For those thinking evolution is a big hoax...

At 5/12/2012 7:53:33 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/10/2012 5:14:30 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:

At 5/9/2012 11:22:35 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/9/2012 10:56:33 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:

At 5/9/2012 7:02:16 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/8/2012 9:20:04 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
No you haven't. The study merely points out that they found two similar genes. They didn't prove that the gene wasn't in the genetic code already. If the study does prove that it appeared during their observations, then please point that section out and I will concede.

This is the kind of thing that makes one wonder how well you've read the study.

"Sequence analysis revealed that the colobine-specific paralog has an intron that is shared with RNASE1, suggesting that the new gene was produced by DNA duplication, rather than by retrotransposition of a processed RNA transcript."

And in case the scientific shorthand is still unfamiliar to you, "suggesting" in this case is to speak with statistical significance. It does not mean "shot in the dark guess."

Wnope, thank you for your input but I'm already aware that the two enzymes are very similar in chemical structure. The fact that the intron is shared does not necessarily imply that it was the result of a duplication and then mutation. To induct that would be to assume that it is possible for duplications and further mutation to produce such genes in the first place, but this has yet to have been properly demonstrated. It simply hasn't been proven that the gene didn't already exist in the genetic code of the monkey to begin with.

You could equally argue that genetic testing for whether someone is your sibling cannot "prove" someone is your brother because it could just as easily be the fact that another human exists with almost identical DNA who is not directly related to you.

The only way for them to have identical DNA to you would be to be a clone. It's one thing to conclude that because my genes are very similar to the genes of this man over here, this is the result of being related to him. It's in an entirely different ball park to conclude that because my genes are very similar to the genes of this man over here, this is the result of my genes mutating from his genes, get what I'm saying?

Thats not how dna tests work. You dont literally take all the dna and compare it codon by codon. You sequence specific parts and use gel electro to get an approximate match.

Forgive me, but I fail to see how this somehow proves phylogenetics is a reliable methodology. It seems that you're saying DNA testing shows similarities in the DNA of different species, but I don't see how this proves this is the result of mutation.

So my point stands. Rejecting phylogenetics is tantamount to rejecting the ability to identify parents or siblings by dna.

The statistical chance of dna resulting from mutation of an ancestor is calculated similarly whether you compare siblings or species.

Your problem is with science in general, not evolution.

At 5/13/2012 10:14:50 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:

At 5/12/2012 7:53:33 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/10/2012 5:14:30 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:

At 5/9/2012 11:22:35 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/9/2012 10:56:33 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:

At 5/9/2012 7:02:16 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/8/2012 9:20:04 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:
No you haven't. The study merely points out that they found two similar genes. They didn't prove that the gene wasn't in the genetic code already. If the study does prove that it appeared during their observations, then please point that section out and I will concede.

This is the kind of thing that makes one wonder how well you've read the study.

"Sequence analysis revealed that the colobine-specific paralog has an intron that is shared with RNASE1, suggesting that the new gene was produced by DNA duplication, rather than by retrotransposition of a processed RNA transcript."

And in case the scientific shorthand is still unfamiliar to you, "suggesting" in this case is to speak with statistical significance. It does not mean "shot in the dark guess."

Wnope, thank you for your input but I'm already aware that the two enzymes are very similar in chemical structure. The fact that the intron is shared does not necessarily imply that it was the result of a duplication and then mutation. To induct that would be to assume that it is possible for duplications and further mutation to produce such genes in the first place, but this has yet to have been properly demonstrated. It simply hasn't been proven that the gene didn't already exist in the genetic code of the monkey to begin with.

You could equally argue that genetic testing for whether someone is your sibling cannot "prove" someone is your brother because it could just as easily be the fact that another human exists with almost identical DNA who is not directly related to you.

The only way for them to have identical DNA to you would be to be a clone. It's one thing to conclude that because my genes are very similar to the genes of this man over here, this is the result of being related to him. It's in an entirely different ball park to conclude that because my genes are very similar to the genes of this man over here, this is the result of my genes mutating from his genes, get what I'm saying?

Thats not how dna tests work. You dont literally take all the dna and compare it codon by codon. You sequence specific parts and use gel electro to get an approximate match.

Forgive me, but I fail to see how this somehow proves phylogenetics is a reliable methodology. It seems that you're saying DNA testing shows similarities in the DNA of different species, but I don't see how this proves this is the result of mutation.

So my point stands. Rejecting phylogenetics is tantamount to rejecting the ability to identify parents or siblings by dna.

The statistical chance of dna resulting from mutation of an ancestor is calculated similarly whether you compare siblings or species.

Your problem is with science in general, not evolution.

In order to say "a paternity/siblings test is correct" you use a statistical procedure to determine that there is an insignificant probability of two sets of DNA coming from different lineages.

Now, YOU weren't there when the kid was conceived. Even if there is a 99.999999% match between the son and father's DNA. It might be that a family exists that has genetically mutating for thousands (assuming YEC) of years and just so happens to nearly identical DNA. There's billions of people, it could happen.

But it's pretty freaking unlikely. This is known as "statistically insignificant."

Phylogenetics does just that with the exact same statistical procedure. It's possible that two species could evolve simultaneously for thousands of years and yet somehow almost match nucleotide for nucleotide.

But it's pretty freaking unlikely.

Though evolution is not science! There is not any true observable scientific evidence. To claim that evolution is science you must have actual observed it happening and no one has seen evolution take place. If evolution was real then practically every species today would still have sub species still left and also sub species going into our next evolve would be taking place. Saying it would stop the process in any case is in fact not evolution becasue it is a continual state of motion. It would be taking place always and sub species would be and always been.
In fact you are being unscientific to claim facts to things unwitnessed.
Impersonations of fossil records and fossil beds is just that. Its theory and fairytales are accepted, only because Creationism is clearly not possible.
"I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we've got a problem." (Dr. Niles Eldridge, Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum)
You can not deny that, esp. if you claim no flood, that million upon millions of all different varities of species bones and sub species and then so on and so on. Our grounds all over the planet should be filled of fossils but it is not. No one has found one fossil that is deemed signifiant enough to account for billions upon billions of years of life and in the complexitity we have today. The links for all forms today is not in the fossil record because it simply never occured that way. This also proves that billions of years of life has not been on earth for that long.
Evolution and life is like playing darts. And the darts are theories. And the board is truth. Points are facts. You can throw and miss entirely. You can hit a point. and sometimes you'll hit the inside of the bullseye. But hardly never do you hit spot on. This is evolution they get so good at throwing and hitting points but miss the bullseye. They hit all around the bullseye but never hit spot on because they have blinded their ability to see it.
Once again I will state that evolution is not science and is nothing but a storytellers worldview with acceptable facts that fit neatly in, nothing more.
What is even more sad is scientist who support it are bein unscientific at the least. And evolutionist are constantly out to propulse their propaganda.
"Darwin is liked by evolutionist because he liberated science from the straightjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers. This gave professional evolutionists job sercurity so they can wander through biology labs as if they belonged there." -David Coppedge

At 5/13/2012 10:08:42 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:

At 5/11/2012 7:35:34 AM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/10/2012 4:49:46 PM, SuburbiaSurvivor wrote:

I have revealed it... it's even in the study you were just referring to.

