http://www.koti.phnet.fi/elohim/theory_of_evolution3

One thing that has considerably affected people's conception of the world, during the last 150 years, is evolution which is assumed to have taken place from primitive shapes of lives towards more and more complex structures. Charles Darwin is regarded as the father of this theory and his book "The Origin of Species", which was published in 1859, is his most important work and deals with this matter.

But what are we to think about this theory and its truthfulness? Is it really true or not? We are going to examine this matter in the coming lines, and to start with also look at the best evidences of the theory, such as the archaeopteryx, the evolution of the horse and other proof. Then we will move on to other sides of this theory. Perhaps, through this examination, you will see the theory of evolution in a different light.

Great. More snake oil from a Creationist.
Let me guess, you have a bridge in Cuba to sell us, as well?

From the link:

From the top. I am not going to bother refuting the entire thing, since it is silly. We can show that by looking at some of the very first paragraphs.

Archaeopteryx i.e. the lizard bird

Really...Now what does it really mean:
Archaeopteryx meaning "ancient feather"

archaio = ancient + pteryx = variously translated as wing, feather, or more specifically pinion

Already with the opening sentence, our creationists go wrong. And why?

Archaeopteryx i.e. the lizard bird, which is regarded as the intermediate form between lizards and birds, has been seen as one of the signs of evolution.

Intermediate between lizards and birds???

No, Archaeopteryx shows that birds evolved from DINOSAURS. Are lizards dinosaurs?

Lizards are reptiles of the order Squamata, which they share with the snakes (Ophidians). (wiki)

How did the creationist get his facts wrong already in the opening paragraph? Obviously, either he is aiming to deceive people, or he is just missing out on some important parts of education everybody should receive.

Or he is just plain stupid:

Dinosaur.
the term is derived from the Greek words δεινός (deinos meaning "terrible", "fearsome" or "formidable") and σαύρα (saura meaning "lizard" or "reptile").

Maybe the writer is stupid enough to think dinosaurs are actually lizards. Why not? They often are. Wouldn't we prefer that notion to the one where is he purposely trying to deceive people?

So now they set up a false question:

Contrarywise, if the lizard bird really was the intermediate form between lizards and birds, a good question is why its feathers are fully developed and not half scales and half feathers? Shouldn't there be a lot of fossils like this as it is thought that the evolutionary period between reptiles and birds was about 80 million years? Where are these fossils or has there never been any evolution after all? (Or shouldn't we expect to see comparable intermediate forms now?)

Archaeopteryx has become the intermediate between lizards and birds. And they claim this is false. Duh... Of course it is.

Of course the creationist does not know how to use google. Or an encyclopedia. Nor a biology textbook. He fails therefore to see that the whole story of origin of birds isn't dependent on one fossil. No. There is a shitload of them and more are found every year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_birds

Basically we could stop reading that bullshit article now. Well, article, that is maybe a too big word for that piece of shit. But let's continue for the sake of the uneducated:

Problems in evolution. If birds originate from reptiles, then reptiles should have experienced considerable transformation in their activities and structures so as to become a bird. The following matters are problematic:
- The feathers should take the place of scales.

Once again the authors seem confused. They switched now from lizards to reptiles. They really seem to have difficulties grasping the concept of basic phylogenetic groups. We have already established that the whole premises is bullshit, but for the sake of being a good sport I picked one. The transition of scales to feathers.

Birds evolved from dinosaurs. How can that be? How can you suddenly grow feathers from scales.

Of course, the average creationist wouldn't actually bother to look at what scientists are actually saying, or what the current state of scientific knowledge is.

I have a suprise for you dumb fucks. Dinosaurs had feathers. Not all of them. But the group from which birds are supposed to evolve from had.

Didn't see that coming did you? Because you just repeat the same dumb shit over and over again, copying it from another dumb shit, who copied it from another dumb shit, you actually thought you were saying something. No. Just wasting your time and that of your readers.

Nature 440, 329-332 (16 March 2006)
A new carnivorous dinosaur from the Late Jurassic Solnhofen archipelago

The discovery of feathery integumentary coverings in a variety of coelurosaurs (for example, tyrannosauroids, compsognathids, therizinosauroids, oviraptorosaurs, alvarezsaurids and dromaeosaurids) has cemented the notion that feathers are a synapomorphy of this entire clade5, 6. Thus, the absence of feathers in Juravenator, a taxon otherwise nested within feathered coelurosaurs, is noteworthy (Fig. 4). The extent to which feathers covered the body of these non-avian dinosaurs is not well known for some taxa (for example, the tyrannosauroid Dilong21, the therizinosauroid Beipiaosaurus22, and the alvarezsaurid Shuvuuia6, 23) but complete specimens of Sinosauropteryx12, 16, the oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx23, and several dromaeosaurids24, 25, 26 indicate that the body of these animals was for the most part feathered.

That's right. There is already a shitload of papers on this. But you dumb fucks keep copying pasting the same stupid shit.

Fuck off creationists.

+rep to Spurious. Oh, SF doesn't have rep. Never mind then.

Yes

Spurious:

I have a suprise for you dumb fucks. Dinosaurs had feathers. Not all of them. But the group from which birds are supposed to evolve from had.

One word: Chicken.

Everybody can think that would accident born life, which produces eyes, which can see, and multiple organism of human body, where different body parts can by themself make very complicated things ......

Everybody who wanna be honest and don't wanna believe adults fairytales understand that evolution is a big lie and adults fairyutales.....

Only reasonable alternative is that God has planned and created a man ...

Everybody can think that would accident born life, which produces eyes, which can see, and multiple organism of human body, where different body parts can by themself make very complicated things ......

The very fact that you call it "accident" indicates that you have no idea how evolution and natural selection works. You're as bad as the trolls in the physics forum who want to disprove relativity even though they don't actually know how to work any of the problems in an introductory textbook.


Everybody who wanna be honest and don't wanna believe adults fairytales understand that evolution is a big lie and adults fairyutales.....

Only reasonable alternative is that God has planned and created a man ...
You are trying to avoid the "fairytale" of evolution by proposing that life is the result of magic. Yeah, we're really making progress here :rolleyes:

The very fact that you call it "accident" indicates that you have no idea how evolution and natural selection works. You're as bad as the trolls in the physics forum who want to disprove relativity even though they don't actually know how to work any of the problems in an introductory textbook.


You are trying to avoid the "fairytale" of evolution by proposing that life is the result of magic. Yeah, we're really making progress here :rolleyes:

Who has planned natural selection, who has planned seeing eyes and hearing ears?

lol

Clearly, the author of that website doesn't understand evolution - see here:

"If everything formed from just one single cell it is extremely hard to explain the abundance of species today. In other words, why didn't, for example, a simple cellular mass or moss fill the Earth, instead of what we see nowadays: all kinds of animals in the water, in air, on the land and also underground, and plentiful vegetation? It is difficult to explain this merely on the basis of a "simple" cell in the beginning.

On the other hand, quite a similar problem is that of complex organs and complicated structures, and whether they were ready to start with. How was it possible to survive with half-finished structures?"

Clearly, the author of that website doesn't understand evolution - see here:

"If everything formed from just one single cell it is extremely hard to explain the abundance of species today. In other words, why didn't, for example, a simple cellular mass or moss fill the Earth, instead of what we see nowadays: all kinds of animals in the water, in air, on the land and also underground, and plentiful vegetation? It is difficult to explain this merely on the basis of a "simple" cell in the beginning.

On the other hand, quite a similar problem is that of complex organs and complicated structures, and whether they were ready to start with. How was it possible to survive with half-finished structures?"

I think that author knows and understand a lot ......but how natural selections can born seeing eyes and hearing ears without intelligence and planning, just by accident?

Who has planned natural selection, who has planned seeing eyes and hearing ears?

lol


Hello mister moron,

have you noticed that your reference was written by a moron? I pointed it out to you. Instead of apologizing for posting a piece of crap you take it a step further. You post things yourself that are even more moronic.

Did you know that if someone refutes an article as being crap you should try to provide somekind of counterargument. One that does not consist of posting unrelated crap, but actually adresses the issue at hand.

regards,

someone with a working brain.

The beginning of the universe. Even all scientists believe that the present universe can't be eternal. Hence many theories have been constructed such as the big bang theory and theories about how the galaxies, stars, solar system and Earth were formed.



Life on Earth can't be eternal as the limited energy reserves of the sun prevent it. It can't have been warming us infinitely, otherwise its energy reserves would have already failed. Without the sun the temperature on Earth would be almost –273 degrees celcius i.e. a state in which everything would be frozen and life couldn't be possible.



The big bang theory is clearly the most common theory about the beginning of the universe. According to it, from one small point the volume of which was perhaps only the size of the point of a needle, the present universe came into existence: billions of galaxies, hundreds of billions of stars, the warming sun, the Earth and other planets, the mountains, seas and rivers, trees, fish, mankind, mosquitoes, birds, giraffes… A lot of faith is required to believe that all these things came from such a small space.



The birth of galaxies and stars have been the subject of discussion and the fact that gas would have suddenly started condensing and gathering into large objects is problematic. Many deny this theory. Anything, from which the revolving and rotary movements (which can be observed everywhere in space) were formed are problematic because the big bang couldn't have caused them.

Detecting the birth of these celestial bodies nowadays is also problematic. If the galaxies and stars were formed during a period of 10 – 20 billion years, according to it, every year an average of 10 new galaxies and 1000 billion new stars should be formed. Why can their birth not be detected?



