

[Jagon-eye]

Um, wrong. Entropy is 1: a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder, that is a property of the system's state, and that varies directly with any reversible change in heat in the system and inversely with the temperature of the system ; broadly : the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system2 a: the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity b: a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder (Meriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entropy)


Iam sorry, but it does say that entropy is a measure of randomness. Read your own definition properly, the part which says "measure of the system's disorder" and "the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system" and "a trend to disorder".

I did verify scylars definition and that too is true

"It is a measure of the randomness of molecules in a system"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

oh scylar, you pulled it off. I was just wondering loudly whether evolution can be proven wrong by some other way and you apparently seem to have done it. But its still a long way, you know


humans dont become fish then reptiles then mamals. they merely pass through stages of development where their embryos resemble embryos of other life forms. fish vertebrae evolved into our veterbrae. fish gills evolved into lungs and ears. "yolk", or amnion, evolved into the amniotic sac. these are all suported scientific theories but your quotes seem to leave those bits out.scylar never said that humans become fish then reptiles then mamals etc. He was talking about the embryos, the very thing that was taught to me at school. could you substantiate your above claims by giving proofs? scylar did a fine job of prooving his point. Also, his qotes are wonderfully to the point and hits the bullz eye with respect to the his headings.


1 thing does not just turn into another. its a branching effect. part of a population acquires new attributes slowly, occupies a different ecological niche and becomes different from the other part of the population.If iam not wrong, this is the only way to prove scylar wrong. ie by showing him and me the fossil images of creatures undergoing branching effect. iam damn sure that this branching effect has taken more time (Lions share) to undergo in the evolutionary process. So there must be millions and millions of not-fully-formed creatures. But by reading the post of scylar where he quotes Darwin himself regarding the absence of these disheartens me.

Damn, this is all so interesting

[thatguyisbrett]

your idea of partially formed creatures is somewhat flawed. each differentiated fossil is a marker of a new species. by your deffinition these all seem to be partialy formed creatures.
http://www.southtexascollege.edu/crj/human%20evolution.jpg


heres a short fossil record of "partialy formed creature" (aka human anthropology)

australopithicus aferensis: the first bipedal species (walking primarily on 2 feet) 3.5 mya
http://www.animalpicturesarchive.com/Arch05/1159113309.jpg


homo habilis: larger brain cavity. about half the size of modern humans. also bipedal. 2.2 mya

http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/bh-02-lg.jpg

homo ergaster: lankier limbs, decreased sexual dimorphism (as with modern humans) and much larger cranial cavity. bipedal. 1.9 mya

members of this species have been found buried with handaxes and various tools. chared animal bones indicate this species was the first to harness fire.

http://www.skullsunlimited.com/graphics/bh-12-lg.jpg

homo erectus: brain cavity continues to increase in size. sexual dimorphism continues to decrease. utilizes the same tools as homo ergaster. limbs elongated allowing longer stride. this species is the first hominin to be found outside of africa. 1.8 mya

fossils indicate a slightly advanced system of vocal chords though they were not likely to be able to produce the range of sounds homo sapiens can. fossil deposits display a hunter gatherer society.

http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/892/20157951.JPG


Homo sapiens: modern humans
all hominid species prior to homo sapien are extinct, likely due to out competition by homo sapien and its ancestors as well as homo neanderthalensis. the neanderthal was not a direct ancestor of homo sapiens but an offshoot from the branch of homo heidelbergensis.


so... as you can see there is an extensive fossil record of "partialy formed creatures". this is just a few and only covers the last 4.5 million years. if your looking for a complete record of every ancestor from me to australopithecus aferensis your not likely to find one, as no one i know of in my family has fallen into a tar pit or been frozen in a polar ice cap.

heres a website with a 3D human anthropolgy gallery if youd like more proof

http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/#


id like to leave you with an article from the new york post:

Pope Benedict XVI says the theory of evolution is backed by strong scientific proof - but the theory does not answer life's "great philosophical question."


Benedict told 400 priests at a two-hour event that he's puzzled by the current debate in the United States and his native Germany over creationism and evolution.


Debaters wrongly present the two sides "as if they were alternatives that are exclusive - whoever believes in the creator could not believe in evolution, and whoever asserts belief in evolution would have to disbelieve in God," the pontiff said.

"This contrast is an absurdity, because there are many scientific tests in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and enriches our understanding of life and being.

"But the doctrine of evolution does not answer all questions, and it does not answer above all the great philosophical question: From where does everything come?"

did i win?

[MUNA-SAMA]

The Proof of Creation

The theory of evolution is shot full of inconsistencies. Evolutionists have seized on many theories, within the overall theory of evolution, in an attempt to explain the origins of plants, animals, the heavens and the earth.

Over and over, these “theorists” try to explain how life evolved from inanimate material into more complex life forms until it reached the pinnacle—human beings.

Yet, as one geologist wrote, “It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as student…have been debunked” (Dr. Derek V. Ager, Dept. of Geology, Imperial College, London, The Nature of the Fossil Record, Proceedings of the Geological Assoc., Vol. 87, 1976, pp. 1132-1133).

Perhaps the biggest reason that so many theories within the overall theory of evolution collapse is because they contain terrible logic requiring great leaps in faith to believe. Here is one example of a “debunked” theory: “Many evolutionists have tried to argue that humans are 99% similar chemically to apes and blood precipitation tests do indicate that the chimpanzee is people’s closest relative. Yet regarding this we must observe the following: ‘Milk chemistry indicates that the donkey is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Cholesterol level tests indicate that the garter snake is man’s closest relative.’ ‘Tear enzyme chemistry indicates that the chicken is man’s closest relative.’ ‘On the basis of another type of blood chemistry test, the butter bean is man’s closest relative’” (Morris, Henry M., The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967). So who's our real relative ?!

[thatguyisbrett]

measuring closeness by blood, tear, milk type etc is an archaeic method. this is a report from 1976. we have since sequenced the human genome and can thus see how and why every gene alters the way we are. we can observe the exact genes that make us different from the chimpanzee and it is without a doubt our closest living relative. we share over 95% of our genetic code with chimpanzees and over 98.8% of introns (coding sequences)

this is a much more relative display of closeness as DNA codes for blood type, milk type, tear enzymes, etc.

genome sequencing has revolutionized phylogeny. it is a major proof of evolution. we are closest to apes then other primates then other mamals then reptiles, then fish and so on down the path of our evolution.

[scylar]

AUSTRALOPITHECUS - A FULLY FORMED EXTINCT APE SPECIES

@ jagon-eye - Hey thanks man. Somebody started human evolution. i hope you love the following posts too.

@thatguyisbrett - I appreciate your attempts to support evolution. Human evolution is damn interesting. I have covered all the 4 specimens that you have mentioned.

intro: -

According to evolutionists, the human family tree starts from Australopithecus. According to the claim, Australopithecus gradually began to walk upright, his brain grew, and he passed through a series of stages until he arrived at man's present state (Homo sapiens). But the fossil record does not support this scenario.

AUSTRALOPITHECUS ARE FULLY FORMED EXTINCT APE SPECIES

All of the Australopithecus species are extinct apes that resemble the apes of today.
1. Their cranial capacities are the same or smaller than the chimpanzees of our day.

2. There are projecting parts in their hands and feet which they used to climb trees, just like today's chimpanzees,

3. and their feet are built for grasping to hold onto branches.

4. Many other characteristics—such as the details in their skulls, the closeness of their eyes, their sharp molar teeth, their mandibular structure, their long arms, and their short legs—constitute evidence that these creatures were no different from today's ape. This is general knowledge.

However, evolutionists claim that, although Australopithecines have the anatomy of apes, unlike apes, they walked upright like humans.

AUSTRALOPITHECUS DID NOT WALK UPRIGHT LIKE HUMANS

Extensive research done on various Australopithecus specimens by two world-renowned anatomists from England and the USA, Lord Solly Zuckerman and Prof. Charles Oxnard, showed that these creatures did not walk upright in human manner. Their research spanned for 15 years funded by the british government.

Lord Zuckerman and his team of five specialists reached the conclusion that australopithecines were only an ordinary species of ape, and were definitely not bipedal, although Zuckerman is an evolutionist himself

-Solly Zuckerman, Beyond The Ivory Tower, Toplinger Publications, New York, 1970, pp. 75-94.

"Correspondingly, Charles E. Oxnard, who is another evolutionary anatomist famous for his research on the subject, also likened the skeletal structure of australopithecines to that of modern orangutans."

-Charles E. Oxnard, "The Place of Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt," Nature, vol. 258, 4 December 1975, p. 389.

The famous French popular scientific magazine Science et Vie made the subject the cover of its May 1999 issue.Under the headline "Adieu Lucy"—Lucy being the most important fossil example of the species Australopithecus afarensis—the magazine reported that apes of the species Australopithecus would have to be removed from the human family tree. In this article, based on the discovery of another Australopithecus fossil known simply as St W573, the following sentences appear:

"A new theory states that the genus Australopithecus is not the root of the human race… The results arrived at by the only woman authorized to examine St W573 are different from the normal theories regarding mankind's ancestors: this destroys the hominid family tree. Large primates, considered the ancestors of man, have been removed from the equation of this family tree… Australopithecus and Homo (human) species do not appear on the same branch. Man's direct ancestors are still waiting to be discovered"

-Isabelle Bourdial, "Adieu Lucy," Science et Vie, May 1999, no. 980, pp. 52-62.


http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5293-australopithecus-f-and-chimp-real.jpg

[scylar]

HOMO HABILIS – ANOTHER EXTINCT APE SPECIES

intro:-

The classification of Homo habilis was put forward in the 1960s by the Leakeys, a family of "fossil hunters." According to the Leakeys, this new species, which they classified as Homo habilis, had a relatively large cranial capacity, the ability to walk upright and to use stone and wooden tools. Therefore, according to them, it could have been the ancestor of man.

The reality: -

1. New fossils of the same species unearthed in the late 1980s completely changed this view. Some researchers, such as Bernard Wood and C. Loring Brace, who relied on those newly-found fossils, stated that Homo habilis (which means "skillful man," that is, man capable of using tools), should be classified as Australopithecus habilis, or "skillful southern ape," because Homo habilis had a lot of characteristics in common with the austalopithecine apes.

2. It had long arms, short legs and an ape-like skeletal structure just like Australopithecus. Its fingers and toes were suitable for climbing.

3. Their jaw was very similar to that of today's apes. Their 600 cc average cranial capacity is also an indication of the fact that they were apes.

In short, Homo habilis, which was presented as a different species by some evolutionists, was in reality an ape species just like all the other australopithecines.

The detailed analyses conducted by American anthropologist Holly Smith in 1994 indicated that Homo habilis was not Homo, in other words, human or human ancestor, at all, but rather unequivocally an ape. Speaking of the analyses she made on the teeth of Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis, Smith stated the following;

"Restricting analysis of fossils to specimens satisfying these criteria, patterns of dental development of gracile australopithecines and Homo Habilis remain classified with African apes. Those of Homo erectus and Neanderthals are classified with humans."

-Holly Smith, American Journal of Physical Antropology, vol. 94, 1994, pp. 307-325.

Within the same year, Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood and Frans Zonneveld, all specialists on anatomy, reached a similar conclusion through a totally different method. This method was based on the comparative analysis of the semicircular canals in the inner ear of humans and apes, which allow them to maintain their balance. Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld concluded that:

"Among the fossil hominids the earliest species to demonstrate the modern human morphology is Homo erectus. In contrast, the semicircular canal dimensions in crania from southern Africa attributed to Australopithecus and Paranthropus resemble those of the extant great apes."

-Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood & Frans Zonneveld, "Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion," Nature, vol 369, 23 June 1994, p. 645

Spoor, Wood and Zonneveld also studied a Homo habilis specimen, namely Stw 53, and found out that "Stw 53 relied less on bipedal behavior than the australopithecines." This meant that the Homo habilis specimen was even more ape-like than the Australopithecus species.

Thus they concluded that "Stw 53 represents an unlikely intermediate between the morphologies seen in the australopithecines and H. erectus."

-Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood & Frans Zonneveld, "Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion," Nature, vol 369, 23 June 1994, p. 648

Grand Conclusion: -

This finding yielded two important results:

1. Fossils referred to as Homo habilis did not actually belong to the genus Homo, i.e., humans, but to that of Australopithecus, i.e., apes.

2. Both Homo habilis and Australopithecus were creatures that walked stooped forward—that is to say, they had the skeleton of an ape. They have no relation whatsoever to man.

[thatguyisbrett]

heres the thing. your reports are the rare case of scientists disagreeing with the norm. for every case youve stated that disagrees with these findings there are a hundred or a thousand that agree with it. the fact is that the majority of human anthropologists believe australopithicus and homo habilis to be hominids and some of the latest ancestors of man.

they dont teach us this stuff in school to trick us. they teach it to us because it is what is backed by the most scientific evidence.

there are a ton of anti evolution resources out there. as you can see they present facts from studies then claim that it disproves evolution. the fact is if you check the actual journal and not just the article you got this from, it says nothing about disproving evolution.

example: Fred Spoor, Bernard Wood & Frans Zonneveld, "Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion,"
this article discusses the idea that another hominid besides homo habilis was our ancestor. it does not even come close to claiming that evolution is false because this might not be our ancestor.

when dealing with an un-credible source it is important to check your sources' source.

[scylar]

HOMO ERECTUS:- A FULLY FORMED EXTINCT HUMAN RACE

Actually, who told you that fred spoor's article says that evolution is false? did i? No. I merely said, well you can re-look into the above post and find out what i said. Also, i did find out pretty interesting things about evolution in the article and they don't seem to agree with hardened evolutionary beliefs. I would be happy to share it you guys

intro: -

As the name implies, Homo erectus means "man who walks upright." According to the fanciful scheme suggested by evolutionists, the internal evolution of the Homo genus is as follows:

first - Homo erectus
second - Homo sapiens and Neanderthal man (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis)
third - Cro-Magnon man (Homo sapiens sapiens)

THICK EYEBROWS AND LOWER CRANIAL CAPACITY DOES NOT MAKE THEM PRIMITIVE

"The primary reason for evolutionists' defining Homo erectus as "primitive" is the cranial capacity of its skull (900-1,100 cc), which is smaller than the average modern man, and its thick eyebrow projections. However, there are many people living today in the world who have the same cranial capacity as Homo erectus (pygmies, for instance) and other races have protruding eyebrows (Native Australians, for instance). It is a commonly agreed-upon fact that differences in cranial capacity do not necessarily denote differences in intelligence or abilities. Intelligence depends on the internal organization of the brain, rather than on its volume."

-Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention: a creationist assessment of the human fossils, Baker Books, 1992, p. 83.

The most famous of the Homo erectus specimens found in Africa is the fossil of "Narikotome Homo erectus," or the "Turkana Boy," which was found near Lake Turkana in Kenya. It is confirmed that the fossil was that of a 12-year-old boy, who would have been 1.83 meters tall in adolescence. The upright skeletal structure of the fossil is no different from that of modern man.

The American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said that he doubted that "the average pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern human." Concerning the skull, Walker wrote that he laughed when he saw it because "it looked so much like a Neanderthal, (a modern human race)"

-Boyce Rensberger, Washington Post, 19 October 1984, p. A11.

Even the evolutionist Richard Leakey states that the differences between Homo erectus and modern man are no more than racial variance:

"One would also see differences: in the shape of the skull, in the degree of protrusion of the face, the robustness of the brows and so on. These differences are probably no more pronounced than we see today between the separate geographical races of modern humans. Such biological variation arises when populations are geographically separated from each other for significant lengths of time."

-Richard Leakey, The Making of Mankind,Sphere Books, London, 1981, p. 116.

Professor William Laughlin from the University of Connecticut made extensive anatomical examinations of Inuits and the people living on the Aleut islands, and noticed that these people were extraordinarily similar to Homo erectus. The conclusion Laughlin arrived at was that all these distinct races were in fact different races of Homo sapiens (modern man):

"When we consider the vast differences that exist between remote groups such as Eskimos and Bushmen, who are known to belong to the single species of Homo sapiens, it seems justifiable to conclude that Sinanthropus [an erectus specimen] belongs within this same diverse species."

-Marvin Lubenow, Bones of Contention: a creationist assessment of the human fossils, Baker Books, 1992. p. 136.

In American Scientist, the discussions over this issue and the result of a conference held on the subject in 2000 were summarized in this way:

"Most of the participants at the Senckenberg conference got drawn into a flaming debate over the taxonomic status of Homo erectus started by Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan, Alan Thorne of the University of Canberra and their colleagues. They argued forcefully that Homo erectus had no validity as a species and should be eliminated altogether. All members of the genus Homo, from about 2 million years ago to the present, were one highly variable, widely spread species, Homo sapiens, with no natural breaks or subdivisions. The subject of the conference, Homo erectus, didn't exist."

