Bowsite.com

“Lucy” is said by its discoverer, Dr. Donald Johanson, to be the best and latest proof that humans evolved from some ape like creature. But Lucy is really a monument to human imagination!

In 1978, Dr. Johanson announced his discovery of Lucy to the world at the Nobel Symposium on Early Man. Every newspaper quickly picked up the story. Lucy was supposed to be the earliest human ancestor. Dated by evolutionists at about 3 million years old, Lucy was said to be an almost complete skeleton of a creature that walked upright like humans. However, there are some facts you should know.

Lucy is really a demonstration of how creative people can be – sort of tinker toy science. For example, her knee comes from a location over 200 feet lower in the rocks and over a mile away from one of her leg bones! Lucy has been assembled from materials found in two different locations separated by several miles. Her bones were sifted out of plots of ground at these two sites, each of which was almost the size of a football field!

Strangely enough, all of Lucy’s bones from one of the locations provide her human like characteristics, while all of the bones gathered from the other location provide her ape like characteristics. That sounds at least a little suspicious!

Evolution is not scientific. Have you been brainwashed?

Couldn't be because of the Department of Education and teachers unions, could it? I bet we led the world in both categories before the government and evolutionists took over.

Every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess.--Romans 14:11

You can believe THAT.

Red letter day for the Bowsite! An admission of faith by an evolutionist.

Please refrain from heaping scorn for belief in MAN'S UNDERSTANDING of mother nature, rather than God who sent his son to die so that we may live.

Macro-evolution hasn't been proven. Micro-evolution is proven every time the NFL holds the draft combine. lol

Hey, the bright side of this debate is, no matter where you side, we have common origins. Doesn't matter if you are African-American (Lucy apologist) or an Adam-American(Creationist).

If you do not understand the definition you can look silly talking about things.

Just saying that's my 2 cents

LOL.. how did I know RB would be in this thread? Must be a coincidence.

I should get outta this debate right now...

;o)

Nice try though.

I'll do just that. Thanks!

Pope believes man was directly put here by God in our current form.

Nice try though

Again, that's not what he said he believes in. There is a monumental difference between the two.

Twist what he said however you want.

Hammer, I have made this same point over and over. But certain people insist that the bible WAS written in the literal sense. It's those people that I have to debate. I don't mean to sound rude or condescending, but there are certain aspects of the bible that DO in fact sound "fairy-tailish". Most of those examples are present in the book of Genesis.

My theory: The "prophets" that wrote the bible had to condense a lot of creation/evolution information into a very small amount of space. Hence, the book of Genesis. My personal reasoning for this the event of God creating man from dust of the earth and breathing life into his nostrils. Our bodies are made up of 70%+ water content. Why didn't he use the dust and water of the seas to create us? Oh, wait...that sounds like a mud pie right? Ironically enough, some people here like to scoff at the flying spaghetti monster, and are basically claiming that we are not mud pies.

Not to mention the fact that oxygen was not available on the day the earth was created. And even if it was, there was no atmosphere or means to hold it in long enough to snap life into motion in 6 days.

The old testament has many types but the NT is much differant. The writing style of the day when the OT was written was to use types (typology) and analogy a lot.

The OT is full of typology and analogy etc but there is literal in there also. This was the common writing style for that time period. The NT was written by the disciples much later. It was about 1500 years later and it has little such style to speak of and naturally writing by then would have changed a lot.

Evolutionist use many things to try and bolster their side as do the creationist. Some of what you mentioned has been said millions, 10 times millions of times before by different people. One of the big ones are how's it possible for creation to happen in 6 days blah blah.

I look at it this way.... The great and coveted Einstein that many principles and theories are based theorized by way of science that a being 'could' exist outside of our space time. The way we perceive time obviously would not be the same to a being out of time. What that being is doing is not viewable or even comprehendible to us. The only way our little peon brains can process is to use numbers and time but that will not work if God or a being or whatever you want to call it created everything outside of space time and then time for us began at that moment.

We would always come full circle and come up short of the answers because we cannot comprehend anything outside of time. Given that opinion I personally think in order for our minds to wrap around the possibility of a superior being it had to be explained the way it was. Any other way is scientifically impossible for our minds to comprehend.

For me personally I look at the animals and humans and the stars and planets and universe in all it's 'perfect' complexity and I think to myself that there is no way this all happened out of nowhere or nothingness. I see its complexity of this force against that force and the violence and subtleness and the chaos with the harmony of it all working perfectly together and think it cannot be random or spun from nothing all on its own. Something started it all and it happened out of time IMO. This really is or is not possible under scientific theory but IMO it happened just that way.

This is just my opinion as crazy as it sounds.

However, to take that and press it back to "everything that is evolved from ooze" is a leap of faith greater than any religion today and is very far from fact. There is no evidence of any transformation from one species to another that I am aware of...yet everyone in the evolution end of the gene pool asserts there is proof humans have...odd.

So if best traits are kept and passed on and EVERYTHING came from ooze because of perfect happenstance... why flora AND fauna? And why so much diversity?

If it all goes back to one amino acid strain and lots of time and luck...to cause mankind...and the ASTRONOMICAL odds against...it has to be a statistical impossibility to hit those odds so many times to give us what surrounds us today...now, factor all the species of flora and fauna that are no more.

And folks scoff at faith in God... but place so much faith in chance.

Now, that's irony for ya'.

It should be pretty much impossible to get out of even elementary school with such a stupid and totally incorrect understanding of any subject.

Grumpy at those who believe in God much?

Why don't you grace us with your infinite knowledge and education of evolution and set everyone straight instead of telling everyone their post are stupid.

Dropping a bomb like that about people and their education when you can't even spell 'match' ("math") correctly in your post above is not very nice.

;o)

And the government, and therefore evolutionist, takeover of our public schools so closely matches the decline in science and 'match' (apparently keyboard skills also)you want to piss and moan about so much about doesn't mean a thing to your obviously superior intellect?

Demanding evolution's acceptance as fact is just another facet of the intolerance the intellectual (typically liberal) elite display on a daily basis. The fact that you want to shout down and demean people who believe differently in an effort to silence or belittle another's faith only succeeds in proving how small minded you are, not the other way around.

You only have to wait about 10,000 years. We are holy incapable of even getting to another planet at this point. You are assuming that we will find life forms elsewhere and that it would be said that God didn't tell us.

Well he kinda did already tell us.

Your years are close enough and hammer home (no pun intended) the point. You are 100% correct.

LOL.

Watch it now... To much truth in one day is bad for the mind of some.

Oh yeah get ready for the denials about your last post.

No true... we have rovers on Mars as we speak. There are tentative plans to send man to Mars. The Cassini spacecraft has flown by Saturn and given us pictures of it from an incredible viewpoint. Our knowledge of distant planets and moons is growing exponentially. But there are too many people that will deny the findings because their religion tells them to deny it. Much in the same way some scientists attempt to discount the presence of a creator.

"Nope... We devolved to much to be able to answer it now.'

Here...let me start to hammer on Hammer!! Just kidding!

Anyways, I'm reluctant to agree with your assessment of a "devolved society". Before I go on, I must point out that if you believe that we have "devolved" in our society, then somewhere along the line you believe that we have "evolved". Just sayin'!

Now, as a boy I went to church every Sunday with mom and dad. I said the Pledge of Allegiance every morning in school. As I moved thru mid and high school those things went away and I spent less time going to church.

My perception of reality and common sense has made me somewhat skeptical of biblical accounts, and although I try to keep an open mind about things that I cannot prove or disprove, I have a tough time putting my faith in something that has no observable merit. And yes, I realize life in itself is an observable proof that we are unique and special. But it doesn't prove anything one way or another.

With ALL of that long winded stuff being said. I'm no less a good social minded human being now than I was when I went to church. What I'm saying is...too many people want to blame the anti-religious crowd for the fact that their surrounding society is going to s**t. It has nothing to do with the lack of religious values. It has everything to do with mans failure to use his natural moral compass and raise his family to respect the people around them and treat them as equal. Man is the only animal that has groups of thugs that terrorize others simply for the thrill of it without the instinct of finding food, or protecting their brood. Animals have no religion, and most of them are more trustworthy than humans. And that includes humans that "claim" to be religious.

Buckkiller - 1963

There was a U.S. Supreme Court case in 1963 that resulted in a ruling that ended Bible-reading in public schools in America.

" But there are too many people that will deny the findings because their religion tells them to deny it. Much in the same way some scientists attempt to discount the presence of a creator."

Deny what? Man has found squat on other planets thus far and we will not leave our solar system until we find a way to stop time or fold space. That is 1000's of years away if ever. The odds of us finding life on other planets are slim to none.

Mars is our neighbor and so far and over many years they have found nothing of significance. Even if they do it would not be unreasonable. Maybe some microbes etc.. Given the fact that its right next door I would say the odds are high they will find something at some point but it will not be any kind of meaningful life.

When I said we have devolved I was joking.

" It has nothing to do with the lack of religious values. It has everything to do with mans failure to use his natural moral compass and raise his family to respect the people around them and treat them as equal. Man is the only animal that has groups of thugs that terrorize others simply for the thrill of it without the instinct of finding food, or protecting their brood. Animals have no religion, and most of them are more trustworthy than humans. And that includes humans that "claim" to be religious. "

It has everything to do with that. The religious values are what gives many men their moral compass to start with. The idea of answering to man means squat but answering to a God means a lot. There are logical reasons why the bible mentions how immoral man was before the biblical laws. Its likely because they were. When religion came into the fold and was pushed the moral compass of man changed dramatically IMO.

I do not believe we have a natural moral compass per se and if we evolved we would be the only species on earth to need one? No way. God gives us that compass IMO. No other species has one but us so it is not natural.

Cop out. There are people who say their religion tells them to strap bombs to themselves, and fly jumbo jets into buildings too. There are religions that says God is punishing us for homosexuality and other sins, and that is why we have bad weather. There are also religions who teach that there is no God, and that our existence is merely a product of billions of trillions of beneficial mutations all stacking up neatly to get us where we are. One would think with all these trillions of mutations happening all around us, we would have witnessed one in the last 500 years or so, but no. Cats are still cats.

My religion has never told me to deny any such thing, and I'd bet nobody else's around here has either. It's your religion denying information and possible truths, not mine. If Christianity was as much about suppressing evolution as evolitionists are about denying, dismissing, and attacking Christians for their beliefs, we'd have pretty much done the job by now, don't you think? Whether you are willing to admit it or not, science for Christians is about peeking in to the mind of God. I know it is for me, as long as it doesn't come with an agenda, which is unfortunately more and more rare.

"I have a tough time putting my faith in something that has no observable merit."

That is just a statement to bolster your position. I obviously have no education to speak of, but let me ask you this. Scientist have been experimenting with mice for decades. If beneficial mutations are so easy to come by, why hasn't some dedicated team of evolutionists proven evolution to us all by taking a mouse and producing something other than a rodent with it, and having that reproduce? We have all of these brilliant people who boldly lay down for us he origin of man. We are supposed to take them at face value, and hide our heads as we are shamed for believing something else, and yet not a darn one of them have been able to create a single beneficial mutation that results in a productive offspring of a different animal?

"What I'm saying is...too many people want to blame the anti-religious crowd for the fact that their surrounding society is going to s**t. It has nothing to do with the lack of religious values. It has everything to do with mans failure to use his natural moral compass and raise his family to respect the people around them and treat them as equal."

Crockery. If man is nothing more than an evolved animal, how does he have any morals at all? Have you ever witnessed morals in any animal? There are no morals in the animal kingdom. There is survival, and passing along their genes. Threaten either one of an animal capable of killing you, and you're dead. From which animal did we evolve a "natural moral compass to respect the people around them and treat them as equal?" Have you never seen what chimpanzees do to each other in the wild? It certainly doesn't come from them. At what point does it become beneficial for animals to do something other than what has allowed them to survive to this point?

"Animals have no religion, and most of them are more trustworthy than humans. And that includes humans that "claim" to be religious."

I don't even know what to say about this. The only thing I find trustworthy about an animal is that they will be what they are. I expect that my most beloved dog would kill me and gnaw on my bones if he was capable and hungry enough.

I don't have what it takes to skillfully debate with you 70. There is just so much of your religion that defies common sense to me. I just can't swallow a lot of it, because I'm not a believer.

You thought you were long-winded. LOL

"Proof of life on another planet is no big deal??? WTH? "

Not on Mars!

If they find microbes and things like that I would chalk it up to being our cosmic next door neighbor.

Remember all those asteroid strikes we were taught about in school? Well when they hit they can eject material into space and where does it go? visa versa is true for Mars. When one hits there where does all the material go. It goes everywhere and can land here and visa versa.

They have found meteorites that they said came from Mars and landed here on Earth. I think its possible for that to happen in reverse right. If it took any water with it there could easily be single cell organisms that were trapped.

If man finds anything other than microbes or single cell organisms on other planets that are not right next door to us then it will be a big deal. If they find substantial life on Mars it will be a big deal as well. The prediction I will make right here is "They wont!"

Exploration..... I can blast a rock into space also and eventually it will leave our solar system. That does not mean I left or our species left does it?

Sending a probe into deep space is not the same thing as us leaving and exploring. So far it has discovered exactly NOTHING related to life of any kind! In order for us to ever even have the chance we will need to explore planets and anything outside our solar system will take a GOD sized leap in technology. Technology will have to progress so much the mind you and I have cannot even comprehend it.

Basic morals do not evolve. They are instilled in us at birth IMO and once we comprehend them properly and understand what it is we are feeling we automatically know right from wrong. The only reason we have laws is because some refuse to listen to their moral compass and cause damage to the rest of society. Man has always known this but it took law enforcement to keep society together.

LOL... An animal comforting the sick and protecting their own as a survival technique for the species is moral? Really? In what fantasy land? A mother lion mourning the death of her cub and then eating it is morals? I think not. Feeling loss is not in the definition of "moral" Also I have yet to get inside the mind of an animal to see if it feels guilty. I doubt any animal does.

Moral,

concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior

: based on what you think is right and good

: considered right and good by most people : agreeing with a standard of right behavior.

I have never seen an animal do any of that.

All those religions that you talked about.. Which one is right? Because I'm pretty sure that only ONE is accurate. The only reason there are so many is because nobody really knows.

What is it that makes a creationist think that evolution can be recreated in the lab over night? Is it because creationist believe it all happened in one week without a basic seed that requires time to grow? Our ability to fathom the TRUE evolutionary time line is non-existent. But we have the ability fathom the measurement of 6 or 7 thousand years ago.

by the way, I think it's important to point out. Not all evolutionist are trying prove that lack of a supreme being. Those that try are simply arrogant. As are those that don't believe we have grown from a single seed and were simply snapped into existence with no basic foundation. That theory goes against everything we observe in our everyday lives.

That is for you to decide for yourself, I can't tell you. Wouldn't if I could. None of those I mention are right to me, but that is my choice, my belief, and my faith. My problem is that proponents of your faith continually, and so far successfully, have sought to suppress, destroy, demean, deny, and impugn even the possibility that there may be some other truth than yours. Your faith seeks to exclude, silence, and therefore destroy my faith. Proponents of your faith, with the force of the government behind you, is making it a violation to even mention my faith and what I believe.

Don't take this to mean I want religion in public schools. This is where I may part ways with some, but requiring and even condoning religion in public school is a mistake. If you teach one God, you should teach them all in my opinion. To me, that is what church is for. I'm not talking about baptizing kids at school here. I'm talking about presenting the origin of man as it is. Different people believe different things. Evolutionists believe this, Christians believe that, and you can decide for yourself when it becomes important to you.

"What is it that makes a creationist think that evolution can be recreated in the lab over night?"

Over night? 6 rats can be 60 rats in 3 months. How many generations of rats can you have in 20 years? Your religion has been seeking the exclusion and banishment of my religion from the public for a hell of a lot longer than that. Shouldn't you be required to have proven something in that amount of time? At least before your proponents began failing, expelling, and disciplining kids who refuse to convert to your religion?

More later...

Which brand of Christianity is right?

"Many paleontoligists strongly believe that the miacids are the most likely ancestors of the Canidae,"

The next paragraph contains scientific words like "most likely" and "probably", the third contains gems such as "Some believe", and "Others theorize" and "could also merely be an variety", and "the most popular view", and "almost certainly".

Really, who could dispute FACTS like that? Allll scientific and stuff. Yep, these folks know EXACTLY how we got where we are. Why shouldn't they feel free to ridicule, shame, and sick the government on anyone who believes different?

