Creation by God / Big Bang Theory

[sneezer3]

published by the young-earth creationist organization Answers in Genesis. Nevertheless, many people are directly or indirectly getting their facts on evolution from him and his influence among "rank and file" creationists cannot be doubted.

There is not evedence for the stuff they say. i might add that he has never lost a debate, t hat should tell you something. and they have never been "proven wrong" lol. you just have bad sources. you haven't even looked at what they had to say.

Kent Hovind's $250,000 Offer

Shows why no one has collected is not evidence against evolution since the offer is a sham, worded so as to be impossible to meet.

lol evolutionests these days. it is fully meetable if it is proveable which it is not. you've just showed off the stupitdy of your fellow evolutionests. Science can't prove macro evolution.

http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/faq/scifaq3.html

Your freind google gave you a geocitys website. you need to watch that.

If you see something on his website that isn't true email him. SIMPLY AS THAT. you flaw is you take peoples word for what they say, while never looking at something as is. and cansidering something yourself.

That chart is bogus, even the writer of it says so! It was a humor act, as said... http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/lies/chromosome.html

Seriously sneezer, if you are going to debate, please use credible sources, not obviously biased "proof" that is nothing more than logical fallacies.

lol, please don't tell me the auther would go to some geocitys website and say something like that.

However, it was used to get my point across there are some animals if macro-evolution is true. that could not have come from anywhere! Such as a Dragen Fly.

as for "credible" sources, i suggest you get some other ones and fallow your own advice. other then assumptions of macro evolution.

Why is that not enough proof? It proves it, so...now we have to go further beyond proving it right?

because it is assumpions. it must be oberserved to be proven. it does not prove itself. i ask no less. just as Kent Hovine asks no less with his offer just like in the link you provided.

Lastly. your attack on the auther is irrlvent to his arugements that disprove it in which you refuse to see.

It presents some very good arguements on that video such as

-How easy it is to get brainwashed.

-The Moon Dust

-Evedence of stuff like the oldest tree that proves how old the earth is

-Much more like amount of people on the earth and salt water oil pressure and the flood etc. a lot more i can't think of right off.

Evolutionism is not a religion, and should not be taught along with the others (for many reasons, such as ... it isn't science?), it is better than them because it does not require blind faith, absolute undeniability, and accepts change over time as discoveres are discovered.

Yes it requires Faith. Either One Requires faith. Thats just the way it works.

They mix science with half truth. the best way to make a lie beliveable is to mix it with truth. Like Hitler Said. if you tell a lie long enough and loud enough. preety soon people will belive it.

Back to the drawing bored since you don't belive it is a reilgion. It isn't even a good theroy.

1 Comsic Evolution

Big Bang Makes Hydragen

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

There is no evedence whatsoever for that. how can nothing become something?

2 Chemical Evolution

The Origen of higher elements from hydrogen

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

According to this, it would have produced hydrogen. where do you get the other elements?

3 Stellar and planetary evolution

Origin of stars and planets

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

Nobody has ever seen a star form. we have seen them blow up but not form. not one have we ever seen form.

4 Organic Evolution

Origin of stars and planets.

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

Spontaneous Combustion was proven wrong a long long time ago. about a hundred and fifty five years.

5 Macro Evolution

Changes within Kinds Plants and Animals

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

This is not proven nor true. They attempt to brainwash students by saying this then giveing examples of micro-evolution.

6 Micro Evolution

Variations within kinds

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

Only this one has been observed the others are complently belive by faith. In other words. the bellow are all Reilgius views.

1 Comsic Evolution

2 Chemical Evolution

3 Stellar and planetary evolution

4 Organic Evolution

5 Macro Evolution

^^ Religion views. Not Science. The Big Diffrance is Tax. a Christan has to pay for both to be tought. an evolutionest has to pay for only his to be tought. Don't confuse Evolutionism with science.

Lastly. to anyone who belives in the Big Bang here. see this link.

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=real_video

See the first one. it presents very logical arguements on why evolution can't happen. it lasts two hours. but you should at least see the last 30 minutes.