No you haven't. The study merely points out that they found two similar genes. They didn't prove that the gene wasn't in the genetic code already. If the study does prove that it appeared during their observations, then please point that section out and I will concede.

"Using sequence analysis, Zhang et al. have documented steps in the origin and directional evolution of the ribonuclease gene RNASE1B, a paralog (gene duplicate) of the RNASE1..."

"Amplification and sequencing of the ribonuclease RNASE1 gene from various primates revealed one copy in all of the primates studied except the douc langur (Pygathrix nemaeus), a leaf-eating colobine, which appeared to have two copies. A phylogenetic tree constructed from all the RNASE sequences found in 16 primates confirmed a gene duplication in the colobines, producing a paralog RNASE1B from the ancestral RNASE1 sequence. The douc langur has retained both sequences."

I mean, seriously, the entire page is a description of the finding and how they came by it. Did you even read it?

Did you? The fact that they found the same gene in every primate except for the douc langer does not prove that the "duplicate gene" was the result of a mutation. That is merely a bare assertion. If they had actually observed the breed of monkey mutate that particular gene, this evidence would bear some what. At this moment it's pure speculation.

It is not a bare assertion. It is a conclusion dervied from the results of sequence analysis. The sequence analysis is the evidence for the results. I'm not sure how you missed that.

Forgive the accusation, but at this point I'm not sure whether you're intentionally trying to deceive me or yourself. The sequence analysis shows that both genes are very similar save for a few differences, this does not conclude that it was the result of a mutation.

Read the bolded parts above.

I did. The paragraph assumes that phylogenetics is a reliable methodology. It's basically presupposing evolution is true to prove evolution is true.

It's not trying to prove evolution is true. It's trying to demonstrate that RNASE1B evolved from RNASE1. It references the methodology used to come to that conclusion. Hence, it is not a bare assertion.

Also, in this case it seems impossible for us (people who do not have a direct understanding of how this enzyme works) to determine whether this mutation increased structural complexity or decreased it, as efficiency was both increased and decreased.

Well, complexity doesn't correlate with efficiency, so the problem is with your definition.

It does correlate with efficiency. The enzyme that breaks down nylon in flavobacterium is much more efficient at breaking down nylon then the non-mutated enzyme, however, relative to its original function it's less efficient. That's why I said "generally correlates with an increase in effiency" as effiency is in regards to its original function.

That is a bogus criteria and I reject it.

Lol, k.

I accept the concession.

That wasn't a concession of any sort. That was me accepting the fact that you reject my criteria and an expression of amusement accompanying it.

Perhaps it would have been a better use of your time to provide support for this criteria and explain why anyone on this planet should use it.

Haven't I already done this? Without increasing structural complexity organisms wouldn't be able to get more complex... Common sense.

No. You haven't provided support for why anyone should use "complexity" in the manner that you are uniquely using it.

In the case of this enzyme, it's just too ambiguous. From the information presented to us, it's impossible to tell whether the enzyme has increased in complexity or decreased.

That's because your definition of "structural complexity" is bogus and literally no one else on this planet abides by it. Rest assured that you are using "complexity" in a completely unique and novel way that has no relation to the way anyone else uses it.

xD That is probably the most textbook version of the ad populum fallacy I have ever seen.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Read the section on language.

"Appeal to belief is valid only when the question is whether the belief exists."

Checkmate!

So you didn't read the section on language. Pity. I'll quote it here for you:

"Linguistic descriptivists argue that correct grammar, spelling, and expressions are defined by the language's speakers, especially in languages which do not have a central governing body. According to this viewpoint, if an incorrect expression is commonly used, it becomes correct. In contrast, linguistic prescriptivists believe that incorrect expressions are incorrect regardless of how many people use them."

Translation: linguistic descriptivism states that the definition of words are set by common usage. Meaning that, an appeal to popularity isn't fallacious here. So the question is: Which is a more appropriate context here, linguistic descriptivism or linguistic prescriptivism?

Well, let's not get into that debate and keep it simple. If linguistic descriptivism is more appropriate, then my reference isn't a fallacious appeal and my objection stands. If linguistic prescriptivism stands then you need to reference some linguistic authority that supports your definition and use of the terms here. If you can do that, I'll concede the point.

I think you misunderstood what happened here. I never claimed that there are other people that use the term "structural complexity" as a definition of "information" from a creationist perspective. For all I know, no one uses it. But that doesn't mean it's a false or unscientific definition of information. You have yet to show why my definition is unscientific or false in some way other then the fact that others don't use it.

I already did. You are equating complexity with efficiency when I already showed that, generally speaking, there is no such correlation.

So, at this point, you really should explain why anyone should even consider using or adhering to this definition of yours.

Again? Really?

I never sawyour explanation the first time.

No offense, but I have posted it two time now. Are you sure you've been reading my comments? I really hate repeating myself...

No, not all of them, just the ones to me.

Actually, I gave a definition and you responded with "that's a bogus definition and I reject it". It's in this very thread.

Uhm... we're talking about the Boeing 757 thing here.

At 5/14/2012 1:15:51 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Though evolution is not science! There is not any true observable scientific evidence. To claim that evolution is science you must have actual observed it happening and no one has seen evolution take place. If evolution was real then practically every species today would still have sub species still left and also sub species going into our next evolve would be taking place. Saying it would stop the process in any case is in fact not evolution becasue it is a continual state of motion. It would be taking place always and sub species would be and always been.
In fact you are being unscientific to claim facts to things unwitnessed.
Impersonations of fossil records and fossil beds is just that. Its theory and fairytales are accepted, only because Creationism is clearly not possible.
"I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we've got a problem." (Dr. Niles Eldridge, Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum)
You can not deny that, esp. if you claim no flood, that million upon millions of all different varities of species bones and sub species and then so on and so on. Our grounds all over the planet should be filled of fossils but it is not. No one has found one fossil that is deemed signifiant enough to account for billions upon billions of years of life and in the complexitity we have today. The links for all forms today is not in the fossil record because it simply never occured that way. This also proves that billions of years of life has not been on earth for that long.
Evolution and life is like playing darts. And the darts are theories. And the board is truth. Points are facts. You can throw and miss entirely. You can hit a point. and sometimes you'll hit the inside of the bullseye. But hardly never do you hit spot on. This is evolution they get so good at throwing and hitting points but miss the bullseye. They hit all around the bullseye but never hit spot on because they have blinded their ability to see it.
Once again I will state that evolution is not science and is nothing but a storytellers worldview with acceptable facts that fit neatly in, nothing more.
What is even more sad is scientist who support it are bein unscientific at the least. And evolutionist are constantly out to propulse their propaganda.
"Darwin is liked by evolutionist because he liberated science from the straightjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers. This gave professional evolutionists job sercurity so they can wander through biology labs as if they belonged there." -David Coppedge

Evolution is science, it has evidence, and is accepted as science by christians, atheists, muslims, hindus and buddhists alike.

Stop posting this nonsense and actually respond to the previous arguments posted against your nonsense.

