What they won't say about Evolution.

Originally posted by silQ
Personally, i wouldn't really listen to some1 who doesn't know when some1 else is being sarcastic.....but that's just me.

Originally posted by silQ

Originally posted by AlnilamOmega
what is evolution anyway? isn't it some cartoon about this guy named darwin or something?
GOD is the master of all and the creator of all. GOD is cool because he is GOD and stuff. GOD didn't need to make no fancy-trancy stages of evolution but he probably did because hes is GOD and stuff.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!!!!!!!!!

another sad, uneducated christian junkie who follows lies instead of the one true voice: SCIENCE

According to you you wouldn't listen to yourself, and that's actually a pretty good advise, you're now ignored.
I'm sure you're warned for your childish christian-bashing behavior, but you don't seem to be able to snap out of it, too bad.

[Edited on 7-5-2004 by Jakko]

Another thing about biogenesis that I would like to make clear to everyone is that in the evolutionist eye the earth was a barren wasteland with a hostile atomosphere when the first amino acids just happened to bounce into one another and create life. This is just not possible and let me tell you why. The ultraviolet light coming from the sun is deadly and destructive, certainly not constructive the way that it would have to be to be in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Thus life is only possible because of the ozone layer which prevents UV light from reaching the earth and because of the existence of photosynthesis of green plants, neither of which would have existed on a hypothetical primitive earth.

Originally posted by amantine
The organisms do it themselves. There are bacteria that can remove the junk DNA from their genomes. That means that there are at least some sections that serve no real purpose. This, however, does not matter much for our discussion. We don't care if it has a function, we care if the junk DNA is morphologically related. This does not seem the case. A change in a broken copy of the hemoglobin gene never hurt anyone. If the genes are not related to the form of the organism we can use it for reliable comparison. You didn't even try to address the cytochrome or retrovirus DNA, because it simply works.

Ok I thought I had already explained it but let me go into further detail. The Evidence from Molecular Biology The amino acid sequences of many proteins have been determined. These proteins include enzymes, electron-transmitters, oxygen-carriers, and hormones. It has been found that in many cases proteins that have the same function in different animals, such as the cytochromes or the hemoglobins, have a very similar amino acid sequence in different organisms. Those proteins, such as the cytochromes, which have a similar amino acid sequence, are said to be homologous. Furthermore, it has been generally determined that those homologous proteins found in creatures which closely resemble each other differ less from one another than those homologous proteins found in creatures that do not closely resemble one another. Thus, the cytochrome C found in man is more similar to those found in the apes than it is to that found in a rat or a snake. Evolutionists have eagerly seized upon this evidence as "proof" of evolution. We must first point out that this sort of evidence is of no help whatsoever in weighing the credibility of creation versus the credibility of evolution. This similarity in the biochemistry of all living things must be true, regardless of the explanation for their origins. Let us suppose, for example, that plants, animals, and humans were each created with different types of amino acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc. What would we eat? We could eat neither plants nor animals, since we could not utilize the amino acids, sugars, and other substances found in these organisms. The only thing we could eat would be each other! That would obviously be an impossible solution. Thus, animals, plants and humans had to have the same amino acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc. This fact would then determine that the biochemistry of all plants, animals and man had to be similar, since the biochemical machinery of each had to be designed to metabolize the same substances. This fact was recognized by (then evolutionist) Kenyon and evolutionist Steinman when they stated that: It could be argued that the universality of much of biochemistry is merely consistent with the concept of a common ancestral population but does not in any sense prove it since the same basic reaction patterns may be required for life. Furthermore, since our external morphology is at least to some extent shaped by our internal chemistry, we would expect that creatures that more closely resemble one another would have biochemistries that are more similar than those in creatures that do not closely resemble one another. Thus, the predictions concerning molecular homology based on creation and evolution would be substantially the same.

