Christians and muslims believe the same thing

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ July 11 2011,14:14)

Quote (Stu @ July 11 2011,20:22) What has been going on for 6000 years? Stuart stu the greed ,that says all for me and nothing for the others and what i say goes or i kill you or what you have is mine now or obey or die ect

I'd say closer to several million years.

But love, selflessness, wonder and friendship have been going for millions of years too.

“Obey or die” is the story of your Imaginary Friend killing Uzzah who was only trying to help.

Stuart

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ July 11 2011,23:00)

Quote (terraricca @ July 11 2011,14:14) Quote (Stu @ July 11 2011,20:22) What has been going on for 6000 years? Stuart stu the greed ,that says all for me and nothing for the others and what i say goes or i kill you or what you have is mine now or obey or die ect I'd say closer to several million years.   But love, selflessness, wonder and friendship have been going for millions of years too. “Obey or die” is the story of your Imaginary Friend killing Uzzah who was only trying to help. Stuart

stu

you make it worst then we soon will destroy our self because we reached a climax ,

is this going on for millions of years that bad because all the knowledge that men has acquired is for war and destruction,

of cause this is if you right ,where did you pick up that info ,any scientist that ever claim they found something that old where proven liars,anyway to me it does not matter either way we are doom to destruction GREED that the destroyer

strange you must know and live in a good environment with all those good people around or all over the world ?

wonder and friendship have been going for millions of years too.love

which type the animal sort,no thank you that is not my style,

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ July 11 2011,16:17)

stu you make it worst then we soon will destroy our self because we reached a climax , is this going on for millions of years that bad because all the knowledge that men has acquired is for war and destruction, of cause this is if you right ,where did you pick up that info ,any scientist that ever claim they found something that old where proven liars,anyway to me it does not matter either way we are doom to destruction GREED that the destroyer strange you must know and live in a good environment with all those good people around or all over the world ? wonder and friendship have been going for millions of years too.love which type the animal sort,no thank you that is not my style,

I haven't made anything worse.

I don't think knowing how to make antibiotics, or even something as simple as aspirin is for war and destruction. Maybe a little less conspiracy theory of violent gods that don't really exist and a bit more perspective might help.

What do you mean by “any scientist that ever claim they found something that old where proven liars”?

You appear to be very good at talking the talk. Where is the walk to back up your big words?

I'm still waiting for a reply to your extravagant claims about Darwin's theory.

Stuart

[terraricca]

stu

Quote

You appear to be very good at talking the talk. Where is the walk to back up your big words?

you to are very good on skipping over some quotes of mine and not answering ,but i will get there ,

Quote

What do you mean by “any scientist that ever claim they found something that old where proven liars”?

I was under the impression that you had study all the aspect of the evolution theory,

Quote

I haven't made anything worse

yes according to you men as been killing himself for millions of years and I said 6000 years you see how you make it worst?

Quote

I don't think knowing how to make antibiotics, or even something as simple as aspirin is for war and destruction. Maybe a little less conspiracy theory of violent gods that don't really exist and a bit more perspective might help.

all the main discoveries were made because of war,all inventions or 99 per cent are from war actions,if a men live in Peace he would not need more than a few acres of land
and work it ,

but there is no glory in that ,

you know i am 71 year old ,when i was 18 and you went to a bar or club or cafe,and you say that you are gay (homosex,,)you would be beaten up ,today they get married in public and on TV ,we had no AID until one of them catch it from a monkey (news paper)in 1985

I never heard 10 year old kid killing people ,

Pierre

[terraricca]

stu

evolution theory;

Introduction

Before we take on the ten reasons evolution is wrong we must first define what we are talking about. Evolutionists will say the word evolution to you and you may think you know what they are saying, but you probably don’t. There are at least five concepts of evolution that the evolutionist speaks of as one. They are:

Cosmic Evolution – Their Cosmology or how the Universe came into being.
Stellar Evolution – How the stars, galaxies etc. formed
Earth’s Evolution – How the Sun and the planets formed in our solar system.
Macroevolution – The postulate that says all life formed from earlier organized non-life and through some form of mutation, natural selection, and enormous amounts of time.
Microevolution – The limited variation that takes place in a species or families complex gene pool or genome.

As creationists we may not agree with all these as being evolution and so it helps to understand what we are saying. In this article I agree that microevolution occurs, but the other four are imminently debatable.

Now another issue needs to be face before we go on. Evolutionists are fond of talking down and attacking creationists as being less “scientific” than they. They use ad-hominen attacks and accuse creationists as being stupid and unable to understand their “science”. We need to understand what science is and how our arguments fit in its’ framework.

Science. According to the Oxford Dictionary science is “A branch of study which is concerned either with a connected body of demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically classified and more or less colligated by being brought under general laws, and which includes trustworthy methods for the discovery of new truth within its own domain.”

