Thread: Origins

In order to fathom the beginning of the Universe, I have to disregard time.

I could elaborate for paragraphs but I think you might understand what I think just from one sentence >_>

Originally Posted by Noogah

Well...that's kind of...absolute. I actually disagree, so, I don't know what to tell you, and I believe Evolution can be shown to be very flawed.

Your unfounded conjecture vs. years of research. You still have not provided
any solid reason for your point of view. As was already pointed out, evolution
can be disproven, though none have succeeded in doing so. Quite to the
contrary the staggering amount of evidence gathered is in favor of the
theory, not against.

You should also not confuse a scientific theory with what we call a fact.
Evolution is very much a fact. To deny it would be akin to denying that our
planet orbits the sun.

Originally Posted by Noogah

I highly recommend you visit Answers in Genesis if you want to know why.

If there is a specific article from the site that you think is really going to
stand up to said years of evidence, a specific link (and not a generic
front page dedicated to multiple topics) would be preferred.

Originally Posted by Noogah

1.The theory says the earth has been around for for billion years...and the weird thing is, our planet exists.

2.The genetic mutation required to create a human being from elements would be more then is realisticly possible.

3.One of my favorite fallacies is that each organ apparently evolved independently of eachother, despite the fact that they all depend on eachother. The human body is an extremely delicate balance of inner clockwork, none of which could simply have fallen in place.

1. A planet's age does not contradict its existence.. I'm unsure of the point
your trying to make, and how it is relevant to the discussion.

2. I already said before that a few billion years is a tremendous amount of
time, certainly long enough to allow complex multicellular organisms to arise.
What you think is "realistic" is not going to stand up on its own. There
are far more complex and mind boggling phenomena that occur on smaller
scales, and to argue against something as relatively simple as
evolution based on how plausible you think it is is senseless.

3. Organs developed in other organisms prior to our existence, the genes of
which changed or didn't change and got passed down until, voila, they existed
in you and me. Humans did not need to develop a set of organs from scratch.

The human body is an extremely delicate balance of inner clockwork

Null and void. I can remove your kidney, half your liver, a lung, damage your
brain, give you stomach ulcers, heart damage, destroy your inner ear, leave
in your already useless appendix, and still you could move along to reproduce.

Originally Posted by Invader

Null and void. I can remove your kidney, half your liver, a lung, damage your
brain, give you stomach ulcers, heart damage, destroy your inner ear, leave
in your already useless appendix, and still you could move along to reproduce.

This post is to Noogah:

The appendix, a residual organ from our ancestors we evolved from.

Hint:

Run your hand down your backside, right above your ass, at the bottom of your spine.. oh my.. it seems you are feeling a TAILBONE.

Hrmm..

~

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Quote:
3.One of my favorite fallacies is that each organ apparently evolved independently of eachother, despite the fact that they all depend on eachother. The human body is an extremely delicate balance of inner clockwork, none of which could simply have fallen in place.

Well organs started emerging with the first multicellular organisms and after an x amount of time we have a human with complex organs. So they didn't just pop out of nothing when the first human was born (which is never, there was no first human, evolution is a continuum). The eye didn't just form itself in one go. Our ancestors had retard eyes and with natural selection we have less retard eyes. What's so hard to understand here?

Don't take this as me necessarily arguing against you directly Bonsay, but I have a bit to add.

It is possible, and even likely that at some stage in the development of organs they did in fact evolve on their own as separate species. Take for example the Portuguese Man O' War.

An exerpt from the wikipedia article:

While the Portuguese Man o' War resembles a jellyfish, it is in fact a siphonophore – a colony of four kinds of minute, highly modified individuals, which are specialized polyps and medusoids.[1] Each such zooid in these pelagic colonial hydroids or hydrozoans has a high degree of specialization and, although structurally similar to other solitary animals, are all attached to each other and physiologically integrated rather than living independently. Such zooids are specialized to such an extent that they lack the structures associated with other functions and are therefore dependent for survival on the others to do what the particular zooid cannot do by itself.