The evidence from molecular biology has, however, produced some serious difficulties for evolutionary theory, and as more and more data on molecular structures have become known, the more serious the difficulties have become. According to evolutionary theory, evolution is a mechanistic process which should produce data that is consistent with a mechanistic theory. If data appear that are inconsistent or contradictory to those predicted by the theory, the theory is weakened. If a sufficient body of such contradictory evidence accumulates, then the theory is seriously jeopardized. That situation is being approached with evolutionary theory relative to predictions concerning molecular biology as more and more predictions concerning evolution and molecular structures are being falsified..
1. The insulins of the sperm whale and of the fin whale are identical to those of the dog and the pig but differ from that of the sei whale.

2. There are 18 differences when the amino acid sequence of guinea pig insulin is compared to either human insulin or to the insulin from a fellow rodent, the rat.

3. The structure of cytochrome C of the rattlesnake varies in 22 places compared to the cytochrome C of the turtle, another reptile, but only in 14 places when compared to human insulin.

4. When the cytochromes C of two supposedly closely related organisms, Desulfovibrio desulfuricans and Desulfovibrio vulgaris, are compared, it is found that they differ markedly in amino acid composition.

5. The amino acid sequence of lysozyme of Emden goose egg white is not homologous at all (or doubtfully very weakly so) with lysozyme of hen egg white.

6. According to evolutionary theory, mammals are more closely related to reptiles than to amphibians. However, mammalian luteinizing hormone releasing hormone is identical to that of amphibians but differs from that of reptiles.

This experiment proves a positive adaption to the environment. Now imagine two totally different environments. One with only glucose, one with only glycogen. Now let the E. Coli bacteria adapt there for, let's say, 100000 generations. Is it so difficult to understand that these two colonies can't mate anymore in the end. That they have adapted so much that they can no longer produce living offspring with a member of the other colony. Then we have two new species, macroevolution. Everyone who believes microevolution, believes macroevolution.

Simply not the case. It is very possible to believe in microevolution (the downward and sometimes horizontal evolution) of a species without believing in macroevolution. Ever species has the ability to adapt but none has the ability to create a new species.

So? They do have a common ancestor and common metabolic pathways. Glycolyse, citric acid cycle, etc. The cells are not too different either. In my opinion this proves evolution. Bananas and human have a common ancestor. It was just a tiny archeabacteria, but it was a common ancestor. The metabolism, which a lot of genes code for, hasn't changed much.

Seems laughable to me. Sorry but we are more closely related to the banana than to a pig or a dog?

It is a problem that it has never been duplicated in the lab. My 100 million years was only a guess though, some calculations I provided in a link of an earlier post calculate that a self-replicating enzyme is formed every week. The problem is that there is no good alternative to abiogenesis. Inteligent Design is no scientific theory and it is not falsifiable. What if we show that abiogenesis can happen? It doesn't matter for Intelligent Design. Nothing can falsify Intelligent Design.

Yes intelligent design can be falsified if you can disprove relativity and the uncertainty principle which describe the finitness of the universe. However I think that may be hard to do.


[Edited on 6-5-2004 by BlackJackal]

To me, the best proof against macro-evolution is the fact that no transitional fossiles are found.
When scientists admit that macro-evolution takes a lot longer than micro-evolution they should also realize that the chance of an organism in a transitional state leaving behind no fossiles at all, is very very small.

I concur with blackjackal, adapting being possible and proven does not mean new species are created.
Of course an animal could adapt so much, that it becomes unrecognisable, but the "foundation" of the animal would still be the same.