The process is for a postulate is first formulated and then announced. Then there are three things about this postulate that must be true before it can be considered a theory.

The postulate must be observable.
The postulate must be capable of repeatable experimental verification
The postulate must withstand a fasifiability test, or an experiment conceived which the failure of the experiment would disprove the postulate.

When you talk with evolutionists make sure you have these points covered. They will talk circles around you and call you stupid if you don’t know what they are talking about. As Evolutionists have never observed any of the first four supposed evolutions they assume are true, they only talk about the last microevolution and try to define it as all five! The constantly point out microevolution as being the proof of all the other four. The sooner we creationists figure this out the sooner we can win this debate.

From the points given above is shows us that both evolution and creation are postulates. Neither have much of a chance of becoming a theory because of the difficulty of observing events that happened in the distant past and trying to have those events become repeatable. When evolutionists become dogmatic in their speech as if evolution had been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt, they are talking about microevolution and they are bluffing because the lack real proof.

What we are left to do then is look forensically into such things as fossils, microbiology, biochemistry, information theory, etc. to try and see if we can catch the process in its’ act. We will talk about all these things in this article.

.Microevolution Defined

We now need to define carefully the concept of microevolution as we and the evolutionists both understand it differently. Microevolution to the creationist is the limited variation that can be expressed by the genome of a “species’ or family of plants or animals. It is the variation in the alleles of a genome as they are expressed in sexual reproduction and the mixing of alleles that occurs. These alleles are mostly not the product of mutations, but rather reside in the total genome of a population. See the genetics section for a further treatment of alleles in a genome.

The Evolutionist sees microevolution as the cornerstone of evolutionary theory. They believe that it is billions of microevolution mutations in the genome, creating new alleles, and natural selection preserving those changes that is the process of evolution.

Creationists do not see microevolution as being able to drive the massive information gain that needs to occur for evolution to be possible, that is the ameoba to man evolution concept. Microevolution changes mainly occur through the practice of selective breeding. There are no “mutations” in selective breeding or in genome adaptation to the environment. The complex changes that occur are already in the genome and are merely being brought out from human or environmental pressure.

For instance sugar beets in the early 1800’s had a 6% sugar content, by selective breeding that sugar content had risen to 17% by 1878. That was as far as the breeders were able to stretch the genome and they certainly didn’t create a potato from the sugar beet.

Another instance of microevolution is the English peppered moth (Biston betularia). In pre-industrial England the peppered moth lived on the white bark of the birch tree. The moth came in two basic varieties, peppered white and dark. These two varieties hatch out at about a 50% ratio. But when the dark variety landed on the white birch bark, the birds saw them and ate them at a higher rate than the peppered white moth. But as industrialization occurred and coal dust darkened the birch trees, the peppered white moth became rarer because the birds ate them and the dark variety blended into the tree. But they still hatched out at a 50% ratio. (This has since been proven to have 'staged' photographs of the moths 'glued' to tree trunks – so much for evolutionists objectivity)

Other microevolution issues we look at are selective breeding in dogs, cats or cows for example. If we let these all breed together they would all fall back to some common denominator animal. But you can see how far the genome will stretch when you look at a teacup poodle and a rottweiler. But they never created another species.

In fact evolutionists are experimenting with microevolution experiments to see if mutations, a cornerstone in their postulate, will really cause enough positive changes to move one species to another. Since 1910 there have been accelerated mutation experiments with the fruit fly. To date no success. Since about 1950 there have been accelerated mutation experiments with bacteria and again not much success. Come to think of it these would be really good falsifiability experiments too wouldn’t they?

So with all that said we are now ready to begin our ten reasons evolution is wrong.

Reason Number 1

Genetics is Not Evolution’s Friend

Genome – the total genetic structure of a species or kind or its gene pool.
Mutation – a mistake in the copying of the DNA; can be caused by radiation, or chemicals.
Recombination – the genetic mixing in sexual or asexual reproduction
Gene – the stuff of life, the sequence of amino acids in the double helix of DNA
Allele – variants of genes in the Genome that are for the same structure but that express a characteristic differently, such as brown eyes vs. blue eyes.
Taxon – Category in classification such as species, phylum.

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=….cad=rjt

short cut above for more;

Pierre

[terraricca]

stu

forgery of evolution

EVOLUTION FORGERIES

There is no concrete fossil evidence to support the “ape-man” image, which is unceasingly promulgated by the media and evolutionist academic circles. With brushes in their hands, evolutionists produce imaginary creatures, nevertheless, the fact that these drawings correspond to no matching fossils constitutes a serious problem for them. One of the interesting methods they employ to overcome this problem is to “produce” the fossils they cannot find. Piltdown Man, which may be the biggest scandal in the history of science, is a typical example of this method.

Piltdown Man: An Orang-utan Jaw and a Human Skull!

