Creationist have problems with evolution because evolution makes sense.

[AV1611VET]

6. Therefore it is likely that life arose "spontaneously" as a chemical reaction suite.

I disagree --- I don't believe for one minute that nature can "kick-start" life.

I believe living things are gestalts, with the whole greater than the sum of its parts.

God changes dead chemicals into living beings.

 

[Chalnoth]

I disagree --- I don't believe for one minute that nature can "kick-start" life.

Why not?

 

[Split Rock]

It was until it was realized that carbon dating can only be used for fossils thousands of years old and not millions. Dates for many fossils prior to the discovery of in accuracy have still been left with inaccurate dating.

Please give a reference for this statement, because it is a lie.

The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.[/B] - Michael Benton, Ph.D., a vertebrate paleontologist .

This is what I have already said. That is why carbon 14 dating is not used to date fossils.. yet you claimed it was!

Piltdown man - it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan combined with the skull of a fully developed, modern man. - Wikipedia

Yep. The one forgery that creationists love to recount, even though it goes back to 1912. Why is it so hard for you guys to come up with more recent forgeries, since they are sooooooo very prevalent?

Archaeoraptor - appears to be composed of a dromaeosaur tail and a bird body.’ - National Geographic

Yes. A farmer glued two legitimate fossils together to make more money off of it. Professional paleontologists were NOT fooled. An amateur collector bought it and National Geographic learned a hard lesson about not circumventing the scientific method and peer review processs when it published informtion on the fossil despite the fact professionals had already rejected the fossil as a mosaic.

Neanderthal Man - No longer considered to be pre-man. Neanderthal is fully human but believed to have suffered from rickets due to malnutrition.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. There are many fossils of Neanderthal and they do not suffer from ricketts. It is also a different species. No fraud here.

Cro-Magnon Man - Proven to be completely human and there is clear evidence of religious practices and artistic creativity. This so-called pre-human co-existed with contemporary man.

Cro-Magnon did not "co-exist" with contemporary man, he is the same as us, just older. No one claims different. Where is the fraud?

Java Man - Proven to be a deliberate hoax and no longer accepted by evolutionary scientist, however it is still taught in many school textbooks as a missing link.

Wrong. Show us evidence it is a fraud. The original is lost, but we have cast made from it. Also, we have other fossil examples of Homo erectus, in any case. No fraud here either.

Nebraska Man - An entire skeletal structure was created from a single tooth...Additional research has proven that this tooth was actually the tooth of an extinct pig.

So? It was never published in scientific literature as a man. The mistake was an honest one. No fraud here.

Lucy - Considered to be related to the arboreal ape.

So are we! Lucy is still considered an ancestor of modern man. No fraud here.

Zinjanthropus - Proven to be a primitive ape and has no ties to modern man or human development.

We are also apes. Zinjanthropus is now considered a dead end, related to our ancestors, but not in a direct line to us. No fraud here either.

Coelacanth - This was strongly considered by evolutionary scientist to be an index fossil linking early cretaceous which were considered to have become extinct over 80 million years ago. Recently living specimens have been found near Madagascar. - History of the Earth, Henry Morris

These are not the same species, however. therefore, it does not affect the use of the other species as index fossils. Where is the "fraud?"

These are just few.

So far, you have provided TWO. The first (and oldest) was the only one that had any effect on thinking concerning evolution, and that was temporary. The other, never fooled any professional paleontologist. How does this show that all fossil intermediates are frauds?

I see a lot of adaptation, but no new species. I see were scientist have made new species, although they are not really a new species but a like species, through cross pollinization, but that again is not evolution. It did not occur through "natural selection", or "mutation".

You asked for it:

Observed Speciation - Lucaspa (partial list)

Speciation in Insects
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.
Lots of references in this one to other speciation.
3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.
4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.
5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.
6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.
7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.
8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.
9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.
10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.
11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.
12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.
13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.
14. de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44:123-130.15. 29. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference: experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131:911-917.
30. Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions: experimental evidence. Evolution. 44:1140-1152.
31. del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56:484-487.
32. Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 46:1214-1220.

Speciation in Plants
1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.
2. Hybrid speciation in peonies http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1
3. http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm new species of groundsel by hybridization
4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.
6. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, 90(3): 28-38, 1981
7. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.
8. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
9. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).
10. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).
11. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).
12. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).
13. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).
14. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.
15. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.
16. Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23:534-547.

Vertebrate Speciation
1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5534/1414
3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm
4. Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992
5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.
Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.) See also Mayr, E., 1970. _Populations, Species, and Evolution_, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348
6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have
originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle
Ages[3].
[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.
[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.
[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.
7. Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,
W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

Happy reading!

