What proof would you need? (2)

[Astridhere]

In fish, these structures develop into gills. We thus have gill slits (or pharyngeal archs) in common. The theory of evolution explains why. Our ancestors had gills. During evolution, these developmental structures were co-opted for structures involving the jaw and neck.



"This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page.
It does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve it by adding citations to reliable sources. Tagged since August 2009.
Its factual accuracy is disputed"

See the real Wikipedia article here: Pharyngeal arch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But even Richardson admitted in Science Magazine in 1997 that his team's investigation of Haeckel's drawings were showing them to be "one of the most famous fakes in biology."[citation needed]
Some version of Haeckel’s drawings can be found in many modern biology textbooks in discussions of the history of embryology, with clarification that these are no longer considered valid .[32]
Embryo drawing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



32 =

ABSTRACT

One of the central, unresolved controversies in biology concerns the distribution of primitive versus advanced characters at different stages of vertebrate development. This controversy has major implications for evolutionary developmental biology and phylogenetics.
Haeckel's ABC of evolution and development - RICHARDSON - 2007 - Biological Reviews - Wiley Online Library


A controversy is a controversy, lovey. It is down to the cherry pick as to what you want to believe and therefore is not science. What is primitive and what is not etc etc, indeed researchers have no idea and are still squabbling amoungst themselves. Indeed one may be right but they cannot all be right. However, they certainly could all be wrong.....

What makes you think that if God created the result would be a totally different design of embyo for every kind? It is a flawed assumption.

Here are a few more and there are plenty more..

Thus the jaw evolved as an evolutionary novelty through tissue rearrangements and topographical changes in tissue interactions.
Evolution of the vertebrate jaw: comparative embryology and molecular developmental biology reveal the factors behind evolutionary novelty - Kuratani - 2004 - Journal of Anatomy - Wiley Online Library

To illustrate why it is important for researchers to use the revised map and nomenclature when thinking about frog and fish embryos, we present an example of alternative interpretations of “dorsalized” zebrafish mutations. © 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Rethinking axial patterning in amphibians - Lane - 2002 - Developmental Dynamics - Wiley Online Library

The article highlights the Normal Plates of the Development of the Vertebrates edited by the German anatomist Franz Keibel (16 volumes, 1897–1938). These were a major response to problems in the relations between ontogeny and phylogeny that amounted in practical terms to a crisis in staging embryos, not just between, but (for some) also within species.

The historical issues resonate today as developmental biologists work to improve and extend stage series, to make results from different laboratories easier to compare and to take individual variation into account.
A history of normal plates, tables and stages in vertebrate embryology

 

[Astridhere]

Perhaps God was only practicing when he made the other apes?

When I say God I mean that feeling you have.

I have spoken plenty to apes and am not going to go over it again with you.

You also have not refuted anything I spoke to with your simplistic reply.

If evos did not have evogoggles on they would clearly see any creature that has higher reasoninng ability, abstract thought, higher reasoning ability, no fur coat and unquantifiable differences in DNA could not be ancestral to one that lacks any, let alone all, of these traits. Nor could they share a common ancestor.

 

[verysincere]

I'm amazed that anyone still believes in gill slits in embryos even thought this as been disproven and uniformly rejected by scientist
this is yet another evolutionary myth that refuses to die. ..........

"Despite evidence to the contrary some books on evolution still use the supposed gill slits as evidence for evolution" Wikipedia - gill slits

You failed to understand the material you quoted. (And please use Wikipedia with caution. Do you really think it represents current peer-reviewed scholarship in every detail?)

You are correct in stating that the much discussed "slits" in embryos have undergone a great deal of study and re-evaluation over the years. (That's how science is meant to work.) But what has not changed is that they remain very strong evidence for evolution, largely because they are structures shared-in-common among a wide range of species. (So to put it in overly-simplified terms for this audience, they provide evidence for common descent.) As often happens, anti-evolution ranters seize upon any changes in scientific explanations as "fundamental errors" of some sort which brings down an entire field. Hardly.

I challenge you to research the history of "gill slits" and "pharyngeal slits" research and get past the "creation science" propaganda. Embryologists have a much better understanding of them today than a century ago but what hasn't changed is that they provide additional evidence for the theory of evolution, especially for common descent. Like it or don't like it but that is the current state of the peer-reviewed science.

