Evolution Disclaimer Supported

The website I cited is a Creationist website that agrees with the definition of evolution I posted: A change in the alelle frequency of a population over time. The portion of the passage you omitted contains this information.

Except perhaps to the very young, the very ignorant, or the very dishonest, the definition of the word "evolution" is not in doubt. The validity of the theory is the subject of the debate. Many people can distinguish between the two usages. You may not be among them.

I encourage you to share the evidence you have for any other theories you would like me to consider.

You and your fellow evolutionists have been encouraged numerous times to share the evidence you have of evolution with the rest of us. You all seem to be very much afraid to share it with us. Is it that you do not wish us poor foolish folk to become as enlightened as you, or is it because you do not have any? Inquiring minds want to know.

[... evolution summary snip ...]

You are the first Creationist I have ever seen answer that question. I appreciate it. And I commend you. Seriously.

Your #2 (abiogenesis) and #4 (macro-evolution) are generally considered separate areas of research and investigation with #2 falling to the chemists and #4 remaining in the domain of the biologists.

I would be interested in hearing what specifically you consider "pure bunk" about it, but that will have to wait until another time. I'm off to party like it's... well... oh, nevermind...

You and your fellow evolutionists have been encouraged numerous times to share the evidence you have of evolution with the rest of us. You all seem to be very much afraid to share it with us.

Didn't they make a movie about you?

You are the one claiming that intelligent design is logical. All I'm asking for is evidence to support your position.

SCIENTISTS claim that the Universe was designed. SCIENTISTS claim that abiogenesis is impossible and life was designed. SCIENTISTS claim that the develoment of a baby from conception to birth is a program and hence not subject to random change. Now I call that a trifecta, a very important trifecta for Intelligent Design.

"Except perhaps to the very young, the very ignorant, or the very dishonest, the definition of the word "evolution" is not in doubt."

As far as I know, ideas about evolution are as wide ranging as ideas about creation. The definition you've adopted is understandable, and it is good, I suppose, to have at least this mooring by which you might test other ideas. Just as absolute certainty with respect to the nature of gravity, electricty, light, etc. remains to be discovered, so too absolute certainties with respect to evolution and/or creation remain to be learned.

Nobody knows it all, but certain folks are good pretenders.

Since way back in post 1081, g3k has been asked: HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?. Still no answer, except for dodges, evasions, excuses, and attempts to provoke a flame war (and thus an excuse to have the thread pulled).

It can't be very difficult for someone who has surveyed all Nobel Prize winning work and has declared that it all disproves evolution. An intellect of such sweeping power should be able to give us his answer. HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?.

Any chance of you addressing the question?

I certainly did. Your question was:

The first life had to be able to reproduce itself, this is not possible without a fully formed cell.-me-

Back to the question I've been asking for 400 posts: Upon what evidence do you base this assumption?

You asked a stupid question, you got a stupid answer. I knew that you would challenge my answer giving me another opportunity to show how ridiculous and desperate your position is.

"So far you have refused every request to support . . . [the claim] that intelligent design is logical."

Frankly I cannot even engage in logic with you unless intelligent design is involved. Logic by its very nature entails the same. Are you willing to concede that intelligent design exists anywhere at all in the universe?

C'mon, Gore. Out with it. HOW OLD IS THE EARTH? We have a forefather about to piss his pants. Give him liberty, please, even if he does determine your answer to be off by 3 milliseconds. I'm sure he will not ask for proof.

(Micro-evolution is a scientific fact which no one, including creationists, dispute.)

While I agree with you that evolution is bunk and with your other points, I do disagree that micro-evolution is a scientific fact. The two examples of it given by evoltuionists, the moths and the Darwin finches, have been disproven. The story of the moths was based on fraud. The story of the finches has been disproven by observations made some 20 years ago. First of all, the finches are not different species. These finches can and do interbreed. Not only that, but the 'mixed' breeds are more viable and produce more and stronger offspring than the unmixed ones. The change in beak size is not unidirectional as evolution would require. Instead the beak sizes change back and forth according to the amount of rainfall each season. What this show therefore is not mutation (which is what evolution requires) but adaptation of the species through inherent abilities already in their genes. This adaptability is true of all species. A simple example is our developing a suntan to protect from too much sun.

As in suggesting what God should have listed as His "11th Commandment." You are one sick, irrational pup.

This discussion began when some asserted that one proof of the Bible's truth is that none of it's statements are obsolete. The passages giving permission to own slaves, and permission to beat them to the point where they cannot move for two days, are obsolete. Even worse, there is no way that such behavior could be moral at any time or in any context. If the Bible is correct in attributing thes permissions to the word of God, then the God of the Bible is evil.

The other possibility is that these rules were made by men who were doing what they thought best within their time.

C'mon, Gore. Out with it. HOW OLD IS THE EARTH? We have a forefather about to piss his pants...

The guy's got some perceptual problems. He noted (#1769) that:

My own two cents here. According to our present knowledge, whatever may have existed before the BB -- if anything -- was crushed to plasma;

Maybe you should offer to tell him how old the world is after he explains how anything could be "crushed to plasma", frozen into a gas, melted into a solid, or anything else like that.

The guy's got some perceptual problems.

Here's a link to a Google search on Ted Holden. Over 55,000 hits. Virtually every site (except his own) claims the guy is the biggest flake in cyberspace. Now, what made me bring that up?

