I don't ever remember "whale" being on the Bonanza menu.

Bonanza menu -Haha. Haven't seen one of those restaurants since the late 70's. I'm guessing that aliens transported the whales to their current spot. Ya know, like they did in Star Trek. Wait those were humans transporting a whale. Still, I like the alien theory.

Or maybe they just died there when that region was still seabed. I mean, these species lived at a time when that region was underwater, after all....

It would be fantastic as an eternal sandbox. Unfortunately, they are building a massive highway project through there, so the paleontologists working the site are under bigtime time-pressure to get what data and specimens they can before the whole site is dug up and paved. Like months, when normally they could keep going back to a high-quality site for years. Too bad.

Kdc, have you ever taken any entry-level science courses?

kdc...........seek help.

Good grief Kdc, Please explain how this is in anyway "proof" of an ancient (as in over 5000 years old) myth actually happened? Just this morning the light globe fell off the fixture in my kitchen without anyone touching it, I'm sure it was either a ghost or a sign from a supernatural deity to quit using electricity because humans claim to have explained and use electricity. And as you well know only a super natural deity can f let there be light".

kdc, I realize we can't all be experts on everything; but I can't understand why you are so proud of your ignorance.

kdc is proof of what undereducation does to the mind...

kdc's explanation makes perfect sense to me. It is either that or it was the space aliens that caused it to happen.

I mean just think about it.

You mean that big space alien with the long white beard?

Zeus? I'm partial to Flying Spaghetti Monster, myself/ Noodley goodness drenched in rich sauce. R'amen

Oh, and Dave -- "A mind is a terrible ting to waste..."

kdc43 - You just got back from lunch with Kirk Cameron, didn't you! ;)

More likely a bunch of sharks drove the whales there, killed them, and left them by the road.

There's (intra) evolution, change within a species but it can not change an ape-like creature to a human.

You do realize that your so-called "intra" evolution (aka micro-evolution) over millions of years would result macro-evolution.. right?

What do you think the result would be of the accumulation of millions of years of "intra" evolution? Do you think the species that started out would still be recognizable 1000 generation later?

Living things die. Living things reproduce with variation. Living things more suitable to their environment are more likely to survive. - Those three basic properties of life combined inevitably lead to evolution of a species over long periods of time. There is no way around it.

You do realize that your so-called "intra" evolution (aka micro-evolution) over millions of years would result macro-evolution.. right?

No it doesn't.

Micro evolution is caused by a reduction in genetic material.

Macro evolution requires an increase in genetic material.

so let's introduce a batch of high speed particles and cause some mutations and then let the process cook over a couple million years and see what results.

With the evidence that the Sahara Desert was once a sea floor, and the fact that Alaska was once on the equator, it isn't a mystery at all. It would seem that the planet has experienced radial and quick change in it evolutionary history. Why is it it so hard to believe that instant "change" hasn't occurred repeatedly in the past? What was once a flatland became a mountain range, what was once a plain became a canyon, or what was once a sea became a desert?, and maybe within hours....not centuries. The idea that major physical change takes decades, centuries or longer is not supported by any fact, only presumption. This planet is is subject to immediate and violent change at any moment, without warning. The moment that humans think we are somehow in control of this environment, or really understand it, and that its the planets job is to serve man, that we (or the Whales) will receive warning and an opportunity to prepare, is foolish. Humans that argue the evolution of the earth and provide scientific "proof" of its historical evolution, are much like the "two fleas arguing over which one owns the dog".

Micro evolution is caused by a reduction in genetic material.

Macro evolution requires an increase in genetic material.

Lol, what? Where did you get that bit of nonsense? Do you even know what you are talking about or are you just parroting creationist talking-points that you read somewhere?

Here's a video for you that explains what you're talking about I think...

@ Paul West,

If you're suggesting that "instant change" is responsible for canyons and mountain ranges, you are grossly incorrect.

It's called plate tectonics.

And yet I still wonder sometimes why the United States is ranked so horribly in math and science.....(sigh)

JO, you just pulled that out of your ass, didn't you? There was absolutely no scientific basis for that silly remark.

Lol, what? Where did you get that bit of nonsense?

From a Geneticist.

Doctor Maciej Giertych.

BA and a MA in forestry from Oxford.
A PHD at Toronto in tree physiology.
At the Agricultural University of Poznań he received his Habilitation degree (D.Sc.) in Genetics. It is a European degree above a PHD.

--”My primary objection as a geneticist was to the claim that the formation of races, or microevolution, as it is often referred to, is a small scale example of macroevolution - the origin of species. Race formation is, of course, very well documented. All it requires is isolation of a part of a population. After a few generations, due to natural selection and genetic drift, the isolated population will irreversibly lose some genes, and thus, as long as the isolation continues, in some features it will be different from the population it arose from. In fact, we do this ourselves all the time when breeding, substituting natural with artificial selection and creating artificial barriers to generative mixing outside the domesticated conditions.

The important thing to remember here is that a race is genetically impoverished relative to the whole population. It has fewer alleles (forms of genes). Some of them are arranged into special, interesting, rare combinations. This is particularly achieved by guided recombination of selected forms in breeding work. But these selected forms are less variable (less polymorphic). Thus what is referred to as micro-evolution represents natural or artificial reduction of the gene pool. You will not get Evolution that way. Evolution means construction of new genes. It means increase in the amount of genetic information, and not reduction of it.”--

D.Man...How do you know that? Other than the information that has been handed from one generation to the next during the last 5000 years or so, how can you claim to know anything about this planet? Unless you were here, all presumptions of the evolution of this planet are based on assumptions. Carbon dating is an assumption, not a fact. We are left with the results, with no proof of the actual event(s) and how they unfolded, only assumptions based on a fraction of the data needed to affirm fact. Any man that professes to know what happened before we arrived and started recording events.... is well....arrogant, not scientific. There are volumes of evidence that suggest that catastrophic events, once believed to have taken centuries, may have actually occurred in a instant. The scientific community has reversed its position on the extinction of many life forms and the "probable" causes..... numerous times within the last decade alone. All that proves is that no one living today really knows, we can only speculate. If it makes you feel better to believe that you can accurately recreate the evolution of this planet, and therefore predict the future of it, with a calculator, well by all means, grasp on to your math. In the meanwhile, don't be surprised or embarrassed when the planet reminds you that you don't actually know anything about her.

Thus what is referred to as micro-evolution represents natural or artificial reduction of the gene pool. You will not get Evolution that way. Evolution means construction of new genes. It means increase in the amount of genetic information, and not reduction of it."--

First, I would say this person is not entirely correct because "information" is added to the genome through various means, and second I would have to ask:

Does he state that an 'increase in genetic material' as you put it is not possible? If so, why is it not possible?

The scientific community has reversed its position on the extinction of many life forms and the "probable" causes.....

It has?

Carbon dating is an assumption, not a fact.

Lol what? You have no idea how carbon dating works... do you?

Oh, and as for your Polish doctor:

He earned his degree in 'genetics' in 1970 he received his Habilitation degree for his studies on forest genetics at the Agricultural University of Poznań. He hasn't worked in modern genetics for decades, he became a career politician in the 1980s.

JOregon - You give us a creationist, I'll give you real science giving a rebuttal to a typical creationist claim.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

"he received his Habilitation degree (D.Sc.) in Genetics. It is a European degree above a PHD."

And you apparently don't realize that many European degrees are not equivalent with their USA equivalents.

I knew a Chemical Engineer with a Masters degree from Turkey - and guess what? It was not even the equivalent of a USA bachelor's degree! He had to take an additional several years worth of courses to practice in the USA due to the fact that the Euro degrees spend a lot more time on literature and stuff like that and not as much on the actual degree program courses.

And beyond that, you're drastically misquoting that person.

Even within a race, evolution will happen rather regularly. Spontaneous mutations that occur within one population and are crossed back into their gene pool further divide that population from the human gene pool as a whole. They are evolving - in a slightly different direction than other races that didn't acquire that same mutation.

Wow you science-skeptics really have some odd illogical things to say.

Are you that afraid of us using our "God given intelligence" to understand how the 'creation' actually works that you need to get your facts wrong about nearly EVERYTHING?

@ Paul,

Carbon dating is an assumption, not a fact.

Oh please go into deeper detail on this. Please.

There are volumes of evidence that suggest that catastrophic events, once believed to have taken centuries, may have actually occurred in a instant.

Such as?

@ JOregon

Why do people have tailbones?

Why do whales have five digits in their fins?

Well, that's that then. JO, Paul - fact of the matter is that you have been lied to and you bought it. It's not too late to accept the truth, though.

Legitimate science is not incompatible with religion. It is only incompatible with dogma and fantasy. You can still be a believer and follower of Jesus without believing in literalism, without being a denialist, and without lying to yourself and others.

I'm pretty sure that Jesus would rather you use your God given intelligence and reason to accept reality, than deny it for the His sake. Afterall, such dogmatic willfull ignorance only serves to make the followers of Jesus look like a bunch of fools.

If I remember my Bible schooling right, Jesus was by no means a literalist or willfully ignorant.

Paul West: "how can you claim to know anything about this planet?"

It's called science. We use our eyes and our brains. Logic and evidence. Yes, everything requires assumptions, but some assumptions are pretty good; like if you let go of a brick it will fall.

Expected and laughable.

This is what happens when the cult mentality takes over. I get these same types of responses when discussing the bible with people that believe their church or religious leader is infallible.

He is a scientist that doesn't agree with the majority.

JOregon - You give us a creationist

No, Paul, I gave you a scientist that found the flaws in the science lead him to creationism.

He is a member of the Roman Catholic Church - the RCC believes in evolution. He has had more criticism from his church than he has from his own peers.

Oh, and as for your Polish doctor:

He earned his degree in 'genetics' in 1970 he received his Habilitation degree for his studies on forest genetics at the Agricultural University of Poznań. He hasn't worked in modern genetics for decades, he became a career politician in the 1980s.

No, he was the head of the Genetics department at a University.

He was in science later than the 80's. Amazingly enough it is possible to be involved in politics and science at the same time. In 1986 he was a member of a political advisory council. In 1989 he became a full professor. After that became the head of the Genetics Department of the Polish Academy of Sciences at the Institute of Dendrology in Kornik, Poland.

He was on the editorial boards of Silvae Genetica from 1973 to 2001, and the Annals of Forest Science from 1990 to 2001.

In 2001 after retiring he became a full time politician (he has some pretty bad political views which I am sure someone will try to use to discredit his scientific knowledge).

And you apparently don't realize that many European degrees are not equivalent with their USA equivalents.

Got his Phd in Toronto obviously an inferior school to Ohio State and a Masters at Oxford obviously no comparison to a Masters at UC Davis.

Why is it so many of us Americans live under the assumption we have the best of everything? The fact is compared to the rest of the world the US isn't doing all that great.

The US doesn't even offer anything above a Phd., at least as far as I am aware.

And beyond that, you're drastically misquoting that person.

Ahhh no, it was a copy and paste. I gave you the link to check it out.

The fact is we have been breeding fruitflies the equivalency of a million years (due to their short life spans) with the goal of producing evolution. It has never happened. I still remember separating the dwarf winged flies in HS (1969) and my lab partner sneezed.

JOregon: "Thus what is referred to as micro-evolution represents natural or artificial reduction of the gene pool."

There is where your "guy" goes wrong. It is true that natural selection and genetic drift result in reduction of genetic variation, but that is not all there is to micro-evolution. Mutation and gene duplication are always renewing genetic variation -- usually not as fast as the other processes, but that is just one reason why evolution goes so slowly.

Why do whales have five digits in their fins?

Why do the human and the octopus share the same eye - No common ancestor.

JOregon: "The fact is we have been breeding fruitflies the equivalency of a million years (due to their short life spans) with the goal of producing evolution."

Well, that is of course untrue, because micro-evolution IS evolution (whether your creationist web sites tell you to say otherwise or not).

Secondly, it has not been the "equivalency of a million years." It has been about 100 years. Most organisms have short generation times. But 100 years is still 100 years, and still the same relative to the 3 billion years of life on Earth.

Thirdly, the discovery of Hox genes and man other mechanisms in thois fruit flies have given us a great deal of insight into how macro-evolution works.

Why do the human and the octopus share the same eye

They don't. That's hilarious.

"The fact is we have been breeding fruitflies the equivalency of a million years (due to their short life spans) with the goal of producing evolution."

Lenski's work with e.coli is another example I think you should look into. This one comes with a bonus, because within his description of the notable experiments in evolutionary biology is also a typical conversation with a creationist.

Maybe I was a bit hard on your Polish doctor - but

1) His confusion is apparent which has already been pointed out
2) He provides no evidence to support his claims regarding 'genetic information'
3) We have already posted information which debunks your claim (and his)

So regardless if I misrepresented his 'expertise' in the field, it's been shown quite clearly that his assertion on that topic is false anyway. So it doesn't really matter now.

jock58901....We are all well aware of the physics of the brick wall. Now...tell me "how long" did it take for the "Grand Canyon" to be formed, when did it happen and how did it happen...specifically....not an assumption based on presumption, but fact. Can you do that? I am not interested in a "best guess" by the same scientists that can't figure out why the remains of several Whales have been discovered on a land mass where they "shouldn't" have been. E=MC2 lost its horse power to the "discovery" of "black holes", so even when the science community is certain they have it right, one more piece of evidence drops and and invalidates the last. If you are indeed a student of science, the first rule is to leave "all" possibilities open and "never" claim that you have something completely verified to be fact. You remind me of the "scientists" that convinced and professed that the earth was flat....for centuries. Oh well.

Like Mans assumption that God exists.

JOregon - "No, Paul, I gave you a scientist that found the flaws in the science lead him to creationism."

I question his dedication to science if what he perceived as flaws led him to embrace magic as the answer.

Nevermind the fact that no increase in genetic information spiel was showed to be wrong in the link you ignored.

Paul West-541891 - I will always prefer speculation that honestly presents itself as speculation and welcomes new evidence in pursuit of the truth over speculation that dresses up as revelation and demands that it be accepted as truth in spite of new evidence.