(And for those who think that finding errors in biology textbooks about such topics somehow negates all science, I can testify as a retired professor that the ubiquitous nature of errors in textbooks always drove me nuts and I tired of sending errata lists to publishers. Unfortunately, the "grunt work" of far too many textbooks is done by often half-clueless "educators" rather than top-flight scholars in the associated field. This is especially a problem with public-school elementary and high school textbooks but I also saw a lot of inexcusable errors in undergrad and even Masters-level textbooks. However, when it comes to ranters complaining about the errors of "the scientific community", the funniest is when they obsess about some silly claim in a National Geographic article! I suppose to them that popular-level magazine is assumed to be a peer-reviewed science journal!)

 

[Keachian]

A controversy is a controversy, lovey. It is down to the cherry pick as to what you want to believe and therefore is not science. What is primitive and what is not etc etc, indeed researchers have no idea and are still squabbling amoungst themselves. Indeed one may be right but they cannot all be right. However, they certainly could all be wrong.....

The thing is they're not squabbling over whether evolution happened, they're squabbling over how it happened or evolutionary history.

What makes you think that if God created the result would be a totally different design of embyo for every kind? It is a flawed assumption.

But you hold that God created different kinds. Yet what you're saying here is that God created a template and then modified it to create different creatures.

 

[verysincere]

I have spoken plenty to apes and am not going to go over it again with you................................ If evos did not have evogoggles on they would clearly see any creature that has higher reasoninng ability, abstract thought, higher reasoning ability, no fur coat and unquantifiable differences in DNA could not be ancestral to one that lacks any, let alone all, of these traits. Nor could they share a common ancestor.

You went right off the rails on that one.

Am I the first to declare Poe?

 

[Keachian]

You went right off the rails on that one.

Am I the first to declare Poe?

Maybe, however from my understanding she's a shining example of Australian conspiracy theorist creationist.

 

[Split Rock]

You went right off the rails on that one.

Am I the first to declare Poe?

Poe? Probably not. I consider her to live under a bridge, however, and added her to my ignore list once it became clear that carrying out a discussion with her was pointless.

 

[Astridhere]

The thing is they're not squabbling over whether evolution happened, they're squabbling over how it happened or evolutionary history.

And I have spoken to that many times. Indeed, evolutionists cannot agree on anything except 'it all evolved'. They love to discredit each other and they come up with yet another evolutionary scenario as flavour of the month. eg 150 years of knucklewalking ancestry down the drain with one fossil totally falsifying all 'the evidence' and a brand new story ensues. There is a rubbish bin full of them.
But you hold that God created different kinds. Yet what you're saying here is that God created a template and then modified it to create different creatures.
Yeah..and it is called DNA. You lot started with a single cell arising and a LUCA. Then woopsie HGT. Now you need multiple arisals of independent life from dead matter that just so happened were so similar to each other that they could horizontally transfer genes. Hence, buy your own evo convolutions have suggested that all life will be much the same whether it 'evolved' in your case, or was created by the one designer.

Would you suppose that the only evidence for creation would be every kind being so totally different in both DNA and design and traits. How about a food chain of biologically, perhaps non-carbon and carbon based, dissimilar life? Is this what you expect to see in genomic evidence for creation?This is rather silly, I think.

Evolutionary researchers have truly lost all credibility, I feel. Flavour of the month is no more substantiated or credible than any support for creation a creationist offers.

 

[Astridhere]

You failed to understand the material you quoted. (And please use Wikipedia with caution. Do you really think it represents current peer-reviewed scholarship in every detail?)

You are correct in stating that the much discussed "slits" in embryos have undergone a great deal of study and re-evaluation over the years. (That's how science is meant to work.) But what has not changed is that they remain very strong evidence for evolution, largely because they are structures shared-in-common among a wide range of species. (So to put it in overly-simplified terms for this audience, they provide evidence for common descent.) As often happens, anti-evolution ranters seize upon any changes in scientific explanations as "fundamental errors" of some sort which brings down an entire field. Hardly.

I challenge you to research the history of "gill slits" and "pharyngeal slits" research and get past the "creation science" propaganda. Embryologists have a much better understanding of them today than a century ago but what hasn't changed is that they provide additional evidence for the theory of evolution, especially for common descent. Like it or don't like it but that is the current state of the peer-reviewed science.

