cabinintheforest

Folks let me summe it up for you this is my last post ever on this forum:

1. Evolution is not scientific it has never been observed, most people who believe in evolution are atheistic old men.

2. Evolution leads to atheism and all kinds of poor morality, indeed evolutionists have no morals they believe they evolved off primitive apemen who went around raping eachother. - intelligent design has proven to us this was not the case. Advanced civilizations have always existed with high morals, great technologies and were much more advanced than we are today.

3. Evolution takes people away from God. materialistic evolution is a lie and lies are sin

4. The materialism of evolution takes people away from the spiritual reality of life it cuts people off from love.

5. evolution is a lie. it is false.

6. agnostics and honest atheist are starting to question evolution check out the OP

7. It is possible to support atheistic ID as this thread mentions. But after a while these atheists will convert to theism.

8. People on this thread are not true sceptics they do not even question evolution

9. I dont have a problem with some types of evolution but darwinian evolution is completey wrong.

10. evolution is a fairytale.

11. Intelligent design is a proven fact, go in nature to observe the great design. Intelligent design proponents are in good health.

12. Evolution is a hoax used to make money

13. Evolution has cause wars, disease, sinful behaviour and all kinds of immoral acts such as homosexuality

14. Intelligent design is a moral, scientific and proven fact. God is real.

15. 62% of the world believe in intelligent design.

16. Hindus, muslims and christians all support intelligent design.

17. Man did not evolve off apes. apes came after man

18. Humans have been on earth for billions of years just like they look now we have not evolved

19. evolution is a false belief people believing in darwinian materialistic evolution are depressed and get ill and most of them are creepy weird males you rarly see a female evolutionist.

20. evolution is a fairytale never observed not scientific. it will die out soon

Byebye. You have all been owned. Intelligent design wins.

macroevolution does not exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your understanding of evolution is really inaccurate. This is the problem with you wishing to discuss this on a science forum. You seem to be completely oblivious to the actual science behind the evidence for evolution. You just keep disregarding every piece of evidence by saying you don't think it's evidence, when it clearly is.

 

Of course if you take a plant away from a light source, it's source of energy, it will die. Just as if you take food away from a human it will eventually die. Natural selection comes into play when you have an entire population of plants or animals and there is some genetically variable trait within the population that makes some organisms more likely to survive in a particular environment. In a population of plants there might be one that survives slightly saline conditions better than all the other plants due to a variable peptide sequence. If the water table rises and the topsoil becomes saline all the other plants die and the one with salt tolerance will survive to reproduce and pass on that important trait. One human example of natural selection is the tendency for carriers of a particular allele of the sickle cell anaemia gene to survive malaria infections. This particular allele is selected for in the population where malaria is rife because people without it die and cannot pass on that trait. People with the allele survive and pass it onto offspring who can survive malaria better than non-carriers of that allele. This has occurred over many many years in African countries where malaria is common. Can you not see that this is clear evidence for natural selection? Are you just going to deny that this is true because you haven't personally sequenced a sickle cell anaemia gene and witnessed the survival of those who carry it?

 

I strongly suggest you go and read some reliable books on evolution if not for the sole purpose of being able to form stronger arguments. At the moment you're embarrassing yourself because nothing you allude to is based on scientific evidence. You just keep saying that scientific evidence is wrong, which is completely ridiculous. Do you think the scientific evidence that says medicine works is wrong? Despite the fact that it works? Are you going to deny the scientific evidence that led to the invention of things like computers when computers clearly work as a result of the evidence and theory they are based on? Seriously, your arguments are completely logically inconsistent.

 

What has evolutionary theory got to do with anybodies personal opinion of rapists? Your statements are just ridiculous. How can you not see how little sense you're making?