-Pat Shipman, "Doubting Dmanisi," American Scientist, November- December 2000, p. 491

The conclusion reached by the scientists defending the abovementioned thesis can be summarized as "Homo erectus is not a different species from Homo sapiens, but rather a race within Homo sapiens."

Grand Conclusion: -

1. Homo erectus is a race within homo sapiens.

2. Homo erectus were a fully formed extinct human race

3. On the other hand, there is a huge gap between Homo erectus, a human race, and the apes that preceded Homo erectus in the "human evolution" scenario (Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, and Homo rudolfensis). This means that the first men appeared in the fossil record suddenly and without any prior evolutionary history.

COMPARE "TURKANA BOY" BRLONGING TO HOMO ERUCTUS WITH MODERN DAY ABORIGNE


http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5294-homo-erectus-turkana-boy-f-and-aborigin-r.jpg

[scylar]

Dude wait a minute. i still got homo ergaster to deal with

[scylar]

HOMO ERGASTER - ANOTHER EXTINCT HUMAN RACE: -

@MUNA-SAMA - Good post. I hope people start thinking seriously when someone tells them fantasies like we are 99% close to chimps etc etc


heres the thing. your reports are the rare case of scientists disagreeing with the norm. for every case youve stated that disagrees with these findings there are a hundred or a thousand that agree with it.My friend, first i have to appreciate you for coming up with some defense in support of evolution. Please do not base your judgments on majority-minority basis. People would call me biased. i know. That is exactly why i quote only evolutionist sources from the highest levels. As far as i know, i havent quoted even a single creationist source so far. People are very demanding when it comes to my posts. Anyway. i am only glad to oblige. Good job. Keep up with the spirit of enquiry!

intro - Homo ergaster is generally regarded as the same species as Homo erectus; they resemble each other very closely.

Since it is already established that Australopithecus was an ape, the following quote highlights the huge anatomical difference between Australopithecus and homo ergaster- an extinct human race

In a paper published in 2000 in the Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution, the evolutionist researcher Hawks and his team summarise this, to them, surprising situation:

"We, like many others, interpret the anatomical evidence to show that early H. sapiens [H. erectus and H. ergaster] was significantly and dramatically different from earlier and penecontemporary australopithecines in virtually every element of its skeleton and every remnant of its behavior."

-Hawks, J., Hunley, K., Sang-Hee, L., Wolpoff, M., "Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Evolution," Journal of Molecular Biology and Evolution, 17(1):2-22 (January, 2000)


there is no evidence that Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster), depicted as a "primitive human being" in "Walking with Cavemen," was in fact primitive at all.

CRANIAL CAPACITY OH HOMO ERGASTER WITHIN THAT OF MODERN DAY HUMANS: -

1. Australopithecus 370-515 cc (an extinct ape species)

2. Homo habilis Avg 552 cc (another extinct ape species)

3. Homo ergaster Avg 854 cc

4. Homo sapiens (modern man) 700-2200 cc

observe the first two and the last two.

HOMO ERGASTER A SAILING APE?

Another striking piece of evidence about Homo erectus/ergaster is the findings that these people engaged in sailing. One article in New Scientist titled "Ancient mariners: Early humans were much smarter than we suspected" refers to evidence that members of Homo erectus who lived 700,000 years ago voyaged on the sea.

"Ancient mariners: Early humans were much smarter than we suspected", New Scientist, March 14, 1998


http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5295-homo-ergaster-erectus-sailing.jpg

[danes0301]

Ok, i respect the creation theory, but i'm more of the evolution theory supporter, creation is based on writings only, evolution is based on findings, discoveries and facts

[thatguyisbrett]

dude i already looked at the anti evolution site you got these from. read above about checking your sources source.

im a 4th year biology student. ive read more books then you care to know about human anthropology and evolution in general. you are not going to convince me that evolution is wrong by posting stuff from a creationist website. the articles greatly skew the meaning of the journals they list as their sources.

[scylar]

you may be a 4th year bio student. But i am a full fledged researcher. Evolution has been my subject of research since 5 years exclusively. So my friend, i don't blame you for not considering my posts. labelling someone as "creationist" or "evolutionist" or "biased" etc doesn't help prove anything. I am not asking you to believe in anything. The decisions are left to you. But i wanted to tell you that human evolution is hardly over. You picked up 4 specimens and i have replied only to them. There is a lot more to it. So i would love to share it with you. Ill mail it to you maybe first thing tomorrow morning. I would really appreciate if you go through the rest of the stuff that ill mail you.

[chris-chan]

Iam sorry, but it does say that entropy is a measure of randomness. Read your own definition properly, the part which says "measure of the system's disorder" and "the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system" and "a trend to disorder".

I did verify scylars definition and that too is true

"It is a measure of the randomness of molecules in a system"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy)


Actually, it does not say that "it is a measure of randomness", and you yourself even admitted it. You even said that it says "measure of a systems disorder, the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system, and a trend of disorder." None of those say that it is a "measure of randomness of molecules in a system." If it had said that, then his definition would have been right, but it didn't and the definition I found said that. Oh, and you can't use wikipedia as a resource! We have already stated this! Wikipedia is a open website where anyone can go and put up whatever they want at any time without having to have proof. Meriam-Webster, on the other hand (which is where I found my definition) is a un-biased source that not anyone can go and change.

[Deekle]

you may be a 4th year bio student. But i am a full fledged researcher. Evolution has been my subject of research since 5 years exclusively. So my friend, i don't blame you for not considering my posts. labelling someone as "creationist" or "evolutionist" or "biased" etc doesn't help prove anything. I am not asking you to believe in anything. The decisions are left to you. But i wanted to tell you that human evolution is hardly over. You picked up 4 specimens and i have replied only to them. There is a lot more to it. So i would love to share it with you. Ill mail it to you maybe first thing tomorrow morning. I would really appreciate if you go through the rest of the stuff that ill mail you.

The internet is loaded with tons and tons of crap. As a 4 year bio student he has had access to some plausible textbooks and good sources. I can pull my old biology(used it last year, published in early 2007) textbook that is NEW, not the 90s and old sources you use. It explains the theory of evolution , there are many chapters on it.

[skullreken]

@Deekle
the fact that scyler is using information that cannot be backed up and is obviously doctored to look like it supports he claims shows that he knows nothing about researching if he tried to use his sources in a thesis he'd get a fail I dont think the examiner would read the whole thing

[Deekle]

I just typed a two page essay on Evolution, Intelligent design and Creationism. My teacher made sure to let us know that wikipedia is not okay and he had to approve the source.

He supplied two unbiased sources that were from scientific articles, which are hard to find. I wouldn't trust anything over the internet as unbiased...

[thatguyisbrett]

you may be a 4th year bio student. But i am a full fledged researcher. Evolution has been my subject of research since 5 years exclusively. So my friend, i don't blame you for not considering my posts. labelling someone as "creationist" or "evolutionist" or "biased" etc doesn't help prove anything. I am not asking you to believe in anything. The decisions are left to you. But i wanted to tell you that human evolution is hardly over. You picked up 4 specimens and i have replied only to them. There is a lot more to it. So i would love to share it with you. Ill mail it to you maybe first thing tomorrow morning. I would really appreciate if you go through the rest of the stuff that ill mail you.

i considered your posts. i read them. then i read where you got them from. then i read what they based their conclusions on. the evidence just doesnt match the conclusion.

credibility is no minor matter in science. you can say anything you want on a website you created. ive seen a lot of the creationist websites. they always have great production value and offer up their disinformation in neat little bundles to be passed along in emails. real research is done by reading actual scientific journals. it takes work and proof to get something published in a scientific journal.

the way these articles minimize the amount of credible information and project their own conclusions as solid facts seems to me to be the equivalent of pissing on my leg and telling me its raining.

[scylar]

14th PROOF - TROUT PERCH NEVER EVOLVED

nice chit-chat everyone. If i give one source from wiki - just one and you all make so much noise. doesn't matter. like i said before, you need not look at the sources that i mention. just take down the names of the fossils that i cover here and check them out from whichever source you feel like. I am sure the info will remain the same. Try it out on the following.

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5422-trout-perch-f.jpg


TROUT-PERCH
Age: 50 million years old
Location: Fossil Lake, Kemmerer, Wyoming
Formation: Green River Formation
Period: Eocene

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5419-trout-perch-r.jpg

A LIVING TROUT PERCH

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5420-trout-perch-tail-f.jpg
TROUT TAIL
Age: 15 million years old
Location: Stewart Springs Flora, Stewart Valley, Nevada
Period: Miocene

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5421-trout-perch-tail-r.jpg

A LIVING TROUT

Stop complaining about sources and get down to actual talk. Show me an intermediate trout from whatever source you think is good enough.. Take it as an open challenge.

@Deekle7 - oh deekle7, you don't even have the courtesy to look into the evidence (that you asked) that i mailed you some time back. Perhaps you are too busy complaining about sources. Whatever.

Textbooks aren't "THE ESTABLISHED TRUTH". My textbook had the Ernst haeckel's fake embryo drawings (12th poof). That was embarrassing.

Everyone get this straight. If evolution is indeed true then you have to give me at least 100 intermediate fossil evidences for each complete fossil evidence that i give you. Fine. Ill be considerate. Just give me 10 for each one that i give.

[MUNA-SAMA]

Incredible Cells and “Irreducible Complexity”


Consider the common mousetrap. Everyone is familiar with it and most have used one. Which part of a mousetrap could you remove and still have it work? The answer is—not one! As ingenious as it is, it is a very simple mechanism. But since the mousetrap cannot be made any simpler, it represents a condition called “irreducible complexity.”Certain living organisms also cannot be simplified or reduced in complexity, and survive. The removal of any single part causes the system to cease functioning. Irreducibly complex systems cannot be produced gradually, by slight successive modifications from a less complicated pre-condition. They must exist exactly as they are—whole, complete—or they cannot exist at all! Take away any part and they cease to function and, therefore, cease to live. What is the significance of this?
Charles Darwin, in his famous work, The Origin of Species, framed a great problem that he and all other evolutionists face: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down”

Nature contains many different biochemical systems that cannot be reduced in complexity. They are sometimes referred to as “molecular machines” and, like a four-stroke gasoline engine, cannot be simplified and still function.
Here is just one amazing quote about a single, incredible organism. It illustrates the principle we are discussing. The quote is from the article Molecular Machines by Michael J. Behe:
“Earlier we discussed proteins. In many biological structures proteins are simply components of larger molecular machines. Like the picture tube, wires, metal bolts and screws that comprise a television set, many proteins are part of structures that only function when virtually all of the components have been assembled. A good example of this is a cilium. Cilia are hairlike organelles on the surfaces of many animal and lower plant cells that serve to move fluid over the cell’s surface or to ‘row’ single cells through a fluid. In humans, for example, epithelial cells lining the respiratory tract each have about 200 cilia that beat in synchrony to sweep mucus towards the throat for elimination. A cilium consists of a membrane-coated bundle of fibers called an axoneme. An axoneme contains a ring of 9 double microtubules surrounding two central single microtubules. Each outer doublet consists of a ring of 13 filaments (subfiber A) fused to an assembly of 10 filaments (subfiber B). The filaments of the microtubules are composed of two proteins called alpha and beta tubulin. The 11 microtubules forming an axoneme are held together by three types of connectors: subfibers A are joined to the central microtubules by radial spokes; adjacent outer doublets are joined by linkers that consist of a highly elastic protein called nexin; and the central microtubules are joined by a connecting bridge. Finally, every subfiber A bears two arms, an inner arm and an outer arm, both containing the protein dynein.

“But how does a cilium work? Experiments have indicated that ciliary motion results from the chemically-powered ‘walking’ of the dynein arms on one microtubule up the neighboring subfiber B of a second microtubule so that the two microtubules slide past each other. However, the protein cross-links between microtubules in an intact cilium prevent neighboring microtubules from sliding past each other by more than a short distance. These cross-links…convert the dynein-induced sliding motion to a bending motion of the entire axoneme.


“Now let us sit back, review the workings of the cilium, and consider what it implies. Cilia are composed of at least a half dozen proteins: alpha-tubulin, beta-tubulin, dynein, nexin, spoke protein, and a central bridge protein. These combine to perform one task, ciliary motion, and all of these proteins must be present for the cilium to function. If the tubulins are absent, then there are no filaments to slide; if the dynein is missing, then the cilium remains rigid and motionless; if nexin or the other connecting proteins are missing, then the axoneme falls apart when the filaments slide.


“What we see in the cilium, then, is not just profound complexity, but also irreducible complexity on the molecular scale.” You see the point!
This was terribly complicated. In a way, that is the point! Organisms are all complicated—some wonderfully so. And yet they cannot be reduced, diminished or simplified in their complexity. They had to come into being exactly as they are, because they never could have arrived at their present condition gradually.

[Yulok]

"nice chit-chat everyone. If i give one source from wiki - just one and you all make so much noise. doesn't matter. like i said before, you need not look at the sources that i mention. just take down the names of the fossils (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:void%280%29) that i cover here and check them out from whichever source you feel like. I am sure the info will remain the same. Try it out on the following." -Scylar

...Even thatguyisbrett is flagging you, AND HE'S TRYING TO PROVE THE SAME THING! I even said if someone trying to prove my theories were posting like you are I would tell them exactly what he is. Much respect to thatguyisbrett.
Oh, and don't keep telling us to look up your sources, especially at this point. If you want anyone to listen, then post just one of those reliable sources you are talking about, since you are "sure the info will remain the same".

You use wikipedia, criticize us for telling you why it's not a source, and expect us to believe you are a respectable researcher?

So if we didn't evolve, how did we become what we are? Does the God of the Universe just silently place us on this planet at sequential intervals? That is far harder to believe, but how else exactly do we come to be what we are then?


"Everyone get this straight. If evolution is indeed true then you have to give me at least 100 intermediate fossil evidences for each complete fossil evidence that i give you. Fine. Ill be considerate. Just give me 10 for each one that i give." wow, that sounds egotistical. We cannot give you them because so far we have not discovered them. Maybe we never will... And maybe we will never find any evidence of God... Which is more likely?

[chris-chan]

This is not my writing! It is from a database that is ok'd by my school and therefore they have given students access to it. Anyone not in the school, or not in a school that has access to the database can not access this information. I picked this one because it pretty much talks about what everyone has brought up.

Creationism Should Be Taught Alongside Evolution



Table of Contents: Further Readings (http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/retrieve.do?subjectParam=Locale%2528en%252C%252C%2 529%253AFQE%253D%2528su%252CNone%252C21%2529%2522E volution%2B%2528Biology%2529%2522%2524&contentSet=GSRC&sort=Relevance&tabID=T010&sgCurrentPosition=0&subjectAction#FurtherReadings)

Patrick Glynn, "Monkey on Our Backs," National Review, vol. 51, September 13, 1999, p. 42. Copyright © 1999 by National Review, Inc., 215 Lexington Ave., New York, NY 10016. Reproduced by permission.
Patrick Glynn is associate director of the George Washington University for Communitarian Policy Studies and the author of God: The Evidence.


When science teachers refuse to teach creationism alongside evolution, they are doing students a disservice. By keeping creationism out of schools, educators have stifled critical thinking. Moreover, although much of creationism has been debunked by science, the idea that evolution is directed by an intelligent being is worth considering.
Critics have decried the Kansas Board of Education's [1999] vote against evolution1 as a throwback to the 19th century. In truth, though, both sides of the evolution-creationism debate are locked in a 19th-century quarrel, seemingly oblivious to 20th-century scientific developments that have rendered much of their argument obsolete. While the "ol' time religion" and Biblical literalism of Kansas board members have invited great scorn, many of their opponents in the evolution camp share a naively positivistic view of science, nearly as fundamentalist, in its own way, as the beliefs of creationists.
Not that anyone is likely to construe the Kansas board's decision to strike evolution from the state's required curriculum as a public-relations victory for evangelicalism. By allying themselves with so-called "scientific creationists" or "young-earth theorists," the board members did much to discredit more legitimate critiques of Darwin. While one can respect the piety of a person whose literal understanding of the Book of Genesis leads him to claim that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old, that individual should hardly be surprised if the world at large fails to regard his views as scientific. No less an authority than St. Augustine cautioned Christians against quoting the Bible as a science text and warned that by doing so they would tend to render their religion laughable in the eyes of more knowledgeable people. The Kansas board members fell into this trap.

