Since Evolution Is The Answer - Tell Me When Can I Expect To Grow My Wings And Fly

answer the question

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/timeline.jpg

all lead to Neanderthals and eventually modern humans

Your questions are stupid. First of all, humans did not just evolve from Neanderthals. Secondly, your point about no human remembering that they walked with Neanderthals is nonsense. This occurred before written history, dumbass. All the people who would have remembered it are long dead. What do you want to see? Cave paintings of humans with Neanderthals? How would one be able to distinguish them from each other? Why would humans feel it noteworthy to point out the differences between Neanderthals and themselves?

What exactly are you objecting to? Are you objecting to the claim that humans and Neanderthals coexisted? Your questions just reek of hindsight bias. Primitive humans would not have seen their ancestry as the big deal that you are making it out to be.

There was a mass extinction during their lifetimes that wiped nearly everyone out on the entire planet, the small bit of survivors were early humans who eventually became us. Feel better now?

what did they evolve from then? because every other hominid species was already extinct except for neanderthals, so i ask once again? what led to humans?

Homo heidelbergensis

Homo sapiens neanderthalensis

Homo sapiens sapiens (modern)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

what did they evolve from then? because every other hominid species was already extinct except for neanderthals, so i ask once again? what led to humans?

---

It's 9:28 and you're still quite stupid. I think you need to step away from the computer and get out of the house or something. I'm almost baffled I came back to the exact same thing from you 6 hours later.

And I ask you yet again, what exactly is your argument? State your premises and your conclusion. Right now, you're just asking dumb question after dumb question. When are you going to post a coherent argument?

for the millionth time, cant answer question, your own link made you look like a dumbass

stupid once again coming from the engaged man asking for kate upton tit pics on ST:toast

http://www.demotivation.us/media/dem...3603299712.jpg

Like a moth to a flame :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

for the millionth time, cant answer question, your own link made you look like a dumbass

---

What link? talkorigins? It made me look like a dumbass how? You keep asking the same stupid questions over and over again.

What. Is. Your. Argument? What is the point that you are trying to make?

more like woo, never answered the question, says we didn't evolve from Neanderthals yet every other hominid species was extinct when modern humans first appeared, so once again, where did modern humans come from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

http://www.trainingbykeir.co.uk/wp-c...s-in-ears.jpeg

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

more like woo, never answered the question, says we didn't evolve from Neanderthals yet every other hominid species was extinct when modern humans first appeared, so once again, where did modern humans come from?

---

From the bearded guy in the sky, I think it was on 6th day (because words and concepts like days were already around). Why do you ask?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trill Clinton

please tell me you did not crack the 100 mark??? bruh i been trying to crack a hunnid and always max out at around 80, 85. congrats my nighttp://i41.tinypic.com/24oav5l.png


anyways, after reading through the thread i can understand where the non believers are coming from. it wasn't too long ago i was one of them. i was bitter, angry, confrontational....when i found out someone was a christian, catholic, muslim, etc, i couldn't wait to pounce on them and laugh in their face. what made it worse was i also dabbled in illegal activities and it finally caught up to me.

to make a long story short, i called out to God in a moment of need, a life or death situation if you will and to my surprise he answered me. i went from sitting in a cell to living a blessed life with no worries. now its sad that it took me almost losing my freedom for the next 20 years to humble myself and ask the lord for his salvation but for whatever reason he did and i thank him for it every day.http://i39.tinypic.com/2mdyu.png

---

I cracked it with 101...the things god can do for you :lol

I feel ya...the Lord saved me and now I'm on the straight and arrow myself....:lol

but I feel ya Trill good you got it straight homie...I play this song whenever I'm having a bad day...and it lifts me to a higher place...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

more like woo, never answered the question, says we didn't evolve from Neanderthals yet every other hominid species was extinct when modern humans first appeared, so once again, where did modern humans come from?

---

Actually, going from the chart that you yourself posted, that is incorrect. And here is a link that corroborates the information from the chart that you posted:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_heidelbergensis

:lol

It survived until 200,000 to 250,000 years ago.

Modern forms of Homo sapiens first appear about 195,000 years ago.