Nice try.... I was not banned. I was suspended for 30 days and I got permission to come back. A troll keeps getting banned and keeps coming back and acting like a dunce and only wants to stir the pot with remarks that are meant to offend. I had a thread pulled from the BGF yesterday because I did not know it was a topic that was not allowed on bowsite. If I was a troll I would have been removed from the site right then because they know who I am.

I have been here for 3 years now and it was the 1st time I have ever even had a warning for anything when they axed me for 30 days. In the state threads they place watches on people and I had a clean record until my BGF mistake. Several very respected members here I will leave nameless have been booted for a period of time

I learned a lesson I will share. In the BGF if you make fun of a permanently banned member for being caught poaching it is grounds for suspension or permanent banishment. Anything that can put hunting in a bad light is grounds for going bye bye for a while or for good. I posted a picture and then overstepped that rule and paid the price. I lived it and learned from it.

It is also grounds for a suspension or banishment if a person is purposely disruptive or a habitual debater. Any thread related to evolution or God you come in and are disruptive and disrespectful. You could easily get the axe if your not careful with that. Your evolution and religious post are very troolish almost all the time. Take it for what's its worth or don't.

Call my suspension and being allowed back whatever you wish. Have at it.

I never said to walk on egg shells and never said you would get banned. I said you were being disrespectful to others in the debates about religion or evolution.

Call it whatever makes you feel better though.

"Even though these are isolated ankle bones, we are extremely confident they belong to Purgatorius"

For us willfully ignorant types, this means "we found some bones, not a clue what animal they came from, but since all other faiths are under the governments, and therefore our, thumb we can teach the children that this is where we come from."

"It's the first direct evidence that these primates spent most of their time in trees."

For us willfully ignorant types, this means "before we had an entire story made up about what we thought this animal we can't really identify did all day, then we found this little ankle bone that had an inscription that said, I spend most of my time in trees."

The revelation that the earliest primate climbed trees supports the theory that primates and flowering plants co-evolved in ways that benefited both groups, Chester said.

For us willfully ignorant types, we want to make sure that you don't confuse the way we use theory in this sentence with the way we use theory in theory of evolution. THAT theory is fact. No question about it. We have the DNA. We have the geology. We have the biology. We have the chemistry. We have the physics. That theory is fact. The other theory is just a theory, meaning when we decide that that theory is wrong we'll come up with another theory to replace it. When that theory becomes fact, we'll let you know, because we'll call it a theory, then it will be fact and you believe the earth is flat if you don't believe it.

"It probably contributed to the evolutionary success of these early primates."

Willfully ignorant translation: We use "probably" a lot because we really don't know. That is what we believe, or have faith in, but it's really just a educated guess. The use of probably gives us an out when someone comes up with a theory that becomes "the most popular view", then we can decide it is a fact for you, again not to be disputed.

It just gets deeper and deeper. The fact that so many of your faith swallow to the gills statements like this with all of the built in disclaimers and hedges bewilders me. The fact that someone like you can think you somehow can insult me by calling my faith a fairy tale? Lecture away goofball.

Two Feathers, I'm sincerely sorry to have crapped up your thread with yet another inane pissing match. Please feel free to remove any or all of my posts that brought us to this point. I just have the overwhelming feeling that I need to practice what I preach with respect to party politics these days, and actually oppose the other side who seems bent on destroying everything I hold dear.

You're painting with a wide brush. I have nothing to prove by trying to keep you from your faith. I'm not afraid of being wrong, and I don't fear that the higher power will punish me for thinking for myself rather than allowing someone that is no better than me tell me how I should believe. That would make me look like a Muslim that seeks to silence those that don't believe the way they do. In a sense, all religions do just that, including yours. I don't have faith in science. I simply listen to its word and use my own discretion to decide what I think is plausible and what I think is hogwash without fear of the outcome. You on the other hand listen to the word and follow it's teaching for fear of retribution. We really are no different from each other in that sense. Where we are different is that I don't feel the need to remind you that when you die, you will simply become a part of the earth again. Your faith, on the other hand, feels the need to loudly tell me that I am going to suffer in pain for eternity. It's kind of like laughing at someone that's been diagnosed with a terminal illness, yet your faith has no problem with doing just that. It brings a whole new meaning to the term sacrelige!!!

"Your religion has been seeking the exclusion and banishment of my religion from the public for a hell of a lot longer than that. Shouldn't you be required to have proven something in that amount of time? At least before your proponents began failing, expelling, and disciplining kids who refuse to convert to your religion?"

Again...wide brush strokes. But I will point out that there are a lot more artifacts available from millions of years of Earths existence than there is in Noahs Arc and the garden of Eden. I'm not trying to banish anyone from anything. I'm simply voicing my opinion of the ridiculous "theory", yes, I said "theory" of creation as the book of Genisis and the prophets that made it up portrays it. It goes against everything that our existence has displayed since it's beginning. And that is simply because nobody back then had any tools or knowledge as to how the world was shaped, much less how it was built. I never have, and never will, say that I don't believe that there is a higher power. I just don't believe that any creator would cast hate upon his own creation by using soldiers of a word that we cannot prove is that of his own.

I know my kid has taken all the science classes for HS and is taking college sciences and they do not talk about God hardly ever.

Things going to pot in schools and there is no real teaching of God... Hmmmmm....Odd isn't it?

I guess it quote: "going to sh$%" must be for a different reason other than your red herring.

C'mon Troy...TF puts this stuff up for a reason. He lights the fire and then stands back to watch the rest of us rush to it!!

Why do think I get involve in his ignitor posts. Because I have to ask the question..."Who's been brainwashed?" LOL!

The other debaters on his side could take lessons.

70,

Why do you think we Christians fear retribution from God? That could not be further from the truth of what we believe. There can be no retribution from God to me or others in my faith because we already believe.

Did you know that?

I don't remember doing any chemistry experiments or dissecting frogs in church.

Why is any more important for science to teach God than it is for church to teach science.

There are plenty of people that sit in church knowing that science is happening all around them. By the same token there are plenty of people sitting in science class know that god is all around them.

The problem we have is that some people are incapable of recognizing that very fact!!!

x2

And to any I've offended, I do apologize. Not here to convert anyone. Just trying to explain my faith, and lack thereof.

I simply think it's the fear of going to hell for not following what you believe to be the word of god.

No sir! Nice try!

You said "Here we go again. Evolution...total BS. Magic sky god making people from dirt....totally believable.

"No wonder our country is going to shit in science and math. "

You forwarded the idea that things were going to pot because of that!!

70,

My comment you quoted was not meant as you took it. It was meant to show that RB bunk was hog wash. The very idea that science is going to pot because God is taught is just crazy. Schools do not teach about God hardly at all so the reasons for the failings in science and math have nothing to do with religion as RB implied

Your last part lost me. Elaborate on exactly what you mean? thanks.

LMBO remember when I 1st engaged with you a few years ago and was calling you 700lbdraw? lol

No that's not correct. If a Christian believes in God there is no fear of gong to hell and its impossible to do so. The bible is clear on that.

We will all fall short the bible says. We will sin and go against the bibles teachings at times but that does not bring about fear of going to hell. If you are a believer you cannot go to hell even if you make a mistake or purposely choose to put your will 1st when you know you should not. Its just not possible.

Non-belivers are the ones I fear for but not myself. I fear not even when I error or put my will ahead of what I know I should be doing.

Gezz I cannot imagine going thru my life fearful of going to hell for making a mistake the bible says to try not to make.

You are mixed up on what Christians really believe. Anyone who does believe that way is doing themselves and others a disservice and they also do not understand the bible or salvation properly.

I'm sure there are as many different views of this as there are Christian religions 70, but my bible says God so loved the world, that whosoever believes in him shall have everlasting life. My faith requires that I believe in God, His son Jesus, recognize that I am a sinner, ask for their forgiveness, and repent as best as I am able.

I don't have to believe the earth and all living things were created in 6 days. I don't have to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin. There's no requirement for me to believe that Eve was created from Adam's rib, the flood, staffs to serpents, water to wine or any of the rest of it, to be assured of everlasting life. I believe every bit of it, but not because my faith requires me to at the peril of hell. I'm sure others are different so maybe it's out there, but not mine, and although I don't buy in completely, I'm a Baptist. Many would roll their eyes and consider me a thumper just knowing that!

Exactly...my point is that many people feel if they DON'T believe in God, they will go to hell. Hence, the many people I have encountered in my life that act like they do, simply to fool themselves into thinking they are safe from something they aren't sure is true or not.

As for the part you weren't clear on...was it this one?

"There are plenty of people that sit in church knowing that science is happening all around them. By the same token there are plenty of people sitting in science class know that god is all around them.

The problem we have is that some people are incapable of recognizing that very fact!!!"

I'm not sure what isn't clear about that. Now I need you to elaborate! LOL!

Who knows what the heck you are saying half the time.

You spout off so obnoxiously at times on this kind of subject that half the people on this site will not even play.

I took you words at face value and you said its no wonder science and math are going to pot. You said it right after your sky god BS. How else should people take that bunk?

Take a lesson or two from 70 and you will get further in the discussions. You cant though because your post over the years on this subject and here are littered with contempt for the other sides views, beliefs and opinions.

The sorriest part is most do not return the favor or spout off that way against your beliefs. Respect is supposed to be a two way street but you refuse to ever give any to others on this kind of topic. I am sure there is not one here that would disagree with that assessment.

70 and I go all the way back several years on this kind of discussion to a C.S Lewis thread and never once did we resort to that style.

Well then troy, I would assume you have been accused of being a fake by the likes of Sixby, Two Feathers, and Tate Tanka, just to name a few. And yes, admittedly I have lashed out at all of those guys because of their, "believe like me or burn in hell" way of participating in these discussions.

Ironically enough you don't hear from any of them much anymore. maybe they get tired of trying to change people...maybe they get tired of having their "faith" questioned...or maybe they just don't have what it takes to be objective about something that was never meant for us to fully understand in the first place.

"I would assume you have been accused of being a fake by the likes of Sixby, Two Feathers, and Tate Tanka, just to name a few"

I have not seen that yet by them but I will take your word for it.

I went to bible college so if they ever say that again you let me know and we can all have a discussion on what the bible really says about that.

Ar is correct even though he didn't say it like I will.... John 3:16 is all that is required to get to heaven. The rest is something different and a different topic

-Having received my degree at the college level, I would never, never - no, not ever- judge the efficacy of a position based on how "academia" may treat it. The silliest nonsense comes from the undergrad environment. Now, the study of evolution is a fine discipline but it A) is not settled and B) has not disproven the existence of God.

If I get some time I'll dig into the archives and see if I can locate some of them. I'm pretty sure they were before your time since Tate Tanka was still known as Big Wind then.

Some of their posts are pretty blatant in their context. It's ironic that the 3 or 4 most hard core religious members of Bowsite could never agree with each other when it came to their perception of scripture. They were constantly at each others throats arguing about the oxy-moronic "facts of faith"! Which, needless to say is large part of my skepticism toward the contents and accuracy of biblical accounts.

Their religion may have to do with that. Also do not take people on a forum and what they say to seriously. Sometimes antis are knowledgable and will do that kind of stuff for one purpose... To mess with those who might be leaning toward believing. Another thing to consider. Some bible versus are open to interpretation so its easy to argue and disagree. However some are point blank blunt and obvious in their meaning.

To many religions teach what they want instead of what the bible says but w/o reading what was said I can not judge what your talking about.

Again the only requirement to get to heaven is found in John 3:16. It is blunt and simple. If you believe in Jesus and that he is the son of God then you are in.

What you do after that will impact your life here and for eternity but you still get in.

Now here is a big BUT.... If a person really believes they will strive to better themselves and keep a lifestyle that is in keeping with a believer.

If a person believes in Jesus and is a professed christian they will not be a dishonest person that is a murder and rapist and thief etc all wrap into one. They may have weakness like all men do but they will strive to overcome.

I for example cuss sometimes and that is against the teachings in the bible. However this would not keep me out of heaven. I also smoke and cannot break from it yet but I do try hard. Its my weakness. my body is gods temple so will I go to hell for knowingly poisoning it? Of course not!

Many baptist believe you can loose your salvation once you have it. Well Jesus only died once is the way I see it and if your a real christian you will strive to better yourself in matters of faith.

Lets say you are driving and a Mack truck is gonna blind side you but you see it and know your toast. If you say God Da$% It at that moment and die do you go to hell? Of course not. Some believe you would and they just do not understand the bible properly. Some would say if your really saved you would never say that. Yeah right! I always tell those high and mighty that after they were supposedly saved and became a Christian that they made mistakes again that would be considered a sin. They always looked puzzled. Its not like when a person is saved they automatically have every bad habit and sinful routine in their life instantly changed. That is a process and salvation. They are two totally different things.

The bible also says let he who is without sin cast the 1st stone. Those who are judgmental cannot make it a week without sinning themselves but they are to proud to admit it. The very fact that they are judging others is sinful all on its own. There are so many things the bible says are sinful that its impossible not to sin. Thats the whole point why God sent his son. No more sacrifices where your sin was placed on the item sacrificed. It was holy insufficient for man to get by that way and God knew it so he planned it all out perfectly where there would be one more sacrifice and all you have to do is believe in that and you are home free. Of course those who do come to believe will try their hardest to change their lifestyle after but in the end they will still fall short. They will get into heaven but they will fall short of perfection after they are believers.

I do not understand why so many self proclaimed christians make it so hard. Its actually easy to get to heaven. Its only a 2 step process. Believe and ask forgiveness and its party time after we die

Rather sad.

To read his description, see link.

I think it is called "Ardi"

If the evolutionist want to make a case that would be a better place to start wouldn't it?

Probably not now that we know how many of her bones were "digitally" reconstructed that were also found in a crushed state with many pieces missing. You know.....Like kinda like the hips that were found mixed with other bones and crushed nearly to powder! They also had 100's and 100's of other non related bones from many different species mixed in. Somehow they were able sort them out and figure it out well enough to draw a neat little pic of what she looked like even though the shoulders and ect were completely missing and they had to use digital reconstruction to get there. I ain't buying all they are selling on Ardi or Lucy quite yet.

You seem to want to pick a fight on each and every topic to do with religion and or evolution. Debating and dropping bombs all the time are two different things. One is meant for a constructive debate and the other is meant to get a specific reaction.

There is better ways to get your point across than to purposely inflame the topic by calling peoples beliefs BS all the time or making fun of their beliefs.

Since I have admitted that I accept much of what science offers and that I believe in evolution of other species other than humans I guess that is still not good enough so you shout BS like it will somehow change things.

To each their own I guess.

What in your mind makes humans differ from other life forms?

I will say I do not believe any species turns into a totally different species but I do buy into much of what science offers and has "actually" proven.

A lion does not and could not and has never turned into Giraffe. Its only an example but I think you get my point.

Argue the merits of your position instead of putting others beliefs down or calling it BS or fairytales or fake sky Gods blah blah blah. Your list of insults on this kind of topic is endless.

You have called me a troll on 3 occasions when you know I am not and you are hoping for me to go poof. You are now calling me a troll? hmmmm. That is just bad karma. I was here on this site before you and I was also allowed back on the site under the same handle and even had a thread pulled from the BGF yesterday by the same guy who suspended me for 30 days. I did not know Xbow threads were outlawed here. I tried to do a friend a favor and get info on a Xbow he was wanting to buy and I had no clue that topic was a rules violation. That would have been the time to go poof if I was a troll. Hell even the site owner Pat knew that I was suspended and he just answered a post just 2 days ago in response to my post. My 30 day suspension was to teach me a lesson and I learned it very well. Take heed of that.

You are now going as far as to encourage others to debate against my position in the hopes you can see a show of some kind.

That just aint right man. It just aint right!

Where it differs for me is I believe with all my heart soul and mind that God put man here in their current form with one unique ever increasing ability.... To gain knowledge and get smarter.

No matter how long we wait you will never see a dog build a house or a car or come up with a weapon to use or make tools etc etc. The list is endless.

We are so far removed and so much further advanced from any other species its crazy. WE are so far removed form the evolutionary chain when compared to any other species that I do not believe we ever had one.

Uh, they can laugh?

:-)

The Origin of Life

The big problem demonstrated in these creation vs. evolution threads is that there are many who do not understand, or probably more accurate, misconstrue science and the scientific process. Their (mis)understanding is often demonstrated in the belief that evolution holds to the belief that apes are a direct ancestor of humans.