Assumptions Not Conclusions


But if the Kansans allowed religion to encroach all too clumsily on science, they were reacting in part to an evolutionary science that has too often encroached on religion. In 1997, Phillip Johnson, the University of California law professor and outspoken critic of Darwin, drew attention to the then-official definition of "evolution" promulgated by the National Association of Biology Teachers:


The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unsupervised, impersonal, unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.
Modern geology has established persuasively that the earth is a good deal older than 10,000 years (the current estimate is 4.5 billion). Most scientists accept that the fossil record shows evidence of macroevolution—i.e., the emergence of new species—and common descent. But the evidence is a long way from supporting the claim that the process was "unsupervised, impersonal" or even based solely on "chance." That is not a conclusion based on data. It is rather the assumption of most biologists going in.
The board of the biology teachers' association reluctantly agreed to drop the words "unsupervised" and "impersonal" from their definition after receiving a letter of protest from the eminent religion scholar Huston Smith and Notre Dame philosopher Alvin Plantinga, who pointed out that while the fossil record may provide evidence for evolution, it fails to establish whether evolution "is or isn't directed by God." But the underlying logic of the teachers' definition—the implication that all life and species can be explained solely by chance mechanisms—remains the official position of the profession, indeed its central tenet.

Lack of Debate


All of which helps to explain why a middle ground in this controversy, while seemingly available in theory, has proved so elusive in practice. The Washington Post editorialized evenhandedly enough about the Kansas decision, noting that evolution is a "reality," "no matter how inconvenient," and adding: "This is not to say that there is no significant debate over its mode and character. There is, in fact, a rich and wonderful one." This rich and wonderful debate, however, does not take place, by and large, among biology teachers in K-12 classrooms.
The draft science requirements rejected by the Kansas board had two striking features. First, the draft contained a remarkably heavy dose of evolution, more than most of us middle-aged folks remember from our own school days. Second, it presented evolutionary biology in a manner suggesting an utter absence of controversy within or about the field. The document included a footnote to the effect that students were required to "understand" rather than profess "belief" in evolutionary theory. But the curriculum made no provision for the presentation of dissenting views. The notion that there exists legitimate disagreement, scientific or even philosophical, about evolution was nowhere suggested.
Indeed, experience has shown that it can be risky for a high-school instructor to explore what the Post calls this "rich and wonderful" debate. Recently the Christian Science Monitor carried a story about a Minnesota biology teacher, Rodney LeVake, who raised questions about the validity of natural selection and introduced his class to "intelligent design theory"—the position advocated by some scientists that the order intrinsic in the universe provides empirical evidence of design or creation. For his troubles LeVake was barred by the local school board from teaching biology the next year.
Interestingly, the rejected Kansas curriculum also featured a component on cosmic evolution, including the big-bang theory. But nowhere did it mention an issue that has generated a vast literature in cosmology—the anthropic principle, or the mystery of the "cosmic coincidences" in the universe, which a number of scientists argue strongly suggest the existence of design. (Unfortunately, the majority of the Kansas board discarded the cosmic-evolution component of the curriculum as well.)

[chris-chan]

Part 2 because the whole thing couldn't fit.

A Disservice to Students


Part of the difficulty here is legal and constitutional. The Supreme Court has ruled against the teaching of creationism in public schools, and any discussion of intelligent design in a public-school classroom might border dangerously on teaching religion. But as a result of these legal restrictions, supposed or real, and the conventional mindset of the biology profession, students are missing out on a major revolution in the sciences, which may, ironically enough, hold a solution to the evolution-creationism deadlock.
The most interesting challenges to the 19th-century Darwinian understanding of evolution have come not from biology, but from new 20th-century disciplines—in particular, astrophysics and information theory. In reconstructing the evolution of the cosmos, astrophysicists have discovered a universe that seems mysteriously and intricately preprogrammed for life. Regardless of how life originated, this preprogramming seems almost incompatible with mere chance.
In addition, information theory, in combination with molecular biology, has revolutionized our idea of life. In particular, it has led to the insight that life is not simply matter, but matter plus information. DNA is in effect a "message" coded in matter. Matter can carry information; it cannot, so far as we know, create information. The question therefore arises, Where does the information come from?
In Darwin's day it was commonly believed that the laws of biology would eventually be reduced to the laws of chemistry, and the laws of chemistry in turn to the laws of physics. But now it has been established that the simplest version of DNA contains more information than is contained in all the laws of chemistry and physics. So such reductionism—a goal at the heart of the Darwinian project—is no longer conceivable.
These are the issues that would light a fire in students and open minds. But thanks to a legacy of bitter legal and constitutional conflict, and to the doctrinal rigidities of the biology profession, students may be exposed to "current events" in every field but the life sciences, as our schools remain locked in a war between two 19th-century fundamentalisms, one religious, the other scientific.

Footnotes
1. In 2001 the Kansas Board of Education voted to restore evolution to the state's science curriculum.

Glynn, Patrick. "Creationism Should Be Taught Alongside Evolution." At Issue: Religion and Education. Ed. Tom Head. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. CCLA, Manatee Comm College. 12 Dec. 2008 <http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do?&contentSet=GSRC&type=retrieve&tabID=T010&prodId=OVRC&docId=EJ3010391209&source=gale&srcprod=OVRC&userGroupName=lincclin_mcc&version=1.0>.

[thatguyisbrett]

nice chit-chat everyone. If i give one source from wiki - just one and you all make so much noise. doesn't matter. like i said before, you need not look at the sources that i mention. just take down the names of the fossils that i cover here and check them out from whichever source you feel like. I am sure the info will remain the same. Try it out on the following.

i wasnt refering to your posts from wikipedia. i was refering to your myriad of posts from darwinismrefuted.com, a known creationist website.

[thatguyisbrett]

Stop complaining about sources and get down to actual talk. Show me an intermediate trout from whatever source you think is good enough.. Take it as an open challenge.

@Deekle7 - oh deekle7, you don't even have the courtesy to look into the evidence (that you asked) that i mailed you some time back. Perhaps you are too busy complaining about sources. Whatever.

Textbooks aren't "THE ESTABLISHED TRUTH". My textbook had the Ernst haeckel's fake embryo drawings (12th poof). That was embarrassing.

Everyone get this straight. If evolution is indeed true then you have to give me at least 100 intermediate fossil evidences for each complete fossil evidence that i give you. Fine. Ill be considerate. Just give me 10 for each one that i give.


like i stated before. just because an animal has the same structure as it did millions of years ago doesnt mean that portions of the population didnt speciate. these examples of modern animals with retained characteristics dont prove anything. bacteria have been around for billions of years and some still resemble the earliest weve seen. but in a lab we can take those same bacteria, alow them to multiply and apply different stresses and see evolution in a matter of days.

again your idea of "intermediate" fossils is flawed. it doesnt matter how many different fossils i showed you that were progressively slightly different from this one. you would still complain. you would just say its another "completed" fossil of some other fish. there is no such thing as an "intermidiate" fossil between species. when a fossil is slightly different then another it is just another species. see speciation.

[Anon-sama]

Just for your info: It's been proven that wikipedia is as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica. However, the length of the articles varies alot more than on EB.
"just because an animal has the same structure as it did millions of years ago" Why are you people so obsessed with how the skeleton structure look? Evolution can also refer to adjusting to the environment, new ways to get their food and stuff. Or am I wrong? If we look at evolution that way, then we can find tons of example everywhere around as.

And just for the record: For each generation, we're getting more intelligent. That's also evolution. Every generation unlocks a bit more of our brain capacity than our ancestors. If I remember correctly, we can use about 9 % of the brains capacity as it is now. 2000 years ago it was 7-8 %. Again, I'm not sure about the actual values, but it was somewhere around 6-12 %

[scylar]

15th PROOF - INSECTS NEVER EVOLVED



"Everyone get this straight. If evolution is indeed true then you have to give me at least 100 intermediate fossil evidences for each complete fossil evidence that i give you. Fine. Ill be considerate. Just give me 10 for each one that i give." wow, that sounds egotistical. We cannot give you them because so far we have not discovered them. Maybe we never will... ?


damn right yulok. You admitted the failure of evolution on the face. But dont give up hope yet. Keep looking. I am sure somewhere you can find some fossil evidence and show it to me. I ll be waiting. In the mean time sit back and relax while i show you more fossil evidences to expose the evolution fantasy.

@chris chan - i totally agree with your school source. evolution and creation must both be taught at school. Equal time must be devoted to both. As Yulok and almost all evolutionists admit the absence of intermediate fossils to back their stories, it is clear that they have reached nowhere in their theory.

@Galgalid - Thanks man. I just want to tell you that adjusting to environment is called "adaptation" which is totally different from "evolution". For example in adaptation virus may adapt itself and become more resistant but it never transforms into bacteria or protozoa or.......monkey....man. Virus remains a virus. Anyway, thanks.

@thatguyisbrett - Pretty much same thing to you as galgalid. But i may have to ask did the bacteria at your lab transform itself into something else which is "not - so -bacteria"? Just think over.

@muna-sama -
“irreducible complexity.”Certain living organisms also cannot be simplified or reduced in complexity, and survive. The removal of any single part causes the system to cease functioning. Irreducibly complex systems cannot be produced gradually, by slight successive modifications from a less complicated pre-condition. They must exist exactly as they are—whole, complete—or they cannot exist at all! Take away any part and they cease to function and, therefore, cease to live. What is the significance of this? Damn right you are. But my evolutionist friends may not agree. They may not agree when i tell them that for fish to move on to land, they would have to develop fully functioning complete lungs in a matter of minutes or they would die. They may not agree when i tell them that fate wont wait for millions of years to transform gills into lungs as evolutionist fantasize.

Anyway, good one muna-sama, Your quote of charles darwin is truly intriguing. Anyway, this is the source: -

Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189

WASPS WERE ALWAYS WASPS

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5501-wasp-f-2.jpg

WASP FOSSIL
AGE: 125 million years
TERM: Cretaceous
LOCATION: Santana Formation, Brasil

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5503-wasp-r-2.jpg

A LIVING WASP

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5500-wasp-f.jpg

A 48- to 37-million-year-old
fossil wasp

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5502-wasp-r.jpg

A LIVING WASP

Evolution? where? Not in insects, not in fishes, not in reptiles, not in birds, not in mammals. Nowhere.

Dear anime friends, Successive brainwashing by the media and colorful images from the drawing rooms of artists may have changed your perspective of life. I dont know. But it doesnt kill to be different. People like Galileo, kepler etc had to lose their lives (i think) because they were different and challenged the most accepted views of their times. But today we know that they were right. Becoming one among the crowd is not always good coz the crowd may not be always correct. You have been given with only one side of the story. So dont hate me if i give you the other side of the story.

[MUNA-SAMA]

ppl what i'm trying to do here is proving that God exists, but it seems no one is looking at my posts except Scylar!!!any ways i'll keep posting i just want to say what i feel is right.
oh i'm taking my evidences from some NEW scientific articles even if the outher gave evidences from old articls or books but he wouldn't do that unless they are scientifically aproved until now.
after each statement you can find from which book or article they were taken from.
@ chris this is ur school opinion what about yours? i want to hear it.

Amino Acids, Proteins and DNA


Let’s take a journey deep into the cells of all living organisms. This will be unlike any journey you have ever taken before.

Immediately, we see a world of such exquisite detail, design, complexity, inter-dependence and specificity as to boggle the mind. Let’s paint a picture.

Amino acids must link together to form a chain, thus making a protein. Notice: “Yet, amino acids form functioning proteins only when they adopt very specific sequential arrangements…like properly sequenced letters in an English sentence. Thus, amino acids alone do not make proteins any more than letters alone make…poetry.
In both cases, the sequencing of the constituent parts determines the function [or lack of function] of the whole. Explaining the origin of the specific sequencing of proteins (and DNA) lies at the heart of the current crisis in materialistic evolutionary thinking” (Stephen C. Meyer, DNA And Other Designs, p. 9—emphasis mine).

A brief discussion of proteins and sequencing is necessary. Proteins must appear in exact sequences to cause specific chemical reactions or build specific structures within the cells. This action is called specificity. It is because of specificity that proteins cannot substitute for one another. They are as different in purpose as an axe, a drill, a hammer and a screwdriver.


This extensive quote summarizes the enormous difficulty of believing that DNA happened by chance: “The complexity and intricacy of the DNA molecule—combined with the staggering amount of chemically-coded information it contains—speak unerringly to the fact that this ‘supermolecule’ simply could not have happened by blind chance. As Andrews has observed.

“It is not possible for a code, of any kind, to arise by chance or accident…A code is the work of an intelligent mind. Even the cleverest dog or chimpanzee could not work out a code of any kind. It is obvious then that chance cannot do it…This could no more have been the work of chance or accident than could the ‘Moonlight Sonata’ be played by mice running up and down the keyboard of my piano! Codes do not arise from chaos.” (Andrews, E.H., 1978, From Nothing to Nature, pp. 28-29).


Here is a second statement: “Indeed, codes do not arise from chaos. As Dawkins correctly remarked: ‘The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer’ (1982, p. 130, emp. Added). That is the exact point the theist is making: an intelligent Designer is demanded by the evidence” (Bert Thompson, Ph.D., The Case For The Existence of God [Part II]).


Dr. Carl Sagan wrote an article for the Encyclopedia Britannica about DNA. He said, “The information content of a simple cell has been estimated at around (one trillion) bits.” He then went on to explain the enormity of this number by stating, “…that if one were to count every letter of every word of every book in the world’s largest library (over ten million volumes), the final tally would be approximately a trillion letters. Thus, a single cell contains the equivalent information content…of more than ten million volumes” (“Life on Earth,” Vol. 10).

[Anon-sama]

@scylar: yeah, it was adaption. But what do you say about that fact that we're getting more intelligent for each generation? I wouldn't call that adaption, but evolution.

[thatguyisbrett]

According to Newsweek in 1987, "there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms about 0.14%

[Jagon-eye]

Dear anime friends, Successive brainwashing by the media and colorful images from the drawing rooms of artists may have changed your perspective of life. I dont know. But it doesnt kill to be different. People like Galileo, kepler etc had to lose their lives (i think) because they were different and challenged the most accepted views of their times. But today we know that they were right. Becoming one among the crowd is not always good coz the crowd may not be always correct. You have been given with only one side of the story. So dont hate me if i give you the other side of the story.



Who said that we hate you? scylar, scylar,scylar scylar you really have the guts to be different. I am your biggest fan. hehe. I was worried that you would stumble when it comes to human evolution. But you rose like a phoenix. And what a post (or posts). amazing.

The other side of the story seems to be pretty interesting.


According to Newsweek in 1987, "there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms about 0.14%

during the days of galileo only one person believed that earth was round and that was kepler (maybe their girlfriends too lol!). So this is not even 0.00000000%.
so the figure of 0.14% doesnt really prove anything. but good info.


Dr. Carl Sagan wrote an article for the Encyclopedia Britannica about DNA. He said, “The information content of a simple cell has been estimated at around (one trillion) bits.” He then went on to explain the enormity of this number by stating, “…that if one were to count every letter of every word of every book in the world’s largest library (over ten million volumes), the final tally would be approximately a trillion letters. Thus, a single cell contains the equivalent information content…of more than ten million volumes” (“Life on Earth,” Vol. 10).

this is so ludicrously true. I have a wierd logic in my mind.
each cell contains one trillion bits of info is it? fine. i assume that this info is arranged in proper order.
but estimated age of earth is 4.5 billion years.
and 1000 billion = 1 trillion.

So to form one cell, the number of bits to fall in order per day would be (1 trillion divided by 4.5 billion) = > 1000/4.5 billion = 222.22 billion

to form a single cell having a trillion bits of info, each day (since the beginning of earth) 222.22 billion bits of info must have fallen in order by chance and coincidences.

this is so ludicrously funny. ta evolution is so crap.

take it easy muna-sama. you too are gutsy to take up such a tough topic.

[chris-chan]

@ chris this is ur school opinion what about yours? i want to hear it.





Honestly, I ahve given my opinion many time already. I believe in evolution, but there is some higher power supurvising it. That power could be energy, or it could be what people call god. Oh, and it's not my schools opinion, it's a paper from a school approved source. Chances are, just like any other school, my school would be torn over the subject with those believing in evolution and those believing in creationism.

Oh, and Scylar, what about size? The structure may be the same, it may look the same as it did thousands of years ago, but what about size? It might have gotten biger or smaller, this is a form of evolution. Also, wouldn't following everyone because they say creationism is the truth being conformist? Which ,you just told us not to conform to everyones thoughts.

[thatguyisbrett]

lol! your not christopher columbus or kepler for being creationist. your not discovering new science, your standing in the way of science. you are the mob that told them they were stupid for believing in what they believed in. creationism has been around as long as organized religion. evolution is the new idea.