Like I said, extinct.

leaving only Neanderthals and homo floresienses

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rhodesiensis
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_idaltu

Both are thought to connected to Homo sapiens and Homo heildebergensis.

Homo rhodesiensis is now regarded by most scientists as another name for Homo heidelbergensis
These remains were dated between 300,000 and 125,000 years old.

Homo heidelbergensis (sometimes called Homo rhodesiensis) is an extinct species of the genus Homo which lived in Africa, Europe and western Asia from at least 600,000 years ago, and may date back 1,300,000 years. It survived until 200,000 to 250,000 years ago.

not sure what to believe tbh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

These remains were dated between 300,000 and 125,000 years old.

---

pretty big gap, and the sources contradict each other

and they only dated 1 skull, and that's a pretty big gap, of course its convenient to leave such an amount of time open in order to fit the theory

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

Homo rhodesiensis is now regarded by most scientists as another name for Homo heidelbergensis
These remains were dated between 300,000 and 125,000 years old.

Homo heidelbergensis (sometimes called Homo rhodesiensis) is an extinct species of the genus Homo which lived in Africa, Europe and western Asia from at least 600,000 years ago, and may date back 1,300,000 years. It survived until 200,000 to 250,000 years ago.

---

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/...eidelbergensis

Quote:

---

Comparison of Neanderthal and modern human DNA suggests that the two lineages diverged from a common ancestor, most likely Homo heidelbergensis, sometime between 350,000 and 400,000 years ago – with the European branch leading to H. neanderthalensis and the African branch (sometimes called Homo rhodesiensis) to H. sapiens.

---

You are more interested in trying to find any discrepancy that you can find, so that you can immediately post it here. You don't actually want to learn about the history of humanity.

hey man, i was just going by the links that you gave me, not my fault that they contradicted each other.

:lol And that is precisely your problem. You made absolutely zero effort to understand the information you read, so instead of googling the subject to learn more, you posted and reposted the same thing over and over again because you thought it was some kind of silver bullet against evolution. That just shows how little you care about learning about human evolution. You are being willfully ignorant.

still doesn't make sense, modern humans appeared 195,00 years ago. 2 sites agree that Heidelbergensis died off 200,000 years ago, there is still a missing link. you bring up rhodesienses which is only 1 skull and is given a pretty huge time frame of when it died out.

When Lived:
About 700,000 to 200,000 years ago

What part of 200,000 years ago do you not understand?

3 sources saying that heidelbergenis died out 200,000 years ago

only Heidelberg and neanderthals walked along each other, not modern humans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

still doesn't make sense, modern humans appeared 195,00 years ago. 2 sites agree that Heidelbergensis died off 200,000 years ago, there is still a missing link. you bring up rhodesienses which is only 1 skull and is given a pretty huge time frame of when it died out.

---

If it doesn't make sense, why the hell are you still asking about it here instead of reading more about it? You are unbelievably lazy. I do not believe your claim that you have read a lot about evolution for a second. You are still showing no desire to understand the subject.

Find an evolutionary biologist or somebody who is knowledgeable in the field and ask them the questions that you are asking here.

modern humans would appear 5,000 years later

:lol:toast

gets burned retorts to calling me lazy:lol

Quote:

---

Comparison of Neanderthal and modern human DNA suggests that the two lineages diverged from a common ancestor, most likely Homo heidelbergensis, sometime between 350,000 and 400,000 years ago – with the European branch leading to H. neanderthalensis and the African branch (sometimes called Homo rhodesiensis) to H. sapiens.

---

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/...eidelbergensis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

gets burned retorts to calling me lazy:lol

---

You are being lazy. And how have you burned me, dumbass? You still haven't made any effort to find out more about human ancestry.

One concept rob doesn't seem to understand is that it's not as if the lineage goes *poof* completely different species. There may have been radical mutations but for the most part there is no clear delineation. As I said before, we share the same number of chromosomes as the other members of the homo genus and meiosis is what it is. Thus the term GENus fwiw. For example, there is evidence that neanderthal and sapiens coexisted and bred.