We are all well aware of the physics of the brick wall. Now...tell me "how long" did it take for the "Grand Canyon" to be formed, when did it happen and how did it happen...specifically....not an assumption based on presumption, but fact

Argument from Ignorance. Simply because someone can't tell you the specific exacting details to suit your overblown requirements does not mean that it's not true. It's a particularly juvenile and transparent tactic by the way.

same scientists that can't figure out why the remains of several Whales have been discovered on a land mass where they "shouldn't" have been.

Do you know where the Atacama desert even is located? Do you know how close it is to the coast line? Maybe you want to rethink the likelihood of such things happening after figuring that much out.

Hell, coastlines change dramatically.... I remember standing on the old port in the ancient city of Ephesus. The Med was only visible as a distant blue haze. Things change.

E=MC2 lost its horse power to the "discovery" of "black holes", so even when the science community is certain they have it right, one more piece of evidence drops and and invalidates the last

For the first phrase... ummm no. How? "Lost its horsepower"? Is this some sort of strawman argument?

The second part is another logical fallacy. Science changes... that's the point. When new evidence is discovered, theories are updated accordingly and its taken into account. Science is based on the evidence currently available..... simply because some things may change a little over time does not invalidate the entire lexicon of scientific knowledge.

If you are indeed a student of science, the first rule is to leave "all" possibilities open and "never" claim that you have something completely verified to be fact.

Indeed, there are no verified facts other than the verified facts. Theories are based on facts.

Fact: Life evolves.
Theory: How and why life evolves.

Overblown requirement? Your response it a bit self inflated. I recommend you immediately disarm your "pen protector" and "calculator holster", take a deep breath and relax. You may derive a sense of self worth by attempting to convince others that you have an elevated sense of intelligence, while avoiding the real questions, but you haven't contributed a single answer. Please.....enlighten us with the facts surrounding the subject at hand.....

Secondly, it has not been the "equivalency of a million years." It has been about 100 years. Most organisms have short generation times. But 100 years is still 100 years, and still the same relative to the 3 billion years of life on Earth.

Jock, it is based on how many generations can be produced in the time span. Even scientists agree the number of fruitfly generations would equal a million years to a human - sort of like dog years on a bigger scale.

Speaking of humans.

The Human Genome Project gathered samples from humans all over the earth. When studying samples from various isolated (possibly by as much as 200,000+/- years, by at least 125,000 years [according to scientists]) indigenous people it was discovered there was no evolution.

We are all equally Human, 99.9% of our DNA is shared between all humans.

Certainly there are adaptions, humans have about 25,000 genes. The average gene contains about 3,000 base pairs. Some people are short, some tall, some dark, some light, etc. In the end, no change has happened, we are all still the same – Human.

Even in the case “change is slow” it should have appeared somewhere in the DNA.

...tell me "how long" did it take for the "Grand Canyon" to be formed, when did it happen and how did it happen...specifically....not an assumption based on presumption, but fact.

You're asking for specific figures regarding a geologic process that took place over millions of years. If that's not an overblown requirement, I don't know what is.

Just about any book on the Grand Canyon could answer many of your questions about it by the way, I suggest picking one up.

Even in the case "change is slow" it should have appeared somewhere in the DNA.

And we share nearly that much DNA with Chimps - yet the differences are obvious - not sure what your point is exactly.

It's also good to point out that animals well-adapted to their environment will see little evolutionary change. Humans are particularly well-adapted. I wouldn't predict much evolutionary change in humans unless their is a significant environmental change in the future.

it was discovered there was no evolution.

Really? What do you mean? Is this a strawman, because I don't recall anyone coming out and saying that. Evolutionary processes includes adaption, and there is no doubt that isolated human groups have adapted to their environments in very different fashions.

One notable example is our varied immunities and resistances to difference diseases, which are passed on genetically and are highly correlated to the environment and what diseases are common. Not to mention skin-color and the like. There is also the Neanderthal genes that some humans share, but not all - like the San Bushman (oldest known human population) that have no Neanderthal genes which provided bonuses in immunity and it's speculated body size and hardiness as well.

I dont know why I get sucked into these things.

The rationale here is ridiculous.

JOregon - "Certainly there are adaptions" means certainly there is evolution.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html

Real science, not magic based science.

They don't. That's hilarious.

Reading your link:

--"What we really do share with octopus is the ability to produce a
>> rather large complex brain and the ability to produce well organized,
>> complex sensory organs."--

Apparently the Box Jellyfish has a complex brain because it also has a camera eye.

One reason we know there was no common ancestry is because the eye develops entirely differently in the embryo. The Octopus begins at the epidermis and develops toward the brain the human begins at the nervous system and grows toward the epidermal layer.

My main point is --> the very ROCK that evolution was founded on is the theory of Common Descent.

We see common characteristics and jump to the conclusion they must have had a common ancestor. In the case of the camera eye we have a common characteristic in which there is no common ancestor.

It makes that ROCK very unstable.

To quote the Doctor again.

--"Similarities are often used as arguments for evolution. But lack of similarities is never accepted as an argument against it. The similarity of the shape of my hand and that of a frog is an argument for common ancestry. The difference between mine and that of a horse or a bat is not. And yet the latter are supposed to be closer relatives of mine.

The same logic is used when claiming that the universality of the genetic system (DNA-RNA-protein) proves common ancestry. There are many biochemical systems that are not universal. They are specific for some groups of organisms and absent in others. These are never accepted as arguments against evolution."--

We see common characteristics and jump to the conclusion they must have had a common ancestor.

Who's "we" ?

It makes that ROCK very unstable.

You put that rock there, not science.

In the case of the camera eye we have a common characteristic in which there is no common ancestor.

Ummm... no. We share a camera eye - a rather different camera eye in reality - yet that's about as far as it goes. You are making an assertion where there is none - this is a strawman. Certain similarities are noted, each species is not studied as a bubble within its own - and one single organ alone isn't the only thing used to determine common ancestry. I suggest reading the bottom post from the link you cited.

Sorry forgot the link to the Doctors second quote.

@JOregon

Similiar genes and even organs like the eye can develop independently in different species lines. Humans and Octopi, have a common ancestor but it was likely a single celled organism at the time and the eye hadnt ever evolved yet. So both species independently evolved a similiar type of eye. How does that make the "ROCK" of evolution unstable, its basic fact of evolution you learn in your basic Bio courses.

And we share nearly that much DNA with Chimps

No we don't. That is an old myth.

Really? What do you mean?

I mean that every person on this planet is human. There has been no species change. No alterations in Intuit People, Aborigine People, everyone anywhere in the world is 99.9% the same. You don't have Aborigines that are 97% similar to Pygmies or anything like that.

E - or the long distant last common ancestor between the two could have passed on similar rudimentary type eyes (light detectors) to both mammalians and octopi which eventually developed somewhat similar eyes. Not really far-fetched.

A similar process, afterall, can lead to similar outcomes.

And we share nearly that much DNA with Chimps

No we don't. That is an old myth.

Ummm, I stated "nearly that much".... in case you didn't notice - I couldn't remember the exact figure but 93% - 99%.... yep, my comment still stands.

I mean that every person on this planet is human. There has been no species change. No alterations in Intuit People, Aborigine People, everyone anywhere in the world is 99.9% the same. You don't have Aborigines that are 97% similar to Pygmies or anything like that.

Again, what's your point exactly? I'm not sure what you are trying to say - we are all human - so what? We are a well-adapted species that likely won't see any major speciation unless isolated and under significant environmental pressure for a long period of time. Especially getting to the point where we could not interbreed...

Paul

Real science, not magic based science.

Not questioning Micro Evolution, that doesn't guarantee Macro evolution.

Perhaps this article will help your questions.

--"The misinformation lies in concealing the fact that select, adapted populations are genetically poorer (fewer alleles¹) than the unselected natural populations from which they arose. We find the same in forest trees. In polluted environments, the surviving trees have fewer alleles than in non-polluted ones. Microevolution, formation of races, is a fact. Populations adapt to specific environments with the more successful alleles increasing in numbers and others declining in frequencies or disappearing altogether. Change can also occur due to accidental loss of alleles (genetic drift) in small isolated populations. Both amount to decline in genetic information. Macroevolution requires its increase."--

yes that is possible too shuklack.

@JOregon

LOL how is it an old myth? We have the sequences for both!

And where do u think the differences in race came from! Genetic variation thats where! doesnt take a large % of difference to make a significant difference in the species, that was one of the big finds in genetics when we started sequencing genomes. but it is that 0.1% that make the races!

Yes fewer alleles. do you know what an allele is its just a variant of a gene. all that means is that there are less diff kinds of that one gene available in an isolated population, doesnt mean they have less genes in an individuals genome LOL

Who's "we" ?

Darwin for one.

You put that rock there, not science.

So you don't agree with Darwinism?

a rather different camera eye in reality

Not really that different.

We as in Humanity.. or Scientist if you dont want to be included, they are publicly available info.

How do i not agree with darwin? Nothing i stated conflicts with evolution.

Not questioning Micro Evolution, that doesn't guarantee Macro evolution.

That's the funniest thing though... because you can't have one without the other. Really, it just comes down to basic logic on that point. Don't need any fancy science to understand that much.

Again, it depends highly on environmental pressures. A well-adapted species will change relatively little, and if split into isolated groups there may be more change but still probably capable of interbreeding.

If the environment changes though in different directions and the species is not as adapted, you will see much more divergence of micro-evolutionary lines... much more variation... and eventually it's quite possible that the two groups can no longer produce viable offspring due to the differences being so great.

Really, depending on the environment, micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution. Like a second leads to a minute or a minute leads to an hour. The only difference is the amount of time between them.

There is a great video that I can't link to right now unfortunately, but it's title Evolution for IDiots. It's quick, simple, and shows you visually the process of micro to macro evolution. You should watch it to understand the concept a little better because it appears you are misunderstanding the basic principle (which would explain a lot about your confusion).

On a side note, I saw a video the other day of a creationist asking Dawkins how humans survived without developed organs or eyes for so many millions of years.... yes, this guy (the interviewer) was actually under the impression that evolution stated that humans came first (as a sort of husk) and organs etc were added later..... which (although not as severe) I think is the case with many creationists. They basically just don't know/understand evolutionary theory beyond what other misinformed people are telling them.

You put that rock there, not science.

So you don't agree with Darwinism?

What I mean is that you placed that shaky rock there on your own accord, your strawman (ie the rock) is not at all what science claims.

E

How does that make the "ROCK" of evolution unstable

Because the Rock that evolution was founded on was the observance of similar species having similar characteristics.

If creatures with no similarity share common characteristics the entire theory has no basis.

When you find a skeleton that resembles another creature it just could be that was how it was created not that it evolved from a common ancestor.

Ummm, I stated "nearly that much".... in case you didn't notice - I couldn't remember the exact figure but 93% - 99%.... yep, my comment still stands.

In that case we are just as similar to a mouse.

E

LOL how is it an old myth? We have the sequences for both!

Click the link

So because a bird and a bat both have wings, and since they are not direct descendants of each other you claim evolution to be invalid? Man its hard to argue with someone with as flawed logic as you..

Shuklack

Why do the human and the octopus share the same eye

They don't. That's hilarious.

"The fact is we have been breeding fruitflies the equivalency of a million years (due to their short life spans) with the goal of producing evolution."

Lenski's work with e.coli is another example I think you should look into. This one comes with a bonus, because within his description of the notable experiments in evolutionary biology is also a typical conversation with a creationist.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v5/n1/genesis-pathogenic-e-coli

In the end its still an Ecoli bacteria. Never gained arms legs, and walked away.

Ya we are because the variation in dna sequence isnt the only thing that makes a difference, another big factor is the level of expression of those genes, which can make just as big a difference. so only a 5% diff can be enough to make two relatively diff animals.

E

How do i not agree with darwin? Nothing i stated conflicts with evolution.

Sorry I wasn't clear I was addressing Shuk. It was Shuk's quote that I posted to.

With that I am going to have to leave.

At least I hope someone has begun to realize there are at least some solid questions to both science and theology.

We all follow belief systems and being open to what others believe won't kill you.

Bye.

Bottom Line for you to take home..

A 1% difference in DNA sequence does not mean a 1% difference in physical appearance or function between the two animals your comparing.

So what happens when the other non-human genome has a similar fused chromosome?

I like how they didn't clarify if other chromosomes in these animals didn't already have similar fusion chromosomes.

Does anybody here know they don't?

In the end its still an Ecoli bacteria. Never gained arms legs, and walked away.

Lol, you didn't even read the study at all did you? Not even the very basic rundown that Lenski gives out?

Seriously, he got e. coli to EVOLVE the ability to absorb citrate, something that previous e. coli colonies were not capable of doing by influencing environmental pressures on the test group. This is evolution... no matter how you hash it.

Moving goalpost fallacy.... the saddest of all fallacies by creationists.

Shuklack..."You're asking for specific figures regarding a geologic process that took place over millions of years. If that's not an overblown requirement, I don't know what is."

My point exactly....where is the proof that it took "millions" of years? Book's? Written by who Shuklack? Any witnesses to the event? How do you know that is wasn't formed in a week?, or a day, for that matter. The idea that our current civilization has the idea that it can "model" with any accuracy, the creation and evolution of the planet and solar system, is well.... arrogant. We really don't know much about it at all, other than very basic theory that is based on very limited information, that by the way, has been incorrect more than correct. I am not criticizing science, I am only suggesting that the science and theory proposed by Man is likely to be incorrect, unless the events were witnessed and recorded by him. We have been on this planet for a less than a second of its existence, so the claim that we have any idea about its true history is an uneducated guess at best.

My point exactly....where is the proof that it took "millions" of years?

There are numerous articles, books, journals related to geology, and specifically the grand canyon, that will provide you with the evidence you desire (if you really even desire evidence). Posting such readily available information for you, here, would be kind of ridiculous in my opinion. Google it or something, I'm not going to waste my time on someone who seemingly refuses to read anything other than creationist propaganda.

We have been on this planet for a less than a second of its existence, so the claim that we have any idea about its true history is an uneducated guess at best.

You are officially, the King, of Argumentum ad Ignoratium

"There is a lot we don't know, so we are probably wrong about everything else that we think we know."

Worst argument ever.