This 'creature' is actually a colony of four different kinds of creatures that nonetheless cannot exist independently of each other and each only performs a specific function for the colony as a whole. From this example, it doesn't take much imagination to see how the Portuguese Man 'o war could continue to evolve until it is considered to be a single species and each zooid has become just an organ of that creature.

Wow, I didn't know that about the Man o' War, that's frickin' cool!

Never know what interesting thing you'll learn next.

The comic in the OP was clever, I chuckled and I started to imagine all the possible [positive] ways the discussion following it could go.

I was personally hoping it get around to interpreting why it is that religion and science refuse to get along, or at least be civil with each other.

I had high hopes, because at least the comic had a sense of humor about finding similarities, albeit small ones.

Yet I get to be surprised that it somehow managed to center on evolution; the one thing that either side refuses to budge on.



I must've missed the point.

Originally Posted by acatalephobic

The comic in the OP was clever, I chuckled and I started to imagine all the possible [positive] ways the discussion following it could go.

I was personally hoping it get around to interpreting why it is that religion and science refuse to get along, or at least be civil with each other.

I had high hopes, because at least the comic had a sense of humor about finding similarities, albeit small ones.

Yet I get to be surprised that it somehow managed to center on evolution; the one thing that either side refuses to budge on.



I must've missed the point.

I think someone brought up evolution at one point, Noogah disagreed, I made an ambiguous post intended for further discussion of the idea that matter is trapped energy, Noogah jumped on me, and, well...here we are.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Just to note, that although the posts may not be directly addressed to you, I have referenced them to you.

How kind of you.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You did nothing to discuss humanism itself

So...you just want me to discuss it? Have a chat about it? What do you want?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Are you not aware that humanism is present in every religion?

In some religions some of it's ideals are, yes. But, still two very different things.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Yes, you made one "decent" response to several of my posts. I had made one significant post with evidence which you have yet, to this day, to acknowledge.

I did acknowledge it. I responded to it, and continued to frequently correspond with you afterwards. How else do you wish me to acknowledge your evidence?

Originally Posted by O'nus

I enter into bi-daily debates, weekly forums, and have a life to.

You and I are two different people with different schedules, different responsibilities, different abilities, different minds, and different goals. And, no. I realize I'm not the only person you debate.

Originally Posted by O'nus

How is it unbiblical? Your Christian peers seem to think otherwise.

Um...no. Actually, none of my "peers" think that way. In fact, there are only a handful of Christians who do.

Genesis explicitly states that God created the world in six days. Now, I don't know exactly how any Christian can go about arguing with that, but, so long as the Holy Spirit let's them, I'm not going to make a big to-do about it.

Originally Posted by O'nus

It is as impossible as you are breathing.

So...it IS impossible?

Originally Posted by O'nus

You have no provided a single shred of reason why.

Pay attention. Perhaps you have missed a considerable amount of my posts. At present, I have not been doing much debating, but that is my own affair. I used to give you a whole load of my own evidence, and even recently have posted at least a little. These forums get old. I was trying to take it easy for a while, as it were, but you won't have that now will you?

Originally Posted by O'nus

It seems you are more guilty of what you accuse others of doing.

What did I accuse them of? I just said alot of my posts get ignored. I didn't accuse anybody.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I have provided you evidence for the dating mechanism....I have provided you the DNA train of mutations in several forms of evidence....I have provided you evidence for this - the evolution of the human body from our ancestors over billions of years....I have posted all my reasons for why evolution is fact.

...and I have refuted that "evidence", and have not ignored it.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I have made a lengthy response in that thread to you in which you have not yet to reply.

...and I suppose...

Originally Posted by Noogah

MY RESPONSE TO O'NUS:

doesn't count?

Originally Posted by O'nus

Go there and you'll see how you're wrong, durr hurrr.

O'nus...is every thing okay in your life? Are you well? Are you depressed? You're acting biased, angry, bitter, and immature enough to totally blow up at someone at least thirty years younger than you.

Seriously. Chill.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Evolution can be disproved.

It cannot. There is absolutely no possible way you can 100% SCIENTIFICALLY disprove a theory that says the universe has existed for twelve billion years.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You just don't remember because they are suppressed

But, SCIENTIFICALLY speaking, it is indeed possible. However, with any bit of brains, I can realize that this is untrue. Scientifically, almost no theory can be truly disproved until genuinely observed to be incorrect. That isn't gonna happen when the theory takes place one baby step at a time every one million years.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You could be a smart person

My intelligence is not judged by what I believe.