[Acriku]

Oh my god I am surrounded by ignorance. ACE, we might just lose this fight to consistent ignorance...

you remind me of sneezer. he posts links to jack chick, you post links to talk.origins.

lol, you 2 are very similar in a way.

I maintain my position:

He posts links to a fundamentalist biased website, I link to a scientific website. Also talkorigins uses credible resources, Jack Chick uses God knows what. Many attempts of Jack Chick have been refuted as nonsense, and quite amusing, but talkorigins have not be refuted, go figure?

Your position? I just told you everything you need to know, and yet you are stubborn as a donkey! Admit it emprworm, you lost this one.

yet that is basically what evolution does in its entirety.

Ape = bipedal

homosapien = bipedal

TWINS! (errr...well not quite but close)

the second most complex component of a human being is the eye (second to the brain). The eye of an ape is nothing like the eye of a human, not even remote. the closest thing to a human eye is the eye of an octopus. Another pothole in the megalithic ancient stone highway known as "evolution"

Um ok emprworm, your ignorance does not disprove evolution. Apes are not our common ancestors, we and apes came from a common ancestor. In what way is the eye of an ape nothing like the eye of a human? Is your disproof of evolution? It isn't a pothole, especially since you have nothing to back it up.

That you call a change? Statistics of height? Than I can say that I am a new kind because I am higher than my mother. That is no proof of evolution. Mutation is every time someone is born, yes, but most changes of mankind are made by their own actions. If we live longer than before 200 years it isn't because we have mutated, but because we have made some progress in medicine. But look at any animal. How they've changed? Also it is true that bacteries mutate faster than animals. So why there are more insect kinds than bacterias? And how is it possible that if all dinos died they were able to evolve into crocodile? Evolution is too slow to create new generation of lifeforms if such crash as then occurs. It is a moment, but some years without sun would decimate any living thing very quickly.

BASIC PALEONTOLOGY HAS SHOWED THAT EVERY SLIME IS OLD 25 000 YEARS! And now, call it reliable...

Also I was saying about dragons they were hunted and extinct, like we talk about mammoths. I can't send you all books about those finds of dinos in same geological depth with human skeletons (also about only 20 000 years old), but it is true fact, not just my rumor. It could be done by erosion, I don't know, but it was found. Everything it's just a theory. Don't be too dogmatic, Acriku, complex evolution is a theory, not fact.

Leaf would fall in nature from tree, but not move if you'll place it into vacuum without any outer influence and kinetic energy. Same for your secular world.

The change is AVERAGE of height, the same method used both times, so no you wouldn't be a new kind. Any action of mankind that causes change is not heritable, like does not beget like, it is a closed system once you start developing. This is what most don't understand. You don't evolve after being born, and even yet individuals don't evolve, populations are the lowest sets to evolve.

I said we don't live longer, we just are able to use medicine to keep us alive until our cells cease to function, or die of other causes. Our cells have a time clock, each organism has a different time clock, as those old turtle guys can live over a century on average, and fruit flies a few weeks.

Look at what animals? Perhaps the finches? Every few years, depending on a dry year or wet year, the finches with the phenotype of small beaks or large beaks appear. Adaptation, the building block of evolution so to speak.

Do you mean why are there more kinds of insects than bacteria? We haven't even begun to discover all the bacteria in the world, so this doesn't really count for much.

Dinosaurs didn't evolve into crocodiles, crocodiles were living with the dinosaurs. They are one of the oldest organisms in the world.

Bacteria can live through without sunlight, so can animals that are good at adapting.

I don't understand the slime comment...

Dragons...right...so now fairies exist, too? Were there fairies around as well, but now extinct? No proof.

And human beings weren't around 20,000 years ago, as well as dinosaurs, the former being too early, the latter being too late.

I don't understand the point of this leaf?

There is not evedence for the stuff they say. i might add that he has never lost a debate, t hat should tell you something. and they have never been "proven wrong" lol. you just have bad sources. you haven't even looked at what they had to say.