(And for those who think that finding errors in biology textbooks about such topics somehow negates all science, I can testify as a retired professor that the ubiquitous nature of errors in textbooks always drove me nuts and I tired of sending errata lists to publishers. Unfortunately, the "grunt work" of far too many textbooks is done by often half-clueless "educators" rather than top-flight scholars in the associated field. This is especially a problem with public-school elementary and high school textbooks but I also saw a lot of inexcusable errors in undergrad and even Masters-level textbooks. However, when it comes to ranters complaining about the errors of "the scientific community", the funniest is when they obsess about some silly claim in a National Geographic article! I suppose to them that popular-level magazine is assumed to be a peer-reviewed science journal!)

Oh dear, you do not realize that many articles published in such magazines are actually speaking to published and peer reviewed research written by evolutionists. :o

Hon, everything that resides in the great rubbish bin of evolutionary falsifications past was a peer reviewed and generally accepted 'evidence' once upon a time.

For example, Haeckel proposed that the pharyngeal slits of the pharyngeal arches in the neck of the human embryo resembled gill slits of fish, thus representing an adult "fishlike" developmental stage as well as signifying a fishlike ancestor. Embryonic pharyngeal slits, formed when the thin branchial plates separating pharyngeal pouches and ectodermal grooves perforate, open the pharynx to the outside. Pharyngeal pouches appear in all tetrapod animal embryos: in mammals, the first pharyngeal pouch develops into the lower jaw (Meckel's cartilage), the malleus and the stapes. At a later stage, all pharyngeal slits close, only the ear remaining open.[8] But these embryonic pharyngeal arches, pouches, and slits could not at any stage carry out the same function as the gills of an adult fish.
Haeckel produced several embryo drawings that often overemphasized similarities between embryos of related species. These found their ways into many biology textbooks, and into popular knowledge. Modern biology rejects the literal and universal form of Haeckel's theory.[9]

Recapitulation theory - eNotes.com Reference


Cyclostome embryology and early evolutionary history of vertebrates

From the symposium “Linking Genes and Morphology in Vertebrates” presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, January 3–7, 2007, at Phoenix, Arizona.

Phylogenetic relationships among the gnathostomes, the lampreys, hagfish, and tunicates. Morphological data tend to cluster the gnathostomes and the lampreys in the same group, “Vertebrata,” because of the presence of vertebrae (A). Molecular phylogenetic analysis supports “Cyclostomata,” consisting of the lampreys and hagfish, as the monophyletic group

The wire-like skeletons noted earlier apparently stay in the rostral position during this shift, and this leaves open the question as to the developmental sequence of pharyngeal slits. If the latter cartilage really represents the visceral skeleton, the pharynx of the hagfish seems to have undergone enormous modification, which no other vertebratess have experienced. Detailed embryological study of the hagfish is again required to clarify the early cellular components of the branchial arches and to construct the evolutionary scenario of the vertebrate branchial arches.
Cyclostome embryology and early evolutionary history of vertebrates


So much for your challenge.!!!!!!!

How about that! More inconsistency..that's no surprise to me.

 

[Astridhere]

Don't you find it amazing that evolution works considering it's a load of garbage?
I think all the credit should go to the people who make it work despite all of it's faults don't you Astrid?
Oh..you mean the algorithmic magicians that make it work or the researchers that misrepresent fossils to make it work, or are you speaking to the non plausible and ridiculous interpetations evos need to come up with to make it work! . We are talking about evolutionary myth and that has nothing to do with the advances in health and real science that can be observed.

I applaud biology in its' health initiates not evolutionary researchers that misrepresent anything they get their hands on and continue to consider themselves scientists as opposed to the storytellers, I think they are.

They are the ones who do all the work, they take evolution and some how get it to work, I say bravo.
Good for you. Evos are used to the continual change and falsifications of delusions past. . It shouldn't worry you in the least, such is your faith.

I say Bravo to them also as they could not have falsified and discredited evolution theory better and in so many ways if I had written the script for them myself.

eg Scene1. Sprooke for 150 years about knucklewalking ancestry then find something to make evolution more like a dead duck than a theory.
Scene 2. Claim a LUCA and shove that down creationists throats for a decade or two and then recant because HGT has killed it.
Scene 3. Croak loudly about how junk DNA proves evolution, then find non coding DNA has vital function and is not junk at all and never mention it again..and so the play would go on.

Bravo!

Dear, after the level of discussion I have engaged in with your evo colleagues, your simplistic reply demonstrates just what you do have to say...nothing that challenges let alone addresses anything I spoke to.
.

