If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

[Gwenyfur]

latin homo english man
latin sapiens enlgish wise
latin sapiens english wise


right now science is calling our *smirk* evolved form "homo sapiens sapiens"

wise wise man?????

 

[The Lady Kate]

latin homo english man
latin sapiens enlgish wise
latin sapiens english wise


right now science is calling our *smirk* evolved form "homo sapiens sapiens"

wise wise man?????

Well, our intelligence is the most noticable difference between us and the other homo-species... with the occasional exception.

 

[Dannager]

latin homo english man
latin sapiens enlgish wise
latin sapiens english wise


right now science is calling our *smirk* evolved form "homo sapiens sapiens"

wise wise man?????

You know, it would really help if you started participating in the debate instead of making irrelevant comments like this that only serve to make you look like a third-grade schoolchild making fun of his classmate's last name. I was sure that you'd be able to keep an open mind here and not fall into the trap that most creationists do when they've run out of arguments. Don't prove me wrong now.

 

[nolidad]

I'm asking you what reseach you used to get your statistics and what definition of harmful they used and how they determined if a mutation was harmful.

First. Seeing how you beleive Jesus is God and is not capable of lying or telling untruths to express truth-- then why did He validate Adam and Eve as true and Noahs flood as a historical event? Obviously if these events did not occur as the bible saysd they did--Jesus was lying and thus how can He be God??

Mark 10:5-7

Matthew 24

Well besides the websites I posted earlier here a re a few more stateents from mostly evolutionists:

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/problem.html
http://www.onelife.com/evolve/mutate.html
http://www.open2.net/truthwillout/evolution/article/evolution_walker.htm
http://www.genpromag.com/ShowPR~PUBCODE~018~ACCT~1800000100~ISSUE~0510~RELTYPE~RLSN~PRODCODE~00000000~PRODLETT~J.html
http://www.carm.org/evolution/evodds.htm
http://russp.org/Dawkins.html
http://www.laattorneyvideo.com/nonlegal/e-boundary/page5.html
http://www.laattorneyvideo.com/nonlegal/e-boundary/page5.html
http://www.ipp.mpg.de/de/for/bereiche/stellarator/Comp_sci/CompScience/csep/csep1.phy.ornl.gov/mu/node2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_chromosome
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid2.htm
http://recefil.com/c/?text=Examples%20Of%20Harmful%20Mutations&refID=33

http://recefil.com/c/?text=Examples%20Of%20Harmful%20Mutations&refID=33
http://www.colband.com.br/ativ/nete/biot/textos/genetica/009.htm
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho47.htm
http://www.evoled.org/lessons/printable/Variation.pdf
http://cfpm.org/~majordom/memetics/2000/14758.html
www.makingthemodernworld.org.uk/ learning_modules/biology/01.TU.03/?section=7 - 45k -

these are a few that speak of the fact that most genetic mutations are harmful

If you would like I can post sites from medical science showing how nearly all genetic mutations in man are harmful in some measure.

"It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations in higher organisms between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation." —*Francisco J. Ayala, "Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology, " in Philosophy of Science, March 1970, p. 3.

"

"A proportion of favorable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organism from living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out of gear." —*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 41.


"One would expect that any interference with such a complicated piece of chemical machinery as the genetic constitution would result in damage. And, in fact, this is so: the great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the organism." —*Julian Huxley, Op, cit., p. 37.

Mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability [ability to keep living], and, to the best of our knowledge invariably affect it adversely [they tend to result in harm or death]. Does not this fact show that mutations are really assaults on the organism's central being, its basic capacity to be a living thing?" —*C.P. Martin, "A Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist, p. 102.

The large majority of mutations, however, are harmful a even lethal to the individual in whom they are expressed. Such mutations can be regarded as introducing a 'load,' or genetic burden, into the [DNA] pool. The term `genetic load' was first used by the late H.J. Muller, who recognized that the rate of mutations is increased by numerous agents man has introduced into his environment, notably ionizing radiation and mutagenic chemicals." —*Christopher Wills, "Genetic Load," in Scientific American, March 1970, p. 98.

After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated." —*G. Ledyard Stebbins, Processes of Organic Evolution (1971), pp. 24-25.

"The most important actions that need to be taken, however, are in the area of minimizing the addition of new mutagens to those already present in the environment. Any increase in the mutational load is harmful, if not immediately, then certainly to future generations." —*Christopher Wills, "Genetic Load, " in Scientific American, March 1970, p. 107.

"An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one's watch or one's radio set willseldom make it work better. " —*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126

"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [fruit fly] show deterioration, breakdown, and disappearance of some organs." —*T. Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics and Man (1955), p. 105.



A majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations produce deteriorations of the viability, hereditary disease and monstrosities. Such changes it would seem, can hardly serve as evolutionary building blocks." —*T.Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species

' "Herring gulls" have a red patch on their beak. This red patch has an important meaning, for the gull feeds its babies by going out fishing and swallowing the fish it has caught. Then, on coming home, the hungry baby gull knocks at the red spot. This elicits a reflex of regurgitation in mama, and the baby takes the fish from her gullet. All this may sound very simple, but it involves a whole series of most complicated chain reactions with a horribly complex underlying nervous mechanism of the knocking baby and that of the regurgitating mother. All this had to be developed simultaneously, which, as a random mutation, has the probability of zero. I am unable to approach this problem without supposing an innate "drive" in living matter to perfect itself.' —*Jerry Bergman, "Albert Szent-Gyorgyi's Theory of Syntropy, " in Up with Creation (1978), p. 337 /quoting 'Albert Szent-Gyrargyi, "The Living State: With Remarks on Cancer"

"One might think that mutants that cause only a minor impairment are unimportant. but this is not true for the following reason: A mutant that is very harmful usually causes early death or senility. Thus the mutant gene is quickly eliminated from the population . . Since minor mutations can thus cause as much harm in the long run as major ones, and occur much more frequently, it follows that most of the mutational damage in a population is due to the accumulation of minor changes." —*J. F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation,"

"Since Lamarck's theory [acquired characteristics] has been proved false, it is only of historical interest. Darwin's theory [natural selection] does not satisfactorily explain the origin and inheritance of variations. . De Vries' theory [large mutations] has been shown to be weak because no single mutation or set of mutations has ever been so large that it has been known to start a new species in one generation of offspring." —*Mark A. Hall and *Milton S Lesser, Review Text in Biology,

"Such an assumption [that little mutations here and there can gradually, over several generations, produce a new species] is violently opposed by the majority of geneticists, who claim that the facts found on the sub-specific level must apply also to the higher categories. Incessant repetition of this unproved claim, glossing tightly over the difficulties, and the assumption of an arrogant attitude toward those who are not so easily swayed by fashions in science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine. It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations." —*Richard Goldschmidt, in American Scientist

"Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but the basic principles of scientific explanation." —*A. Koesder, The Ghost in the Machine (1975), p. 129.

Mathematicians feel that any requisite number beyond 1060 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the benefit of the doubt). Any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 a 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist's favorite expression)." –L. L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong (1984), p. 205.

"One should remember that an increase in complexity is what evolution is all about. It is not conceived as causing a change which continues to maintain the same level of complexity, nor does it mean a change which might bring about a decrease in complexity. Only an increase in complexity qualifies.
"Radiations from natural sources enter the body in a hit-or-miss fashion. That is, they are completely random in the dispersed fashion with which they strike. Chemical mutagens also behave in an indiscriminate manner in causing chemical change. It is hard to see how either can cause improvements. With either radiations or mutagens, it would be something like taking a rifle and shooting haphazardly into an automobile and expecting thereby to create a better performing vehicle, and one that shows an advance in the state-of-the-art for cars
"The question is, then, can random sources of energy as represented by radiations or mutagenic chemicals, upon reacting with the genes, cause body changes which would result in a new species?" —Lester McCann, Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism (1986

"Lethal mutations outnumber visibles by about 20 to 1. Mutations that have small harmful effects, the detrimental mutations, are even more frequent than the lethal ones." —*A.M. Winchester, Genetics, 5th Edition (1977), p. 356.

No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution. —*Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 88.

"There is a reason to believe, however, that exposure to high energy irradiation of any kind, and at any dosage level, is potentially harmful. Mutations are generally proportional to the dosage and the effect is cumulative." —*E. J. Gardner, Principles of Genetics (1964), p. 192.

"It is now well established that the development of increased ability in insects to survive exposure is not induced directly by the insecticides themselves. These chemical do not cause the genetic changes in insects [therefore they are not mutation-inducing agents]; they serve only as selective agents, eliminating the more susceptible insects and enabling the more tolerant survivors to increase and fill the void created by the destruction of susceptible individuals." —*C .P. Georghiou, et al., "Housefly Resistance to Insecticides," in California Agriculture, 19:8-10.

"As a generative principle, providing the raw material for natural selection, random mutation is inadequate, both in scope and theoretical grounding." —*Jeffrey S. Wicken, "The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information Theoretical Discussion," Journal of Theoretical Biology, April 1979, p. 349.