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CubanSucks

Wtf u think

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...hlight=trilogy

LotR was by far the most complete trilogy. All three at LEAST 8/10. Godfather 3 wasn't terrible but still a lame snoozer. Return of the Jedi was just as much a sellout kids movie as the recent trilogy. TDK trilogy would've been a solid second if it weren't for the huge plot holes in TDKR. Toy Story's great but the third they went way too far up their own ass and forgot they're supposed to be making kids movies, too fucking dark and depressing. Man with no name trilogy is up there too

---

:lol

We evolved from Hobbits damnit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

:lol

We evolved from Hobbits damnit.

---

homo floresiensis:lol

We don’t know everything aboutearly humans—but we keep learning more! Paleoanthropologists are constantly in the field, excavating new areas with groundbreaking technology, and continually filling in some of the gaps about our understanding of human evolution.
Below are some of the still unanswered questions about Homo heidelbergensis that may be answered with future discoveries:

1. Did this early human species indeed range in time from 1.3 million to 200,000 years ago, and in geography from Africa to Europe to Asia? Or are there more than one species represented among the fossils that some scientists call H. heidelbergensis (including H. antecessor, H. cepranensis, and H. rhodesiensis)?
2. Many scientists think this species was ancestral to our own, but which species was the ancestor of H. heidelbergensis?
3. Did H. heidelbergensis have any cultural or behavioral adaptations that facilitated it living in colder climates?
4. Did regional groups or populations of H. heidelbergensis exhibit any unique behaviors or anatomical adaptations?http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/homo-heidelbergehttp://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/...eidelbergensisnsis

W

Quote:

---

e don’t know everything aboutearly humans—but we keep learning more! Paleoanthropologists are constantly in the field, excavating new areas with groundbreaking technology, and continually filling in some of the gaps about our understanding of human evolution.

---

Quote:

---

Below are some of the still unanswered questions about Homo heidelbergensis that may be answered with future discoveries:

1. Did this early human species indeed range in time from 1.3 million to 200,000 years ago, and in geography from Africa to Europe to Asia? Or are there more than one species represented among the fossils that some scientists call H. heidelbergensis (including H. antecessor, H. cepranensis, and H. rhodesiensis)?
2. Many scientists think this species was ancestral to our own, but which species was the ancestor of H. heidelbergensis?
3. Did H. heidelbergensis have any cultural or behavioral adaptations that facilitated it living in colder climates?
4. Did regional groups or populations of H. heidelbergensis exhibit any unique behaviors or anatomical adaptations?

---

I'm sleepy...can someone bulletpoint this

1.Human evolution is a theory
2. Missing link according to the human origins site
3. scientist think we came from Heidelbergensis
4. leaves open the possibility that God created humans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

1.Human evolution is a theory
2. Missing link according to the human origins site
3. scientist think we came from Heidelbergensis
4. leaves open the possibility that God created humans

---

Blech. I guess I meant I'm drunk and can't follow. What's after the bulletpoint?

Put some notes in your mom's vag. Hopefully I'll come across them

:lolYeah, I'd rather not do that.

No worries. I'll spooge in her hair. Try to trace a message in my semen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

1.Human evolution is a theory
2. Missing link according to the human origins site
3. scientist think we came from Heidelbergensis
4. leaves open the possibility that God created humans

---

Scientists have geneological and archeological basis for thinking that. They have not invented a time machine so there will never be any certainty in this regard. Skepticism is warranted but there is a warrant for belief as well.

Now, what basis do we have that some sort of superior being exists much less invented anything much less humans?

no basis, but the fact still remains, scientist do not know where humans came from

The Human Origins site is full of "think", "probably', and "do not know". So if that's the case, can one definitively rule out a superior being that created humans?

The Scientific Case Against Evolution

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.

And yes, I am aware of who the man is but he does make some good points.

:lol Young earth creationist with a Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering having "good points." And Talk Origins completely demolished these tired assertions: http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

The Human Origins site is full of "think", "probably', and "do not know". So if that's the case, can one definitively rule out a superior being that created humans?