 

[Astridhere]

You went right off the rails on that one.

Am I the first to declare Poe?

You are definitely not the first one here that put up words but had nothing to say. Just look at Kandor. There have been plenty, indeed.

How about using...Oh...you know ..SCIENCE..instead of your most humble opinion. Now there's a novel idea some of you evos have never thought about.

You Johnny come lately's should look back some 50 pages or more instead of chasing your tail over arguments you will always loose while wrapped in flavour of the month. I hope this post is not the best you got.

 

[Keachian]

Astrid I've seen just as much chasing of "flavour of the month" from you. I will say one thing you do appear consistent in your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, the scientific method and what it would take to actually disprove evolution.

 

[verysincere]

So much for your challenge.!!!!!!!

How about that! More inconsistency..that's no surprise to me.

If only cut-and-paste was a short-cut to reading-comprehension and self-education.

As I used to tell my students:

1) The Bible does NOT say "be ye transformed by the removal of your mind."

2) Despite the worst examples among far too many of our brethren, ignorance is NOT a fruit of the Spirit.

 

[CabVet]

And yet no evidence for creationism... I am starting to think there isn't any...

 

[Astridhere]

Astrid I've seen just as much chasing of "flavour of the month" from you. I will say one thing you do appear consistent in your misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, the scientific method and what it would take to actually disprove evolution.

I do not misunderstand evolutionary theory at all. TOE is the only so called 'science' that calls constant falsifications of current thinking 'insight'.

I have spoken to many truths including the huge differences between man and chimp, the impossibility of erectus being any more than a hairy, primitive hugely sexually dimorphic primate that gave birth to dependent young that clung to their mothers long fur, just like apes do today. This is being supported more and more as your researchers, even with biased reseach, continue to support my view. Erectus, is not the strapping athlete, at all,..just another falsified flavour of the month. No one has refuted me appropriately, nor can you with any more than flavour of the month.


Analysis of syntenic human and chimpanzee LR-PCR products for deletions and insertions. (A) The lengths of syntenic human (H) and chimpanzee (C) LR-PCR products are compared by gel electrophoresis. Syntenic LR-PCR products are the same length

Comparative DNA sequence studies between humans and nonhuman primates will be important for understanding the genetic basis of the phenotypic differences between these species. Here we compare ~27 Mb of human chromosome 21 with chimpanzee DNA sequences identifying 57 genomic rearrangements (deletions and insertions ranging in size from 0.2 to 8.0 kb) between the two species. These rearrangements are distributed along the entire length of chromosome 21, with ~35% found in genomic intervals encoding genes (genic intervals), and have occurred in the genomes of both humans and chimpanzees.
Genomic DNA Insertions and Deletions Occur Frequently Between Humans and Nonhuman Primates


Here is just another example in Chromosome 21 and just how disimilar just this one chomosome is between chimp and mankind...


More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa, whereas this is true for less than 2% of the remainder of the genome.

The fickle Y chromosome : Nature News

Don't I love these desperados and their myths. The chimp/human genome is 10% larger, has a different surface structure, contains huge deletions and insertions as well as duplications and has non coding DNA providing different functions. Unquantifiable is what this evo researcher suggests....

Where do these researchers get off suggesting a 2% difference? Even MtDNA now demonstrates a 6% difference if you actually count some of the differences and there are plenty more.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biology/franz/biology38/_files/1836.pdf


See... this above is what is called support for my assertions that continue to be validated in principle. This is very different to your simplistic and blatant denial or the sorry state evolutionary theory is in, shielded by the latest flavours of the month that are unstable.

Truths remain truths or they never were truths in the first place, just ill conceived and desperate notions . Truths continue to support my paradigm with regular and predicted support for the disimillarity of non-human apes to mankind and ape Erectus, even though derived by biased evolutionary researchers trying to support ancestry.

How beautiful it is that your researchers create dilemmas and falsification for themselves while supporting my assertions inadvertantly. To bad evoltionists do not have any truths to offer with how, when, where and why, still being up for grabs.


Cabvet, turning erectus into a furry half witted ape is evidence for creation, and I have demonstrated very well how erectus can only possibly be a hairy half witted non-human ape too stupid to light fires as well except in evos dream state.

No human intermediates=Creation

Hairy, hugely sexually dimorphic primates giving birth to independent hair clinging babes=TOE falsification as the icing on the cake...and you have not refuted me to date but you like to pretend your simplistic replies say something.