These discussions are pointless and I rarely participate other than providing a related link such as above.

I do find it interesting that after several years of recommending the reading of Francis Collins book, The Language of God not one person has bothered reading or commenting on it. Collins is a converted atheist, evangelical Christian and in this tome demonstrates that based upon the sciences, there is no real conflict between God, the Bible and evolution.

No further comments from me. Back to my bucket of popcorn.

Carry on.

jack

Tom...thanks for the link. Put the URL on my tablet and will read it in bed later. Semper Fi.

You are right of course yet one more time.

I personally do not believe we evolved from anything but that it is my personal belief and my opinion and no one should be attacked insulted or disrespected for their beliefs.

Its to bad everyone cannot carry on a debate like 70 does even when he disagrees with me.

These debates get nasty at times and I have finally learned my lesson about a few of the players and their intentions so I am taking your avenue and steering clear of these topics from now on when such players are playing at the same time. Eventually I will not play on these topics at all. I saw it was 70 and because he and I have had meaningful and educational talks on this kind of subject before I was good with that. Some others not so much.

RiverBottom, you bore me. Your arrogance coupled with small minded philosophy is an utter bore. Eventually, your juvenile posts and your boorish behavior will catch up with you. I actually hope not, simply because you are a perfect example of what not to be.

I understand that when you have no respect for others opinion, it makes you feel free to state their opinions for them. If your maturity level ever becomes age appropriate, you will then understand that doing so is not only juvenile, but rude, arrogant, bigoted, egotistic, and pretentious.

Personally, I think it is your immaturity and the fact that this is an internet forum that makes you think it's ok to be the way you are. My bet is that you do very little of the things you do here in real life, because if you did you would experience eating your dinner through a straw periodically.

As to the subject at hand, I feel no need to argue anything out with you. It's not my thing ridiculing others for their beliefs, feel free. I have been forthcoming about my beliefs, and many reasons why I don't share yours, to which you have supplied not answers, facts, or information, but consensus, and supposition, and assumption, and hypothesis, and extreme confidence.

For most folks, evolution means change. For you it is a religion. To claim that dogs, for example, have not evolved (changed) into different kinds of dogs over the centuries I would say is demonstrably incorrect. I don't recall anyone here claiming that this kind of change has not happened. Although you seem to consider this capital E evolution, I do not. So in that sense, I would agree that yes, evolution (change) most certainly does happen. What I, and I think many here doubt mightily, is that this change eventually results in an animal that is not a dog. For evoltion by your definition to be true, this very thing has to have happened billions, if not trillions of times. I have yet to see any valid argument with facts not based on bias, assumption, consensus, and faith, that this has happened even once. And for me, the fact that all the scientists in all the world, since this theory was put forward as the origin of man, have not been able to replicate an event that supposedly has happened billions of times by mere happenstance, in animals all related to that first ooze that crawled out of the muck, makes your belief in it in no way better than my faith in God and His son Jesus.

Blast away with your juvenile little jabs. I won't address you further in this thread. I relish the information gained and the facts that other posters who believe as you do find salient to the discussion and debate, but you have tendered little more than disrespect for others beliefs to the conversation, and do not merit further attention.

Dr. Collins has one foot in and one foot out - a theistic evolutionist.

Enjoy the popcorn.

Couldn't agree more with the above statement.

That does not mean that I go out of my way to insult people.

I'd be interested in your definition of what constitutes "going out of my way". If you reference it as being analagous to walking across Texas, no argument. Somehow I don't envision you arguing that typing on a keyboard meets the same yardstick.

But, when you try to undermine science with your faith, I do not have any qualms with making fun of your ridiculous beliefs.

Wouldn't the pursuit of truth be better served with respectful relation to fact and not by ridicule?

Face to face, if you were mouthing off about evolution being junk and your faith being a virtue and the true explanation of the natural world....you would get the same treatment.

No problem with that mindset; integrity dictates similar treatment regardless of the venue.

And, you want to "make me eat from a straw"...go for it. I'd be glad to put you in your place.

I think you know better than that as to the intent of the comment. Now if you want to argue that someone advising you that endless trips to the local black bar spouting about how much better the world would be if the customers would just go back to the plantation and pick cotton might result in the above described outcome please have at it.

Now, here we have some faithful Christian implying that it would be just fine if someone used acts of violence to silence their critics or because they feel insulted.

Please; this thread didn't need another helping of hyperbole. Stating an obvious outcome of boorish behavior hardly constitutes advocation of that outcome.

But, I'm the immature one.

Your case would be much easier made if you eliminated that chip on your shoulder.

What a joke.I guess if I based my life on magic and fairytales, I could be a member of the mature club.

That you cannot see the irony in what you request of others while doling out one backhand after another simply staggers the senses.....

Why don't you tell us how gravity is "just a theory".

I don't seem to recall anyone advocating that position so why the non sequitir?

FYI no argument re:your conclusions on evolution. Testament to same on your part could stand a little "evolution" to a less confrontational/belittling approach however.

My point exactly.

Tom...think you can agree that a review from an source with an obvious POV does not come close to actually reading the book and providing your own informed opinion.

Interesting article...will try to parse my thoughts in an email later, especially concerning content from my link ;o)

Semper Fi, my friend.

jack

Who are you? If you are RiverBottom, I have nothing to say to you, not to mention the fact that you have violated forum rules because either your original entity, or this one is fictitious.

If not, please try to understand. If life on earth began with a single-celled organism in a muck pond somewhere, every living thing on earth "evolved" from that single-celled organism be it flora or fauna. In it's simplest terms, to me this means that at some point every living thing had to first be produced by something that was completely different than what it produced. At some point the first mouse had to be born of something that was not a mouse previously. The first redwood had to be produced by a tree that wasn't a redwood, and so on for every living creature and plant on earth. I've often wondered why folks with your belief system seem to lament the most about animals going extinct. If what you believe is true, doesn't it stand to reason that any animal that evolved once could just as easily evolve again?

It is easy to understand that factors of habitat, environment, forage, predation, and some we don't even understand can cause changes within any given type of animal. The rub for me is the belief that this change somehow equates to the transformation to a completely different animal, given enough time.

I'm sorry if you can't comprehend what I'm saying. I don't have the ability to describe it any better.

Evolution is not gravity. Gravity is observable, recordable and measurable. Do not tell me you can conclusively observe and account for the legions of variables dating back from 100s of millions of years.

Why don't you tell us how gravity is "just a theory". "

I think you just did!

:)

Couldn't agree more!

And that is what the Bible says and what we observe today and have NEVER observed ANYWHERE on earth any time in recorded history.

Simply put, it is why evolution is not science. Incidentally, creation does not meet the demands of science either.

Originally, the vast majority of peppered moths (Biston betularia) had a light, mottled coloring which was a good camouflage against predators. Before the industrial revolution, a uniformly dark variant of the peppered moth made up 2% of the species. After the industrial revolution, 95% of peppered moths showed this dark coloration. The best explanation as to why this change in the species occurred is that the light moths lost their advantage of camouflage as light surfaces were darkened by pollution, and so light moths were eaten more frequently by birds.

To me, this is no different than a claim of miraculous healing of a cancerous tumor. Not a chance that the first diagnosis was just incorrect to begin with, although there was no definitive proof of cancer in the first place, they were cured.

How many moths are we to assume were collected from how many locations in the period before 1760 when the industrial revolution began that allows a scientist to boldly state that the dark variant only made up 2% of the species? Is the fossil record for moths so extensive that this claim can be made? How do you discern what color a fossil was? Did they e-mail their scientist buddies around the country, or fly from city to city in their jet to pick up that information? Assumptions and inferences had to be made from relatively minute samples, right?

Once you get beyond that one, we can discuss the fact that nobody is disputing that changes within the species can and does happen. A dark moth is still a moth. Is a black man a different species than a white man?

If proponents of your religion are going to make statements such as these, I don't think demanding facts instead of consensus is too much to require.

Do a google search on the THEORY of General Relativity. It is the most precise defintion of how gravity works that we have today. (It essentially says the mass tells spacetime how to shape itself and spacetime tells mass how it has to move.)

Which by the way is equal in every way to the THEORY of Natural Selection or dare I say it EVOLUTION.

Thousands of experiments and evidence has been collected for both. So far not a SINGLE fact has ever been discovered that can falsify either explanation.

Theory is only our best guess based upon available facts at the time.

That's why they are still called the THEORY of General Relativity & the THEORY of Natural Selection or dare I say it EVOLUTION.

THEORY is based on FACT....not the other way around!!!!!!

Protest all you want you cannot redefine either word or meaning.

I'll ask for an answer one more time, then let this lay. Is it possible to know for a fact the makeup of the entire moth species pre and post industrial revolution, or is that whole example based on assumptions, extrapolations, implications, consensus, bias, and faith?

I mean, is it too much to imagine that you have moths that look like tree bark living in and around trees (pre industrial revolution) you cut down the trees and build a factory (post industrial revolution) and a different moth becomes more prevalent in that area? Or do you think that scientists in the mid 18th century had 100% coverage and knowledge of every moth population in the US?

Charles Darwin invisioned a tree of life. DNA has proven beyond all debate, that the tree is indeed in place & that each branch can be traced by Heredity to the closest related species along the tree. The only people that don't now believe that are the ones that simply choose not to.

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change. "

-Draw your own conclusions.

This needed to be repeated.

If you are claiming that there is a 'macro' and 'micro' evolution, then you have to explain the genetic difference between the two. If you are claiming that adaptation is different than evolution, then you need to explain the genetic reason they are different.

It has been 60 years since the structure of DNA was found and nothing found would support either of the above statements that are common on this thread.

For those that are getting caught up in the wordsmithing:

Evolution is defined as (wiki words) "the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations". That is all! We observe that every day (if you look) - viruses genetically change when antibiotics are used too often. When people say that the Theory of Evolution is a fact, this is what is meant (and is observable which meets almost everyones definition).

What is constantly being refined/argued is the mechanism that drives evolution (natural selection, genetic drift, etc).

In two examples earlier in this thread - though there are many breeds of dogs, they are still dogs and except for physical limitations can still interbreed.

In the instance of moths, I guarantee that a light moth and a dark moth are willing and capable of mating to produce offspring. If it has ocurred, it is just a natural example of "selective breeding."

If I have a mixed herd of cattle, but want black cattle I just keep using the blackest bulls and the blackest cows and eventually I have selected out the genes for other colors of hair. Nothing has evolved.

Think of it in terms of change within a broad class of life as opposed to change within a narrow band existing within the larger class.

Enterobacteriacea encompass a family of gram negative bacilli; resistance across this broad group to a class of antibiotics would constitute macroevolution.

Klebsiella pneumoniae, a member of this group has developed resistance to the Carbapenem class of antibiotics not seen universally throughout the group. This would constitute an example of microevolution.

KPC's (Klebsiella pneumoniae Carbapenemases are being seen in increasing frequency in other members of the family Enterobacteriacea of late, largely due to the action of plasmids. As Amoebus pointed out above this constituets a mutation of the organisms receiving the plasmid, another vehicle driving evolution.

Agree with SA; this thread has gone much better than others in days past.

What animal gave birth to the first canine, that was not a canine itself? What animal gave birth to the first feline, that wasn't a feline itself? Take your pick. Give me an example of any animal existing today, and tell me the animal that birthed it, which was a different animal. Then we can discuss.

That would be because it is demonstrably true and an example was posted immediately above your response.

I'll give you another example; The HIV virus is a member of the family Retroviridae and has manifested resistance to anti-retroviral drugs not seen universally amongst the Retroviridae; again an example of microevolution.

We've already told you there is no such thing!

Yes, and you've been proven to be wrong by the examples above. Would you like me to provide more?

"Life is a gradient" "It changes slowly over time." RBO.

Then today river shows back up and says,

" I will repeat it here: Life is a gradient, change is gradual" Riverbottom

No wait.... RBO said that not riverbottom so is River saying he will "repeat" it?

Just a coincidental world we live in I guess.

I agree. I was not sure if everyone realized it or not.

I wont report it either. Some of his post are so outrageous they should stand to show how juvenile he is. Post like "God is impotent" like what he just posted in another thread here on the CF. His bigotry towards others just because they believe differently is quite a thing to behold.

I had to actually laugh how absurd the coincidence was with RBO. Nothing like trying a little concealment in plain sight that's patently obvious. lol.

Its like when I was a kid throwing snowballs off my garage roof with my buddy. The car we hit slammed on the brakes and came after us. I jumped down and hid under the car. The guy went to the door and explained to my mom what we had just done and she said 'well I do not see him out here so how do you know its my kid?' The guy said 'is he wearing a black and yellow jacket and is he about this tall?' My mom said "well yes he is" He said 'I went by earlier and saw him on the porch with another boy and then when I came back thru town he threw a snowball and hit my car and when I stopped he jumped down to hid. Mom said 'where did he go?' He said "he is under that Cadillac right there right now' Mom called me out and I was busted for hiding in a terrible spot. Then I got my azz whipped for throwing snowballs at cars'

Hmmm lets see...I delete my computer and my pin will no longer work meaning you had 2 different riverbottom handles at one time with the same info on both registrations but different emails giving you two different riverbottom pins #'s?... Then one of them would not work?...If so this means you forgot and chose the wrong email and also used multiple Emails to set up a ghost handle even though it was the same handle? Either way that means one of your riverbottom handles was banned at one time.....I would not doubt this since you have watches on you for disrespectful behavior... Then instead of just re-registering with the same exact info and the pin you do still have active that you are using right now as you post you come up with Jesus Powell from Vermont and the handle of RBO? You get a new pin instead of using who you really are which is what you have been using here for the last year? That's just crazy but if you say so.

Funny thing though.... The computer you are using right now is obviously registered as riverbottom so the pin is recovable 100% of the time or you would not be able to post under that handle. You could easily have gone on that computer and recovered your password for that riverbottom handle by using the email you used to set up the riverbottom we are seeing right now today..... Or.... you could have used the computer you deleted and just used the email you have set up for the riverbottom we see today and they would have sent you the pin. This way both computers have the same riverbottom and the same email like everyone else that follows the rules here.

If you could not recover the pin or it wont work then you must have filed a 2nd registration and used the riverbottom handle to set it up. The riverbottom posting now could not post without an active pin# so if you recover the pin your using now you can use it on any computer when you are not on the computer you normally post from. That's much better than using a fake name and state you do not live in. Trolls do that and your not a troll right?

I guess its all just good fun though right?

;o)

Quit egging him on! He's no more a sensible evolutionist than any other troll that wants to get your goat!!!(And by "goat"...I mean the goat that evolved from a Gecko!)If he doesn't have the balls to step up and be who he is by using his own name like a man, he doesn't deserve your valuable time and insight. keep feeding the cat and that little bitch will came back EVERY night...guaranteed! (And no, I don't have faith that the cat will come back...it's a proven fact!!)

You guys keep saying that you cant make a Balooga Whale out of a dog, or a horse out of a Doe Doe bird, or a whatever out of a whatever. But look closely at every single living thing on planet earth and they ALL possess one...basic...common...ingredient. What is YOUR explanation for that. If God made man from the dust of the Earth...what did he make the freakin animals out of...chopped liver?!? is that why they are so tasty?!! LOL!!

Again...I'm not trying to disprove the existence of God. I'm trying to give him credit for what he has built and the hard work he put into it.

This debate will never end, but it's fun to tell our side of what we believe. The fact that some creationists completely banish the word evolution, and some evolutionists completely banish the word creation, makes you look like a bunch of kids on the playground arguing about who's dad can beat up everyone elses dad!!!

There is a reason that this debate will never end...Use some common sense and think about. For some reason that is not what we as humans are use to doing. We all have to be right at the expense of everyone else. It kinda makes me wonder...if there were only one human being in the world...how would this conversation play out then?!

Of course they do. Only those ignorant to the facts would say it's somehow not true.

I know that bud. I was playing his game for a reason. Goal accomplished! Troll exposed!

" is that why they are so tasty?!! LOL!! "

Of course it is. LOL... However it was not liver because I hate liver, YUCK! It was something else. lol

I think part of the process that was used to make humans was used to make animals but its only my opinion. We were made and made in his image so much more attention to detail was used over animals. Our super and vastly superior intellect and awesome ability to adapt like no other species being the most obvious variations.