I was going to say "thanks for the good laugh" until I realized no matter how funny the anti-evolution arguments are, it's extremely sad how lacking science education is in this country.

Shuklack....you are right about one thing....wasting time. Do you know how many books had been written claiming the "world" was flat? Did you know that most people actually believed what they "read". The only argument here, is one of possibility. And accepting "science" as fact, knowing that is only another humans attempt to explain something that is not actually "known", is subject to be misleading and incorrect. If you accept the "theories" offered by other Men that contain no real proof, and with that you are willing to close the door and accept it, than you are no scientist. I find it amusing that the science community criticizes the spiritual community for having "faith" in something they can not quantify, when in fact scientists have faith in ideas that can't be proven while arrogantly defending them.

JOregon - You ask me to read from your magic based science site, but you don't seem to have read from the reality based science link I first posted.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

The "info can only decrease in evolution" argument doesn't hold water.

Paul West: "And accepting "science" as fact..."

Nobody accepts "science" as fact. Science is a process. It uses logic and evidence to help us learn how things work to the best of our ability. "Facts" are the evidence. We accept things as fact if they are true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Nobody ever used science to say the world was flat. Science is what showed it to be round. Yes, we have sometimes been wrong in our interpretation of science, but then it is science that showed us we were wrong. That is the self-correcting mechanism that is part of the process of science itself.

"when in fact scientists have faith in ideas that can't be proven while arrogantly defending them."

That can sometimes happen, of course, when scientists are acting like people and not using science, but you can't conclude that therefore scientists must be wrong whenever you want them to be. That would be even more non-scientific. If you are holding out hope that scientists are wrong about evolution, give it up now. Evolution is one of the most successful and well-supported theories in the history of science.

Paul West: "....where is the proof that it took "millions" of years?"

Physics.

PaulWest-

Find me a book on how the earth was flat.

Its actually a common misebeleif that people beleived the earth was flat until recent times, even in the drk ages most people knew the world was round or at least curved. This is because when they watched ships come in from the horizon they first saw the top of the sails and then the ship rose until it was all visible.

Wow....Okay...the idea that the earth was flat...The earliest of these flat-Earth promoters was the African Lactantius (AD 245-325), a professional rhetorician (scientist) of his day.

I am clearly a promoter of all theory's EVOLUTION....In fact I believe this planet has rebooted more than once, including the human race.

Physics does not "prove" the dating of anything. It is a model that attempts to assign age through iteration, but by no means can math accurately calculate the age or episode duration of any event that occurred before 5000 BC.

Look at the Jurassic Period and its demise. Science promoted the same story for centuries until the more probable explanation of the astroid impact "changed" the math. The time, duration and cause where all restated in a very different way then had been taught for decades. (Although Science was certain they had it right the first time...you know....math...physics.)

No matter what you think...they are all theories...nothing more....nothing less. Your love for using math (physics) to iterate events that no human witnessed may be better than nothing, but should not be stated or defended as correct.

This article is a perfect example. If the facts are challenging to the current accepted science, the science community would rather shoe horn the facts into their framework that already exists, rather than admit that they may have been wrong about the "manner" in which the planet has evolved. That is self serving arrogance....period.

So you guys can not back up your "Big Bang to Humans Evolution"? That is an "extraordinary claim REQURING EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE". You have none so you resort to low class insults. Yes, I took science in school, I learn that as energy is expended things go from complex to LESS not more complex.(so why do you guys interpret it to mean the OPPOSITE??? That Physical Law is what makes Perputual Motion Machines and YOUR version of evolution of random mutations impossible! However mico-evolution would not become macro-evolution because the mechanics of change is entirely different. The people here have thier own "Flying Spagetti Monster" they believe in.... The Mythical Big Bang to Humans guess...I wouldn't even call it an "educated guess". Questions You Can Not Answer: How did the mythical Big Bang overcome the INFINITE gravity to expand into the Cosmos today? Billions of years ago how did these amino acids make more complex amino acids to form the cell wall and the nucleus of the mythical first cell that supposed to be the ancestor to all plant, animal and human life? In twenty years I never saw any answers from the so-called scientists. So if you believe in the Big Bang to Humans Theory, Good Luck, because the Laws of Physics are against you. Go ahead with your failed Perpetual Motion Machines. Don't hold your breath when depending on Nature to fix your cars and broken down robots to evolve them to the latest models. You are gonna need a miracle.

As a Free Thinker, here's what I wrote before My Free Speech got Squelched here:

The scientists believe in thier own failed 'creation myth' the big bang to fish to ape to human (extra) evolution. There's (intra) evolution, change within a species but it can not change an ape-like creature to a human. It doesn't take that long to fossilize something, the timbers in President Lincoln's tomb are starting to fossilize already. The fossils the scientists have are PROOF of the Biblical Flood. Dr. Sagan said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof!", well, these guys are digging up the actual bodies, the "extraordinary PROOF" of the Biblical Flood! Don't get me started on the giant wooden boat found high up in the mountian hundeds of miles from the ocean. More "extraordinary PROOF"!!! All these other nations got the flood story from Noah's people, so once again, the "sceptics" got it backwards. When scientists dig up fossilized human and ape bone fragments and piece then together like a child's puzzle to fabricate the "The Missing Links", that certaintly isn't "extraordinary proof" of fish to human evolution like Dr. Sagan requires! That is just a fraud perpetrated on the masses! Anybody who believes in the current unscientific fish to human evolution is going to believe in Perpetual Motion Machines and thier non-operational broken down 1961 Ford Falcon is going to fix itself and 50 million years later it's going to evolve in to a mint condition Ferrari. It ain't gonna happen!!! THINK ABOUT IT!!!

why cant u just insert your god beleif at the big bang, we dont know exactly how it started and maybe never will unless we discover there are other universes. So just start thinking he set the big bang in motion and then follow evolution and stellar formation and such from that as brought to u by science. Why do u guys have to try and defend all the stories in the bible that were made up by people to try and explain origins of the earth animals and cosmos when they had no idea how it really formed. science has got those things quit fighting progress and education!

"As a Free Thinker, here's what I wrote before My Free Speech got Squelched here:"

Oh you are free to say whatever lame brained made up BS coackamamie stories you want, but that doesn't mean we have to agree with them.

You Jesus freaks have some fear of science for some incredibly irrational reason.

Why don't you get that religion is the study of why we are here from 'deeper levels' while science is trying to understand how the 'machinery of the cosmos' works.

We're both studying the same thing but from different aspects... and they can get along harmoniously - until somebody pulls out a direct quote from a porly translated old book and asserts that the literal (mis)translation must be the only possible truth.

That's when your type has jumped off the deep end and quite justifiably needs to be laughed at. You're entering "needs meds" territory when you do that... or claim that the Earth is ~7000 years old because some schmuck in the 1800s counted up the begats and guesstimated how long that would imply.

Too bad he didn't realize that Jewish esoteric works and oral tradition have stated all along the age of the universe... and guess what? Their number happens to match what the scientists have to say almost identically.

It's only fundamental Christians who don't seem to get that science and religion CAN get along quite well. Grow up please - you're embarrassing everybody else of your faith!!!!!!!

Shuklack

In the end its still an Ecoli bacteria. Never gained arms legs, and walked away.

Lol, you didn't even read the study at all did you? Not even the very basic rundown that Lenski gives out?

Seriously, he got e. coli to EVOLVE the ability to absorb citrate, something that previous e. coli colonies were not capable of doing by influencing environmental pressures on the test group. This is evolution... no matter how you hash it.

Moving goalpost fallacy.... the saddest of all fallacies by creationists.

So is the E coli still ecoli or not ? has it changed into a human being ? All this is showing is a change with in itself and yet its still ecoli. You have any predictions when it might turn into a human being ? Lets hold our breath and see which one of us passes out first.

Shuklack

My point exactly....where is the proof that it took "millions" of years?

There are numerous articles, books, journals related to geology, and specifically the grand canyon, that will provide you with the evidence you desire (if you really even desire evidence). Posting such readily available information for you, here, would be kind of ridiculous in my opinion. Google it or something, I'm not going to waste my time on someone who seemingly refuses to read anything other than creationist propaganda.

We have been on this planet for a less than a second of its existence, so the claim that we have any idea about its true history is an uneducated guess at best.

You are officially, the King, of Argumentum ad Ignoratium

"There is a lot we don't know, so we are probably wrong about everything else that we think we know."

Worst argument ever.

And there is plenty of evidence that can show the grand canyon being formed in a small period of time too.. Little water over long period, lots of water over short period. Both models fit. There is science from scientists that show it from other views. take which you want to believe and I will take mine.

Let's see, a fish swims.

Some members of this fish species use their limbs to comb the bottom looking for food.

These members eventually just breed with each other.

Some of these bottom scooting fish start looking for food in the shallows.

These start breeding with only each other.

Some of these shallow dwelling fish start making short forays unto land to find food.

They start breeding exclusively with each other.

A group of these starts spending most of their time on land. Those that can spend all their time out of water survive to reproduce.

They start breeding exclusively.

At some point, these fish spend all their time on land and never go to water except to drink.

When are they not fish anymore?

True they still are fish. Never changed into a chicken or a dog. Just still a form of a fish.

Crossfit, you are stuck in someone elses imagination.

Thats a great rebuttal. It showed so much information.

Ok..I just have to: BURN!

If it's not breathing water it is not a fish. Is that better, Crossfit. Evolution happened.

Evolution happened

..in your imagination! ;)

This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:

John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's arse with us."

Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His arse?"

John: "If you kiss Hank's arse, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the @!$%# out of you."

Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His arse."

Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the arse?"

Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

John: "Then come kiss Hank's arse with us."

Me: "Do you kiss Hank's arse often?"

Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."

Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"

John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."

Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"

Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the @!$%# out of you."

Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's arse, left town, and got the million dollars?"

John: "My mother kissed Hank's arse for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."

Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"

John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

Mary: "Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."

Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"

John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"

Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's arse He'll kick the @!$%# out of you."

Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."

Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

Me: "Then how do you kiss His arse?"

John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His arse. Other times we kiss Karl's arse, and he passes it on."

Me: "Who's Karl?"

Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's arse. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times.

Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His arse, and that Hank would reward you?"

John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

________________________________________________________

From the Desk of Karl

1. Kiss Hank's arse and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.

2. Use alcohol in moderation.

3. Kick the @!$%# out of people who aren't like you.

4. Eat right.

5. Hank dictated this list Himself.

6. The moon is made of green cheese.

7. Everything Hank says is right.

8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.

9. Don't use alcohol.

10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.

11. Kiss Hank's arse or He'll kick the @!$%# out of you.

_______________________________________________________

Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."

Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."

Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."

Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."

Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the @!$%# out of people just because they're different? "

Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

Me: "How do you figure that?"

Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"

Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."

Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."

John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."

Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."

Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."

Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."

John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"

Me: "We do?"

Mary: "Of course we do, Item 7 says so."

Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"

John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."

Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"

Mary: She blushes.

John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."

Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"

John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."

Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"

Mary: She looks positively stricken.

John: He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"

Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"

Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."

John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."

Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."

Mary: She faints.

John: He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the @!$%# out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."

With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off

I dated a fossil once. Then I went back to women my own age.

Many who have never been involved in higher education do not know that writings in science have little value if the writers do not have relevant degrees and current research work, and if the references are not very contemporary. This does not mean that not much can be learned from the journalists of the myriad science articles in popular magazines or on the web. It means that many criteria are to be met before something is recognized as an credible theory.

Now for a little trivia: hundreds of dog breeds exist, but if all were allowed to run free for just a few generations, they all begin to take on a wolf-like form again. This can be seen in places like Asia and previously in Australia, where domesticated dogs can get loose and are allowed to roam.

Well..even fossils have taste. ;)

Now for a little trivia: hundreds of dog breeds exist, but if all were allowed to run free for just a few generations, they all begin to take on a wolf-like form again. This can be seen in places like Asia and previously in Australia, where domesticated dogs can get loose and are allowed to roam.

Indeed, that's because humans have isolated dogs according to particular traits and bred those particular traits into the breeds we have today.

If domestic dogs all went feral - they may very well again take on a 'wolf-like' appearance over time because those traits will again begin to mingle together, favoring the more survivable traits (which by chance are probably quite wolf-like).

Now I doubt they would go back to being wolves if still isolated, but something similar, and most dog breeds can interbreed no problem - including with wolves. Eventually it's quite possible that the dog population will "pollute" the gene-pool of the wolf population ultimately resulting in the "wolf" in the purest sense, going extinct essentially... and 'evolving" into a different species - depending on how well each species fairs competitively and how welcoming wolf populations would be to feral wolf-dogs.

Actually, when dogs run wild and interbreed they end up looking like dingos, not wolves.

The fact that most dogs can interbreed is because they have only recently diverged. That is true of all organisms: the more recent the divergence, the more likely it is that they can interbreed. That is why it can be so difficult to decide whether to populations are really different species or not; there is no obvious threshold along the gradual divergence where we can definitely say "here is where they became different species." No organism ever gave birth to d different species. It is a gradual process.

As mammals an abrupt salinity change woul have little affect on the whales. Given the opportunity whales exploit fresh as well as salt water.

also you would see geologic evidence, i.e. formation or reduction of salt crystals

sounds fishy...don't it...

The absurdity is that many of us think we can through our pea-brained scientific knowledge explain the greatness of the Almighty. The "infinite" universe was created by Him and is therefore "finite" in His eyes. Time was created by Him and is therefore timeless in His eyes. It's pretty hard to think outside the box when you are inside the box! Only a fool in the box would think he could comprehend the Creator of the box.

ptalbott: But we CAN study what is in the box; and in the box, life evolved.

bob....what whale of story...do you think it was published on porpoise?

No, it was published for the halibut.

A 'trick' physics question these days is, if a creator created time - when did they create it?

Yeah..so tricky...GOD does not answer to when. DUH!

It's just like that lame question about hearing a tree fall.

How about.....how did you know the tree fell? ;)

How about.....how did you know the tree fell? ;)

Scientific observation. I walk into the woods, see a tree lying on the ground and, based on past observations of trees falling, deduce that the tree fell.

Or, if I have not seen trees fall, would deduce that the tree lying on the ground fell based on observations of the other trees standing straight up.