[LightLamperouge]

Threads like these are good for seperating the sane from the insane. Evolution, obviously.


but can any one give me proves that God doesn't exists?

Alright, here's a challenge for you. Disprove the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn). Go on. Can't you do it? Well that must mean it exists right? No, you can't disprove something that's invisible and completely undetectable like a god or invisible unicorns. However, you can disprove certain things about that god. For example, Adam and Eve weren't the first humans, like Yahweh supposedly said. There are hundreds of inaccuracies in the bible, this is enough to logically conclude that the god that the bible describes is fictitious. But like most of the religious, you don't care about logic, so I don't know why I bother.

[scylar]

16th PROOF - GRASSHOPPERS NEVER EVOLVED

@jagon-eye -Hey thanks man. that was truly heartening. I am glad that you aren't the normal brainwashed person. your calculations about the 222.22 billion bits of cell info is commendable. i have rarely seen people of your common sense and logic applying capabilities online. Good use of muna-sama's post.



@scylar: yeah, it was adaption. But what do you say about that fact that we're getting more intelligent for each generation? I wouldn't call that adaption, but evolution

I must disagree here. If at all we are becoming intelligent then the world wouldn't be facing any more problems. As far as i know, we are getting more dumb and violent. Just switch on to some news channel to get the general idea. But good thinking. Anyway, this is my personal opinion. If we look back we find most of the major scientific breakthroughs in the past. i think, we cannot generalize ourselves in terms of intelligence.


lol! your not christopher columbus or kepler for being creationist. your not discovering new science, your standing in the way of sciencelol! You call yourself a man of science? oh plz! lol!. For me and any other person who dares to be different, God is the greatest scientist of all and he doesnt need experimentation and improvement in his creation. He creates them perfect. You who believe in coincidences and chances and flukes consider yourselves as scientific? As jagon-eye said, this is truly ludicrously funny. Science is about reasoning, applying logic, asking questions and burning asses in getting answers. Its about proofs and evidences and not wishful thinking and building castles in air with lame excuses of coincidences and flukes and chances.
jagon-eye was an evolutionist before but on the face of proper evidence, he had the guts to accept the truth. People like him are worthy of being called as scientific.

@LightLamperouge - rationally good point about God. And hey welcome to animea. Hope u have good time here. You just might wanna look at my previous posts.

Continuing with the evolution story, i present you all the part where grasshoppers, like all other creatures refuse to evolve.

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5555-grasshoppers.jpg

GRASSHOPPER FOSSIL
AGE: 108-92 million years
TERM: Cretaceous
LOCATION: Santana Formation, Ceara, Brazil




http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5554-grasshopper-r.jpg

A LIVING GRASSHOPPER





http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5556-grasshoppers-f-2.jpg

GRASSHOPPER FOSSIL
AGE: 125 million years
TERM: Cretaceous
LOCATION: Crato Formation, Araripe Basin, Brazil





http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5559-grasshoppers-r-2.jpg

A LIVING GRASSHOPPER




http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5557-grasshoppers-f-3.jpg

GRASSHOPPER Trapped in Amber
AGE: 50 million years
TERM: Eocene
LOCATION: Baltic, Kaliningrad, Russia




http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5558-grasshoppers-f-4.jpg

GRASSHOPPER Trapped in Amber
AGE: 25 million years
TERM: Oligocene
LOCATION: Dominican Republic

Observe the time frame : - 108 million, 125 million, 50 million and 25 million years. All this without the slightest change. Evolution is nothing but deception. I sincerely hope that you realize this. Jagon-eye congrats for realizing this finally.

Also observe the fossil locations: - Brazil, Russia and Dominican Republic. (i got plenty more from plenty other places). There isn't any kind of evolution anywhere.

[Yulok]

Haha I love you scylar :) You took what I stated, cut it in half, and took the wrong message. I'm not an evolutionist, and am certainly not part of the group.

"wow, that sounds egotistical. We cannot give you them because so far we have not discovered them. Maybe we never will... And maybe we will never find any evidence of God... Which is more likely?" -Scylars incomplete quotation used as proof, lol
This cannot be debated... I liked your longer post, Chris-chan, and the one by LightLamperouge about invisible unicorns. Well phrased, good for God lovers everywhere to put their foot in their mouth ;D

[Deekle]

@Muma, that is not scientific fact saying that something higher exist, it is just a few ID which stripped down is basically creationism. That's not hard evidence.

@scylar, " God is the greatest scientist"
The reason why scientist can't prove God is because there is no evidence, he is not science he is a theory, an IDEA

Seriously, I would believe anything over a talking snake...

[bugsbunny]

hey guys.ive had this conversation like a million times with a million people and here's my simply conclution: God cauesd evolution .
@scylar: i admire the lengths you've gone to help people see your point but all your photos show is that grasshoppers have not evolved on a physical level,what about on a cellular level? interpretion of religious literature gives no evidence to the fact that creation was instant or spontaneous.

have to rest but will give my two-cents on the topic tomorrow

[MUNA-SAMA]

This is great someone is reading my posts.
and if u want to speak about pink unicorn then let me tell you about something more real.
I'm sure you all know there are things called electrical charges, the positive and negative ones( or red-green) have you ever seen any of them? Ok some says they are visible because they reflect light and we can see this light but can you see an electrical current moving in a wire made of these negative chargers? I'm sure no one did, then I'll tell you it doesn’t exist, what do you think of that? I can't believe what I don’t see, right???
I'm sure you will start to tell me no it does and they are scientifically proved…..etc
when we rub a balloon on our hair, the balloon (and the hair) don't look different. How can we prove there are charges if we see no visible difference when we electrify a balloon?
So if you don’t see something that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

[LightLamperouge]

This is great someone is reading my posts.
and if u want to speak about pink unicorn then let me tell you about something more real.
I'm sure you all know there are things called electrical charges, the positive and negative ones( or red-green) have you ever seen any of them? Ok some says they are visible because they reflect light and we can see this light but can you see an electrical current moving in a wire made of these negative chargers? I'm sure no one did, then I'll tell you it doesn’t exist, what do you think of that? I can't believe what I don’t see, right???
I'm sure you will start to tell me no it does and they are scientifically proved…..etc
when we rub a balloon on our hair, the balloon (and the hair) don't look different. How can we prove there are charges if we see no visible difference when we electrify a balloon?
So if you don’t see something that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
You completely missed my point. I'M not the one trying to disprove anything, I don't have to, you're the one making the claim.

It's not possible to disprove God, just like it's not possible to disprove invisible unicorns. Does this give the theory of invisible unicorns any credibility? No, it makes it more absurd. However, if for thousands of years people believed in invisible unicorns, and people said shit like "You have to have faith in the invisible unicorns!" then what? Yeah you guessed it, it would still be just as silly. You, being one of the few who didn't believe in invisible unicorns, would realise that disproving their existence is futile. You can't point to something and say "Oh look! Here is a lack of invisible unicorn! They don't exist!", it's just not god damn possible so stop asking us to "disprove" your bullshit.

Also, I said God is invisible and undetectable. Electric charges aren't undetectable, your argument is broken from the start.

[Deekle]

This is great someone is reading my posts.
and if u want to speak about pink unicorn then let me tell you about something more real.
I'm sure you all know there are things called electrical charges, the positive and negative ones( or red-green) have you ever seen any of them? Ok some says they are visible because they reflect light and we can see this light but can you see an electrical current moving in a wire made of these negative chargers? I'm sure no one did, then I'll tell you it doesn’t exist, what do you think of that? I can't believe what I don’t see, right???
I'm sure you will start to tell me no it does and they are scientifically proved…..etc
when we rub a balloon on our hair, the balloon (and the hair) don't look different. How can we prove there are charges if we see no visible difference when we electrify a balloon?
So if you don’t see something that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Gravity is a theory too(and you can't see it). Do you believe in that?

[chris-chan]

Gravity is a theory too(and you can't see it). Do you believe in that?

I saw a funny ass bumper sticker the other day. It said evolution is just a theory, just like gravity.

And thanks Yulok.

LightLamperouge, welcome to the forms, and sorry this is the first one you posted in. Get ready for a long fight. But, you do have a good point. Just cause you ca't disprove something doesn't mean it exists. Also, not only is the bible full of inaccuracies, but for every one thing it says, theres another verse that contradicts it. And quick queation, if this unicorn is invisible, how do people know it's pink? Can't seem to figure that one out.

Personally, I can't wait to hear what bugsbunny brings up. He also believes that some power created evolution (only he believes the power is god) so I am going to love what he has to say. (no sarcasm, i'm serious.)

[LightLamperouge]

LightLamperouge, welcome to the forms, and sorry this is the first one you posted in. Get ready for a long fight. But, you do have a good point. Just cause you ca't disprove something doesn't mean it exists. Also, not only is the bible full of inaccuracies, but for every one thing it says, theres another verse that contradicts it.

Thanks, probably won't be staying for long though, all it's good for is trolling as the majority seem to be um.... inferior? I'm not sure how to put it in a way without getting edited. I'm not even allowed to call people idiots even if it's the truth on this crappy forum.


And quick queation, if this unicorn is invisible, how do people know it's pink? Can't seem to figure that one out.

"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."

[jsc315]

Wow this is still going?! How about we all say aliens are the ones that created us and there all just screwing with us. Its all just a experiment maaaan! There all against us. It really is pointless to even agree about this anymore.

[chris-chan]

Thanks, probably won't be staying for long though, all it's good for is trolling as the majority seem to be um.... inferior? I'm not sure how to put it in a way without getting edited. I'm not even allowed to call people idiots even if it's the truth on this crappy forum.



"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."

Yeah, I just read that pink unicorn article.

And yeah, a lot of topics didn't catch my eye, but pages ago I first posted on here, and it has never died since. Have fun trolling hough. If you feel like it, you can go have yourself adopted at the adopt an animea member thread. If you want, i'll adopt you.

[Twilight-Ash]

I'm a Christian, therefore I believe in God. Though creation seems likely as well as the theory of evolution. I think both sound... logical. I'd like to say I believe 100% in Creation, but I'm not actually sure. I do believe in God, there's no doubt there. So, I should be saying that I believe God created everything. I find it hard to believe that God has always existed though. i find it hard to believe that anything has always existed. I try not to think about that, it gives me a headache. ha. However, I think they could both be possible. I believe God created Adam and Eve as well as everything we have, today. I don't believe us humans evolved from monkeys or other primates. It's highly unlikely that that is true. I do think that the earth and everything in our universe could have gone through processes of evolution, though. Like, the environment. Things deteriorate, then began recreating themselves. It's hard to explain what I mean, so I doubt that I'm making much sense here. I'll stop now, then.

[scylar]

17th PROOF - PLANTS NEVER EVOLVED

It seems a few new people have joined in. So ill cut the idle talk and get down to the next proof. I have given proofs concerning the "non-evolution" of almost all types ( i think mollusks, plankton and bacteria etc etc are the only ones left out).

PLANTS LIKE ALL OTHER CREATURES DEFY THE EVOLUTION DECEPTION

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5591-fern-f.jpg

FERN FOSSIL
Age: 360 to 286 million years old
Location: Canales, Leon, Spain
Period: Carboniferous




http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5594-fern-r.jpg
LIVING FERN

Ferns that lived 360 to 286 million years ago are identical
to specimens of today. These plants have remained the
same for hundreds of millions of years, revealing the
indisputable fact of God's creation.


http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5592-fern-f-2-n-r.jpg

300 MILLION FERN FOSSIL IDENTICAL TO MODERN DAY FERNS

Ferns have kept their same structure since the day
they were created. Ferns that have remained the
same for approximately 300 million years are one
piece of evidence verifying the invalidity of the
evolution theory.


http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5593-fern-f-3.jpg

FERN FOSSIL
Age: 360 to 286 million years old
Location: St. Clair, Pennsylvania
Period: Carboniferous



http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5595-fern-r-3.jpg

LIVING FERN

Cant you all see the deception of evolution? Deny God if you want to. who cares. but don't give lame excuse of evolution for your denial. There was no evolution anywhere or at anytime.. I hope that you show true scientific spirit and stop swallowing the lies of evolutionists.

New comers might just feel tempted to use famous evolutionist saviors like "archeopteryx", "man-monkey tale", "alleged half reptile - half fish specimens", etc etc. but bad news. i have thrown all these stories out of the window in my previous posts. Be sure to update yourselves and check them all out before joining the discussion.

i have listed them below for your convenience.

1st proof - I proved that crocs were always crocs (90 million years)

2nd proof - i proved fish were always fish (angelfish) (95 million years)

3rd proof - I proved star fish were always star fish (490 million years)

4th proof - I proved crabs were always crabs. (38 million years)

5th proof - I proved shrimps were always shrimps (206 million years)

6th proof - Dino - bird hoaxes. I proved that there was no link between reptiles and birds.

7th proof - Proved that dragon flies were always dragon flies. (156 million years)

8th proof - proved that Horseshoe Crabs were always Horseshoe Crabs (455 million years)

9th proof - Proved that Coelacanth was a proper fish with no connection to reptiles whatsoever. (240 million years)

10th proof - Proved that spiders were always spiders. (355 million years)

11th proof - proved that sea - urchins were always sea - urchins. (295 million years)

12th proof - Proved that human embryo does not resemble that of fish or reptile during devepment. (Exposing haeckel's fake drawings)

13th proof - Proved that Rhinos were always Rhinos. (33 million years)

14th proof - Another proof concerning the non-evolution of fish (trout perch, 50 million years)

15th proof - Insects defy evolution fantasy (wasp,125 million years)

16th proof - Grasshoppers were always grasshoppers(125 million years)

17th proof - plants were always plants (ferns, 360 million years)

Other posts involve : -

1. Flaw of "survival of fittest" theory
2. Dino bird hoaxes ( many specimens dealt with)
3. Confessions of the serious flaws of this theory by Darwin himself
4. Covered the man-monkey tale in pretty much detail in 4 posts.

[thatguyisbrett]

you havent thrown anything out the window. once again this post does not disprove evolution. not even a little. at best this post is deceptive. the fact that organisms havent changed says nothing about evolution. these organisms occupy an optimal environmental niche. they are the fittest. that is why they are alive. a whole species doesnt change all at once. it splits into 2 species. one being the old species and one being the newer one. if the old species becomes extinct then all there is left is the new one. ferns never went extinct obviously, so they still resemble this common ancestor.

im not sure how you could not know this being such a dedicated "researcher". this is a very basic part of evolutionary theory. maybe it is you that needs to take a look at the other side of the argument.

i mean if your educated in evolutionary theory even a little then its hard to disagree with it.

do you believe that DNA can undergo mutations? (please say yes...)
do you believe that it would be possible for a mutation to somehow be benificial?
do you believe that genes are passed from parents to children?

if you believe all 3 of these i dont see how you can disagree with evolution. and if you dont believe these 3 things then you know nothing about evolution or DNA.

but what do i know. im just a brainwashed "evolutionist" and the whole of the scientific comunity is organizing some kind conspiracy to sway your faith in god.

[Yulok]

*Applause lol, very well stated.

$10 bucks says he'll find a way to not answer that ;)

Hi Twilight-Ash, I think I got what you were saying... You mean to say you believe in an evolutionary process, but you don't believe we came from apes, right? That makes sense, we may not have and they just got the hairy, stupid genes from a greater ancestor and our side didn't. Who knows?

[chris-chan]

Bravo thatguyisbrett. And I agree with Yulok, he'll probably find a way to not answer those questions, just like he has any other one we have asked him.

EDIT: Okay, holy shit. Don't know if y'all want to consider this part of the evolution vs. creationism discussion, but I found it fascinating.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081215/sc_afp/sciencethailandseasiawildlife_081215132156

[clipkick]

i just happened to look at this, not stating my view, but i have one thing to say.

one proof to invalidate all 17 proofs before

first, suppose darwins evolution is correct and we are evolved from monkeys
second, there are still monkeys
therefore there could have been something that "was" a croc, fish, spider, fern, ect

and with those that takes off 14 of the 17 with ease, doesent say much for the other 3 either....

[chris-chan]

Damn, one sentence takes almost all away.

[Gaarakiller]

i dont really mind if either is right, but it would be better if God created a basic human, and then we evolved into what we are today.

if you take into acount the fossil of 'Lucy' and major differences between later fossils, such as the nutcracker man, we could say that evoluion has taken place, and also, Lucy does take on a few similar physical characteristics of a gorrila, we could say we evolved from apes, but unfortunately to the evolution argument, Lucy's skull structure was the only major similarity with gorillas, and the similarity was that both had strong jaws with omnivorous teeth, so lucy must have been made like that, which leads on to creation theory being correct. so, my post here provides no more fuel to the fire.