Evolutionary researchers will never let real science and observation get in the way of their stories.

Creationist interpretations could not possibly we worse than your flavours of the month.

 

[Astridhere]

If only cut-and-paste was a short-cut to reading-comprehension and self-education.

As I used to tell my students:

1) The Bible does NOT say "be ye transformed by the removal of your mind."

2) Despite the worst examples among far too many of our brethren, ignorance is NOT a fruit of the Spirit.

You now need to go tell these evolutionary researchers to entertain all possibilities but do not let their minds turn to jelly in doing so.

You also need to go tell theist evolutionists that the day they started to cherry pick the bible and evoked the reasoning of the theocratic intelligencia in clear opposition to the word of God, was the day they denied the power of God. Thankfully He is forgiving.

You can also tell your students they had best not listen to you if your reply is any example of the twisted tales and scriptures you feed your students.

If you are not ignorant stop hiding behind twisted scriptures and give science a go and actually have something to say with more substance than "you believe because they said so"!

 

[Keachian]

I do not misunderstand evolutionary theory at all. TOE is the only so called 'science' that calls constant falsifications of current thinking 'insight'.

I have spoken to many truths including the huge differences between man and chimp, the impossibility of erectus being any more than a hairy, primitive hugely sexually dimorphic primate that gave birth to dependent young that clung to their mothers long fur, just like apes do today. This is being supported more and more as your researchers, even with biased reseach, continue to support my view. Erectus, is not the strapping athlete, at all,..just another falsified flavour of the month. No one has refuted me appropriately, nor can you with any more than flavour of the month.


Analysis of syntenic human and chimpanzee LR-PCR products for deletions and insertions. (A) The lengths of syntenic human (H) and chimpanzee (C) LR-PCR products are compared by gel electrophoresis. Syntenic LR-PCR products are the same length

Comparative DNA sequence studies between humans and nonhuman primates will be important for understanding the genetic basis of the phenotypic differences between these species. Here we compare ~27 Mb of human chromosome 21 with chimpanzee DNA sequences identifying 57 genomic rearrangements (deletions and insertions ranging in size from 0.2 to 8.0 kb) between the two species. These rearrangements are distributed along the entire length of chromosome 21, with ~35% found in genomic intervals encoding genes (genic intervals), and have occurred in the genomes of both humans and chimpanzees.
Genomic DNA Insertions and Deletions Occur Frequently Between Humans and Nonhuman Primates


Here is just another example in Chromosome 21 and just how disimilar just this one chomosome is between chimp and mankind...


More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa, whereas this is true for less than 2% of the remainder of the genome.

The fickle Y chromosome : Nature News

Don't I love these desperados and their myths. The chimp/human genome is 10% larger, has a different surface structure, contains hege deletions and insertions as well as duplications and has non coding DNA providing different functions. Unquantifiable is what this evo researcher suggests....

Where do these researchers get off suggesting a 2% difference? Even MtDNA now demonstrates a 6% difference if you actually count some of the differences and there are plenty more.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/biology/franz/biology38/_files/1836.pdf


See... this above is what is called support for my assertions that continue to be validated in principle. This is very different to your simplistic and blatant denial or the sorry state evolutionary theory is in, shielded by the latest flavours of the month that are unstable.

Truths remain truths or they never were truths in the first place, just ill conceived and desperate notions . Truths continue to support my paradigm with regular and predicted support for the disimillarity of non-human apes to mankind and ape Erectus, even though derived by biased evolutionary researchers trying to support ancestry.

How beautiful it is that your researchers create dilemmas and falsification for themselves while supporting my assertions inadvertantly. To bad evoltionists do not have any truths to offer with how, when, where and why, still being up for grabs.


Cabvet, turning erectus into a furry half witted ape is evidence for creation, and I have demonstrated very well how erectus can only possibly be a hairy half witted non-human ape too stupid to light fires as well except in evos dream state.

No human intermediates=Creation

Hairy, hugely sexually dimorphic primates giving birth to independent hair clinging babes=TOE falsification as the icing on the cake...and you have not refuted me to date but you like to pretend your simplistic replies say something.

Evolutionary researchers will never let real science and observation get in the way of their stories.