Originally Posted by O'nus

but you are not being respectful to it.

What do you want me to do?? Bow down and worship it? I've tried very hard up until this point to keep from totally insulting Evolution, and keeping a level head about it. I don't know how much more respect I can give it.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

And you ignoring others of course.

This.

The appendix, a residual organ from our ancestors we evolved from.

Hint:

Run your hand down your backside, right above your buttocks, at the bottom of your spine.. oh my.. it seems you are feeling a TAILBONE.

Dude, that was explained a long time ago. My father is a medical professional, and even he has explained how this is a ridiculous misconception.

1.The coccyx is there to hold down muscles and ligaments. It has nothing to do with a tail.

Have it removed, and you will be in mortal agony.

2.The appendix- I don't even need to say anything about this. I shall indulge my self with linking. It has been known for quite a while now that the Appendix functions as a defense against infection/sickness in certain areas.

Many Evolutionists realize that.

Don't worry people. I haven't forgotten my thread about holes, nor have I abandoned your many arguments. I will be with you shortly.

And, O'nus, I am going to PM you with something important. Make sure to check it.

O'nus...is every thing okay in your life? Are you well? Are you depressed? You're acting biased, angry, bitter, and immature enough to totally blow up at someone at least thirty years younger than you.

Seriously. Chill.

Now that's just trolling.

But, SCIENTIFICALLY speaking, it is indeed possible. However, with any bit of brains, I can realize that this is untrue. Scientifically, almost no theory can be truly disproved until genuinely observed to be incorrect. That isn't gonna happen when the theory takes place one baby step at a time every one million years.

The theory can be observed in roughly two hours under laboratory conditions.

I think this thread is an experiment!!

Originally Posted by acatalephobic

The comic in the OP was clever, I chuckled and I started to imagine all the possible [positive] ways the discussion following it could go.

I was personally hoping it get around to interpreting why it is that religion and science refuse to get along, or at least be civil with each other.

I had high hopes, because at least the comic had a sense of humor about finding similarities, albeit small ones.

Yet I get to be surprised that it somehow managed to center on evolution; the one thing that either side refuses to budge on.



I must've missed the point.

Thank you, first off. I'm glad you have your own interpretation of the
drawing, and I'd much hear if you'd like to share your ideas. That the thread
continued on to evolution is actually dandy, considering the subject is
"Origins" and this particular argument has a lot to do with our views on how
life began and developed. You didn't miss the point at all. You are welcome
to contribute.

Originally Posted by Noogah

Many Evolutionists realize that.

From that link:

"It has evolved at least twice"

Originally Posted by juroara

I think this thread is an experiment!!

Maybe it is.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Now that's just trolling.

How?

Originally Posted by Mario92

The theory can be observed in roughly two hours under laboratory conditions.

1.The Earth is not under laboratory conditions

2.Reference, please. I would like to read about that.

Originally Posted by Invader

It has evolved at least twice

Naturally, they claim it evolved, being Evolutionists, but they do not dismiss the fact that it still has uses, and that is the point.

Originally Posted by Noogah

How?

Dude, don't even. Trolling is posting provocative messages to illicit a response, preferably in the form of flaming. Commenting on how much you piss someone off and how it shows is a form of trolling. Don't even go there.

1.The Earth is not under laboratory conditions

You're right...it's even crazier and MORE likely to achieve evolution.

2.Reference, please. I would like to read about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escheri...Model_organism

E Coli reproduces once every 15 minutes. It is an ideal organism, and new strains have a tendency to develop rather quickly. Evolution can best be seen on a longer term basis, though.

Long-term evolution experiments using E. coli have allowed direct observation of major evolutionary shifts in the laboratory.[73]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli...ion_experiment

Since the experiment's inception, Lenski and his colleagues have reported a wide array of genetic changes; some evolutionary adaptations have occurred in all 12 populations, while others have only appeared in one or a few populations. One particularly striking adaption was the evolution of a strain of E. coli that was able to grow on citric acid in the growth media.