I was of course referring to enthropy included in the law.
2nd law of thermodynamics:
Entropy - a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.
Evolution is an open system and therefore would not have the energy to do as it states it does.

Because living organisms are open systems (not evolution itself, this is a process) this means it can accept energy from outside the system. Take a look up at the sky during the day, and you will see the massive nuclear fusion reactor that is providing the energy that life requires to increase its complexity. Without this energy, there would be no life on earth. As long as life does what it does, it will evolve.

Neither evolution not creationism have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

So what? Is gravity or germ theory proven beyong a "shadow of a doubt?" I said evolution was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and asked you to do the same for creationism. Obviously, you cannot.

It is just as much a scientific theory as evolution. Both use scientific method to explain phenomenoms. The fossil records, show the same types of fossils in different sections. A universal flood would explain sea life in a dessert area. Can they be proven? No. Are they theories? Yes. Both evolution and creationism are theories on the existance of man.

No creationism is not based on physical evidence. It is based on The Bible. There is no potential means of falsifying creationism, in the minds of those who adhere to it. Therefore, it is not a scientific theory.

Actually everything I wrote in my post is shown and cited, not by just those that believe in creationism but scientist envolved with the evolutionary theory.

No you did not back up anything with citations, except the first part. This was filled with quote mines, even if you didn't make it difficult to respond by how you formated your response. I won't bother with it. *added* I decided to tackle this part as well in a separate post below.

 

[Split Rock]

I love it when evolutionist do the same things they claim others are doing. That being twisting meanings and ignoring anything that goes against their beliefs.

I'd like to see you provide evidence of this "twisting." So far you have not.

I have stated I can not prove my theory, it is the evolutionist who has no hard facts, except those that they claim to be true even if disproved, that have a problem.

Yes, you have stated you cannot prove your "theory." I agree. That does not change the fact that the theory of evolution is based entirely on facts, nor does it imply it is a poor theory.

The origin of man in either case is an unproven theory, that can not be proven using the scientific method. That is a fact, whether you believe the facts is your choice.

We cannot "prove" anything in science. We can provide evidence that is sufficient to accept evolution beyond any reasonable doubt, and that is what we have done. Even more important, we have been unable to falsify it.

You have your beliefs on what you believe to be true, and I have mine it really is just that simple.

Mine are based on scientific evidence, and yours on your interpretation of scripture. As long as you acknowledge the difference, I have no problem with that.

When you get down to it, both are believed by faith. Faith in what you believe to be true is.

Another sad example of a creationist denegrading his own "faith" in Jesus as Christ by comparing it to our "faith" in scientific theories. They are not the same.

The facts are facts. The fossil records do not point toward evolution, but the appearance of what we have now, minus extinctions.

The fossil record shows a long series of extinctions and new appearances of fossil species that cannot be explained by a single "flood" event. It also shows that man has only been on this planet for a very short period of time (relative to the age of the earth).

There are no new species walking out of the jungles,

I have shown you a long list of observed speciation events.

and the laws of Physics do not support the evolutionary theory.

Wrong again. Show me a single evolutionary process that violates any physical law. Is it mutation? Is it genetic recombination? Is it natural selection? Is it genetic drift? Is it gene flow?

Closing your eyes and and tapping your heals together will not erase the facts.

Why don't you take your own advice? I would further suggest you stop listening to people who are deliberately lying to you in violation of God's Laws because they know you will believe whatever reinforces your religious beliefs. If you really want to learn what evolution is and what the evidence really is, I recommend this website: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

 

[Split Rock]

I have decided to handle this poorly formated post as well. Mainly, because it allows me to make use of my very own Quote Mine again!

"The remarkably complex forms of animals we see today suddenly appeared. ...This moment, right at the start of the Earth's Cambrian Period...marks the evolutionary explosion that filled the seas with the earth's first complex creatures. ... the large animal phyla of today were present already in the early Cambrian and that they were as distinct from each other as they are today...a menagerie of clam cousins, sponges, segmented worms, and other invertevrates that would seem vaguely familiar to any scuba diver." - Richard Monastersky, Earth Science Ed., Science News Discovery p. 40

What date is this from? Funny how the date is missing... probably because the LCW (Lying Creationist Weasel) website you got this from knows it is an out of date source. *added* This seems to have actually been from "Discover" magazine, April 1993. You can't even cite it correctly. It is dated, but even in 1993, this information was outdated. So much for "Discover" magazine I guess.