The Story of a Hoax

1) The fossils are unearthed by Charles Dawson and given to Sir Arthur Smith Woodward.
2) Pieces are reconstructed to form the famous skull.
3) Based on the reconstructed skull, various drawings and skulptures are made, numerous articles and commentaries are written. The original skull is demonstrated in the British Museum.
4) After 40 years of its discovery, the Piltdown fossil is shown to be a hoax by a group of researchers.

In 1912, a well-known doctor and amateur paleoanthropologist named Charles Dawson came out with the assertion that he had found a jawbone and a cranial fragment in a pit in Piltdown, England. Even though the jawbone was more ape-like, the teeth and the skull were like a man's. These specimens were labelled the “Piltdown man”. Alleged to be 500,000 years old, they were displayed as an absolute proof of human evolution in several museums. For more than 40 years, many scientific articles were written on “Piltdown man”, many interpretations and drawings were made, and the fossil was presented as important evidence for human evolution. No fewer than 500 doctoral theses were written on the subject.63 While visiting the British Museum in 1921, leading American paleoanthropologist Henry Fairfield Osborn said “We have to be reminded over and over again that Nature is full of paradoxes” and proclaimed Piltdown “a discovery of transcendant importance to the prehistory of man.64

In 1949, Kenneth Oakley from the British Museum's Paleontology Department, attempted to use “fluorine testing”, a new test used for determining the date of fossils. A trial was made on the fossil of the Piltdown man. The result was astonishing. During the test, it was realised that the jawbone of Piltdown Man did not contain any fluorine. This indicated that it had remained buried no more than a few years. The skull, which contained only a small amount of fluorine, showed that it was not older than a few thousand years old.

It was determined that the teeth in the jawbone belonging to an orangutan, had been worn down artificially and that the “primitive” tools discovered with the fossils were simple imitations that had been sharpened with steel implements.65 In the detailed analysis completed by Joseph Weiner, this forgery was revealed to the public in 1953. The skull belonged to a 500-year-old man, and the jaw bone belonged to a recently deceased ape! The teeth had been specially arranged in a particular way and added to the jaw, and the molar surfaces were filed in order to resemble those of a man. Then all these pieces were stained with potassium dichromate to give them an old appearance. These stains began to disappear when dipped in acid. Sir Wilfred Le Gros Clark, who was in the team that uncovered the forgery, could not hide his astonishment at this situation and said: “The evidences of artificial abrasion immediately sprang to the eye. Indeed so obvious did they seem it may well be asked-how was it that they had escaped notice before?”66 In the wake of all this, “Piltdown man” was hurriedly removed from the British Museum where it had been displayed for more than 40 years.

Nebraska Man: A Single Pig Tooth

In 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn, the director of the American Museum of Natural History, declared that he had found a fossil molar tooth belonging to the Pliocene period in western Nebraska near Snake Brook. This tooth allegedly bore common characteristics of both man and ape. An extensive scientific debate began surrounding this fossil, which came to be called “Nebraska man”, in which some interpreted this tooth as belonging to Pithecanthropus erectus, while others claimed it was closer to human beings. Nebraska man was also immediately given a “scientific name”, Hesperopithecus haroldcooki.

The picture on the left was drawn on the basis of a single tooth and it was published in the Illustrated London News magazine on July 24, 1922. However, the evolutionists were extremely disappointed when it was revealed that this tooth belonged neither to an ape-like creature nor to a man, but rather to an extinct pig species.
Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single tooth, reconstructions of the Nebraska man's head and body were drawn. Moreover, Nebraska man was even pictured along with his wife and children, as a whole family in a natural setting.

All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist circles placed such faith in this “ghost man” that when a researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased conclusions relying on a single tooth, he was harshly criticised.

In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape. It was realised that it belonged to an extinct species of wild American pig called Prosthennops. William Gregory entitled the article published in Science in which he announced the truth, “Hesperopithecus: Apparently Not an ape Nor a man. 67 Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and his “family” were hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature.

Ota Benga: The African Native Put Into a Cage

After Darwin advanced the claim with his book The Descent of Man that man evolved from ape-like living beings, he started to seek fossils to support this contention. However, some evolutionists believed that “half-man half-ape” creatures were to be found not only in the fossil record, but also alive in various parts of the world. In the early 20th century, these pursuits for “living transitional links” led to unfortunate incidents, one of the cruellest of which is the story of a Pygmy by the name of Ota Benga.