There is evidence for what they say, are you really this stubborn? Never losing a debate doesn't tell me anything, if he uses the same outrageous claims in a debate, the opponent would be so dumbfounded about the rediculous claims that he wouldn't be the slightest prepared for it. Debates are done by cheap tricks, false logic, and other bad things that reflect nothing upon each side. What makes you think they haven't been proven wrong? That is blind faith my friend. Now I have bad sources? My main source was talkorigins, a credible source. Other sources were to further my argument, credible or not. I did look at what my sources had to say, that's why I posted it here lol.

lol evolutionests these days. it is fully meetable if it is proveable which it is not. you've just showed off the stupitdy of your fellow evolutionests. Science can't prove macro evolution.

Yes evolutionists, what will we do with them? You are being so stubborn it's hurting my eyes! Use your head! http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html explains all that is wrong with the "offer" and why it is impossible. Read it please to expand your mind.

Your freind google gave you a geocitys website. you need to watch that.

If you see something on his website that isn't true email him. SIMPLY AS THAT. you flaw is you take peoples word for what they say, while never looking at something as is. and cansidering something yourself.

Watch what? Now I can't use google? Please sneezer, I didn't tell you I use google in an IM so that you can turn it back at me for stupid reasons. Simple? Quite the contrary. I just gave you the evidence, would you accept it? Such is blind faith, you mustn't accept any contrary evidence. I don't take people's word, I find a website that uses credible sources and agrees with what other sites with credible sources say, and then arrive at a conclusion. It isn't a flaw, it's called research. I am reading Origin Of Species to further my research, and you wouldn't believe what I am learning.

lol, please don't tell me the auther would go to some geocitys website and say something like that.

However, it was used to get my point across there are some animals if macro-evolution is true. that could not have come from anywhere! Such as a Dragen Fly.

as for "credible" sources, i suggest you get some other ones and fallow your own advice. other then assumptions of macro evolution.

What's wrong with geocities? Now everybody who has the money to buy a domain is credible, and those who have not, are not credible? Please sneezer, you are attacking the site and ignoring the content. This isn't an argument, it's an attack. What about the dragon fly? Please explain, as I won't accept anything you say just because you say so. And state why they could not have come from anywhere.

because it is assumpions. it must be oberserved to be proven. it does not prove itself. i ask no less. just as Kent Hovine asks no less with his offer just like in the link you provided.

Lastly. your attack on the auther is irrlvent to his arugements that disprove it in which you refuse to see.

It presents some very good arguements on that video such as

-How easy it is to get brainwashed.

-The Moon Dust

-Evedence of stuff like the oldest tree that proves how old the earth is

-Much more like amount of people on the earth and salt water oil pressure and the flood etc. a lot more i can't think of right off.

It doesn't have to be observed to be proven, I just quoted three explanations why, and yet you still fight it! This is hilarious. Oh wait there's more. Kent Hovine does not ask no less, did you read the offer? Did you see that asterik? Did you read at the bottom what the asterik meant? For starters one must prove such and such happened without the involvement of God, and that is illogical and impossible as it is proving a negative. Simply impossible.

I don't think I attacked the author? I attacked the content, in which was totally relevant.

-How easy it is to get brainwashed.

-The Moon Dust

-Evedence of stuff like the oldest tree that proves how old the earth is

-Much more like amount of people on the earth and salt water oil pressure and the flood etc. a lot more i can't think of right off.

The first one is what I would say towards you. The Moon dust argument is using false data and I have already shown why and how. It should not be argued, because false data leads to false conclusions. The oldest tree could not prove how old the earth is, unless it is immortal :O Tell me the equation used to show that the amount of people (assumed consistent obviously which it isn't) shows anything, and this flood? If you have a lot more, then surely you can come up with a lot more.

Yes it requires Faith. Either One Requires faith. Thats just the way it works.

They mix science with half truth. the best way to make a lie beliveable is to mix it with truth. Like Hitler Said. if you tell a lie long enough and loud enough. preety soon people will belive it.

Back to the drawing bored since you don't belive it is a reilgion. It isn't even a good theroy.

It does not require the same faith religion requires, you are committing a logical fallacy by using one definition in another situation. Who mixes science with half-truths? And how so? It isn't even a good theory? It's nearly universally accepted as a fact! You don't realize how vigorous they treat the theory before accepting it.

Your "list" doesn't add anything to the argument, so I think I can save room and end it with this.