Creationist interpretations could not possibly we worse than your flavours of the month.

without even reading here is a summation of the mistakes you have made in this post

ToE =/= Human Evolution
ToE has "flavours of the month"
Your views on disproving evolution have already been tried and have failed to live up to what you think they will
And you totally misunderstand evolution/sorites paradox

 

[verysincere]

TOE is the only so called 'science' that calls constant falsifications of current thinking 'insight'.

All modern science, not just evolutionary biology, is based on the scientific method. The scientific method involves continual questioning and theories are always subject to falsification. Yes, insight often comes through continual testing and falsification. (I have no idea where you got the idea that TOE is exempt from such falsification.)

As to your confidence that you have found devastating flaws in the Theory of Evolution which will overturn 150+ years of scientific inquiry, by all means publish your "manifesto" and win the Nobel Prize. (I'm quite serious. If your ideas are superior, they will survive the scrutiny of peer-review.) One of the best ways to go down in history as a giant of science is to overturn long-held theories. (Despite the "conspiracy theories" of many anti-evolution ranters, the scientific community worldwide reveres those who upset the status quo, revolutionize scientific thinking, and provoke major revisions of textbooks.) After centuries of Newtonian physics, Einstein shocked the world and (with the help of scientists who created experiments to test his theories) convinced physicists of the astounding limitations of Newton's ideas. Politics, ideologies, and other real or imagined human tendencies to preserve the dogmas of the status quo have again and again crumbled as the processes of the scientific method eventually exposed flaws and improved our understanding of the universe.

So if you are certain that you have uncovered "fatal flaws" in the Theory of Evolution, by all means enlighten the world with your analysis by publishing a comprehensive review of TOE. Impress us all and someday we can all recount how we watched you change the landscape of modern biology. And don't complain that the system is rigged against you or that everybody else is blind and biased to the "real truth" (which only you and a disenfranchised minority of anti-evolution crusaders have figured out and embraced.) Einstein was a lowly patent clerk who couldn't find even an adjunct-faculty undergraduate teaching post. Yet, a short article on his theory of relativity instantly catapulted him into the stratosphere of advanced physics. If your work has exceptional merit, the world will take notice.

Meanwhile, you need to learn some of the fundamentals of science in general and biology in particular. It only takes a few seconds of reading your protestations to determine that you aren't going to be granted tenure as part of any biological sciences faculty at a leading accredited university (or at least, not anytime soon). That's not a smug put-down. It is simply reality and I'm showing you the courtesy of trying to help you. Sometimes one of the lowest-achieving students in a class visits the professor's office to argue that his/her wrong answer on an exam question should qualify as an "equally true" alternative answer deserving of full credit. (They may even strain, contort, and twist some perceived flaw in the minutiae of the topic in order to declare the right answer inferior to their incorrect answer.) Sadly, far too many anti-evolution campaigners go far beyond that vain and pathetic strategy on a regular basis and not only contest concepts which they don't even understand, they presume that they are somehow intellectually superior to everyone else in the classroom (as well as the analogue of the entire departmental faculty) and should be teaching the courses and rewriting the textbooks. Does that position sound at all familiar to you?

If you are correct and everyone else is wrong, the best scholars and scientists will affirm your brilliance and confirm your qualifications and the superiority of your ideas. Your mastery of the field will be confirmed by your performance, not by mere posturing. Think about it.

 

[USincognito]

Verysincere, if you want to see Astrid's MO in operation, check out this part of the previous "what proof would you need" thread. She quotes a wiki entry that falsely attributes content to Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale".
On page 93 (at the bottom) I correct her.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7608403-93/
On page 94, I continue to correct her, finally directing her to Google books so she can read the pages in question, post screen caps of those pages and a photo of myself, holding my copy of the book, standing next to Dawkins himself.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7608403-94/

Her response?
"Dear the work is quoted..."The Ancestor's Tale""
"That is because the book is quoted. I am not the idiot here...."The Ancestor's Tale" tells it all."
"GO BUY THE BOOK"
And then she quotes the bogus Wiki material one more time.

 

[cupid dave]

And yet no evidence for creationism... I am starting to think there isn't any...

?
What verse exactly do you see as unsupported by evidence?

1) Certainly the Big Bang Theory of 1940AD finally supported a beginning as claimed for 3362 years by the Bible.

2) ...and the Plant Kindom did suddenly establish itself with an Act-of-God we call abiogenesis.

3) There statement about "all the waters under heaven being gathered together into one place" has now been supported with the theory of a Pangea-like tectonic movement.

etc etc etc