OTA BENGA: “The pygmy in the zoo”
Ota Benga was captured in 1904 by an evolutionist researcher in the Congo. In his own tongue, his name meant “friend”. He had a wife and two children. Chained and caged like an animal, he was taken to the USA where evolutionist scientists displayed him to the public in the St Louis World Fair along with other ape species and introduced him as “the closest transitional link to man”. Two years later, they took him to the Bronx Zoo in New York and there they exhibited him under the denomination of “ancient ancestors of man” along with a few chimpanzees, a gorilla named Dinah, and an orang-utan called Dohung. Dr William T. Hornaday, the zoo's evolutionist director gave long speeches on how proud he was to have this exceptional “transitional form” in his zoo and treated caged Ota Benga as if he were an ordinary animal. Unable to bear the treatment he was subjected to, Ota Benga eventually committed suicide.68

Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ota Benga… These scandals demonstrate that evolutionist scientists do not hesitate to employ any kind of unscientific method to prove their theory. Bearing this point in mind, when we look at the other so-called evidence of the “human evolution” myth, we confront a similar situation. Here there are a fictional story and an army of volunteers ready to try everything to verify this story.

63 Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1980, p. 59.
64 Stephen Jay Gould, “Smith Woodward's Folly”, New Scientist, February 5, 1979, p. 44.
65 Kenneth Oakley,
William Le Gros Clark & J. S, “Piltdown”, Meydan Larousse, Vol 10, p. 133.
66 Stephen Jay Gould, “Smith Woodward's Folly”, New Scientist, April 5, 1979, p. 44.
67 W. K. Gregory, “Hesperopithecus Apparently Not An Ape Nor A Man”, Science, Vol 66, December 1927, p. 579.
68 Philips Verner Bradford, Harvey Blume, Ota Benga: The Pygmy in The Zoo, New York: Delta Books, 1992.

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter9.php

mission accomplished

Pierre

[Stu]

terraricca

Quote

yes according to you men as been killing himself for millions of years and I said 6000 years you see how you make it worst?

But you are only looking at one side of it. If you include all the good stuff then it comes out neutral.

Quote

all the main discoveries were made because of war,all inventions or 99 per cent are from war actions,if a men live in Peace he would not need more than a few acres of land and work it ,

Not aspirin, or insulin, or the electric light bulb, or the phonograph, or most treatments for cancer. To name just a handful.

Quote

you know i am 71 year old ,when i was 18 and you went to a bar or club or cafe,and you say that you are gay (homosex,,)you would be beaten up ,

So things have improved then, if that is less prevalent. The opposition to the legalisation of homosexual acts in my country 25 years ago came mainly from the religious right: in today’s newspaper they are admitting all the terrible things they said would happen never came to pass.

Quote

today they get married in public and on TV ,we had no AID until one of them catch it from a monkey (news paper)in 1985

You don’t know what you are talking about, do you.

Quote

I never heard 10 year old kid killing people ,

We never had global instant mass media before.

Stuart

[terraricca]

stu

Quote

You don’t know what you are talking about, do you.

1980

Gaëtan Dugas, so-called “Patient Zero”, was a flight attendant who had over 2,500 sexual partners across North America. At least 40 of the 248 people diagnosed with AIDS by April 1982 were thought to have had sex either with him or with someone who had. Dugas refused to stop having unprotected sex after being diagnosed, and allegedly informed some of his sex partners that he had the “gay cancer” and perhaps they would get it too.

[edit] See also
Timeline of AIDS

[edit] References

1.^ Connor, Steve (24 March 1995). “How scientists discovered false evidence on the world's “first AIDS victim””. The Independent. pp. 2–3. Retrieved 11 February 2009.
2.^ Chicago Tribune How Long Has Virus Been Stalking Victims? 25 October 1987 retrieved 15 May 2008
3.^ Chicago Tribune How Long Has Virus Been Stalking Victims? 25 October 1987 retrieved 15 May 2008
4.^ Kolata, Gina (28 October 1987). “Boy's 1969 Death Suggests AIDS Invaded U.S. Several Times”. The New York Times. Retrieved 11 February 2009.
5.^ Frøland, S.S., et al. “HIV-1 Infection in Norwegian Family before 1970”. The Lancet. 11 June 1988. Pp. 1344–1345
6.^ Hooper, Edward, Sailors and star-bursts, and the arrival of HIV, from the British Medical Journal, 1997
7.^ Hooper, Edward, Sailors and star-bursts, and the arrival of HIV, from the British Medical Journal, 1997

[terraricca]

stu

Quote

But you are only looking at one side of it. If you include all the good stuff then it comes out neutral.

how many tyrant do you have in a country? and 1,2,3,4,million or more people suffering of it

[Stu]

terraricca

Quote

Creationists do not see microevolution as being able to drive the massive information gain that needs to occur for evolution to be possible, that is the ameoba to man evolution concept.

This is the “creationists do not see” argument. That would be because they don’t go and look.

Quote

There are no “mutations” in selective breeding or in genome adaptation to the environment. The complex changes that occur are already in the genome and are merely being brought out from human or environmental pressure. For instance sugar beets in the early 1800’s had a 6% sugar content, by selective breeding that sugar content had risen to 17% by 1878. That was as far as the breeders were able to stretch the genome and they certainly didn’t create a potato from the sugar beet.