At 5/14/2012 1:14:49 PM, tkubok wrote:

At 5/14/2012 1:15:51 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Though evolution is not science! There is not any true observable scientific evidence. To claim that evolution is science you must have actual observed it happening and no one has seen evolution take place. If evolution was real then practically every species today would still have sub species still left and also sub species going into our next evolve would be taking place. Saying it would stop the process in any case is in fact not evolution becasue it is a continual state of motion. It would be taking place always and sub species would be and always been.
In fact you are being unscientific to claim facts to things unwitnessed.
Impersonations of fossil records and fossil beds is just that. Its theory and fairytales are accepted, only because Creationism is clearly not possible.
"I admit that an awful lot of that has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true. For instance, the most famous example still on exhibit downstairs (in the American Museum) is the exhibit on horse evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago. That has been presented as literal truth in textbook after textbook. Now I think that that is lamentable, particularly because the people who propose these kinds of stories themselves may be aware of the speculative nature of some of the stuff. But by the time it filters down to the textbooks, we've got science as truth and we've got a problem." (Dr. Niles Eldridge, Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum)
You can not deny that, esp. if you claim no flood, that million upon millions of all different varities of species bones and sub species and then so on and so on. Our grounds all over the planet should be filled of fossils but it is not. No one has found one fossil that is deemed signifiant enough to account for billions upon billions of years of life and in the complexitity we have today. The links for all forms today is not in the fossil record because it simply never occured that way. This also proves that billions of years of life has not been on earth for that long.
Evolution and life is like playing darts. And the darts are theories. And the board is truth. Points are facts. You can throw and miss entirely. You can hit a point. and sometimes you'll hit the inside of the bullseye. But hardly never do you hit spot on. This is evolution they get so good at throwing and hitting points but miss the bullseye. They hit all around the bullseye but never hit spot on because they have blinded their ability to see it.
Once again I will state that evolution is not science and is nothing but a storytellers worldview with acceptable facts that fit neatly in, nothing more.
What is even more sad is scientist who support it are bein unscientific at the least. And evolutionist are constantly out to propulse their propaganda.
"Darwin is liked by evolutionist because he liberated science from the straightjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers. This gave professional evolutionists job sercurity so they can wander through biology labs as if they belonged there." -David Coppedge

Evolution is common sense, it has evidence, and is accepted as science by christians, atheists, muslims, hindus and buddhists alike.

Stop posting this nonsense and actually respond to the previous arguments posted against your nonsense.

Fixed

Natural selection and variation are about as simple as you can get.

At 5/13/2012 3:13:09 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

At 5/8/2012 12:55:23 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:

Catholics. They hate science - always have. Remember how they persecuted Galileo?

They don't move with the times when it comes to sexual practices either, although, ironically, the Catholics are the one's that go around preaching chastity and sexual probity but, in many of their churches, behind the vestry's closed door the priest is queering up a choirboy.

1992: Catholic Church apologizes to Galileo, who died in 1642. Clearly, the Catholic Church isn't against science, they're just 350 years behind it's advances. All Catholics will accept evolution in 2209, which will be 350 years after the publishing of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859.

The Catholic Church has provided many great scientists. Galileo was Catholic and remained one until he died. Where did your universities originate?, who brought teaching to the masses?.
Give me one other example were the Catholic Church has denied anything scientific.
The Catholic Church does not oppose evolution.
The person who you posted your response to is a nothing more than a bigotted, close minded, secterian who made that post without thinking first.

At 5/17/2012 6:04:33 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/13/2012 3:13:09 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

At 5/8/2012 12:55:23 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:

Catholics. They hate science - always have. Remember how they persecuted Galileo?

They don't move with the times when it comes to sexual practices either, although, ironically, the Catholics are the one's that go around preaching chastity and sexual probity but, in many of their churches, behind the vestry's closed door the priest is queering up a choirboy.

1992: Catholic Church apologizes to Galileo, who died in 1642. Clearly, the Catholic Church isn't against science, they're just 350 years behind it's advances. All Catholics will accept evolution in 2209, which will be 350 years after the publishing of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859.

The Catholic Church has provided many great scientists. Galileo was Catholic and remained one until he died. Where did your universities originate?, who brought teaching to the masses?.
Give me one other example were the Catholic Church has denied anything scientific.
The Catholic Church does not oppose evolution.
The person who you posted your response to is a nothing more than a bigotted, close minded, secterian who made that post without thinking first.

"Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth"

Pope Pius IX

At 5/17/2012 6:30:46 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/17/2012 6:04:33 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/13/2012 3:13:09 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

At 5/8/2012 12:55:23 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:

Catholics. They hate science - always have. Remember how they persecuted Galileo?

They don't move with the times when it comes to sexual practices either, although, ironically, the Catholics are the one's that go around preaching chastity and sexual probity but, in many of their churches, behind the vestry's closed door the priest is queering up a choirboy.

1992: Catholic Church apologizes to Galileo, who died in 1642. Clearly, the Catholic Church isn't against science, they're just 350 years behind it's advances. All Catholics will accept evolution in 2209, which will be 350 years after the publishing of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859.

The Catholic Church has provided many great scientists. Galileo was Catholic and remained one until he died. Where did your universities originate?, who brought teaching to the masses?.
Give me one other example were the Catholic Church has denied anything scientific.
The Catholic Church does not oppose evolution.
The person who you posted your response to is a nothing more than a bigotted, close minded, secterian who made that post without thinking first.

"Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth"

Pope Pius IX

In other words if it goes completely against dogma of the Church it must be wrong. The Church in her wisdom is infallible when it comes to dogma. For an example if science were to say tommorrow we know for a fact God does not exist. The Catholic Church would have to say no this is wrong, that science is only purporting something as fact when it is not. The Church would will and has done on many occassions change it's mind regarding certain things, but not whn it comes to doctrine. Science has made mistakes before and has reported things as fact when they were not. The Church maks mistakes and science makes mistakes. When science has proved 100% that something is tru the Church accepts it, but science has claimed things to be true in the past when they were not true. Anything that is fact will not contradict Church doctrine because it is an impossibilty, something in error however could possibly contradict the doctrine of the Church.

At 5/18/2012 6:38:07 AM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/17/2012 6:30:46 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/17/2012 6:04:33 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/13/2012 3:13:09 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

At 5/8/2012 12:55:23 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:

Catholics. They hate science - always have. Remember how they persecuted Galileo?

They don't move with the times when it comes to sexual practices either, although, ironically, the Catholics are the one's that go around preaching chastity and sexual probity but, in many of their churches, behind the vestry's closed door the priest is queering up a choirboy.

1992: Catholic Church apologizes to Galileo, who died in 1642. Clearly, the Catholic Church isn't against science, they're just 350 years behind it's advances. All Catholics will accept evolution in 2209, which will be 350 years after the publishing of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859.

The Catholic Church has provided many great scientists. Galileo was Catholic and remained one until he died. Where did your universities originate?, who brought teaching to the masses?.
Give me one other example were the Catholic Church has denied anything scientific.
The Catholic Church does not oppose evolution.
The person who you posted your response to is a nothing more than a bigotted, close minded, secterian who made that post without thinking first.

"Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth"

Pope Pius IX

In other words if it goes completely against dogma of the Church it must be wrong. The Church in her wisdom is infallible when it comes to dogma. For an example if science were to say tommorrow we know for a fact God does not exist. The Catholic Church would have to say no this is wrong, that science is only purporting something as fact when it is not. The Church would will and has done on many occassions change it's mind regarding certain things, but not whn it comes to doctrine. Science has made mistakes before and has reported things as fact when they were not. The Church maks mistakes and science makes mistakes. When science has proved 100% that something is tru the Church accepts it, but science has claimed things to be true in the past when they were not true. Anything that is fact will not contradict Church doctrine because it is an impossibilty, something in error however could possibly contradict the doctrine of the Church.

Name a theory in all of science capable of "proving" anything.

Also, you do know "man was not specially created" was against church doctrine, right?

At 5/18/2012 9:43:45 AM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/18/2012 6:38:07 AM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/17/2012 6:30:46 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/17/2012 6:04:33 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/13/2012 3:13:09 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

At 5/8/2012 12:55:23 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:

Catholics. They hate science - always have. Remember how they persecuted Galileo?

They don't move with the times when it comes to sexual practices either, although, ironically, the Catholics are the one's that go around preaching chastity and sexual probity but, in many of their churches, behind the vestry's closed door the priest is queering up a choirboy.

1992: Catholic Church apologizes to Galileo, who died in 1642. Clearly, the Catholic Church isn't against science, they're just 350 years behind it's advances. All Catholics will accept evolution in 2209, which will be 350 years after the publishing of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859.

The Catholic Church has provided many great scientists. Galileo was Catholic and remained one until he died. Where did your universities originate?, who brought teaching to the masses?.
Give me one other example were the Catholic Church has denied anything scientific.
The Catholic Church does not oppose evolution.
The person who you posted your response to is a nothing more than a bigotted, close minded, secterian who made that post without thinking first.

"Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth"

Pope Pius IX

In other words if it goes completely against dogma of the Church it must be wrong. The Church in her wisdom is infallible when it comes to dogma. For an example if science were to say tommorrow we know for a fact God does not exist. The Catholic Church would have to say no this is wrong, that science is only purporting something as fact when it is not. The Church would will and has done on many occassions change it's mind regarding certain things, but not whn it comes to doctrine. Science has made mistakes before and has reported things as fact when they were not. The Church maks mistakes and science makes mistakes. When science has proved 100% that something is tru the Church accepts it, but science has claimed things to be true in the past when they were not true. Anything that is fact will not contradict Church doctrine because it is an impossibilty, something in error however could possibly contradict the doctrine of the Church.

Name a theory in all of science capable of "proving" anything.

Also, you do know "man was not specially created" was against church doctrine, right?

It would no longer be a theory if it had proof, I do not get your point. Also man is specially created, why do scientists now believe we are not special?, if so then science is in error. Human kind is special. That is exactly the type of thing the Church speaks of when science says things as if it is truth when in fact it is not true. Like when science claims to know where man came from, or the origin of the species, we simply know this is not true, science has not yet answered these questions.

At 5/18/2012 12:12:53 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/18/2012 9:43:45 AM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/18/2012 6:38:07 AM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/17/2012 6:30:46 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/17/2012 6:04:33 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/13/2012 3:13:09 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

At 5/8/2012 12:55:23 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:

Catholics. They hate science - always have. Remember how they persecuted Galileo?

They don't move with the times when it comes to sexual practices either, although, ironically, the Catholics are the one's that go around preaching chastity and sexual probity but, in many of their churches, behind the vestry's closed door the priest is queering up a choirboy.

1992: Catholic Church apologizes to Galileo, who died in 1642. Clearly, the Catholic Church isn't against science, they're just 350 years behind it's advances. All Catholics will accept evolution in 2209, which will be 350 years after the publishing of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859.

The Catholic Church has provided many great scientists. Galileo was Catholic and remained one until he died. Where did your universities originate?, who brought teaching to the masses?.
Give me one other example were the Catholic Church has denied anything scientific.
The Catholic Church does not oppose evolution.
The person who you posted your response to is a nothing more than a bigotted, close minded, secterian who made that post without thinking first.

"Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth"

Pope Pius IX

In other words if it goes completely against dogma of the Church it must be wrong. The Church in her wisdom is infallible when it comes to dogma. For an example if science were to say tommorrow we know for a fact God does not exist. The Catholic Church would have to say no this is wrong, that science is only purporting something as fact when it is not. The Church would will and has done on many occassions change it's mind regarding certain things, but not whn it comes to doctrine. Science has made mistakes before and has reported things as fact when they were not. The Church maks mistakes and science makes mistakes. When science has proved 100% that something is tru the Church accepts it, but science has claimed things to be true in the past when they were not true. Anything that is fact will not contradict Church doctrine because it is an impossibilty, something in error however could possibly contradict the doctrine of the Church.

Name a theory in all of science capable of "proving" anything.

Also, you do know "man was not specially created" was against church doctrine, right?

It would no longer be a theory if it had proof, I do not get your point. Also man is specially created, why do scientists now believe we are not special?, if so then science is in error. Human kind is special. That is exactly the type of thing the Church speaks of when science says things as if it is truth when in fact it is not true. Like when science claims to know where man came from, or the origin of the species, we simply know this is not true, science has not yet answered these questions.

A theory never graduates from a theory. A theory will never be anything more than a theory. A theory will always be a theory. Proof, evidence, only confirms that a theory is accurate, but its not like more evidence or more proof makes a theory into something else.

The fact that you said this, shows that you have a fundemental misunderstanding, an ignorance of science and what constitutes as a theory.

Also, how is man special, and how do you know that when science claims to know where man came from or the origin of species, that this is not true? Science has answered these questions.

At 5/18/2012 2:08:57 PM, tkubok wrote:

At 5/18/2012 12:12:53 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/18/2012 9:43:45 AM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/18/2012 6:38:07 AM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/17/2012 6:30:46 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/17/2012 6:04:33 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/13/2012 3:13:09 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

At 5/8/2012 12:55:23 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:

Catholics. They hate science - always have. Remember how they persecuted Galileo?

They don't move with the times when it comes to sexual practices either, although, ironically, the Catholics are the one's that go around preaching chastity and sexual probity but, in many of their churches, behind the vestry's closed door the priest is queering up a choirboy.

1992: Catholic Church apologizes to Galileo, who died in 1642. Clearly, the Catholic Church isn't against science, they're just 350 years behind it's advances. All Catholics will accept evolution in 2209, which will be 350 years after the publishing of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859.

The Catholic Church has provided many great scientists. Galileo was Catholic and remained one until he died. Where did your universities originate?, who brought teaching to the masses?.
Give me one other example were the Catholic Church has denied anything scientific.
The Catholic Church does not oppose evolution.
The person who you posted your response to is a nothing more than a bigotted, close minded, secterian who made that post without thinking first.

"Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth"

Pope Pius IX

In other words if it goes completely against dogma of the Church it must be wrong. The Church in her wisdom is infallible when it comes to dogma. For an example if science were to say tommorrow we know for a fact God does not exist. The Catholic Church would have to say no this is wrong, that science is only purporting something as fact when it is not. The Church would will and has done on many occassions change it's mind regarding certain things, but not whn it comes to doctrine. Science has made mistakes before and has reported things as fact when they were not. The Church maks mistakes and science makes mistakes. When science has proved 100% that something is tru the Church accepts it, but science has claimed things to be true in the past when they were not true. Anything that is fact will not contradict Church doctrine because it is an impossibilty, something in error however could possibly contradict the doctrine of the Church.