In the birth of the solar system the composition of the planets and their composition compared to their moons and the sun are problematic. For example, the small inner planets are solid and composed of heavy elements while there are only light elements such as hydrogen and helium in the sun.

In addition to this, the atmospheres and movements of the planets and the moons are problematic as they are not uniform.



The birth of life . As for the question of the birth of life, there is still an abyss between the living and the lifeless material. Life has not been able to be created in laboratories, but only the materials which are connected with it. In fact, a dead body contains just the right materials, but there is no life in it.



The life birth experiments require an atmosphere free from oxygen, but the Precambrian rocks indicate there having been oxygenated iron minerals in them, in other words, there was free oxygen back then. It would also be strange if there hadn't been oxygen as there was water and water vapour together with hydrogen in those days. The composition of the atmosphere in the beginning should have also been just the opposite compared to the current; for then there was a lack oxygen and instead there was hydrogen, while the current atmosphere is opposite to this.

Another great problem in the life birth experiments is also that the water surplus would have immediately dispersed combinations back to their structural elements and the formation of proteins couldn't have succeeded.



The remains of the Cambrian period and other fossils. According to a common view, evolution has gone from a simple beginning to more and more complicated forms. However, for example the remains of the Cambrian period appear in the layers suddenly, plentifully and fully prepared and developed without simpler forms having preceded them.

Other intermediate fossils – with their half developed wings, hands, feet and senses – are missing too, even though there should be plenty of them in the ground. In the same way, observing similar intermediate fossils is difficult also nowadays.



Prokaryotes and eukaryotes are two cell types, between which no intermediate forms have been discovered, but there is a steep border between them. The latter of them have a nucleus and are about 1000 times larger than prokaryotes.



Multicellulars . There is no clear proof of multicellulars having evolved from monocellurars. Their birth is still an enigma.



The evolution of plants . Plants appear in the layers suddenly and fully developed, and it is difficult to find any preceding simpler evolution phase from the layers.



Moving from the sea onto land is a problem as how could the fish breathe, eat and reproduce on dry land?



From small to big . How was it possible for an organism the size of a bacterium or a fly to change into an elephant or other big animal?



Complicated organs such as breathing, blood circulation, digestive system and reproductive organs are problematic, if they were not ready immediately. Extinction would have been an immediate consequence.

On the other hand, the fossils found from the earth are not half- but fully developed.



Mutations . Mutations and natural selection are believed to be the factors that forward evolution.

The mutation experiments that have been made millions and millions of times for example with the banana fly have indicated that no new species has been formed. The banana fly has not changed for example into a wasp, worm or butterfly, but there are certain barriers that cannot be crossed.



Natural selection is the second factor to supposedly forward evolution. It can't, however, create anything new but it selects only from that which is old and ready. In addition to this, selection carried out by man i.e. refining, has indicated that there are certain barriers that are impossible to cross.



Archaeopteryx is used as one of the best proofs of evolution and as the intermediate form between lizards and birds. However, other birds have been found from "millions of years older" layers, and therefore it can't be the progenitor of them or an intermediate form.



The evolution series of the horse are not from the same overlapping layers, but they were collected even from different continents. Nothing proves that they are in a descending relationship with each other. Remains of the modern horse have been uncovered from older layers than the bones of Eohippus i.e. based on this Eohippus can't be the progenitor of the modern horse.



The peppered moth and bacteria that have been used as convincing arguments of evolution are, as a matter of fact, the same species all the time. For example, there is a difference only in the number of dark and light modifications of the peppered moth, but the species remains the same – such as there are long and short, black and white people. The bacteria are also not changing into other species, but it is only a question of bacteria with better resisting power and an increase in their populations.



Rudiments are one of the things which may have been used as important proof of evolution, even though nowadays it has been noted that almost all of them have their own important task. On the other hand, rudiments are not proof of evolution but of regression. Real evolution occurs only if new and useful organs are formed.



The evolution of an embryo and similar early stages are not necessarily proof of evolution. A surprise would be, rather, if all the organisms had quite different early stages. The seeds of plants can resemble each other a lot, but they still grow into very different plants.



Similar structures (in feet, hands) proves that animals were made for the same world; it is not necessarily proof of evolution. A bat wouldn't be a bat and a horse a horse if their limbs were different. What kind of a structure should animals have then and what benefit would it be to them if they were very different?



The similarity of blood has also been used as proof of evolution. However, according to it the whale and the tiger should be close relatives, such as also a man and a rat.



The Australopithecus which is regarded as a progenitor of man is, based on its skull form and on its size, clearly ape-like. The volume of its brain (400 cm3) is the same as of the modern chimpanzees and gorillas. Many researchers deny its position as a progenitor of man.



For many decades the Java Man was regarded as the most important find in this area . However, the found parts - a piece of a skull, 3 teeth and a left femur (thighbone) - were located at a distance of 15 metres from each other at best, and the sixth part i.e. a part of a mandible (jawbone) was found from the other side of the island at a distance of about 40 kilometres from the other parts. Also, in the area of the first find relics of 27 different other animals were found.

In addition to this, Eugene Dubois, who made the finds, himself said many years later that the piece of skull was the skull of a Gibbon. He also stated that bones clearly belonging to modern man were discovered from the same layers.



The Pildtown man , which for a long time was regarded as the second most important find after the Java Man and about whom over 500 dissertations were written, was a fake.



The slight evidence . It is said that there are more researchers than fossils and that all the evidence could fit in a coffin and there would still be space left over.



Modern people in older layers . One remarkable point is that several times remains of modern people have been uncovered from layers older than their fossilised forefathers – i.e. they must have been at least as old as these "old forefathers".

Lady Guadeloupe and the Calaveras-skull are examples of this. They completely resemble the remains of modern man, but they were found from layers the age of which was "25-28 million years", in other words they should be many times older than their fossilised forefathers.



The use of language is not proof of evolution, but of regression. Every known primitive tribe has its own grammar and the vocabulary of thousands of words.



The interpretation value of the red shift has been used to support the old age of the universe. However, it is significant that the retreating value was previously regarded only about a tenth of the current value. This means that the universe would have been ten times younger than the current supposed age.



The small amount of space dust for instance on the moon and on the Earth proves that they can't be tremendously old. If this nickel-ferrous dust had landed onto the moon and the Earth for about 5 billion years there should be about 50-200 meters (54-218 yards) of it on their surfaces. In fact, on the moon there is only about a few millimetres of it, which proves against long periods.



Comets. We know that most comets break down into dust during about 10,000 years. On the other hand, the fact that there still is comet movement and that there is no clear proof of the birth of new comets indicate that they cannot be 5 billion years old.



The Earth' s magnetic field loses half of its strength at intervals of about 1400 years. If the weakening of the magnetic field had continued like this for 50,000 years, then its strength would have previously been like that of a white dwarf star.



The sun's speed of contraction is, according to some examinations, about 0,1 % per century i.e. almost 38 metres per day. This would have made life on Earth impossible already less than a million years ago.



The moon drawing away . The moon is calculated to draw away from the Earth about 4,5 centimetres (1.7 inches) every year. According to these calculations the moon should have even been completely attached to the Earth about 1,4 billion years ago.



The oil pressure in oil wells indicates that their ages are 10,000 years at most.



The accumulation of sediments into river deltas and the flow of minerals into the sea are some ways to measure time. These observations don't indicate an age of billions of years but readings that are smaller many-fold i.e. from a few hundred years to some millions of years.



History of mankind . The earliest notes about the history of mankind reach only about 5000 years back in time. In addition to this, archaeological finds indicate that things like using metals, ceramics, buildings, the ability to write and farming have all come into the world simultaneously only some thousands of years ago.



Increase in population. If there were people already 16,000 years ago, and according to the present population increase, there should be about 1 099 510,000 000 people on the planet now, which is almost 200 times larger than the real figure. According to the same population increase there should have been about 5 million residents 4000 years ago, which seems to be quite a plausible estimate.



Radioactive measurements are based on assumptions that can't be proved. The best method is carbon-14 dating (organic specimens), but the Earth's magnetic field can distort the figures so that they look older than what they in fact are.

The results from these methods have varied greatly; the measured contents of stones i.e. the assumed ages, are very different (For example, the age for the Grand Canyon's "young" top most basalt strata was measured to be 270 million years more than the "thousands of millions of years old" stone stratum at the bottom of the canyon.) The contents of stones aren't necessarily in any connection with the real age.



The Earth's strata. According to the theory of evolution the Earth's strata was formed during millions of years. However, observations indicate them having formed quickly, because…



- Long tree trunks- and other fossils going through "millions of years old" strata have been uncovered. Certainly these trees are not millions of years old, but ground masses (resulting from the Flood?) have formed around them very quickly, perhaps only in a few days.



- During St Helen's volcanic eruption in 1980 a series of overlapping strata, the thickness of which was at best almost two hundred metres, formed only in a period of a few weeks. Millions of years were not needed for this, but only a few days.



- The fact that there is no erosion between the strata indicates that they formed over each other in quite a short time and not during millions of years.



- Another clear proof of the layers' fast stratification are the fossils in them. They can't form in any other way except by being buried very quickly as otherwise the plants and animals would have putrefied quickly or other animals would have eaten them. The Flood mentioned in the Bible could certainly best explain such a burying as this doesn't occur in normal conditions. Generally, researchers admit that the formation of fossils and strata can be best explained by natural disasters.