Wrong. There is natural variation due to mutation as well as changes in allele frequency. Humans may do the selecting or nature may, there is no difference. With the sugar beet the variation was already present in the population, not “the genome” which is a nonsense thing to say. One plant has a genome, the selecting population involves cross-pollinisation. What a moronic creationists claim.

Quote

Another instance of microevolution is the English peppered moth (Biston betularia). In pre-industrial England the peppered moth lived on the white bark of the birch tree. The moth came in two basic varieties, peppered white and dark. These two varieties hatch out at about a 50% ratio. But when the dark variety landed on the white birch bark, the birds saw them and ate them at a higher rate than the peppered white moth. But as industrialization occurred and coal dust darkened the birch trees, the peppered white moth became rarer because the birds ate them and the dark variety blended into the tree. But they still hatched out at a 50% ratio. (This has since been proven to have 'staged' photographs of the moths 'glued' to tree trunks – so much for evolutionists objectivity).

This is a strawman argument. The peppered moth was of the same species, so it was not undergoing speciation, but it was an example of how natural selection occurs.

Quote

Other microevolution issues we look at are selective breeding in dogs, cats or cows for example. If we let these all breed together they would all fall back to some common denominator animal. But you can see how far the genome will stretch when you look at a teacup poodle and a rottweiler. But they never created another species.

Another strawman. We know that all dogs are of the same species. As for “falling back”, what on earth does that mean? Sounds like an idiot is in charge of this narrative.

Quote

In fact evolutionists are experimenting with microevolution experiments to see if mutations, a cornerstone in their postulate, will really cause enough positive changes to move one species to another. Since 1910 there have been accelerated mutation experiments with the fruit fly. To date no success.

Not true. There have been eight observations of speciation events in fruit flies.

Quote

Since about 1950 there have been accelerated mutation experiments with bacteria and again not much success. Come to think of it these would be really good falsifiability experiments too wouldn’t they?

Speciation has been observed in Evening Primrose, Kew Primrose, Tragopogon, Raphanobrassica, Hemp Nettle, Madia citrigracilis, Brassica, Maidenhair Fern, Woodsia Fern, Maize, Yellow Monkey Flower, Houseflies, Apple Maggot Fly, Gall Former Fly and Lab Rat Worm.

Quote

Genetics is Not Evolution’s Friend Genome – the total genetic structure of a species or kind or its gene pool. Mutation – a mistake in the copying of the DNA; can be caused by radiation, or chemicals. Recombination – the genetic mixing in sexual or asexual reproduction Gene – the stuff of life, the sequence of amino acids in the double helix of DNA Allele – variants of genes in the Genome that are for the same structure but that express a characteristic differently, such as brown eyes vs. blue eyes. Taxon – Category in classification such as species, phylum.

Huh? Where is the rest of “Genetics is Not Evolution’s Friend”?!

You are just mindlessly cutting and pasting. There will be a quiz at the end, you better have been paying attention and not just grubbing up nonsense without understanding any of it.

Stuart

[Stu]

By the way, I've been snipping large tracts from this, mostly stuff that is just creationist bluster and doesn't actually say anything.

Stuart

[Stu]

terraricca

Quote

Creationists do not see microevolution as being able to drive the massive information gain that needs to occur for evolution to be possible, that is the ameoba to man evolution concept.

This is the “creationists do not see” argument. That would be because they don’t go and look.

Quote

There are no “mutations” in selective breeding or in genome adaptation to the environment. The complex changes that occur are already in the genome and are merely being brought out from human or environmental pressure. For instance sugar beets in the early 1800’s had a 6% sugar content, by selective breeding that sugar content had risen to 17% by 1878. That was as far as the breeders were able to stretch the genome and they certainly didn’t create a potato from the sugar beet.

Wrong. There is natural variation due to mutation as well as changes in allele frequency. Humans may do the selecting or nature may, there is no difference. With the sugar beet the variation was already present in the population, not “the genome” which is a nonsense thing to say. One plant has a genome, the selecting population involves cross-pollinisation. What a moronic creationists claim.

Quote

Another instance of microevolution is the English peppered moth (Biston betularia). In pre-industrial England the peppered moth lived on the white bark of the birch tree. The moth came in two basic varieties, peppered white and dark. These two varieties hatch out at about a 50% ratio. But when the dark variety landed on the white birch bark, the birds saw them and ate them at a higher rate than the peppered white moth. But as industrialization occurred and coal dust darkened the birch trees, the peppered white moth became rarer because the birds ate them and the dark variety blended into the tree. But they still hatched out at a 50% ratio. (This has since been proven to have 'staged' photographs of the moths 'glued' to tree trunks – so much for evolutionists objectivity).

This is a strawman argument. The peppered moth was of the same species, so it was not undergoing speciation, but it was an example of how natural selection occurs.

Quote

Other microevolution issues we look at are selective breeding in dogs, cats or cows for example. If we let these all breed together they would all fall back to some common denominator animal. But you can see how far the genome will stretch when you look at a teacup poodle and a rottweiler. But they never created another species.

Another strawman. We know that all dogs are of the same species. As for “falling back”, what on earth does that mean? Sounds like an idiot is in charge of this narrative.

Quote

In fact evolutionists are experimenting with microevolution experiments to see if mutations, a cornerstone in their postulate, will really cause enough positive changes to move one species to another. Since 1910 there have been accelerated mutation experiments with the fruit fly. To date no success.

Not true. There have been eight observations of speciation events in fruit flies.

Quote

Since about 1950 there have been accelerated mutation experiments with bacteria and again not much success. Come to think of it these would be really good falsifiability experiments too wouldn’t they?

Speciation has been observed in Evening Primrose, Kew Primrose, Tragopogon, Raphanobrassica, Hemp Nettle, Madia citrigracilis, Brassica, Maidenhair Fern, Woodsia Fern, Maize, Yellow Monkey Flower, Houseflies, Apple Maggot Fly, Gall Former Fly and Lab Rat Worm.

Quote

Genetics is Not Evolution’s Friend Genome – the total genetic structure of a species or kind or its gene pool. Mutation – a mistake in the copying of the DNA; can be caused by radiation, or chemicals. Recombination – the genetic mixing in sexual or asexual reproduction Gene – the stuff of life, the sequence of amino acids in the double helix of DNA Allele – variants of genes in the Genome that are for the same structure but that express a characteristic differently, such as brown eyes vs. blue eyes. Taxon – Category in classification such as species, phylum.

Huh? Where is the rest of “Genetics is Not Evolution’s Friend”?!

You are just mindlessly cutting and pasting. There will be a quiz at the end, you better have been paying attention and not just grubbing up nonsense without understanding any of it.

Stuart

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=….cad=rjt

short cut above for more;
*********

Quote

There is no concrete fossil evidence to support the “ape-man” image, which is unceasingly promulgated by the media and evolutionist academic circles. With brushes in their hands, evolutionists produce imaginary creatures, nevertheless, the fact that these drawings correspond to no matching fossils constitutes a serious problem for them.

We ARE apes. That is our taxonomic classification by the Linnaean system. Carl Linnaeus was a creationist, if it helps.

Quote

One of the interesting methods they employ to overcome this problem is to “produce” the fossils they cannot find. Piltdown Man, which may be the biggest scandal in the history of science, is a typical example of this method. Piltdown Man: An Orang-utan Jaw and a Human Skull! The Story of a Hoax 1) The fossils are unearthed by Charles Dawson and given to Sir Arthur Smith Woodward. 2) Pieces are reconstructed to form the famous skull. 3) Based on the reconstructed skull, various drawings and skulptures are made, numerous articles and commentaries are written. The original skull is demonstrated in the British Museum. 4) After 40 years of its discovery, the Piltdown fossil is shown to be a hoax by a group of researchers. In 1912, a well-known doctor and amateur paleoanthropologist named Charles Dawson … In the wake of all this, “Piltdown man” was hurriedly removed from the British Museum where it had been displayed for more than 40 years.

It is just as important to remember that in 1912 there were many paleontologi
sts who predicted Piltdown would turn out to be a forgery, using the theory of natural selection to support that prediction. Their prediction turned out to be true when the required analysis technique had been developed. In this way Darwin’s theory was shown to be predictive, as all theories are. This is another reason that creationism does not constitute a theory. It cannot be used to make testable predictions.

Nebraska Man: A Single Pig Tooth

In 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn, the director of the American Museum of Natural History, declared that he had found a fossil molar tooth belonging to the Pliocene period in western Nebraska near Snake Brook. This tooth allegedly bore common characteristics of both man and ape. An extensive scientific debate began surrounding this fossil, which came to be called “Nebraska man”, in which some interpreted this tooth as belonging to Pithecanthropus erectus, while others claimed it was closer to human beings. Nebraska man was also immediately given a “scientific name”, Hesperopithecus haroldcooki.

The picture on the left was drawn on the basis of a single tooth and it was published in the Illustrated London News magazine on July 24, 1922. However, the evolutionists were extremely disappointed when it was revealed that this tooth belonged neither to an ape-like creature nor to a man, but rather to an extinct pig species.
Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single tooth, reconstructions of the Nebraska man's head and body were drawn. Moreover, Nebraska man was even pictured along with his wife and children, as a whole family in a natural setting.

All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist circles placed such faith in this “ghost man” that when a researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased conclusions relying on a single tooth, he was harshly criticised.

In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape. It was realised that it belonged to an extinct species of wild American pig called Prosthennops. William Gregory entitled the article published in Science in which he announced the truth, “Hesperopithecus: Apparently Not an ape Nor a man. 67 Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and his “family” were hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature.[/quote]

The Holy Wikipedia has this:

Although the identity of H. haroldcookii did not achieve general acceptance in the scientific community, and although the species was retracted a decade after its discovery, critics of evolution have promoted this episode as an example of the scientific errors that they allege undermine the credibility of how paleontology and hominid evolution theories are crafted, and how information is peer reviewed or accepted as mainstream knowledge. However, the fact that the proposal of this species was rejected by the scientific community as being obviously flawed clearly works in favor of the scientific method, which constantly seeks to critique and validate its theories, and to remove those that do not stand up to evidence.[/quote]

Quote

Ota Benga: The African Native Put Into a Cage After Darwin advanced the claim with his book The Descent of Man that man evolved from ape-like living beings, he started to seek fossils to support this contention. However, some evolutionists believed that “half-man half-ape” creatures were to be found not only in the fossil record, but also alive in various parts of the world. In the early 20th century, these pursuits for “living transitional links” led to unfortunate incidents, one of the cruellest of which is the story of a Pygmy by the name of Ota Benga. <> This is not a scientific argument against Darwin, it is a description of the actions of idiots. mission accomplished

Was your mission to make yourself look a bit ignorant?

Stuart

[Stu]

Oops…attempt two:

terraricca

Quote

There is no concrete fossil evidence to support the “ape-man” image, which is unceasingly promulgated by the media and evolutionist academic circles. With brushes in their hands, evolutionists produce imaginary creatures, nevertheless, the fact that these drawings correspond to no matching fossils constitutes a serious problem for them.

We ARE apes. That is our taxonomic classification by the Linnaean system. Carl Linnaeus was a creationist, if it helps.

Quote

One of the interesting methods they employ to overcome this problem is to “produce” the fossils they cannot find. Piltdown Man, which may be the biggest scandal in the history of science, is a typical example of this method. Piltdown Man: An Orang-utan Jaw and a Human Skull! The Story of a Hoax 1) The fossils are unearthed by Charles Dawson and given to Sir Arthur Smith Woodward. 2) Pieces are reconstructed to form the famous skull. 3) Based on the reconstructed skull, various drawings and skulptures are made, numerous articles and commentaries are written. The original skull is demonstrated in the British Museum. 4) After 40 years of its discovery, the Piltdown fossil is shown to be a hoax by a group of researchers. In 1912, a well-known doctor and amateur paleoanthropologist named Charles Dawson … In the wake of all this, “Piltdown man” was hurriedly removed from the British Museum where it had been displayed for more than 40 years.

It is just as important to remember that in 1912 there were many paleontologists who predicted Piltdown would turn out to be a forgery, using the theory of natural selection to support that prediction. Their prediction turned out to be true when the required analysis technique had been developed. In this way Darwin’s theory was shown to be predictive, as all theories are. This is another reason that creationism does not constitute a theory. It cannot be used to make testable predictions.

Quote

Nebraska Man: A Single Pig Tooth In 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn, the director of the American Museum of Natural History, declared that he had found a fossil molar tooth belonging to the Pliocene period in western Nebraska near Snake Brook. This tooth allegedly bore common characteristics of both man and ape. An extensive scientific debate began surrounding this fossil, which came to be called “Nebraska man”, in which some interpreted this tooth as belonging to Pithecanthropus erectus, while others claimed it was closer to human beings. Nebraska man was also immediately given a “scientific name”, Hesperopithecus haroldcooki. The picture on the left was drawn on the basis of a single tooth and it was published in the Illustrated London News magazine on July 24, 1922. However, the evolutionists were extremely disappointed when it was revealed that this tooth belonged neither to an ape-like creature nor to a man, but rather to an extinct pig species. Many authorities gave Osborn their support. Based on this single tooth, reconstructions of the Nebraska man's head and body were drawn. Moreover, Nebraska man was even pictured along with his wife and children, as a whole family in a natural setting. All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist circles placed such faith in this “ghost man” that when a researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased conclusions relying on a single tooth, he was harshly criticised. In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape. It was realised that it belonged to an extinct species of wild American pig called Prosthennops. William Gregory entitled the article published in Science in which he announced the truth, “Hesperopithecus: Apparently Not an ape Nor a man. 67 Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and his “family” were hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature.

The Holy Wikipedia has this:

Although the identity of H. haroldcookii did not achieve general acceptance in the scientific community, and although the species was retracted a decade after its discovery, critics of evolution have promoted this episode as an example of the scientific errors that they allege undermine the credibility of how paleontology and hominid evolution theories are crafted, and how information is peer reviewed or accepted as mainstream knowledge. However, the fact that the proposal of this species was rejected by the scientific community as being obviously flawed clearly works in favor of the scientific method, which constantly seeks to critique and validate its theories, and to remove those that do not stand up to evidence.[/quote]

Quote

Ota Benga: The African Native Put Into a Cage After Darwin advanced the claim with his book The Descent of Man that man evolved from ape-like living beings, he started to seek fossils to support this contention. However, some evolutionists believed that “half-man half-ape” creatures were to be found not only in the fossil record, but also alive in various parts of the world. In the early 20th century, these pursuits for “living transitional links” led to unfortunate incidents, one of the cruellest of which is the story of a Pygmy by the name of Ota Benga. <> This is not a scientific argument against Darwin, it is a description of the actions of idiots. mission accomplished

Was your mission to make yourself look a bit ignorant?