Name a theory in all of science capable of "proving" anything.

Also, you do know "man was not specially created" was against church doctrine, right?

It would no longer be a theory if it had proof, I do not get your point. Also man is specially created, why do scientists now believe we are not special?, if so then science is in error. Human kind is special. That is exactly the type of thing the Church speaks of when science says things as if it is truth when in fact it is not true. Like when science claims to know where man came from, or the origin of the species, we simply know this is not true, science has not yet answered these questions.

A theory never graduates from a theory. A theory will never be anything more than a theory. A theory will always be a theory. Proof, evidence, only confirms that a theory is accurate, but its not like more evidence or more proof makes a theory into something else.

The fact that you said this, shows that you have a fundemental misunderstanding, an ignorance of science and what constitutes as a theory.

Also, how is man special, and how do you know that when science claims to know where man came from or the origin of species, that this is not true? Science has answered these questions.

Where has man came from then?. What is the origin of species?. For I bleieve I know, but I cannot prove it, nor can science.

At 4/29/2012 4:04:32 PM, Microsuck wrote:
Do you seriously, in your humble opinion, believe that scientists just make stuff up without any evidence, without any proof, and without any logic just to avoid the conclusion that there is no god? If you honestly think that, then can you provide PROOF for your creation myth (ESPECIALLY the one in Gen.1)

Atheists are still quibbling over this? If atheists have all the answers why are the contending with village theism still?

At 5/18/2012 2:08:57 PM, tkubok wrote:

At 5/18/2012 12:12:53 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/18/2012 9:43:45 AM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/18/2012 6:38:07 AM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/17/2012 6:30:46 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/17/2012 6:04:33 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/13/2012 3:13:09 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

At 5/8/2012 12:55:23 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:

Catholics. They hate science - always have. Remember how they persecuted Galileo?

They don't move with the times when it comes to sexual practices either, although, ironically, the Catholics are the one's that go around preaching chastity and sexual probity but, in many of their churches, behind the vestry's closed door the priest is queering up a choirboy.

1992: Catholic Church apologizes to Galileo, who died in 1642. Clearly, the Catholic Church isn't against science, they're just 350 years behind it's advances. All Catholics will accept evolution in 2209, which will be 350 years after the publishing of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859.

The Catholic Church has provided many great scientists. Galileo was Catholic and remained one until he died. Where did your universities originate?, who brought teaching to the masses?.
Give me one other example were the Catholic Church has denied anything scientific.
The Catholic Church does not oppose evolution.
The person who you posted your response to is a nothing more than a bigotted, close minded, secterian who made that post without thinking first.

"Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth"

Pope Pius IX

In other words if it goes completely against dogma of the Church it must be wrong. The Church in her wisdom is infallible when it comes to dogma. For an example if science were to say tommorrow we know for a fact God does not exist. The Catholic Church would have to say no this is wrong, that science is only purporting something as fact when it is not. The Church would will and has done on many occassions change it's mind regarding certain things, but not whn it comes to doctrine. Science has made mistakes before and has reported things as fact when they were not. The Church maks mistakes and science makes mistakes. When science has proved 100% that something is tru the Church accepts it, but science has claimed things to be true in the past when they were not true. Anything that is fact will not contradict Church doctrine because it is an impossibilty, something in error however could possibly contradict the doctrine of the Church.

Name a theory in all of science capable of "proving" anything.

Also, you do know "man was not specially created" was against church doctrine, right?

It would no longer be a theory if it had proof, I do not get your point. Also man is specially created, why do scientists now believe we are not special?, if so then science is in error. Human kind is special. That is exactly the type of thing the Church speaks of when science says things as if it is truth when in fact it is not true. Like when science claims to know where man came from, or the origin of the species, we simply know this is not true, science has not yet answered these questions.

A theory never graduates from a theory. A theory will never be anything more than a theory. A theory will always be a theory. Proof, evidence, only confirms that a theory is accurate, but its not like more evidence or more proof makes a theory into something else.

The fact that you said this, shows that you have a fundemental misunderstanding, an ignorance of science and what constitutes as a theory.

Also, how is man special, and how do you know that when science claims to know where man came from or the origin of species, that this is not true? Science has answered these questions.

"Science has answered these questions."
No they have not they only tend to make matters worse. Science can not answer these questions because it can not and some they think and assume they can. No man will ever watch a animal evolve into another. Or watch what weather, aging, catastopies, and many other element sin the mix to know somethinf millions of years old look like. Recent people have done studies on rock layers recently formed in the 50's from valcanos and the test showed it was millions of years old. I do not trust many scientist just like polticans. Sketchy characters, going around telling everybody their cousins are apes and that the can see billions of years into the past. Does not sound much different than those tales from sheep herders they say is impossible? IDK

I call poe on scotty.

At 5/1/2012 8:07:04 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:

At 4/29/2012 4:09:37 PM, 1dustpelt wrote:
Ug, the Bible does not contradict evolution. I believe it. God used evolution.

The Fool: can you quote those lines pls.

THIS.

At 5/18/2012 3:15:57 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/18/2012 2:08:57 PM, tkubok wrote:

At 5/18/2012 12:12:53 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/18/2012 9:43:45 AM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/18/2012 6:38:07 AM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/17/2012 6:30:46 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/17/2012 6:04:33 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/13/2012 3:13:09 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

At 5/8/2012 12:55:23 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:

Catholics. They hate science - always have. Remember how they persecuted Galileo?

They don't move with the times when it comes to sexual practices either, although, ironically, the Catholics are the one's that go around preaching chastity and sexual probity but, in many of their churches, behind the vestry's closed door the priest is queering up a choirboy.

1992: Catholic Church apologizes to Galileo, who died in 1642. Clearly, the Catholic Church isn't against science, they're just 350 years behind it's advances. All Catholics will accept evolution in 2209, which will be 350 years after the publishing of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859.

The Catholic Church has provided many great scientists. Galileo was Catholic and remained one until he died. Where did your universities originate?, who brought teaching to the masses?.
Give me one other example were the Catholic Church has denied anything scientific.
The Catholic Church does not oppose evolution.
The person who you posted your response to is a nothing more than a bigotted, close minded, secterian who made that post without thinking first.

"Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth"

Pope Pius IX

In other words if it goes completely against dogma of the Church it must be wrong. The Church in her wisdom is infallible when it comes to dogma. For an example if science were to say tommorrow we know for a fact God does not exist. The Catholic Church would have to say no this is wrong, that science is only purporting something as fact when it is not. The Church would will and has done on many occassions change it's mind regarding certain things, but not whn it comes to doctrine. Science has made mistakes before and has reported things as fact when they were not. The Church maks mistakes and science makes mistakes. When science has proved 100% that something is tru the Church accepts it, but science has claimed things to be true in the past when they were not true. Anything that is fact will not contradict Church doctrine because it is an impossibilty, something in error however could possibly contradict the doctrine of the Church.

Name a theory in all of science capable of "proving" anything.

Also, you do know "man was not specially created" was against church doctrine, right?