Originally posted by BlackJackal
Ok I thought I had already explained it but let me go into further detail. The amino acid sequences of many proteins have been determined. These proteins include enzymes, electron-transmitters, oxygen-carriers, and hormones. It has been found that in many cases proteins that have the same function in different animals, such as the cytochromes or the hemoglobins, have a very similar amino acid sequence in different organisms. Those proteins, such as the cytochromes, which have a similar amino acid sequence, are said to be homologous. Furthermore, it has been generally determined that those homologous proteins found in creatures which closely resemble each other differ less from one another than those homologous proteins found in creatures that do not closely resemble one another. Thus, the cytochrome C found in man is more similar to those found in the apes than it is to that found in a rat or a snake. Evolutionists have eagerly seized upon this evidence as "proof" of evolution. We must first point out that this sort of evidence is of no help whatsoever in weighing the credibility of creation versus the credibility of evolution. This similarity in the biochemistry of all living things must be true, regardless of the explanation for their origins. Let us suppose, for example, that plants, animals, and humans were each created with different types of amino acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc. What would we eat? We could eat neither plants nor animals, since we could not utilize the amino acids, sugars, and other substances found in these organisms. The only thing we could eat would be each other! That would obviously be an impossible solution. Thus, animals, plants and humans had to have the same amino acids, sugars, purines, pyrimidines, etc. This fact would then determine that the biochemistry of all plants, animals and man had to be similar, since the biochemical machinery of each had to be designed to metabolize the same substances. This fact was recognized by (then evolutionist) Kenyon and evolutionist Steinman when they stated that: It could be argued that the universality of much of biochemistry is merely consistent with the concept of a common ancestral population but does not in any sense prove it since the same basic reaction patterns may be required for life. Furthermore, since our external morphology is at least to some extent shaped by our internal chemistry, we would expect that creatures that more closely resemble one another would have biochemistries that are more similar than those in creatures that do not closely resemble one another. Thus, the predictions concerning molecular homology based on creation and evolution would be substantially the same.

Evolutionists know that every organism has cytochrome c and that this can be explained in the two ways you stated above. Cytochrome c is morphologically independant and that's why we can use it to test evolution. Your argument does nothing to change that. Evolution never stated that the cytochrome c is evidence for evolution, but that the differences in certain parts of cytochrome c are.

Cytochrome c works exactly the same if you replace amino acids in a certain part of the protein. We look at the differences in that certain part. These differences are not caused by the fysiology or biochemistry of the organism. If we look at the differences we can make a rough phylogenetic tree. Cytochome C is only between 100 and 120 amino acids, so it's on its own not extremely reliable. The differences with human cytochrome c:

Rhesus monkey: 1
Pig: 3
Chicken: 3
Dogfish: 5
Yeast: 44

(source)

The evidence from molecular biology has, however, produced some serious difficulties for evolutionary theory, and as more and more data on molecular structures have become known, the more serious the difficulties have become. According to evolutionary theory, evolution is a mechanistic process which should produce data that is consistent with a mechanistic theory. If data appear that are inconsistent or contradictory to those predicted by the theory, the theory is weakened. If a sufficient body of such contradictory evidence accumulates, then the theory is seriously jeopardized. That situation is being approached with evolutionary theory relative to predictions concerning molecular biology as more and more predictions concerning evolution and molecular structures are being falsified..
1. The insulins of the sperm whale and of the fin whale are identical to those of the dog and the pig but differ from that of the sei whale.

2. There are 18 differences when the amino acid sequence of guinea pig insulin is compared to either human insulin or to the insulin from a fellow rodent, the rat.

3. The structure of cytochrome C of the rattlesnake varies in 22 places compared to the cytochrome C of the turtle, another reptile, but only in 14 places when compared to human insulin.

4. When the cytochromes C of two supposedly closely related organisms, Desulfovibrio desulfuricans and Desulfovibrio vulgaris, are compared, it is found that they differ markedly in amino acid composition.

5. The amino acid sequence of lysozyme of Emden goose egg white is not homologous at all (or doubtfully very weakly so) with lysozyme of hen egg white.

6. According to evolutionary theory, mammals are more closely related to reptiles than to amphibians. However, mammalian luteinizing hormone releasing hormone is identical to that of amphibians but differs from that of reptiles.