Put both together and you have quite an argument that the tree fell.

Now, as a scientist I would publish that I found a tree lying on the ground and wait to see what deductions others come up with. That's peer review.

---------

If I were to take the religious path, I would just say that God put a tree on the ground in the woods while no one was looking. Hallelujah, a miracle! Any of you who disagree are going to Hell.

but if everything we know was created, then what created the creator?

Hey, that's my line.

As usual Tony..you missed my point.

Very similar to what you guys do when you try to understand the Bible....oh wait....try to not understand the Bible. ;)

What does understanding the Bible have to do with whale fossils?

Understanding the Bible has to do or is key to EVERYTHING!

I think we determined on another thread that your Biblical knowledge was quite lacking.

No, that would be you guys thinking you have your facts straight because your peers told you what the Bible says. ;)

No, years of Bible study has not changed my mind on science. But it did show me that most Christians have no idea what their savior wanted them to do and they have a twisted view of what their religion is.

Whereas very few Christians question why they believe what they do, few scientists get dogmatic on their views. There are exceptions, but not many.

Sounds like your bible study didnt include the studying of the Bible. Sounds like your the one who has some twisted view on christians

TonyInDallas

How about.....how did you know the tree fell? ;)

Scientific observation. I walk into the woods, see a tree lying on the ground and, based on past observations of trees falling, deduce that the tree fell.

Or, if I have not seen trees fall, would deduce that the tree lying on the ground fell based on observations of the other trees standing straight up.

Put both together and you have quite an argument that the tree fell.

Now, as a scientist I would publish that I found a tree lying on the ground and wait to see what deductions others come up with. That's peer review.

That is a good view and analogy but here is a point that needs to be made. You do see the tree on the ground, and you make your best assumption that it merely fell over like the rest of the trees. But lets say we can go back in time to that area and watch how that tree got there. We see that a tornado was in the area and it threw trees all over the place. The one we seen on the ground was one that was tossed from 500 yards away. You assumed that the tree just fell over, but in reality it was tossed there. So just like some science your assuming using your presumptions with no data from that actual time. You see the aftermath and so many things could have happened to give you that end result

Crossfit, did you not notice the "Now, as a scientist I would publish that I found a tree lying on the ground and wait to see what deductions others come up with. That's peer review." I suppose not. But that's what having other people look over the data to confirm is all about. Thanks for proving my point.

However, in the evidence above, there was no discussion about the condition of the roots that were sticking above the ground, whether or not there was a hole in the ground where the roots were, whether or not there were chew marks that might have been made by a beaver, etc. All evidence would have to be documented and accumulated and looked at by others.

Also, what was stated was observation of other trees actually falling and looking at the other trees that are still standing. Also, I never said that the tree just fell there. As stated, I was walking in the woods and found a tree on the ground. No assumption made on were it was before. This tends to confirm my observation that the religious nuts don't even read the evidence available.

Also, I propose, that if a tree were tossed by a tornado, it would still fall.

The more evidence gathered, the more accurate the piecing together of what happened. By the way, this is how crimes are solved as well. Forensic science. I don't believe there is a department in the police force called forensic faith.

Elemental, no, the Bible is quite clear. Jesus stated that the atheist who is kind to people is better than the most religious that does not.

That's what almost every christian misses.

What's this Tony? Selective belief in what Jesus says?

Is this like your science...you take some and leave some?

I just have to wonder....

The Good Samaritan. Read it. Learn it.

That is not selective.

Does that make you sleep better at night?

Again, a comment that makes no sense.

Oh...you mean like a non-believer preaching?

Preaching what? Jesus stated in this parable that the Jews and Rabbis that did not help were not good people, but the Samaritan, essentially a pagan, who picked the guy up, cleaned him up, paid for a room for him to recuperate and asked the inn keeper to bill him for any additional charges was the better person.

Why don't Christians get this?

Who says Christians don't get it?

You speak with a forked tongue, Tony. One minute you bash and mock the Word, next you are praising its wisdom. Why don't you get that?

Pick a lane man...

Let me answer in a way you will understand.

Go talk to some Christians. You'll figure it out.;)

Being a better person won't save you.....from sin.

This Bible lesson is telling us that even unbelievers should not be looked down on in everything they do but in no way is it saying they are on the correct path to salvation.

The megalithic Japanese hunted them to extinction, stripped the carcasses clean of meat and buried the bones so Mother Nature would not see what they had done.

LOL

Tomorrow

I am a Christian that recognizes the 6,000 year old earth is an impossibility.

We have a very good written historical record that goes back 5,000 years.

So either there was no flood (2349-2348 BC) or Archbishop Ussher made an error in his dating system.

tomorrow11
there is nothing so mysterious about the whale in the desert. because when you think about that the flood covert the whole earth and the highest mountains where covert with water feets over the mountainpeaks.

I wonder when does the scientists recognice the events that realy took place unstett mythenise the things that is in reality right in front from their noses.

Life began 6000 Years ago when God desided to create life and not millions of years ago.

God chose earth to be the one planet from over millions of planets.

A fool says in His heart there is no God, and God doesnt believe in Atheists

Seriously? 6000 years ago? While we're at it, what is "unstett mythenise?" And--let's speak of "fools."

Well it's understandable how YOU would get your scientific and religious facts wrong, judging from your spelling.

They were all basking on the beach when the meteor hit. Thankfully they all died quickly so that they felt no pain.

If there had been a world wide flood that covered the highest mountains, then Earth would have looked like Europa (Jupiter's ice moon). It would have been frozen solid at the surface. BTW there has never been enough water on Earth to ever cause such a flood. The biblical flood is a badly re-written legend from ancient Babylon. The bible and other such texts are only to be read as mythological stories that the ancient, primative minds of that time used to satisfy their yearning for real answers, answers which we have now discovered and are discovering.

Uh, Tomorrow? 6000 years ago is roughly when the Sumerians first invented glue. And beer is apparently older than the universe.

You flood folks also must believe Grimm's Fairy Tales also.

The "great flood" was not so great. It is based on a localized flood in what is now Iraq written about in thier history and borrowed by the folks who wrote the bible as many of the stories in the Old Testament were borrowed from either the Egyptians or Sumerian cultures. Back in those days the whole world to a given culture consisted of a realtively small local area in which they travelled and lived. Understanding ancient civilizations explains a lot of the bible. Lack of education causes a lot of misunderstanding and belief in fairy tales just as total and literal belief in the bible.

The bible was nice fairy tale based on what old cultures believed as fact and what were facts to them at that time. It does not hold up to science fact and truth however.

It makes perfect sense too. We evolved as a river-dwelling species, so of course our cultures are going to have a fear of large floods.

they invented a super glue...made with whale dung...remember to lick the stamp...

Most from what has come out of scientific study has stood to support many religious stories.

Most of what comes out still seems pure speculations to me, but who am I to judge.

Remember, no one truly knows whether a second, is truly a second.

god doesn't believe in Atheists?? Well, well, well. Speak to god often do you??

Uh, Harbek? Science has disproved pretty much every myth in the bible. The Deluge story was especially easy. Which makes sense, considering it was written by Bronze Age Cavemen who didn't know where the Sun goes at night or where babies come from. These people had an understanding of the universe that is as comprehensive as that of a below-average third-grader.

I go by the stories shown from the documentary stuff where they claim to prove this or that actually happened.. from the scientists searching for it all, and claiming to have found it.

Yeah, stories progress, become bloated. You can not deny actual facts though but hey.. carry on, my life is nothing to anyone anyhow.

Basking in the sun? I didn't know whales could sunbathe...

I hate to break it to you, jon, but the Bible is mankind's explaination of how and why things happened. They didn't get to watch the Discovery channel and learn from many well educated, highly trained scientists or go to colleges that took FACTS as, well, FACTS and explain what's what. Remember, too, these were men who had what we know now as archaic and sometimes rediculous beliefs who, for most of them, lived in the desert, and also told stories by word of mouth.

Just like mythology (Poseidon, Greek god of the seas; Odin and Zeus, two different peoples' version of king of the gods..)...before religions became more prominent and told them what to think and who to kill, etc, etc.

How do you explain fossils dated much farther back than 6000 years ago?

And why couldn't God and science co-exist? How do you know there aren't mny more planets like ours? Seems like a total waste of space....

Show us the documentaries, Harbek. And be sure to be clear which organizations made them.

Take it easy on yourself Harbek....All of our lives are something...to someone. :)

They were headed to Vegas and missed the turn off at Albuquerque?

Good as any other explanation.

tomorrow is proof of what happens when you let the BRAINWASHING associated with DOGMA overload the FACTS AN DATA of the fossil record. (but don't tell believers that - the will just DENY DENY DENY!)

god doesn't believe in atheists? But I thought that Hesheit created atheists to stock hell so that all the good moral people could hang out in heaven and enjoy hearing them scream in agony and swim around in the lake of fire? How could he forget so soon? I mean him being perfect and all knowing and all you would think he would remember. well I can tell you that when I get there I'm taking over and we are going after that evil son of a gun.. Be a better universe after I sink my thumbs into whatever hesheit has for a throat. Forget me will it? Hmph!!!

I'm afraid of the answer, but I wonder... do Tomorrow11 and harbek homeschool?

probably - it's the only way to guarantee that their children aren't exposed to "deviant" science

Ahhh Toasty, that's where you are wrong. Science is only as good as the technology of the day. 500years ago SCIENCE believed the earth was flat. 100years ago SCIENCE believed that putting leeches on your skin would cure headaches.

Years ago, Neanderthals and early man met in what is now Israel. Bones of both in caves prove that they inhabited the land together at one point. In the Old testement there is the story of the "Giants" which was mis-translated by the Greeks. What the word actually meant was "Lost ones" or "Forgotten ones". Were the "Forgotten ones" the Neanderthals that inhabited the land with the early people? Did the bible know centuries ago what we as a culture have only discovered recently?

In the book of Exodus, the bible speaks of the plagues God sent down upon Egypt. The last plague was that of death to the first born son of Egypt. In mass graves, in the area of Egypt spoken of in Exodis, archeologists have found bodies of infants to the elderly. ALL male.

Now do these facts PROVE the stories of the Bible? Of course not. But just maybe it could be that Science has not yet caught up to what believers have always known.

Science might just catch up to Biblical wisdom but not as long as men keep trying to infuse their own belief into it.

Yes..pseudo-science = belief

Ahhh Toasty, that's where you are wrong. Science is only as good as the technology of the day. 500years ago SCIENCE believed the earth was flat. 100years ago SCIENCE believed that putting leeches on your skin would cure headaches.

And when SCIENCE discovered it was wrong and SCIENCE tried to make corrections it was RELIGION that stopped them and it was RELIGION that refused to change.

Elemental: "pseudo-science = belief" = Biblical wisdom

Real science = real science

Of course religion of man tried to stop them because truth is not in them.

What group is it again trying to say it just can't be that neutrino's are FTL?

Non sequitur, ol' stud horse!

Tens of thousands of scientists doing decades of research versus a collection of fables written by random people thousands of years ago?

I'll choose logic, reason, and sanity.

Who is Dawkins? Never heard of him.

My thoughts exactly. Just another piece of proof that God once flooded the Earth.

True JMGL: God let it rain for 40 days and 40 nights and waited for the sewers to back up. (with a nod to Bill Cosby)

RIGHTTTTTT,,,,,,,,,What's a cubit? Bill Cosby

Sorry FRC, its just not physically possible for the flood story to be true.

Neither I nor Richard Dawkins serve anyone in the way you would a god. If we serve something on this Earth, it is the truth which can be found using reason, logic and the scientific method. Basing one's life on believing something exists without reliable evidence is a waste of a mind that could be learning how awesome reality really is. These whales and other ancient animals are fascinating and humans can learn a great deal about them and the Earth they inhabited long before humans evolved.

A universe that has no beginning or end is more sensible than a "god" who has no beginning or end. We know the universe exists; there is no evidence for god. Faith is frequently believing in something that one cannot see or prove because it actually does not exist. Religious people are typically atheists towards all the gods that humanity has ever worshiped, except for one. Atheists just go one god further.

As to the biblical story of a worldwide flood, that is definitely a fable. First, the ark could not have held all the species of animals that live today. Second, there is no geological history of a worldwide flood within the last 20 thousand years. Third, there is no plausible explanation for the source of enough water to cover the planet, including mountains. Whales and other sea creatures can become beached for a variety of reasons. (storm, tsunami, disease) The existing explanations are more than adequate without invoking a supernatural event.

These whales weren't beached; this whole region in question used to be underwater. The mystery here is what killed them all in one small space.

and the logic and scientific methods have all back up biblical stories..... ooops.

Name one, Harbek.

Trees found way under the earth, places they truly shouldn't have been.

The ability in the supposed location for the water to literally seperate itself, with enough wind currents helping it do so.

Oh.. man you haven't been watching all the stuff they've been putting out in researching these things?

Heck, they're still searching for Jesus body.. if he were just a man, surely his body will be found.

Trees get buried by erosion.

Water and winds have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

And you can't find the body of a fictional character. They haven't found Darth Vader's corpse yet either.

Trees found way under the earth, places they truly shouldn't have been

It's called land masses shifting, harbek...seismic activity...ever heard of Pangea?

The ability in the supposed location for the water to literally seperate itself, with enough wind currents helping it do so.

Any proof? Did they have the National Enquierer back then? Myths, hun. Ever been in a hurricane? I haven't, but from what I hear in actual news stories and from survivors, it can certainly seem that powerful...

Oh.. man you haven't been watching all the stuff they've been putting out in researching these things?

Yep...it's called science...it's called curiosity...it's called learning...something many of us love and what has helped us to understand, with actual facts, this big beautiful ball we love.

Heck, they're still searching for Jesus body.. if he were just a man, surely his body will be found.

They never found Jimmy Hoffa, either.

Where did all the water go if the flood covered the mountains. 6,000 years ago the Himalayas and the Alps were pretty much the same as they are now. Earth loses little if any water because not much water vapor can stay in the atmosphere at any one time.

As for Richard Dawkins, who is an atheist by the way, read "The Ancestors Tale", very good easy to read book that lays out the evolution line pretty accurately.