To my knowledge the bible does not directly speak to how he made animals like it does about man but given the similarities of our life blood I would say the process was somewhat similar.

On a more serious note my daddy can whip your daddy. LOL..

"if there were only one human being in the world...how would this conversation play out then?! "

They would argue with themselves. Belive me when I say I have argued with myself on this topic over the years. You know you have another problem when you go beyond working it out in your head and start talking to yourself out loud and then answering yourself. lol. All in all its human nature to question our existence. We just can't help it.

Is a Shetland a Clydesdale?

If the difference between the two moths in your example is an example of macro evolution, then you must believe black and white men are different species, right?

Yes.

Ed: Once someone bred a male chihuahua with a female wolf.

Johnny: How did they manage it?

Ed: Someone put him up to it. [rim shot]

A "liger" cannot produce offspring and it is a straw man! It is a useless species that cannot continue its line.

I am sure there a many like "kind" species out there capable of producing offspring together but the line stops right there every time in the cases where science has tried it.

Agreed.

2 separate and distinct cat species breeding produce an offspring that cannot produce offspring of its own. Hmmmmm... I guess both species of big cat was just not evolved enough yet to produce a new species that could survive. LOL..

Oh yeah they had to do it artificially as well because the lion would eat the tiger if it tried to breed with it.

There are now considered to be over 10 million species on earth and you cannot give one example of a species proven to evolve from another.

Don't forget:

We have the fossils. We have the DNA. We have the geology. We have the biology. We have the chemistry. We have the physics.

The fact that they have zero proof doesn't matter with global warming, and it doesn't matter here. They have all of this, and consensus.

Wouldn't it be great to be a fly on the wall when the realization hits that all of those things they have came from God?

Quit hitting the back button dude and hit refresh instead. lol

Rappers like to three-peat......

It does not speak to evolution. It speaks specifically to creation.

-One of my points all along artroy. The Bible is not a science text. I wonder how well read the Bible would be if the Word of God came with thousands of footnotes to each verse or if each verse were accounted in volumes of indisputable scholarship?

It's alright. Most of what you say needs to be said several times for some of our more enlightened friends anyway! ;^)

I didn't add "my bible says" to my last post. Sorry folks. I am no authority on the Bible, as you can all tell.

Or maybe He made man, saw that it was good, and used some variation of that formula for the animals. Not too far off from what my bible says.

If we take it and compare it to what we now know that people 20,000 years ago could never have known then that means a being of far superior intellect told early man what to write down.

How would early man know that everything was void and without form unless someone told them that specifically? Given the big bang theory it looks like maybe early man either had a superior life form tell them or early man just guessed and got it right? No way they partly guessed what science would later theorize actually happened. There just aint no way IMO.

Imagine for a moment you are alive 20,000 years ago with no technology and no way to pear into space except with the naked eye. How would man have ever figured out everything was void and without form all on their own without an ounce of scientific equipment?

Just sayen.

And you have the same amount of proof for that as you do macro evolution. Crazy, ain't it?

Have you read his past postings on other threads on any topic to do with evolution and/or religion?

Nothing anyone will say will make an ounce of difference to him being a disrespectful person. On this subject and several others he is a bigot and a troll plain and simple and he gets off on insulting others and keeping a debate going in that capacity as long as he can.

Go check out any other thread related to this kind of topic and you will see it is what he lives for. Its why he re-registered using a fake name.

RBO AKA Riverbottom's mission in life is to get on the net and tell creationist how stupid they are because its pretty much all he does here.

-There is not consensus even among scientists regarding evolution as a whole. That you rather indignantly expect broader acceptance for your narrower interpretation is curious if not a little entertaining.

Did anyone here see someone post that the scientist and biologist where idiots? I didn't.

The only person I see using the word "idiot" in this thread is RBO and RiverBottom. AKA the same guy.

"-There is not consensus even among scientists regarding evolution as a whole"

"as a whole" was the key distinction in case someone missed it.

2 take-aways you need RB, 1) No one is discounting evolution (evolving species). Most have acknowledged it. As such, stating folks don't believe in evolution is factually wrong. 2) You still haven't proven your version of creation or how man evolved from soup or mud or whatever you believe. So, until you do, you fail your own purported standard. You may want to work on that if you insist on being so haughty.

Hammer, with all due respect, that's the kind of answer that gives no credence to your own argument. The fact that it isn't mentioned does not make it a fact that it didn't happen.

Also, the biblical explanation of how life was created is clearly the result nothing more than the simple act of observation, which naturally and undeniably sparks speculation. When you see something you can't explain, you automatically form an opinion of what's happening based on common sense but lacking any factual knowledge.

1st off they had nothing to observe with but their own eyeballs. It aint like they had telescopes to figure things out.

One could easily conclude that the Big Bang theory and the biblical account from that aspect are nearly the same. The difference is they had no way to peer into space and see that if you move everything backwards to one starting point that what would be there would be darkness and a void without form etc...

Early man could barley write well but they had this incredible knowledge or the just happen to guess right. I chose to believe God told them what happened.

"Yep and nope

I think you took what I meant wrong. The bible does not speak to evolution but it speaks to creation specifically.

I guess he was supposed to make us live lives like a programed Robot.

I will take freewill any day

- God's predestination can be your free will. Look up the declination of time for a more worldly explanation.

In the natural, where does free will exist for a secularist versus a Christian?

-Great first step. Now, extrapolate. You are good at that.

- Stop answering questions that were not asked.

When I was 18, my dad could leave a stack of Bibles on the coffee table and a refrigerator full of beer. He, being as intelligent as he is, could predict the outcome. Does that mean I did not have the choice because he knew my decision?

You're conceptual problem is not with free will but salvation.

True. I once knew that my friend was going to get slapped - before he or she knew.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Gen 1

God tells us how he created. With the exception of humans, He spoke it into existence.

I do not buy the no choice theory being discussed.

God does not have a script for our lives. He tells us point blank that we have free will to choose.

If I put 100 of my small 2 year old kids favorite candy on the table and tell him he cannot have any of it and walk away I will guarantee you he will take a piece. No probabilities or any of that jazz but rather a certainty. However the kid still had a choice to do it or not. That's one scenario.

If we ever invent time travel you could then go forward in time and observe a persons life and what they will do. Is me knowing what he will do stopping his free will to choose just because I already know but he does not? Of course not!

Agreed but he did use that dust for us and the rib of Adam to create Eve which distinguishes us from everything else.

Given the life "blood" I personally believe he used the earth to create animals and spoke them into existence if you know what I mean.

Check your PM please.

You analogies are useless to make sense of the free will paradox because none of you are infallible."

Fallibility is not the philosophical hurdle with the free will concept. Finality is.

Given the quote above, give me an example of what is free will in your mind.

So, just so I understand what is being said here: God sets a path for us. A VERY well defined path; and then say's, "Go into the world, you have free will." BUT, unfortunately your parents or some other irresponsible person forgot to take you to church and TEACH their belief to you, And since you are an infant, very impressionable, and not having the presence of God instilled into you at the moment of your birth, you don't follow his perceived path simply because you don't know any better. Although you're human, and created by him, he is simply setting you up to fail as he did in the garden of Eden with the apple??

I don't buy it...You're saying God doesn't learn from his mistakes but he gave us the ability to?

"The bible does not speak to evolution but it speaks to creation specifically."

then why do creationist dispute and despise the thought of evolution as if God had declared it a sin??

I'm also very curious to hear what creationists have to say about the fact that all life forms share one common ingredient. It is a fact, but it never gets discussed by people that refuse to open their mind to all possibilities of life. Why not?

"‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord, ‘every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.’”

If I may volunteer my opinion of your stance: You seem to be a very intelligent person but your delivery is a bit off kilter.

If you have a gift that you insist on sharing with others, wrap it in something appealing...don't just chuck into a grocery sack and toss into the lap of others. Hopefully you see the significance of that statement.

ar Troy,

I'm going to assume you are addressing RB here.

With that said, why are you so offended by RB's statement? In a sense he was putting what I said into laymens terms. My intent is not to be offensive but to point out and question the obvious. None of us were born with a knowledge, understanding, or immediate recognition of god. Why does the bible speak as though we are all born being aware of the purpose that God supposedly has for us?

You guys seem to waste a lot of time and words on some things that are so simple to understand.

God created everything including evolution.

End of debate. Game, set, match.

On to another subject boys !

I guess the real answer is if you don't know, I can't tell you. I can handle the petty backhand remarks, the irreverance, the doubt, the non-belief. In disrespecting God, he disrespects all who believe in Him, and love Him like they do their own family, some even more. Would you sit by as he spit in your wife's face? I don't think so.

I don't have to defend God, and I don't have to sit by as human garbage demean and disrespect him, abusing my Christian forgiveness.

I have to say, I estimated it beneath you to abide such statements. Although you do not believe, you at least seemed to understand somewhat the love and devotion held for God, or at least respected the fact that these are among our most deeply held beliefs. Apparently, I was wrong on all counts.

I'll be back to this thread when his last post is removed, or he is removed altogether.

Yes you are wrong. Regardless of how many of these debates I've been a part of, nobody really knows me. I was hoping you had more tenacity when it came to debating this subject with the very men you were created as equally as...Yet you accuse me of being a non-believer, although I have never said, "I don't believe in YOUR God".

I'm up for debating this issue till the end of time, but when you make statements like that, you simply place yourself in the "holier-than-thou" crowd. I've seen too many of those guys come and go, as I have those who have no belief in god what-so-ever.

"I'll be back to this thread when his last post is removed, or he is removed altogether."

really? You want to ban/shun those that dispute you. Funny...There's a bunch of guys in the Middle East with that same mind set that killed a bunch of Christians for not supporting their belief.

Arrogance my friend...plain and simple. Your faith is no better than anyone other faith on Earth yet you scorn your fellow man if he exercises the freedom to believe what he wants...exactly as you believe what you want.

I have tried to be objective an not doubt those that see things differently than I do...but I'm not afraid to challenge there stance. And MORE IMPORTANTLY, I'm not afraid to consider another well described opinion as something I may see as plausible. In other words, I try to keep an open mind, but obviously an open mind is nothing but the ignorance of the hell bound.

Wow big fella. Just yesterday you were throwing the idea around that RiverBottom/RBO is basically a jerk and now your a little upset that AR has had enough of his crap and now you are defending him also. 1st off you know better than to believe AR's response was due to just one post right? Perhaps you have not been around for Rivers childish and disrespectful antics on other threads and topics. He does not take it as far as he does on these but he does take it wayyyyy to far. It often ends with River getting very upset because some long time and respected member tells him he is acting ignorant.

I have said for a long time that you were the most reasonable person to debate this topic of all those who believe in Evolution and also have doubts about a God but your last post is a hit piece. AR was not implying or saying what you are reading IMO. At least not the way I saw it. You have surprised me.

Lets all keep in mind that regardless of God or Religion or Evolution there is such a thing as having a good nature about ones self and not being a total azz to others especially when its not warranted. At the very least we call it being respectful toward others. RB's lacks self control and respect for his fellow man and their differing beliefs can only be tolerated so long. No matter what people say and how kind they say it he comes back with something juvenile or disrespect or contemptible. He's no better than a bigoted white man toward a black man ONLY because he is black. He comes across over 50% of the time as a juvenile, immature bigot who is out to only stir the pot for no other reason than to stir the pot. Lets not forget he has violated Forum rules by having a fake name and a bogus registration and only admitted it after being called on it. People here were kind enough to let it slide and let slide his attitude toward anyone who believes but gezzzz enough is enough already with that kind of crap.

If I had a thread on God and someone claiming to be a Christian was doing what he does towards another who does not believe but he debates with respect I would just delete the bad influence on the tread and block them after multiple warnings. But that's me.

Now,

"I don't buy it...You're saying God doesn't learn from his mistakes but he gave us the ability to? "

1st off we Christians do not believe God makes a mistake ever and never has. Also if you are born in a home with no Christian values God will still reveal himself to you. At some point God reveals himself to all men whether they are honest enough to admit it or not so who your parents are and how you were raised is irrelevant to salvation. Again it only takes believing to make it to heaven. You do not need the perfect situation or perfect circumstances to believe. Let me clarify this: When I say you I mean others or those who do not believe and not you directly. I do not want you to think I see you that way or that I was attacking you. I am a believer in God but I respect your questions and doubts about God

Now one to your direct reply to me,

"then why do creationist dispute and despise the thought of evolution as if God had declared it a sin?? "

In my whole life I have never seen a Christian claim that evolution was a sin. I think you lost me but if I think what you mean is what you mean then its not a sin to believe things can evolve. To deny Gods existence is what you are seeing and then your taking that to mean they see evolution as a sin but that's not correct or biblical.

As to the common ingredient. Do you mean blood or DNA?

I'm up for debating this issue till the end of time, but when you make statements like that, you simply place yourself in the "holier-than-thou" crowd. I've seen too many of those guys come and go, as I have those who have no belief in god what-so-ever.

I don't accuse you of anything. Whether you believe in God or not is not my point. My point is, most if not all that do, love Him with all of their being, and revere Him as their father, and creator of all. I'm all for debate, but hurling disgusting insults and accusations is not debate. When pressed for any facts or proof supporting macro evolution, the debate quickly turned to other, more philosophical arguments, and then to filth. For no reason other than to say awful things about God, the Father.

"really? You want to ban/shun those that dispute you. Funny...There's a bunch of guys in the Middle East with that same mind set that killed a bunch of Christians for not supporting their belief."

Nobody is asking for or expecting support. I've never censored anyone or asked that anyone be censored. But then again, for the most part the people we converse with usually have enough self respect to refrain from making statements like that, if not respect for fellow posters who believe God is their father, and the father of all things.

You may call it arrogance, or believing my faith is better than someone else's if that's what you think. But let me ask you, if your belief system centered around your own father, you wouldn't have any real problem with someone sitting around a campfire and telling you you must be cracked, would you? How would you feel if they said not only are you cracked, but your father is an ignorant, murderous, angry, vengeful, bumbling idiot? Would you sit around the campfire and discuss it with them?

Oh well, glad we understand each other better.

"Just because he's a troll doesn't make him eligible for a bullet to the head. NOR does it mean I defend him. If anyone should know that by now, it's you!"

Not quite sure as to your point there but all trolls do deserve a a cyber bullet. Thats why they go poof on this site over and over.

"Where are my "doubts about a God"?

Well given your positions and strong stances in the past you have left me believing based on all the info that you do not believe or at a minimum you have doubts whether there is any God regardless of who's God.

"Do you believe that theory? "

No I don't.

I have never called a person " a sinner, a hater, a racist, and hell bound, etc" in the context of their salvation or beliefs. If I saw another christian doing so I would point out their biblical error by doing so in that way.

On the other hand when a person pops off all the time and goes around looking to be a jerk then i think it is ok to say something. If they go into another thread and their comment sticks out like a sore thumb and it has ZERO to do with the topic and they say "God is impotent" then I would probably speak up about it. RB likes to disrespect those who believe in God and he will mention God even in threads that are not even bout God.

You see calling a person those things you mentioned in the context of their salvation or beliefs if they are a respectful debater would be wrong. If they are a complete TOOL out to cause no good and disrupt peaceful discourse then they are a "hater" and a "racist" and a troll that DOES deserve a cyber bullet. There is a reason the Bowsite mods and the members here do not tolerate trolls. Its because they are tools out to cause trouble. RB is no better than a troll in most of his responses on these kinds of topics. 90% are rude and meant to inflame. I am surprised he has not went poof by now but I suspect the warnings by so many members are over now and its only a matter of time.

This is a forum with a specific set of rules. We all agree to follow them in order to participate. We are not required to be long suffering toward any ignorant fools who's sole purpose is to try and be disrespectful.

Just my opinion.

Take note that I am not even bothering to directly respond to RBO/RiverBottom anymore. There is no point because it is pointless when the guy wants nothing more than an ongoing fight. To many threads on this topic where I have seen him do the exact same thing and even worse.

I will debate with you anytime because whether you buy my beliefs or arguments you at least are respectful of mine and others opinions and you stay within the confines of the rules we all agreed to follow. You also seem like a decent human so that helps a lot also.

:o)

Perhaps you could provide the evidence of how he out argued anyone?

I mean if its true anyone could point to where he was so effective at proving his points.

By the way are you sure it was Twain that said that ;o)

"And I will show wonders in Heaven above and signs in the Earth beneath, the sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord." Joel 2:30

"God is literally screaming at the world: 'I'm coming soon.'"