"We find many of them (fossils) already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." - Richard Dawkins, Cambridge, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p229-230

An out of context quote mined from "The Blind Watchmaker!" Congratulations! You cut and paste well. Did you read the "Blind Watchmaker?" Did you bother to read the full paragraph this was mined from? Of course not.

Actually the fossil recoreds have shown the same fossils in the different stages, not to mention that there are no fossils showing a fish with legs, or a shory necked girafe.

I already gave you a website that shows fish with legs. Here:
http://www.devoniantimes.org/index.html

A pro-evolutionary "paper" says there are transitions. Not a good source.

What is a pro-evolutionary "paper?" This website cites peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject. You know... what the experts have published on these fossils. Maybe you can cite what other experts who have examined these fossils and disagree have to say... oh wait... there aren't any..

dinosaurs and birds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds

a scientific consensus has emerged - from the above article
Consensus -
1 a: general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports&#8230;from the border &#8212; John Hersey> b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>
2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief

Not a proof but a general agreement by those involved. I.e.those believing in evolution agree on the matter.

The "proof" lies with the cited scientific literature.

You act like a scientific "consensus" is a bad thing!

reptiles and mammals
http://genesispanthesis.tripod.com/f.../rept_mam.html

Wow another evolutionist saying they believe in evolution. How ever could we doubt?

Yes, how could you doubt what the experts in this field tell you? Could it be your own Bible-based preconceptions at work?

non-human apes and man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

The fossil evidence is insufficient to resolve this vigorous debate - From the above article in Wikipedia.

Wow... another quote mined out of context! What is this quote refering to? Is it referring to whether or not man evolved? Or is it referring to the details of Man's evolution, which have not all been resolved yet?

primitive whales and modern whales
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/cgi-bi...id=cetacean_04
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/Whales.htm

primitive horses and modern horses
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolut...eEvolution.htm

We have found and collected virtually complete skeletons of middle-to-late Eocene Basilosauridae (Dorudon and Basilosaurus), exceptionally complete skeletons of middle Eocene Protocetidae (especially Rodhocetus and Artiocetus), and a partial skull of earliest middle Eocene Pakicetidae (Pakicetus). Recovery of diagnostic ankle bones in the skeletons of primitive protocetids - From the above article.

In other words we find entire skeletons of whales of today, and partial and parts of others that recreated into what we believe they looked like and there for they were whales.
This sounds a lot like brontosaurus, oops we meant Apatosaurus, which ended up being one in the same.

No, it means exactly what it says. We have some very good examples of extinct whales that have... get this... legs. Funny how we find exactly what the theory of evolution predicts... isn't it?

Now is my turn to show you via my very own Quote Mine that the LCWs you have been getting your information from not only know they are lying, but know that evolution is true. Enjoy!:

Here, Creationist Icon, the Hydraulic Engineer Henry Morris admits that a 6,000 year old universe is absurd :

&#8220;If the stars were made on the fourth day, and if the days of creation were literal days, then the stars must be several thousand years old. How, then, can many of the stars be millions or billions of light years distant since it would take correspondingly millions or billions of years for their light to reach the earth?&#8221;
-Henry Morris (1972) The Remarkable Birth of Planet Earth, p 61-62


Here he admits that evolution is a Law of Nature:

&#8220;Continuous evolution is a universal law of nature&#8230;&#8221;
-Henry Morris (1967) Evolution and the Modern Christian. p.34


Here he admits that index fossils are an accurate way to determine the age of rocks:

&#8220;That is, since evolution always proceeds in the same way all over the world at the same time, index fossils representing a given age &#8230; constitute infallible indicators of the geological age in which they are found. This makes good sense&#8230;&#8221;
-Henry Morris (1977) ICR Impact Series, no. 48.


Here he admits that theistic evolution is a perfectly fine belief:

&#8220;People can believe in theistic evolution (or progressive creation) and still believe in the Bible. They feel that the evolutionary ages of geology can &#8230; be accommodated in Genesis, by means (usually) of the &#8217;local flood&#8217; interpretation of the Noachian Deluge and the &#8216;day/age&#8217; interpretataion of God&#8217;s week of creation.&#8221;
-Henry Morris (1980) Acts & Facts, March issue cover letter


Here Creationist Robert Ginskey admits to the fundamental flaws with a 6,000 year old earth:

&#8220;The fact is, fundamentalists face a real problem in trying to squeeze dinosaurs into 6,000 years of earth history. The facts just don&#8217;t allow it, even when Noah&#8217;s Flood is invoked as an explanation.&#8221;
-Robert Ginskey (1977) The Plain Truth , May, p 30-31


Here Creationist Geologist/Paleontologist Kurt Wise admits the truth about transitional fossils:

&#8220;It&#8217;s a pain in the neck. It fits the evolutionary predictions quite well.&#8221; (discussing a fossil sequence showing reptile to mammal evolution)
-Kurt Wise (2007) The New York Times Magazine, Nov 25, p34.