It would no longer be a theory if it had proof, I do not get your point. Also man is specially created, why do scientists now believe we are not special?, if so then science is in error. Human kind is special. That is exactly the type of thing the Church speaks of when science says things as if it is truth when in fact it is not true. Like when science claims to know where man came from, or the origin of the species, we simply know this is not true, science has not yet answered these questions.

A theory never graduates from a theory. A theory will never be anything more than a theory. A theory will always be a theory. Proof, evidence, only confirms that a theory is accurate, but its not like more evidence or more proof makes a theory into something else.

The fact that you said this, shows that you have a fundemental misunderstanding, an ignorance of science and what constitutes as a theory.

Also, how is man special, and how do you know that when science claims to know where man came from or the origin of species, that this is not true? Science has answered these questions.

Where has man came from then?. What is the origin of species?. For I bleieve I know, but I cannot prove it, nor can science.

Man came from an ape-ancestor. The origin of species is natural selection, mutation.

At 5/19/2012 12:20:27 PM, tkubok wrote:

At 5/18/2012 3:15:57 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/18/2012 2:08:57 PM, tkubok wrote:

At 5/18/2012 12:12:53 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/18/2012 9:43:45 AM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/18/2012 6:38:07 AM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/17/2012 6:30:46 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/17/2012 6:04:33 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/13/2012 3:13:09 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

At 5/8/2012 12:55:23 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:

Catholics. They hate science - always have. Remember how they persecuted Galileo?

They don't move with the times when it comes to sexual practices either, although, ironically, the Catholics are the one's that go around preaching chastity and sexual probity but, in many of their churches, behind the vestry's closed door the priest is queering up a choirboy.

1992: Catholic Church apologizes to Galileo, who died in 1642. Clearly, the Catholic Church isn't against science, they're just 350 years behind it's advances. All Catholics will accept evolution in 2209, which will be 350 years after the publishing of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859.

The Catholic Church has provided many great scientists. Galileo was Catholic and remained one until he died. Where did your universities originate?, who brought teaching to the masses?.
Give me one other example were the Catholic Church has denied anything scientific.
The Catholic Church does not oppose evolution.
The person who you posted your response to is a nothing more than a bigotted, close minded, secterian who made that post without thinking first.

"Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth"

Pope Pius IX

In other words if it goes completely against dogma of the Church it must be wrong. The Church in her wisdom is infallible when it comes to dogma. For an example if science were to say tommorrow we know for a fact God does not exist. The Catholic Church would have to say no this is wrong, that science is only purporting something as fact when it is not. The Church would will and has done on many occassions change it's mind regarding certain things, but not whn it comes to doctrine. Science has made mistakes before and has reported things as fact when they were not. The Church maks mistakes and science makes mistakes. When science has proved 100% that something is tru the Church accepts it, but science has claimed things to be true in the past when they were not true. Anything that is fact will not contradict Church doctrine because it is an impossibilty, something in error however could possibly contradict the doctrine of the Church.

Name a theory in all of science capable of "proving" anything.

Also, you do know "man was not specially created" was against church doctrine, right?

It would no longer be a theory if it had proof, I do not get your point. Also man is specially created, why do scientists now believe we are not special?, if so then science is in error. Human kind is special. That is exactly the type of thing the Church speaks of when science says things as if it is truth when in fact it is not true. Like when science claims to know where man came from, or the origin of the species, we simply know this is not true, science has not yet answered these questions.

A theory never graduates from a theory. A theory will never be anything more than a theory. A theory will always be a theory. Proof, evidence, only confirms that a theory is accurate, but its not like more evidence or more proof makes a theory into something else.

The fact that you said this, shows that you have a fundemental misunderstanding, an ignorance of science and what constitutes as a theory.

Also, how is man special, and how do you know that when science claims to know where man came from or the origin of species, that this is not true? Science has answered these questions.

Where has man came from then?. What is the origin of species?. For I bleieve I know, but I cannot prove it, nor can science.

Man came from an ape-ancestor. The origin of species is natural selection, mutation.

That answers nothing were did the ape ancestor come from?, you have not given me the origin. Mutated from what?.

Evolutionist and paleontologists think they somehow must save us, because it is their duties or something, from a needless creator. why? Why do they also think that we somehow will draw wrong conclusions to the same evidence? Their's s right and ours is wrong?

You all preach that the history of life has gradual change, when all the while it is not exsperienced outside of labortories. Really if it happens it would be very noticable in everyday nature. You base your theory upon assumptions that can never truely be verified or observed. "We observe mutations" well mutations is not a defining method on the origin of all species. There more and more I hear about evolution and all the ones that defend it it becomes more certainly clear evolution of all species is based on belief and faith alone.

They ask proof against evolution. I ask for proof against design? They can not show you that all species evolved no more than they can show that the earth is not 6000 years old.

The aging techniques, though highly respected and deemed unquestionable are in fact 'very questionable'. How can recently formed rocks give millions of years readings? This has happened quite frequently.

So the hoax is:
The certainity the paleontologist give for dating.It is not certain and if fact involves more speculation than observable evidence.
Why and how observed small scale mutation declares wide scale evolving?
'Creationist agree we all came from a common place, God', why then does simliarities in species mean we evolved from the previous?
When does a man become so arrogant that he feels he.'at most 100 years of life' can determine thousands of years of life muchless million into billions?
From the evidence you say, What evidence? Aging techniques? Similarities in species? Does this say evolution? I do not think so!
How do we know that the fossil beds are aged by million of years? as anyone been millions of years ago to determine this? NO. Origin of species called Evolution uses guess work and speculation, nothing more and nothing less

At 5/18/2012 11:52:24 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:

At 5/18/2012 2:08:57 PM, tkubok wrote:

At 5/18/2012 12:12:53 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/18/2012 9:43:45 AM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/18/2012 6:38:07 AM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/17/2012 6:30:46 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/17/2012 6:04:33 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/13/2012 3:13:09 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

At 5/8/2012 12:55:23 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:

Catholics. They hate science - always have. Remember how they persecuted Galileo?

They don't move with the times when it comes to sexual practices either, although, ironically, the Catholics are the one's that go around preaching chastity and sexual probity but, in many of their churches, behind the vestry's closed door the priest is queering up a choirboy.

1992: Catholic Church apologizes to Galileo, who died in 1642. Clearly, the Catholic Church isn't against science, they're just 350 years behind it's advances. All Catholics will accept evolution in 2209, which will be 350 years after the publishing of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859.

The Catholic Church has provided many great scientists. Galileo was Catholic and remained one until he died. Where did your universities originate?, who brought teaching to the masses?.
Give me one other example were the Catholic Church has denied anything scientific.
The Catholic Church does not oppose evolution.
The person who you posted your response to is a nothing more than a bigotted, close minded, secterian who made that post without thinking first.

"Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth"

Pope Pius IX

In other words if it goes completely against dogma of the Church it must be wrong. The Church in her wisdom is infallible when it comes to dogma. For an example if science were to say tommorrow we know for a fact God does not exist. The Catholic Church would have to say no this is wrong, that science is only purporting something as fact when it is not. The Church would will and has done on many occassions change it's mind regarding certain things, but not whn it comes to doctrine. Science has made mistakes before and has reported things as fact when they were not. The Church maks mistakes and science makes mistakes. When science has proved 100% that something is tru the Church accepts it, but science has claimed things to be true in the past when they were not true. Anything that is fact will not contradict Church doctrine because it is an impossibilty, something in error however could possibly contradict the doctrine of the Church.