'The tetrad or blood moons are particularly meaningful for Israel. The previous tetrads, in 1492, 1948 and 1967, coincided with such events as the expulsion of Jews from Spain at the end of the Inquisition, statehood for Israel, and the Six-Day War.'

Could it be that all 3 of those significant events corresponding with the tetrad were only a coincidence?

We are in a series of 4 blood moons now. The first one in this tetrad began at 2 a.m. ET Tuesday. The other dates are Oct. 8, April 4, 2015, and Sept. 28, 2015.

Watch for these and I will bet my life a significant event will follow and more likely than not Israel will be involved.

God and the bible have always fascinated me and I think it almost defies belief how the bible can predict things 100's or even 1000's of years in advance.

Gotta love the logic and reading comprehension of some. I have seen few bible versus in here as an opposing specific counterpoint. If there are some it only accounts for a fraction of the post here. RB forwards this BS contention that we are trying to disprove evolution when I do not see anyone trying to do that on the creationist side. I see creationist saying what they believe and asking questions only to be slapped with disrespect.

I see the evolutionist side trying to disprove there is a God and getting nasty about it and they also try hard to prove human evolution is fact and that we came from goo even though they have NO proof if that at all. The end argument is red herrings and then it turns into we are uneducated and just do not understand.

They idea that christians do not believe in science is a red herring and total BULL also.

Heck even I have said that I believe in some of evolution of species or natural selection but not the way RBO/RiverBottm does. I also just do not believe man is part of the evolution equation or ever has been other than gaining knowledge.

With the millions upon million of creatures, critters, insects etc that have been on this earth man is the only species to advance beyond the scope of even being scientifically plausible. The odds are not scientifically possible but we should just ignore that I guess.

I do not wish to have a dialogue with you in any shape, fashion or form. I have told you this before and would appreciate if you refrain from commenting on my postings.

Thank you.

Pay him no attention.

Hammer, the best aspects of these debates is that there is a written record. Convincing, winning or even extracting a thoughtful response from zealots is always a challenge regardless of kind. The recorded exchange is satisfactory enough. And, truthfully, I only engage in them so that my viewpoints are in the record counterpointing those of the secular humanist zealots.

No problem man. I am not worried about it.

How do you accidentally do that though? Hitting the alert button would not actually alert them. You would need to choose one of the list options for what you are alerting/reporting about and then either fill out the form and/or just hit submit.

I do not think you can accidentally alert them. I have hit the alert button many times in the past when I was trying to click the edit feature and instead clicked the red alert button. If you do not also hit the "submit" button after that I think its voided out and they never are notified. It says something like hitting submit will alert the editors and it will be public that you have done so.

I wouldn't worry about if you just accidentally clicked the alert button and stopped there unless you hit alert accidentally and then followed the instructions and then hit submit. If you did all that it would not be an accident. lol.

:o)

Is the common ingredient your talking about genes?

Really, so is it Jesus or Jonah? Vermont or Virginia? never called you a liar. Called bravo sierra on the clearing cache story. Is that RiverBottom computer in another state? Just curious? So which is it? Call Center bad ass in VA, or Jesus in Vermont? By your own admission you lied in your registration as RBO. Don't get pissed when you get called on it.

Question your integrity? Pot meet kettle. Sh!t dude you lost that when started ridiculing Christians by referring to Zombie Jesus, Sky God and what not. There have been other non believers such as GJ, Catfish, JJ to name a few that never resorted to such childish name calling.

You are beneath contempt, grow up and come back when you mature a little. Given your melt down at the thought someone called you a liar, it could take awhile.

"But watch your f---- mouth questioning my integrity,..."

Rolls eyes....

For me the questions themselves are so important to this debate that the answer lies within them. There must be some kind of intelligent design IMHO. Without intelligent design life does not seem possible when looking through the lens of these questions. We are supposed to live by faith but God gave us a powerful mind to reason with and even with weak faith or no faith the answer to this entire question seems obvious.

I am happy and excited for the times we live in scientifically. For me personally what science has discovered and the subsequent questions it raises like in the questions in my video-link or below it makes it much easier to know for sure there was intelligent design at play with the origins of life. Because of science we have it easy to find our faith compared to past generations and I am grateful for that. Thank you 'science' for making it clear that life has intelligence design behind it.

1- 'How did life originate? “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?

2- how did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?

3- How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist?

4-Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution?

5- How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?

6- Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? "Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”5 The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design?

7- How did multi-cellular life originate? How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?

8- How did sex originate?

9- Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing? Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence

10- How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”

11- How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?

12- Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”

13- Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers … .” Evolution actually hinders medical discovery. Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?

14- Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science?

15- Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….”Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”14 If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught?

Kinda funny the only name calling is by liar.

I could not agree more. I am not a science expert so I do not know all the ins and outs on much of that science stuff but those questions look pretty reasonable to me. However I am sorry to report that none will be answered. There is no logical answer for them that will suffice so they will be avoided. Heck I could not even attempt to answer them.

70, that is a great question and as it seems we may have the Bowsite equivalent of a "time out" in process perhaps we can explore that question in the manner it deserves.

From my personal perspective I don't necessarily see a need for a distinction between the scientific and the biblical explanation. Let's start from the scientific root; the shared homology at the molecular level, the "blueprint" if you will, DNA. Why would one not expect to see a creator develop the blueprint and then begin mass production?

I've always found it ironic that those so purposeful in removing God from the equation cannot make the simple linkage between the creation and the creator. I would think even if one wanted to remove any "religious" connotation from the act from a purely empirical, scientific perspective creation by definition requires a "creator".

Proponents of abiogenesis might label such an entity "chance"; as in the oft-retold "primordial soup"-became amino acids, became complex proteins, became single-celled organisms, multi-celled....etc.

Even they, in strict denial of the Judeo-Christian accounting recognize something began what has evolved since.

As a life-long scientist I have seen too many incredible manifestations to ascribe them to mere chance, "order from chaos".

Mike,

That is my argument...and I hope I understand your point. Nothing in our solar system has ever proven the ability to simply "pop" into existence. Everything needs a foundation, materials, and time to develop. Most everything needs a plan to work from before it can be built, hence the belief in a higher power. I think the whole TOE/creation is a package deal, although I'm constantly accused of trying to keep the creationists down!!

My point is this: A Redwood tree for example, doesn't need much in the way of planning to become a pillar of strength. The seed that randomly finds the fertile soil does so without intervention from an intelligent being. To survive it simply needs a little rain and sunshine. From there it builds it's own foundation, strengthens itself, cloaks itself in a thick protective bark and flourishes into something magnificent. Out of ALL the seeds that drop from the parent tree, only a few are lucky enough to survive.

So what is so special about the surviving seeds? Do they believe in god more than the other seeds? Did they treat the other seeds nicely and earn their place in the fertile soil? Did the birds have a soft spot in their hearts for certain seeds and choose not to eat them? Or were they just the lucky bastards that randomly wound up un the sweet spot??

And no...I'm not trying to be a smartass in my analogy. This is just the kind of thing "naturally" comes to mind when I ponder our existence.

No one changed their minds, but can we at least learn from the first post? The Lucy knee was not found away from the rest of the skeleton. This has been known since 1973 and yet it is still used in creationists literature.

If you believe in god, then you believe that he made your brain to be able to discern the obvious lies.

Baby steps...

Hey Amoebus...follow the rules man. No facts allowed!!

by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.

Belief in evolution is a remarkable phenomenon. It is a belief passionately defended by the scientific establishment, despite the lack of any observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another). This odd situation is briefly documented here by citing recent statements from leading evolutionists admitting their lack of proof. These statements inadvertently show that evolution on any significant scale does not occur at present, and never happened in the past, and could never happen at all.

Evolution Is Not Happening Now

First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution.

Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind."

A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that:

. . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1

The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action.

Evolution Never Happened in the Past

Evolutionists commonly answer the above criticism by claiming that evolution goes too slowly for us to see it happening today. They used to claim that the real evidence for evolution was in the fossil record of the past, but the fact is that the billions of known fossils do not include a single unequivocal transitional form with transitional structures in the process of evolving.

Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion . . . it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3

Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.

Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4

The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.

With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:

And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5

Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:

The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. . . . investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6

Translation: "There is no known way by which life could have arisen naturalistically." Unfortunately, two generations of students have been taught that Stanley Miller's famous experiment on a gaseous mixture, practically proved the naturalistic origin of life. But not so!

Miller put the whole thing in a ball, gave it an electric charge, and waited. He found that amino acids and other fundamental complex molecules were accumulating at the bottom of the apparatus. His discovery gave a huge boost to the scientific investigation of the origin of life. Indeed, for some time it seemed like creation of life in a test tube was within reach of experimental science. Unfortunately, such experiments have not progressed much further than the original prototype, leaving us with a sour aftertaste from the primordial soup.7

Neither is there any clue as to how the one-celled organisms of the primordial world could have evolved into the vast array of complex multi-celled invertebrates of the Cambrian period. Even dogmatic evolutionist Gould admits that:

The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.8

Equally puzzling, however, is how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside.

Yet the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery, and many theories abound.9

Other gaps are abundant, with no real transitional series anywhere. A very bitter opponent of creation science, paleontologist, Niles Eldredge, has acknowledged that there is little, if any, evidence of evolutionary transitions in the fossil record. Instead, things remain the same!

It is a simple ineluctable truth that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations. . . .10

So how do evolutionists arrive at their evolutionary trees from fossils of oganisms which didn't change during their durations?

Fossil discoveries can muddle over attempts to construct simple evolutionary trees -- fossils from key periods are often not intermediates, but rather hodge podges of defining features of many different groups. . . . Generally, it seems that major groups are not assembled in a simple linear or progressive manner -- new features are often "cut and pasted" on different groups at different times.11

As far as ape/human intermediates are concerned, the same is true, although anthropologists have been eagerly searching for them for many years. Many have been proposed, but each has been rejected in turn.

All that paleoanthropologists have to show for more than 100 years of digging are remains from fewer than 2000 of our ancestors. They have used this assortment of jawbones, teeth and fossilized scraps, together with molecular evidence from living species, to piece together a line of human descent going back 5 to 8 million years to the time when humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor.12

Anthropologists supplemented their extremely fragmentary fossil evidence with DNA and other types of molecular genetic evidence from living animals to try to work out an evolutionary scenario that will fit. But this genetic evidence really doesn't help much either, for it contradicts fossil evidence. Lewin notes that:

The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories.13

Summarizing the genetic data from humans, another author concludes, rather pessimistically:

Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination.14

Since there is no real scientific evidence that evolution is occurring at present or ever occurred in the past, it is reasonable to conclude that evolution is not a fact of science, as many claim. In fact, it is not even science at all, but an arbitrary system built upon faith in universal naturalism.

Actually, these negative evidences against evolution are, at the same time, strong positive evidences for special creation. They are, in fact, specific predictions based on the creation model of origins.

Creationists would obviously predict ubiquitous gaps between created kinds, though with many varieties capable of arising within each kind, in order to enable each basic kind to cope with changing environments without becoming extinct. Creationists also would anticipate that any "vertical changes" in organized complexity would be downward, since the Creator (by definition) would create things correctly to begin with. Thus, arguments and evidences against evolution are, at the same time, positive evidences for creation.

The Equivocal Evidence from Genetics

Nevertheless, because of the lack of any direct evidence for evolution, evolutionists are increasingly turning to dubious circumstantial evidences, such as similarities in DNA or other biochemical components of organisms as their "proof" that evolution is a scientific fact. A number of evolutionists have even argued that DNA itself is evidence for evolution since it is common to all organisms. More often is the argument used that similar DNA structures in two different organisms proves common evolutionary ancestry.

Neither argument is valid. There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution.

The most frequently cited example of DNA commonality is the human/chimpanzee "similarity," noting that chimpanzees have more than 90% of their DNA the same as humans. This is hardly surprising, however, considering the many physiological resemblances between people and chimpanzees. Why shouldn't they have similar DNA structures in comparison, say, to the DNA differences between men and spiders?

Similarities -- whether of DNA, anatomy, embryonic development, or anything else -- are better explained in terms of creation by a common Designer than by evolutionary relationship. The great differences between organisms are of greater significance than the similarities, and evolutionism has no explanation for these if they all are assumed to have had the same ancestor. How could these great gaps between kinds ever arise at all, by any natural process?

The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense.

Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, as noted above by Roger Lewin, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Lewin also mentions just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian "proofs."

The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas.15

There are many even more bizarre comparisons yielded by this approach.

The abundance of so-called "junk DNA" in the genetic code also has been offered as a special type of evidence for evolution, especially those genes which they think have experienced mutations, sometimes called "pseudogenes."16 However, evidence is accumulating rapidly today that these supposedly useless genes do actually perform useful functions.

Enough genes have already been uncovered in the genetic midden to show that what was once thought to be waste is definitely being transmitted into scientific code.17

It is thus wrong to decide that junk DNA, even the socalled "pseudogenes," have no function. That is merely an admission of ignorance and an object for fruitful research. Like the socalled "vestigial organs" in man, once considered as evidence of evolution but now all known to have specific uses, so the junk DNA and pseudogenes most probably are specifically useful to the organism, whether or not those uses have yet been discovered by scientists.

At the very best this type of evidence is strictly circumstantial and can be explained just as well in terms of primeval creation supplemented in some cases by later deterioration, just as expected in the creation model.

The real issue is, as noted before, whether there is any observable evidence that evolution is occurring now or has ever occurred in the past. As we have seen, even evolutionists have to acknowledge that this type of real scientific evidence for evolution does not exist.

A good question to ask is: Why are all observable evolutionary changes either horizontal and trivial (so-called microevolution) or downward toward deterioration and extinction? The answer seems to be found in the universally applicable laws of the science of thermodynamics.

Evolution Could Never Happen at All

The main scientific reason why there is no evidence for evolution in either the present or the past (except in the creative imagination of evolutionary scientists) is because one of the most fundamental laws of nature precludes it. The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity.

This law of entropy is, by any measure, one of the most universal, bestproved laws of nature. It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems -- in fact, in all systems, without exception.

No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles.18

The author of this quote is referring primarily to physics, but he does point out that the second law is "independent of details of models." Besides, practically all evolutionary biologists are reductionists -- that is, they insist that there are no "vitalist" forces in living systems, and that all biological processes are explicable in terms of physics and chemistry. That being the case, biological processes also must operate in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, and practically all biologists acknowledge this.

Evolutionists commonly insist, however, that evolution is a fact anyhow, and that the conflict is resolved by noting that the earth is an "open system," with the incoming energy from the sun able to sustain evolution throughout the geological ages in spite of the natural tendency of all systems to deteriorate toward disorganization. That is how an evolutionary entomologist has dismissed W. A. Dembski's impressive recent book, Intelligent Design. This scientist defends what he thinks is "natural processes' ability to increase complexity" by noting what he calls a "flaw" in "the arguments against evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics." And what is this flaw?

Although the overall amount of disorder in a closed system cannot decrease, local order within a larger system can increase even without the actions of an intelligent agent.19

This naive response to the entropy law is typical of evolutionary dissimulation. While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed.

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present.

From the statements of evolutionists themselves, therefore, we have learned that there is no real scientific evidence for real evolution. The only observable evidence is that of very limited horizontal (or downward) changes within strict limits.

Evolution is Religion -- Not Science

In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.20

The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism -- the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.21

Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.

Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.22

Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.

The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.23

A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.24

It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.25

Another way of saying "religion" is "worldview," the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game.

Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.26

They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement.

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.27

The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn't make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says:

We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.28

A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism. Speaking of the trust students naturally place in their highly educated college professors, he says:

And I use that trust to effectively brainwash them. . . . our teaching methods are primarily those of propaganda. We appeal -- without demonstration -- to evidence that supports our position. We only introduce arguments and evidence that supports the currently accepted theories and omit or gloss over any evidence to the contrary.29

Creationist students in scientific courses taught by evolutionist professors can testify to the frustrating reality of that statement. Evolution is, indeed, the pseudoscientific basis of religious atheism, as Ruse pointed out. Will Provine at Cornell University is another scientist who frankly acknowledges this.

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.30

Once again, we emphasize that evolution is not science, evolutionists' tirades notwithstanding. It is a philosophical worldview, nothing more.