Only looking at one gene at the time is not terribly reliable. There is a certain chance that random effects may cause you to make mistakes. Evolutionists also look at different genes. You list a few exceptions, which I couldn't find them in the NCBI Protein database. Can you provide sources? I did find this list, which is quite interesting:

Number of different amino acids with human hemoglobin (source):
Gorilla 1
Gibbon 2
Rhesus monkey 8
Dog 15
Horse, cow 25
Mouse 27
Gray kangaroo 38
Chicken 45
Frog 67
Lamprey 125
Sea slug (a mollusk) 127
Soybean (leghemoglobin) 124

There is a lot of other evidence for evolution that I didn't list in my posts. I'll give links to two pages with a lot of well-referenced evidences and I'll pick some out to highlight:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
Evidence for evolution

How can you explain this paper: "The human genome has 49 cytochrome c pseudogenes, including a relic of a primordial gene that still functions in mouse."? In evolution the explanation is that humans have a common ancestor with mouses and the mouse-cytochrome c gene became a pseudogene later due to mutations.

Simply not the case. It is very possible to believe in microevolution (the downward and sometimes horizontal evolution) of a species without believing in macroevolution. Ever species has the ability to adapt but none has the ability to create a new species.

I don't understand. If two populations adapt to two totally different environments they eventually change so much that they can no longer produce living offspring. Then one species splits into two different species.

Imagine one colony living isolated for millions of generations. At some point in one colony a chromosome breaks. This doesn't cause any problems, but the two colonies can no longer reproduce together, because they have a different number of chromosomes. A new species is born.

[quote[Seems laughable to me. Sorry but we are more closely related to the banana than to a pig or a dog?

No, I didn't say that. We have DNA in common with banana's because we have a common ancestor. We have more DNA in common with a pig or a dog, because the common ancestor is not such a long time ago. It's as simple as tha.t.

Yes intelligent design can be falsified if you can disprove relativity and the uncertainty principle which describe the finitness of the universe. However I think that may be hard to do.

This is stupid. Intelligent design is not related to relativity or uncertainty principle at all. Explain to me, why relativity and uncertainty principle have to be falsified before intelligent design can be falsified.

amantine?
Up to the task?
Seen this?
Thought about entering it?
I mean if science has pretty much all the conclusive answers and/or the near-proofs and theories, then this $1.35 Million should be a "piece of cake"?
Protocells: The Origins of Cellular Life
Official contest here:
The Origin-of-Life Prize

Doesn't Origins also work into or is a part of the Evolution theory?





seekerof

[Edited on 6-5-2004 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by amantine
Evolutionists know that every organism has cytochrome c and that this can be explained in the two ways you stated above. Cytochrome c is morphologically independant and that's why we can use it to test evolution. Your argument does nothing to change that. Evolution never stated that the cytochrome c is evidence for evolution, but that the differences in certain parts of cytochrome c are.

Cytochrome c works exactly the same if you replace amino acids in a certain part of the protein. We look at the differences in that certain part. These differences are not caused by the fysiology or biochemistry of the organism. If we look at the differences we can make a rough phylogenetic tree. Cytochome C is only between 100 and 120 amino acids, so it's on its own not extremely reliable. The differences with human cytochrome c:

Rhesus monkey: 1
Pig: 3
Chicken: 3
Dogfish: 5
Yeast: 44

(source)

Yes, I know these are the so called proofs used to prove evolution but as I have shown there are some serious holes.

Only looking at one gene at the time is not terribly reliable. There is a certain chance that random effects may cause you to make mistakes. Evolutionists also look at different genes. You list a few exceptions, which I couldn't find them in the NCBI Protein database. Can you provide sources? I did find this list, which is quite interesting:

Number of different amino acids with human hemoglobin (source):
Gorilla 1
Gibbon 2
Rhesus monkey 8
Dog 15
Horse, cow 25
Mouse 27
Gray kangaroo 38
Chicken 45
Frog 67
Lamprey 125
Sea slug (a mollusk) 127
Soybean (leghemoglobin) 124

There is a lot of other evidence for evolution that I didn't list in my posts. I'll give links to two pages with a lot of well-referenced evidences and I'll pick some out to highlight:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
Evidence for evolution

How can you explain this paper: "The human genome has 49 cytochrome c pseudogenes, including a relic of a primordial gene that still functions in mouse."? In evolution the explanation is that humans have a common ancestor with mouses and the mouse-cytochrome c gene became a pseudogene later due to mutations.