We can see it fucking happen. What more do you want? The experiment backs up evolution in every way, shape, and form. Random mutations, first and foremost. Every population developed different adaptations. I repeat: what more do you want? Unless, you know, you have a better, more plausible theory to explain why this experiment (and others similar to this) back up Darwin left and right?

Dude, don't even. Trolling is posting provocative messages to illicit a response, preferably in the form of flaming.

HE was flaming at me. I asked what sort of negative indicidents in his life were causing such deep pain.

E Coli reproduces once every 15 minutes. It is an ideal organism, and new strains have a tendency to develop rather quickly. Evolution can best be seen on a longer term basis, though.

Ah. The E coli thing again, huh? Do you keep up with creation science? Well, I myself find the issue (and it's refute) difficult to comprehend. However, in brief terms, it is not the Evolution of an organism, but the adaptation of environments.

Now before you run off and tell me there is no difference.......

Read this from Answers In Genesis first.

To be quite honest, it's over my level of understanding thus far. I can only get the bare basics of the whole E coli experiment business. As such, I can't discuss it any further with you. The area is beyond my biological education.

Originally Posted by Noogah

HE was flaming at me. I asked what sort of negative indicidents in his life were causing such deep pain.

...which is a form of trolling. "Oh, you seem rather tense today. Did somebody sleep bad? Hmm?" It's rude and condescending.

Ah. The E coli thing again, huh? Do you keep up with creation science? Well, I myself find the issue (and it's refute) difficult to comprehend. However, in brief terms, it is not the Evolution of an organism, but the adaptation of environments.

The fact that you don't understand the basics of biology and evolution are only weakening your case...

Now before you run off and tell me there is no difference.......

Read this first.

I'll paste it here:

I read the whole thing.

To be quite honest, it's over my level of understanding thus far. I can only get the bare basics of the whole E coli experiment business. As such, I can't discuss it any further with you. The area is beyond my biological education.

Evolution: 3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

That was evolution. A new species did not develop, but given enough time, a new species would have. Where it says that the organism sacrificed some efficiency...yeah, enough time, and that would be ironed out. BAM. New species. Evolution does not mean that an organism HAS to change into a new one, or that it HAS to become more advanced; to assume so is ridiculous.

It's rude and condescending.

Okay, fine.

Where it says that the organism sacrificed some efficiency...yeah, enough time, and that would be ironed out. BAM. New species.

"I need more time!"

Good luck with that.

You still don't have a case.

To me, it seems more like...de-evolution.

Originally Posted by Noogah

"I need more time!"

Good luck with that.

You still don't have a case.

To me, it seems more like...de-evolution.

What part of BILLIONS OF YEARS are you not getting? Yeah, 40k+ generations is a long time, but only a tiny drop in the bucket compared to what nature can achieve. Nature also has a tendency to change drastically and pitch organisms in new, random environments. Some live, some die. Labs are great at demonstrating concepts and backing up theories, but if you're expecting a new species to evolve from such plush conditions, don't hold your breath. What we can (and have) done is go through Genetic Engineering to create brand new organisms and sub-species. It is obvious that genetic material is the source of genetic information; this cannot be denied. We see that organisms with RANDOM genetic mutations can sometimes develop the right mutations to benefit their odds of surviving and passing on their genes. This is natural selection, and it is also real; this cannot be denied. Basically, that is evolution: random mutations and natural selection. Both are true, and both work to form new species and sub-species. Now, pray tell: how the hell can you still deny evolution?

All we have done is submit evidence to you for evolution. Perhaps you would like to cite some sources for creationism outside the Bible?

Also, it's called devolution. Still a part of evolution.

but if you're expecting a new species to evolve from such plush conditions, don't hold your breath.

This is what I know:

Laboratories have actually mutated a creature. Sure, the poor thing was hurt in the process, but it did way more then nature has done in my lifetime. If a creature won't evolve in the lab no matter how long it's there, I seriously doubt it would work in nature either.

I don't care if you give it four billion years. Do you realize that the average human adult happens to have around seventy trillion cells? And that each cell is chalk full of carefully arranged Chromosones, DNA, and other vital clockwork? One tweak to any of it totally ruins it all.