Name a theory in all of science capable of "proving" anything.

Also, you do know "man was not specially created" was against church doctrine, right?

It would no longer be a theory if it had proof, I do not get your point. Also man is specially created, why do scientists now believe we are not special?, if so then science is in error. Human kind is special. That is exactly the type of thing the Church speaks of when science says things as if it is truth when in fact it is not true. Like when science claims to know where man came from, or the origin of the species, we simply know this is not true, science has not yet answered these questions.

A theory never graduates from a theory. A theory will never be anything more than a theory. A theory will always be a theory. Proof, evidence, only confirms that a theory is accurate, but its not like more evidence or more proof makes a theory into something else.

The fact that you said this, shows that you have a fundemental misunderstanding, an ignorance of science and what constitutes as a theory.

Also, how is man special, and how do you know that when science claims to know where man came from or the origin of species, that this is not true? Science has answered these questions.

"Science has answered these questions."
No they have not they only tend to make matters worse. Science can not answer these questions because it can not and some they think and assume they can.

So they cant answer the questions because they cant. What a circular argument.

Fail.

No man will ever watch a animal evolve into another.

Speciation has been observed.

Fail.

Or watch what weather, aging, catastopies, and many other element sin the mix to know somethinf millions of years old look like.

Its called computer simulations.

Fail.

Recent people have done studies on rock layers recently formed in the 50's from valcanos and the test showed it was millions of years old.

Incorrect dating of Xenoliths. This has been debunked decades ago.

Decade old fail.

I do not trust many scientist just like polticans. Sketchy characters, going around telling everybody their cousins are apes and that the can see billions of years into the past.

No scientist is telling anyone that their cousins are apes. Only creationists say that.

Historians claim they can see thousands of years into the past. How is this any different.

Argument fail.

Does not sound much different than those tales from sheep herders they say is impossible? IDK

Really. So what part of Evolution specifically contradicts the laws of physics?

You do not understand what the word "impossible" means.

Argument fail.

At 5/19/2012 1:20:31 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
Evolutionist and paleontologists think they somehow must save us, because it is their duties or something, from a needless creator. why?

Many evolutionists and paleontologists are theists, and believe in a creator God.

Argument fail.

Why do they also think that we somehow will draw wrong conclusions to the same evidence? Their's s right and ours is wrong?

No, theirs is demonstrable and doesnt contradict the known laws of physics. Yours do.

Thats what science is.

You all preach that the history of life has gradual change, when all the while it is not exsperienced outside of labortories. Really if it happens it would be very noticable in everyday nature.

Really. You admit that it takes thousands, to millions of years for the change to occur, and yet youre telling us that we should notice on a day-to-day basis?

This is kind of like the shifting continents. You dont notice the shifting of the continents every day.

You base your theory upon assumptions that can never truely be verified or observed.

Verified? Yes. Directly observed? No. Science doesnt require direct observation in order to verify that something is true. No one has directly observed the orbital period of pluto. Yet we accept it as true because we have the math, we have the evidence. It is verified by math, not by observation.

"We observe mutations" well mutations is not a defining method on the origin of all species.

Yes, it is.

There more and more I hear about evolution and all the ones that defend it it becomes more certainly clear evolution of all species is based on belief and faith alone.

We provide you with evidence, with arguments, and yet, instead of replying to those arguments, you ignore them, and repost your claims.

Sounds like you have more faith against evolution, than we do in evolution.

They ask proof against evolution. I ask for proof against design?

Proof against Design? Bad design. Flaws that even Humans can fix, with our limited knowledge and limited capabilities.

They can not show you that all species evolved no more than they can show that the earth is not 6000 years old.

Yes, we can. Radiometric dating, genetics, these things verify that species evolved, and that the earth is older than 6000 years.

The aging techniques, though highly respected and deemed unquestionable are in fact 'very questionable'. How can recently formed rocks give millions of years readings? This has happened quite frequently.

How are they in question?

So the hoax is:
The certainity the paleontologist give for dating.It is not certain and if fact involves more speculation than observable evidence.

How so? You havent provided any evidence to back up your bald assertion.

Why and how observed small scale mutation declares wide scale evolving?

Because changes stack, mutations stack.

'Creationist agree we all came from a common place, God', why then does simliarities in species mean we evolved from the previous?

Because the explanation that we came from a common place, "God", does not explain why some animals are more similar than others, or the clear transitional fossils that have been found, or the fact that genetic mutations produce noticeable change, and that these changes stack.

Its almost as if God is telling us that Evolution is true.

When does a man become so arrogant that he feels he.'at most 100 years of life' can determine thousands of years of life muchless million into billions?

Man has been around longer than 100 years.

From the evidence you say, What evidence? Aging techniques? Similarities in species? Does this say evolution? I do not think so!

Simply saying so, doesnt make it so.

How do we know that the fossil beds are aged by million of years?

Radometric dating, ice core samples, tree ring dating, etc etc. The list goes on.

as anyone been millions of years ago to determine this? NO.

Has any human being alive today, been to the roman empire when Julius Ceasar was still in power? NO.

Does this mean that we dont know that Julius Ceasar ever existed? NO.

Origin of species called Evolution uses guess work and speculation, nothing more and nothing less

More bald assertions. Back it up with evidence.

All your arguments FAIL. Nice try though.

At 5/19/2012 12:49:33 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/19/2012 12:20:27 PM, tkubok wrote:

At 5/18/2012 3:15:57 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/18/2012 2:08:57 PM, tkubok wrote:

At 5/18/2012 12:12:53 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/18/2012 9:43:45 AM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/18/2012 6:38:07 AM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/17/2012 6:30:46 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/17/2012 6:04:33 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/13/2012 3:13:09 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

At 5/8/2012 12:55:23 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:

Catholics. They hate science - always have. Remember how they persecuted Galileo?

They don't move with the times when it comes to sexual practices either, although, ironically, the Catholics are the one's that go around preaching chastity and sexual probity but, in many of their churches, behind the vestry's closed door the priest is queering up a choirboy.

1992: Catholic Church apologizes to Galileo, who died in 1642. Clearly, the Catholic Church isn't against science, they're just 350 years behind it's advances. All Catholics will accept evolution in 2209, which will be 350 years after the publishing of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859.

The Catholic Church has provided many great scientists. Galileo was Catholic and remained one until he died. Where did your universities originate?, who brought teaching to the masses?.
Give me one other example were the Catholic Church has denied anything scientific.
The Catholic Church does not oppose evolution.
The person who you posted your response to is a nothing more than a bigotted, close minded, secterian who made that post without thinking first.

"Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth"

Pope Pius IX

In other words if it goes completely against dogma of the Church it must be wrong. The Church in her wisdom is infallible when it comes to dogma. For an example if science were to say tommorrow we know for a fact God does not exist. The Catholic Church would have to say no this is wrong, that science is only purporting something as fact when it is not. The Church would will and has done on many occassions change it's mind regarding certain things, but not whn it comes to doctrine. Science has made mistakes before and has reported things as fact when they were not. The Church maks mistakes and science makes mistakes. When science has proved 100% that something is tru the Church accepts it, but science has claimed things to be true in the past when they were not true. Anything that is fact will not contradict Church doctrine because it is an impossibilty, something in error however could possibly contradict the doctrine of the Church.