Your stubbornness and blind faith is keeping you from looking at it objectively, you arguments have no basis, and are refuted continuously, and your sources always seem to be refuted. If you can't get help at Charter, please, get help somewhere.

[emprworm]

Oh my god I am surrounded by ignorance. ACE, we might just lose this fight to consistent ignorance

or lack of proof.

errm....(to add length as per Acriku's request following this post)

Or a lack of the empirical observational evidence that the scientific method requires in order to claim that said theory (in this case evolution of species ) is proven fact.

[Acriku]

Do you plan to edit that to add something else, or did you just want to spam?

[Caid Ivik]

Average height is only a rumor. Don't say me that there was a possibility of measuring all people on world in 1800 if it isn't possible today ;)

Also speed of mutations shows they cannot make such progress as was done in last 50 million years, if then most life died. There is a kind capable of it? Then look at other thousands, which can't.

About slime comment I think it tells everything. Our aging system is unusable on any living form of Mollusca root. If we measure how old is only thing which can survive death - it's ulite. We have found bones of ancient animals, which are closer to ulites, so there might be such error. And also ancient slimes found in depths of dinos are nearly same as todays' so I don't see much evolution in it.

So, Acriku, you talk dragons exist in fairies. But there are some written in chronicles of some towns. Also what has created word "dragon"? Every word in dictionary has its meaning.

I think you should forget it about that leaf. It's one our native saying and translation wasn't best, my fault.

[Acriku]

It isn't a rumor, the height of the majority of people was measured and recorded, it didn't take a day, it took a long time. And it is done every year. Or every other year, I forget.

What makes you say that it couldn't have done such progress? If this is your argument, explain why.

What is a slime? Goo? Bacteria?

I was talking about fairies, the flying pixies that are smaller than humans but with all the features of one. We made up fairies and dragons with our imagination, and stories evolve in a way, to wider imaginations, like the phone activity, tell someone one thing, and they tell another, and then enough people tell another until the message is totally different and only brought by imagination and error.

[paul_of_arrakis]

to do with height, then 3 times round ones head is their height

[SurlyPIG]

yet that is basically what evolution does in its entirety.

Ape = bipedal

homosapien = bipedal

TWINS! (errr...well not quite but close)

the second most complex component of a human being is the eye (second to the brain). The eye of an ape is nothing like the eye of a human, not even remote. the closest thing to a human eye is the eye of an octopus. Another pothole in the megalithic ancient stone highway known as "evolution"

Uhh...I don't think you understand what I was saying at all. I was talking about chromosome count, not families of species. It's perfectly reasonable to analyze characteristics, DNA, anatomy, behaviour and body structure and to conclude that certain species share a common background. Sticking with the computer examples, it would be like saying that two .doc files have a common origin (Microsoft Word).

About the eyes; who said humans came FROM apes? I believe the binomial nomenclature name for the common ancestory is something like "Humus Neandrotaulus" or something, (I hate Latin). We do have rather unique eyes, far different than octopus eyes. Our eyes barely work underwater, and would never be able to absorb enough light at the depths octopi live in.

[Caid Ivik]

It isn't a rumor, the height of the majority of people was measured and recorded, it didn't take a day, it took a long time. And it is done every year. Or every other year, I forget.

What makes you say that it couldn't have done such progress? If this is your argument, explain why.

What is a slime? Goo? Bacteria?

I was talking about fairies, the flying pixies that are smaller than humans but with all the features of one. We made up fairies and dragons with our imagination, and stories evolve in a way, to wider imaginations, like the phone activity, tell someone one thing, and they tell another, and then enough people tell another until the message is totally different and only brought by imagination and error.

We even don't know how much people lived then. In Europe it could be, but do not dare to talk about whole world.

Death of 90% lifeforms was quick, in few years or centuries. That is still for them just maximum of 10 generations. And radical changes are impossible in this time.

Slime is a common animal from Mollusca root. At least that is written in dictionary. I think these are not extinct. It's a wider worm-like being long about 10 centimetres with two pairs of touch sensors on head and ulite on it's back. Don't tell me you have never seen it.