Darth Vader (AKA Dick Cheney) is living in an undisclosed bunker somewhere.

Inside his man-sized safe.

My thoughts exactly. Just another piece of proof that God once flooded the Earth.

OR... another piece of proof why cultures who had no science believed the Earth had once been covered in water and, like everything else they couldn't explain, they looked to some deity as a cause.

I firmly believe in God. Why is it that so many Christians spend so much time worrying about what is in the Old Testament? I don't think He even said the word "begat". Didn't spend time fretting over why there are several chronicles of the big flood in that region or why the land of Nod was already up and running before Cain relocated there. It wasn't important then and it's not important now. The message was Love. Simple. And so hard to do. And about those poor whales.....

How long can you tread water? Bahahahaha ...

Former Catholic- do you mean Stephen Hawkings?

Sorry Toast, its just not physically possible for anything to have come from absolute nothing.

That's because it didn't. Matter/energy has always been present.

But matter and energy do not make it alive.

And what does that have to do with anything?

NOAH!! How long can you tread WATER?? (nod to Bill Cosby) The whole flood story is just so much BULL SH IT. Totally unsupported in the fossil records and accepted as "fact" only by brainwashed IDIOTS

According to Obama, "Its Bush's fault."

"These whales weren't beached; this whole region in question used to be underwater. The mystery here is what killed them all in one small space"

Happens all the time. Walking too close to the traffic lanes.

That's because it didn't. Matter/energy has always been present.

Matter has to come from something it cannot "always" just exist. Energy requires a source.

Or, do you mean God?

"matter" is a standing wave form of energy. Different elements, indeed different sub-atomic particles, represent different "coherent" forms of energy. Give photons higher energy levels and they become "gamma". The massless photon is influenced by gravitational fields (as was shown in the eclipse bending of light phenomenon so many years ago). Now as to postulating the existence of "something" that "created" mass and energy - that's the $64 question. To accept that version of "creation" requires acceptance of the "supernatural" (which then begs the question of what "created" the supernatural? Moreover, what supernatural "events" can be accepted as "real" - all of them? The "ghoulies and ghosties and long legged beasties and things that go bump in the night" or merely the mythical sky daddy? My theory is that either it's ALL or none - because there is no more substantiation for the LEAST of them than ANY OF THEM.))

Former Roman Catholic

You say that "Faith is believing in something one cannot see or prove" ..... to be fair, your version of "faith" is to believe in that which has been proven wrong. There is a difference, you know. It is far different to have beliefs about the unknown than to reject that which has been proven.

What is the object of your faith? God? What makes you think that God is fairly represented in the Bible. You have actually placed your faith in men - the men who wrote the Bible and the men who told you that the Bible is the "word of God." Many scientists, probably a majority, believe in God, but very few scientists follow a literal interpretation of the Bible.

In short, Roman, science doesn't contradict religion. Science only contradicts irrational religion. Any good scientist knows that it is no easier to disprove the existence of God than it is to prove that God exists.

Former Catholic, you have put your faith in men and, unfortunately, they were men who did not deserve the faith you placed in them.

canary

We all have our belief systems.

Some believe in a Christian God, some in another God.

Others believe in matter and energy existing forever.

All are belief systems.

A wave is a disturbance - what disturbs NOTHING?

You can't have a wave of nothing.

Your belief says something existed in nothingness.

You might as well believe in God.

God is Spirit and not subject to the laws of the physical universe.

Energy is often shown as light.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Or Energy.

you are obviously one of the "believer" crowd, so discussion with you is a waste of both out time

You might as well believe in God.

Which one? I have problems keeping them all straight.

you are obviously one of the "believer" crowd,

You are also a believer.

You have your belief system I have mine.

The difference is I understand mine is an unprovable belief system and I am open to the possibility what I believe could be wrong.

I have found my beliefs to be wrong many times.

Atheist (Science) --> Agnostic --> New age Reincarnationist --> Christian (Arminian) --> Christian (Calvinist)

You don't recognize you could be wrong and are not open to any possibility you could be --> Cultist.

Which one? I have problems keeping them all straight.

Seek, who knows maybe you will find truth.

JOregon,

I have looked and nothing has been compelling. Particularly the christian religions which claim god is 1) omnipotent, 2) omniscient, and 3) all just.

Those three qualities cannot coexist in a single entity given our reality.

Until something compels me otherwise, I will have to rely upon reason, which suggests the probability of a god (of any meaningful variant) is highly improbable.

Richard Dawkins? I loved that guy on Family Feud! Also good as the gameshow host in Running Man. Not sure what he has to do w/ this article.

EE

I can understand why it is difficult to accept. It certainly wasn't easy for me to accept.

I don't understand why you don't believe God could not have those 3 qualities. They are not opposing qualities, they complement each other.

It was reason that lead me to God, so maybe there is hope for you after all ;-)

Well said don97524

Hey JO, I have no problem with god having those three qualities, but if he did our world would not exist as it does. Ergo, the christian version of god is a logic fallacy.

For example, many hundreds of thousands of children are dying of diseases and hunger today around much of the world. An omniscient god would be aware of their suffering. An omnipotent god would be able to fix their suffering without any expenditure of effort. An all just god would not allow these kids to suffer and die. See, it's logically impossible.

And before you say that god works in mysterious ways, is beyond our comprehension, etc. let me just point out that this is bullsh!t. These kids dying are innocent and are suffering. A truly omnipotent god would be able to achieve his goals without needing the suffering.

As I stated before, logic precludes most versions of god. Period.

well J you can accept whatever nonsense floats your boat. All of the evidence convinces me that the concept of ANYTHING "supernatural" is NON EXISTENT. If you choose to accept the oats after they have been thru the horse, that's YOUR choice.

Dawkins - aka Richard Dawkins is a well know champion for aeithism.

And actually there is a way to prove God - prophecy...

Here is what is about to befall the world according to God's foreknowledge...

Like a woman giving birth, the pain and frequency of the birth pangs become more frequent and more intense.

So to will be with the natural disasters in the world...

So to will be with the political upheavals...

So to will be with the religions upheavals...

So it will be with economic upheavals…

As things get progressively worse - Protestantism and Catholicism will fully unite...

At Christ's trial - the Jews could not kill Jesus so they declared they had no other God but Caesar.. The religious manipulated the civil...

Because the civil was more interested in power than justice Christ was put to death...

During the dark ages, the RC church did the exact same thing...working through the civil powers anyone who would not submit to their authority were persecuted and often put to death…

And just before Christ returns; the religious leaders of a united Christianity under Papal authority will get civil rulers will enact laws - just as in Daniel - to declare Sunday as a 'day of rest' - where the Bible clearly decrees the Sabbath..

Aethiests and agnostics will go along with it because who wouldn't like a day of rest and leisure...

Protestants will go along with it because they have deceived themselves into thinking they are following the Bible...

RC will go along with because they for the most part they do not know any better...

THEN those who are faithful to God will be put to death...

When these things happen - look up

Because the God you deny exists will be coming in the clouds...

True Love - the type of Love demonstrated in the Bible ...

MUST give everyone the same right and ability to say NO as well as YES...

far out...more moby...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecTm6G7AjcM&feature=related

At one time by the words of both Science and the Bible, the world was covered with water.

Jon, SN, it's physically impossible to cover every landmass with the amount of water present in Earth's aquasphere and atmosphere. Impossible. 100% impossible. Only in that fairy tale book could it happen.

JonJoJon - Science has never ever said the Earth was ever covered in water. The biblical account is a myth solen from the ancient Babylonian legend of Gilamesh.

Never, ever could any man ever walk on the moon.. it's just a fairytale from washington...................

Oh, that's not in a book is it.

If man never walked on the moon, who put all those foot prints there? Aliens?

Not by the words of science jonjojon...that was might have been true at a certain point in earths development. It apparently was also ice covered for million of years at one point. But at some point land began to be raised up due to vulcanism and tectonic shifts and early elemetary life began as long as 4.5 billion years ago.

Jon, SN, it's physically impossible to cover every landmass with the amount of water present in Earth's aquasphere and atmosphere. Impossible. 100% impossible. Only in that fairy tale book could it happen.

Well... technically that would be "cover every landmass with ... liquid water". The Earth was completely covered with ice at one point.

Hehe

no, backcountry, it wasn't. there isn't enough water on the entire planet to cover the earth in any physical form other than vapor. there simply isn't enough. and if one of you people brings up kent hovind and his idiotic idea about a water canopy, i have nothing to say to you. other than reiterating your base stupidity.

I'm under the impression that the "snowball Earth" therory is widely accepted. -http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100304-snowball-earth-ice-global-warming/

Alright. Prove it.

I agree with Toasty. Prove it. Which biblical stories have been proven to be completely true?? Name just one. Perhaps the one about jesus turning water into wine?? Or maybe Noah being swallowed by a whale?? And by the way, King James did not write the King James version, himself.

He listened to sister Sarah saying the dinosaurs cohabited the planet with humans.

scientist believe that all the Matter in the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly 14 billion years ago give or take a Bil. And you question Noah's ark ? Hilarious. Did dino's cohabitate ? Most likely not. Gen 1:1 is the 14 billion years ago you seek. Very possible the earth was used before complete with dinosaurs most likely happening inbetween v1 and 2. Beggining of verse 2 would be the Lat Ice age and then from there voila......... Here's some proof i am sure it will be sufficient Ezek 36 v24 and also to Ezek 37 v20-21 which is the acount and prophecy of The Jews being Gathered back to their Land from among all the other nations. That Happened in 1948.... Tah Dah

Which is proof of absolutely nothing.

And for you Mr Toast Matt 16 v4, Mark 8 v12, And Luke 11 v 29.

the mythical story was JONAH, but I digress. Why haven't there been any so-called MIRACLES since the invention of the CAMERA? As to truth from the buy-bull - it isn't even historically accurate - most of the so called history is inaccurate as to places and dates. it emanates from an ORAL tradition that was written down after numerous embellishments. It's "wishful thinking" and idiocy personified as DOGMATIC ASSERTIONS (without ANY substantive facts)

So basically, that's just an elaborate way of saying "no Toasty, I don't have any proof whatsoever, and my fairy tale says that makes what I say true."

MY mythical supposedly inspired by the sky daddy text says so and I "believe" it (hook, line, and sinker)

i've seen better...

yes, and the finding of dead animals excites them.. hmm some form of '.. philia' there somehow?

Except that it appears that many of these animals did not die alone. They appear to have died in groups.

there's only one dead animal that get's people really excited...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuY44PHC0wI

You're scaring me, harbek. I just hope there are no young ones around that you can teach your drivel to.

Try having an open mind. Learning about things around you doesn't make you a bad person. God made all of this for a reason. Why can't that be so you can learn something valuable?

I like to believe He did it this way on purpose. He just wants us to use that knowledge and make our own way.

lol blue.. they keep searching for answers... I've gone with the musicians.. there will be an answer - let it be.

What I know, too many refuse to believe so I leave it at that.

Rather than tossing money chasing shadows and wondering about it... they come up with, this is accurately calculated. Sorry, but one tells me a second is a second, when a second is far more to some - hey, wait a sec, i'll be right back.

So.. until they determine when a second is truly a second and can prove that.... we might consider it.

As for finding stuff.. be happy you found it. There is little value, other than learning what history can be learned from it. Stating any particular time period is false, whatever documentation since a second could be fifty years in space time... who's 'second' do we truly believe?

Just being real about the reality.

gee panther - that YOU choose to accept the DRIVEL doesn't mean that the rest of us are as uneducated as you apparently are. Several million years makes a lot of fossils in random locations

oops - misinterpretation of the conversation. sorry blue

harbek - what the hell are you talking about and how is it even relevant whatsoever?

Pulling that whole "reality is all in the mind" transcendentalism nonsense as some sort of argument? Lol. It's no argument, it's a cop-out... plain and simple.

It's an argument from ignorance fallacy...

lol canary...you had me rereading my post...

Well, yeah, THIS region was flooded, because it used to be ocean until plate tectonics moved it.

Unless you'd like to explain the myriad of impossibilities about the flood. You can first explain where the water came from. And then where it went. And then how fresh water creatures survived the influx of salt water. And then how two of every creature managed to reproduce a viable gene pool. An then how these creatures survived on a planet stripped of all life to feed them.

Need I go on? I have a TON more.

check out answersingenesis.com and the myriad of other creation science sites. They can explain it. Too complicated to discuss on here.

If you deny the Flood, then I assume you subscribe to the Big Bang belief.

Can't call it a theory-theories by definition have to be able to be proven or disproven. To believe that the complex human being, and all of the other complex creations came into being by accident requires such a fanciful stretch of the imagination, that it boggles the mind.

No Lou, they don't explain it. They are dead wrong, because they too have no understanding of basic scientific principles. EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT they have put forth has been laughed down and discounted. Which is why I'm asking YOU to defend your belief in stories that are blatantly physically impossible.

Of course I recognize the Big Bang; it's a scientific fact. I also acknowledge that the sky is blue, and that the sun rises in the east.

And I conclude with a request that you inform yourself of the definition of scientific theory.

No other answer? That's because you refuse to LOOK for another answer. Blind, religious zombie.

That's actually the most common response when a creationist gets called on their BS. "Well, I read this at 'blah blah blah,' you should to." They can never defend their own views, so they try to pass the buck off to other people. People who, incidentally, also can't defend their views, but they aren't on Newsvine, so they don't have to answer.

Lou, a theory is a set of interrelated principles that are testable and believable based in reasonable supposition. We have the technology to explain the universe down to a few microseconds before the Big Bang occurred. The answer is all around us: the expanding universe, cosmic background radiation, the uniformity of matter, and so forth. By using mathematics and high-powered microscopes, telescopes, particle accelerators and other empirical methods, we can follow the universe's path back to its very beginning. What you are saying is akin to believing that you can't prove the events of a crime because, even though all of the evidence is extremely precise and invariably indicates one certain cause, it can't be accepted because noone saw it. That's ridiculous.

yup and where the fresh and salt water meet, there are these really huge walls that refuse to allow the waters to mix together..........................

Give, me an extreme break please.

Lou7777777

check out answersingenesis.com and the myriad of other creation science sites. They can explain it. Too complicated to discuss on here.