(Evolution) must, they feel, explain everything. . . . A theory that explains everything might just as well be discarded since it has no real explanatory value. Of course, the other thing about evolution is that anything can be said because very little can be disproved. Experimental evidence is minimal.31

Even that statement is too generous. Actual experimental evidence demonstrating true evolution (that is, macroevolution) is not "minimal." It is nonexistent!

The concept of evolution as a form of religion is not new. In my book, The Long War Against God,32 I documented the fact that some form of evolution has been the pseudo-rationale behind every anti-creationist religion since the very beginning of history. This includes all the ancient ethnic religions, as well as such modern world religions as Buddhism, Hinduism, and others, as well as the "liberal" movements in even the creationist religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam).

As far as the twentieth century is concerned, the leading evolutionist is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957). In a later book, he said:

Evolution . . . is the most powerful and the most comprehensive idea that has ever arisen on earth.33

Later in the book he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern."34 Then he went on to say that: "The God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."35

That something, of course, is the religion of evolutionary humanism, and that is what the leaders of evolutionary humanism are trying to do today.

In closing this survey of the scientific case against evolution (and, therefore, for creation), the reader is reminded again that all quotations in the article are from doctrinaire evolutionists. No Bible references are included, and no statements by creationists. The evolutionists themselves, to all intents and purposes, have shown that evolutionism is not science, but religious faith in atheism.

Your video is not valid or scientific. It is more of the same kind of thing that just saw your alter ego vaporized.

you wrote- "Took more time to copy and paste the questions that it did to answer them."

If those were supposed to be quick and easy scientifically acceptable answers to those questions then I need to return to college but instead I will just refer you to my last post addressed directly to you.

My post are not meant for you and I would appreciate it you could refrain like I nicely asked you once already.

Thank you.

No problem with your analogy; in fact, I think it's rather profound! It isn't the act after creation, in your example the germination of the seed that is the difficult action. All of the necessary genetic code is contained in the seed to produce the mature redwood. The "chance" if you will lies in the factors you alluded to; not to be eaten by birds, to find an ideal patch of soil in which to germinate, etc. All of those actions while obviously occurring (and having occurred in the past) are not predictable to the singular event.

I think many here are in accord as to the "fuel"; it's the "vehicle" we're trying to sort out.

RB, I used DNA and not RNA for a distinct reason; there is not and there may never be a consensus on whether viruses are living organisms. One can easily make a compelling argument that they are not while one is more hard-pressed to make the case for it.

About a year ago some thought they did have a case for but upon review it appears more a manifestation of extraneous bacterial DNA being transported out of the bacterium by the bacteriophage much in the same manner as bacteriophages are able to pass resistance mechanisms between bacteria.

"The law of increasing entropy -- also known as the second law of thermodynamics -- stipulates that all systems in the real world tend to go "downhill," as it were, toward disorganization and decreased complexity."

Morris is relying on you reading that sentence (which is 100% true) and not realize the most important word is 'tend'.

While the universe as a whole follows the 2nd law (and local systems that are 'closed' also follow the 2nd law), there are many, many examples of 'open' systems that don't follow the 2nd law. An 'open' system is one that has energy (heat) being added to the system. For one of 6+ billion examples of this, go to the bathroom and look in the mirror.

I 'tend' to forgive people who don't know any better, but don't have pity for Morris/Ham and many others that obviously have the smarts to know better but still put out completely false scientific statements knowing that their audience will never question them.

I really don't care what people believe in this debate (I respect that you believe that humans have a higher level than animals that is provided by god - even if I don't agree with it), but will point out obvious falsehoods - and hope that people learn/grow because of it.

And with that, we all need to go shed or morel hunting now that 3' of snow is off the ground...

"I 'tend' to forgive people who don't know any better, but don't have pity for Morris/Ham and many others that obviously have the smarts to know better but still put out completely false scientific statements knowing that their audience will never question them.

What in this statement is untrue exactly or a lie?

"While it is true that local order can increase in an open system if certain conditions are met, the fact is that evolution does not meet those conditions. Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed."

The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms.

Evolution has neither of these. Mutations are not "organizing" mechanisms, but disorganizing (in accord with the second law). They are commonly harmful, sometimes neutral, but never beneficial (at least as far as observed mutations are concerned). Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only "sieve out" the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating new order. In principle, it may be barely conceivable that evolution could occur in open systems, in spite of the tendency of all systems to disintegrate sooner or later. But no one yet has been able to show that it actually has the ability to overcome this universal tendency, and that is the basic reason why there is still no bona fide proof of evolution, past or present."

Point out where the false statement is. I thought the article was honest and even the parts where he said it "tends" to leaves open the possibility that it can also 'tend not to.'

He went passed that though and explained what we can observe didn't he?

Without God, you are just chemistry. With God, you are a responsible being who will one day be judged either by your own actions or by the Blood of Christ.

"On November 20, 1986 I did lecture at the University of Missouri at Kansas City. Since I give so many lectures all over the world, I do not remember specifically what I say at each and every lecture;" Maybe he got confused being live and in person."

I Love Lucy? by William A. Hoesch, M.S.

Lucy, to TV audiences of the 1950s and 1960s, was a spunky red-headed actress. To our more educated schoolchildren today, however, "Lucy" means something quite different. She is the celebrated fossil that appears in textbooks as a hairy, semi-naked, upright-walking ape striding boldly across a treeless African landscape. Her jaw is set and she leaves behind her a set of trailing footprints. As the unquestioned icon of human evolution, her fame is comparable to that of the former actress. Why is it that all public school children have heard of this fossil? Let us consider Lucy and her species, Australopithicus afarensis.

The human evolution story usually begins with the more primitive australopithocines (literally, "southern apes") that transition into the genus Homo (or human), through either Homo habilis or Homo erectus, depending on who you talk to. Homo habilis is a mixed taxon of both human and ape remains, and has fallen into disrepute. As for Homo erectus, a great many suggest this category be subsumed into Homo sapiens. Thus "Lucy" and the afarensis fossils occupy a critical place in the human evolution story, squarely between that of the truly apish australopithocines and humans.

Lucy's skeleton was about 40% complete and was a remarkable discovery when unearthed by Don Johanson in 1974. The creature would have stood 3.5 feet tall, about the height of a chimpanzee. Its skull was grossly ape-like, and also about the size of a chimp's, with very little in the way of human-like features. Lucy possessed very long fingers with a decided curve to them, like modern apes possess for tree-swinging activities. From other A. afarensis finds, it is believed Lucy possessed long toes with a curvature that also suggested prehensile and arboreal behavior. Lucy's upright-turned shoulder joint enabled suspensory behavior and her hands, wrists, and arms were powerfully prehensile. And so you ask, what makes Lucy such a great missing link? Angles of bones in the (reconstructed) hip joint and knee joint suggest that Lucy spent part of her time walking upright. That is as strong as the evidence gets that she was related to humans. Virtually no anatomists will support Johanson's claim that Lucy was a habitual upright walker, yet this is what most textbooks boast

There is one more piece of evidence that has been used to argue that Lucy was an upright walker: the Laotoli footprints. In strata comparable in age to those from which Lucy came are a set of very well defined fossil footprints. Remarkably, anatomists are unanimously agreed that the footprints are indistinguishable from those made by modern man on a beach. Rather than admit this as evidence that man and Lucy lived side-by-side in the past, it is claimed that an ape like Lucy must have made the footprints because "we all know" that man hadn't evolved yet. This, despite the fact that it is almost inconceivable that an austro-lopithocine foot could have done it! It is only by circular reasoning that this can be admitted as evidence for human evolution yet this is exactly what is being done in our public schools today.

If you want to know why Lucy is hailed the greatest of missing links it is because she is the best the evolutionist can come up with! There can be no other explanation. It is a credit to an educational establishment that banks on the ignorance of taxpayers that Lucy remains a "missing link."

Evolution is not scientific. Have you been brainwashed?

If evolution of humans is a fact then they should find the missing link in short order because after all humans in our current form have not been around for very long. Given that knowledge we should see a missing link fossil that is OBVIOUS and beyond ANY doubt our missing link and they should be in abundance also just like all other fossils for recent species and their so called ancestors.

In fact those should be the easiest fossils to find because of our timing.

Heck I can go search the woods and find bones from a few years ago for animals in abundance. Humans being here in current form for such a short period of time means they should not need to dig down past 100's of thousands of years worth of layers just to find the species that gave birth to our current form.

Looking at the fossil record it's almost as if humans in our current form just popped out of nowhere and left no solid evidence behind except for a lucy skeleton that is old as hell and has some serious flaws to it.

Grow up and act like an adult instead of a petulant child all the time. If you got something to say just say it instead of underhanded remarks like that.

If not you might get banned again. Oh thats right you never have been ba...........

:o)

If you can be serious for 2 seconds and not rude then explain what is our most recent ancestor and what is the fossil name and what is the estimated age of it?

LMAO So now I am supposed to gain knowledge from TV? Really?

I will ask you the question then.....Whats the fossil and how old is it?

On a side note......You should use quotes and site your source instead of attributing all those words to yourself. Not doing so is plagiarism. None of that information provided is your own and it does not answer my question either.

Should have known better than to engage with you or give you one last chance to answer any question directly without some riverbootem spin on it.

Hey wait...Lately I've been watching Joel Osteen on TV to help myself understand the Christian/Creationist way of thinking. Are you telling me it's a joke to think I can get that from TV? Are you saying I've been wasting all of my time trying to learn the gospel from the boob tube?

Thanks Hammer...you're a real buzz-kill buddy!

Yes that's what I am saying. I distrust TV more than anything on this planet other than the internet. There are to many programs with spin and their opinion. You can't learn very much either from a 1 hour show either. If you watch something and you think its true you need to independently verify it or your at risk of being duped. Even with Joel.

The written word and as close to the original source is what's required IMO in order to get the facts on most things. Most are to lazy to do that and there is disinformation everywhere because of it. It is also THEIR translation of what you are watching so you need to verify it.

That's why I have always said learning Greek and Hebrew translations for the bible is a good idea. You get as close to the original source as possible that way.

I am not saying not to watch Joel or whomever I am just saying to watch a 1 hour show to answer a question one might have is insane.

Read what it says and comprehend it instead of a copy and paste. Then read my question and comprehend it. "explain what is our most recent ancestor and what is the fossil name and what is the estimated age of it?"

I do not need a lesson in fossils RB. I asked a specific set of questions!

I even went on and ask Arrow, ".....What's the fossil and how old is it?"

By the way why use Gods name in vein in a post if you do not believe in a God? Just saying!

They might have found another Earth........ Maybe...

Hammer, Be careful using the word "facts" in a thread like this.

Facts are a good thing when they are actually a proven fact. Facts that are not really a fact are not a fact.

You got that fact?

Fact of the matter is we have no facts.

Now that's a fact. Or maybe its not a fact.

;o)

So why aren't there more fossils of all these transitional forms?

Where are they? This one item alone shoots a hole in current evolutionary theory wide enough to drive a creation, a flood, and a crucifixion/resurrection through.

How are evolutionists responding to this lack of intermediate form evidence to support their theory? Now they say that there were periodic times of evolution so rapid that it did not leave a fossil record.

Out of all the millions of species you would think that just one would have left a traceable fossil record of species to species evolution. They cannot produce even one.

Remember Dr. Patterson? Let me refresh your memory.

"But Dr Patterson [a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History] spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.

Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book’s contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. On April 10, 1979, he replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows: ‘… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?" (Patterson, personal communication; documented in: Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, pp. 88–90, 1988.)

Also, the late Dr. Stephen. J. Gould had something to say about all them transitional fossils.

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record presists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary tree that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. ...The history of most fossil species includes two features inconsistent with gradualism.

1. Statis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is ususally limited and directional.

2. Sudden Appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed." S. J. Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace" Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, p. 14 (May 1977).

Evolution is not scientific. Have you been brainwashed?

You call me a moron which is grounds for banishment AGAIN for you and you also still do not answer simple questions. WOW.

Now you post an article about how a dominant male animal is supposedly caring for its dying dominant female shows some kind of morality?...Its on the internet so it must be true right?

Like it has been said here before a momma lion cares for its dying cub by protecting it also and then acts distressed when it dies and licks it over and over and calls to it only to eat it. I guess morality must come in many forms to guys like you who do not even know the actual definition of morality even though its posted above. Maybe any animal protecting its young or breeding rights is displaying morality also?

On a side note I am not an expert in those little critters from that article but in that very short video I did not see ""any"" moral behavior being displayed whatsoever. To be honest I am not even sure what the heck is even happening because its so short. For all I know maybe the male thought it was breeding time or something or maybe it was confused about what was going on. They should have posted the entire video instead of a very short edited version that does not in ANYWAY back up the claims in the article. I know I have yet to see an animal try to copulate when the other is dying. Something else was in that males head IMO. I think he was confused about what was even going on.

"The stressful situation could be the cause of the out of context behaviours performed by the male." Dr Bruna Bezerra University of Bristol.

"However, We could also speculate that the behaviors could have been made to trigger a response from the injured female." Dr Bruna Bezerra university of Bristol

"The researchers caution that the rarity and complexity of such observations makes it very difficult to evaluate how nonhuman primates perceive death.

For example, during the interaction, M1B tried to copulate with F1B.

Marmosets often use sex to reinforce their social bonds, as do other primates such as bonobos.

As he comforted her, the male also called out, using an alarm call marmosets usually make when they spot an aerial predator such as a bird of prey. But no such predator was in the area, according to the scientists present.

It is unclear whether the sexual aspect of the male's interaction with his partner, or his alarm calls, were made due to grief or the stressful nature of the situation."

As to you..... You just keep coming full circle back to the same things and you obfuscate on everything. Its a fruitless endeavor to even try to ask you a question about anything. You are so stuck on morals and god hating and EVERYTHING being a transitional form that you do not even understand the questions asked of you by many members here. Talk about blind faith.

Just admit you cannot answer it and move on.

Perhaps a little less ego and fewer lies would help you a lot. To say you do not read the post when you then turn around and directly insult and then post some gibberish that does not speak to the question but rather tap dances all around it proves you do read them.

You crack me up and at least you provide all of us some comedy with your infantile and underhanded name calling and remarks.

I am merely pointing you have ZERO respect for the rules we all must follow as members here. You seem to think you are exempt from those rules. Eventually someone here will get enough of you and report you and you will go the way of your alter ego RBO.

When the author says the following (as a small example):

"The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms."

For instance, the 'best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics' is written as follows:

dS = dq/T

S is the entropy and q is the heat put into the system.

He goes on to say 'says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the entropy of that system, not decrease it'. This is also true - if d increases, then S (entropy) will increase.

What he doesn't say is that, while the overall entropy of a system will increase, local decreases in entropy do not contradict the 2nd law and are key to understanding life, evolution, crystals - i.e. anything that is not disorder.

Each sentence that he writes can be analyzed in this detail if you want, but I don't have the time to teach the last 100+ years of physics.

It is my impression that the author can be summarized as follows (I had to say impression, because the 2nd law is a mathematical formula which the author avoids):

"The 2nd law says things all go toward disorder. I don't know the mechanism that evolution uses to reverse the disorder, therefore evolution violates the 2nd law."

Unless he can show that overall entropy decreases when heat is added (something that would violate the 2nd law, allow perpetual motion machines and be a Nobel prize candidate), then he is just doing verbal gymnastics (with his audience being the east german judges...)

Hammer - when you read the author, was your overall impression that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermo? If so, maybe you can help me by providing the math?

'Amoebus - I read Dr. Johanson's letter. He's clear in the letter, how about when he gave his presentation?

"On November 20, 1986 I did lecture at the University of Missouri at Kansas City. Since I give so many lectures all over the world, I do not remember specifically what I say at each and every lecture;" Maybe he got confused being live and in person."

I guess that I was overly optimistic that we could learn something in this thread...

All I was saying is that Johanson and all the other members of IARE who were there on the dig don't have any question that the Lucy bones came from one site.

"I think I was reported because someone wanted to call me a liar on here. So, I posted some personal info about them to let them know they should watch their mouth."

You were reported because you posted personal info about my son. You got pissed because you thought I called you a liar. No, I merely brought your lie to light. It doesn't matter whether or not you agree with Bowsite policy about a real vs fictitious name and location. Guess what? You lied? You admitted you lied. And got called on it. Then you chose to bring my son into it.

At first I felt like it was an implied threat. But with your most recent comment "So, I posted some personal info about them to let them know they should watch their mouth." It's no longer an implied threat, but a direct one. Thanks for the clarification.