Here, Intelligent Design Icon and Lawyer Philip Johnson admits that science is the only reliable path to knowledge:

&#8220;Science, which studies only the natural, is our only reliable path to knowledge.&#8221;
-Philip Johnson (1995) Reason in the Balance, p 40.


Here Old Earth Creationist and Astronomer Hugh Ross talks about the limited usefullness of religion:

&#8220;A mechanical chain of events determines everything. Morality and religion may be temporarily useful but are ultimately irrelevant.&#8221;
-Hugh Ross (1993) The Creator and the Cosmos


Here I.D Icon Philip Johnson admits that evolution does not equate with atheism:

&#8220;The blind watchmaker thesis makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist by supplying the necessary creation story. It does not make it obligatory to be an atheist, because one can imagine a Creator who works through natural selection.&#8221;
-Philip Johnson (1995) Reason in the Balance, p 77


Here Creationist Geologist Andrew Snelling admits that granites taking millions of years to form:

&#8220;Especially the huge masses of granites outcropping in the Yosemite area, must surely have taken millions of years.&#8221;
-Andrew A. Snelling (2008) Rapid Melting of Source Rocks, and Rapid Magma Intrusions and Cooling, Answers Research Journal, 1: 11-25


Here Creationist Icon Kent &#8220;Dr. Dino&#8221; Hovind admits that both deep time and evolution are true:

"The Earth is billions of years old. The geologic column is the way to interpret it, and Charles Darwin's evolution is right."
-Kent Hovind (1996) Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution, Chapter 4

 

[atomweaver]

It was until it was realized that carbon dating can only be used for fossils thousands of years old and not millions. Dates for many fossils prior to the discovery of in accuracy have still been left with inaccurate dating.

Kindly link me to one peer-reviewed scientific article which used carbon dating on a fossil, please. One is sufficient, for now, thanks

The best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years.

- Michael Benton, Ph.D., a vertebrate paleontologist .

Red emphasis mine. Why quote something which doesn't support your position? Or, do you think archaeologists study fossils, darkshadow?

 

[thaumaturgy]

I disagree --- I don't believe for one minute that nature can "kick-start" life.

I believe living things are gestalts, with the whole greater than the sum of its parts.

God changes dead chemicals into living beings.

As stated earlier, it this is your hypothesis then you merely have to prove (to a reasonable level of assurity) God and then prove (to a reasonable level of assurity) that God would do this thing, might help also to show the mechanism. Of course that would require you to further "Model" God.

By all means. You are free to do that. People have been trying for nigh unto 4 or more millenia to do that very thing.

 

[tanzanos]

As stated earlier, it this is your hypothesis then you merely have to prove (to a reasonable level of assurity) God and then prove (to a reasonable level of assurity) that God would do this thing, might help also to show the mechanism. Of course that would require you to further "Model" God.

By all means. You are free to do that. People have been trying for nigh unto 4 or more millenia to do that very thing.

God did it! Now take your pills. Tomorrow is another day

 

[AV1611VET]

As stated earlier, it this is your hypothesis then you merely have to prove (to a reasonable level of assurity) God and then prove (to a reasonable level of assurity) that God would do this thing, might help also to show the mechanism. Of course that would require you to further "Model" God.

You might want to prove yours as well, my friend:

6. Therefore it is likely that life arose "spontaneously" as a chemical reaction suite.

Especially if you want me to abandon my faith for yours.

People have been trying for nigh unto 4 or more millenia to do that very thing.

Not hardly --- Jesus beat them to it --- in spades.

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

You want me to tell you what that means?

 

[AV1611VET]

God did it! Now take your pills. Tomorrow is another day

I almost repped you for this, but some people don't like me repping them.

Someone saying GOD DID IT, even in jest, gives me goose bumps - (it really does).

 

[Danyc]

I almost repped you for this, but some people don't like me repping them.

Someone saying GOD DID IT, even in jest, gives me goose bumps - (it really does).

You have unknowingly cited evidence for evolution in your post.

Who can find it?

 

[SiderealExalt]

evidence for evolution? well AV1611VET did evolve into an ostrich.

 

[Chalnoth]

You have unknowingly cited evidence for evolution in your post.

Who can find it?

Goose bumps!

 

[Jester4kicks]

Goose bumps!

I caught that too... but I'm willing to wager that AV is going to come back over the top with some smug explanation.