Ah, I thought you mean a story with "fairy". That creature was based on insects known as St.John's fly, which had much phosphor and was creating a little light at nights. Go in may to forest on late evening and you'll see. Possibly dragons were imaginated by same way. But they are mentioned in some official chronicles also - even in chronicle of one of the Bratislava's former periphery villages.

[Acriku]

Caid, the height change was scientific, and unbiased, it was already done, and that should not be an argument. Just shows an example of us changing through history.

The mass extinction took about 2 million years, not a century.

And yes I will tell you I have never seen or heard of the slime.

[Caid Ivik]

Height change was about maybe one-two nations if it was statistical, or only unevidential rumor. In that time no one knew how many people live in Turkey, which had a great part of Europe, or Russia, where no one was also measuring them, and I'm not saying about China or India...

Our aging is talking about time it was caused between 66 and 50 million years ago. How then we can think about fact it took 2 million years reliable? But whole aging is unreliable in my opinion, so it doesn't matter.

Uh, sorry, I mean "snail", not "slime". In slovak it's "slim

[Acriku]

This was done in America - a set of populations, sorry for the confusion.

Ah snail, yes I've seen many, almost ate one for a dare but that's another story. Snails die don't they?

[Caid Ivik]

I must say they are delicious, you should eat one sometimes. Yes, they die. But relying on our aging system after 30 000 years :-

[Acriku]

Do you eat the big ones or the nail size ones?

What is our aging system?

[Caid Ivik]

They shrink usually, but bigger have always more meat, you know. But I don't eat it every day for your info ;)

So, we age fossils by carbonial fragmenting status and geological spheres.

[sneezer3]

He posts links to a fundamentalist biased website, I link to a scientific website. Also talkorigins uses credible resources, Jack Chick uses God knows what. Many attempts of Jack Chick have been refuted as nonsense, and quite amusing, but talkorigins have not be refuted, go figure?

I will not argue over Jack Chick that is irrlvent to what we are talking about. Kent Hovine is a science teacher and a creditable source. as for you "refuting" my sources. lol it is tottely irrlvent to the arguements they present. and lastly. you don't know what sources they use so how do you know they are creditable?

Yes evolutionists, what will we do with them? You are being so stubborn it's hurting my eyes! Use your head! http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html explains all that is wrong with the "offer" and why it is impossible. Read it please to expand your mind.

lol his offer is perfectly fair for someone to prove macro-evolution. and it is not proveable no one has taken him up on it yet.

Watch what? Now I can't use google? Please sneezer, I didn't tell you I use google in an IM so that you can turn it back at me for stupid reasons. Simple? Quite the contrary. I just gave you the evidence, would you accept it? Such is blind faith, you mustn't accept any contrary evidence. I don't take people's word, I find a website that uses credible sources and agrees with what other sites with credible sources say, and then arrive at a conclusion. It isn't a flaw, it's called research. I am reading Origin Of Species to further my research, and you wouldn't believe what I am learning.

Look, i'm not trying to turn this around on you, i said that it a nice way. it is simply unaccaptable because the auther would not go to such a site and make such a statement.

[qoute]Never losing a debate doesn't tell me anything, if he uses the same outrageous claims in a debate, the opponent would be so dumbfounded about the rediculous claims that he wouldn't be the slightest prepared for it. Debates are done by cheap tricks, false logic, and other bad things that reflect nothing upon each side. What makes you think they haven't been proven wrong?

lol you look at his debate for yourself, you haven't even seen one of his video's and now your telling me his claims are outrageus? lol get a life. his claims are not outrageus. and if you think they are click here. there is nothing he can do about scoffers. that will not even talk to him esp. if you wish to talk to him email him.

Now lets take a look at that site. i din't notice you posted the other link.

[qoute]False Follow this link for an explanation of Carbon-14 Equilibrium Dave Matson has also tackled Hovind's misunderstanding of radiocarbon dating

More Recently That has been proven wrong. And speaking of Dave Matson he is known not to even wish to talk to Hovine. read more Here.

False Variations in C-14 concentrations are known and are factored into age calculations. If Hovind has evidence that atomic decay has changed will he publish said evidence and be prepared to accept a Nobel Prize for science?

they do decay. and if he did find something and publish it there would be a lot of athiests/evolutionests waiting for him. some "noble prize" lol.