- The finds in the strata indicate that the layers can't be millions of years old. For example, a 4000 year old tree and pollen were found from the very oldest Precambrian stratum. On the other hand, items and skulls belonging to man have been discovered from "300 million year old" coal seams i.e. a time that was long before dinosaurs. Also, human skeletons from cretaceous sediments and footprints from "250 million year old" strata have been uncovered from several different places. If the strata are really this old man must also have lived then, but hardly any scientist believes in such a possibility.

Also, the remains of a trilobite were discovered under a child's footprint and under a sandal. These animals are believed to have died already long before the dinosaurs.



The geological chart is another way of finding out age. It is, however, good to notice that from no part of the world has any perfect stratigraphic sequence been found, but only parts of the sequence. For example, only five of the twelve most important strata have been found from the Grand Canyon.

The strata are also mostly in the incorrect order, many "old" strata being on top of the "younger" ones (the Alps, Pakistan, Grand Canyon), even though they should be the other way around.

It is also good to notice that this chart was originally compiled in an area which covers only a small part of the Earth and made during a time when people didn't know much about fossils in the ground.



Periods of millions of years or ecological compartments? The fossils, found from the ground, neither prove the evolution from sea onto land nor the order of evolution (1. trilobites and other organisms many of which lived on silty sea bottoms, 2. fish, 3. amphibians, 4. reptiles , 5. birds and mammals) but, rather, prove of ecological compartments and not of them having lived at different times.

Even nowadays there are sea-, marsh-, highland-, mountain- and other corresponding zones in which different animals live. It would be rather a surprise if trilobites and other animals at the bottom of the sea had lived on dry land or in the mountains. It would also be a surprise if bears, cows and other mammals had lived on the sea-beds – it certainly wouldn't have worked out. In other words, these animals can have lived simultaneously but only in different zones. Trilobites and other animals at the bottom of the sea would be buried in the lowest layers also nowadays, while the amphibia, reptiles, mammals and birds would be left above them. The places they were discovered in are not proof of evolution or that they had lived at different times on Earth, but only proves of ecological compartments.



The living fossils indicate that while determining the age of something one can make an error of millions of years .

All those 'factoids' and not a single reference. Also many assume that rates of change are constant, which is just stupid, but I guess creationists are only capable of linear sums.

Back up these claims with some links please. Try and avoid links to creationist sites, as they clearly have an agenda, and select anomalies and misinterpretations to build their theories around, not true data.

+rep to Spurious. Oh, SF doesn't have rep. Never mind then.
I know. That sucks. TWC does have a rep system, though, and I frequent that place.

The evolution series of the horse are not from the same overlapping layers, but they were collected even from different continents. Nothing proves that they are in a descending relationship with each other.
Correct. But that doesn't disprove evolution. In fact, it is incorrect to assume that the modern versions of a creature, even humans, grew in a direct line from their ancestors. Mostly, a new species arises in an area of reproductive isolation, and then moves to other places, where it may interbreed with it's own ancestors. Evolution, then, is not a tree, but a complicated bush.

The only certain method of proving relationship is DNA or various tests that require recent tissue, so the assumptions of relationship between fossil species are based on studies of bone structure and physical characteristics.

I think that author knows and understand a lot ......but how natural selections can born seeing eyes and hearing ears without intelligence and planning, just by accident?


What makes you think that the complexity of our world is an accident? You would say that the chances that our world would come out like it is is billions to one or whatever. But why is it unreasonable to accept that we're the one? Why couldn't this just be an accident? We know of tons of other stars and systems, none of which we have found intelligent life on for sure. So while the odds are against us, we aren't just an accident, simply unlikely.

I think that author knows and understand a lot ......but how natural selections can born seeing eyes and hearing ears without intelligence and planning, just by accident?

No, you are wrong, he does not understand evolution at all.

To say evolution attributes the complexity of the world to an accident is an oversimplification. Actually, what it implies is that novelty feeds on chaos. Otherwise, systems would remain very stable and stagnant.

The living fossils indicate that while determining the age of something one can make an error of millions of years .

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaa

fuck...you are just hilarious.

Who has planned natural selection, who has planned seeing eyes and hearing ears?

lol
There is no "who" and there is no "plan".

So many errors of fact in PetriFBs 'summation', that I cannot address them all here.

Does he have some other explanation? He certainly seems to believe in ancient life (dinosaurs that lived millions of years ago) in one breath, and then apparently that everything is actually very recent in another.

Apparently, he has not bothered to read the many excellent posts in biology here in sciforums (or any real science textbook), or he would have seen the posts by Valich and others pertaining to the recent find of a fossilized fish with front legs instead of fins that could raise its head out of water, and the progression of fossils giving rise to tetrapods from fish.

Valich and I have also had posted excellent information on the changes from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, inferred by cellular chemistry, etc. [And no, they do not make good fossils because they have no hard parts, so one would not expect to find fossils].

But, just to humor Petri, he might wish to ponder on 'why' the laws of physics are exactly as they are, which allowed for the development of a solar system wherein evolution was possible, giving rise to sentient beings including people, 'created' by evolution in a rather pleasing (or, at least to my eye) image, which many say is the image of the 'creator'.

At first sit down and think .....how natural selections succeed to build up seeing eyes and hearing ears, without intelligence and plans and Creator who put things together?

Secondly evolution science uses words like assumption and estomation and about ......no fact there, but only assumptions.... how brightly thinking man can believe assumptions?

There needed much more faith to believe evolution theory than the Bible ...

According to those who believe to evolution theory:

All plants and animals are result of slow development. By accident from dead material born initial cell happened copying faults, thanks to cell database grew and million years later diversified. Stronger cells ate weak cells and like this better survived to increase and to diversify. In some phase was born original form of plants, after every fern phases formed various increase alternatives and finally also basic form of apple and so on. At the same time by accident developed other kind of living organisms. For those developed by way of accident and mutations senses and to moving necessary limbs. In some phase they noticed by accident for colourful changed blossom of plants and knew by accident tempting fragrance, which plants spread. Developed ecological system of apple plant and insects co-operation.

Difficulty to evolution is, that researchers have not found any intermediate form for indication about development of millions different plants and species of animals. Known fact is, that assumed development events are among other things against following law of nature: law of thermodynamics, law from the birth of life and law from information (increasing of information by itself). Cell activity regulating Dna-program does not accept addition of information, which comes from outside, which is to evolution theory also large difficulty. It, that over 99% from observed mutations are harmfuls, and yet any improving competitiveness individual mutation have not found. Evolution believers say that this shouldn't shake to believe to evolution. Also not it, that nature selection doesn’t improve kinds, but selection is directed only already existing kinds.

Despite from all conflicts they wanna believe, that accident, mutations and nature selection are efficient elemental force, which had been ability and skill bring about this beautiful world, in which we live. Fossils, all living marks and natural phenomenons would come to explain thus, that they support evolution theory and this belief would come to move also all possible ways to next generations.

So we see how some people believe to deception and things which are impossible ......

But everybody can choose his way and he is in charge of about his life ... and one day he has to face his Creator ...

petri
a question for you
are there any naturaly occuring chemicals that can alter genes?

Difficulty to evolution is, that researchers have not found any intermediate form for indication about development of millions different plants and species of animals.
Scientists have proved the principle of the thing. It would be interesting, but it's not necessary to find a fossilized representation of all intermediate forms. Scientists have found intermediate forms of human beings... ape-like creatures that were bipedal, but had small brains.

It is unlikely for any living to fossilize at all, and it becomes increasingly more likely the longer a creature survives as a species. Intermediate forms are short lived, since when an animal discovers some new trick, that immediately confers an advantage, which increases it's number, which increases it's diversity and opportunity for further rapid evolution. For instance, once a bug started to use it's paddle-shaped limbs for flying instead of scooting across the water, in the blink of an eye, they spread out to fill ecosystems that were previously unavailable to them. The time spent inventing a new use for it's limbs was comparatively small.

Did you know that the bones of the inner ear were originally jawbones?
Why are there no fossil humans for most of the history of life on Earth? You only find them later than 3 million years or so.

There needed much more faith to believe evolution theory than the Bible ...

So, I suppose it means absolutely nothing to you that evolution has been observed in nature? In other words, YOU too can observe evolution.

Or, would you prefer to ignore what you can observe and continue to believe in what you can't?

petri
a question for you
are there any naturaly occuring chemicals that can alter genes?

Question for you .. how elements of life can formulate right order, that life can born and without laboratory enviroment, but natural selections?

And who has planned those elements that they fit perfectly together?

Known fact is, that assumed development events are among other things against following law of nature: law of thermodynamics
Does not apply, since Earth is not a closed system. In the entire system of the observable universe, chaos is increasing. The order that life represents is so statistically small, that it doesn't upset the average.

law from the birth of life
What is that?

law from information (increasing of information by itself). Cell activity regulating Dna-program does not accept addition of information, which comes from outside, which is to evolution theory also large difficulty
The difference between one species and another lies in relatively small percentages of change in DNA. Some sections of DNA code are protected to some degree by redundancy, they are the parts that generally lead to death if altered. Evolution is very, very dumb, but since it is slightly smarter than pure randomness, it accumulates.

If you are proposing that the rise of living things is too complex for anything but God to be the cause, then you are calling God an idiot.

Question for you .. how elements of life can formulate right order, that life can born and without laboratory enviroment, but natural selections?

And who has planned those elements that they fit perfectly together?
why are you afraid to answer the question i posed?

Spidergoat:

That migration of jaw-bones to the inner-ear region is believed to have occurred even possibly before development of the amphibians. It is quite an interesting motion. Inclusion of those bones in a more primitive ear certainly would have increased the ability of the inner ear to transmit sound.

Of course, the creationists' "explanation" for everything is that there is no explanation, but it was just made that way, by magic. Light traveling through interstellar space magically appeared en-route, to make it appear as if it had been travelling for millions of years. Radioactive decays used for dating just magically appeared in the proper ratios to make it appear as if the ages agree with their accompanying fossils, etc. Extinct species with progressively more primitive traits (e.g. those extinct fish that had front legs and feet, but were still gill-breathing fish) appearing in progressively older layers of rock are but examples of a vast 'flood' that wiped out all of those species suddenly.

The creationists believe that their god set about to create a world that would fool everyone into believing that there can be an orderly explanation of things, when in fact their god is just 'testing' us to see if we will be fooled by the world in which we live, and our powers of logic to analyze that world. If we fail that test, and instead believe the world to be explainable by rational thought, then we are doomed to their god's hell, whatever they believe that to be.

Anyway, it is difficult to argue with closed minds who are unwilling to look at the vast body of evidence (not just biology, but geology, chemistry, astrophysics, etc.) that all fits quite well with evolution, and for which the only other explanation is magic, which we know is no explanation at all.

To my way of thinking, God is the journey, not just the destination, and the method of the journey is provided by rational thought.

P.S. Are you in a race with Q for the number of posts? He's ahead by 69!

Question for you .. how elements of life can formulate right order, that life can born and without laboratory enviroment, but natural selections?

What 'order' do you refer? There are millions of species on the planet, with millions more now extinct, all quite diverse from each other. Your question does not make sense.

And who has planned those elements that they fit perfectly together?

What 'fits together' perfectly? You need to clarify your questions.

The theory of evolution may not be entirely true. However, the basic theory has held up after being tested time and time again by scientists. That's why it's called a theory. ;) There maybe be some details that are debateable, but they will be sorted out eventually.

Evolution itself, however, is true.

PetriFB:

At first sit down and think .....how natural selections succeed to build up seeing eyes and hearing ears, without intelligence and plans and Creator who put things together?

Have you sat down and thought about this? Or have you just read some Creationist web sites and taken what they said as gospel?

Here's something you probably don't know about the evolution of eyes. Let me know if this helps you.

The eye is thought to have evolved from scratch over 40 times in the evolutionary history of the Earth. Even today, there are living creatures with many different kinds of eyes.

Things did not go from no eye to a full, complex eye like you have, in an instant. The evolution of the complex eyes takes place over many generations, with small beneficial changes gradually accumulating - as in all aspects of selective evolution.

The simplest possible "eye" consists of just a bunch of cells which are slightly light-sensitive. An animal with this kind of eye can't distinguish shapes or objects, but can tell the direction light comes from.

The next step is for the light sensitive cells to become recessed in a "pit" of some kind, in an animal's head - like an eye socket. Animals with this kind of eye have better ability to discern the direction of a light source.

The next step is for the pit to almost close over, so that the eye is now like a pin-hole camera. Animals with this type of eye have a crude imaging ability.

The final step is for the eye to develop a lens, which increases its ability to form sharp images.

There are examples of all these types of eyes in different living things which are alive today. So, we can see all stages of the evolution - we don't need to guess how things happen.

Is a "plan" or "Creator" needed for any of this? No. Suppose a species of animal has just light-sensitive cells. Now, just by chance some of those animals will be born with their eyes slightly recessed into their heads - just like human beings are born with faces that look different from each other.

If a slightly-recessed eye is just a bit better at ensuring an animal's survival than a mere light-sensitive patch, then animals with recessed eyes will, over many generations, come to dominate the population, since the animals which only have light-sensitive patches will die off. And so, we have gone from a situation where few animals have recessed eyes to one where most of the population has recessed eyes.

Can you start to see how evolution really works?

Only reasonable alternative is that God has planned and created a man ...
You're replacing an observed phenomenon which you refuse to accept with a very shoddy and extremely unscientific explanation of how each organism came to be the way it is today.

First of all, you assume that a supernatural force exists without some sort of real evidence. Second of all, you build off this assumption before even attempting to find scientific evidence for it by further assuming that this supernatural force can deliberately control the natural universe, and futher, does deliberately control it. Third of all, you are assuming the existence of one very particular supernatural power whose very nature is very much debated. This is a very illogical way of thinking. You need to keep your explanations of the way things work simple, stupid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor).

That issue aside, you seem to think that the issue is whether or not the Earth's organisms evolve. Well, you missed that debate. It's long over. Both micro- and macroevolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Hawthorn_fly) have been observed by scientists. It's a fact of life that life evolves. What you should be debating is the validity of the explanation of how evolution happens. That is what the theory of evolution is.

Read about evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution). May I direct you specifically to the evidence of evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Evidence_of_evolution) and the common misunderstandings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Misunderstandings_about_modern_evolution ary_biology) about modern evolutionary biology?

Can you start to see how evolution really works?
I would like to add, for those who need to know, that James R's explanation is an example of change in the heritable traits of a population over successive generations, as determined by the shifting allele frequencies of genes, which is powered by natural selection. And this is the very definition of evolution.

If evolution isn't "true," then how do you explain all of the selectively bred dogs. We minipulate evolution to get specific results.

If evolution isn't "true," then how do you explain all of the selectively bred dogs. We minipulate evolution to get specific results.
but the 'we' in this case are intelligent

so if God was the intelligent designer, then He set foot on this Earth forcing certain reptiles and eventually primates to breed to form the humans we have evolved to in this day? This intelligent design theory of Creationists doesn't hold. I think the natural selection sounds better than God breeding humanoids over millions of years.

Hei PetriFB,

In case you didn't realize I refuted the article you posted a link to already in my first post. I wonder why you didn't give a rebuttal. I showed the article was written by someone who didn't even have basic understanding of simple scientific principles, and moreover was totally wrong in about important facts.

Were you too busy to respond?

The article proposed that feathers couldn't have evolved out of the scales from lizards.

I corrected this by stating that nobody in the scientific community thinks birds evolved from lizards. They evolved from Dinosaurs.

Then i actually raised the rather embarrasing fact for you that dinosaurs existed with feathers.

Your job is now simple. Just refute the fact that dinosaurs didn't have feathers.

You can review the following article and destroy it with your creationists knowledge.

Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences
Vol. 33: 277-299

FEATHERED DINOSAURS

Mark A. Norell and Xing Xu

Recent fossil discoveries from Early Cretaceous rocks of Liaoning Province, China, have provided a wealth of spectacular specimens. Included in these are the remains of several different kinds of small theropod dinosaurs, many of which are extremely closely related to modern birds. Unique preservation conditions allowed soft tissues of some of these specimens to be preserved. Many dinosaur specimens that preserve feathers and other types of integumentary coverings have been recovered. These fossils show a progression of integumentary types from simple fibers to feathers of modern aspect. The distribution of these features on the bodies of these animals is surprising in that some show large tail plumes, whereas others show the presence of wing-like structures on both fore and hind limbs. The phylogenetic distribution of feather types is highly congruent with models of feather evolution developed from developmental biology.

Eagerly awaiting for you to show that these people are wrong. Because if they are not wrong you are. And your friends.

Just one article. That's all...Is that too much to ask for????

If you can't access it I will be happy to provide the PDF.

i vote move to cesspool
move all these evolution questioning threads to cesspool

its like, someone new comes along every fortnight or so, and decides they want to graffiti on your wall.
then you clean it off.
then another comes and graffitis something else.

cesspool!

"Is the theory of evolution true?"
You know it is! now stop acting like a fool and accept time has moved on since bible explanation was incepted.

Don't you get your women to clean your graffiti in your village Borat? :)

petri
a question for you
are there any naturaly occuring chemicals that can alter genes?

Yes, but evolution can't produce life, where is seeing eyes and hearing ears and heart, which pumps bloods to cells ... those kinds of activities must some plan and create ....

Can you now answer my question?

You know it is! now stop acting like a fool and accept time has moved on since bible explanation was incepted.

Don't you get your women to clean your graffiti in your village Borat? :)

The most important proofs of Darwin from evolution were eg. Finches of Galapagos-islands, whose beak form had changed with years. Development of those birds has now followed over 100 year. In research has been stated, that as dry period their beaks thicken and its size grows. As moist period beaks return as before, because soft food is so plenty of that dry seeds do not need to use. From this returning of beak never talk anything, because it cancels beliefs of evolution. Nobody tell also it that finches have remain as finches. Of these is not developed new bird kinds.


And for example is taken research for support of evolution from butterflies (Biston betularius), which live in England. Dark individuals of kind can be seen against light trunks in so way, that birds found them and ate. Light individuals were preserved to continue to akin. When trunks came dark as a result of air's pollutants was destiny of light individuals that bird ate them and by that way now dark individuals increased.


Science magazine The Scientist 3 published from the beginning of year- 99 an article, in which was exposed, that for supporting of evolution is continually set up props. Because those mentioned butterflies don't naturally rest on the trunks (they move in the branches) and therefore butterflies are not visible to birds, researchers glued those butterflies to the trunks. Then they photographed these butterflies, for proof that light butterfly can be seen better against dark trunk and dark ones are in safety because of their protective colouring. For support of evolution theory Theories is often built faked stages and faked proofs. Makers of textbooks (supporting evolution) don't tell, that butterflies remain as butterfly, even though colour sometimes changes. Is used " only expression "evolution". Those proofs are not proofs developing of kind to another kind (macro-evolution) but inside of kind happening variation (micro-evolution).