 

[USincognito]

I caught that too... but I'm willing to wager that AV is going to come back over the top with some smug explanation.

Or maybe just a Bible verse.

[As] he that taketh away a garment in cold weather, [and as] vinegar upon nitre, so [is] he that singeth songs to an heavy heart.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You might want to prove yours as well, my friend:

Actually I don't have to. If you actually read the original post I noted that given all the points stated the most likely hypothesis was that life started abiogenically. If all you have are non-living chemicals, then the only way for life to start is to start from non-living chemicals.

I am hypothesizing nothing that isn't fully in evidence. You, however, are hypothesizing God. Therefore I have provided all the information necessary to support my "hypothesis", you need to provide information that would make God equally or more likely.

Especially if you want me to abandon my faith for yours.

I wouldn't want you to abandon your faith. I a merely pointing out to you how a scientific idea is promulgated and dealt with. You are free to believe as you wish.

Not hardly --- Jesus beat them to it --- in spades.

Well, you could also go about proving the Jesus actually existed and that he was indeed in knowledge of God's nature and that he said the things quoted to him.

You want me to tell you what that means?

Well, if you want to. I don't really care one way or the other.

Just as an aside, in Genesis 18:2-20 Who was the Lord that Abraham spoke with and entertained at his tent? I am somewhat curious.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually I don't have to.

Good --- I don't have to either, then.

Two can play that game.

(I stopped reading right here.)

 

[USincognito]

Why do Creationists think quote mining, PRATTs and poisoning the well are a goo... er.. response?

To this we can add avoiding evidence presented to them while reasserting their already disproven pionts, rambling on about things they don't understand and preaching. To wit...

I love it when evolutionist do the same things they claim others are doing. That being twisting meanings and ignoring anything that goes against their beliefs. I have stated I can not prove my theory, it is the evolutionist who has no hard facts, except those that they claim to be true even if disproved, that have a problem. The origin of man in either case is an unproven theory, that can not be proven using the scientific method. That is a fact, whether you believe the facts is your choice. You have your beliefs on what you believe to be true, and I have mine it really is just that simple. When you get down to it, both are believed by faith. Faith in what you believe to be true is.
The facts are facts. The fossil records do not point toward evolution, but the appearance of what we have now, minus extinctions. There are no new species walking out of the jungles, and the laws of Physics do not support the evolutionary theory.

How about instead of regurgitating your discredited spiel in another rambling, content free, tangental sermon you actually address the evidences that have been provided for you. There's plenty of links and topics for you to discuss in deapth.

And yes, the facts are the facts. Notice in all the responses to your post #129 they all have been consistent. Mine in 130 and 132. Chalnoth in 131. Split Rock in 143 and 145. Atomweaver in 146. Pay special attention to my and Split Rock's responses to your "lies list" and note how similar they are. Do you know why that is? (I'll tell you up front it's not because we coordinated them)

Closing your eyes and and tapping your heals together will not erase the facts.

My irony meter explodeth.

 

[Jester4kicks]

"We find many of them (fossils) already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history." - Richard Dawkins, Cambridge, The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, p229-230

Here's why you shouldn't quote mine.... from the man himself...

[youtube]HUxwqYwaGhA&eurl[/youtube]

 

[darkshadow]

Steadfastly claiming this again and again won't make it true. The facts that demonstrate our common ancestry with other species are myriad, but I personally think that this is a rather beautiful illustration of one tiny piece of the evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

Note that there is far, far more. Of particular interest is the fact that we have the same bits of broken DNA. For instance, we share with all other mammals all of the genes to make Vitamin C. The problem is, in us and all other primates, one of the many genes involved in making Vitamin C is broken: it's missing a single base pair, and so does not function. As a result, all primates have to eat Vitamin C, while other mammals can make their own. Why do we share all of the genes to make this essential vitamin, but at the same time have the exact same broken gene?

Then there's also the endogenous retroviruses. These are little bits of virus DNA that are remnants of past infections of our ancestors. Not only do we share many such viruses in the exact same locations as other animals (directly indicating that we had common ancestors: there's no other realistic way to get the same virus DNA in the same location than that they are copies of the same original infection from the same original ancestor), but the pattern of commonality is also precisely what we expect from other measures of how species are related.

Now, do you want to take that back? Or do you somehow think that you can refute the mountains of conclusive genetic evidence for common ancestry? Heck, do you even think you can refute one piece of the genetic evidence that links us to the other apes?

I am not disputing heredity, which is what you are showing. There is no, proof of evolution, I am sorry to burst your bubble. Heredity is not evolution, since it is not making a new species. It is the same species with remanents of the past ancestors. Same as diseases can skip a generation.