More source for the above is R. V. Eck and M. 0. Dayboff, Atlas of Protein Sequence and Structure 1966, National Biomedical Research Foundation, Silver Springs, Maryland, 1966, p. 110, p. 191 and p. 170

I will review your posted links and report back later.

This is stupid. Intelligent design is not related to relativity or uncertainty principle at all. Explain to me, why relativity and uncertainty principle have to be falsified before intelligent design can be falsified.

Because this is exactly what Thomas Kant wanted to do to rule out a creator from the mix because a universe with a beginning had to come from somewhere.

Seekerof, as covered in this thread a few times, the origin of life is Abiogenesis, and doesn't really have anything to do with Evolution.

Originally posted by Seekerof
amantine?
Up to the task?
Seen this?
Thought about entering it?
I mean if science has pretty much all the conclusive answers and/or the near-proofs and theories, then this $1.35 Million should be a "piece of cake"?
Protocells: The Origins of Cellular Life
Official contest here:
The Origin-of-Life Prize

Doesn't Origins also work into or is a part of the Evolution theory?

Although $1350000 sounds interesting, I don't think I know enough to do this. My biology specialization is mycology, the study of fungi, and cellular biology. I'll leave this up for the real scientists. I would be interested in reading the entries for this contest.

The best list of cytochrome c genome is in the article Molecular Evolution of Cytochrome c Oxidase Subunit IV: Evidence for
Positive Selection in Simian Primates. Figure 3 shows a large chart with the differences between human cytochrome c oxidase subunit IV DNA and the DNA of a lot of primates and rodent and bovine DNA. The treesmade later in the article, figure 4 and 5, are similar to the standard phylogenetic trees.

Originally posted by Kano
Seekerof, as covered in this thread a few times, the origin of life is Abiogenesis, and doesn't really have anything to do with Evolution.

Well, in order to completly rule out a creator's role in the creation of life you have to have both otherwise you don't have anything. Also please prove that abiogenesis can overcome the second law of thermodynamics. The same argument that every evolutionist is backpeddling away from.

Platypus
In 1797, when it was first discovered, it was sent to England, where the British scientists believed it had been stiched together by Chinese taxidermists and was a fraud. A bill like a duck, a beaver like tail, hair like a bear, lays eggs like a turtle, feeds it's young milk like a mammal, has spurs like a rooster, and has venom like a snake. It was assumed for a while (not anymore) that this was a transitional species. So why and how would an animal like this evolve and from what? It was designed to do what it does do and it does this well.

kangaroos
When a kangaroo is born, it's like a little red jellybean with a mouth and legs. Yet this little, blind, armless jellybean climbs up it's mother's leg and crawls into the pouch and starts sucking up it's mother's milk. It knows where to go how to do it and what to do. How could that develop by chance? Wouldn't it be easier biologically speaking to just keep it in the womb? The mother can actually have 2 young ones, the one that just went into the pouch and another a few months older. The female will actually produce 2 different compositions of milk for each of it's offspring. And they know which teet to suck. Remarkable creature!

Coal Mine in Victoria
There is a brown coal field in Australia which is on average 300 feet deep over 300 square miles. Evolutionist's explanation was that it was an enormous swampland. But wait, most of the trees have been identified in these coal fields as pine treas. Pines grow on the hills in Australia now, not in swamps. Oh, well, they probably grew in swamps way back when. But where is the soil from the swamp? The coal sits on beautiful white clay which is actually used for pottery. Well, maybe the soil was washed out and somehow the clay was brought in. But there are bands in the coal which contain about 50% pollen. Pollen rich bands in a swamp?