[LightLamperouge]

i just happened to look at this, not stating my view, but i have one thing to say.

one proof to invalidate all 17 proofs before

first, suppose darwins evolution is correct and we are evolved from monkeys
second, there are still monkeys
therefore there could have been something that "was" a croc, fish, spider, fern, ect

and with those that takes off 14 of the 17 with ease, doesent say much for the other 3 either....

Ugh, learn about the subject matter at hand before spouting bullcrap about it. We didn't evolve from monkeys -_-

[Anon-sama]

You don't know that. Your view is that we didn't evolve from monkeys. It's not a fact. And that's a huge difference.
Bullcrap? He has the same right to express his theories as you have. Should I start saying that you talk bullshit just because I don't agree with you?

Just to clarify: We didn't evolve directly from monkey's but we're what's called "common ancestors"...something like that :P

[LightLamperouge]

No, it's a fact that we didn't evolve from monkeys. We evolved from earlier primates, but they weren't monkeys.

And a theory isn't something that you can just make up because you have no knowledge whatsoever of the subject. If a kid couldn't understand physics, and denied gravity saying "stuff drops to the ground because there are magnets in the ground!" it wouldn't be a theory, it would be bullcrap. It may not be nice to say, but it's the truth.

[Anon-sama]

Ah yes, that was what I meant. :P

[EPDJ]

Obviously, a fairy came down to earth from Saturn and waved her magical wand and we soon popped out of the ground and we were born from cabbage. ^^

Doesn't everyone know this? this is cabbage-patch 101 here people... man, I am going to the supreme court and I am going to make them teach this in school.

----------------------
The truth(warning, this is not meant to be offensive, this is to educate the public... do not view if you can not take a bit of sarcasm and harsh criticism):

In reality, creationism is a joke, no offense to you "believers" but you can believe all you want, but it does not make it true.

As for you Schylar, I applaud you for being able to believe in such a fairytale so easily....but you seriously need to get a life... and don't bs me and say that you do, if I were in your position, I wouldn't be alive for much longer. Just showing two pictures and claiming that because they look alike, they must have always been is absolutely preposterous.

As for the rest of you evolutionists, why are you even bothering to entertain Schylar's "proofs"? He is obviously delusional because of his "belief" in an almighty power watching over, who takes amusement in watching innocent women getting raped, families getting massacred, and children dying of starvation. If this is his belief of "perfect creationism", I so want nothing to do with religion(although, reincarnation sounds fun).

Anyway, continue wasting your precious life that "god" or "evolution" gave you by arguing, I am living my fairy-given life as best I can without caring what either side thinks.

Edit: And let me state, I respect your right to have these "theories", but I do not respect your ignorance. Oh and Schylar, if living by your own rules and beliefs is "brainwashed", then living by a book must be imprisonment or death -_- (preferably the latter)

[Deekle]

Ep, I agree 100 percent with what you said. Thats why I really slowed down on this thread. But how could a higher being let such violence run rampant and not care. That is one of the major reasons I don't believe Creationism.

[Jdeadevil]

Few of you know that the answer is actually neither of them, the universe was actually created by four beings, the one people call God is one of them. The thoughts were planted into our human minds which caused us to evolve with intelligence, so really the answer is both.

Tehe

[chris-chan]

Obviously, a fairy came down to earth (javascript:void(0)) from Saturn and waved her magical wand and we soon popped out of the ground and we were born from cabbage. ^^


Woot, SATURN!

Yeah, I know the Cabbage Patch story. My mom is big into it and i've been to the main store place in Georgia a few times.

I love what EPDJ said.

[jsc315]

I want to believe! Aliens rule us all !

[skullreken]

well i guess biased and unreputable arguments from the creationist side have take their toll
*thread closed*

[skullreken]

due to popular demand this thread is reopened

[chris-chan]

Yeah! Thank you! Iguess complaining does work out in the end.

[scylar]

18th PROOF - FISH (HERRING) WERE ALWAYS FISH

@mods - thanks for reopening the thread.

I have covered a lot of fish specimens before. Anyway here is more: -


http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5634-herring-f-f.jpg

HERRING FOSSIL
Age: 54 to 37 million years old
Location: Kemmerer, Wyoming
Formation: Green River Formation
Period: Eocene





http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5637-herring-r.jpg

A LIVING HERRING





http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5635-herring-f-group.jpg

HERRINGS FOSSIL
Age: 54 to 37 million years old
Location: Kemmerer, Wyoming
Formation: Green River Formation
Period: Eocene


Pictured are herrings who's fossilized tails and fins are the same as present day herrings. Their well preserved eye sockets and bone structures
once again show that evolution did not occur in any part of their geologic time.




http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5636-herring-r-group.jpg

A LIVING SCHOOL OF HERRING


I am merely presenting a comparison of the fossils with their living counterparts. Decide for yourselves whether evolution did really happen or not. If you insist on evolution then i may have to ask for proofs of it from your side. so get ready with it. (do keep a track of those attempted proofs that i have already disproved like dino-birds, dino -bird hoaxes, coelacanth, archeopteryx, survival of fittest story, human evolution, haeckel's fake embryo drawings etc etc)

[thatguyisbrett]

oh yay the evolution thread is back. hey scylar you never answered my questions...

ok so ive discussed these posts about animals that are the same as fossils from millions of years ago in several posts so from now on ill just be copying my response. here it is:


once again this post does not disprove evolution. not even a little. at best this post is deceptive. the fact that organisms havent changed says nothing about evolution. these organisms occupy an optimal environmental niche. they are the fittest. that is why they are alive. a whole species doesnt change all at once. it splits into 2 species. one being the old species and one being the newer one. if the old species becomes extinct then all there is left is the new one. ferns never went extinct obviously, so they still resemble this common ancestor.

im not sure how you could not know this being such a dedicated "researcher". this is a very basic part of evolutionary theory. maybe it is you that needs to take a look at the other side of the argument.

i mean if your educated in evolutionary theory even a little then its hard to disagree with it.

do you believe that DNA can undergo mutations? (please say yes...)
do you believe that it would be possible for a mutation to somehow be benificial?
do you believe that genes are passed from parents to children?

if you believe all 3 of these i dont see how you can disagree with evolution. and if you dont believe these 3 things then you know nothing about evolution or DNA.

but what do i know. im just a brainwashed "evolutionist" and the whole of the scientific comunity is organizing some kind conspiracy to sway your faith in god."

p.s. this is not the best example. the fossil shows a marked difference in the shape of the ventral area near the mouth. the fossil has an up turned mouth where the modern fish has a down turned mouth. also the fossil has a convex anal fin where the modern one has a concave anal fin. so yea the fossil and modern one are similar, but certainly not exactly alike. if we compared these two fish today, scientists would classify them as different species. does this mean then that evolution DID occur?

[scylar]

Survival of the fittest misconception: -

@thatguyisbrett -
"once again this post does not disprove evolution. not even a little. at best this post is deceptive. the fact that organisms havent changed says nothing about evolution. these organisms occupy an optimal environmental niche. they are the fittest. that is why they are alive.

sorry i missed your post and thanks for reminding my friend. i have already dealt with this "survival of fittest" story in detail. but ill repeat for you.

Consider the bird reptile scenario. Let me begin with the evolutionist assumption that Long long ago there was one dino that slowly started to turn itself into a bird. Of course it needs millions of years for any visible change to occur. Lets say, millions of years did pass by and the successive generations of that dino managed to partly change their two forelimbs into wings.

But wait - the wings are not yet fully developed. So the dino is unable to fly yet. But at the same time, it is unable to run or catch prey properly either because of its two de-formed forelimbs.

Such an animal, which can neither catch prey properly nor escape its enemies, which can neither fly nor run properly is THE LEAST FIT ANIMAL OF ALL.

So by Darwins logic of "survival of fittest", this animal should be the first one to perish. The same thing applies to ALL animals undergoing transformation.

This is the flaw in the concept of "survival of fittest".

Unless of course someone comes up with things like "somehow" "by great luck" or "by chance" few of those animals survived and passed on their traits to their siblings etc etc - then that's a different matter all together. You are most welcome to believe in this "somehow", "by luck" or "by chance" concept. But please don't call it science. It is called as blind dogmatic belief.

MUTATIONS DONT PROVE EVOLUTION


do you believe that DNA can undergo mutations? (please say yes...)

hehe yes.but did i tell you the following?

Every mutation is an "accident," and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them.

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 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 damage it. Biologist B. G. Ranganathan states:

"First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement."

B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?,Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust,1988.

The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments :-

"Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect—evolution to higher forms of life—result from mutations practically all of which are harmful?"

Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123, June 29, 1956, p. 1159.

efforts put into "generating a useful mutation" has generally resulted in failure. The evolutionist geneticist Gordon Taylor writes thus:

"It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world— flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme."

Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books, London, 1984, p

Another researcher, Michael Pitman, comments on the failure of the experiments carried out on fruit flies:

"Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and
radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type."

David A. Demick, "The Blind Gunman", Impact, no. 308, February 1999.

The same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed in human beings have had deleterious results. All mutations that take place in humans result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, Down syndrome, albinism, dwarfism or cancer. Needless to
say, a process that leaves people disabled or sick cannot be "an evolutionary mechanism"—evolution is supposed to produce forms that are better fitted to survive.

God! i can go on and on with mutations. there is so much to tell. Ask me if you want more.


do you believe that it would be possible for a mutation to somehow be benificial?

i know that you are ready with a few so called "beneficial mutation". but my friend, if any of your "beneficial mutations" was able to change one phyla to another brand new phyla then i swear by God that at this instant i will become an evolutionist.

you see, here we are talking about change of catastrophic nature that turns bears into whales and fish into reptiles and reptiles into birds. All those little changes in bacteria, viruses etc etc in lab petri dishes prove nothing. They may make them resistant to few dangers. but a virus never mutates and turns into a bacteria or vice -versa. You must know better, after all you yourselves are a 4th year bio student.


do you believe that genes are passed from parents to children?

i do. genes are indeed passed on in successive generations. A child inherits the same old genetic information that a parent has. but is new info added to the child here? No. evolution demands not only the same old genes from the parents but it also requires totally new information that even the parent doesn't have.

i am sure that you being a bio student know about insects getting resistant to DDT etc. But did brand new genes develop in any of the insect specimens? No. The immunity genes were already present in the specimens.

The evolutionary biologist Francisco Ayala admits this fact, saying,

"The genetic variants required for resistance to the most diverse kinds of pesticides were apparently present in every one of the populations exposed to these man-made compounds."

Francisco J. Ayala, "The Mechanisms of Evolution," Scientific American, Vol. 239, p. 64.

my friend, mutations don't cause species to species change or phyla to phyla change. they never did. almost every mutation in nature is harmful. Mutations carried out in the controlled environment of labs don't count as evolution. I hope you understand this.


p.s. this is not the best example. the fossil shows a marked difference in the shape of the ventral area near the mouth. the fossil has an up turned mouth where the modern fish has a down turned mouth. also the fossil has a convex anal fin where the modern one has a concave anal fin. so yea the fossil and modern one are similar, but certainly not exactly alike. if we compared these two fish today, scientists would classify them as different species. does this mean then that evolution DID occur?

No it doesn't. Herrings have over 200 species. It is just another case of a fully developed complete herring. the differences prove nothing in a way that you want it to be proved. We are looking here at differences like a diminishing fin that is slowly being replaced by an odd structure that "could" be a future limb or like some missing scales being replaced by patches of leathery skin etc etc which apparently is not the case.

[chris-chan]

Actually, a fish having a fin in a different shape is evolution. Evolution doesn't have to be something as drastic as a fish growing a limb or something, it can be little, even miniscule. What about DNA build up or internal organs? Can you prove that that herring has the same exact DNA structure and the same exact organs? If so, post that up, cause that would be proof. Also, if you knew there were 200 different species of herrings each looking different, how come you posted one up that looked diferent from your skeleton? Seems to me not even you had faith in that one.

[stints]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Oh noes, did I just give an actual source thats also credible? Yes, yes I did. Read it and know the truth. Evolution is real and has been proven.

[Deekle]

Viruses mutating is not an accident... The flu virus mutates every year, I don't see that being an accident.

[chris-chan]

So, let me get this straight, mutations are accidents yet we can't accidently evolve? Yeah, sounds like a load of crap to me scylar.

[Deekle]

Nice article stints. It's not proven yet but that is some pretty strong evidence.

Shows the speed which things can evolve

[thatguyisbrett]

first of all you assumed that the dinosaur evolving wings would somehow make it deformed and less fit in intermediate stages. the dinosaur didnt just one day think "im going to evolve wings, its gonna suck till i have them but here i go". evolution does not have a goal. it was not aiming for wings to evolve from arms. all of the differences from one species to the next make it more fit to fill a specific ecological niche. the end result of many beneficial mutations just turned out to be wings.

your logic is flawed. this idea that you have somehow disproved the the law of the survival of the fittest by saying something wouldn't be the fittest is circular and honestly nonsense. you imagine a baby dinosaur born with one stump hand and a club foot. yes this would be a deleterious mutation. but what if there was a mutation that gave the same dinosaur fully functional slightly longer limbs than anyone else in the species? or a mutation that altered that dinosaurs bone density? could you not see how this might be beneficial.

here is a very good video about the evolution of wings. it even talks about creationists love of "wing stubs" or deformities as youve called them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrlhrbUxiMs

you also tell a falsehood when you say that there has never been a beneficial mutation in humans. i could go on all day but i only really need to give one example to disprove this. see mutations in human CCR5 gene and increased immunity to HIV

also you said that mutations are rare. this is laughable. the average human has over 10 base pair mutations per generation. each human base pair has a 2.5x10e-8 chance to mutate and we have over 3.4 billion base pairs. hardly rare and we have some of the lowest mutation rates of any species. some virus base pairs have a mutation rate of 1 in a thousand base pairs. beneficial mutations are rare. mutations are certainly not.

also LOL at using resources from 1956 when we knew almost nothing about DNA. DNA's relation to heredity wasn't even discovered until 1952. and DNA's relation to RNA and proteins wasn't discovered until 1957. once again presenting dated information from a scientific journal as solid fact.

a few questions for creationists. if creationism is valid and a god simply placed all life on this planet, why did he do it from the least complex life to the most complex. why did he create single celled organisms with no nucleus, then with a nucleus, then multi-cellular organisms then vertebrates, then fish, then land animals and so on as the fossil record shows. did he do it so science would see this obvious connection and test our faith? why did he start with one kind of each animal, for example mammals, then slowly over millions of years add other animals that closely resembled the one before them?

ok so maybe there is no reason, maybe genesis and the 7 days theory is right and thats just the way organisms were placed here. then again genesis says that birds came before land animals and that planets formed before the sun so how right can it be. fyi vertebrates, including fish, reptiles, mammals, humans and everything the bible considers an animal have only existed for 1/30th of the known history of our universe. this would mean that the first "4 days" of genesis comprised 14.5 billion years, and day 5 and 6 spanned 500 million years. (and day 7 spanned an entire sunday, lol) quite a discrepancy to say the least.

another thing genesis also says that plants were created before the sun. let that soak in for a minute. and for that matter, how could he even tell what day it was if he didnt create the sun (and days) until day 4?

that got off topic a little bit. i know youll say that this isnt a discussion about the literal interpretation of the bible but i have a point. ive got you pegged as someone who interprets religion literally, scylar. the vast majority of creationists refuse to believe in evolution for the simple fact that the bible or whatever religious beliefs they have tell them that god created man. they werent just walking along believing in evolution one day when some overwhelming truth or evidence changed their minds and they suddenly became creationists. literal interpretation of religion forbids evolution but science does not forbid or attempt to disprove religion. i think from some of these examples we can see that maybe we shouldn't interpret religion so literally. maybe god created man not by magicking him into existence but through evolution. maybe we dont have to believe stories like: "a 600 year old man gathered 2 of every animal and put them on a boat" to believe in a god.

p.s. great article by the way stints.

p.p.s. ty scylar for driving me to look for that video. ive been watching some more of his videos and i freaking love that guy. his name is richard dawkins. if you believe in evolution and your not too tied to religion youll probably love him. if your a creationist you will no doubt hate him with a passion.