This kind of deception and lie don't give reliable picture about evolution science, but shows to us that it is ready to make fake, that it can hold on to false beliefs... and makes about it science!

Planned refining work

As proof of evolution Darwin used also refining of domestic animals. Was claimed, that because man can refine from same basic form various races and conditions of the nature can change form of finches beak, and then developing of kind during hundred million years for another kind is not to accident and nature selection difficult challenge.

According to evolution microevolution (changing of butterfly colour for other) proves on behalf of macroevolution, in other words developing of kind for another kind (example developing of cloven-hoofed animal for whale. Because of this supporters of evolution don't want to speak about two different evolutions. Both prove same according to evolutionist.

Dog races is methodically refined over thousands years. Proofs from this have been found in connection with archaeological discoveries. For example nowadays popular Afghan hound is described in Egyptian papyrus scroll, which has timed for years 4000-3000 BC. But in dogs refining comes very well into view that dogs in refining remain as the dogs. New species of animal has not been create. In the question is microevolution variation, where kind remains as its own kind.

Scientific facts indicate however to us, that in animal refining even though it has practised over 4000 year has not succeeded to make new species of animal. Horse has remain to be as horse and dog as dog. Results of the animal refining function as strong proof against evolution theory. On the basis of experience during millenniums we can hold as sure matter it that kind can't by way of hard effort change for another kind. In refining of the animals (on the micro-evolution), is not anything to do with macro evolution (changing of kind for another kind).

So evolutionists live in a big lie ..........

The real question is: why do you here waste your time on such a religious nutcase as PetriFB?
It's not productive, let him die in a delussion that he was made by some god.

You'll have to try make a coherent argument.
One point I did pick out though is that a butterfly changes colour so therefor wont be able to survive because it's no longer camouflaged? Have you not even considered that the new colour came about because a change of environment required it rather than the other way round? i.e a species migrated to a different niche where a different colour would preval over the old one, therefor generations randomly mutated with the new colour will eventual take over entirely after successive generations of competition.

So Darwin and subsequent researchers managed to fool all the world's top biologists, but any barber or taxi driver can see through the deception. :rolleyes:

And now, the ignoring of this thread commences.

Nobody tell also it that finches have remain as finches. Of these is not developed new bird kinds.
Your broken grammar makes it hard to understand, but what you are saying is that the new beaked finches are not a new species, correct? Yes, they are not a new species. Nobody said they were. New species develop after many small changes, not just a beak.

So evolutionists live in a big lie ..........

Oh, I get it now, you're not here to learn anything or get your thread question answered, you're here to promote creationism.

Why didn't you just say that from the get go, and we'd have spent our time more wisely, like ridiculing you?

Petri,
By the current definition, what makes a new species is that they cannot breed and produce viable offspring with their source population. Even if two butterflies that are almost identical but they can't breed, they are a separate species. Once this happens, the groups may continue evolving in similar ways, or they may evolve to be very different.

Given enough time, a species that "microevolved" initially, will change enough to be recognized as an entirely new kind of creature. This doesn't involve "new" information, only a change in the genetic code, which doesn't define the plans for a creature, but rather provide direction for growth, in cooperation with the outer environment.

Dogs were domesticated from wolves. The variety of dog types reveals the kind of rapid change that animals can undergo in a short time, given the right conditions. 4,000 years of dog domestication are still a blink of an eye compared to the hundreds of thousands of years that it usually takes for a new species to develop. Remember, as soon as dogs and wolves can no longer breed together, they are officially a new species. Sometimes only the fact that they don't breed is enough to declare a separate species.

Whales evolved from a hippo-like creature. This much can be seen in the DNA. In fact, whales have tiny vestigal hip bones inside them that are not attached to any other bones.

James gave good general description of the evolution of the eye. I did not know it had happen 40 times independently. I did (and do) know that Petri's God saved his best version for the octopus. Not only is it bigger in proportion to body and absolutely and thus has superior resolution capacity, it is also not so stupidly designed as the human eye. The retina of the human eye is "built backwards"* The photosensitive cells in the human eye only get the light that was not absorbed by the blood vessels which are between them and the incoming light. Not only this, but also all of the nerves, which spread out from the “blind spot”, are interposed in the light path, in two distinct layers. The eye of the octopus is well designed with the photo-sensitive cells up front and the support structure behind. The human eye also lacks the reflective layer behind the photo sensitive cells that double their sensitivity as God did provide for many night active animals, such as all the cats (That reflective layer is why cat’s eyes shine back at you when illuminated by flashlight at night.)

Evolutionists (what silly fools :rolleyes: ) say that the difference between human and octopus eyes is because they evolved independently. The God’s truth is either:
(1) God was drunk when designing humans eyes,
OR
(2) God was still learning when designing humans and did not yet have the "eye design" problem well solved. (Obviously, God designed the octopus later.)
OR
(3) God thinks less of the humans than octopus and wanted to clearly show this.

Which do you think it is PetriFB? Or do you have some other explanation?

PS If memory serves me correctly, the Chambered Nautilus is a very old creature (among the complex ones) in the evolutionary scale. Its eye is at that stage of development where the light sensitive pit is deeply recessed and has closed down to make a pin hole camera, but it has no lens, and not even a transparent film covering over the opening (which could confer the benefit of keeping dirt out**, and then could later thicken to form a lens.) That is the sea water fills the interior of the Chambered Nautilus's eye.

I suspect that if humans keep throwing trash in the sea, including oil spills etc, then in a few million years or less the Chambered Nautilus that have survived the trash will at least have a transparent film closing their eye opening. Therefore, the motto for the day is:

Next time you are at the beach, throw some trash in the ocean to push evolution along.
----------------------------------
*Evolution has reason for this, related to fact retina is initially part of the brain and migrates away to its later location, preserving the brain’s general structure etc, but no point in telling this to Petri, because Petri BELIEVES (that God was stupid or drunk, etc. :D )
**Until quite recently the deep ocean, where the Chambered Nautilus lives, was very clean and the benefit of a protective film closing the eye was not worth the biological cost of evolving it. Any Chambered Nautilus that made this evolutionary step in eye development was selected against, but if we all throw more trash in the ocean, we can help them along! DO YOUR PART. :bugeye:

James:
Did you know that among the 40 different versions of eyes that have evolved there is a small (flea sized, I seem to recall) creature that has only a single photo sensitive cell in each of its eyes? This cell is on a small flexible stalk inside the eye and there are minute mussels attached that can move the sensitive cell around inside the eye. The creature literally scans the image by moving the sensitive cell around!
Glad the early ancestors of man went down the multiple-cell retina path instead, aren't you?

PetriFB:

You didn't respond to my post. I wonder why.

Yes, but evolution can't produce life, where is seeing eyes and hearing ears and heart, which pumps bloods to cells ... those kinds of activities must some plan and create ....

Can you now answer my question?
you are making the very same mistakes i have and that is talking about evolution and how life arose as if they are the same thing.

lets keep this thread on topic and about evolution please.

okay, you have acknowledged that there are naturaly occuring chemicals that can alter genes.

do you understand that statement is the foundation of evolution?

Question for you .. how elements of life can formulate right order, that life can born and without laboratory enviroment, but natural selections?

And who has planned those elements that they fit perfectly together?
now to answer your question.

since you have acknowledged that gene structures can be altered naturaly this shouldn't be too much of a leap for you.
some genes will be altered, some not.
the genes that are altered will have varying degrees of alteration.
and of course more than one gene will be altered.
now given the above it is easy to assume that the next generation will incorporate the alterations to a varying degree. some will stand a better chance at surviving than others. we now have a generation that has been modified naturaly. can you see now how millions of years can produce the species of today? i have no problems with evolution, if you look at it objectivly you won't either.

but the 'we' in this case are intelligent
-That doesn't matter, the fact that we can minipulate natural selection is proof enough that it exists.

-That doesn't matter, the fact that we can minipulate natural selection is proof enough that it exists.
i agree that it proves it exists, but it doesn't prove that it can occure naturally.

There has not presented yet anything (evolutionists hasn't) reliable and reasonable things that how natural selections could form seeing eyes and hearing ears without intelligence planning ..........

There has not presented yet anything (evolutionists hasn't) reliable and reasonable things that how natural selections could form seeing eyes and hearing ears without intelligence planning ..........

And there never will be.

There has not presented yet anything (evolutionists hasn't) reliable and reasonable things that how natural selections could form seeing eyes and hearing ears without intelligence planning ..........
Evolution is intelligent, just slightly more intelligent than total randomness. It has an IQ of about 1. But, it has a long, long, long time to build upon previous success. As soon as a cell formed a mutation that caused light sensitivity, that mutation would spread rapidly, as would later modifications to increase sensitivity and resolution.

This so called recapitulation theory, according to which the embryo of man is climbing up its own pedigree, is utter nonsense. An eminent doctor, who is completely familiar with embryology, has announced that a "six week old embryo resembles a beautiful little baby." And as the different stages of the embryo have become more known, many darwinists have stopped defending the folly. Some of them, who still cling to the theory, jump over most of the intermediate stages and believe that only the fish stage, tail stage and hair stage are relevant.

... The "arcs", which they so gladly speak of as "gill arcs", are simply the grooves or arcs from which the ear cavity, chin and neck are formed. (Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas [Jakten på apemennesket], p. 72,73)

However, it is not difficult to find a group of organs that appear with almost all the highly created. The brain, the nervous system, the heart and circulation, stomach and digestion system, ears, eyes, feet, head - and a whole bunch of other useful things - are mainly a kind of common property. But what kind of deductions do the supporters of evolution use to make this fact "proof" of the doctrine, according to which we all originate from a being that had none of these organs? This small unicellular animal, from which all is supposed to have got its beginning, lacked all these limbs and organs!