Name a theory in all of science capable of "proving" anything.

Also, you do know "man was not specially created" was against church doctrine, right?

It would no longer be a theory if it had proof, I do not get your point. Also man is specially created, why do scientists now believe we are not special?, if so then science is in error. Human kind is special. That is exactly the type of thing the Church speaks of when science says things as if it is truth when in fact it is not true. Like when science claims to know where man came from, or the origin of the species, we simply know this is not true, science has not yet answered these questions.

A theory never graduates from a theory. A theory will never be anything more than a theory. A theory will always be a theory. Proof, evidence, only confirms that a theory is accurate, but its not like more evidence or more proof makes a theory into something else.

The fact that you said this, shows that you have a fundemental misunderstanding, an ignorance of science and what constitutes as a theory.

Also, how is man special, and how do you know that when science claims to know where man came from or the origin of species, that this is not true? Science has answered these questions.

Where has man came from then?. What is the origin of species?. For I bleieve I know, but I cannot prove it, nor can science.

Man came from an ape-ancestor. The origin of species is natural selection, mutation.

That answers nothing were did the ape ancestor come from? you have not given me the origin.

What do you mean by "The origin"? Are you talking about the ultimate origin of ALL life?

Mutated from what?.

From previous organisms. It depends on which species youre talking about. The evolution of the horse, for example, shows the diversity of the "Horse" species from the "Dog" species. The Horse evolved, mutated from a previous horse-like species that shared more characteristics with Dogs than with modern horses.

At 5/19/2012 2:06:24 PM, tkubok wrote:

At 5/18/2012 11:52:24 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:

At 5/18/2012 2:08:57 PM, tkubok wrote:

At 5/18/2012 12:12:53 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/18/2012 9:43:45 AM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/18/2012 6:38:07 AM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/17/2012 6:30:46 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/17/2012 6:04:33 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/13/2012 3:13:09 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

At 5/8/2012 12:55:23 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:

Catholics. They hate science - always have. Remember how they persecuted Galileo?

They don't move with the times when it comes to sexual practices either, although, ironically, the Catholics are the one's that go around preaching chastity and sexual probity but, in many of their churches, behind the vestry's closed door the priest is queering up a choirboy.

1992: Catholic Church apologizes to Galileo, who died in 1642. Clearly, the Catholic Church isn't against science, they're just 350 years behind it's advances. All Catholics will accept evolution in 2209, which will be 350 years after the publishing of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859.

The Catholic Church has provided many great scientists. Galileo was Catholic and remained one until he died. Where did your universities originate?, who brought teaching to the masses?.
Give me one other example were the Catholic Church has denied anything scientific.
The Catholic Church does not oppose evolution.
The person who you posted your response to is a nothing more than a bigotted, close minded, secterian who made that post without thinking first.

"Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth"

Pope Pius IX

In other words if it goes completely against dogma of the Church it must be wrong. The Church in her wisdom is infallible when it comes to dogma. For an example if science were to say tommorrow we know for a fact God does not exist. The Catholic Church would have to say no this is wrong, that science is only purporting something as fact when it is not. The Church would will and has done on many occassions change it's mind regarding certain things, but not whn it comes to doctrine. Science has made mistakes before and has reported things as fact when they were not. The Church maks mistakes and science makes mistakes. When science has proved 100% that something is tru the Church accepts it, but science has claimed things to be true in the past when they were not true. Anything that is fact will not contradict Church doctrine because it is an impossibilty, something in error however could possibly contradict the doctrine of the Church.

Name a theory in all of science capable of "proving" anything.

Also, you do know "man was not specially created" was against church doctrine, right?

It would no longer be a theory if it had proof, I do not get your point. Also man is specially created, why do scientists now believe we are not special?, if so then science is in error. Human kind is special. That is exactly the type of thing the Church speaks of when science says things as if it is truth when in fact it is not true. Like when science claims to know where man came from, or the origin of the species, we simply know this is not true, science has not yet answered these questions.

A theory never graduates from a theory. A theory will never be anything more than a theory. A theory will always be a theory. Proof, evidence, only confirms that a theory is accurate, but its not like more evidence or more proof makes a theory into something else.

The fact that you said this, shows that you have a fundemental misunderstanding, an ignorance of science and what constitutes as a theory.

Also, how is man special, and how do you know that when science claims to know where man came from or the origin of species, that this is not true? Science has answered these questions.

"Science has answered these questions."
No they have not they only tend to make matters worse. Science can not answer these questions because it can not and some they think and assume they can.

So they cant answer the questions because they cant. What a circular argument.

Fail.

No man will ever watch a animal evolve into another.

Speciation has been observed.

Fail.

Or watch what weather, aging, catastopies, and many other element sin the mix to know somethinf millions of years old look like.

Its called computer simulations.

Fail.

Recent people have done studies on rock layers recently formed in the 50's from valcanos and the test showed it was millions of years old.

Incorrect dating of Xenoliths. This has been debunked decades ago.

Decade old fail.

I do not trust many scientist just like polticans. Sketchy characters, going around telling everybody their cousins are apes and that the can see billions of years into the past.

No scientist is telling anyone that their cousins are apes. Only creationists say that.

Historians claim they can see thousands of years into the past. How is this any different.

Argument fail.

Does not sound much different than those tales from sheep herders they say is impossible? IDK

Really. So what part of Evolution specifically contradicts the laws of physics?

You do not understand what the word "impossible" means.

Argument fail.

Really. So what part of Evolution specifically contradicts the laws of physics?

When has a animal turned into a different species we have seen?

You do not understand what the word "impossible" means.
I understand it well you seem not too.

No scientist is telling anyone that their cousins are apes. Only creationists say that.

Historians claim they can see thousands of years into the past. How is this any different.

It is the truth. It is documented by people viewing it and observing it.

Its called computer simulations.
Are you serious?you are playing right?

Speciation has been observed.
IDK the word speciation is not evolve, is it? BTW speciation is simliar to speculation.

At 5/19/2012 2:22:38 PM, tkubok wrote:

At 5/19/2012 12:49:33 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/19/2012 12:20:27 PM, tkubok wrote:

At 5/18/2012 3:15:57 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/18/2012 2:08:57 PM, tkubok wrote:

At 5/18/2012 12:12:53 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/18/2012 9:43:45 AM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/18/2012 6:38:07 AM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/17/2012 6:30:46 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/17/2012 6:04:33 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/13/2012 3:13:09 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

At 5/8/2012 12:55:23 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:

Catholics. They hate science - always have. Remember how they persecuted Galileo?

They don't move with the times when it comes to sexual practices either, although, ironically, the Catholics are the one's that go around preaching chastity and sexual probity but, in many of their churches, behind the vestry's closed door the priest is queering up a choirboy.

1992: Catholic Church apologizes to Galileo, who died in 1642. Clearly, the Catholic Church isn't against science, they're just 350 years behind it's advances. All Catholics will accept evolution in 2209, which will be 350 years after the publishing of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859.

The Catholic Church has provided many great scientists. Galileo was Catholic and remained one until he died. