Quote Originally Posted by Gyrokai
I want to stop this so called "discussion".... BUT I will say this...

...

No human can comprehend a million years. You can SAY "a million years," but can you really comprehend it? We can't even comprehend 50 years!!! I hear 50 year olds say,"I can't believe it's been 50 years!" or I hear 70 year olds say,"I NEVER thought I'd live to this age."

Evolution explains biology, it's the FOUNDATION of biology. Species change, you guy's except that right? Well you have a Tiger and a Lion, both are closely related, but they haven't interchanged inter bred in a while. BUT THEY CAN STILL HAVE SEX AND HAVE A KID. But that kid can't have a kid. I'm very sure you already know this. It just explains that we actually observe species that aren't really separated, it can almost be classified as the same species, except we define species to have offspring and that offspring must have offspring.

You can imagine small change, because the evidence is too overwhelming and blatant, because it happens within YOUR DAMN LIFETIME. haha

Now try to imagine something happening over Millions of YEARS times your lifetime. Imagine the drastic changes.

You can't because you don't see it within your lifetime, so you say it doesn't exist. EVEN THOUGH IT EXPLAINS ALL OF BIOLOGY and just about everything around us.

Well if you can pull off that bullshyte, then "No stars exist because I can't travel to them and touch them." "Atoms don't exist because I don't see them." "Light doesn't exist because I don't see IT."

If religion, and it IS religion, and ignorance also, had a problem with those questions, you'd see them complaining about that bullshyte, EVEN THOUGH a tremendous amount of evidence is based in favor of those standard theories.

"Gravity doesn't exist because I can't see it or comprehend it." "Electromagnetic Feilds don't exist because I don't understand it and it contradicts what my stupid book says." heheh

"I don't exist because I don't KNOW me." ---You see, now your in philosophic garbage now. heh

No concrete, robust, consistent, and simple theory to explain natural phenomena, just someone saying they don't believe it because it happened another way.

Plain stupid, someone has too keep telling you, or this whole world will turn into idiots while our technology keeps improving, which makes the mind of babies in charge of nuclear missiles.


Actually what you are saying is contradicted by our modern understanding of biology and the fossil record.

So you are saying we can't observe evolution happening in the present because it happens way to slowly right, tiny little changes over millions of years.

Well that being true we can just have a little look through the fossil record and see all these tiny little changes happening gradually over millions of years right?

Dead Wrong! The fossil record does not show any evidence of a slow gradual evolution of species. None whatsoever!

Whenever a new species first appears in the fossil record it appears complete, fully formed (evolved) with no visible ancestors.

As an expert on evolution Gyroki I'm sure you will be aware of the Cambrian explosion where invertebrate fossils appear suddenly in the fossil record with no visible ancestors.

Supposedly invertebrates evolved into the first fish. But despite millions of fossils from both groups, transitional fossils linking them are missing.

Just do a google search on the Cambrian Explosion and see for yourself.

And it's not just creationists who say there are no transitional fossils whatsoever.

To prove this point I'll demonstrate by finding and quoting only evolutionists articles.

Please check these out for yourself and challenge me if I'm incorrect.

This quote is from Colin Patterson the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History,

Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. … I will lay it on the line -- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument It goes without saying that Patterson is a 100% committed evolutionist.

Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History says the following

It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species or fossil 'group' can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another

If evolutionary theory is true, we should find the innumerable transitional forms Darwin predicted would be in the geologic record. We shouldn't find just a handful, but billions of them. Instead, the fossil record shows animals complete, not in developmental stages.

The evidence for the gradual evolution of species you described is not in the fossil record, it completely and utterly proves the opposite!

As for your example of a lion and a tiger do you not see how this too is actually evidence against evolutionary theory.

Both creationists and evolutionists agree that lions and tigers share the same ancestor so that they can breed is not a big deal. However the fact that their offspring are unable to reproduce themselves is another nail in the coffin to evolutionary theory.

You see species resist change, they don't change easily. For evolution to be true creatures must have gradually evolved and changed, tiny little changes to their internal organs, reproductive organs etc. The whole time these creatures still have to be able to mate and reproduce, and their own offspring also must reproduce.

You have just identified how hard it is for even a lion and a tiger to reproduce and and create a new species of animal, so what are the chances of all the millions of species on this earth being able to live a fully functional life, find a partner, mate and reproduce when all the time their sexual organs, internal organs, bones, anatomy etc are changing? If one animal suddenly evolves some tiny change in it's sex organ, it has to find a mate with a corresponding change in it's sex organ for them to be able to copulate.

You can repeat that this happens so slowly that the changes are simply not noticable in any one or even thousands of generations but again this leads you back to the dilema mentioned at the begining of this post namely the fossil record proves that a gradual transition from one species to another did not occur.

I don't claim to know a great deal about microbiology but one scientist with impeccable credentials is Michael Behe professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

His famous book entitled 'Darwin's Black Box' completely destoys the idea that evolution is possible at the molecular level. He is an interesting case as he is not a bible believer, has no creationist axe to grind but merely reached his conclusions through his own study. His arguments are devastating and have never been succesfully answered by the evolutionary community.

Your analogies using stars and gravity make little sense to me. It is the scientific community who refuse to accept what they can't see not the creationists.

For an evolutionary scientist the idea of creation, or intelligent design is simply unacceptable no matter what evidence there might be to support it. It is part of the scientific creed to only and always look for an answer within the confines and science and to exclude any possibility of the supernatural or any other force whose work we cannot detect and verify. No amount of evidence to the contrary will ever convince a scientist committed to the idea of evolution.

I find it rather ironic that you clearly have little knowledge about evolution yourself as evidenced by your argument but yet will defend it aggressively and absolutely.

You state that the evidence is overwhelming and blatent and that evolution forms the foundation of biology it may suprise you to know that the founder of modern biology John Ray was a commited Christian and creationist, as was the founder of chemistry Robert Boyle, and the founder of the scientific method Francis Bacon.

Actually the kind of changes you seem to think take millions of years take very little time at all.

Consider a butterfly. It is a caterpiller for 4/5ths of it's life or more then undergoes the most amazing metamorphis where it spins a cocoon around itself, then it's entire body procedes to liquify itself, and inside the cacoon those parts move around and form an entirely new creature. Did you know that back end of the caterpiller actually become the head of some butterflies? Remarkable, a transition from one insect into something completely different in just a few weeks!

It's also proved an impossible question for evolutionists to comprhend. Try and imagine how the first caterpiller managed to evolve the ability to turn into a butterfly. Did it do it gradually over millions of years, not changing much at all to start with and gradually getting a little bit more daring?

I repeat with absolute confidence, there is NO evidence whatsoever for macro-evolution. The available data we do have such as the fossil record and our knowledge of microbiology actually provide firm evidence against it. The only people who believe in evolution are those scientists committed to it on philosophical grounds and ordinary people who believe it because of indoctrination and have never studied the evidence for it.

Instead of dismissing people as being backwards and idiotic for not believing maybe you should examine both sides of the argument yourself. I promise you, you will be amazed by what you find out.