"In three crucial areas where [the modern evolution theory] can be tested, it has failed: the fossil record reveals a pattern of evolutionary leaps rather than gradual change. Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evolving. Random step-by-step mutations at the molecular level cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life." —*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 103, 107.

 

[Gwenyfur]

You know, it would really help if you started participating in the debate instead of making irrelevant comments like this that only serve to make you look like a third-grade schoolchild making fun of his classmate's last name. I was sure that you'd be able to keep an open mind here and not fall into the trap that most creationists do when they've run out of arguments. Don't prove me wrong now.

Dannager, while my mind is it's usual jumble of thoughts swirling and carrying on...you will just have to live with the fact that at times I do have a warped sense of humor...usually in the wee hours of the morning following some battle or another with servers and network issues...

So if I blow a little steam with irony here or elsewhere...accept it for what it is...me blowing steam...having a laugh amongst several people who don't seem to know what a smile is, let alone have a funny bone....and believe me....there are posters here who really *really* NEED a funny bone

 

[Dannager]

Dannager, while my mind is it's usual jumble of thoughts swirling and carrying on...you will just have to live with the fact that at times I do have a warped sense of humor...usually in the wee hours of the morning following some battle or another with servers and network issues...

So if I blow a little steam with irony here or elsewhere...accept it for what it is...me blowing steam...having a laugh amongst several people who don't seem to know what a smile is, let alone have a funny bone....and believe me....there are posters here who really *really* NEED a funny bone

Gwenyfur, the problem is that a lot of the posters here, myself included, take this extremely seriously. Many of us view the issue as one that will damage the educational, scientific and international opinion of the entire nation of the United States within the next fifty years. Fortunately it appears that support for ID is rapidly dropping off, between Judge Jones' judicial smackdown and the recent legislative destruction of a bill designed to degrade evolutionary theory in classrooms. But that doesn't mean that any of us can afford to be anything but vigilant here. We really can't take the chance that someone is joking, or blowing off steam, because there are so many creationists posting here with so many different gripes. We know from experience that about half the time something that a normal person would perceive as poking fun is a serious argument used by creationists. In fact, this is the reason Poe's Law is now invoked a lot of the time when dealing with particularly off-their-rocker creationists. Now, you're certainly not off your rocker, but as I've said, we can't really afford to take any chances.

 

[Gwenyfur]

Gwenyfur, the problem is that a lot of the posters here, myself included, take this extremely seriously. Many of us view the issue as one that will damage the educational, scientific and international opinion of the entire nation of the United States within the next fifty years. Fortunately it appears that support for ID is rapidly dropping off, between Judge Jones' judicial smackdown and the recent legislative destruction of a bill designed to degrade evolutionary theory in classrooms. But that doesn't mean that any of us can afford to be anything but vigilant here. We really can't take the chance that someone is joking, or blowing off steam, because there are so many creationists posting here with so many different gripes. We know from experience that about half the time something that a normal person would perceive as poking fun is a serious argument used by creationists. In fact, this is the reason Poe's Law is now invoked a lot of the time when dealing with particularly off-their-rocker creationists. Now, you're certainly not off your rocker, but as I've said, we can't really afford to take any chances.

I hate to be the one to break this to ya then...

Evolution is the least of the worries we shoudl have when it comes to international relations and their opinion of the USA...

We should start with our wishy washy gov't, our arrogance as spreading "democracy" ( which always turns totalitarian), get rid of fast food, Playstation, xbox, and mtv...then maybe, once all the things that are rotting the brains of our next generation are gone...maybe they *could* actually learn something

of course, that's just my 2 cents...

 

[shernren]

What's Poe's Law? lazy to wiki / google it right now.

 

[notto]

F
Well besides the websites I posted earlier here a re a few more stateents from mostly evolutionists:

Can you please just point out the specific research I am asking for that supports your 99% claim. Pasting the entire internet doesn't help and isn't answering the question. We all know about the Y chromosome so no need to post a link to the Wiki article about it. How does it support your claiim about mutations? Please be specific.

I'm beginning to think that you can't point me to any specific research that actually supports your claims.

Is that the case?

Quotes are not research.
Links are not research.
Research has things like data and conlusions.

Any chance you can point us to some research that supports your claims about harmful mutations? Any chance at all or should I just stop asking?

I'm asking you what reseach you used to get your statistics and what definition of harmful they used and how they determined if a mutation was harmful.

You're making claim to this fact. Can you define it and show us how research supports it and what was used to determine if a mutation was harmful in this research? Where is the research and those conclusions?

Please be specific.

 

[Dannager]

I hate to be the one to break this to ya then...