I could go on if i studyed into it a lot more. but i have better things to do then tell a scoffer something he don't want to hear it and won't reserch into it for himself.

The first one is what I would say towards you. The Moon dust argument is using false data and I have already shown why and how. It should not be argued, because false data leads to false conclusions. The oldest tree could not prove how old the earth is, unless it is immortal

it is still vaild. some of the calculations that where used before has been proven wrong. but the moon dust according to some plates they left on the moon there should be way more per 2.7 million years. it should still be way more thicker.

[qoute]It does not require the same faith religion requires, you are committing a logical fallacy by using one definition in another situation. Who mixes science with half-truths? And how so? It isn't even a good theory? It's nearly universally accepted as a fact! You don't realize how vigorous they treat the theory before accepting it.

Your "list" doesn't add anything to the argument,

It adds quite a bit, almost half that has not been proven. while science books tell teachers "Be sure to stress it as a fact." and yes it requires much more faith. you are a very reilgus person. it requires great faith to belive we came from nothing. it requires a lot of faith to belive something that has not been proven even to the slightest

Your stubbornness and blind faith is keeping you from looking at it objectively, you arguments have no basis, and are refuted continuously, and your sources always seem to be refuted. If you can't get help at Charter, please, get help somewhere.

I am looking at things objectively, his arguements are still vaild. and i'd say it has more credablity then someone who wouldn't even talk to hovine lol.

[Acriku]

I will not argue over Jack Chick that is irrlvent to what we are talking about. Kent Hovine is a science teacher and a creditable source. as for you "refuting" my sources. lol it is tottely irrlvent to the arguements they present. and lastly. you don't know what sources they use so how do you know they are creditable?

Won't argue over him? He is one of your main sources! He is entirely relevant, since you are using him as an argument many times. Ohhhh a science teacher - anybody can go to college and become a science teacher, that doesn't prove he is credible. If he was a real scientist then yes I would think him to be credible, but he isn't. If I don't know their sources, I am forced to assume that they are either nonexistant, or false, that would be the reasonable assumption.

lol his offer is perfectly fair for someone to prove macro-evolution. and it is not proveable no one has taken him up on it yet.

I am not going to do this anymore if you can't accept anything that is so obvious, listen: Hovind requires that you must prove 5 things happened without the intervention of God, and that is impossible because that would be proving a negative. His offer is impossible. We can prove all of it till it blows our minds up, but we'd then have to prove God had no intervention with it. And there lies one of the numbered impossibilities in his offer.

Look, i'm not trying to turn this around on you, i said that it a nice way. it is simply unaccaptable because the auther would not go to such a site and make such a statement.

I can say you are a dumbass, in a nice way, but that wouldn't change the fact that I called you a dumbass. Anyways, What is unacceptable? What author, and what statement?

lol you look at his debate for yourself, you haven't even seen one of his video's and now your telling me his claims are outrageus? lol get a life. his claims are not outrageus. and if you think they are click here. there is nothing he can do about scoffers. that will not even talk to him esp. if you wish to talk to him email him.

Now we are doing ad hominem attacks eh? Perhaps you should stop now.

Radio-dating is possible because of the fact that the decay of a radioactive element into its daughter element takes place at a constant rate, known as the "half-life", and the half-life of various radio-decay rates can be measured very precisely. U-235, for instance, has a half-life of 713 million years. If we start with a known quantity of U-235, say one pound, in 713 million years this material will consist of half U-235 and half Pb-207. In another 713 million years, half of the remaining uranium will decay, and the material will now consist of three-fourths lead and one-fourth uranium.

From http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/radiodte.htm

http://www.kmatthews.org.uk/cult_archaeology/creationism_5.html

http://www.angelfire.com/journal/Philsviews/Essays/dating.html

http://earthsci.org/geotime/radate/radate.html

We do not rely on carbon dating to date anything, we also use other elements such as uranium, and lead, and rubidium, and each of these prove that the Earth is older than 6000-12000 years.

Just found this at the bottom, while reading, it shows that this does not prove it wrong as you boldly stated Sneezer:

I do not pretend to have concluded the debate over dating methods (even in my conclusion!). I will not say that I have dealt them a nasty blow, or proven them wrong. My point in this article is only to show that the methods are not as consistent as often touted.

