“You seem genuinely interested, so I’ll ask — how is it that you think that organisms can evolve “to a certain extent”? What’s the limitation you’re imposing? Do you believe that organisms within a species can change, but that new ones can’t evolve for existing ones?”

I’m not answering for anyone else, but I suppose I can answer for the average Creationist. The average Creationist believes in microevolution. It is an integral part of the greater Flood theory, as even before there were any assumptions about evolution (though the Greeks and Phoenicians proposed extremely similar theories to Darwinism) and if anyone bothered to take the time to think about the Flood they would realize that many variations have come from only a (comparitive) handful of original kinds on the Ark.

An example of macroevolution is the development of new organs. Young Earth Creationists don’t believe in that. An example of microevolution is a change in size of an animal. YECs believe in that. So we believe that were original “kinds” (as described in Genesis) with more available traits. As these animals spread across the earth, natural selection eliminated the harmful traits (such as a thick coat in the jungle) and the adaptable original kind was lost to many variations. The same goes for humans, although with some differences. Natural selection plays a minor part on humans. The major development of races was at Babel. After the languages were confused, the groups that could understand each other traveled across the world together. Since for a couple generations all humans were freely inter-marrying and then they were immediately confined to groups, distinctive traits, and also a lack of other ones, developed. Ask any credible majority expert on genetics, they’ll confirm that when a larger group is breeding within itself and then they are splintered into smaller ons, many traits will be lost and other ones made more common and/or apparent.

Evidence for this is in the number of genomes life forms have and junk DNA. While most “junk” DNA is labeled as such due to human ignorance, some of it does have truly no purpose. That means that a few generations ago it did have a purpose, almost exclusively recessive traits. So Noah’s sons and their wives had much less junk DNA, and Adam, probably none at all (considering he was created perfect). Next, look at the number of genomes animals have. Dogs have somewhere around 70 of them, many more than humans as dogs are much more varied.

Now Haldol, you really should try to explain the evolution of the circulatory system and the genders, as well as the whale. My comment proved beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution is false. So, along with the ability to teach Intelligent Design without a mention of God and the fact America IS a Christian nation (84% of Americans call themselves Christian, and the Supreme Court has confirmed in the past the religious foundation of the nation, and so did Patrick Henry: “It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”) and a majority of Americans suppor the teaching of Creationism/ID, schools should stop indoctrinating the secularization of the country.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

If you continue to say that all educated people take evolution as a fact, your credibility will drop exponentially.

If you just dismiss this list and say “Anyone deserving of the title of “scientist” accepts evolution because it is literally impossible to conduct meaningful research in biology without acknowledging, and operating in accordance, with its central tenets. That is also a fact, and if you contest it, I expect to see your credentials and reasons for arguing,” your credibility will continue to drop exponentially.

I am very interested in seeing your response. I highly suspect you will just wave this off, but it’s up to you to prove me wrong.

Which proves where you got your theories, not proof that their true. Creation science websites can refute that easily, but then we’d have to listen to you “screeching about biased sites anyway.”

“Do I need to cite a source for my claim that 99.99% of sane physicists believe in the concepts of mass, force and acceleration?”

Yes, otherwise, its a matter of your opinion, not fact. You seem to get the two confused quite frequently.

“apostle, I believe that were I as stupid and brainwashed as you are and could somehow be made aware of this information, I would have to off or at least castrate myself. You don’t stand a chance in this world.”

I actually do quite well, without the “enlightening” dung heap of an excuse for science that your small weak world is based on.

” wish more Christians believed your second sentence, but I’m sure you’d agree that the fundies (Bible literalists who embrace the idea of a 6,000-year-old-earh) cannot in any way accept evolution”

I’ve stated something similiar numerous times in other posts, but you’d rather ignore that fact and insult Christians just because you’re pi$$ed that your knowledge of what you call science doesn’t impress them. I wouldn’t even feel the need to comment if your bigtory and arrogance wasn’t so blatant. The fact that you claim to speak for the whole scientific community is rich, especially when you claim those that might not agree are less than credible. YOU say they aren’t credible.

I’ve said before I’m not sold on the 6,000 year old world, but unlike you, I’m able to look at both presentations objectively. You are equally guilty of the same amount of ignorance and stubborness you are trying to paint on Christians. You’re wrong and you know your wrong. Why should I trust your “sources” when there are equally intelligent people with the same degree from the same school that refute it? You dismiss just as quickly any kind of Creation science that might bring up a point regarding evolution. You are no better.