---

That's not how it works. It is not the job of a scientist--or anybody, really--to rule out other claims; it's the job of the one making the claim to provide evidence for that claim. There is no good evidence that a superior being created the universe. It's always amusing to watch you Bible thumpers attack evolution and Big Bang cosmology, because none of you seem to get that even if both of those were untrue, that wouldn't give anymore credibility towards your belief in an invisible sky daddy at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

1.Human evolution is a theory

---

:lol Oh my God, you Creationists are so predictable that it is sad. You don't understand what a scientific theory is. You are a living, breathing cliche.

Quote:

---

2. Missing link according to the human origins site

---

Which is filled by several fossils that have been discussed already.

Quote:

---

3. scientist think we came from Heidelbergensis

---

Scientists didn't just guess when they came to that conclusion. They looked at the evidence and came to a conclusion based off the evidence.

Quote:

---

4. leaves open the possibility that God created humans

---

How? You attacking evolution doesn't somehow make your position more likely to be true.

Provide evidence that supports your position that God created humans.

dp

We once thought man had evolved to his current form, however we now laugh at that since we know through meditation and prayer that a super ghost presence in the universe that's not actually part of the universe (but actually is part of it) which resides outside of space and time but can affect both at his whim (yes it's a him, why would we put a woman in charge?) created man out of the dust of this planet. Out of dust he created man and from that man he created woman. This is scientifically proven if you have faith that it's true.

So let's all get along and pretend this silly evolution suggestion never occurred. It's quite embarrassing now that we know the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woo Bum-kon

Provide evidence that supports your position that God created humans.

---

because nature is so beautiful. it brings a tear to my eye. :cry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koolaid_Man

:lmao....I mean based on the "logic" of evolution we're only getting better with time right? So when does wings mixed in with a little eagle vision somehow find it's way into the human genome...do we need to cross breed humans with birds first or will the kids born 100 yrs from now just mysteriously have wings attached to their bodies...can a good atheist please explain how this evolution thing works...I'm looking forward to visiting Pluto on my own....:lmao

Memo to atheists: Evolution gets you to the strange freaky creatures that you saw on Star Wars...it doesn't get you to a perfectly balanced human body with organs in their proper place....evolution doesn't decide when it has the perfect human body and then stop evolving...it doesn't decide that it has the perfect genome and now it can stop producing freaks of nature on a mass scale...it doesn't decide the brain need to in the head as opposed to on your feet...it doesn't decide universally that all blood no matter the species must be red...it just doesn't compute for me...:toast

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R8jPSijVsg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

The Human Origins site is full of "think", "probably', and "do not know". So if that's the case, can one definitively rule out a superior being that created humans?

---

The fact that there is physical evidence in DNA and the fossil record that suggests evolution happened while there is no physical evidence for your invisible sky fairy existing certainly gives evolution more credibility than your fairy tales, tbh....

Its still a biased theory, no scientist can state he is a creationist without being mocked or ridiculed by his peers. So who is really looking for an alternative theory? There are plenty of things wrong with the theory of evolution. You say scientist came to a conclusion, in other words they presume that we evolved from a great ape. There are no transitional fossils and no direct link between modern man and apes. Even the human origins site states that it is still unknown where humans came from, they "think" we evolved from erectus or Heidelberg, in other words, they do not know.

So you're dismissing the theory that actually comes with strong evidence and going with the one that has absolutely no evidence.

That's smart.

So you believe there was nothing that created everything because nothing decided to explode?

And where is the evidence?

I believe that something created everything, which seems more logical? Look at the computer right in front of you, did it create itself? Or did someone build it?

look everyone knows we came from battlestar galactica

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

So you believe there was nothing that created everything because nothing decided to explode?

---

i never said that. Why does abiogenesis have to be my only other option?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

I believe that something created everything, which seems more logical? Look at the computer right in front of you, did it create itself? Or did someone build it?

---

How do you account for the creator? Who created him /her /it?

ok, so what is your other option or theory on how humans came to be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woo Bum-kon

:lol Oh my God, you Creationists .