Do you have a dictionary? The dictionary defines science as knowledge from observation. The stuff that you put forward is faith based over millions of years. Most people on this forum are people who spend there life in a lab or in a room reading textbooks this is the problem with physics and this has what has taken you away from the real world. I live in the countryside, both my parents have been gardeners, i grew up in nature i have been lucky. I have experienced life as it really is. You have never experienced this world. You read textbooks, you think too much, you think about reality but have never experienced reality. You have never been out there day to day in solitude like myself in marshlands, heathlands, forests and wildlands, we all have our area of knowledge i could probably list 60 grass type and name 250 plant species just off the top of my head i know how to cook raw foods, i practice alternative herbal medicines i know how to survive. Im not claiming to be a nuclear physicist i am not claiming to have a phd im just saying go with direct observation, get out of the house, get actually in reality. And when you are funamentally present you will realise this so called macroevolution is not taken place. I read a tonne of books of anti evolution. Iv read nearly every holy book in the world. i study paranormal phenomena.. charles fort is one of my heroes. If i am not a scientist then so be it. But evolution is a fairytale. It takes people away from reality, and yes evolution the idea of evolution has lead to mass murder think of Hitler and starlin both influenced by darwin evolution both strong atheists... if you do not like ID that is up to you but ID is a family thing it has brought people together. Read my thread atheistic intelligent design, i dont even like atheistic ID i put it up to wake some atheists up so far iv had 60% positive feedback. if you do not like the idea of ID that is up to you.. but we live in a myserious universe and please do not think you have all the answers on this forum here. This is going round and round i won't post here anymore. Iv had a look at some of the people on this forum supporting materialistic evolution and you all look depressed from your photos. look at the figures all the evolutionists who have supported darwins views have died early. False beliefs can kill you. Up to you. Im done with false beliefs, evolution is a fairytale im glad im free from that lie. B) a big cheers to you all. btw evolution is not observable.

You can observe chromosome banding patterns under a sufficiently good microscope.

 

You really shouldn't dismiss things when you don't even understand them.

ok karyotypes, chromosomes banding patterns observed with a microscope.... still doesnt prove evolution. Where is the ape or the fish evolving into a completly different specie. Going round and round here, just accept the fact macroevolution can not be observed infact some of you have admitted it you then say "direct observation is not needed"anything other than direct observation is based on faith... do you admit this truth? Admit it then i will happily leave this forum. Atleast then we can get some truth out of you.

Then why should we believe that video is real and this is fake? Because of your opinion?

No, becuase she was tied up, fruad out the question. She was in a lab. Under set conditions. She was checked by scientists thoughout the observed psychokinesis. Reports were written, and the lady repeated the test in 3 videos. It was observed, repeated, testable and studied after. This is some real science.

Fine, I'll quote the post I linked to in my last post. Perhaps you'll read it this way.

 

 

I see there are a few creationist posters here from time to time. So here is a very small amount of the evidence for common ancestry with the rest of the apes:

 

 

(1) Chromosome Banding Patterns

 

 

 

Here is Human Chromosome 2, alongside Chimp, Gorilla and Orang-Utan 2p,2q

 

 

 

 

 

 

you can see there that the banding patterns are all pretty much the same. one major difference of course if that the other apes have 2 chromosomes there, whereas humans only have 1. However when we examine the human chromosome in more detail (which you can't from those diagrams) you find that in the centre of the human chromosome we have telomere like structures, which normally exist only at the ends of chromosomes. telomeres are a bit like the cellular lifetime counter, and a bit is lost on each cellular reproduction (with the exception of sex cells and cancer, which repair their telomeres) so if a telomere is '=' and a centromere is '8' (that is the bit of the chromosome containing the genes and so on) then the chimp, gorilla and orang utan 2p and q would look like ===888=== and ===888=== but the human 2 looks like ===888====888=== and you can still see this now in humans.

 

 

 

Telomeres are highly conserved sequences, which are primarily the same between all organisms in a group, for example all vertebrates have TTAGGG repeating over and over. In primates, between 300-5000 times. Ajacent to these regions are other regions of repeats called pre-telometric regions, which are highly variable, and vary significantly even within a species, but can be recognised between members of a species and closely related species.

 

 

 

In Humans, further evidence for a chromosome fusion, the order of these sequences (in the middle of the chromosome between the two centromere sections)

 

 

 

pretelomeric sequence, a telomeric sequence, an inverted telomeric sequence and an inverted pretelomeric sequence. so even these features are conserved.

 

 

 

note that only the 2p centromere functions now. the centromere of 2q, while remaining very clear that it was a functioning centromere, is no longer the point where the two chromatids join dusing cellular reproduction.

 

 

 

 

 

This sort of analysis is not limited to chromosome 2, but can be applied to the entire karyotype:

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above image is just of humans and chimps.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(2) Endogenous Retroviral Sequences.