... According to these absurd theories the head of a cod and the head of Einstein have the same origin, one of them is only a little more "developed." But we have to reject everything termed as a head in order for us to believe such nonsense!

Please, don't demand of us to regard everything that have heads - or which have a certain amount of bones on their paws or their flippers - as our cousins. (Thoralf Gulbrandsen: Puuttuva rengas, [Jakten på apemennesket] p. 64)

Yes, the theory of the development of an embryo mirroring evolution is probably false. The theory of evolution is not dependent upon this notion.

Animals that share the same basic organ design as we do all descended from a common ancestor. A cod and a human are both tetrapods.

PetriFB:

There has not presented yet anything (evolutionists hasn't) reliable and reasonable things that how natural selections could form seeing eyes and hearing ears without intelligence planning ..........

How rude.

Go back and read my previous post that you ignored.

PetriFB:

How rude.

Go back and read my previous post that you ignored.

Of course he has to ignore your post, it contains facts which challenge his viewpoint, and he can't let that happen.

Yes, the theory of the development of an embryo mirroring evolution is probably false. The theory of evolution is not dependent upon this notion.

Animals that share the same basic organ design as we do all descended from a common ancestor. A cod and a human are both tetrapods.

Bible says that animals and man has formed from the earth and same Creator has created them all .....certain kind of similarities arise for this ......


Animals and men common "ancestor" is God ...... :)

Bible says that animals and man has formed from the earth and same Creator has created them all .....certain kind of similarities arise for this ......

Animals and men common "ancestor" is God ...... :)

The bible is a work of fiction, and god was made in Man's image.

You are still ignoring JameR's points about the eye I notice. This is because you have been defeated, but don't have the grace to admit it.

The bible is a work of fiction, and god was made in Man's image.

You are still ignoring JameR's points about the eye I notice. This is because you have been defeated, but don't have the grace to admit it.

He has not present anything, which can cancel the truth, which is in God and His word ........

Seeing eyes and hearing ears is impossible born without Creator ... and think about human body and its function, it is so clever creation, that it is impossible born without creator .........

He has not present anything, which can cancel the truth, which is in God and His word ........

Seeing eyes and hearing ears is impossible born without Creator ... and think about human body and its function, it is so clever creation, that it is impossible born without creator .........
Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I find this argument irresistibly persuasive.

PetriFB pwns you all, you Godless scum.

Yes, I also side with PetriFB. He has repeated his argument so many times it must be right.

PetriFB: Quantity uber alles

PetriFb, you are a blinkered Fundie. Go away.

Seeing eyes and hearing ears is impossible born without Creator ... and think about human body and its function, it is so clever creation, that it is impossible born without creator .........
This is called an argument from incredulity. To phrase it more simply, you are saying that because you don't understand evolutionary biology, that it must be wrong. I say that the cleverness was the result of an accumulation of small innovations, each leading to greater success on the part of the organism where it originated.

If an intelligence is required to make something clever, and God is clever, what intelligence made God?

I would like to bring up an interesting point, which is that Judeo-Christianity was the original promoter of evolution. Their view of the universe is evolutionary, beginning incrementally with the creation, leading to mankind in Eden, leading to some fits and starts involving floods and wars, leading to civilization, eventually leading to some end point when the righteous are reunited with God in the "end times". This does not describe a steady state.

Now, why do we look so much like apes?

PetriFb, you are a blinkered Fundie. Go away.

Thanks about feedback. My habit is stay and discuss .. Next things will lead my leaving from here:

If you ban me or limit my rights to post as I believe .......... If those not happen I will stay here ......

This is called an argument from incredulity. To phrase it more simply, you are saying that because you don't understand evolutionary biology, that it must be wrong. I say that the cleverness was the result of an accumulation of small innovations, each leading to greater success on the part of the organism where it originated.

If an intelligence is required to make something clever, and God is clever, what intelligence made God?

I would like to bring up an interesting point, which is that Judeo-Christianity was the original promoter of evolution. Their view of the universe is evolutionary, beginning incrementally with the creation, leading to mankind in Eden, leading to some fits and starts involving floods and wars, leading to civilization, eventually leading to some end point when the righteous are reunited with God in the "end times". This does not describe a steady state.

Now, why do we look so much like apes?


You can have ape ancestor, lol, but I don't have .......


Fable tells about the hare, which found big cabbage. When hare started to eat it, under the cabbage heard sound of the tortoise: "Cabbage belongs to me". In order to get cabbage for itself, hare proposed competition. It, which runs faster to field end and back, win the cabbage. Nimble-footed hare surprised, when slow tortoise agreed running race. Tortoise required however, that competition must be following morning. Hare agreed to this. In the morning observant magpie gave competitors starting signal, hare scampered to run. Surprise was large when on the end of field hare saw that tortoise was already there. "Improve your speed, if your intention is win": said tortoise. And so hare ran its best possible speed back, but when hare came to goal tortoise was already there. Hare was confused and he gave up the cabbage to tortoise and left as bitter from its loss on his way. In the evening tortoise couple enjoyed cabbage meal and laughed their cunning an it, how easily can cheat those, who look only at exterior. In both end of field had been different tortoise.

Is similar likeness kinship?

Evolution teaches very same way as the fable, that similar likeness is proof from the common origin kinship of kinds. In the fable tortoise was of course similar kind, but they faked there, that there was two tortoises, although there was only one. According to this belief kinds, which remind from their external appearance each others, are in development line their close relatives in other words they have developed from the same pre- form. On the basis of this idea German, enthusiastic supporter of Darwin, Ernst Haeckel planned a pedigree to people, which root was plasm and its highest branch was the man. Was lived year 1866. Haeckel was few year previously copied fetus pictures from known researchers (made byBischoff1845 and Ecker1851-59) and faked them thus, that he got form of fetus to agree to his idea of evolution. These faked fetus designs live still in current textbooks even though Haeckel was forced to go court and was condemned from his fakes . Haeckel drew his first pedigree merely on the basis of t imagination. There apes and gorillas, which on behalf of their external appearance look like people; those apes and gorilals were in drawing with nearby branches. Haeckel developed in his imagination life plasm "Monera", which was on the root of pedigree as initiator of the life. Enthusiastic englishman and Darwinist Thomas Huxley also found by accident from base of the sea this life plasm, which for name came Bathybius haeckelii. As a matter of fact this material was only mixture of plaster and alcohol, but at that time plasm cheating support suitably progressing of Darwin's evolution theory. Because weakness of Haeckel's first evolution tree could easily indicate, he planned new Monera-plasm growing organisms pedigree in year 1874. This drawing spread with the help of different medias both to science books and to textbooks. But to people does not tell, that information of those books are based on to imagination and that all proofs about developing of the man from lower kind is missing.


Idea of pedigree was stated so good to spreading work of evolution, that all possible animals were drawn their own pedigree. Also to schoolbooks were taken picture eg. from pedigrees of horses, whales, birds and the man. To support those drawings were compiled age charts of earth’s surface layers, in which age of the life by the degrees was got about 3.5 billion year. Layers was put fossils, which support different branches and age calculations in the pedigrees. These fossils were little by little call for leading fossils, with whose help were accompanied define age of stratums for suitable to evolution theory.

In year 1927 belgian G Lamaitre idea from initial explosion got among evolution supporters enthusiastic acceptance. According to this idea all material got its beginning from the smaller energy point than pin, every by accident exploded and spread all around forming nowadays known macrocosm with its galaxies. Our own the milky way was there atom in the smaller packet. Initial explosion placed the life plasm of Monera to development tree ideas and to current textbooks. Like this tree, which described from all developing got form of fan, in which initial point describes Big-Bang-explosion and in the end are species of animals which have clarified to this day.

1950's upset science world. Inside cell living (DNA) being building program structure clarified Francis Crick and Fred Hoyle. Started examining of cells and protein kinship. Was concluded, that in accordance with evolution gradually development line can be found also from birth history of living cells structures. In very large headlines were publish research results, in which so said. cell clock and changes which affected to structures of protein, support the evolution theory lines .


Truth as accidentally to the publicity

Darwin himself believed, that from ground settling we will come to find proofs that animal and plant kinds have developed from lower form to higher forms. Default demanded absolutely, that in fossil material is abound required intermediate forms from kinds, which move from kind to another kind. Darwin informed, that if this intermediate form does not be found, is his evolution theory declare for incorrect. Even though to science institutions were been able to put strong belief to competence of evolution, during over 100 years carried out searches didn't brought wished results. Researchers was forced to reveal, that in layers, in which should appear only elementary life, can be found al nowadays known species of animals and not at all intermediate forms. New Scientist-magazine wrote in year 1985 : " ...Most fossils appear quickly to layers, remain there as unchangeable some million year and disappear after that in the same way". Known evolution biologist Stephen J. Gould bring into view "Cambrise explosion". On this he describes life from under stratum found, ready species of animals. All kinds as vigorous and current richer. Under this life abuzz layer don’t found any proofs about the life, and above of it being layers amount of the kinds has reduced. Has born tree of development, which roots stick up and diverse set of living organisms is lowest.

When known development line researcher Richard Leakey was demanded in Walter Universe-program of Cronkite information from development line of the man, he was forced to admit: "If he would make development tree of the man, he would do only question-mark. " Dr.W.R informed as result of research, that common background of the man and ape is only imagination.