If every genetic mutation could bring about ONE more cell (Which I seriously doubt) then we would have to evolve at the rate of at least 17,500 positive genetic mutations each year. That would mean more than seven hundred positive genetic mutations PER DAY! And that assumes that the process never slowed down.


How many positive genetic mutations happen inside of you every day?

Perhaps you would like to cite some sources for creationism outside the Bible

Do you mean all the scientists that support the theory?

Originally Posted by Noogah

This is what I know:

Laboratories have actually mutated a creature. Sure, the poor thing was hurt in the process, but it did way more then nature has done in my lifetime. If a creature won't evolve in the lab no matter how long it's there, I seriously doubt it would work in nature either.

I don't care if you give it four billion years. Do you realize that the average human adult happens to have around seventy trillion cells? And that each cell is chalk full of carefully arranged Chromosones, DNA, and other vital clockwork? One tweak to any of it totally ruins it all.

If every genetic mutation could bring about ONE more cell (Which I seriously doubt) then we would have to evolve at the rate of at least 17,500 positive genetic mutations each year. That would mean more than seven hundred positive genetic mutations PER DAY! And that assumes that the process never slowed down.


How many positive genetic mutations happen inside of you every day?

Fun fact: cancer cells arise in the body every single day. The immune system usually takes care of them promptly. So yeah, cells are mutating all the time. Another thing that helps is that some 90-something percent of all your DNA is "junk DNA;" it doesn't do a damn thing. Bacteria don't have a lot of DNA to work with, so usually, mutations have a nice, fat impact. Human cells, however, can have loads of junk DNA...evolutionary remnants, if I may add. Many of them are inactive genes of other species...say, dolphin flippers, for example. The gene is in our genome: why? It doesn't do a damn thing, save for helping to prevent random mutations from fucking up the body...but a long series of Adenine molecules would achieve exactly the same effect, and probably at even less risk, and yet this is not what we observe.

Do you mean all the scientists that support the theory?

Over 90% of the world's scientists support evolution. Shouldn't that tell you something? As for the rest...there will always be skeptics, as well as those willing to practice "dirty science." The scientific community, for all intents and purposes, is united in this area. But, of course, if evolution really is all a load of crap, perhaps you should schedule a press conference and explain exactly why this is so. Imagine; the entire scientific community, undermined by a 14-year-old fundamentalist who has it all figured out. I'm sure you'd win the Nobel Peace Prize for that.

Originally Posted by Noogah

Ah. The E coli thing again, huh? Do you keep up with creation science?

HA! Are there any new developments?

How about the common cold? You know, the one that people get vaccinations
for every year because of how it adapts through mutation and natural
selection? Evolutionary proof before everyone's eyes.

If every genetic mutation could bring about ONE more cell...

Also (because it's important) no. I don't think you understand how changes in the
genome of a multicellular organism occurs. Changes appear in the children when
mutations occur in gametes, or when two very different members of the same
species mate (gene flow). New traits arise. Rinse, repeat, do it long enough and
you end up with something entirely new.

The rest of your post makes it clear that you don't disagree with evolution because
you think it doesn't work, or because it doesn't agree with your religion. You disagree
because you don't know how it works and have a distorted understanding of it.

Originally Posted by Invader

Also (because it's important) no. I don't think you understand how changes in the
genome of a multicellular organism occurs. Changes appear in the children when
mutations occur in gametes, or when two very different members of the same
species mate (gene flow). New traits arise. Rinse, repeat, do it long enough and
you end up with something entirely new.

There's also chromosomal cross-over and genetic recombination to help that process along as well.

Noogah, here's a quick challenge for you:

A few facts:
- Species pass down their DNA to the progeny;
- Selective pressures exist in nature, resulting in the fittest being more likely to survive and pass their DNA;
- DNA mixes and mutates;
- Species continue on surviving and reproducing for thousands of years or more (life on Earth as a whole is at least billions of years old).

Now, are you able to provide an explanation as to how evolution can possibly NOT happen under these factual circumstances?

Originally Posted by Noogah

HE was flaming at me. I asked what sort of negative indicidents in his life were causing such deep pain.