"But I didn't post his address...his phone number...his wife's phone number..both of their work numbers....their kids schools....picture of his house...and some other stuff that I found."

You're a strange man to look that hard into a internet personality to start with. Sorry but hey that's just weird and kinda scary.

You have been put under watch for disrespectful and outrageous behavior many times before. Just do a quick bowsite search on yourself every so often and look for the big red bar over you name in any state thread you drop in to visit. When a watch is placed on you here it shows up everywhere on the state threads but not in the BGF or the CF so people here may not be aware of what's really going on unless they look up the bowsite history of the guy they are talking to. Also a watch will NEVER be placed on a guy for no good reason. If someone is unjustly reported they end up getting booted or a watch is placed on them instead.

Keep in mind doing a bowsite search or Goggling someone quickly to see if their a real person or lying is FAR different than getting their address and phone number and kids names and pictures and school info etc etc... Going that far is just sick and insane IMO! You would have to do an extensive search to obtain all that data period! All that personal info is not gleaned from a "quick search." The fact that you admitted it above tells me all I need to ever about you and helped me deicide to ever engage you again.

Also the other reason you alter ego "RBO" (and it was an alter ego) went poof was because my bowsite friend told me he reported your violations 2 or 3 times just before you went poof.

There were multiple rule infractions by you and RBO going poof was appropriate. There was no reason for you to make up a different handle and fake name and fake state you said you lived in. You did not change the state until almost a week after it was pointed out and you even acknowledged it. You were being a troll and you should just admit it. The registration pin stuff was bunk and you know it. Anyone on bowsite knows that's total bunk and could not EVER be possible if you have an active handle your posting with. My pin number works on ANY computer and ALWAYS has. Your lying but I am not quite sure why you would.

I know that RBO showed up with a different name and state IMMEDIATLY after 3 or 4 people here started blasting you for your outrageous comments and said they would not respond to you anymore. It happened and again RBO shows up IMMEDIATLY after that. I guess its all a BIG coincidence. LOL ya right!

With that I am out of this debate for good. Nothing more to talk about here. We all will disagree with each other until the end of time on evolution and trolls are an even bigger waste of time to talk about.

So be it. Later

If anyone takes offense to that I am sorry but I felt it was required because of the ongoing disruption it was causing.

Go read 'your' post and see 'you're' good at misspelling 'your' own words and using 'your' own poor grammar. You do so often. 'You're' the pot calling 'your' own kettle black!

It always comes full circle with guys like you and you feel the need to attack anyone who points out your lie or nastiness toward others. You then make it personal and petty.

Don't be such a Chump!

Have a nice life RiverBottom

"sorry for the delay, I don't know how you guys have time to work and hunt and still type endlessly on Bowsite... "

If you type really fast and stick with only a few threads you can make many post in a short amount of time.

Hunting around here does not start until Monday.

But they did provide a very simple example of evolution, in the Polar Bear. Where brown bears trapped by a glacier evolved over a couple hundred thousand years to the point that a new species was recognized.

Or the giraffe, that evolved from a shorter neck creature to the modern long neck giraffe. How can that not be evidence of evolution? God didn't just 'poof' different size giraffes onto the earth every few thousand years to give the illusion of evolution.

"A grizzly–polar bear hybrid (also pizzly bear, prizzly bear, or grolar bear is a rare ursid hybrid that has occurred both in captivity and in the wild. In 2006, the occurrence of this hybrid in nature was confirmed by testing the DNA of a strange-looking bear that had been shot near Sachs Harbour, Northwest Territories on Banks Island in the Canadian Arctic"

Where are the giraffe fossils with medium length necks?

As long as the term "evolution" is not used, your point will simply be sluffed off as "adaptation". All of the facts of "adaptation" are accepted by the creationists. Adaptation has proof that can be mimicked in a short period of time. Evolution never has, and never will have, that luxury. The true essence of time can NEVER be duplicated nor comprehended by modern man. That is the only straw the creation crowd has to grasp.

Who's been brainwashed TF???

P.S. Please don't "poof" me for speaking candidly.

"I know that RBO showed up with a different name and state IMMEDIATLY after 3 or 4 people here started blasting you for your outrageous comments and said they would not respond to you anymore."

If only those folks kept their promise not to respond, maybe this wouldn't look like a school yard bully getting the best of the "wicked smaht kids"! How do ya like them apples?? LOL!

Israeli scientists make genetic code breakthrough

Israeli scientists discover cellular equivalent of "on/off" switches in DNA, explaining differences between modern humans and extinct Neanderthals • Paleoanthropologist Chris Stringer calls research "pioneering," and "a remarkable breakthrough."

Breakthrough Israeli research published in the online edition of the prestigious journal "Science" may explain what separates modern man, or Homo sapiens, from Neanderthals.

How can creatures as different in body and mind as present-day humans and their extinct Neanderthal cousins be 99.84 percent identical genetically?

Four years after scientists discovered that the two species' genomes differ by a fraction of a percent, geneticists said on Thursday they have an explanation: the cellular equivalent of "on/off" switches that determine whether DNA is activated or not.

The discovery also underlines the power of those on/off patterns. Together, they add up to what is called the human epigenome, to distinguish it from the human genome. The genome is the sequence of 3 billion molecules that constitute all of a person's DNA while the epigenome is which bits of DNA are turned on or off even as the molecular sequence remains unchanged.

(continued at link)

Excuse the following long copy. One must be registered to read it, hence I posted the entire piece.

Overturning Conventional Wisdom

Jan 15, 2014 (Vol. 34, No. 2) Overturning Conventional Wisdom Genomics Sheds More Light on Journey from Early Ancestors to Modern Humans

Henry Gee, Ph.D.

The study of human evolution stands on a cusp. A discipline that once depended on the study of bones, teeth and artefacts is, just now, being given added color and meaning by molecular genetics.

It’s now possible to sketch evolutionary relationships between various human species in a way that is simply not possible by looking at anatomy. Because of this, people are now coming to look at human evolution in a whole new way and, hopefully, shedding a few misconceptions as they go. Misconceptions such as the one in which human evolution is an orderly line of progression from primitive to advanced, into which you can slot “missing links” as if they were pieces in an existing jigsaw puzzle. (applies to all other species, too. Jack)

There never was any justification for that view. As I show in my new book “The Accidental Species: Misunderstandings of Human Evolution,” it represents a gross misreading of the Darwinian concept of evolution. Now, evidence from molecular biology, added to the existing fossil record, shows it up for the simple-minded notion it is. Human evolution is far more complicated than anyone could have imagined just 30 years ago.

Thirty years after ancient DNA was first cloned, it’s now possible to stretch the fingers of molecular genetics back in time to find previously unknowable details of humans living almost half a million years ago. That’s 3,000 centuries years before Homo sapiens emerged, and well before Neanderthals came onto the scene. The work stretches ancient DNA technology to the limits, coaxing fragments of mitochondrial DNA no more than 20 or 30 base-pairs long into the light, and at the same time ensuring that there aren’t contaminants.

But technology is improving daily, and it could be that within the next 30 years we could be able to extract meaningful genetic information from fossils up to a million years old. Still commonly perceived as an orderly progression from primitive to advanced, human evolution is actually far more complicated, as genomics studies have already demonstrated.

The several different Neanderthal nuclear-DNA genomes now available have been extracted from bones several tens of thousands of years apart, to give genomics a whole new dimension—time. More startling still, genomes have been extracted from unremarkable bones, otherwise not attributable to species, but which have rocked our understanding of human evolution.

From a cave in southern Siberia came a tiny finger bone, no bigger than a grain of rice, yielding a genome of a completely unknown human species, known as the Denisovans. These were neither Neanderthals nor modern humans, but related to both. They lived in eastern Asia until as recently as 30,000 years ago, but before their genome had been discovered, nobody had any idea that they existed.

Because of this work, we now know that there’s a little bit of Neanderthal in everyone of European or Asian ancestry and that many modern humans living in South-East Asia and Oceania also contain small but appreciable amounts of Denisovan DNA.

What’s more, analysis of Denisovan, Neanderthal, and human DNA suggests that there are traces of genetic introgression from yet other undiscovered species, archaic humans that have left no other trace in the fossil record that we know about.

These new results have prompted palaeontologists to look anew at skulls and skeletons which somehow looked a bit strange, but were dismissed as oddities because they couldn’t be made to fit into the current, simple paradigm of human evolution. There are fossil skulls and skeletons from across the Old World that don’t seem to fit into any known human species.

Do these represent hitherto unknown species, rather than deformed examples of species we know? Could some puzzling skulls from China represent Denisovans, or other, even more shadowy species? Some modern African genomes show traces of some non-human archaic past: might this have some connection with two peculiar skulls from Iwo Eleru in Nigeria—dated to approximately 13,000 b.p.—but which look very much more archaic than one would expect from their age?

What About the Hobbit?

The best known fly in the ointment is the ‘Hobbit’, the skeleton of a small and very weird human, now called Homo floresiensis, that lived on the small island of Flores in Indonesia until almost historical times. Vociferously dismissed by many as a pathological modern human, it is now as certain as anything can be in science that it represents a relic of a phase of human evolution that had hitherto been completely unknown, even unsuspected.

Now, given that the chances of any creature becoming a fossil are exceedingly remote, you have to ask yourself the following question: If the Hobbit were the only hitherto unknown, enigmatic fossil human that ever existed, how likely do you think it is that a group of researchers, who were, incidentally, looking for something else, just happened to have stumbled on it, in just this one cave, in an archipelago full of similar deep, unexplored caves?

To be sure, someone has to win the lottery. But it’s more likely that many other weird human fossils remain to be discovered. The DNA from Denisova, and the hints from genomes of the existence of further, undiscovered, archaic forms, supports that view.

Because we H. sapiens are members of the only species of human left on Earth, we tend to think that the world has always been that way. Creation myths (including the one in the Bible) have humans created in their modern forms, without antecedents.

When evolution came along, a misreading of natural selection as a kind of progressive force for improvement (the result of a bastard fusion of Darwinism with older currents of thought) gave us a single line of ancestors which were presumably there in the rocks for us to find, if we knew where to look, whose evolution would naturally lead to our current exalted state, higher than apes, but beneath the angels.

The current evidence, from fossils and lately from DNA, reveals a very different picture. There have been humans of various sorts scattered across the world for millions of years. At first in Africa, where the human family appears to have evolved, but, some time around two million years ago, across the Old World.

The human family has always been very thinly spread, separated into groups that are more or less genetically distinct, interacting and interbreeding only rarely. If we wish to find a model for most of our existence, there is one—modern chimpanzees. There is more genetic diversity in the few scattered populations of chimps in West Africa than in the entirety of H. sapiens.

This speaks to another feature of our genetic past. H. sapiens has been through one or more severe genetic bottlenecks in the past, when our species declined to almost nothing, but recovered. Who knows how many other human species declined to extinction, leaving no trace at all in the fossil record, except perhaps a few hundred bases in some other human’s genome?

Since when do the wicked smaht kids resort to insulting, offensive, and disgusting statements instead of reasoned, intelligent discussion? I think you may have it a bit backwards here.

By that logic, all one would have to do is be offensive and disgusting enough to get themselves banned, automatically making the other side of the argument "school yard bullies." RiverBottom all but got on his knees and begged to be booted. That is a reflection upon him, not those arguing with him.

Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days...

Have any skeletons or fossils of these been found?

All Im saying is...ignore him and quit letting him get your goat!

Troy, I'm not hurling insults at God. My opinion is nothing different from the opinion of those that wrote the bible. It's open to interpretation. I observe, form an opinion, and speak my mind. The way you take what I say is totally up to you. In a case like this you see me as the enemy because I don't claim to believe things the same way you do.

I don't know of two people that believe the meaning of the bible to be exactly the same. The difference is that I try to be very clear about what I think...I have no reason to make anyone second guess my opinion.

Not you, I was talking about RiverBottom and the circumstances surrounding his Bowsite demise.

I sincerely hope you don't think I see you, or really anyone else as an enemy. I think I can respectfully, even vehemently disagree with a person's opinion, and remain e-friends, as it were.

I neither convict nor condemn anyone for what they believe, and am actually very interested to hear how someone comes to believe differently than myself. I don't mind at all a mutual debate, poking holes in each others faith. Crap, there are parts of the Bible I can only wonder about and smile myself sometimes. Who the heck did Adam and Eve's children have children with? The problem often begins when the glaring holes in evolution start getting pointed out and discussed. Most often, that is when the fangs come out, insults begin to fly, and disrespect is the norm.

What gets me going is the seeming expectation, the ever growing demand, that Christians accept the evolutionists faith as the one. The correct one. The only one. Because science is somehow infallible, and the knowledge of man is to be so respected, yet so little respect is shown God, and His knowledge, and greatness, by many of those same people. Statements like "children shouldn't get beyond elementary school without a better understanding" (belief) in the religion of evolution are made.

I don't really know how to say this, so forgive me if I should really just keep my mouth shut. It seems to me that you have a thing about so-called Christians condemning you for your beliefs. While I'm sure whatever the difficulty there is, is real and your feelings well earned, I'm just as sure there are more Christians out there who would never dream of condemning another man in such a manner. To me, that is religion, not faith. In my opinion, and I think more folks opinion than you want to entertain, this is not a Christian's place. My Bible tells me to worry about the plank in my eye rather than pointing out the sliver in yours.

I am supposed to be a tee-totaler, given the brand of Baptist I am, but don't think I haven't offered my preacher a cold one on a hot summers day. If the religious in my church think less of me, or think I'm going to hell because of it, that's their problem, not mine. God will deal with me as He sees fit, just as He will you, and everyone else. Christians have no business deciding who is hellbound and who is Holy. I think a lot of them will find that out when they least expect it.

My grandmother is a Baptist....so I can tell this one....no offense Troy.

If you take a Baptist fishing...why do you have to take at least two? Because if you only take one he'll drink all your beer.

Heaven by O.A.R. :-)

Start with whichever early man you would call 'first' (if Lucy is a problem, start with Homo Habilis or Home Erectus) and then evolving/adapting changes from there similar to the elephant fossil.

How is it that this very thing has had to have happened so many times, and has to be happening right now, yet has never been observed in the history of mankind? I understand that if you buy in to the trillions of years faith, man hasn't been around that long comparatively, but given the sheer number of times it has had to have happened, not once has it been documented in 200 years?

How convenient is it that every animal is at it's evolutionary pinnacle. Horses aren't evolving into whatever they would be changing to, nor dogs, or cats, or rabbits, or deer. They're all horses, dogs, cats, rabbits, and deer.

Why does it has to be the same for man? If God put man here in current form then there's that.

;o)

Scientists solve the riddle of zebras’ stripes

Why zebras have black and white stripes is a question that has intrigued scientists and spectators for centuries. A research team led by the Univ. of California, Davis, has now examined this riddle systematically. Their answer is published April 1 in the online journal Nature Communications.

The scientists found that biting flies, including horseflies and tsetse flies, are the evolutionary driver for zebra stripes. Experimental work had previously shown that such flies tend to avoid black-and-white striped surfaces, but many hypotheses for zebra stripes have been proposed since Alfred Russel Wallace and Charles Darwin debated the problem 120 years ago. These include:

A form of camouflage

Disrupting predatory attack by visually confusing carnivores

A mechanism of heat management

Having a social function

Avoiding ectoparasite attack, such as from biting flies

The team mapped the geographic distributions of the seven different species of zebras, horses and asses, and of their subspecies, noting the thickness, locations, and intensity of their stripes on several parts of their bodies. Their next step was to compare these animals’ geographic ranges with different variables, including woodland areas, ranges of large predators, temperature, and the geographic distribution of glossinid (tsetse flies) and tabanid (horseflies) biting flies. They then examined where the striped animals and these variables overlapped.

After analyzing the five hypotheses, the scientists ruled out all but one: avoiding blood-sucking flies.

“I was amazed by our results,” said lead author Tim Caro, a UC Davis professor of wildlife biology. "Again and again, there was greater striping on areas of the body in those parts of the world where there was more annoyance from biting flies.”

While the distribution of tsetse flies in Africa is well known, the researchers did not have maps of tabanids (horseflies, deer flies). Instead, they mapped locations of the best breeding conditions for tabanids, creating an environmental proxy for their distributions. They found that striping is highly associated with several consecutive months of ideal conditions for tabanid reproduction.