The standard BS response from a creationist.

Let's clear up a common misconception that Lou just put out: theories must be able to be proved or disproved. Disproved, yes. On the other hand, a scientific theory is never proved (proved exists in the realm of mathematics, not science.) The best theories are those that have been faced with multiple attempts to disprove them while surviving each time.

The Big Bang Theory explains a known observation (scientific law) that the universe is expanding. How do we know it is expanding? The Doppler Effect. Every galaxy in the universe has its light red shifted when viewed from the Milky Way. That can only be so if all the galaxies are moving away from us. That can only happen if the universe is expanding. But that implies that the universe must have been smaller a second ago, and smaller still a minute ago, and even smaller an hour ago, and more and more small as you go back into the past. That means that at some point in the past, the universe had to have been really, really small; the size of a single point. Further evidence of the expansion is the heat that the beginning of said expansion would have created. It should still be found throughout the universe, and the background noise noted by telecommunication companies is the evidence of that heat.

If anything, though, the Big Bang Theory should be the one creationistssupport because the (now disproved) opposing theory (Steady State) argues that the universe was always here, that it had no beginning, that it will have no end.

So how, Toasty, do you prove the "Big Bang" belief? You weren't there, the "scientists" who put forth these astounding tales weren't there, either. You CANNOT PROVE in ANY WAY, that there was, indeed, a BIG BANG.

It takes a world of faith to believe the Big Bang fable.

The scientists CLAIM to see to the end of the universe. LOL. How do they know its the end? Why should we believe them? Again, as I stated before, they can't even find the cure (real cures, not 5-10 years death deferment-ask any breast cancer survivor-they will be told that the cancer WILL return) for cancer or AIDS, or diabetes, or asthma, or _______(fill in the blank).

Spacecracker-all those arguments you put forth can be explained by a Creator.

Please check out www.answersingenesis.com. You have top scientists who can explain it. I can't-I've been out of that loop for so long now that I wouldn't be able to explain succintly on here. But they can.

However, I may add that what Answers in Genesis shows only SUPPORTS what the Bible states. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." That's just the way it is. If you approach science with AN OPEN MIND, not the ridicule of the atheistic scientists, you will see that all fits with what God states in Genesis. Which is the reason for their name.

Answers in Genesis isn't the only one. I'll get back on here with another site in a minute.

Any replies to mine-I will keep referring you to the Bible, and Answers in Genesis.

Easy. The Hubble Constant.

Nobody claims to see the end of the universe. We do have hypotheses that can explain what will happen to the universe over the next several billion years, but that's hardly the same thing. The rest you pulled out of your ass.

And Lou, like I said before, I'm not here to hear Ken Ham's arguments, I want to hear you defend your arguments.

To believe that the complex human being, and all of the other complex creations came into being by accident requires such a fanciful stretch of the imagination, that it boggles the mind.

No, it is simply a matter of odds. Consider this- take a brand new deck of cards, they will be in order and suited, now shuffle the deck. What are the odds that the deck ends up in that same order after you've shuffled them once? Completely impossible right? But if you continued to shuffle that deck of cards minute after minute, hour after hour, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, decade after decade, you'd hit that original order 10's of thousands of times.

To assume life started on its own is only a "fanciful stretch of the imagination" you have to refuse to accept the fact that the universe is billions of years old and contains billions of galaxies each with billions of stars. When you accept the size and age of the universe it is a "fanciful stretch of the imagination" to assume life could NOT start on its own.

Part of my response got cut out when I corrected the spelling, it should be -decade after decade for 13 and a half billion years you'd hit that combination 10's of thousands of times.

Lou77: There is actually quite a bit of solid evidence for the Big Bang theory; at least the part that says that the universe was once extremely small (the Big Bang theory makes no claim about where the Universe came from). Precise predictions have been made from it and then shown to be true. The measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation by the COBE satellite pretty much clinched it.

the idiocy of a "creator" is just that - IDIOCY.

Of course, IF we hypothesize a "creator" then WHAT CREATED THE CREATOR?

That bullsh it "answers of genesis" is a circular argument - without LOGIC and supported ONLY by that creative writing text of buy-bull dogmatic assertions.

Lou, there is no such thing as "creation science". With science you ask a question and try to find answers. In so-called "creation science" they have the answers they want and make up fake science to fit those answers. It's the opposite of science.

Toasty, and Hubble confirmed what LeMitre the European Priest had theorized a few years Earlier. The Big Bang. Genesis. Matter from Nothing. Creation of life.

Debating the story of Noah is like debating whether or not a Massive explosion creates (over time) a beautifully orchastrated universe of life. Life that improves on a Earth along side (life Ending Asteroid Strikes ever 100 million years give or take a few million years)......

Yes Man made RELIGIONS... to make lots of money have corrupted what is written in the bi-ble(I edited that for Canary...lol). No you don't go to Heaven when you die, No you do not have a conscience when you are in the grave (the word Hell originally conveyed that of to cover or cover up)which is what the words were in the greek and Hebrew....and the list goes on..

The Bi-ble and its 775,000 words. Was not intended to be a science book. But God and Science can co-exist. I know many scientist that believe that all things had to be Designed. My favorite would be Albert Einstien he believed wholeheartedly in God but never bought into the idea of a manmade Religious system of lies and deceit for your control and cash.

As for your wondering where it all started(14 Billion years Ago if thats the number) Re-read the very first verse of the Bi-ble it's for you... Beggining=Time, Created=Energy, Heaven(univ.)=The Space, Earth=Matter... The building blocks for all things for a Universe.

The first half of verse 2 lets the reader know that the earth was in a state of NO life (again for the scientist it would a ICE-age) Prior to this verse between 1 and 2 could be, possibly was, evidence shows(all terms scientist love to use) would be the time of the Dinosaurs...... how many times has the earth been used between verse 1 and 2 .......who knows.

Bi-Ble read it Love it or Hate it thats everyones Gods Given Choice..... i just had to say that

Well...the latest 'theory' from our friendly neighborhood scientists is that black holes are just showing us that we live on a halodeck.

I think they might be watching a little too much Star Trek. ;)

No, no, no. It's not god who wasted time, it's Satan! He has clouded our minds to see something that isn't there! He wants us to stray from god by making us believe in evolution!

Yeah, sarcasm.

best i can say, is speculation on either side carrys very little weight on any of it.

LTKwi

Pangea broke up around 200 million years ago. The whales were stranded around 2 million years ago. What is your point? Plate tectonics is real, but had nothing to do with this event.

the road crews found them at the whale graveyard, then planted them as they were making way for the new highway.

The mystery isn't how the whales got there; this whole region used to be seafloor. The mystery is what killed all of them at the same place and time.

I agree that a tsunami sounds very plausible. In any event, it was probably a sudden event or series of events. Looking forward to hearing what their research uncovers. As for the people commenting re the biblical flood. LMAO at their collective ignorance about their own book.

Cliff Chandler

Just a thought, but have they considered the possibility of a tsunami having washed the whales up on shore caused by either a large undersea earthquake, volcano or possibly a meteor/asteroid hit?

There was a large amount of volcanic activity during this time and possibly was this the period when it was believed that a meteor /asteroid hit earth and wiped out the majority of large prehistoric animals.

As far as you folks with your great biblical flood you need to research a little better. The great flood idea was stolen from the folks who lived in what is now Iraq and was localized to that area. The idea of the great flood was stolen from the writings of these people and incorporated into the bible. Sorry, but science trumps fairy tales and old word of stories that migrated into the blble and were blown-up to make a good story.

Stop posting false information. You have no proof that it was some localized flood. If a flood was local why wouldnt people just go to some other area on the other side of the mountains. Why take so long to build an ark in time for a great flood. There is plenty of evidence for a world flood. Science isnt trumping anything, its your presumptions and bias with in your world view religion.

Because the "great flood" never happened, Damon. It's physically impossible. We evolved as a river-dwelling species, so obviously our myths will involve floods. There's a reason the Mongols and Tibetans don't have flood myths.

DamonWV. You are the one posting false information. The biblical story of a world wide flood was stolen and embellished by the early authors of the old testament - they knew a good story when they heard it. Please provide the evidence for a world flood - and please explain how it happened.

Metalworkers were referred to in the Bible. Sorry, Toasty and notanidiot...-you've been totally brainwashed. In addition, "scientists" still haven't figured out how the pyramids were built.

Darwin knew a good story when he made it-and knew how to make big bucks with it, too. Evolution-total fantasy. Unprovable.

Damon WV,

Sorry to insult your simplistic uneducated mind. I understand why you types find it offensive that you and the bible are wrong.

As Toasty stated it is totally impossible for the whole earth to have been flooded. And it has been proven by several different biblical scholars that the stories in the bible are borrowed from cultures that lived before the bible was written. The old testament is based on previous religious teachings and they certainly weren't christian.

Think of it this way if you are a true blue christian, christ was teaching the jewish religion in a very strict form and sense. He was an Essene. So if you are a true beliver in christ then why are you not of the jewish faith? The old testament was sritten by the jews, the new testament was written 40 to 400 years after christ's death or long after the apostles were dead and dust. The new testament which christians use was not written by the apostles like you prefer to think.

No religion is totally right or wrong, only a belief that there is a higher intellegence. Organized religion whether it be christian, muslem, jew or one based on little gray men invading earth to take us home is okay for you to believe in as long as you do not push it on to other folks. Organized religions have destroyed cultures and caused the spread of disease to areas that never had a problem with disease. Organized religion was used as a way to exploit other cultures such as the Spanish, French and English did during colonial times.

Please do not use religion as a replacement for science, the christians tortured for folks and locked them up for believing the earth rotated around the sun. Are you one of those too?

What does metalworking have to do with this?

And yes, we know how the pyramids were built. Lots of time and lots of cheap labor. I mean come on, when you get right down to it, they're just really big piles of rocks. This isn't rocket surgery.

How can a person honestly go through life without knowing the basis premises of science?

Lou77777,

You need help of a mental kind. Please do some reading beyond the bible.

It is not good to not have a rounded education, that is why folks have followed the radical muslim teachings and strap on bombs. It is not healthy to believe blindly in any religion or teaching, look at what happened to those that did under Hitler and why they killed the jews. It was blind faith in one persons ideas just like blind faith in a single book.

"There was a large amount of volcanic activity during this time and possibly was this the period when it was believed that a meteor /asteroid hit earth and wiped out the majority of large prehistoric animals."

Maybe you missed the date here... they said 2 to 7 MYA - not ~40. If they had said ~40 you'd be on the right track but not 2 to 7. Most of the large prehistoric animals were gone by 2-7 MYA - with notable exceptions... such as the large mammoths and sabre toothed tigers, which were most likely killed off by early humans.

The dinosaurs and the true giant critters, however, were almost without exception already extinct well before the time period these whales were killed.

Your tsunami idea would make good sense - shove the suckers well above the tide line and even if they didn't hit any debris before they came to a rest they would be goners in a short time.

Damon,

If you study most civilizations world wide including Native American cultures you discover both Creation Stories and Great World Wide Flood stories. So that point in your thoughts may need to be readdressed. Recent books I have read that mention this are part of my curriculum for International Literature class at a public college. It might be noted that evolution is a theory not a rock solid fact. Science still can not answer many questions such as sedimentation that should be deeper in the earth crust found on high mountains. Volcanic or tectonic activity does not come close to describing the possibility. Also look at the results of the eruption of mount St. Helen's in Washington state to see some rather remarkable understanding about floods. Many wondered why fossil remains of trees we found standing up if a flood was the cause. St. Helen's eruption silenced that mystery by duplication of trees knocked over by the eruption and flood settling root first in to the resulting sediment. Interesting to say the least to non-flood event theorist. My main point in all of this is just to say we all need an open mind to respect the science of these findings and we must be able to say we don't know how it happened.

Another point just because a group is called "christian" does not make it so. Many claim the United States is a "christian" nation but the research actually finds we are a secular nation with many more individuals claiming to be "christian" who have never been part of or attended a church of any denomination. So claiming that some group like the GOP is "christian" does not make it so. Claiming that "christian" tortured folks for believing the earth orbited the sun was at the hands of the Catholic Church which dominated a period called the Dark Ages for a reason but it was not acting according to any tenets of Christianity as a "christian". In fact many reject the Catholic Church as "christian". That is why a movement that ended the Dark Ages called the Reformation started and heralded in the expansion of printing presses and science was actually lead by Protestants and others. If it were not for the Reformation you might still be taught the world was the center of the universe or the world was flat. It would help to take out the emotional response to individuals and cultures you do not understand before making such sweeping claims to their involvement in actions they if fact took no part in. Just saying.

NSS, the reason we see so many food myths is because we're a river-dwelling species. They tend to make a big deal about big floods.

And evolution is both a fact and a theory. There's the fact of common descent, and there's the theory that we've developed that explains it. The same goes for other theories, like gravity. There's the fact that if you drop a bowling ball it will fall to the earth, and there's the theory that we've developed that explains it.

And scence does explain sedimentation, you just haven't bothered to look it up.

Christian religions all stem from Catholics not matter how you cut it. Just face it, if you are christian your beliefs stem from the catholic religion no two ways about it.

Sorry, go back and study how the so called christian religions came about. they split from the catholics. Christian means to believe in christ as your saviour and that was first put forth by the roman catholics and their predecessors.

"It might be noted that evolution is a theory not a rock solid fact."

Absolutely incorrect. While science as a whole treats concepts like that as 'theory' in perpetuity, there are numerous specific examples showing that adaptive coloring can occur within only a few generations. Natural selection. That is evolution as plain as day.

This is just a thought, something that I came up with while thinking about it logically. If there was a great flood, and only Noah, his wife, his 3 sons and their wives survived,his sons and their wives would have repopulated the earth. As the three families grew they would have moved outward, passing the story of the flood from generation to generation by word of mouth. According to the bible, God didn't speak to anyone personally until Abraham(who by the way was a pagan descended from those same people who lived in Iraq), 10 generations from Noah, this means that everyone was passing the flood story without the personal evidence of God in their lives and it became just a story. Genesis 11 says that all the people dwelled in the plain of Shinar (where they built the tower of Babel).. which is Babylon.. which is modern day Iraq. Just because the first known instance of the flood story comes from this area, it doesn't mean that it was stolen by old testament writers. Its the same story, they share the same history.