---

He has always been and always will be. No beginning or no end. You will say that its illogical to believe that but is it logical to believe that nothing exploded and made everything? And if you do not believe in the big bang then you believe that the universe has always been here, so how can you rule out that a supreme being hasn't always existed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

ok, so what is your other option or theory on how humans came to be?

---

Humans got here probably by sheer luck. Lottery ticket winners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

no basis, but the fact still remains, scientist do not know where humans came from

---

Actually we do.

From a great ape?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

He has always been and always will be. No beginning or no end. You will say that its illogical to believe that but is it logical to believe that nothing exploded and made everything? And if you do not believe in the big bang then you believe that the universe has always been here, so how can you rule out that a supreme being hasn't always existed?

---

I'm leaning towards a multi big bang theory where the universe has always been in a constant state of expanding and contracting.

I'm also cool with meh, dunno.

I just know I can rule out Bible God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

He has always been and always will be. No beginning or no end. You will say that its illogical to believe that but is it logical to believe that nothing exploded and made everything? And if you do not believe in the big bang then you believe that the universe has always been here, so how can you rule out that a supreme being hasn't always existed?

---

It is quite logical to think the universe exists. We are in it after all.

If God has always existed with no beginning and no end, then there is one thing with that property, according to your theory.

How do you know the universe itself does NOT have that property?

This is the special pleading logical fallacy by the way.

"everythign in the universe has the property of having a beginning and an end, except God"

Please provide some proof that God does not have a beginning or end. Your claim, your burden of proof.

I do not know that the universe does not have that property. I stated that if that's the case, then how can one dismiss a supreme being who has always existed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

The Scientific Case Against Evolution

---

:rollin



If you can get past the overall tone, he pretty much lays out one of the most comprehensive looks at the science I have ever seen.

Further, he outlines how the bible itself represents reality based on the understanding of the physical universe at the time.

Not that I would expect anyone to spend three hours on it, but if you want to really, truly understand the science behind the theory, and the theory of evolution itself, it is a good place to start.

(edit)
not sure if the coding still works, so here is the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmQZ4f9f_Yw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

I do not know that the universe does not have that property. I stated that if that's the case, then how can one dismiss a supreme being who has always existed?

---

I don't.

I view it as a possibility.

"bible God" is a whole other thing. That is very obviously bullshit, and provably so.

why is it bullshit? because you say it is? can you prove that god does not exist? can i prove that god does exist? answer to both is no, which leaves us both with faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

The Scientific Case Against Evolution

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.

---

Seriously though:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

The entire laundry list of bullshit claims in your copy paste is debunked there.

The funniest part of that is the bit on the second law of thermodynamics.

Since you have scooped up this sack of stupid:

Tell me how exactly evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Biased site, let me ask you something, are you a scientist?

By the way when has evolution ever been observed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

why is it bullshit? because you say it is? can you prove that god does not exist? can i prove that god does exist? answer to both is no, which leaves us both with faith.

---

"Bible God" is bullshit because the bible is a stupid, logically inconsistant obviously made up account of the universe. I can go to town on that all day long, with enough material to fill pages and page of this thread. It has all been done to death.

As for some God of some sort outside of that described by the bible.... sure. I will not claim there is no possibility of such a thing. I really don't think I know enough to rule it out and say conclusively no.

I do not claim "there is no God".

If you are asking for someone to argue that, you will ahve to find someone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

By the way when has evolution ever been observed?

---

Yes.

Fair enough, and when or where?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

Biased site, let me ask you something, are you a scientist?

---

Quote:

---

Fallacy: Ad Hominem



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

---

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-hominem.html

Person A = Talkorigins website
Claim X = that creationist claims have been debunked
Person B=robdiaz2191

Talkorigins website (Person A) claims that creationist claims have been debunked (X)
Robdiaz (Person B) says “[Talkorgins is a] biased website (attack on person A).”
Therefore TalkOrigin’s claims are false

QED.

What does it say about the strength of your reasoning, when it is relying on obviously flawed logic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

Fair enough, and when or where?

---

You get that only when you can tell me how the theory of evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. I asked first., quid pro quo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

are you a scientist?

---

No. I am an accountant.

It was a simple question, are you a scientist?