 

 

 

Retroviruses are a class of viruses that have their genetic material in the form of RNA and consist of groups such as the oncoviruses (e.g. HTLV-1) and lentiviruses (e.g. HIV). Normally DNA is transcribed into RNA before being read in order to produce proteins, however retroviruses use Reverse Transcriptase in order to take their own RNA and integrate it into the organisms own DNA. Like all genetic processes however, there is a risk of inaccuracy, and sometimes a retrovirus may become crippled by a mutation during reverse transcription, and hence may not be able to reproduce itself as a normal virus would.

 

 

 

Endogenous retroviruses may embed themselves into any cell in the body, and this includes the sex cells (gametes) as well as the normal body (or somatic) cells. If an ERV occurs in a sex cell that goes on to fertilise an egg (or be fertilised by a sperm) then the ERV will be present in every single cell of the new organism, including it's sex cells (well since it will be in one chromosome, initially it will only be in 50% of the sex cells).

 

 

 

Now one of the most important theories within evolution is that of random genetic drift, and this is an element of evolution that was only understood after the discovery of DNA. Genetic drift is a stochastic (statistical definition) process in which a particular allele (version of a gene), or bit of the DNA, will randomly increase and decrease in presence in the population, provided there is no selection pressure on that particlar allele or section of the DNA, and eventually it may become fixed within the population i.e. when it is present in all members of the population. This may happen to an ERV which became embedded within one particular individual; via random genetic drift it may become embedded in the whole breeding population. This occurs more rapidly in smaller breeding groups than large breeding groups.

 

 

 

The next step is the consideration of ancestry. If we have a group A, all of whose members have a particular ERV, we will call this ERV 'E1', and this group splits into 2 new groups, B and C, perhaps by a river forming in the middle of the group across which none of the organisms can cross, now both groups B and C will still have this ERV in all members. Now let us say that a new ERV is introduced into a member of group B and becomes fixed in group B. all members of group B will have this new ERV, which we will call 'E2'. now when we look at populations B and C, we see that B has both E1 and E2, and C has only E1. this means that E2 was introduced to the population B after B and C became separated. If B furter splits into Bi and Bii and Bii has a new ERV 'E3' fixed within its poulation, we find that Bi has E1 and E2, Bii has E1 E2 and E3 and population C still only has E1, so we can build up a tree of what order these different groups broke apart. An important point to note, is that we should never find a retrovirus shared between, for example, Bii and C alone, since the common ancestral group between Bii and C is the same common ancestral group with Bi: if an ERV becomes fixed in A, then all of its ancestors should have the ERV.

 

 

 

By examining ERVs, we can look at ancestral links between these populations. if we look at the presence of retroviruses within a population we can find when a particular group broke away from a different group due to the presence of the retroviruses within the group.

 

 

 

here is a chart of ERV distributions in the primates, and the phylogenetic tree constructed from it

 

 

 

 

 

 

the above diagram is from the following paper:

 

 

 

Lebedev, Y. B., Belonovitch, O. S., Zybrova, N. V, Khil, P. P., Kurdyukov, S. G., Vinogradova, T. V., Hunsmann, G., and Sverdlov, E. D. (2000) "Differences in HERV-K LTR insertions in orthologous loci of humans and great apes." Gene 247: 265-277.

 

 

 

also we have

 

 

 

 

fig 3: Results of the 12 chimeric retrogenes insertional polymorphism study. The chimeras' integration times were estimated according to the presence/ absence of the inserts in genomic DNAs of different primate species.

 

 

Note that u3-L1;Ap004289 is a polymorphism within the human species -- it integrated since the LCA of humans.

 

 

Ref: Buzdin A, et al. The human genome contains many types of chimeric retrogenes generated through in vivo RNA recombination. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003 Aug 1;31(15):4385-90.

 

 

 

A common creationist objection to the ERV concept is that of multiple insertions i.e. the idea that a virus might insert itself into the same place in different organisms and it becomes embedded in both organisms i.e. a human might be infected with E1, and this ERV becomes embedded in the human population, and a chimp might become infected with E1 and this also becomes embedded, however there are multiple problems with this hypothesis.