The interesting thing is everyone wants evidence.

Some people claim to see things, does this mean they truly are not there?

Personal experiences far outweigh questions of does it exist or not. If it hasn't happened to you, you believe it can't happen. If it happens to you, you tend to feel differently.

As I stated, many refuse to believe so I leave it at that. Think how you wish, question all you want... once we die, the answers are revealed.

How did he and his family survive after the flood? The salt water would have poisoned the soil for years, so they couldn't have grown crops. And they couldn't have hunted for too long, since all the animals they saved would have starved in this new, barren earth.

Christian religions all stem from Catholics not matter how you cut it. Just face it, if you are christian your beliefs stem from the catholic religion no two ways about it.

Sorry, go back and study how the so called christian religions came about. they split from the catholics. Christian means to believe in Christ as your saviour and that was first put forth by the roman catholics and their predecessors.

Cliff Chandler

You are quite wrong in the statement that Christians came from the Catholic Church. The early movement called The Way and then much later Christians predates the term Catholic by over 40 years including the claim that Peter was the first bishop of the Catholic church. He was dead and long gone before the word Catholic was first recorded in about 110 AD. Peter was believed to have died about 69AD. He was never a practicing Catholic as the term and beliefs were not in place until many years later. Peter's life and practice, teachings, writings, were those of a follower of Jesus who was raised a practicing Jew. His life and practices never left his belief system based on his relationship to Jesus. The Catholic Church would like you to believe God established their church with Peter to legitimize there authority to rule the "christian" world. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Around 400AD the Catholic Church met and disputed the "Bible" that Christians accept as their Bible. As a result the Catholic Church developed its own bible with many revisions to support its authority over all christian religions. The Dark Ages soon followed as the Catholic Church tried to crush scientific thought, and any rival religion. It is called the Dark Ages because of the suppression of freedom of religion, science, arts, literature, and education by the Catholic Church for almost 1600 years.

chouse,

It is called adaptation not evolution in color adaptation.

I also might add their is no evidence of cross species muation like a lizard/cow or some such nonsense.

" It might be noted that evolution is a theory not a rock solid fact."

Actually it is both.

Notsosure: "I also might add their is no evidence of cross species muation like a lizard/cow or some such nonsense."

Yes,that would be nonsense, which is why scientists have never suggested it. EVER. If you think that is what the theory of evolution claims, then you really do know nothing.

And yes, adaptation IS evolution. Please learn what something is before you deny it.

so let's explain a flood event - there is EVIDENCE thatthe black sea was about 700 feet or so deeper than it is NOW about 8000 years ago - there is evidence of villages below the de-oxygenated water level at about 700 feet depth. There is ALSO evidence that this event was initiated by a breach of the Dardanelles and inflow from the MED (over a roughly 700 feet high waterfall) and that the inflow FROM the Med continues today with evidence of an undersea current of salt water (and plenty of boulders from the erosion of the Dardanelles) So take a 700 foot drop of a massive influx of water and what do you get? Spray, and RAIN (lots of it) - so it took maybe 40 days to backfill the BLACK SEA that 700 feet (maybe a bit more but once the levels started equalizing, the misting would stop)

There's your "worldwide flood, folks - a LOCALIZED EVENT interpreted as worldwide (because those uneducated people so many thousands of years ago didn't KNOW any better - and of course, it was written into DOGMA - mistakenly - as a worldwide event - remember these people didn't usually go mare than 20 miles from where they were BORN - so those 4 corners of the earth were say, 40 miles away)

Of course, this makes way too much SENSE and conflicts with idiotic believers' sense of continuity as to what is "written" in their buy-bull.

"It is called adaptation not evolution in color adaptation.

I also might add their is no evidence of cross species muation like a lizard/cow or some such nonsense."

Are you nuts? I'll assume that you meant 'there' and 'mutation'... although using the correct words is a much more effective way of gaining credibility. We learned basic homophone usage in second grade - I suggest refreshing your memory on the subject.

Adaptation is a form of evolution - since the genes change between the starting specimen and the ending one. Gene shuffling IS a classic hallmark of evolution. You don't get that your own statement actually backed up mine, versus your desired opposite outcome.

Will it take an eyewitness account of BearManPig before some of you 'head in the sand' people get the fact that the world we live in is a dynamic source of creation. It was not just that one instant when the creativity happened - it is happening every day. You can attribute that to a divine source if you feel the need, but do deny what is happening every day around us is truly sad.

Where in the bible does it say that the world is not meant to keep changing and improving itself over time? Oh yeah, NOWHERE.

You're not spouting anything from any truly works - rather you're spouting the opinion of a closed minded schmuck from back around the time of Darwin who couldn't wrap their puny brain around the concept of infinity and what it REALLY means.

I hope you enjoy your head in the sand, as it's up to you to open your eyes and see the magnificence of infinity around us each and every day. Those of us who understand that science and religion can peacefully live side by side already see it.

edit: 'do deny'-> 'to deny' and 'truly works' -> ''truly religious works' (i.e. Bible, etc)

It's just so entertaining to observe the 'faithful in man' mocking the wisdom of the Bible.

Every time psuedo-science changes it's mind, I admit I giggle a bit. ;)

Elemental, we can agree with the wisdom of the Bible and still accept real science. There doesn't need to be a confict. It is only when you insist on the literal truth of the Bible (nothing to do with wisdom), that you have a conflict. It is only when religion tries to answer scientific questions, or science tried to answer religious questions, that we get into trouble.

Jock, I think you are aware that I think science is fantastic. I just disagree with you on the definition.

Evolution is NOT based in true science.

Most believers in GOD have no issues with gaining knowledge as your peers seem to always falsly imply.

"Evolution is NOT based in true science."

It wasn't until the DNA revolution over the past few decades. It was based upon what was observed. Like all fields when they start out, you have a box of puzzle pieces and you need to try and figure out how the actually fit together.

With DNA technology we've been able to do that. Of course we're still learning more, and are still decades if not centuries away from knowing all there is to know about DNA, but your assertions are about as wrong as possible.

Now we've clearly noticed some of the genes that have changed from one species to it's descendants and "cousins". We've clearly shown how certain mutations caused one series of critters while the non-mutated form went off to form the basis of another related but different set if critters. Each of those in turn diverged from that common ancestor in a different mutation (or series).

Say whatever you want, but sequencing the genome of a series of related species and seeing where the divergence occurred is about as true science as one can get.

You really need to stop replying to this discussion - every post you prove your ignorance more and more.

chouse

"Evolution is NOT based in true science."

It wasn't until the DNA revolution over the past few decades. It was based upon what was observed. Like all fields when they start out, you have a box of puzzle pieces and you need to try and figure out how the actually fit together.

With DNA technology we've been able to do that. Of course we're still learning more, and are still decades if not centuries away from knowing all there is to know about DNA, but your assertions are about as wrong as possible.

Now we've clearly noticed some of the genes that have changed from one species to it's descendants and "cousins". We've clearly shown how certain mutations caused one series of critters while the non-mutated form went off to form the basis of another related but different set if critters. Each of those in turn diverged from that common ancestor in a different mutation (or series).

Say whatever you want, but sequencing the genome of a series of related species and seeing where the divergence occurred is about as true science as one can get.

You really need to stop replying to this discussion - every post you prove your ignorance more and more.

Any evidence of a species turning into a an entirely new species in all that ? No denying changes with in a species through natural selection, but they still remain the same species. You have proof showing your so called genes changing and gaining new information that allows a species to turn into something else completely ?

"You have proof showing your so called genes changing and gaining new information that allows a species to turn into something else completely ?"

Read my post again.

Yes, showing that the genes have shifted between the parent species and the child ones is direct proof of that. And we have indeed found some samples in amber - sort of like was shown on Jurassic Park... although that has been limited to insect and microbe DNA and not dinosaur DNA. That allowed them to compare very distant relations.

Sooner or later they will find even older samples and so even close minded people like you will have to slap yourselves for gross intentional ignorance.

You need to keep up on science if you're going to try and mock it.

You seriously don't know what you're talking about.

addendum: and you seem to think that one species just turned on a dime into some completely different one.

That's not what happened... over time various species slowly shifted from the parent species into other long extinct creatures, some of which eventually changed into those species we see in the modern world.

canary-in-the-coal-mine

so let's explain a flood event - there is EVIDENCE thatthe black sea was about 700 feet or so deeper than it is NOW about 8000 years ago - there is evidence of villages below the de-oxygenated water level at about 700 feet depth. There is ALSO evidence that this event was initiated by a breach of the Dardanelles and inflow from the MED (over a roughly 700 feet high waterfall) and that the inflow FROM the Med continues today with evidence of an undersea current of salt water (and plenty of boulders from the erosion of the Dardanelles) So take a 700 foot drop of a massive influx of water and what do you get? Spray, and RAIN (lots of it) - so it took maybe 40 days to backfill the BLACK SEA that 700 feet (maybe a bit more but once the levels started equalizing, the misting would stop)

There's your "worldwide flood, folks - a LOCALIZED EVENT interpreted as worldwide (because those uneducated people so many thousands of years ago didn't KNOW any better - and of course, it was written into DOGMA - mistakenly - as a worldwide event - remember these people didn't usually go mare than 20 miles from where they were BORN - so those 4 corners of the earth were say, 40 miles away)

Of course, this makes way too much SENSE and conflicts with idiotic believers' sense of continuity as to what is "written" in their buy-bull.

Give it a rest on your localized main stream world view. You cant seem to accept that there is overwhelming evidence for global flooding .

Also the Old Testament didnt steal the idea of a biblical flood. It was an event that was recorded in many religions.

IF a biblical flood happened , would they not be recorded in history around the world ?

Its so easy for you to just come on here and say local flood, or spout a worldwide flood is nonsense, but honestly , I kind of wonder about your lack of knowledge about the evidence for a world wide flood.

chouse

"You have proof showing your so called genes changing and gaining new information that allows a species to turn into something else completely ?"

Read my post again.

Yes, showing that the genes have shifted between the parent species and the child ones is direct proof of that. And we have indeed found some samples in amber - sort of like was shown on Jurassic Park... although that has been limited to insect and microbe DNA and not dinosaur DNA. That allowed them to compare very distant relations.

Sooner or later they will find even older samples and so even close minded people like you will have to slap yourselves for gross intentional ignorance.

You need to keep up on science if you're going to try and mock it.

You seriously don't know what you're talking about.

Chouse, im not mocking anything. How can you even say such a thing ? IM asking you where is the evidence, the proof, of a species turnign into another complete different kind. Into something new and different. I keep asking you the proof, show me an example, and you just keep beating around the bush.

Its so easy for many to just take what mans word is, and not use any self thinking to see what is really true and what is false. So many of you reject it because if there were a God , then you know you would be accountable to him for what your doing in life.

I dont force religion on anyone, I take much joy in trying to show Gods love for all of us, and making sure people know that God loved all of us so much that he sent his son to die for us on the cross. But at no time do i say you need to believe that. That is your choice, and I hope that one day you find God in your hearts.

OK, crossfit, so where's this "overwhelming evidence" you speak of? In the writing of, some or a few, religious books? And, do NOT refer me to creation.org or some other fanciful site. I want REAL evidence that's been peer reviewed and posted in a legitimate scientific journal.

"IM asking you where is the evidence, the proof, of a species turnign into another complete different kind. Into something new and different. I keep asking you the proof, show me an example, and you just keep beating around the bush."

You clearly cannot read.

It does not turn from a lizard to a fish overnight.

There are dozens if not hundreds of intermediate species in between.

We have not found a good fossilized example of each and every one of those intermediate species.

We have, however, found many clear telltale specimens that show the emergence of new features - such as the evolution of cetaceans to lose their pelvis over time. That has been VERY CLEARLY demonstrated.

But that's not enough for you yokels to accept without trying to say that's somehow beating around the bush.

Get a clue!

What's wrong chouse?

Don't like logic being used against you the way you try and mock the Bible's wisdom?

Spare us the fancy fish stories...it's getting really old.

You have no logic whatsoever - while I quite clearly gave you deniers all a very clear cut example of evolution in action. Even that's not enough for you, so all I will say is enjoy those pills, bud.

It's obvious you're not taking them, as you have some pathetic notion that one species molts its skin and is immediately a completely different one. Nobody ever claimed it worked that way, but small minded people like you want to pretend that's how it works.

As with so many things about this world, you could not be more incorrect.

You must be confusing me with somebody else - I never mocked the wisdom of the Bible, just the ignorance of those who think they can literally interpret a work that was written in a language they cannot read, in a time with far different customs and where many of the terms are clearly misinterpreted by your type.

I happen to think the Bible is a great work - it has lots of inspiration to get out of it, but unfortunately a lot of dumb people who cannot read Koine Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew claim it says all sorts of things that it doesn't....

Chouse thats not concrete evidence. Its best guesses, and assumptions. Just like religious people holding onto their faith in God, you all have a religion of holding onto faith in world view with out God.

GarrettB

OK, crossfit, so where's this "overwhelming evidence" you speak of? In the writing of, some or a few, religious books? And, do NOT refer me to creation.org or some other fanciful site. I want REAL evidence that's been peer reviewed and posted in a legitimate scientific journal.

Garret, I dont need religion Books to show anything. I see what science can show. The evidence I have read about are from scientists. They have their degrees in their fields. You dont want to see any other view because it might hold you accountable if God is in the picture.

Still waiting for this evidence that can show step by step of how the universe came into existence, simple matter formed, simple non life that turned into life, dna appearing, amino acids, simple gaining complex information and turning into more and more complex beings, and then eventually being able to use logic and reason, also where is evolution in action now with the human race we turning into green space men next with telepathic powers ? SHEW.. who is using more faith here guys in what they believe ?

"Chouse thats not concrete evidence. Its best guesses, and assumptions. Just like religious people holding onto their faith in God, you all have a religion of holding onto faith in world view with out God."

Excuse me? Who ever claimed there was no god? Certainly not me. I know there's something out there personally - so don't confuse the issues at hand here. Understanding of the divine does not preclude the desire to understand how the creation unfolded.