And I wouldn't blame him for not talking to Hovind.

they do decay. and if he did find something and publish it there would be a lot of athiests/evolutionests waiting for him. some "noble prize" lol.

I could go on if i studyed into it a lot more. but i have better things to do then tell a scoffer something he don't want to hear it and won't reserch into it for himself.

Who said C14 doesn't decay? He was saying that if the rate of decay changed, not if it decayed. If you have better things to do, then don't post in here, simple as that. I have researched and researched days upon days into nights, so I think I have had my share of researching. But I will not stop there, oh no, I will research it in college, in the life after that. It seems you haven't done a lot of research into anything, you find a link that says it disproves this, and you post it thinking your argument is sound.

It adds quite a bit, almost half that has not been proven. while science books tell teachers "Be sure to stress it as a fact." and yes it requires much more faith. you are a very reilgus person. it requires great faith to belive we came from nothing. it requires a lot of faith to belive something that has not been proven even to the slightest

Didn't seem like it added anything, if I find it worth arguing over and researching into, I will. And all science books do is explain in detail each process, fact, law, and other things, they do not tell a teacher "Hey, be sure to stress it as a fact" Please.

Faith would be required if there was no evidence, but there is, so no it doesn't take much more faith. I am not religious because I follow no doctrine and even to a supernatural existence. And it has been proven, I have no idea why you won't accept it. If you will continue this stupid argument of yours "it hasn't been proven at all" then I promise you I will not debate this anymore, as it is childish and shows how desperate you are to hold onto your bible.

[sneezer3]

Faith would be required if there was no evidence, but there is, so no it doesn't take much more faith. I am not religious because I follow no doctrine and even to a supernatural existence. And it has been proven, I have no idea why you won't accept it. If you will continue this stupid argument of yours "it hasn't been proven at all" then I promise you I will not debate this anymore, as it is childish and shows how desperate you are to hold onto your bible.

Tottely true. then you won't mind stateing the evidence of macro-evoultion along with the other 5 consepts?

[nemafakei]

An honest question: Other than our own taxonomy, what do you non-macro-evolutionists perceive to be the barrier between micro-evolution and macro-evolution?

Why does the process of micro-evolution have to be any different to that of macro-evolution?

[sneezer3]

There is a big diffrance in the words. i am not an evolutionist. but the diffrance is evolving and adapting genetically. macro-evolution isn't proven.

and last off. there is a spelling diffrance. ;)

[Acriku]

Each one involves evolving and adapting genetically, that is not a difference. So please come up with another.

[sneezer3]

The diffrance is Changes within Kinds. and Variations within kinds.

[Acriku]

Could you please specify which is applied to macro, and micro?

[SurlyPIG]

LOL it seems like he doesn't even know what it is...are you actually knowledgeable about the subject or are you just regurgitating carefully-worded propaganda from a series of self-serving web sites?

Microevolution is evolution occurring below the species level. In other words, diversity within a species ie short humans where the climate is cold, tall humans where the climate is hot.

Macroevolution is the principle of evolution occurring to a degree where members of a species become so varied that they can no longer reproduce. In other words, to the extent where new species evolve.

There's no practical difference, really. Both of the technical definitions have been proven and there are some examples that don't even fit. There are species that can crossbreed with other species. For example, horses that mate with donkeys and birth mules. The mules are a seperate species with very differnt traits and they cannot reproduce - with horses, donkeys or other mules.

[Acriku]

Well the trouble is defining species. Is it a group of populations that can reproduce? If so, what about the bacteria that reproduce asexually? This is what is not considered in the Biological Species Concept (I think that's what it is called), but it fits well with everything else. Also, a horse may crossbreed with a donkey, but it doesn't produce fertile offspring, which is why the mule is sterile. The two species may produce offspring that can make offspring but are sterile, ceasing any development of that new offspring. Also won't be able to backbreed.

I don't think sneezer knows anything about evolution, besides what he taught not to "believe in." If people educate themselves of evolution, they will find it not hard to grasp the overall concept, complex as it is, and will find that it really does happen.