 

 

 

First and foremost, Of a genome that is 6 billion bases long, what are the odds that a ERV will be inserted into the same place? 1 in a 6 billion, right? Now, if there are 2 such ERVs, the odds are 1 in 6 billion times 1 in 6 billion for both being inserted into the same places by chance. If there are 3, you must multiply by another 1 in 6 billion. Now, since you have 12 such insertions in humans compared to the common ancestor, you have just passed the creationist number for it having occured by chance! By creationism's own criterion, their argument is invalid. The only creationist rebuttal to this is that there are hot spots, where the odds of a virus being inserted are slightly higher than other places, but there are still a great number of hotspots throughout the genomes, and given the above points, there is no reason why multiple infections would result in the same ERVs being inserted in the same locations with the same crippling errors and showing the same pattern of change with time. Again if there are multiple hotspots and multiple infections, there is no reason that there should not be ERVs that do not match the phylogenetic tree. again we see no deviances from expected inheritance patterns.

 

 

 

Secondly, there is no good reason as to why this would form the phylogenetic tree that it does. Even if there was a virus that was simultaneously capable of infecting every kind of primate from new world monkeys through to humans, there is no reason to think that this virus would actually infect every available primate and become fixed in every single population. we might well expect several to be missed i.e. we might see spider monkeys, bonobos, chimps and humans infected, but not gorillas or Orang Utan. we do not find these spurious distributions of ERVs.

 

 

 

Thirdly, we just do not find these sorts of retroviruses that have such a wide species affinity. and again, even if we did, there is no reason that the retroviruses would form the phylogenies that they do.

 

 

 

Fourthly, the retroviruses are crippled, but still identifiable as retroviruses. the retroviruses that we see in different species are crippled in the same way. If the retroviruses are the result of multiple infections, then there is no reason to expect the retroviruses to be crippled in the same way in different species.

 

 

 

Finally, additional alterations have been made to the ERV sequences over time. Since the ERVs themselves are not selected for or against, they themselves may be altered due to the same kind of genetic drift that caused them to be embedded within the population. we see inheritance of these changes too, that also match the phylogenetic tree of the presence of different ERVs.

 

 

 

Other Phylogenetic trees can be constructed in similar fashions by looking at ALU sequences (long sequences of repeating DNA) and transposons (kind of like internal viruses that only ever exist within the nucleus and copy themselves around the DNA)

 

 

 

(3) Transposons.

 

 

I will be brief with transposons since most of what needs to be said has already been said in the ERV section. Transposons are a form of internuclear parasite; they are sections of the genome that can copy and paste themselves around the rest of the genome. Again these transposons may become fixed within the population, and form the same sorts of phylogenetic profiles as ERVs. transposons are however completely independent from ERVs and function with a different mechanism (i.e. they do not use reverse transcriptase, they do not have viral coat proteins and they cannot cross cellular boundaries). The only possible mechanism of infection of another organism is via germ line cells - you may infect your children in other words, but nobody else. In this case there is absolutely no possibility for multiple insertions. The same phylogenetic trees can be constructed from independent analysis of transposons. It is these transposons which are responsible for much of the intergenic DNA and are also used in DNA fingerprinting, since cutting of certain chunks of DNA results in the same patterns for a given individual.

 

 

The corn field or the dog show.

You just copying and pasting this of this chap here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/8493-evidence-of-human-common-ancestry/

Who himself has copied it off a website. None of this is directly observable. It's theoretical pseudoscience trying to prove that all of mankind evolved off an ape ancestor. If you believe in this you gotta be some kind of nutcase.

Is this video proof of psychokinesis?

That is a fake video but yes there is some real life footage of psychokinesis from a russian woman.

The beliefs of evolution were not articulated before Darwin and Wallace, except through Lamarckianism, which is wrong.

 

Again, Hume, Kant and Hegel were dead before biological evolution was proposed as a theory. If you want to prove otherwise, point me to the books and chapters where they discuss it. I can easily get my hands on their works to see if you're right.

Heres Hegel

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/hegel-denies-evolution-but-dies-28-years-before-the-origin-of-species/

Animals and plants change over time due to the environment

I am a botanist i work with plants everyday. Put a plant in a different evironment and it will die. Go and get a plant and put it in a dark room it would be dead in 2days, wheres the evolution? Survival of the fittest? lol

Hume, Kant, and Hegel were all dead before the theory of evolution ever existed (i.e. before Darwin wrote Origin of the Species). Stop making stuff up.