It unfolded via evolution... clearly because that was how it was supposed to unfold.

I haven't bothered to explain my beliefs here previously due to the fact that so many of the young earth people don't get it through their heads that some of the best scientists out here actually do believe. You'd be shocked to know how well educated I am in the worlds religions and spirituality in general.

Being a scholar of both fields so to speak make it very obvious that there is something out there. Instead of obsessing over poorly translated phrases from some ancient book, however, I spend my time trying to understand this amazing universe.

Unfortunately the people who are so damn afraid of Infinity to understand how old this universe and world are tend to listen to a series of completely uneducated hillbillies from the 1800s who pulled all sorts of preposterous ideas out of the bible that JUST AREN'T TRUE!

As to your rant at Garret - you really are either very very closed minded and extremely sad and lonely person - or you're trolling here. Some of the things that you would ask a scientist to prove are JUST as outlandish and offensive as demanding that a christian invoke their deity and demand they make a personal appearance or else you won't believe it exists. JUST as offensive and closed minded.

Read some science. Realize that it doesn't contradict the bible at all... just remember that a day in the eye of the divine is surely not a monkey day. It's billions of years.

It's even more of a guess that we were popped down here as we are now and never change.

Garret, I dont need religion Books to show anything. I see what science can show. The evidence I have read about are from scientists. They have their degrees in their fields. You dont want to see any other view because it might hold you accountable if God is in the picture.

Good job dodging the question and completely going around the subject. IF you REALLY have read anything concerning geology, and had a grasp of basic geology, you'd realize the flood, noah and the ark, Earth only being 6ky old, etc etc etc is nothing more than stories, myths, fables and have zero scientific bearing.

Chouse has given you example after example, along with others here, of how the natural world works. How everything has gotten to this point through a series of steps that has taken an extremely long time. You call others "closed-minded" when in fact it is YOU who is EXTREMELY "closed-minded". You want evidence, but provide none yourself. When asked for that proof you say you've seen it and don't believe it. IF this is true then there's NOTHING more that any of us can tell you.

You all keep saying you are giving me examples, I see nothing yet.. Im stating again what I said above. You need to be able to explain how we came into existence, the universe, how life started, how it turned into more and more complex beings over time, and eventually us, and then what we are turning into next.. Or the half human half ape people that should be walking around now since evolution should be staggered of different colonies of species evolving at different periods of time.

Your naturalistic world view doesnt impress me one bit. Its open to rebuttal, and flaws because if can never include the idea of God making everything. Species evolving to adapt to their environment we see all the time, species evolving into complete new species is another story.

All i see in peer review, is perhaps, maybe, its possibles.. more then i can count on my fingers and toes. Not to mention what ever you come up with , it will be changed in a few years. I know that is how science works, you go with what you got until something better comes along. But call me naive but I would rather believe in something that never changes, stays true to its word, and makes us into better human beings.

Look at this great USA we have now guys because of so many of you trying to take religion away. Your lal digging your own graves and too blind to see the harm your all causing spreading your lies of a world with no God. Species turning into complete other species. Its all non sense, no evidence, and yet you all keep spewing the garbage here on these forums. IM not the one who is close minded, I am the one who is open minded, because I see both sides, and your alls has nothing to support it.

You see nothing, Cross, because you don't WANT to see! It's soooo much easier for you to live in a world where you have an answer for EVERYTHING. That answer being 'god did it'.

NOBODY is trying to take religion away. It's just more people have noticed the contradictions in religion. It is actually religion which is driving people away from religion. Whether you want to believe/see that it is or not.

And, NOBODY, claims to know how life started. We have a pretty good idea of how it did, but not an absolute answer in the way you want it. That's your problem, Cross, you deal in absolutes and science deals in very high probabilities. As in life forms evolving over long periods of time is a very VERY high probability. IF something else comes along to sway the mainstream, it may take quite awhile to change opinions, but with enough evidence it will change.

THAT is what you say you understand, but from your posts I can tell you truly don't. We are in NO WAY spreading lies! What we are spreading is the truth as to what the most current evidence is telling us. That is the plain and simple absolute truth. Whether or not you contemplate any of this is up to you. Also, from this point forward, I'm not sure if I'll reply to anymore of your posts unless I see that you REALLY are interested in seeing the world from my (our) viewpoint. If not, no hard feelings and, sincerely, peace be with you.

And its so easy for you too Garret to see nothing because you live in a naturalistic world where there can be no God. Its all numbers to you, with out any notion that there could be a creator. You cant see the the world with God in it because then you will see that your accountable to God.

As i said again and again, your still not showing anything to convince me. This isnt even a debate, its just firing back and forth at each other. Yes I do see some things as absolute. Absolutes do exist. You all act like I dont even consider science and just go by the bible. I keep up with science from both views. I may not be able to do the science myself, because im not a scientist, and most on here are not themselves, but I leave all that knowledge up to the scientists and I read what they have to say. If you have a scientist claiming what he thinks happened and shows his evidence, and then another scientist claiming what he thinks and shows his evidence, then I have to decide which makes more sense. The entire big bang, non life into life, particles becoming complex beings and here we are today is just as much as a fairy tale to me as you all think God is one. Thats ok though, you live in your world and I live in mine. I hope that one day you see that your all following a lie by men and mainstream. They dont allow you all to think for yourselves, else your ridiculed and outcasted. I am free to see both views, one makes sense, the other is full of problems. I have no hard feeling toward anyone. I am here to defend the bible, and show the fallacy of evolution.

"I am here to defend the bible, and show the fallacy of evolution."

Why is it that you are so closed minded to think that only one of them is correct? You claim to see both sides but that's a lie based on what you have been saying.

Seriously, explain yourself...

Otherwise you ARE just a troll.

Is that what you guys do when we don't parrot your religion of men?

Call people trolls?

So predictable...

No really, you are trolling... unless you explain yourself. Now.

All you are is "show me, show me, show me" without one bit of actual thought in your own posts. There has been a ton of well thought out posts explaining everything that is possible to explain from those of us who can see both sides of the topic, and from others who may be atheist but at least they do so with no false pretense and good logic.

Throw down or shut up. Now.

Explain yourself. You claim to see both sides of the topic - so tell us your rationale - or go away.

Cross, you remind me of me when I first started taking algebra courses many years ago. For the life of me I could not understand how, after 10 lines of equation, an answer could possibly be -2 or 0 or something of that manner. It just did NOT make sense! Years later I tried again with a different mindset, a mindset of I didn't care what the answer was as long as I got the equation and the answer correct. And, it worked perfectly for me.

Now, I am in NO WAY trying to tell you how to live your life. Only that if you take a step back and stop dealing in proof positive, absolute, without a shred of doubt, laser point logic, you might see things from a different perspective. Am I asking you to step away from your faith? ABSOLUTELY NOT. All I'm trying to do, IMHO, is give you advise in order for you to see things the way I do.

I have been on your side of the fence, and for whatever reason, it just wasn't for me. I know the difference between right and wrong, moral and immoral. I make my choices based on the knowledge and the circumstances at that moment. I don't make my choices based on whether or not it's going to effect my chances of getting into heaven. IF IF, there really is a god, and that god is as loving and caring as said to be then it will understand that. It will not ask me to explain myself because it should already know the answer. It should base my entrance into the 'promised land' on how I lived my life and treated others while I was here. Period.

And, MENTAL, ANOTHER post of absolutely worthless and pointless dribble. Exactly predictable.

How do you know that "Evolution" wasn't part of your God's design? The idea that anyone professes to literally understand the Bible, is missing the true purpose of the writings. As a Christian, I believe and respect the physical rules of this planet. The idea that you can't accept the physics of evolution while honoring God is well.....narrow.

Whatever GarretB.....good thing we have calculators eh?

What would you do without them. ;)

No really.. explain yourself or go away Elemental1... stop trying to take pot shots - you just prove you're trolling with every post!

How about you answer Crossfit's very simple question. Oh wait...you can't.

You have NO PROOF!

Confusing who you meant to reply to TROLL? Crossfit never asked me a question.

You're the one who has the explaining to do you TROLL.

They cant answer it because they cant show how every things started, how every thing evolved from one thing into another. They have best guesses, which I respect, but when it comes down to the foundation of proof , there is none. I dont know about you but I am making sure I know that God exists, and I follow my life according to him. My life is great, and I love the one who created this universe, and died for my sins.

Number one reason why so many of you reject is because you all have an issue with God himself and the bible.

Well, MENTAL, I don't need a calculator to add up your IQ points. I can do that with one hand! Better still, I can do it with one finger. Can you guess which one?

Aw...such a good Samaritan you are. ;)

Crossfit's still waiting for your high IQ wisdom also.

Care to engage him or just run away again..huh guys?

They cant answer it because they cant show how every things started, how every thing evolved from one thing into another. They have best guesses, which I respect, but when it comes down to the foundation of proof , there is none.

And what is your proof, Crossfit?

"They have best guesses, which I respect, but when it comes down to the foundation of proof , there is none."

No Proof YET, you mean, unlike your beliefs (in WHICH god was it? The one with lightening bolts, or head of a hawk -or one of the millions of others).

Now for something completely diff..er...... The Same:

This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:

John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"

John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the @!$%# out of you."

Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His ass."

Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"

Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"

Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."

Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"

John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."

Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"

Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the @!$%# out of you."

Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"

John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."

Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"

John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

Mary: "Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."

Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"

John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"

Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the @!$%# out of you."

Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."

Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

Me: "Then how do you kiss His ass?"

John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."

Me: "Who's Karl?"

Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times.

Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"

John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

________________________________________________________

From the Desk of Karl

1. Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.

2. Use alcohol in moderation.

3. Kick the @!$%# out of people who aren't like you.

4. Eat right.

5. Hank dictated this list Himself.

6. The moon is made of green cheese.

7. Everything Hank says is right.

8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.

9. Don't use alcohol.

10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.

11. Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the @!$%# out of you.

_______________________________________________________

Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."

Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."

Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."

Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."

Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the @!$%# out of people just because they're different? "

Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

Me: "How do you figure that?"

Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"

Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."

Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."

John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."

Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."

Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."

Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."

John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"

Me: "We do?"

Mary: "Of course we do, Item 7 says so."

Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"

John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."

Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"

Mary: She blushes.

John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."

Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"

John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."

Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"

Mary: She looks positively stricken.

John: He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"

Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"

Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."

John: "That's disgusting. Only some so

....... sort of evil deviant would eat that..."

Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."

Mary: She faints.

John: He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the @!$%# out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."

With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off

Sounds an awful lot like the Jehovah's Witnesses mixed with a Scieno! At least when the Mormons wake you up on a weekend, they are generally at least sort of respectful - although drinking coffee is a sin (??? LOL !!!) to them.

On a different note, that TROLL Elemental1 keeps posting inflammatory messages with absolutely ZERO meat, facts, or anything of substance whatsoever. I suggest we all just ignore their posts altogether - too bad there isn't a 'ignore this user' feature here, as that's a troll if there ever has been one.

At least somebody who was serious about their convictions would try and explain themselves - while that person just constantly tries to spin it about on the other person (TonyInDallas in more recent postings) without even bothering to actually try to answer the question.

Hey!...what?

You guys watch too many episodes of the Sopranos.

Maybe you'd like to shut me up with the Iron Maiden also?

LOL...and you guys say you have no religion. ;)

Iron Maiden! Excellent!! *air guitar*

Elemental if you actually believed what you were saying, that would be one thing - but you're clearly trolling. Deal with it.

Funny..I think the same thing about you and evolution. ;)

TROLL! (there...that feels better)

*Sigh*

"Funny..I think the same thing about you and evolution"

No you clearly don't think... you just spout out whatever you think some Jesus Freak would have to say on the matter, minus the fact that since you clearly don't understand their perspective you can't even come up with a legitimate argument (not necessarily making it actually correct, but at least it's not completely ludicrous) that they would perhaps be able to come up with.

You're just a worthless troll.

Somebody serious would actually have something of substance to reply with, not some childish attempt at a flame.

You may fool some, but the fact that you're just a TROLL is very obvious. It's just unfortunate that MSNBC tolerates people like you.

Fool some?

Well you are not fooling anybody with your moronic drivel.

NEXT!

?

Good response Lou. That is what I would expect from someone like you. A question mark. It is a great pity that you don't do a bit more questioning of your world view.

Check out www.answersingenesis.com. They can tear your beliefs and theories to shreds.

Name one theory of Ken Ham's and I'll shoot it down in three minutes of typing. At MOST, depending on whether or not I have to reply to a cell phone message as I'm typing it.

Sorry, I'm not the scientist. You know, yourself, and are afraid, to actually confront the REAL scientists. The ones who show how all of creation supports the Biblical account of it.

Why don't you go to www.answersingenesis.com to get the answers? I already said that you can get the best answers there and in the ones that I am NOW going to get. I'll be back with a list.

I'm back. The other site I'm referring you to is www.icr.org. The Institute for Creation Research. So if you can't find what you are looking for at Answers in Genesis, you can check out the Institute for Creation Research.

Like I said, make a claim (or borrow one from those sites), and I'll shoot it down. But you're not going to get away with just directing me to websites (ones I've already read and laughed at many times). You have to make an argument publicly, and I will be more than happy to point out how your argument is wrong. But you have to present it publicly.

I have checked out both in the past Lou...and they are as reluctant to accept reality and true science as you are. There is absolutely no proof of creationism. s

You have to understand that many of us have been there, done that, when it comes to religion. And then you want us to believe that this creator of the universe put us on this out of the way planet, orbiting an ordinary star, within an average galaxy...and then...created us knowing we would fall short...and then he cast us out of the garden, and then, we grew and multiplied, and then we fell short again if you can believe it, and then, he killed almost everything and everyone save for what must have been a quite incestuous group of relatives with this humongous flood....yep, that explains everything.

Lou, please go and educate yourself, we have heard all this stuff before, time and time again.

how about, God exists?

Without evidence, there's no reason to consider that hypothesis.

Evidence. Personal experience does not show evidence.. but they fail to believe anyhow.

yah know lou, it would be beneficial to you IF you would take a CRITICAL look at your sources rather than blindly accepting them as factual. They are just so much bull sh it