Evolution is the least of the worries we shoudl have when it comes to international relations and their opinion of the USA...

We should start with our wishy washy gov't, our arrogance as spreading "democracy" ( which always turns totalitarian), get rid of fast food, Playstation, xbox, and mtv...then maybe, once all the things that are rotting the brains of our next generation are gone...maybe they *could* actually learn something

of course, that's just my 2 cents...

You are correct, there are a lot of things that we could fix in America right now. This, however, is one of them, and we're doing our best to remedy the situation.

EDIT: That's an odd thought, actually. I've never considered this debate patriotic in any sense, but now that I think about it, it could be construed that way.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I hate to be the one to break this to ya then...

Evolution is the least of the worries we shoudl have when it comes to international relations and their opinion of the USA...

Perhaps not evolution specifically, but certainly education. before we go tramping off to repair our reputation abroad, it would help to get ou own house in order... and that means putting a stop to those who would march us back to the Dark Ages because they think that's what God wants.

 

[chaoschristian]

What concerns me:

The willingness of Christians to engage in questionable behaviour and entangle themselves with political forces in order to acheive an unwarranted theological objective - the surplanting of naturalist science with what I see as the emergence of some sort of pseudo-scientific Gnosticism

I hate to be the one to break this to ya then...

Evolution is the least of the worries we shoudl have when it comes to international relations and their opinion of the USA...

We should start with our wishy washy gov't, our arrogance as spreading "democracy" ( which always turns totalitarian), get rid of fast food, Playstation, xbox, and mtv...then maybe, once all the things that are rotting the brains of our next generation are gone...maybe they *could* actually learn something

of course, that's just my 2 cents...

 

[The Lady Kate]

What concerns me:

The willingness of Christians to engage in questionable behaviour and entangle themselves with political forces

...Many of whom are highly questionable themselves.

 

[nolidad]

Can you please just point out the specific research I am asking for that supports your 99% claim. Pasting the entire internet doesn't help and isn't answering the question. We all know about the Y chromosome so no need to post a link to the Wiki article about it. How does it support your claiim about mutations? Please be specific.

I'm beginning to think that you can't point me to any specific research that actually supports your claims.

Is that the case?

Quotes are not research.
Links are not research.
Research has things like data and conlusions.

Any chance you can point us to some research that supports your claims about harmful mutations? Any chance at all or should I just stop asking?

I'm asking you what reseach you used to get your statistics and what definition of harmful they used and how they determined if a mutation was harmful.

You're making claim to this fact. Can you define it and show us how research supports it and what was used to determine if a mutation was harmful in this research? Where is the research and those conclusions?

Please be specific.

Well as for examples of specific research here are some websites showing research into different mutagens and their effects:

PLEASE NOTE these are the indiviual researches aboutr specific mutations. They neither promote evo or creation. They are just simply proving harmful mutations. So enjoy the reading!! What I would like is ten sites showing empirical evidence of mutations providing beneficial effects tot he host and its offsprings .

http://www.splendaexposed.com/articles/2005/06/chlorine_in_you.html

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/psychology/health_psychology/Tanning.html

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~bsj/issues/00S02.html

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FOI1.php

http://www.harunyahya.net/V2/Lang/en/Pg/WorkDetail/Number/1897

http://www.upatsix.com/fyi/investigating_dis.htm

http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/DNA/Genes_Diseases/Nervous/nervous_overview.htm

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=5511

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BFU/is_6_86/ai_67326279

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/AboutNIAAA/CongressionalInformation/Testimony/testimony399.htm

http://anil.cchmc.org/research.html

http://www.nrr.nhs.uk/2005AnnualReports/Section2A-2E.asp?O=539

http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2004/EMF-Electromagnetic-Fields15dec04.htm

http://www.naar.org/news/pdfs/Autism_FAQ_revised_NAAR.pdf

http://www.navs.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ain_sci_science_future_nobelprizes


The Lady Kate writes:

Perhaps not evolution specifically, but certainly education. before we go tramping off to repair our reputation abroad, it would help to get ou own house in order... and that means putting a stop to those who would march us back to the Dark Ages because they think that's what God wants.

This nation should worry more aboutr what God thinks of it than what other nations do. America is in serious trouble because it has jettisoned even the pretense of godliness and is speeding to catch up with Europe in deeds God calls abominable.