Yes exactly, they didn't use the word evolution but they expressed in different words how the beliefs of evolution which darwin believed in were impossible. They were the true skeptics unlike others on this forum embracing evolution at face value when they themselves have never observed it with their own 5 senses. Evolution is an embarrassment to empiricism.

You're wrong again.

Seriously i have asked for your own research but every time you leave a negative comment and an internet website on purpose. I spent 2 days writing the OP to this thread out you have not even commented on this thread and what's its actually about so clearly you are just here to attack people. Can you actually write something for yourself instead of pasting links in? As mentioned it's no different than me pasting in an intelligent design website. If you are going to put some evidence across atleast type it out and try and put across some observable scientific evidence rather than words and beliefs from websites. It's ok if you dislike religion, creationism, ID etc I am not here to promote any of that. I simply have question the theory of evolution. You seem to take anything you read on a website at face value, as i have mentioned before what then is the difference of pasting something in from a holy book? You are just toying around with beliefs and ideas. Science is not about beliefs.

The easiest way to convince me that evolution is a proven fact. Is to show me observational evidence. I will leave my house tomorrow morning when i get outside i see plants, trees, soil, insects, water.... where can i observe this evolution? Lenskis stuff is not obersable you yourself know this. Nobody here has a 1million£ lab with scientific equipment.

So i walk outside my house, where can i observe evolution happening?

Oh really? That would explain why you always cite creationist websites...

 

Yes i have quoted some ID and creationist websites. Becuase they are honest about what is going on. For example on creation website they review agnostic books. They are open to emails.

If you read over my post, atheistic intelligent design. You would see all the great scientists and philosophers who have doubted evolution who have been atheists.

David hume, mach, reich, kant, hegel for example. Richard milton with his book "shattering the myths of darwinism" and micheal denton with his book "evolution a theory in crisis". Even a book called an atheist defends intelligent design has been published. John gribbin a hardline atheist who supports intelligent design.. now all of these men have been scientists and great philosophers they have questioned evolution. No need to take everything at face value.

All of these tests have been done. They are not thought experiments. Scientists have samples of MRSA and other antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the lab. They've exposed them to antibiotics and watched resistance emerge over time, taking samples, observing things under the microscope.

 

Lenski watched citrate metabolism evolve in E. coli. He still has the samples of bacteria as they evolved the ability -- frozen samples of bacteria from before and after the transition. He has sequenced DNA.

 

What more do you want? A video of a tiny cell shaking its fist and shouting "I'll figure out this penicillin stuff, just you wait!"?

Im very skeptical about lenskis experiments. For 40 years it was brought up by intelligent designers "evolution has never been observed" then suddenly out of nowhere lenski pops up with his back yard/bed room experiments with no witnesses being able to repeat, replicate what he has done, or even confirm he has done it, it sound hoax to me, its a shame people buy into it. You read over creationist websites and they say the whole thing is a hoax. Even if it isnt a hoax bacteria, evolved into what? bacteria.. this is not macroevolution. forget bacteria where is the scientific evidence that humans have evolved? None is ever given? Can not be observed. And yes a video of lenskis stuff would be good but none exist. No scientific reports are even published confirming his results, his results never replicated or confirmed by anyone but himself...

nobody on this forum has seen/replicated/observed/tested lenskis experiments.. so really.. this is not science. It's faith. Il wait til some video footage arrives then it would classify as scientific evidence.

Those of us that can read can see you are lying right now. You're not fooling anyone.

Too bad you can not read. You are the one who has resorted to lieing of course that's no problem for you becuase you do not believe in morals. read over my other thread. I said i want read live footage from someone else, where did i say i wanted to do this myself?, if these experiments were possible to do don't you think i would of done them? He somes up the thread by saying it takes 22 years. I said i want present moment footage is 22 years present? No.

Also read over the thread - I said i want an ape evolving into a human or a fish turning into a land creature (two views evolutionists share). Where did i ask for anything to do with bacteria? The information which was given about bacteria is evidence for microevolution, bacteria was experimented on and at the end of the day bacteria was there, and guess what apparently after 22 years it's still bacteria it hasn't changed into anything different. This is microevolution. I did not ask for this.

Hmm. I can propose a test. Suppose I have some organisms. I introduce a chemical that kills most of the organisms. Using evolution, I'd predict that after some time, all of the organisms that are vulnerable to the chemical will be dead, and the rest will have gotten more and more immune. After a sufficiently long time, the chemical will not kill the organisms at all.