Evidence of cells

Evidences of cells and protein evolution fall down. Has resolved, that as proof used comparison charts was got from computers, which were thus programmed, that they formed from given differences suitable results from the point of view of evolution. When to computer was given basic data without command: "Form development tree", connections no more found. Known researcher and medicine doctor Michael Denton expose in his book these bluffs and that we can't find evolution supporting evidences of different molecules comparison. Results prove it, that each organism group is their own entirety and those can't classify to any development order on the basis of structure molecules.


In textbook of physics "Vuorovaikutus/WSOY-1996", is said that birth of macrocosm begins from initial explosion and comes to an end to the man; and that this information is based on to scientific truth. Account of textbook from developing of all beginning exceeds in its imagination many children storybooks. How many teacher dare to tell to his students, that this account is based on only to imagination and strong belief, that all however developed.


American chemist F. Doolittle presented as result of 4 DNA-research, that on the basis of cells building materials made development tree does not remind tree, but cruller.

Progressing of research researchers have reached to destination also from internal structures of cells and their operating principle. At the end of 1990’s internationally known cell researcher Michael J. Behe proved in his book, that complicated structure of cell and that it reminds large industrial establishment and activity of energy reclaiming- and operating system and different materials transport systems, haven't been able to born haphazardly and by the degrees. Forming of different cells and their produced effect- and structure materials are clear proofs that behind of that all must be extremely high intelligence.

By the degrees also different parts to the world teaching school official of evolution and to parents of children has been exposed, that so said. scientific evidences from the competence of evolution are missing. Development trees are like fairytales from pea stem, which reached to the sky. During last years in different states of USA has held quick-tempered conversations supporters of evolution have could only argue against, that people must trust to them even though proofs from macroevolution is not exist (developing of kind for another kind). There, why for supporting of evolution is continually sought safety about half truths, covering the truth and serious deceptions, they don't wanna answer in publicity. This is still clearer, that almost of 150-year time evolution theory has proved only stories, which based to imagination. As starting-point has been powerful belief, that evolution theory is true and we can’t examine its absurdity. As task of researchers has been only inventing various background accounts about that, how development has possibly taken place. Like this was born story collections, which win in their imagination fairytales of children and which serious faces scientists invent and tell to one another.



References:
1) New Scientist, 108 / 5.12.1985,
2) The Bone Peddlers / William R. Fix,
3 Evolution, A Theory in Crisis / Michael Denton
4) Scientific 2 of American / 2000,
5) darwin Black Box / Michael J. Behe

The frailties of early scientists do not discredit the value of current scientific thought on evolution.

Evolution teaches very same way as the fable, that similar likeness is proof from the common origin kinship of kinds.
No, it doesn't. Similar likeness is a compelling reason to search for the reason. It might be that two different species evolved to resemble each other with no actual kinship involved. Proving kinship 100% from a fossil is impossible, although by studying bone structure we may deduce probabilities of kinship.

We can study the kinship between apes and man, because we can look at the DNA. We share so much DNA, that it is certain we both evolved from a common ancestor. The reason people don't want to admit ape ancestry is precisely that they resemble us so much, that they recall images of an unshaven, uncivilized, probably homeless, ignorant, and low-class human being.

The big-bang theory has little to do with biological evolution, although it is interesting that both systems seem to preserve complexity and promote novelty.

If you are really interested in evolution, Petri, I would suggest reading from less biased sources. The science is really compelling.

So your really don't believe that dinosaurs existed, and that people were created exactly as we are now?

Thanks about feedback. My habit is stay and discuss .. Next things will lead my leaving from here:

If you ban me or limit my rights to post as I believe .......... If those not happen I will stay here ......
Well, that would be a real shame, wouldn't it guys?

He probably believes that dinosaurs were animals wiped out in Noah's flood, although there is a progression in fossil layers which would not occur if they are simply an accumulation of debris.

The question of transitional forms has to do with how and when animals get fossilized. By the time fossils of a species become common, the species has already had many tens of thousands of years of success, maybe millions. Any animals that existed in that form for a short time would not make fossils that people could easily find. It is unlikely in general for any creature to form a fossil. The fossil record is inherently lacking.

The frailties of early scientists do not discredit the value of current scientific thought on evolution.


No, it doesn't. Similar likeness is a compelling reason to search for the reason. It might be that two different species evolved to resemble each other with no actual kinship involved. Proving kinship 100% from a fossil is impossible, although by studying bone structure we may deduce probabilities of kinship.

We can study the kinship between apes and man, because we can look at the DNA. We share so much DNA, that it is certain we both evolved from a common ancestor. The reason people don't want to admit ape ancestry is precisely that they resemble us so much, that they recall images of an unshaven, uncivilized, probably homeless, ignorant, and low-class human being.

The big-bang theory has little to do with biological evolution, although it is interesting that both systems seem to preserve complexity and promote novelty.

If you are really interested in evolution, Petri, I would suggest reading from less biased sources. The science is really compelling.


I don't wanna insult anybody, but believing to evolution theory is like talk nonsense.

God has created animals and men from the dust of the earth and He has planned animals and men DNA and so on ...... in that way we have common "ancestor" with animals ........

But anybody who believe that apes are his cousins can believe so ... You can also visit zoo to visit your cousins.....

But I don't believe

Apposing opinions of evolution theory are looked have strengthened in the district of the science makers after the year 1961, when John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris published their book concerning the flood "The Genesis Flood". Still more scientists and researchers have verified, that evolution theory can hold as the religious philosophical in the light of the current information, whereby is not anything to do with the science. Any scientific examination has not got to succeed, in which had even partly prove this claim about evolution theory!

So your really don't believe that dinosaurs existed, and that people were created exactly as we are now?

Fossils in the ground are a powerful evidence of the Flood. The origin of these fossils is in the mud and sludge avalanches burying these animals and plants very quickly. If this hadn't taken place so quickly, the fossils couldn't have been formed, because otherwise the decomposing bacteria and scavengers would have destroyed them in a short time. It is noteworthy that nowadays there are no fossils. The well-known explorer Nordenskjöld noticed that it is easier to find old remains of gigantic lizards in Spitzbergen than those of recently buried seals, even though there are millions of seals in that area.

Therefore, it is quite a problem to explain how large animals such as mammoths, dinosaurs, rhinoceroses, hippopotamuses, horses and other large animals could have been buried under mud and the layers of the earth if one doesn't believe in the Flood. For example, five million mammoths are supposed to be buried in the ground. In current conditions, these animals would not be buried in the ground, they would decay quickly on the ground or the scavengers would eat them immediately. The next description (James Dana: “Manual of Geology, p. 141) indicates how quick burials are necessary to create fossils:

Vertebrate animals, such as fishes, reptiles etc. decompose when their soft parts are removed. They must be buried quickly after death to avoid decaying and being eaten by other animals.

I don't wanna insult anybody, but believing to evolution theory is like tlk nonsense.

God has created animals and men from the dust of the earth and He has planned animals and men DNA and so on ...... in that way we have common "ancestor" with animals ........

But anybody who believe that apes are his cousins can believe so ... You can also visit zoo to visit your cousins.....

But I don't believe

No one could care less that you wish to bury your head in the sand and remain ignorant - but at least stop posting threads asking for answers when you aren't looking for any.

You may now return to your regular scheduled fantasy.

So back to my question, you really don't believe that dinosaurs existed? And what exactly were neanderthals? Do you not believe in them either?

No one could care less that you wish to bury your head in the sand and remain ignorant - but at least stop posting threads asking for answers when you aren't looking for any.

You may now return to your regular scheduled fantasy.

Thank about feedback ........

So back to my question, you really don't believe that dinosaurs existed? And what exactly were neanderthals? Do you not believe in them either?

I believe that there was animals like dinosaurus, but I don't believe evlution theory .......

Compare functions of car and man ...and you see that there is similarities....but we know that natural selections didn't form cars, but people have planned and built them ........

There are many ways for animals to become fossilized, but it is always rare. They can get buried under a mudslide, covered by volcanic ash, fall into a tar pit, ect...

The reason they are all underground is that dust and soil are constantly deposited on the surface of the Earth. Anything old is generally found under this accumulated material.

One reason (there are many), that fossils aren't the result of floods is the order often found in fossil sites. There might be a fossil layer with volcanic ash on top, followed by another fossil layer, ect. Also, species that represent older forms are generally found towards the bottom, and newer ones on the top. This has nothing to do with size or how corpses would settle out of flood debris. If a flood put them there, they would be all mixed up.

There is also the proof of radio-carbon dating, which I'm sure is too complex for you to understand.

It is noteworthy that nowadays there are no fossils.
Please explain. It does take a long time, you know.

And also, cars aren't living things.

You can't say that there weren't Neanderthals at one point, so what do you think happened to them? You think they and humans co-existed at one point? Why can't we find a human skeleton that dates back to the times that we find dinosaur skeletons, seeing as they were all around at the same time. Or are dinosaurs actually older, and humans just appeared after they were gone? If you don't believe in evolution, fine, but you've got a lot of explaining to do about the history of earth and how things have become what they are now.

Thank about feedback ........

It's not feedback, its a request.

I don't wanna insult anybody, but believing to evolution theory is like talk nonsense.

why is evolution theory nonsense?
you yourself have stated that there are naturally occuring chemicals that can alter genes.
what are you saying now? that said genes mysteriously fix themselves?