 

[Willtor]

Well as for examples of specific research here are some websites showing research into different mutagens and their effects:

PLEASE NOTE these are the indiviual researches aboutr specific mutations. They neither promote evo or creation. They are just simply proving harmful mutations. So enjoy the reading!! What I would like is ten sites showing empirical evidence of mutations providing beneficial effects tot he host and its offsprings .

http://www.splendaexposed.com/articles/2005/06/chlorine_in_you.html

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/psychology/health_psychology/Tanning.html

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~bsj/issues/00S02.html

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FOI1.php

http://www.harunyahya.net/V2/Lang/en/Pg/WorkDetail/Number/1897

http://www.upatsix.com/fyi/investigating_dis.htm

http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/DNA/Genes_Diseases/Nervous/nervous_overview.htm

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=5511

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BFU/is_6_86/ai_67326279

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/AboutNIAAA/CongressionalInformation/Testimony/testimony399.htm

http://anil.cchmc.org/research.html

http://www.nrr.nhs.uk/2005AnnualReports/Section2A-2E.asp?O=539

http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/2004/EMF-Electromagnetic-Fields15dec04.htm

http://www.naar.org/news/pdfs/Autism_FAQ_revised_NAAR.pdf

http://www.navs.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ain_sci_science_future_nobelprizes


The Lady Kate writes:



This nation should worry more aboutr what God thinks of it than what other nations do. America is in serious trouble because it has jettisoned even the pretense of godliness and is speeding to catch up with Europe in deeds God calls abominable.

Are these the first 15 links you got from a Google search? What do Splenda (tm) and Tanning Beds have to do with evolutionary mutation?

 

[Dannager]

Are these the first 15 links you got from a Google search? What do Splenda (tm) and Tanning Beds have to do with evolutionary mutation?

Yeah, I'm kind of confused about that, too. nolidad, you did check those links before you threw them on here, didn't you? How come the first two have nothing to do with evolutionary mutation?

 

[disciple777]

Evolution is a valid science. Actually, evolution has been observed in the lifetime of a human being, and happens all the time. The problem that people have is that there are gaps in the complete theory of evolution. It's easy to understand that all mammals came from the same ancestor. However, linking a mammal to a tree is much more difficult. The transition animals are very difficult to find (i.e. mammal/reptiles). The other part is how the first organism actually began.

Anyone that completely denies evolution is either stupid or ignorant, because parts of the theory have actually been observed during the lifetime of a human in the past century. That is, like 50 years, not eons. There are numerous case studies about this, and new species of animals have been created as a result of human activity.

The broad implication of evolution is harder to stomache since we really can't tell yet.

Anyway, I can't believe that it's the 21st century, and we still have religious people trying to fight scientists, when time after time after time again, they've made discoveries that have changed our world. People need to just chill out about it.

The earth goes around the sun. Not the other way around.

Can you demonstrate one simple evidence for this theory? Please do not quote somebody's writings, suppositions, predictions or assumptions. I am a former Darwinist.

For your kind information, this forum is only for those who believe in Creation and ID. You are in the wrong forum. You should go back to the forum on evolution. As aCreationist, I was not allowed in the Evolution forum. You do not belong here.

 

[Dannager]

"Anyone that completely denies evolution is either stupid or ignorant, because parts of the theory have actually been observed during the lifetime of a human in the past century."

Can you demonstrate one simple evidence for this theory? Please do not quote somebody's writings, suppositions, predictions or assumptions. I am a former Darwinist.

Could you first let us know (an example would be neat) of the sort of evidence you would consider to meet your criteria? We get asked this question a lot, provide an answer, and then get told that it isn't what they were looking for. So what, exactly, are you looking for?

 

[KerrMetric]

For your kind information, this forum is only for those who believe in Creation and ID. You are in the wrong forum. You should go back to the forum on evolution. As aCreationist, I was not allowed in the Evolution forum. You do not belong here.

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This forum is for Christians. The other forum you refer to is for all faiths. That is the only difference.

There are 2 sub-forums to this one - one for YEC/Gap/OEC's and one for TE's.

Before getting irate you need to learn your forums on here.

And you have never been denied to the all faith forum on here.

 

[Dannager]

For your kind information, this forum is only for those who believe in Creation and ID. You are in the wrong forum. You should go back to the forum on evolution. As aCreationist, I was not allowed in the Evolution forum. You do not belong here.

No, that would be the Creationism sub-forum. You're in the Origins Theology forum, which is open to all Christians and serves to facilitate the debate between evolution and creation. I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say you weren't allowed in the Evolution forum. Do you mean the Theistic Evolution sub-forum or the Creation vs. Evolution open debate forum? Anyway, from this forum's rules post:

This IS a Christian only forum. If you are not a Christian please do not post in this area. If you wish to debate creation/evolution and are not a Christian, there is a forum for just that here...

All Christians can post here regardless of origins belief. Please don't make such accusations without first checking to make sure they are accurate.