30 million year old basalt rock
There was a basalt rock discovered 70 feet underground which scientists dated at being 30 million years old. Yet inside of this rock was a tree which was partly fossilized (petrified), but there was still some organic wood in there. When samples of this tree were taken to be tested, the dates came out to be 45,000 years old. How would a 45,000 year old tree be stuck in the middle of a 30 million year old rock? It can't be explained, unless of course our radiometric dating procedures aren't nearly as accurate as they claim to be.

Opals
In Kupapeedi (SP?) there is a man who can actually grow opals in months in his shack. When presented to jewlers, they can't tell the difference between the few month old opals and the "millions of years" old opals. Are we sure it takes opals millions of years to develop?

The great barrier reef
So it's widley accepted that it would take millions of years for the great barrier reef to develop. So scientists decided to measure how fast the reef grows. They used a reef called pandora's reef, because the Burdakin river comes out and floods that area periodically, and causes yellow and green bands to show up in the coral which grows at that time. So they related the bands to the historical records to see how fast it could grow. Turns out, the entire Great Barrier Reef, 180 feet, could grow in 3,700 years. Millions of years were not needed.

So there it is, Australia. The burp in evolution. Enjoy

Great post about Australlia Junglejake

Another thing about carbon dating is the dino's. In 1990, samples of various dinosaur bones were submitted for Carbon-14 dating to the University of Arizona�s department of geosciences� laboratory of isotope geochemistry. Bones from an Allosaurus and an Acrocanthosaurus were among those sent to the university�s testing facilities to undergo a �blind� dating procedure (which means that the technicians performing the tests did not know that the bones had come from dinosaurs). Not realizing that the samples were from dinosaurs prevented �evolutionary bias,� and helped ensure that the results were as accurate as possible (within the recognized assumptions and limits of the C-14 dating method). I have located�on the official stationery of the University of Arizona�a copy of the test results for the Allosaurus bones (see reproduction at right, sample B). Amazingly, the oldest C-14 date assigned to those bones was a mere 16,120 years (and only 23,760 years for the Acrocanthosaurus fossils; see Dahmer, et al., 1990). Both dates are a far cry from the millions of years that evolutionists suggest should be assigned to dinosaur fossils.

C-14 decay counting doesnt lie. It's a natural process.
Nothing can influence it.

You need to consider perhaps the emission of alpha particles or beta particles onto the carbon-12 to make it carbon-14 (not sure if this is the ACTUAL process, but basically giving it 2 neutrons) from underground radioactive sources...
It does a kind of similar affect in pottery that's been buried underground

In 7 days.....in the grander scheme, the number 7 represents the perfect number.......does 7 days mean a literal 7 days, or a perfect number of days???

G

Originally posted by junglejake
Platypus
So there it is, Australia. The burp in evolution. Enjoy

Cool post jungledude. Another great example of stuff that puts conventional thinking around development of ecosystems etc. is Surtey just outside the coast of Iceland. Within months there was birds, plants and bacteria etc. and in a few years a fullburst ecosystem with hundreds of species. All in a couple of decades. Would be fun to have some rocks from that island dated.

Originally posted by silQ

Now I understand your reasoning better.

Personally, i wouldn't really listen to some1 who doesn't know when some1 else is being sarcastic.....but that's just me.

Well, your obviously not a master of sarcasm.

You're inside an athmosphere. Not even an atomic explotion would have an impact on the orbital course of this planet.

ummm.....that was a comparison. u see, i was comparing the fact as to how hard it would be to prove creationism with the fact that moving the earth with one sneeze is also impossible.
�
Yes, it was a compariso. And do you reamember what the comparison was between?