To leopold99:

You point is well taken and basically irrefutable, but PetriFB either is one of the mutations that has no mind or has not yet discovered how to use it, perhaps too busy looking for sites put up by people of similar kind. I suspected as much in my first post (only the three letters: Y e s ) because I did not want to waste time on one whose mind is inoperative.

He has at least three times complained that eye could not suddenly appear as they are too complex. - He is correct, they did not as James R patiently explained but of course, that was a wasted effort as there is no functional mind in PetriFB's head.

I posted again that the human eye is a second rate design compared to the octopus eye with it higher resolution, greater sensitivity and the retina first in the light path where it should be, instead of behind all the support structure of the retina. (blood vessel, nerves etc.) I like tell the ID people that it is really an SD (Stupid Designer) that made the human eye, if there was a designer.

I asked Petri if his God was (1) Drunk when designing the human eye or (2) just practicing up for the octopus, which God wanted do well as they were more important than humans to God. Strangely he has ignored even direct questions. :rolleyes:

My second post was really to James R as I was curious to know if he knew about one of the 40 or so entirely different eyes that have evolved independently - namely the one with only a single photo sensitive cell mounted inside the eye on a short stalk and moved by tiny mussels to scan the image, pixel, by pixel. (Eye itself can not move. Creature is "flea size.") If James has replied, I missed it so made his name bold above.

This post is to you; to suggest that you are wasting your time. Just ignore PetriFB as I do. He is a mutant, incapable of learning. His genes will not pass down very far before evolution eliminates them. :D

why is evolution theory nonsense?
you yourself have stated that there are naturally occuring chemicals that can alter genes.
what are you saying now? that said genes mysteriously fix themselves?

Genes can't be exist without creation... genes can't make any changes without ordering of God.

...so, God intentionally alters genes to create genetic defects?

Here are a few of God's creations:

Down's syndrome
Cystic fibrosis
Muscular dystrophy
sickle cell anemia
Neurofibromatosis
Spina bifida...

...and I thought life was sacred and babies were innocent. Maybe they are being punished for their naughty thoughts in the womb.

Here is a whole page of genetic diseases. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders)

These ever-so-often continuous postings questioning evolution on a "Sciforum" are irritating, dumb and silly.

Evolution is a fact, and has been for more than a few centuries now. It is the theories that explain the "how" of evolution that are sometimes put in question.

Evolution as a "fact" cannot be debated. We can easily show anyone "evolution in action" in the lab or in the field: Drosophila melanogaster. Clear example is all the 400 sub-species of dogs that have been selectively bred over the last 300 years - only about 50-100 generations.

Petrib:

Compare functions of car and man ...and you see that there is similarities....but we know that natural selections didn't form cars, but people have planned and built them ........

Perhaps you should learn a little about evolution before attempting to criticize. No qualified life scientist has EVER claimed "OMG! SIMILARITY = EVOLUTION!"
This is not only a gross oversimplification, it is an outright distortion.

Evolution doesn't just predict similarity, it predicts a specific PATTERN of similarity. That pattern is known as a double-nested hierarchy.

Winace does a far better job than I ever could at explaining the differences between the pattern of similarities observed in Darwinian evolution, and that of you 'car' example, which arise through common design. In fact, I asked him the exact question you have asked us about a year ago. Fancy that.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2060079&postcount=8
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2060090&postcount=9

PetriFB:

Since you show no basic courtesy and an unwillingness to engage in an honest debate, you are worthless. I have no intention of entertaining your delusions by responding any further to you.

Personally, I think that these threads which question evolution should be automatically sent to the Cesspool.

IMO, not one post in this thread has any idea about how different species came to being, let alone why it is all here

is it things at all ?

no, it is one organism, LIFE
and what we see today has all been manufactured by "seeds of LIFE" detoxifying a toxic cosmic rock to a LIFE friendly place, where many higher life forms have been allowed to flourish.

no thanks given, all taken and abused

Human beings are sending LIFE back to the dark toxic ages.

But does LIFE care ?

NO, it has already re-seeded.... so humans you are allowed to become extinct NOW

PetriFB,

You are correct - evolution must be false - anything complex must be the result of an intelligence. And man is an example of complexity and he was created by a higher intelligence, right?

So that means God must be incredibly complex which means using your very own reasoning that God must have been created by a higher intelligence than him. Who was that?

Evolution caught in the act (http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060710/full/060710-11.html)

...so, God intentionally alters genes to create genetic defects?

Here are a few of God's creations:

Down's syndrome
Cystic fibrosis
Muscular dystrophy
sickle cell anemia
Neurofibromatosis
Spina bifida...

...and I thought life was sacred and babies were innocent. Maybe they are being punished for their naughty thoughts in the womb.

Here is a whole page of genetic diseases. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_disorders)


Sin has destroy also genes...... we eat poisons with food (harmful and dangerous additives) and also by that way we change weak and bad genes to our descendants ........and there a lot of more things by which we transfer bad things to genes of our children ...

PetriFB,

You are correct - evolution must be false - anything complex must be the result of an intelligence. And man is an example of complexity and he was created by a higher intelligence, right?

So that means God must be incredibly complex which means using your very own reasoning that God must have been created by a higher intelligence than him. Who was that?

Bible says that all has been born from the God ... so nobody hasn't create Him, but He has been exist eternally ......

PetriFB,

Bible says that all has been born from the God ... so nobody hasn't create Him, but He has been exist eternally ...... Well now you have created a conflict and paradox for yourself haven't you?. You have clearly asserted that ANYTHING complex must have been created by an intelligence, and God must be the most complex thing imaginabale. How can something so complex exist if it it didn't have an intelligent designer?

An answer that he always existed is just a cop out isn't it? And completely reverses your assertion that complexity must have a designer.

I guess we would have to conclude that God came into existence by ACCIDENT then, correct? But how could that be possible? How could something so incredibly complex just appear from nowhere withour a designer?

If you cannot answer this then it entirely destroys your assertion that complexity needs a designer, doesn't it?

And, eternity, sounds complex to me, what intelligence designed eternity, so that your eternal God could exist?

PetriFB,

Well now you have created a conflict and paradox for yourself haven't you?. You have clearly asserted that ANYTHING complex must have been created by an intelligence, and God must be the most complex thing imaginabale. How can something so complex exist if it it didn't have an intelligent designer?

An answer that he always existed is just a cop out isn't it? And completely reverses your assertion that complexity must have a designer.

I guess we would have to conclude that God came into existence by ACCIDENT then, correct? But how could that be possible? How could something so incredibly complex just appear from nowhere withour a designer?

If you cannot answer this then it entirely destroys your assertion that complexity needs a designer, doesn't it?

And, eternity, sounds complex to me, what intelligence designed eternity, so that your eternal God could exist?


Bible says that God is everlasting and Almight and Creator and that all what is exist He has create...I believe that and it is enough for me .....

PetriFB,

Bible says that God is everlasting and Almight and Creator and that all what is exist He has create...I believe that and it is enough for me ..... So in summary what you are saying is -

Evolution is wrong because - Complexity needs an intelligent designer.

And your alternative to evolution is - Complexity that doesn't have an intelligent designer.

I hope you see that your assertions cancel out each other.

Warning: You will need to think for yourself before you can see the absolute stupidity of your assertions. Based on your previous posts I have little to no hope you will succeed in making that leap to intelligent thought.

Biologists, also being the the creation of God, also express God's word when they discover natural laws like evolution, which God must have created.

Biologists, also being the the creation of God, also express God's word when they discover natural laws like evolution, which God must have created.


God created first animals and then a man from the dust of the earth........

So you see that there can't be any evolution in where man has become from apes, because God created man from the dust of the earth ...

That is no contradiction, we are all made of the dust of the Earth, and evolution describes how.

Technically, apes led to australopithecus, and australopithecus led to man. You could say we are a very special kind of Ape, but then again, these distinctions are meaningless on some level, since the original organisms led to every other creature in a seamless line. There are no real boundries, the classification systems are artificial.

God created first animals and then a man from the dust of the earth........

So you see that there can't be any evolution in where man has become from apes, because God created man from the dust of the earth ...

Then, according to you, man was created in his current form?

If man wasn't created in the image of god he would be extinct now like dinosaus!

If man wasn't created in the image of god he would be extinct now like dinosaus!

Then, what of all the skeletal remains of Neanderthals and Sapiens of long ago who don't quite look like we do?

We didn't evolve from neanderthals or sapiens that is a lie brought about to brainwash you!

That is no contradiction, we are all made of the dust of the Earth, and evolution describes how.

Technically, apes led to australopithecus, and australopithecus led to man. You could say we are a very special kind of Ape, but then again, these distinctions are meaningless on some level, since the original organisms led to every other creature in a seamless line. There are no real boundries, the classification systems are artificial.

I stick to announcment of the Bible, which says that animals created first and then a man .....so no evolution ........

Then, what of all the skeletal remains of Neanderthals and Sapiens of long ago who don't quite look like we do?

Do you know that evolution believers scientists has set up apes bones and claimed that those are bones of ape-man .....lol .. many those kind of set ups has turned out for spurious things .....

Did you know that researchers once measured the brains of all representatives of society...


Creationists had the smallest brain by far.

Then they scanned the brains.

Creationist only used 10% of their brains with two focal spots: the nutty center and the corpus ignoramus.

Did you know that researchers once measured the brains of all representatives of society...


Creationists had the smallest brain by far.

Then they scanned the brains.

Creationist only used 10% of their brains with two focal spots: the nutty center and the corpus ignoramus.
You are m