I am not in deep pain - please do not stoop to trying to personally attack me instead of justifying your propositions.

Ah. The E coli thing again, huh? Do you keep up with creation science? Well, I myself find the issue (and it's refute) difficult to comprehend. However, in brief terms, it is not the Evolution of an organism, but the adaptation of environments.

Now before you run off and tell me there is no difference.......

Read this from Answers In Genesis first.

To be quite honest, it's over my level of understanding thus far. I can only get the bare basics of the whole E coli experiment business. As such, I can't discuss it any further with you. The area is beyond my biological education.

If you actually understood evolution, you would see that AnswersinGenesis has no empirical evidence to support their rebuttal. Also, they misuse many terms and actually equivocate themselves more than who they accuse. It is hypocritical debating techniques at its finest. Akin to the, "It's the onus of atheists to disprove God, not for Theists to prove God".

Since you like referencing journal articles instead of science, here's one for you:

"This is a very common creationist tactic: Try to make evolution seem like a detrimental process, and then claim that as evidence that common descent is false. The fact is that it is totally unreasonable to expect mutations to prove useful in every single environment possible. The role of mutation and natural selection is to make the organism better adapted to the environment the species is in at the time. For instance, gills are extremely useful if you live in the water (of course), but if a population of amphibians has evolved to the point of no longer truly needing them, it is best to get rid of them (why keep something that requires caloric energy to upkeep?). Legs are a great adaption if you need to move around on land, but for a sea dwelling creature like a whale they are nothing but a burden. "
+ http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2008/0...d-citrate.html

Originally Posted by Noogah

So...you just want me to discuss it? Have a chat about it? What do you want?

My point was to prove that you ditched and avoided the debate.

In some religions some of it's ideals are, yes. But, still two very different things.

Fact; if a religion is conceived by a human, it will be Humanistic to some degree. It is impossible for a religion, conceived by a human, to not be humanistic at all.

The only possible non-Humanistic religion would be one that says; everything must die.

I did acknowledge it. I responded to it, and continued to frequently correspond with you afterwards. How else do you wish me to acknowledge your evidence?

You never acknowledged my points. You avoided them and left the threads. You can go ahead and keep referencing that single response of yours, but I made several afterwards that you ignored.

You keep saying the same nonsensical things and I keep providing you evidence which you ignore - how do you think that comes across?

Um...no. Actually, none of my "peers" think that way. In fact, there are only a handful of Christians who do.

I understand that you are young, but I want you to realize that a vast majority of Christians do accept evolution.

My original point to you was that evolution and the big bang actually originated as a defense for Christianity whereas Atheists argued for a steady-state model.

You seem to be ignorant of this fact - yet you will accuse others as not acknowledging the evidence or the history of your own religious ideal.

Anyone who will argue for the Intelligent Design model is, in fact, an evolutionist in denial.

Genesis explicitly states that God created the world in six days. Now, I don't know exactly how any Christian can go about arguing with that, but, so long as the Holy Spirit let's them, I'm not going to make a big to-do about it.

How is this relevant? Evolution says nothing about the creation of everything.

Pay attention.

So...it IS impossible?

Evolution is a fact. It is more of a fact than gravity.

If you do not think evolution is fact, then you ought to also not think gravity is a fact.

There is more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity.

I can, and have, provided you that evidence.

Pay attention. Perhaps you have missed a considerable amount of my posts. At present, I have not been doing much debating, but that is my own affair. I used to give you a whole load of my own evidence, and even recently have posted at least a little. These forums get old. I was trying to take it easy for a while, as it were, but you won't have that now will you?

I have researched, quoted, and collected several of them here - in fact, you are missing and ignoring a considerable amount of my posts. Yet here you are being a hypocrite and accusing me of this now.

Keep digging.

...and I have refuted that "evidence", and have not ignored it.

No you didn't. I think what you mean to say is, "I refused to acknowledge it" and "I never contributed further to the discussion once a thoughtful rebuttal was made against me".

That's what you mean, right?

O'nus...is every thing okay in your life? Are you well? Are you depressed? You're acting biased, angry, bitter, and immature enough to totally blow up at someone at least thirty years younger than you.