It's called "Reading for Comprehension." Look into it.

No your statement was a lie. You were strongly implying that chester's post was refuting me. It is called dishonesty of which you are amply PROBEN to be in post# 1817.

Talking about other people doesn't really solve the problem of being exposed as an ignoramus...

Since way back in post 1081, g3k has been asked: HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?.

Patrick Henry the 'open minded' slimer keeps going on and on like the Energizer bunny! To anyone watching this it will be clear what you are doing - persecution of an opponent because the little arrogant slimer who can never engage in a scientific discussion with anyone, does not like to have people show the cavernous holes in his atheistic theory.

You started that stupid smear campaign due to my daring to ask questions about evolution which neither you nor your friends can answer. As I have statedDIRECTLY TO YOU numerous times, I will not answer your irrelevant question. Your dishonesty in not even addressing your post to me is self evident. You are a lamer gratuitously attacking me because I have thoroughly disproven your atheistic/materialistic, pseudo-scientific evolutionary nonsense. The proof is all over this thread from the inability of any of the evolutionists here in showing that abiogenesis is even remotely possible within what science knows to be absolutely true, to the inability of any of the evolutionists here to refute the following posts made some 900 posts ago:

Neither you nor any evolutionists has ever given proof that a single species has transformed itself into another more complex species. If I am wrong, let's see the proof. Come up with a real arguement that slams evolution can you do it?

There are many. The bacterial flagellum is one. The program by which a single cell at conception turns into a 100 trillion cells at the time of birth - with every single cell of the exactly proper kind in the exactly proper place is another. There are many more which have been scientifically proven, but these two should keep you busy for a while.
988 posted on 12/23/2002 7:07 AM PST by gore3000

'Gradual loss of egg laying' is more easily said than done. You must remember that the you need to provide nutrition to the developing organism throughout its development - as well as after the birth until it can feed itself. To say that all these changes can occur simultaneously is totally ludicrous and you have disproven nothing. Let's see an article describing how this change occurred in detail. Can you find any? I doubt it because this is one of the things evolutionists never speak of.
989 posted on 12/23/2002 7:14 AM PST by gore3000

And where did you debunk the flagellum besides in your own mind?

As to the eye spot, your article only says that because it happened more than once then therefore the eye spot could have occurred. It is not a refutation of the complex mechanism required for an eye spot.

BTW - a blog from Don Lindsay is proof of absolutely nothing. The guy cannot even give references for his nonsense.
991 posted on 12/23/2002 7:28 AM PST by gore3000

That none of you evolutionists can refute these scientific questions central to the theory of evolution, shows quite well that your adherence to this theory has nothing to do with science but to your arrogant atheistic proclivities.

Patrick Henry the 'open minded' slimer keeps going on and on like the Energizer bunny! To anyone watching this it will be clear what you are doing - persecution of an opponent because the little arrogant slimer who can never engage in a scientific discussion with anyone, does not like to have people show the cavernous holes in his atheistic theory.

You started that stupid smear campaign due to my daring to ask questions about evolution which neither you nor your friends can answer. As I have statedDIRECTLY TO YOU numerous times, I will not answer your irrelevant question. Your dishonesty in not even addressing your post to me is self evident. You are a lamer gratuitously attacking me because I have thoroughly disproven your atheistic/materialistic, pseudo-scientific evolutionary nonsense. The proof is all over this thread from the inability of any of the evolutionists here in showing that abiogenesis is even remotely possible within what science knows to be absolutely true, to the inability of any of the evolutionists here to refute the following posts made some 400 posts ago:

Neither you nor any evolutionists has ever given proof that a single species has transformed itself into another more complex species. If I am wrong, let's see the proof. Come up with a real arguement that slams evolution can you do it?

There are many. The bacterial flagellum is one. The program by which a single cell at conception turns into a 100 trillion cells at the time of birth - with every single cell of the exactly proper kind in the exactly proper place is another. There are many more which have been scientifically proven, but these two should keep you busy for a while.
988 posted on 12/23/2002 7:07 AM PST by gore3000

'Gradual loss of egg laying' is more easily said than done. You must remember that the you need to provide nutrition to the developing organism throughout its development - as well as after the birth until it can feed itself. To say that all these changes can occur simultaneously is totally ludicrous and you have disproven nothing. Let's see an article describing how this change occurred in detail. Can you find any? I doubt it because this is one of the things evolutionists never speak of.
989 posted on 12/23/2002 7:14 AM PST by gore3000

And where did you debunk the flagellum besides in your own mind?

As to the eye spot, your article only says that because it happened more than once then therefore the eye spot could have occurred. It is not a refutation of the complex mechanism required for an eye spot.

BTW - a blog from Don Lindsay is proof of absolutely nothing. The guy cannot even give references for his nonsense.
991 posted on 12/23/2002 7:28 AM PST by gore3000

That none of you evolutionists can refute these scientific questions central to the theory of evolution, shows quite well that your adherence to this theory has nothing to do with science but to your arrogant atheistic proclivities.

Repetition does not become you. Answer the question.

If you don't know how old the earth is, perhaps you can guess how long Spifford will last in his current incarnation.

perhaps you can guess how long Spifford will last in his current incarnation.

Not much longer than the time that the earth orbited Saturn.