Why would zebras evolve to have stripes whereas other hooved mammals did not? The study found that, unlike other African hooved mammals living in the same areas as zebras, zebra hair is shorter than the mouthpart length of biting flies, so zebras may be particularly susceptible to annoyance by biting flies.

“No one knew why zebras have such striking coloration,” Caro said. “But solving evolutionary conundrums increases our knowledge of the natural world and may spark greater commitment to conserving it.”

Yet in science, one solved riddle begets another: Why do biting flies avoid striped surfaces? Caro said that now that his study has provided ecological validity to the biting fly hypothesis, the evolutionary debate can move from why zebras have stripes to what prevents biting flies from seeing striped surfaces as potential prey, and why zebras are so susceptible to biting fly annoyance.

Co-authors on the study include Amanda Izzo and Hannah Walker with the UC Davis Department of Wildlife, Fish and Conservation Biology; Robert C. Reiner Jr., of the UC Davis Department of Entomology and the Fogarty International Center, National Institutes of Health; and Theodore Stankowich with the Department of Biological Sciences at California State University, Long Beach.

Wait....Maybe they evolved there in a time when it was once very hot and dry and there were flies everywhere so they evolved into black and white striped Tigers before the snow came along and now the black and white variations are no longer required so they are reverting..

Maybe Zebras will turn brown.

Hey why are Wildebeest and cape buffalo and every other critter in hot climates not equipped with that natural deet type color like that of a zebra?

'PHEOMELANIN' maybe what caused it all. Maybe it is just a genetic mistake that took off.

I'm sure there are many here who could put this more intelligently, but this is my thought.

The animals present now have to be the lines carried forward from the first ooze life form. If that is the case, it is these animals which are evolving into the animals that will be here in billions of years, right?

If these existing animals aren't at their evolutionary peak, all of them would be evolving into whatever different animal the process and environment dictates, right? Then why don't we have dogs that are kind of like dogs, and kind of like whatever they are evolving into? Cats? Deer? Horses? Do any of these animals display traits markedly different than what is typical? If not, why not? Wouldn't it stand to reason?

Please don't talk this the wrong way, but I just don't think you're grasping the whole "timeline" concept. You and I will never see evolutionary transformation...nobody will. The closest we can come to that is watching a caterpillar turn into a butterfly.

BK,

"Also, honoring/ respecting and loving others (as myself) has been tremendously rewarding and I am glad to be able to experience it's benefits."

Are you saying that Christians are the only ones capable of experiencing the reward of loving, honoring, and respecting others?

Believing in evolution does not make me an Atheist. I don't care one way or another about getting my belief out there. I just enjoy discussing it because it's a fascinating subject to me. You'll never see me joining a club, group, cult, church, or any other organized effort to convince anyone of anything. I figure if they're interested enough they'll come to me and ask, or they'll join these discussions knowing that they have the freedom to walk away and not pay attention to the things they don't agree with.

I can grasp that, but how does that equate to not witnessing all the in between animals that are evolving from the present day animals into where they are going?

Is it the evolutionist position that for example we have such a variety of dogs at present, at some point one of those varieties will evolve to the point that it is no longer a canine? Isn't that what has had to have happened millions, if not billions of times?

From Ar's post, two examples.

All dogs are the same species.

Human controlled breeding (of dogs, horses, cows, etc.)is NOT natural selection.

There are dozens of varieties of wild dogs around the world, from wolves to coyotes, to fox, to dingo etc. All would be subject to predation, starvation, disease, isolation, whatever. I don't know how long each have been around, but do any of them anywhere appear to be evolving toward something that is decidedly different than a dog?

Is every population of wild dog so evolved that it essentially produces carbon copies of itself perpetually? Is there any known instance of an animal having reproductive offspring that was different from it's parent in any significant way? Ever? Why wouldn't this be happening with regularity?

It takes time remember? It is so slow no one would ever see it remember?

All those new species only happen when man is not here on the planet.

Life is gradient and everything is a transitional form remember? lol

By the way...I'm surprised nobody has commented about my mention of the caterpillar. The only reason we understand it's transition into a butterfly is because science has explained it to us. Without that explanation it does exactly what you guys are asking to be proven. instead of turning a dog into a cat, were turning an ugly worm into a pretty butterfly. "POOF"...just like that!!

Can't just answer that question with a yes or no anymore. If we are to take the adaptation of animals to whatever external conditions to allow them to survive, thrive, whatever, then the answer is no. If that is to include adaption to the extent that a given animal can eventually produce a different animal, the answer is a resounding no. At least for me anyway.

"I'm surprised nobody has commented about my mention of the caterpillar. The only reason we understand it's transition into a butterfly is because science has explained it to us. Without that explanation it does exactly what you guys are asking to be proven."

What? The only reason we understand it's transition into a butterfly is that it is observable. Does it take a Phd. to understand that many insects have a larval stage that doesn't really resemble it's adult stage? Flies still came from maggots, no matter how far back you go, right?

EDIT:

This is my response from the Mouse 'Coincidences' thread where you blasted me in a way that was ridiculous! I wanted to respond to it here so it stays on topic for both threads. There is no place for evolution debate or comparisons in a political thread. Unfortunately you linked the two together so I am trying my best to keep it real and on topic to what has been discussed in this thread.

False statements,

#1, I never said evolution was all lies.

#2, I never said it could not be proven. I said it has not been proven and probably never would be IMO. I said the odds of evolution happening are off the charts impossible mathematically.

#3, I never said I believed in a conspiracy theory on Jacks thread.

#4, I never said I get offended when people do not agree with the bible! I said I get offended when people purposely insult others faith and make a concerted effort to make a mockery of others who do believe in it. Lets not forget I did not get offended at you not believing in my bible or at least strongly insinuating you did not believe.

#5, I did not ever get angry or offended with anyone who ever questioned the existence of God! Again I get offended when they go out of their way to be a tool and purposely insult the way I believe.

Pardon the off topic portion and readers can disregard this part. I apologize but the two were linked.

Here is where this will go off topic. It is part of why I pushed this debate from Jacks thread into this thread. You mentioned these things in Jacks thread about my beliefs and thoughts on evolution and somehow tied it to Obama. Then you bring up the moon landing. WTH 70? I thought we had a pretty decent debate relationship even though we both believe much differently based on your postings. Now you seem to attack me and act like I am a conspiracy nut that jumps at things with no proof but 'I just discount evolution?'

Let me ask you did you watch the video? I have studied Obama more than the average Joe and he is a lying scumbag IMO and he hurts America and our standing around the world. He has ties to radicals and far left whackos. He has strong ties IMO to being a Muslim sympathizer. That has no impact on how I feel about evolution and is no excuse for you to post things I actually never said or believe about Evolution in that thread.

I do not buy into all the Obama conspiracy theories as Spike could strong attest to. I have whacked him over the head multiple times for posting threads that are a stretch in that area. Tying my thoughts on Obama and also taking liberties on that and then tying that to my evolution thoughts that you slightly misrepresented ain't right. I do not buy all of either to be honest.

You seem pissed at me that I took Riverbottom on straight forward and pointed out how he was being nothing but a jerk to us with a capital J and a very disrespectful person to ANYONE who dared disagree with him on ANYTHING. When it came to Evolution or religion he was a azz towards those who believed different and he repeatedly broke forum rules with his underhanded and rude remarks. You have said a number of times how I get offended when someone brings up something useful or makes a good point about evolution. To me that means I.E. Riverbot. I was never pissed or offended when he brought up anything valid. You missed why I was disgusted with him. It was the insults on people of faith. No one else here offended me.

I would not let his obfuscating, insults and rudeness go unchallenged and it seems to have made you upset or annoyed you? Don't forget please that many other posters here blasted him for what he did and how he did it. It was never about any valid point he made. Even the OP who does not want to delete others post said he was sorry for what happened here with Rivers behavior. Now that he is banned you seem more upset at me and are pointing out how I get offended about evolution comments and you do so in another thread not related to the topic. Again I am not offended at legitimate debate and or disagreement on facts. I ONLY get offended when someone insults my faith over and over and does so in a very disrespectful way. Given the fact that River was the only one that did that stuff you MUST be referring to him when you say I get offended because no one else here offended me. Right?

For the record you have not insulted my faith or beliefs. Until now our debates have always been peaceful and respectful toward each other and no misquoting or twisting went on until yesterday. Why?

I apologize to any reader for the Obama portion of my post. It is off topic a little but Obama was specifically linked to supposed specifics I believe about evolution. I felt it was better to address it here where evolution is discussed than to pull a thread about politics and conspiracy's into a evolution debate.

I thank you for allowing me to digress.

He posted right after I used the "life is gradient line" that both RBO and Riverbot used in successive days when they got busted for being the same guy. Unicorn was not here then but he was hot on the reply button. It was so obvious to reply to it so he quickly deleted his post to show no reply. LMAO.

Now he ask what you mean. Asking what you mean confirms he is who we all know he is.

We could add it to Jacks coincidence thread.

Submission Siberia anyone?

"You seem to be on quite the angry rant over evolution 70."

Whoa, whoa, whoa,...slow down there sunshine! What did I say that could possibly be construed as an angry rant? I'm just pointing out the fact that no matter what people observe in the surroundings of the real world, they will deny it to support their own belief.

"Once upon a time people had the time to sit and watch a caterpiller or tomato worm weave a cacoon and even check on it until they could watch it come out. It didn't take science to discover that, just curiosity and time."

Too bad society doesn't do that these days. People are missing the best of our world by simply believing a story rather than observing it for themselves. I'm not trying to be judgemental or rude, I'm simply pointing out what I see on a regular basis. it's suprising to me how many people are completely ignorant to the world around them and how it's always changing.

Hammer,

Ya lost me with part of that post, especially the part about the coincidence thread.

"I would not let his insults and rudeness go and it pissed you off. Now that he is banned you seem more pissed off at me."

Let me make it perfectly clear...I don't give a rats ass about him, so I'm not upset that he is gone. LOL!

With that being said, no matter how gruff his style was he had some valid points. It doesn't mean I agree with or support him, but I do know that even a blind squirrel is lucky enough to find a nut now and then.

NOW, as far as the conspiracy theory thing. You made it sound like you believe that Obama was sent here as a planned attack on America and groomed that way from a young age. It's kinda like saying that Hitler was an early brainchild of the devil and placed on this earth at a very opportune time.

Let me really piss you off. Conspiracy theories are like prophecies. There is no proof of their content, they are conjured up by people that can't explain something for themselves, and then they are used as propaganda to spread fear amongst the weak minded and weak willed. Take offense to it if you want but it's how I feel about things. I'm not angry about anything, I just don't believe in sugar coating anything to appease the masses. Relax man, no matter how much you think I'm a potential hater I'll never give you a real reason to prove it!!

"Ya lost me with part of that post, especially the part about the coincidence thread"

You posted and misrepresented me about my evolution beliefs in Jacks thread titled "An Amazing Collection of Coincidences"

Go read that one 1st then come back in this thread and read my reply above again to get a better understanding. I did not want to reply to evolution in that thread because its out of order. I did not want to do Obama crap here but I guess I had to a little so you understand the facts and why I separated the two post from thread to thread..

"You made it sound like you believe that Obama was sent here as a planned attack on America and groomed that way from a young age."

No I didn't. What I actually said was this,

Post 1, Holy crap!

Sundowner said, "Un-holy crap"

Post 2, I replied, "Just plain crap! Obama is a fake person!"

Narly reply, "A nearly perfect putsch."

Post 3, Thanks Narly.... I had to look that word up. lol.

Narly reply, "Don't feel bad Hammer. Most everyone will. :>)"

Post 4, "LOL.. The next coincidence will be several people that say they knew what that word meant. lol"

Then you popped in and said things about evolution I never said or even implied about evolution and went all extreme on me to the point that Spike was even basically saying WTH dude. This is why I pulled the debate back in to the evolution thread where it belongs.

You took a huge leap and you were flat wrong. Obama is a tool and a liar. He is a fake person. None of this means I believe in some huge conspiracy and my evolution beliefs have nothing to do with it. Had you just mentioned Evolution generically as a comparison it would not be an issue but you went all specific on what I feel, said and believe. Again it is why I pulled the debate back here where evolution belongs and answered your claims directly.

Pardon my digression but you said you were a little confused on what I meant when I mentioned the coincidences thread.

Never mind going to the other tread. If the OP wants to delete this I am fine with that though the two were unfortunately inextricably linked

Here is what you said,

Me: "Just plain crap! Obama is a fake person!"

YOU: "Hammer?...You call the theory of evolution a mockery of lies...You call primordial soup an impossible endeavor of chance which can never be proven, yet you believe in a conspiracy theory that would require more historically accurate detail and planning than the bible itself EVER needed to conjure up someone that Americans would believe in??? Is it simply because it involves a member of the political arena that involves someone that you don't agree with?? And all the while you act as though you are offended by people that don't agree with the bible...and question the existence of God?"

"Please tell me you believe that man actually landed on the moon...that you don't think it was faked in a hidden underground Hollywood sound stage in an effort to fool the Russians. "

If you read this ENTIRE Lucy thread you will see I never said that 70 and even on the things you mentioned that even remotely resemble my remarks you listed I 'never' said anything in that way or even close to it. You just made junk up about what I believe!

I never said it was "impossible" that I remember. I said the odds are not even calculable when talking about the universe forming etc..

I NEVER said evolution was a "mockery of lies." Not sure I even said any of it was a lie. I said I do not believe MAN evolved and gave my reasons.

To repeat this part again is kinda repetitive but you keep coming back to it so let me be as clear as I can. I never get offended at people who just do not believe or believe differently than me. I get offended at someone who is purposely being a tool like river was and who are not really trying to debate the merits. IMO he offered NOTHING good to this debate. Once he acted like a disrespectful tool toward anyone who believes in God nothing he said really mattered other than the importance of beating it down and pointing to his abysmal behavior toward others who just believe different than him. I suspect that's why several other respected members pointed out his "juvenile behavior." I am sure its why he was banned.

Please do not take rebuking someone for their disrespect as the same as being offended just because they believe differently then I do. It was never about that.

Now, Did you just use hyperbole to make your point maybe? I am not sure to be honest but it was way out there compared to what you know I really believe.

I am amazed we are even having this conversation believe it or not. I have always respected your beliefs and do not insult your beliefs in anyway. I only disagree and point to why I don't believe the same as you. I never get offended at what you believe. I am a little annoyed that you would put out a line of bull that's not accurate about me though and I am annoyed you would do it in an unrelated thread.

Lets not forget 3 years of decent conversations we have had without any of this kind of stuff please. I would appreciate that Bryan.

Thanks, Matt.

"I am sure that anyone who does not see that they are fed conspiracy derived events and choices is a naive fool."

I get your point, and you're right. I'm simply referring to conspiracy theories such as the ones flying around about 9-11.

There are people out there that feel as though our own government spent many years secretly weakening the structure of the twin towers and planting explosive devices so that when this day came, (which was also planned by our own government) the towers would easily fall and create the mayhem that it did.

Those fools supposedly have scientific data showing the impossibility of a catastrophic failure of steel beams due to a jet fuel fire. Those people are uneducated, scared, and just looking for something to get personal gain from. Those people have no respect for anyone but themselves and their ignorance is large part of this countries ability to work together and make it nice place to live again.

I'm not saying that our gov't doesn't have a few dirty tricks up their sleeve, and I don't trust much of what they do, but I don't think they are capable of pulling of a decade or century long sinister plan with such detail and actually pull it off without getting caught. There are way too many whistleblowers to let that actually happen.

I realize drug that out a bit too far, but hopefully you get my point.

P.S. HAMMER/SPIKE

Obviously these conversations would be much more rewarding face to face over a campfire...but until then we just have to continue to assume the tone taken by each participant is a respectful one. I am as guilty as the next guy when it comes to reading too much into a statement.

I will meet you at high noon for that duel my brother. LOL.

Sorry if I got all pissy about this and I offer my apologizes as well. It just surprised me that's all. Of all the guys here I have disagreed with on evolution your the best one to debate with about it my friend and I would love to keep it that way.

Sorry to hear you had your life turned upside down. Looks like things are looking up for you now though I can only imagine the stress of all that. I trust things are getting better. At least I hope so. Hey man look at it this way....A fresh start...A new pretty lady... A new job... The same ole bowsite... life is looking up my friend and can only keep getting better.

I wish you the best and when your ready for that duel I will be waiting. :o)

Your a stand up guy Bryan.