 

What have we here? Antibiotic resistance, observed in numerous strains of bacteria.

Yes then get it on camera then. But as you have admitted these tests are non observable. These are suppose thought experiments which you are meant to think about. Not actual experiment an average every day to day person can perform and observe. evolution is a fairytale why do you believe men evolved off monkeys. You have no scientific evidence except faith, beliefs and ideas.

There's no empirical scientific evidence for the existence of any of those things so of course we don't 'believe' in them. If there was any evidence for those things we wouldn't need to 'believe' in it anyway, it would be a fact.

 

I sincerely pity you for being so indoctrinated into your way of thinking. Do you realise that if you happened to be born at a different geographical location then you would understand that evolution is a fact just like the rest of us? Unfortunately you were born into a situation where you've been brainwashed into opposing what the rest of the world accepts.

 

 

There is real empirical scientific evidence for the existance of all of those things. People happen to of taken photos. I happen to of served 2 years with the SPR (society of psychical research) of course i have questioned the evidence myself alot. I have observed some of this phenenoma myself i know it is real. Of course the conclusions are sometimes different than what some people believe. Most of this stuff is factual it is not a belief. We just have to try and explain the evidence and most skeptics don't buy into the conclusions given.

Indoctrinated into your way of thinking? I am not religious. I just question evolution. Obviously you question nothing and take anything you read in a school textbook at face value. Next your be on here saying homosexuality is normal and that rapists have human rights. The idea of Evolution leads to poor morality it has caused racism, disease, and all kinds of immoral acts. Those are my personal opinions anyway, just like you are on here promoting evolution is a fact. This is an open forum to question these things. Are you a communist? Please accept people have different beliefs, ideas, theories and views.

Look, cabinintheforest, if you're not going to accept any of the evidence for evolution as evidence then what is your purpose with regard to coming onto this forum? There is plenty of evidence to support what you're opposing and when people provide you with this evidence you just refuse to accept it and prefer to believe your most ridiculously bias and unscientific websites to support your own delusions about the religion you've been brainwashed into.

Is this an evolutionist forum? Nope, i asked for evidence for evolution and none has been given. Seems to be an open science forum to me. My purpose of my visit to the forum was to paste in my atheistic intelligent design thread. (which nobody seemed to read all the way through) please read over the thread i started it's actually about atheists supporting intelligent design. Look up john gribbins theories. intelligent design does not have to be religious. In my room i own about 6 books written by agnostics who have questioned evolution. Briainwashed religion? Where did i say i was religious. You are jumping to conclusions.

72% of america are creationists, if you don't like it take it up with them. Evolution is dieing out get over it. evolution is an insult to science.

How many times do we have to tell you? Direct observation is not necessary. Just look at the fossil record and phylogenetic tree we can create by examining the genetic code of living organisms, it's evidence. It's a fact of life.

So do you believe in paranormal phenomena. UFOS? Aliens? Ghosts? Supernatural entities? Deity?

Oh, you just happen to want to get back on topic now after it's been pointed out that you're blatantly ignoring us....ok......that's likely to be a coincidence

If you gave me some scientific evidence i would embrace it. But all you offered was pasted in information from talk origins which is based on faith. I read what you wrote but it's no different than me pasting in lines from a religious book.

You've been alive for not even 100 years and evolution occurred/occurs over hundreds of millions of years. It's an incredibly slow process.

 

Im nearly 20 years old it is possible to live to 150 so i will see. Anyway "evolution occurs over hundreds of millions of years" you were there to see it were you? All you offered there was a faith statement. Get your talmud or koran out, you can offer some faith statements from those books aswell.

So, you admit you've been spouting bollocks?

No. Just we need to stop going around in circles evolution can not be proven, just cease disgussing that now. People such as yourself have completey ruined my thread here i myself have spouted off, we should stick to the topic title. I want to discuss atheistic intelligent design, the multiverse theory.. john gribbins work. Enough about evolution. Are you familiar with his work?

Can you prove to me matter exists?

In 1879 a million ££ reward was put forward if anyone can prove that matter exists as an objective substance independant of the mind nobody ever claimed the reward. Can you prove matter exists?

Completely wrong. You were given several specific examples(most of which you can actually get a sample of to do your own analysis).