Stuart

[Stu]

So, now here is your quiz. You have two options from which to choose:

1) Selecting from the material you posted, give me what is in your view the single most compelling argument against Darwin's theory (this is a test of your understanding of Darwin).

OR:

2) Post one single fact that disproves evolution by natural selection.

Stuart

[terraricca]

stu

By the way, I've been snipping large tracts from this, mostly stuff that is just evolutionist bluster and doesn't actually say anything

so I can not take your word for ,to bad.

Pierre

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ July 11 2011,18:35)

stu By the way, I've been snipping large tracts from this, mostly stuff that is just evolutionist bluster and doesn't actually say anything so I can not take your word for ,to bad. Pierre

I don't think you would know what is bluster and what isn't. Please answer your quiz. If you cannot then I will assume you have no independent opinion and therefore have nothing to say on the subject of evolution.

Stuart

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ July 12 2011,01:30)

So, now here is your quiz. You have two options from which to choose: 1) Selecting from the material you posted, give me what is in your view the single most compelling argument against Darwin's theory (this is a test of your understanding of Darwin). OR: 2) Post one single fact that disproves evolution by natural selection. Stuart

stu

the Internet is full .but do you believe that it is my duty to take it to you ? NO

if you feel that what you know is what you want to follow that is ok with me we are born with freewill so we can chose,

I do the same thing all based on my acquired knowledge,

I have proven to myself what evolution is abode, 40 years ago .and deep in the subject but i moved on this does not as my prime interest  today. to me it is just a alternative to creation,

so make your pick and I do mine

Pierre

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ July 11 2011,18:58)

Quote (Stu @ July 12 2011,01:30) So, now here is your quiz. You have two options from which to choose: 1) Selecting from the material you posted, give me what is in your view the single most compelling argument against Darwin's theory (this is a test of your understanding of Darwin). OR: 2) Post one single fact that disproves evolution by natural selection. Stuart stu the Internet is full .but do you believe that it is my duty to take it to you ? NO if you feel that what you know is what you want to follow that is ok with me we are born with freewill so we can chose, I do the same thing all based on my acquired knowledge, I have proven to myself what evolution is abode, 40 years ago .and deep in the subject but i moved on this does not as my prime interest  today. to me it is just a alternative to creation, so make your pick and I do mine Pierre

So I take it you can neither criticise that which you posted, or give any fact that disproves Darwin. It was a bit cheap of you to post all that other nonsense when you don't understand it, don't you think?

Darwin's theory is not “just an alternative to creation”. It is the only explanation for how we came to be here. Creationism does not actually explain anything, it is not based in any evidence, and it does not make falsifiable predictions so it is not a scientific theory.

Since you cannot disprove Darwin, and you have not given any alternative explanation, I think you should retract your claims.

That would be the honest thing to do. Perhaps it is not the christian thing to do.

Stuart

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ July 12 2011,01:40)

Quote (terraricca @ July 11 2011,18:35) stu By the way, I've been snipping large tracts from this, mostly stuff that is just evolutionist bluster and doesn't actually say anything so I can not take your word for ,to bad. Pierre I don't think you would know what is bluster and what isn't.  Please answer your quiz.  If you cannot then I will assume you have no independent opinion and therefore have nothing to say on the subject of evolution. Stuart

stu

its amazing what you can do with a computer and the internet

1blus·ter
verb \ˈbləs-tər\
blus·teredblus·ter·ing

Definition of BLUSTER

intransitive verb

1

: to talk or act with noisy swaggering threats

2

a: to blow in stormy noisy gusts b: to be windy and boisterous

transitive verb

1

: to utter with noisy self-assertiveness

2

: to drive or force by blustering

— blus·ter·er noun

— blus·ter·ing·ly adverb

See bluster defined for English-language learners »

See bluster defined for kids »

Examples of BLUSTER

He brags and blusters, but he never really does what he says he'll do.

[terraricca]

stu

Quote

Since you cannot disprove Darwin, and you have not given any alternative explanation, I think you should retract your claims

you do not read your own lines?

it does not matter what i will present you have already made your mind up;He brags and blusters, but he never really does what he says he'll do.

This is a strawman argument.or By the way, I've been snipping large tracts from this, mostly stuff that is just creationist bluster and doesn't actually say anything

so i stick to what i have said and you to your with your conviction in mind

Pierre

[Author]

Posts