[scylar]

19th PROOF - MAY FLIES WERE ALWAYS MAY FLIES


also LOL at using resources from 1956 when we knew almost nothing about DNA. DNA's relation to heredity wasn't even discovered until 1952. and DNA's relation to RNA and proteins wasn't discovered until 1957. once again presenting dated information from a scientific journal as solid fact.are you really serious about this? I am laughing more than you guys here coz to me you all are following some 18th century crap by Darwin. Darwin proposed his theory at a time when he couldn't even imagine the complexity of cells. words like DNA, RNA,chromosomes etc etc weren't even coined at his time. (1809 -1882). 1952 is far better than 1850's when Darwin proposed this evolution tale that you guys stick to at the cost of God!


a few questions for creationists. if creationism is valid and a god simply placed all life on this planet, why did he do it from the least complex life to the most complex. why did he create single celled organisms with no nucleus, then with a nucleus, then multi-cellular organisms then vertebrates, then fish, then land animals and so on as the fossil record shows. did he do it so science would see this obvious connection and test our faith? why did he start with one kind of each animal, for example mammals, then slowly over millions of years add other animals that closely resembled the one before them?

my friend, if God had told every secret of his then we wouldnt be here arguing with each other. Everyone of us would have become a believer in God. unlike evolution which i can disprove even in my sleep, I am totally dumb in terms of philosophy. Anyway ill have a try. This is just a simple logical answer that i am trying to come up. Nothing that serious though: -

God in his infinite wisdom knew that the earth that he created was not suitable to life right away. He took his own sweet time to settle things here (4.5 billion years i think). So as time progressed he made the earth inhabitable slowly. So God created primitive creatures that were tough and resistant and which were capable of surviving the hostile earth. No point to put humans back then as we were simply not fit to survive the conditions. As time progressed and the earth became less hostile, more and more complex creatures were created. As simple as that. This is just a logical answer nothing serious. Like i said before, if we all knew every secret of God then we wouldnt have any differences. Patience pays my friend. I get peace of mind by knowing that God exists, by knowing that i wouldnt be simply a forgotten decomposed thing after i die. thats all. Perhaps we can talk about this may be privately. this thread is not the suitable place and besides i am totally a goner in philosophy.


you imagine aa baby dinosaur born with one stump hand and a club foot. yes this would be a deleterious mutation. but what if there was a mutation that gave the same dinosaur functional slightly longer limbs and didgets than anyone else in the species? even someone with your knowledge of biology might see how this could be benificial.

you seem to think that biologists believe 1 mutation can turn a dinosaur into a bird. this is simply not the case. it take thousands and thousands of mutations and many generations for one species to speciate.I appreciate your thinking but i would have to politely ask for fossil evidences here. After all this is what i have been asking you all right from my first post. According to you, When mutations are capable of causing beneficial changes to such a great degree as to change a dino into a bird then there must be millions of fossil proofs to back this up. The fact that evolutionists insist that this takes millions of years is actually helping me here. but Alas! such fossils are simply not there. this is why i cannot believe in evolution even if i want to. My conscience wouldnt allow me to do.



also you said that mutations are rare. this is laughable. the average human has over 10 base pair mutations per generation. each human base pair has a 2.5x10e-8 chance to mutate and we have over 3.4 billion base pairs. hardly rare and we have some of the lowest mutation rates of any species. some virus base pairs have a mutation rate of 1 in a thousand base pairs. beneficial mutations are rare. mutations are certainly not.
I never said mutations are rare. mutations are the order of the day what with with all these nukes etc etc. But genuine natural mutations that occur completely on their own without human interference are definitely rare. I am only concerned with beneficial mutations which you admit are rare according to your own standards. Anyway, the figures you quote are rare enough to me. I seriously cannot compromise my fate to a thing which is so rare as this.

I am not responsible for genesis coz i didn't write it. O hell! i am not what you think my friend. I only believe that God exists. if it makes you fell better, Hell! i have written an entire encyclopedia disproving the bible. I know i am a bit weird. But that's me. I would love to talk to you anytime about all this.

Anyway, let me move on to the next proof.

MAY FLIES WERE ALWAYS MAY FLIES

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5679-may-fly-f.jpg

MAY FLY FOSSIL
AGE: 125 million years
TERM: Cretaceous
LOCATION: Yixian Formation, Chao Yang, Liaoning, China



http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5684-may-fly-r.jpg

A LIVING MAY FLY



http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5681-may-fly-f-2-2.jpg


AGE: 45 million years
TERM: Eocene
LOCATION: Jantarny, Russia

THE FOLLOEING IS THE ENLARGED IMAGE

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5686-may-fly-f-2.jpg





http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5685-may-fly-r-2.jpg

A LIVING MAY FLY

dear people , the may flies of the old were identical to those of present times not just in their adult stages but also in their larval stage.


http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5682-may-fly-larvae-f.jpg

MAYFLY LARVA
Age: 156 to 150 million years old
Formation: Yixian Formation
Location: Liaoning Province
Period: Late Jurassic



http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5683-may-fly-larvae-r.jpg

A LIVING MAYFLY LARVA

I sincerely hope that at least some of you guys dare to be different. You dont have to swallow everything that the evolutionists give you in the guise of science. I am not endorsng any religion here either. I believe that i dont have to spood feed evrything to you all. Religion part you do it yourselves. But evolution - bring it on anytime!

[thatguyisbrett]

sigh ... darwins studies have been backed by almost 150 years of science since he published the origin of species. it is true that he had no idea what DNA was but the discovery of DNA only strengthens his findings in proving evolution. 100 years ago evolution was highly controversial among biologists. 50 years ago it was less controversial. today it is almost a universal law (i think the statistic was 700 in 500,000 accredited life scientists and biologists give credit to creation sciences. thats 0.14%). this is how science works. we still dont know everything but, over time, we learn things.

anyway the thing i would most like to express is that evolution is the best scientific explanation we have about the origins of life. as im sure you know every scientific experiment has outliers. these contradictions to evolution (many dont really even contradict evolution) that you post are the outliers. with the low proportion of scientists giving creedence to creationism you are sure to find some scientific reports on origins that say "god did it" (aproximately 0.14% of reports anyway)

[stints]

After reading a few of his posts, I believe Skylar doesn't know anything, at all, about evolution. I'm pretty sure that the church got him and has been brainwashed by some method of theirs (eternal hellfire? lol).

Skylar and anyone else who wants to know things about evolution, go here http://evolution.berkeley.edu/ this is a top university in the US and thus is more credible by the ludicrous "data" Skylar is presenting.

[Jagon-eye]

stints, you probably are unaware that scylar is an alien. just kidding. damn scylar, he has come up with defense every time we put up something new.
and oh! the guy is a full fledged researcher in this. He probably knows more than all of us put together about the subject at hand. I strongly suspect he is an alien. Kidding again. just check this out


I am not responsible for genesis coz i didn't write it. O hell! i am not what you think my friend. I only believe that God exists. if it makes you fell better, Hell! i have written an entire encyclopedia disproving the bible. I know i am a bit weird. But that's me. I would love to talk to you anytime about all this.Disproving the bible? you sure are a person of varied interests! scylar, man your mutation post was awesome. x-men thing huh? wish i become magneto. Did anyone knew that this magneto guy was the same guy who played gandalf in lord of the rings?

anyway scylar, your posts are getting cooler by the day. Hope to see more proofs!

[stints]

Jargon, you're kidding right? You believe this guy. You think that his attempts at "disproving" evolution is awesome? I'm sorry I can't tell when people are sarcastic over the net. He's not a researcher, you should be able to tell that from the way he posts.

Like I stated in my second post, perhaps everyone here who doesn't understand anything about evolution should check that site out, that includes you now Jargon.

[scylar]

20th proof - Cockroaches were always cockroaches

@jagon-eye - that was cool. thanks for your high opinion. rest assured i am human. lol!

@stints - you need to catch up with the debate my friend, you've missed a lot i think.

@thatguyisbrett - my friend, the way i see it, 200 years ago evolution was proposed by someone who didn't know anything about cells, DNA, RNA, proteins, the complexity of chromosomes etc with a hope that in future someone else will find what he was looking - transitional fossils. 100 years ago evolution was controversial -true. 50 years ago evolutionists began losing all hopes of getting transitional fossils. so to cover up this they started manufacturing their own fossils (did i tell about piltdown man to anybody?) and inventing theories of mutation and homology. Now, in these times they have managed to get evolution into textbooks again - in a hope that somebody in future will find transitional fossils. Millions of fossils have uncovered yet not one of them is transitional. I don't see such strong faith in something unseen even among the religious heretics!

I am glad that at least 0.14% of the scientists believe in creation. This figure is too much compared to the probability of a cell with trillions of information sequences to get arranged all by itself in a violent earth plagued by radiation and sulfur long long ago. Anyway, i hope you like the following post.

Getting back to evolution, i have presented almost some 50 fossils so far of creatures from almost every phyla that show no sign of any evolution and there are millions more left. Insects are the most fascinating case because if at all there was any evolution, then it should have been more prominent in insects than other life forms except micro-organisms. But sadly for the evolutionists, there aren't any fossil evidences showing any evolution amongst insects either.

COCKROACHES WERE ALWAYS COCKROACHES

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5755-cockroach-f.jpg

COCKROACH FOSSIL
Age: 125 million years old
Size: 26 millimeters (1 in)
Location: Chao Yang, Liaoning Province
Formation: Yixian Formation
Period: Lower Cretaceous




http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5760-cockroach-r.jpg

A LIVING COCKROACH





http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5757-cockroach-f-2-2.jpg

COCKROACH TRAPPED IN AMBER
Age: 50 million years old
Location: Baltic, Kaliningrad, Russia
Period: Eocene

THE FOLLOWING IS THE ENLARGED VIEW OF THE ABOVE SPECIMEN

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5756-cockroach-f-2.jpg







http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5758-cockroach-f-3.jpg


COCKROACH FOSSIL
Age: 125 million years old
Size: 2.5 centimeters (1 in) length;
Location: Araripe Basin, Brazil
Formation: Nova Olinda Member, Crato Formation
Period: Lower Cretaceous




http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5759-cockroach-f-4.jpg

COCKROACH
Age: 146 to 65 million years old
Formation: Santana Formation
Location: Serra De Araripe, Brazil
Period: Cretaceous



http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5761-cockroach-r-4.jpg

A LIVING COCKROACH

Fossil roaches 320 million years old have been found with no sign of evolution. The impact of cockroaches on the theory of evolution has been described thus in Focus magazine:

"In theory, various elements of pressure such as changing environmental conditions, hostile species and competition between species should lead to natural selection, the selection of species advantaged by mutation, and for these species to undergo greater change over such a long period of time. YET THE FACTS ARE OTHERWISE. Let us consider cockroaches, for example. These reproduce very quickly and have short life spans, yet they have remained the same for approximately 250 million years."

("Evrimin Cikmaz Sokaklari: Yasayan Fosiller" [Cul-de-sac of evolution: Living Fossils], Focus, April 2003)

[Jagon-eye]

yeah cool. You never disappoint me. cockroaches are awesome. Their fossils are pretty cockroach like. man scylar, i want to get hold of all the fossil pics that you have. waiting for your posts is like waiting for naruto episodes. too much thrill and cant wait.

stints, there is nothing wrong in the way scylar posts. infact i dont find any other guy who constructs his/her posts so carefully. he even bothers to reply every one of us even if some of them are not worth replying. hey u r new here. hi! and welcome. welcome to me too.

[stints]

I've seen his posts, they aren't anything. They don't disprove evolution in the slightest. All he does is go to a pro-creationist website and take their "data". Jagon, I suppose I understand, you've been brainwashed by the media to think that creationism is true, just like Skylar. Don't worry, eventually evolution will be proven 100% without a doubt. I mean we've posted evidence, did any of you guys read my article about the E-coli virus evolving? Doubtful but if you did, that right there proves evolution, we've now witnessed and I've shown you it. Anyways, Jagon, Skylar, stop watcing the media and think for yourself.

[Deekle]

Scylar also quotes old sources. i got a brand new 2008 text book from a school source.

Prentice Hall- Biology
Look at this, over 30 pages on Darwin. Lets quote a little

"High birth rates and a shortage of life's basic needs would eventually force organisms to compete for resources creating a "strugle for existence." Levine 380 chapter 15

"Those prey that are faster, better camouflaged or better protected can avoid being caught"Levine 380


"Successful adaptations enable organisms to become better suited to their environments. Adaptations can be anatomical, or structural, characteristics, organism's physiological processes, or functions, such as the way in which a plant preforms photosynthesis." Levine 380


"Homologous structures are one type of evidence for the evolution of living things"
Levine page 384

" The limbs of reptiles, birds, and mammals-arms, wings, legs, and flippers vary greatly in form and function. Yet, they are all constructed from the same basis of bones. Each of these limbs has adapted in ways that enable organism to survive in different environments. Despite these different functions, however, these limb bones all develop from the same clumps of cells in embryos." Levine page 384

"Structures that have different mature forms but develop from the same embryonic tissues are called homologous structures. Homologous structures provide strong evidence that all FOUR LIMBED vertebrates have descended, with modifications, from common ansectors." Levine pg 384

Boom

[scylar]

21st proof - crayfish were always crayfish


I've seen his posts, they aren't anything. They don't disprove evolution in the slightest. All he does is go to a pro-creationist website and take their "data". Jagon, I suppose I understand, you've been brainwashed by the media to think that creationism is true, just like Skylar. Don't worry, eventually evolution will be proven 100% without a doubt. I mean we've posted evidence, did any of you guys read my article about the E-coli virus evolving? Doubtful but if you did, that right there proves evolution, we've now witnessed and I've shown you it. Anyways, Jagon, Skylar, stop watcing the media and think for yourself.

@stints - did the E. coli in your article turn itself into something else that was "not so E.coli". Don't you even know the difference between evolution and adaptation? You really have missed a lot in the debate. we have covered and left behind all these things long back. brainwashing? who me? i wonder when the evolutionists (you) gave me 50-70 fossils of intermediate species in this very thread with half-this and half-that characteristics yet i refused to believe in that. Oh i see, it was the other way round.


"Homologous structures are one type of evidence for the evolution of living things"

" The limbs of reptiles, birds, and mammals-arms, wings, legs, and flippers vary greatly in form and function. Yet, they are all constructed from the same basis of bones. Each of these limbs has adapted in ways that enable organism to survive in different environments. Despite these different functions, however, these limb bones all develop from the same clumps of cells in embryos." Levine page 384
Levine page 384

@Deekle - oh deekle, you are so naive. you are talking about homology allegedly proving evolution which i can disprove even in my sleep. you got 30 pages of evolution? i 've got whole books on homology that disprove evolution. All brand new. But i wont be giving them to you this time. Last time you didn't even have the courtesy to look into the evidences that i gave you and which YOU HAD ASKED. i had spent some 3 hrs only for you. i am talking about neanderthals. ok now lets look into your quotes, shall we?


"High birth rates and a shortage of life's basic needs would eventually force organisms to compete for resources creating a "strugle for existence." Levine 380 chapter 15

this proves evolution? how? this proves how we supposedly lost our tails? this proves how the first living cell formed? this proves nothing. how about this : - "high birth rates and a shortage of life's basic needs would eventually force organisms to compete for resources creating a "struggle for existence" that paved the way for them to develop strange powers of mundane nature that caused them to transform themselves into something else". sounds pretty scientific.


"Those prey that are faster, better camouflaged or better protected can avoid being caught"Levine 380


this proves evolution? this insignificant statement is enough for your denial of something as serious as God? fine then, let me strengthen your faith in darwin. How about like this : - "when i get hungry i go eat and thus contribute greatly to evolution." when i ask you guys proofs for evolution is this the best you can come up with? if evolution was really true, this earth should have been littered with fossils of partially developed or "evolving" creatures. For every complete fossil find, thousands of intermediate forms should have been found. Where are the fossils of the weaklings that werent supposedly fit to survive? where? does your text books have them? show them to me then. But we have none. And when i give you people fossils upon fossils of perfect fully developed creatures you say this doesn't disprove evolution? Deny God if you want. Who cares. But don't give lame outdated excuses such as evolution which is just a dogmatic ideology fed to people under the guise of science and nothing else.


"Successful adaptations enable organisms to become better suited to their environments. Adaptations can be anatomical, or structural, characteristics, organism's physiological processes, or functions, such as the way in which a plant preforms photosynthesis." Levine 380
arent we supposed to talk about evolution here? stints, this quote is exactly what i was searching for you. Deekle7 thanks for giving it to me. "Adaptation" is what is happening to your E.coli and not "evolution".



"Structures that have different mature forms but develop from the same embryonic tissues are called homologous structures. Homologous structures provide strong evidence that all FOUR LIMBED vertebrates have descended, with modifications, from common ansectors." Levine pg 384 Ahh! this is the part that i was waiting. under normal circumstances i would have started burning my ass out in preparing a lengthy article disproving the "homology supporting evolution" concept. But looking at your response the last time (neanderthals) i wont make the mistake again.