[quotePlus, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Zen Buddhism, all the old Mesopotamian religions, Ancient Egyptian and Sumerian for instance, most African Religions, Norse, the and probably the Maya, Azteks and the different Aborigine tribes, I know the North American tribes knew about the Creator too, every religion together with the rest of the religions, they all believe in a Creator. Infact the idea of a creator god who is above all and below all, who is everywhere, is one of the oldest pieces of written knowledge that exists. It's the whole idea of the Whole, the Universe, everything which is and Everyone, intellect, capacity, intelligence, humans can in theory end up conquering the whole galaxy, maybe the whole universe, our minds are quite powerful, and we are good mechanics and teachers too: "God Made All This! This Universe Was Once Like A Grain Of Sand In The Hands Of The Creator!!!" Well done. Now you're making me start writing like the Black Death too. Thank you!
so....those references to adam and eve. ur saying that they existed in zen buddhism, ancient egyptians, sumerians, etc.? that's pretty interesting. i never knew that every religion had two people named adam and eve who started the human race.

Well, they have other names of course them being other nations and languages etc. But Yes, basically. In ancient Mesopotamian legends we can read the story of Eden. Or Edin it is called there. Islam and Judaism both follow the same Adam tale as Christianity. Hinduism have a slightly different apprach, more Egypt like, but basically the same thing. In Babylon they remembered Eden ofcourse. You don't forget the place you come from you know.

Yes, ok, so if I understand you correctly it is now ok for me to give you the blame for whatever man has done in the name of science, is that what you're saying?

ummmm.....how did u come up with this conclusion? and u still haven't answered my question. "isn't that what christianity is trying to do by sending missionaries all over the world?"

Well, basically since you give Christianity the blame for what the Church and the kings of Europe and the Middle-East have done in the name of God.

And next time if you intend to be sarcastic, please use the [sarcasm] and [/sarcasm] tags. It's much easier that way.

Originally posted by Facefirst
First off, no insults are needed here. The insults here really show who needs to "grow up."

And no insults came from me either. Well done.

Second, I went to Catholic school. God was mentioned in all of my science books. In fact, the only teaching I received of Evolutionary thinking while at that school was a flimsy debunking! Thanks be given to the author of the book "Inherit The Wind."

I dodn't ask you about catholic school. Neither doid I ask you about Jehova's Witness School. I asked you about science pensum. Who designs the pensum for schools and other educational systems? Well, that's the government. Which country (appart from maybe the Vatican and certain Muslim nations etc.) even mention God in their demands?

"Slammed back in their faces with science?" Now that I would like to see.
I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale as well......

Well. Is it possible to create an athmosphere on Mars with the current technology? If there is water, YES. Is it possible to create animals and humans on Mars when there is an athmosphere on Mars using the current technology? YES. Is it possible to redo everything God supposedly did, looking at the biblical creation stories, using today's technology? Well, not everything maybe, but most of it YES INDEED. Infact appart from stuff like how to make a universe is rather difficult, modern quantum physics/mechanics discribes it as both possible and likely. Etc.

As you said "I hope man never understand's fully" That is embracing ignorance. You have a brain and I would expect God to want you to use it in order to figure out the mysteries of the universe instead.

It's embrasing ignorance when I say that since man can't even control the science behind atomic energy and therefore shouldn't be allowed to go much further?

Go believe what you want. I have my beliefs and I adhere to them as the facts and logic dictates. Not some folk tales.

Talking about logics. Well, let's leave it there

Originally posted by ShiftTrio
LOL, Do you know how they calculate the age of the universe .. Explain Dinosaurs, they are 250 Million years ago. I mean, now your just ranting..

Are you saying that an approximate age of cold matter (before the big bang which happened a couple of billion years later, in the bible it's called simply Light, and it is triggered) of 17 billion years is far off?

Originally posted by browha
The earliest scriptures about God (e.g. Genesis and similar) are believed to date no earlier than 10,000 BC.
The age of the universe is very scientifically calculated actually, and can be done to a feasable level of accuracy... Also, technically, it's time 0, but still.

I see that your ability to calculate age stops right here. Genesis was written down for the first time, i think it was around 1445 BC. Before that it was mostly an oral tradition. Why should I trust you in anything else?