 

Furthermore, you've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't understand what evolution actually says. Go read the links I provided earlier and stop torching straw men.

Going back to the thread. What do you think about atheistic intelligent design. Have you read John Gribbins work?

First, there is no such thing as evolutionism, just like there is no such things as gravityism.

 

Second, we don't need a time machine. We can radiometrically date rocks and examine the genetic code.

 

Third, scientists do not resort to hoaxes. The hoaxes such as Piltdown man were exposed by scientists as hoaxes. No scientist today supports it as evidence.

 

 

 

No, it isn't. Radiometric dating works by comparing the ratio of a parent element to its daughter element(s). It's scientific.

Owned B)

http://creationwiki.org/Radiometric_dating

http://creationwiki.org/Radiometric_dating_problems

Have some others:

http://www.answersincreation.org/radiometricdating.htm

http://creation.com/the-way-it-really-is-little-known-facts-about-radiometric-dating

http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers

http://creationwiki.org/Carbon_dating_gives_inaccurate_results_(Talk.Origins)

We can look at the sky and see that the universe is billions of years old(see the video I embedded earlier). Isn't it odd how all of the dating methods come up with an old universe?

Good.

And nothing to do with potassium-argon or rubidium-strontium dating methods?

Both of those dating methods have been used by young earth creationists, old earth creationists and evolutionists. It's subjective. Each group read the data differently and argues a date. It's all personal opinion and estimation.

It's called the fossil record.

 

Evolution HAS been observed and we've given you several examples that you've blatantly ignored.

All you have done is pasted stuff off evolutionist websites. Completley subjective you have not witnessed any of it yourself. No different than you quoting a holy book in here. You base your arguements on faith.

Atoms can be directly observed, but they are mental creations. Not mind independent things. They can not be caught on camera, but they can be observed to the physical eye.

we can see evidence for evolution all around us, both in fossils

"Last Thursdayism, also Last Tuesdayism and Last Wednesdayism, is the unfalsifiable belief that the whole of the universe was created Last thursday." Fossils could of been created last thursday. Young earth creationists say the earth is 6000 years old and that fossils prove that, old earth creationists say the earth is about 100000 years old and that the fossils support that. Mainstream evolutionists discuss the earth as being millions of years old with specie evolution. Me? Im saying it's trillions if not infinite id say that man has walked on earth for 2.6 billion years or more and that fossils can prove it. It's all subjective viewpoint. We don't have a time machine we can't go back and see. We can only go with personal belief on what we believe is the truth, the current observational evidence, especially dug up evidence is very useful to get to the truth. What you must accept is there are flaws in dating fossils. The scientific community in my opinion has held back and supressed alot of evidence. Evolutionists also resort to hoaxs.

Can you point me to any biology textbook, evolution paper, or scientist who says that an ape will evolve into a human in a matter of minutes or hours? Or that an ape will evolve into a human at all? Because if you can't, you're asking for us to prove something no evolutionary biologist actually believes.

 

Evolution doesn't happen while the organism is alive, you know. Giraffes didn't stand out in the African plains stretching their necks until they got to be long enough. Evolution happens when you give birth to offspring, and they're different from you.

Oh yeh sorry, i forget evolution is based on "millions of years as a slow progress" (non observable) if you have got some million year footage then yeh il have a look.B) Just accept the truth evolution can not be observed, neither can ID, creationism - be honest and admit this. I am friends with many honest evolutionists and they admit it. What can be observed? Just the present moment. Enjoy what is. Science to me is all about the present moment. The fact that agnostics and atheists have questioned evolution only points in one direction that people are bored of the theory. It's like 200 years ago people thought matter was an objective reality they were proven wrong which quantum physics. The materialistic theories of the world are long gone. In 100 years time evolution will be a myth, if your still poking around on these forums at that age your regret all the things said here. One type of evolution that i do agree with is mental evolution people clearly do change their ideas, beliefs and theories.

Ok, I'll bite, what in your estimation would constitute direct evidence of evolution?

Somebody needs to catch on camera an ape evolving into a human. Or a fish evolving into a land creature becuase that is what evolutionists believe. And i aint see any evidence for it. Infact i have never seen a specie evolve into a different specie... species simply do not evolve into different species. Get photo / real live footage of this evolution then i would support evolution, becuase it would be based on empirical evidence (science) but it can not be observed becuase it does not exist, it's just a theory.