@jagon-eye - thanks buddy. i hope you appreciate my next set of proofs too.

CRAYFISH REFUSE TO EVOLVE

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5874-crayfish-f.jpg

CRAYFISH FOSSIL (128 million years)

THE FOLLOWING IS THE ENLARGED VERSION OF THE ABOVE SPECIMEN

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5875-crayfish-f-1.jpg
CRAYFISH FOSSIL
AGE: 128 million years
TERM: Cretaceous
LOCATION: Yixian Formation, Liaoning, China





http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5880-crayfish-r.jpg

A LIVING CRAYFISH




http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5878-crayfish-f-3.jpg
CRAYFISH FOSSIL(95 million years)

THE FOLLOWING IS THE ENLARGED VIEW OF THE ABOVE SPECIMEN

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5879-crayfish-f-3-3.jpg

CRAYFISH FOSSIL
Age: 95 million years
Period: Cretaceous
Location: Lebanon





http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5876-crayfish-f-2.jpg

CRAYFISH FOSSIL(150 million years)

THE FOLLOWING IS THE ENLARGED VERSION OF THE ABOVE SPECIMEN

http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5877-crayfish-f-2-2.jpg
CRAYFISH FOSSIL
Age: 150 million years
Period: Upper Jurassic
Location: Solnhofen Lithographic Formation, Zandt, Germany



http://forum.nihonomaru.com/members/scylaragain-albums-scylar-s-prologue-picture5881-crayfish-r-2-2.jpg

A LIVING CRAYFISH

observe the time period - 150 million years (Germany), 128 million years (China), 95 million years (Lebanon) and the present day crayfish. They all were and are the same. This doesn't disprove evolution? Do i have to re-define the meaning of evolution now? or did somebody change the definition of "gradual change" of evolution that i am not aware of?

One of the loudest voices revealing the defeat of Darwinism at the hands of the fossil record is that of the Harvard University palaeontologist Stephen J. Gould, who states that the idea of the gradual development of living things is a fantasy:

"These tales, in the just-so tradition of evolutionary natural history, do not prove anything. But the weight of these, and many similar cases, wore down my faith in gradualism long ago. More inventive minds may save it yet, but concepts salvaged only by facile speculation do not appeal much to me."

-Gould S.J., The Return of the Hopeful Monster, in "The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History," [1980], Penguin: London , 1990, reprint, sf.158

These 50-70 fossils of complete creatures that are no different from their living counterparts are just a fraction of the millions more that i can give you all. why don't you search for something serious in your brand new textbooks that is more credible than the millions of fossils of perfect and complete creatures that the world has.

[stints]

Sigh...

I guess you really don't understand evolution in the slightest Skylar. Please go read up on it and then return. Thank you.

[Deekle]

*palmface* Scyar you love to put words into people's mouth. I never said anything proved evolution, evolution is a theory unlike your god which is backed up by jack shit.

Your "proofs" are not worth anything, you are not a scientist just a kid who thinks he is all power-full since he can use the internet. You don't understand anything about evoultion and you refuse to be open minded. I've read about 1 or 2 of your "proofs" and they are all bs. Pictures can be messed with, if you don't have HARD evidence you can't prove anything against evolution.

The world would be better if there weren't so many ignorant close minded people like you.

[stints]

Okay so since you apparently say that these creatures are this old is safe to assume that you aren't a young earth person (the type that believes the earth is only 10k years old or something foolish like that). I ask you Skylar what about dinosaurs? The creatures before them? We've seen evolution in fossil records showing the accent of the "dinosaurs". If you think this "god" person created everything than what about these fossils, how old do you think we, homo sapiens, are? I don't understand how you can refute the compounding evidence that many thousands of scientists all agree on that supports evolution yet still agree about other things such as dinosaurs and the age of our species and such.

[scylar]

thank you Deekle7, this response is exactly what i usually get when i become a little more persistent than usual in asking for proofs of evolution. You were much better than most though. Telling someone that he/she is ignorant etc is a matter of individual perspective. Call me whatever you want. i really don't care. I know my worth and i don't have to prove it to anyone else.

stints, the website that you gave is a good source - for kids, not for researchers like me. It was cool though. But i have to tell you that there is nothing in that website supporting evolution that i cant disprove. my friend, dinosaurs were really cool and amazing creatures that became extinct. they were perfect and complete in their own turf. look at any of the complete dinosaur fossils and you will find them all to be fully developed showing no signs of deformity or transition or intermediary characteristics under development. Even baby dinos are fully developed.

My friend, Dinos were a class of their own and they are very very diverse in nature. The fact that no living human has seen real dinos should have been tempting to the deceiving evolutionists to portray dino fossils as intermediary or transitional etc etc beings. But they haven't done that. why? not because of some misplaced sense of righteousness. But it was because the dinos were especially very complex to be thought as primitive. dinos, as do all creatures appear suddenly in the fossil record with no evolution.

my friend stints, the crowd need not be right always. Long ago the church was the crowd. were they right? No! not so long ago, the crowd re-elected some one as dumb as the one sitting at white house. Did he bring peace to earth? No. long ago the crowd thought the earth was flat. But is it flat? No.

stints, among this crowd, it always happened and will always happen that a band of people will arise who will dare to think different. Such people always get and will always get nothing but resistance and hatred from the crowd.
The world would be better if there weren't so many ignorant close minded people like you. see? this is what i was talking about. But the spirit and love of science runs deep in their bloods. These are the true scientists. A stamped seal from a university is not what defines a scientist. But his will to think beyond what others have thought, definitely is.

[stints]

Researcher? You? Ha!

With joking aside, you are full of yourself, they've seen the steps that led to the rise of the dinosaurs, evolution has been proven using the current scientific method, has your so called hypothesis even come close to do anything you say it can? No.

Watch this video, I couldn't find it elsewhere: http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/07/09/evolution-vs-creationism-family-guy-style/ which seems more likely.

Also, you believe in "god" right Skylar? I remember you talking about how a point away from evolution was a point for creationism, so then since you know that dinos walked the earth millions of years ago, this "god" afterwards decided "Hey, I guess dinos weren't right, lets make up more shit and see if it holds?" So he decides to create humans? Can you see how ridiculously stupid that sounds. Yes, it's stupid. Anyone believing this is dumb.

[thatguyisbrett]

stop calling yourself a "researcher" scylar. copying and pasting from a creationist website IS NOT RESEARCH!

creationists love to say that we havent found any "transitional fossils but it is simply false. every fossil that has ever been found is a transitional fossil. every organism that is alive or has ever lived is a transitional form.

also i believe it is you scylar that doesnt know the difference between evolution and adaptation. adaptation is behavioral while evolution is any change in general structure of a species due to selective pressures. the ability to metabolize a new food molecule is certainly evolution.

[skullreken]

I'd like to add something
If He-man is the master of the universe who is this God and why is he so unoriginal?

[Jagon-eye]

I was an evolutionist. I had great hopes on you guys when i first came to this thread. i thought it would be a piece of cake for you all to win this debate. But it turned out that you guys are all so hopelessly full of yourselves. Deekle7 has definitely crossed the line with her crap talk

The world would be better if there weren't so many ignorant close minded people like you. and
evolution is a theory unlike your god which is backed up by jack shit. . Deekle7 shut up. what has been your contribution to this debate except abuses at the creationists? This is a debate so bury your personal opinions about people in the same jack shit that you talked about.


Also, you believe in "god" right Skylar? I remember you talking about how a point away from evolution was a point for creationism, so then since you know that dinos walked the earth millions of years ago, this "god" afterwards decided "Hey, I guess dinos weren't right, lets make up more shit and see if it holds?" So he decides to create humans? Can you see how ridiculously stupid that sounds. Yes, it's stupid. Anyone believing this is dumb.You expect scylar to reply to this? what about the dozen open challenges that he threw at all your faces and which none of you had the guts to take up?

somebody was talking about photoshop? oh Deekle7 - the abuser, right right. Are you so dumb that scylar has to tell it again and again to you kids that you dont have to look at his images and that all you have to do is take down their names and look into any of the sources that you narrow minds think as good enough? i did it and they were all fine.

@thatguyisbrett -
the ability to metabolize a new food molecule is certainly evolution. No. it is not. It is still adaptation. Just cross check what you post.


every fossil that has ever been found is a transitional fossil. every organism that is alive or has ever lived is a transitional form.This is probably the biggest joke of the thread. it doesnt even deserve replying after scylar posted atleast 70 "not - transitional" fossils from all over the world and claimed he has a million more.

I never even imagined in my wildest dreams that evolution could take such a severe beating at the hands of creationists. All this by one person - scylar. If people like him are not researchers then who is? you guys? who rant all about disreputable sources and abuses at scylar instead of getting proofs to back evolution? I am never going to believe in evolution after this. I gracefully accept the defeat of evolution - my defeat. I declare scylar, that from today, i am a creationist. All thanks to your inspiring speech which is worth preserving as one of my best ever.


"the crowd need not be right always. Long ago the church was the crowd. were they right? No! not so long ago, the crowd re-elected some one as dumb as the one sitting at white house. Did he bring peace to earth? No. long ago the crowd thought the earth was flat. But is it flat? No.

among this crowd, it always happened and will always happen that a band of people will arise who will dare to think different. Such people always get and will always get nothing but resistance and hatred from the crowd.

The world would be better if there weren't so many ignorant close minded people like you. see? this is what i was talking about. But the spirit and love of science runs deep in their bloods. These are the true scientists. A stamped seal from a university is not what defines a scientist. But his will to think beyond what others have thought, definitely is"Dont bother replying scylar. i know your worth. you single-handedly showed these people that even something as big as evolution can be picked apart by someone as determined as you.

[Kaizen]

I'm follow the study of evolution and anthropology, and I've worked with cadavers at my college. To tell the truth, there is nothing you can tell me that will make me believe that some higher entity or existence created everything that is today. Life is simply too complex to toss into a single category of instant creation.

In my experience, the human body (as well as those of every other species I've worked with) is full of devices that show a distinct history. Take for example: chromosomes. Humans have twenty-three pairs of these fundamental blueprints. The chromosomes are arranged in such a specific way that humans can be what they are. With other species, twenty-three is hardly the default number. Some families and species (such as crustaceans) have up into the hundreds of these bits of anatomical data, while "newer" species tend to have less pairs.

Why is this? The bodies of living creatures have selectively lost chromosomes in order to adapt to an evolving world. As the earth changes, it becomes harder to survive when there is no change. Essentially, if evolution did not exist, there would be no living things left on this planet. In addition to discarding chromosomes, other species have done the opposite. Some species absolutely require the chromosomes they possess. Therefore, they add new ones to stay alive. This could explain why so-called "ancient" or "primitive" species (such as arthropods) have higher numbers of chromosome pairs. Even so, the chromosomal arrangements of certain species are so well developed that there is no need to change.

The adding of new chromosomes, as well as the loss of old ones, is a large enough distinction to be called evolution. Adaptation can be described as the mutation of given chromosomes. This can change skin or hair pigment, eating habits, muscle structure, etc. When a new chromosome comes into the fray, the species can no longer breed with former stages. This is because chromosomes no longer match. This is what it means to have different species.

Once this threshold has been broken, it would be inaccurate (sorely at that) to say that nothing has changed. Unlike, say the development of dogs from wolves, the development of a new species prevents the reverse-compatibility of breeds. Denying something like the appearance of new species is a common attempt of many creationists (not to insult present company) in an attempt to claim that life is a slow series of changes that have no new developments.

To reiterate, my own experience has shown me that adaptation is the gradually changing of a single species (thus resulting in a similar fossil record) to a similar, but different form. While evolution is the actual rise of a new species from another.

As a final note, I doubt that Darwin's Theory is 100% accurate (not in the slightest). Instead, I understand it that evolution moves in both steps and strides. Meaning that the intermediaries between two species is their individual breeds, leaving much room for misinterpretation of available facts (something creationists often take advantage of).

Let me stress that these ideas are based on my own experiences and research. I pull my facts and theories from hands-on information. I have to hope that there will be no further mud-slinging on behalf of both parties. This is a debate, not a child's squabble.

[scylar]

@jagon-eye - Thanks for holding the fort for me buddy. I am honored and privileged to meet a person of your likes. I have solved only one side of the story for you - about the lie of evolution. Now it is up to you to find out about God on your own. I hope you will be as enthusiastic as always there too.


"In my experience, the human body (as well as those of every other species I've worked with) is full of devices that show a distinct history. Take for example: chromosomes. Humans have twenty-three pairs of these fundamental blueprints. The chromosomes are arranged in such a specific way that humans can be what they are. With other species, twenty-three is hardly the default number. Some families and species (such as crustaceans) have up into the hundreds of these bits of anatomical data, while "newer" species tend to have less pairs.

Why is this? The bodies of living creatures have selectively lost chromosomes in order to adapt to an evolving world."

You have raised a good question. But your answer isnt backed by any scientific evidence, my friend. Creatures just dont lose off chromosomes or add chromosomes even if millions of years pass on. The direct affect of changes in the number and type of chromosomes is felt morphologically. Meaning - alteration in physical structure of the concerned organism. For example, the presence of y chromose in sperm that fertilizes the egg leads to the formation of a male child while its absence leads to the formation of a female child. A change of a single chromosome can cause drastic changes of such great magnitude.!
Now if you observe the 70 odd fossils that i have presented in proof of creation, it is clear that the morphology of these creatures hasnt changed 1 bit since hundreds of millions of years proving that no addition or loss of chromosomes took place.

Also, you have put forward your views wonderfully. You have made many many statements and claims. Your first two paragraphs are alright. But after that what you say is mostly conjecture which cannot be proved scientifically.

Anyway, just to let you know these are the things that we have covered so far:-

1st proof - I proved that crocs were always crocs (90 million years)

2nd proof - i proved fish were always fish (angelfish) (95 million years)

3rd proof - I proved star fish were always star fish (490 million years)

4th proof - I proved crabs were always crabs. (38 million years)

5th proof - I proved shrimps were always shrimps (206 million years)

6th proof - Dino - bird hoaxes. I proved that there was no link between reptiles and birds.

7th proof - Proved that dragon flies were always dragon flies. (156 million years)

8th proof - proved that Horseshoe Crabs were always Horseshoe Crabs (455 million years)

9th proof - Proved that Coelacanth was a proper fish with no connection to reptiles whatsoever. (240 million years)

10th proof - Proved that spiders were always spiders. (355 million years)

11th proof - proved that sea - urchins were always sea - urchins. (295 million years)

12th proof - Proved that human embryo does not resemble that of fish or reptile during devepment. (Exposing haeckel's fake drawings)

13th proof - Proved that Rhinos were always Rhinos. (33 million years)

14th proof - Another proof concerning the non-evolution of fish (trout perch, 50 million years)

15th proof - proved that Insects were always insects (wasp,125 million years)

16th proof - proved that insects (Grasshoppers) were always insects (125 million years)

17th proof - proved that plants were always plants (ferns, 360 million years)

18th proof - proved that fish (herring) never evolved (54 million years)

19th proof - proved that insects (may flies) were always insects (156 million years)

20th proof - proved that insects (cockroaches) were always insects (148 million years)

21st proof - proved that crayfish were always crayfish (150 million years)

Other posts involve : -

1. Flaw of "survival of fittest" theory
2. Dino bird hoaxes ( many specimens dealt with)
3. Confessions of the serious flaws of this theory by Darwin himself
4. Human evolution mess involving Australopithecus, Homo Habilus, Homo Erectus and Homo Ergaster
5. A detailed article showing that mutations prove nothing.

[Kaizen]

@Skylar: Very well observed my friend, tragically I lack the experience of a true scientist (I'm only twenty years old, makes sense). But I still have the firm idea of evolution in my mind. I'm at a loss on this fact: we are still far too off from finding enough evidence for evolution (thus the reason it is called "Theory of Evolution"). Until we find a proof in nature, this debate will carry on into infinity. Maybe in about ten years, I'll be more well versed in such things. Then I'll be ready to debate this with physical evidence and maybe even proof.

You've presented quite a much of proof for your perspective, but the world is a big place and I'm still not convinced. Not every species has what I call "ideal body structure" (remains the same for extremely long periods of time). Holding to my opinion, I've yet to see absolute proof of creation. I'll keep up with this discussion to see more of your research and evidence. Well done, so far.

[LightLamperouge]

we are still far too off from finding enough evidence for evolution (thus the reason it is called "Theory of Evolution"). Until we find a proof in nature, this debate will carry on into infinity.

Just like because there's not enough evidence for Gravity, it's called the Theory of Gravity right? Wrong. Like gravity, evolution is both a theory and a fact.