Seriously. Chill.

Do not get personal with me and try to attack my lifestyle.

You come into these debates as an acting adult, I will treat you that way.

Do you want me to treat you like an ignorant child instead? Is that what you are asking of me? I can do that if you'd like.

It cannot. There is absolutely no possible way you can 100% SCIENTIFICALLY disprove a theory that says the universe has existed for twelve billion years.

You can scientifically disprove evolution. You must realize that you are only proving your absolute ignorance of evolution by saying this.

Things to prove evolution wrong:
+ A bunny fossil found pre-cambrian date
+ Genetic mapping found not to be linear
+ Species not falling under natural selection and surviving

And more.

What could prove you wrong about God? Please do tell.

But, SCIENTIFICALLY speaking, it is indeed possible. However, with any bit of brains, I can realize that this is untrue. Scientifically, almost no theory can be truly disproved until genuinely observed to be incorrect. That isn't gonna happen when the theory takes place one baby step at a time every one million years.

You ought not to say these things until you truly experience the academic world. Every theory is tested beyond years of experiments for falsification (ie. growing organs is a big one right now). Scientists duty is to prove things wrong, or keep trying to, until they cannot. Once they cannot, they have either found a fact, or they found a new theory to explain things.

Now do not confuse this with something like God which is unfalsifiable. It is that these experiments could still be potentially proven wrong, but they havn't. Evolution has a prolific amount of evidence, more than any other theory of the natural world. Nothing else better explains it and nothing has proven evolution wrong yet.

My intelligence is not judged by what I believe.

You're right - your behavior is. Why do you think I am critiquing your behavior? I am not making these accusations based on what you believe.

Pay attention.

What do you want me to do?? Bow down and worship it? I've tried very hard up until this point to keep from totally insulting Evolution, and keeping a level head about it. I don't know how much more respect I can give it.

This.

How many times are you going to reference this single response of yours?

I have provided many more responses with much more evidence that you have completely ignored.

Not only that, but I have referenced that very same thread to demonstrate your hypocrisy.

What's hilarious is that you are now using it to your defense!

I seriously think you are ignorant to your own hypocrisy.

Dude, that was explained a long time ago. My father is a medical professional, and even he has explained how this is a ridiculous misconception.

1.The coccyx is there to hold down muscles and ligaments. It has nothing to do with a tail.

Have it removed, and you will be in mortal agony.

It does function as a crucial part of the spine, but if your father had any real medical professional education, he would know that the coccyx is a remaining part of a vestigial tail that is from our ancestral ape relatives.

Now you make me wonder about your fathers education and seriously worry about the intelligence of medical professionals of where you live. Obviously they are not educated very well.

2.The appendix- I don't even need to say anything about this. I shall indulge my self with linking. It has been known for quite a while now that the Appendix functions as a defense against infection/sickness in certain areas.

Many Evolutionists realize that.

Noogah, I just wanted to point out that, in that article you just used to defend yourself, it says:

""The appendix has been around for at least 80 million years, much longer than we would estimate if Darwin's ideas about the appendix were correct," Parker said."

But how can you reference an article that says such things when you, Noogah, refuse that the universe even existed so long?

Stop being a hypocrite.

Note; please do not try and cop-out by function on the "if Darwin's ideas where correct" because William Parker is actually a defendant of neo-Darwinism. He is not saying that Darwin is wrong, but saying that the appendix is not a useless organ drawn up from our past.

+ http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/person/william-parker

Proof that Evolution is Fact

I have provided you this before, and you ignored it, but here it is again.
+ http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...1&postcount=23

Everything supported by peer reviewed science journals. You have respect for them, you say, but you have yet to acknowledge them.

If you are not a hypocrite, as you say, then open your eyes and actually begin to see things how they really are - not how you want them to be.

Edit;

Observed Evolution

You can also see evolutionary processes in:
- Dog breeding (wolves to chihuahua's)
- Flower growing (various)
- Plant growing (lettuce to cabbage)
- Bacterial vs. anti-Bacterial
- Animal camouflage patterns
- and infinitely more (these are just ones I have empirical evidence on me at the time, if needed)

~