Science in a lot of cases, especially when talking about origins, or even evolution, is open to interpretation. Much like history. Talk to a ‘Nam vet from the U.S. and then talk to one from the NVA and you’ll see two very different accounts of who what when where why and how. Yet you claim that YOUR interpretation of evolution is the accepted idea of the science and realm and that all credible scientists adhere.

Evolution doesn’t bother me a bit, because, as you say, it doesn’t set out to disprove anything about my God, and couldn’t if it wanted to. There is nothing about science that will ever disprove Him. My bone of contention is your quickness to insult the intelligence of anyone believing in sky-gods, and questioning any aspect of evolution at all. You are no more objective than the average religious zealot, a concept you make clear by claiming that evolution is a fact and that only Christians and those on this site are ignorant to that fact. As I asked before, tell me why your precious evolution doctrine is taught everywhere in America and why the majority of Americans still claim “skygods.” Yes I know, science doesn’t set out to disprove anything, but you claim science does continually. It must anger you that so many find evolution so hard to believe, or that Christian evangelicals are better recruiters. Either way,someone confident in his fact and research would not be so easily enticed to anger. Deal with your own insecurity, or quit making claims you have no ability to demonstrate.

For the record genius, this accidental world you live in will not be here forever. You will have to give an account someday for your stupidity. For nature to create life by itself is impossible, and something or someone would have to be here in order to create nature. It is impossible that the universe created itself. Something or someone had to be here to create it. (And someone to create that and something to create that…)
There had to be a beginning somewhere. Someone of your intelligence understands this more than you let on, you simply get mad and get even when people see how full of crap you are. But feel free to post back and prove my points by insulting me through and through but in the end, really saying nothing.

That’s not precisely what biologists believe. Humans and two kinds of apes (chimpanzees and bonobos, which are very similar to one another) share a common ancestor, with the divergence believed to have occurred about 6 or 7 million years ago.

You keep mentioning “THE missing link,” as if there is one set of fossilized remains that is currently lacking, but has the power to tie everything neatly together. You have to understand that evolution is not predicted on the existance of a certain number of fossils, or, for that matter, any fossils (these can rule in or rule out existing ideas, but generally don’t offer new ones). Work in modern molecular genetics has led to a vastly increased understanding of organism’s ancestral relationships, and embryology has started doing the same thing. It is noteworthy that the fundamintal principles set forth 150+ years ago by Charles Darwin have only been reinforced, not refuted. (He had some of the details askew, he didn’t even know about mechanisms of inheritance or of course DNA itself.)

It is for these reasons I find it odd when rabid anti-evolutionists portray “Darwinism” (their name for all of evolution) as “a theory on the brink of collapse.” Science is all about confirming and rejecting hypotheses to get ever closer to the truth, and in the case of evolution long-standing ideas continue to thrive and expand, just as with other scientific disciplines in which the details remain to be elucidated. It’s really pretty cool.

“No one is denying that species evolve to some extent, based on environment and certain traits yielding higher survival. Evolution in itself is not contrary to Creationism or the belief in a higher power being involved.”

I wish more Christians believed your second sentence, but I’m sure you’d agree that (Bible literalists who embrace the idea of a 6,000-year-old-earh) cannot in any way accept evolution.

You seem genuinely interested, so I’ll ask — how is it that you think that organisms can evolve “to a certain extent”? What’s the limitation you’re imposing? Do you believe that organisms within a species can change, but that new ones can’t evolve for existing ones?

“The FACT that Human Evolution has never been proven can be pointed out by ‘The Missing Link.’ See, it is missing, so the chain of human evolution from apes cannot be proven, and in science that usually means it is not true.”

You are dumber than I previously believed, but this burst of foolishness serves to strengthen my point. The validity of evolution does not rest in any way on the existence of a “missing link” — that’s a construct dreamed up by creo-tards so they can more easily delude themselves into believing their masturbating to Genesis is actually useful or valid. Find me an article in which an evolutionary biologist notes that the absence of a “missing link” poses a problem for natural selection, common descent or any of the other central tenets of evolution.

Perhaps by “missing link” you mean “transitional fossil. If you are claiming none of these exist, I suggest you visit a neurologist.

I’ll use a Wikipedia entry rather than a more scholarly excerpt, which would only addle you and see you screeching about “biased” sites anyway.

“It is commonly stated by anti-evolutionists that there are no known transitional fossils. According to evolutionary scientists, this position is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature. A common creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. It is entirely plausible, however, that a complex feature with one function can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. The precursor to e.g. a wing, might originally have only been meant for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings can still have all of these functions, but they are also used in active flight.

“Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be known in detail. However, progressing research and discovery managed to fill in several gaps and continues to do so.”

Let me know if the big words are a problem.

“As to my education sir, I was in the Medical field and have an extensive education in biology and Human Anatomy.”

Good one!

“Many scientists have come forward and stated that the more they tried to prove that God does not exist, the more they believed he did; he, She, it, a higher power.”

More claptrap. Scientists don’t set out to prove that gods or anything else do not exist, because unlike you, scientists actually understand that proving the nonexistence of something is a logical impossibility. Besides, scientists aren’t invested in doing away with gods (and I see you ignored what I wrote about theistic evolutionists — no suprise there) — that’s just the lie that the backward and fearful fundagelicals of the U.S. cling to so as to more easily ignore facts. If they can paint scientists as driven by some evil agenda, they can more readily swallow the moronic notion that scientists are inherently anti-god. Gods have nothing to do with evolution, fer or agin.

If you doltfolk toss one more red herring into this discussion, I don’t think there will be any left in the waters of Earth.

Once again: You don’t understand the process of science, your brains don’t work like those of normal humans, your religious programming has rendered you senseless in most meaningful respects, and your bloviating about the El Tejon case is, just like Jay’s, rooted in a completely absent understanding of the facts of the case.

apostle, I believe that were I as stupid and brainwashed as you are and could somehow be made aware of this information, I would have to off or at least castrate myself. You don’t stand a chance in this world.

This site is a train wreck of misguided assumptions, staunch resistance to various realities, and proud ignorance. What a howl! My educated friends are somewhat appalled at the number of Americans who are as lamebrained as you troglodytes, but they see the humor in it as well, as do I. I’ll have to blog about it shortly.

So reproduce some.

”
As I said, I’m not here to give science lessons to people who not only can’t understand them but wouldn’t accept them if they could. I’ll go so far as to waste time pointing out where you guys are wrong (a full-time job in itself), but I lack the power and the desire to pull a bunch of benighted cretins out of the 14th century and into the present one”

Translation: Haldol doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and has found himself unable to prove his ridiculous claims. Insults are his smoke screens to hide his illegitmacy.

“ask yourself why it is that evolution is accepted by those with an education who are actually exposed to and utilize it on a reguar basis”

They’re not. You should ask yourself why evolution is taught as a fact in every public school in America, and why the overwhelming majority of citizens in this country still claim their “skygod.” I get it, the majority of Americans are not as smart as you. Got it.

“I will bottom line it for you, Human evolution has NEVER been proven; period. Get over yourself, and realize you need to learn more than you think you know.”

Right. You and your eighth-grade education and absent biology background will just ejaculate declarative statements and wave your hands real fast, and that huge body of knowledge accumulated by thousands of scientists all over the world, and reproduced and verified countless times, will just magically disappear.

Oooo, I hit a nerve, The FACT that Human Evolution has never been proven can be pointed out by “The Missing Link.” See, it is missing, so the chain of human evolution from apes cannot be proven, and in science that usually means it is not true.

As to my education sir, I was in the Medical field and have an extensive education in biology and Human Anatomy.

Many scientists have come forward and stated that the more they tried to prove that God does not exist, the more they believed he did; he, She, it, a higher power.

“I will bottom line it for you, Human evolution has NEVER been proven; period. Get over yourself, and realize you need to learn more than you think you know.”

Right. You and your eighth-grade education and absent biology background will just ejaculate declarative statements and wave your hands real fast, and that huge body of knowledge accumulated by thousands of scientists all over the world, and reproduced and verified countless times, will just magically disappear.

In that case, we might as well allow alternatives to the germ therory of disease, gravity, because yes, evolution is on scientific and evidentiary ground just as solid as that supporting these concepts. The original post is sheer fiction, and “Uncooperative Blogger” is a slack-jawed moron. That’s okay, because justice prevailed in El Tejon.

As I said, I’m not here to give science lessons to people who not only can’t understand them but wouldn’t accept them if they could. I’ll go so far as to waste time pointing out where you guys are wrong (a full-time job in itself), but I lack the power and the desire to pull a bunch of benighted cretins out of the 14th century and into the present one.

Reality stands, apostle, whether you accept it or not. You can keep praying to your imaginary pal in the sky and jamming your fingers in your ears when your betters say things you’d rather not hear, but maybe you should ask yourself why it is that evolution is accepted by those with an education who are actually exposed to and utilize it on a reguar basis. Oh yeah, that’s right — a corrupt atheist agenda, even among theistic evolutionists.