[skullreken]

Dont bother replying scylar. i know your worth. you single-handedly showed these people that even something as big as evolution can be picked apart by someone as determined as you.

not very hard to do when you post one sided information which isn't obtained from a credible sorce creationist websites are not credible sources if his information came from a scientific journal such as Nature I'd listen but I wont listen to something quoted from a website were you can post any wild claim which doesn't have to go through 6 month-1 year vetting program that involves the article being investigated and verified by at least 7 independent experts in the field it deals with before it is presented to the public

You accuse us of being ignorant because we don't accept it when he tells us that what his religion teaches is right because the Bible says it happened that way. Well my religion doesn't share the same beliefs as his so does that mean that my religion is wrong? Or does it mean that I have the right to tell everyone what they believe is wrong because my religion says it is and expect them to accept it because I can provide them with "evidence" which is questionable at best from biased and non credible sources which are free to take articles and doctor them to suit their own needs?

Some of those proofs which have been shown are in fact taken from articles about evolution which are questioning existing theories about how certain species evolved while presenting new ones the creationist websites that use these articles simple take them out of context to make them appear to be supporting creationism

[Deekle]

I was an evolutionist. I had great hopes on you guys when i first came to this thread. i thought it would be a piece of cake for you all to win this debate. But it turned out that you guys are all so hopelessly full of yourselves. Deekle7 has definitely crossed the line with her crap talk
and . Deekle7 shut up. what has been your contribution to this debate except abuses at the creationists? This is a debate so bury your personal opinions about people in the same jack shit that you talked about.

You expect scylar to reply to this? what about the dozen open challenges that he threw at all your faces and which none of you had the guts to take up?

somebody was talking about photoshop? oh Deekle7 - the abuser, right right. Are you so dumb that scylar has to tell it again and again to you kids that you dont have to look at his images and that all you have to do is take down their names and look into any of the sources that you narrow minds think as good enough? i did it and they were all fine.

@thatguyisbrett -No. it is not. It is still adaptation. Just cross check what you post.

This is probably the biggest joke of the thread. it doesnt even deserve replying after scylar posted atleast 70 "not - transitional" fossils from all over the world and claimed he has a million more.

I never even imagined in my wildest dreams that evolution could take such a severe beating at the hands of creationists. All this by one person - scylar. If people like him are not researchers then who is? you guys? who rant all about disreputable sources and abuses at scylar instead of getting proofs to back evolution? I am never going to believe in evolution after this. I gracefully accept the defeat of evolution - my defeat. I declare scylar, that from today, i am a creationist. All thanks to your inspiring speech which is worth preserving as one of my best ever.

Dont bother replying scylar. i know your worth. you single-handedly showed these people that even something as big as evolution can be picked apart by someone as determined as you.

Jason eye, If you look at my post you would know. You are just sounding stupid. I'm a guy, maybe you should know your facts before you try to insult someone. I gave websites, government approved book quotes to this debate. What has scylar gave us that we have not combated, we have gave him plenty of things he couldn't say anything to. Scylar is closed minded, he won't even think that something else could of happened. I've met plenty of creationist that think that some "god" made evolution happen. That is beinging open minded. Jason, Scylar will only continue debating until he runs out of creationism propaganda to copy and paste for us. Then he will just ignore our points or avoid answering them directly. Is ignoring someone's points and just going on,posting in this case, debating? Because if you really read this thread you would know that he only contests something if he can find something on a creationist website related to to the point raised against him if not he will ignore it and continue posting his so called proofs.


I've looked into his proofs. I actually dis proven some of his proofs(I really don't want to go into detail since it was on the spot.) I'm done debating with him. Nothing will reach through and mean something to him.


@Scylar, what do you call the process of bugs decreasing in size due to oxygen over time. 200 million years ago you could find a bug bigger than a human today. But today they are smaller since the amount of oxygen provided for them is scarce. Explain.

[Kaizen]

Just like because there's not enough evidence for Gravity, it's called the Theory of Gravity right? Wrong. Like gravity, evolution is both a theory and a fact.

@LightLamperouge: Yeah, but unlike gravity, evolution happens to be an incredibly elaborate (taking millions of years to become apparent) process. With gravity, we can instantly observe the effects my jumping up and down (we just lack the real reasons behind its occurrence). Outside of microorganisms and selective breeding, no one is capable of easily observing evolution's effects or long-term results. Human just don't live long enough, meaning without more research, we'll be unable to say that it is more than a theory with substantial evidence (but not perfect proof) to the contrary.

Most creationism has no physical proof whatsoever, only the word of the Bible and the Church. This is much less credible than the countless hours of research and the tons of fossils that have been collected in the theory of evolution. Being a TA, I know quite a bit about cell structure and development. Surely, the key to proving evolution is right there in the most basic form of life. Luckily for the evolution side of the discussion (the side I represent), creationist belief often lacks research. Only perverting the research done by scientists to suit its needs (exceptions always exist to the contrary).

Most of what I say can easily be changed to a different meaning because of the marvel of the Internet. Any evidence I could think of showing requires physical presence, then again, nothing can be truly be proven via Internet. That's my latest entry to this debate.

[thatguyisbrett]

@ scylar. fyi it is not uncommon for plants to lose or gain chromosomes from one generation to the next.. please dont present your guesses about science as solid fact.

@ jargon. if you really think scylar is winning this debate you are in fact delusional. you dont win a debate by simply talking louder than the other guy. his arguments are well presented but are hollow. they dont really mean anything. as kaizen said it isnt science. it is a perversion of science.

[thatguyisbrett]

@thatguyisbrett -No. it is not. It is still adaptation. Just cross check what you post.

This is probably the biggest joke of the thread. it doesnt even deserve replying after scylar posted atleast 70 "not - transitional" fossils from all over the world and claimed he has a million more.



the ability to metabolize new molecules is evolution... one generation could not survive on this molecule then the next could. this is an evolved trait. you arent going to wake up tomorrow and be able to survive by eating dirt. you cant change your behavior to be able to survive by eating dirt. behavioral adaptation is not evolution. any kind of physical "adaptation" is evolution by pure definition. please cross check what YOU post.

you dont understand the concept of a transitional fossil. no 2 fossils ever found were exactly the same. everything is in constant transition.

fyi the biggest joke of this thread is that you have bought into scylar's bs "research"

one thing ive been wondering about: weve been discussing proofs of evolution this whole time but i have yet to see a single shred of evidence from the creation side. so instead of trying to disprove evolution, a concept accepted by 99.86% of the scientific community, how about trying to prove creation? and i dont want some bs about rainbows and sunsets. facts. give me one solid fact that proves creation and ill change my major and name my first kid scylar.

creationism is not a science. it is an art form. the art of disceptively atempting to disprove evolution.

[bluemidnight]

hmm, i hope no one will say any kind of bitching to me, but i think everyone here will fight for his/her belief, a person who has strong faith in god/religion/church/creation will never accept the theory of evolution. same goes to those who doesn't believe in any higher being, call it creator or god or alien (just kidding) will have a strong grip in believing evolution.

not all who believes in god denies evolution, and not every person who believes in evolution condemns the existence of a higher being, a god, a creator. this is a good thread, a great debate, and i give recognition to scylar, he has presented a lot, needed in any kind of debate, but don't get me wrong, i'm not taking sides, and yes i read everything from the very first post up to the very last.

any claims about evolution is fine with me, except that suff about monkeys, well i won't go any further, if changes around us, our environment, the climate change, etc, is evolution, i'm one with it, and if living animals, viruses and all those stuff do evolve, changes on living things, well if it contribute to the cost of human beings, well that's cool isn't it? give credit to all scientist doing all these research, i'm no science genius, so i can only praise them when their efforts goes into making solutions to human problems like making medicine to deadly deseases.

but we can't take away the fact, every individual has his/her belief, we just need to practice respect, there things that science can't explain and there are things that are beyond our faith, anyway i'll be looking forward to this thread.

[sawreese]

I think I posted in here somewhere before a while ago, but I'm not really here to state very many elaborate facts, just to reiterate my previous post cause u guys are sounding very vindictive over here. If u guys find my old post somewhere in the first page or two, you will find my post that no one tried to really argue, so I'm wondering what you guys think of it.
"Actually, the theory of evolution that u are referring to would be just as crazy in your eyes as creationism. All of the different variations of the theory point back to some big bang like event which is just creation - god. its saying something (which they call nothing) suddenly created particles. These particles [Atoms or groups of atoms...I can't remember which] have to assemble in a perfect formation of about 400 something parts. then the combined parts have to assemble with 20 something more perfect parts [By parts I mean other sets of 400] to make any kind of cell [23 for human Chromosome I think...]. the possibility of this is 1 in 200,000,000,000. 1 in 14,000,000,000 is considered physically impossible and 1 in 62,000,000,000 is considered impossible.

I like to think of it in terms of the theory " I think, therefore I am" meaning there is a god who realizes his existence and therefore has certain characteristics."

The problem a lot of people have when they think about God is that he has a certain, personified appearance. But anyway, certain types of evolution can be proven in some circumstances. Like humans growing taller over the past hundred years. But as far as creation goes, I think the possibility of a god is actually more likely than the chances I stated above. Oh, yeah....I don't know where my facts came from but most come from a common knowledge of high school level math and middle school life science ( takes me back ^_^.......). Not to mention, Those probabilities are for AFTER the particles were created in the first place, which probably has a lower probability itself.

[mr_tzeentch]

a lot of people seem to forget, when talking about these things, about how god is omnipotent. if we accept the existence and omnipotence of god, there is no reason why evolution and creationism can't both be true.

it goes like this: imagine you are with me in a field somewhere and i make a massive tree spontaneously appear in the ground. i ask you: how old is the tree? you say: about thirty seconds, i just saw you create it. then a scientist comes along and i ask him: how old is the tree? he does science, and takes samples, does tests and expeiments and eventually replies: its about 30 y/old. oh no, you say, its about 5 mins old, that guy over there just made it out of nothing. it's true, i say, beaming proudly. the science guy looks at us incredulously says: science says its 30 y/old and you cant argue with science, it grew out of a seed of something that was planted 30 y/ago.

(btw: i am god, you are christians, the tree is the universe, the scientist is athiests)

so god could have created earth with the appearance of being millions of years old, 8000 years ago. christians know this, because god told them, but anyone else only has the evidence that points towards x million years.

why would god confuse us like this? if it was evident that the worls was created by god-magic, we wouldn't have the scientific advances that we do now. by looking at a world that looks like it was shaped by physics/biology etc, people can learn from it and invent wonderful things like medicine, helicopters and transistor radios.

so we're both right?

i hope you understood my analogy

[sawreese]

a lot of people seem to forget, when talking about these things, about how god is omnipotent. if we accept the existence and omnipotence of god, there is no reason why evolution and creationism can't both be true.

it goes like this: imagine you are with me in a field somewhere and i make a massive tree spontaneously appear in the ground. i ask you: how old is the tree? you say: about thirty seconds, i just saw you create it. then a scientist comes along and i ask him: how old is the tree? he does science, and takes samples, does tests and expeiments and eventually replies: its about 30 y/old. oh no, you say, its about 5 mins old, that guy over there just made it out of nothing. it's true, i say, beaming proudly. the science guy looks at us incredulously says: science says its 30 y/old and you cant argue with science, it grew out of a seed of something that was planted 30 y/ago.

(btw: i am god, you are christians, the tree is the universe, the scientist is athiests)

so god could have created earth with the appearance of being millions of years old, 8000 years ago. christians know this, because god told them, but anyone else only has the evidence that points towards x million years.

why would god confuse us like this? if it was evident that the worls was created by god-magic, we wouldn't have the scientific advances that we do now. by looking at a world that looks like it was shaped by physics/biology etc, people can learn from it and invent wonderful things like medicine, helicopters and transistor radios.

so we're both right?

i hope you understood my analogy


Wow....That made quite a bit of sense actually... Well put.

[mr_tzeentch]

oh, good, i hoped it would

excellent idea + telling lots of ppl + ??? = profit?

[stints]

Nah, I can't see that actually being a reason some god would do it. The only reason would be for the fact he wants faith, or blind following. You realize that we, science, has created many, many problems. Medicine has caused super bugs. In a way, science helps and hurts us, why would this god want that? Also, not saying all of science, because I myself love science, can be used for the wrong thing. Take the Manhattan project where the atomic bomb was created, it wasn't meant for that but the research there created one of the worst things humans have done.

btw, why would he want to confuse us? Wouldn't that be the devil? Ya know, so that he could take us further from this god? Ya know, if we're talking about Christianity and such...

[mr_tzeentch]

why, it's because god is ineffable. also: if he wanted no evil in the world, the world would have no evil. but yeah, he wants faith. but not blind following. i hope you arent suggesting they are the same thing.

btw, i'm not saying that is the reason, just that it might be.

[stints]

I am saying that, sorry, I find that faith is equivalent to blind following. You say you have proof, but nothing empirical, nothing testable. If there truly is a god, than he surely effed up when he made the duck billed platypus. As you can plainly see, I'm an atheist.

Also, its interesting to see how everything is explained using "He just wanted it that way, so thats the way it is". I can't agree with it. I need proof. Now, as an atheist, if I saw said tree grow out of no where like the other guy did (which coincidently destroys faith) I too would believe in magic.

Anywho, this is moving from the original thought of the topic.

[mr_tzeentch]

if there was emperical proof, it wouldn't be faith. what we do have is the proof of the soul, of the heart. but it's hard to explain and complicated and off topic, so i guess i'll go back to talking about evolution?

man, have you ever seen a platypus? if evolution was real, could it produce such a illogical mix-match of a beast? no scientific process is going to say hey, you know what would really help this ordinary brown fluffy thingy? a beak and a munted tail! hey, throw some poison spikes in there too. animal optimised!

it had to have been done by an omnipotent being who was wanted to confuse some victorian explorers.

XD

[thatguyisbrett]

I think I posted in here somewhere before a while ago, but I'm not really here to state very many elaborate facts, just to reiterate my previous post cause u guys are sounding very vindictive over here. If u guys find my old post somewhere in the first page or two, you will find my post that no one tried to really argue, so I'm wondering what you guys think of it.
"Actually, the theory of evolution that u are referring to would be just as crazy in your eyes as creationism. All of the different variations of the theory point back to some big bang like event which is just creation - god. its saying something (which they call nothing) suddenly created particles. These particles [Atoms or groups of atoms...I can't remember which] have to assemble in a perfect formation of about 400 something parts. then the combined parts have to assemble with 20 something more perfect parts [By parts I mean other sets of 400] to make any kind of cell [23 for human Chromosome I think...]. the possibility of this is 1 in 200,000,000,000. 1 in 14,000,000,000 is considered physically impossible and 1 in 62,000,000,000 is considered impossible.

I like to think of it in terms of the theory " I think, therefore I am" meaning there is a god who realizes his existence and therefore has certain characteristics."

The problem a lot of people have when they think about God is that he has a certain, personified appearance. But anyway, certain types of evolution can be proven in some circumstances. Like humans growing taller over the past hundred years. But as far as creation goes, I think the possibility of a god is actually more likely than the chances I stated above. Oh, yeah....I don't know where my facts came from but most come from a common knowledge of high school level math and middle school life science ( takes me back ^_^.......). Not to mention, Those probabilities are for AFTER the particles were created in the first place, which probably has a lower probability itself.

first of all this makes the assumption that the first form of life was a complete cell which is not the case. likely candidates for the first forms of life are RNA and proteins. these self assemble in favorable conditions so 1 in 200 trillion isnt a great estimate of the likelihood of spontaneous generation. however there are over 70 sextilion (thats 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) solar systems within range of our telescopes so even a 1 in 200 trillion chance seems almost like a sure thing. and thats only the stars we can see, which is a very limited portion of the universe.

2nd the big bang doesnt say that everything came from nothing necessarily. the idea is that at some point all of the universe's mass and energy was united in a singularity. the big bang was the split of the universe's forces. photons collided converting energy to mass as electrons, neutrons and protons. all things in the universe are constantly moving apart like sparks from fireworks. we can tell by observing stars that everything in the universe originated from a single point or area.

ummm... @ the tree analogy. can i have some of that stuff your smoking? the universe isnt a tree.

i dont believe that any god would try to trick us into not believing in him. in accepting this you find yourself having to make an odd rationalization about god and the natural world. it totally defies occams razor and everything we know about science.

[hexaq]

There's one question tho: what caused the big bang?

I seem to recall the so called Plank's wall, which represents the maximum back in time we can get to the bang moment, something like 10^(-64) seconds after big bang occurred..but what happend before that? what caused the big bang in the first place?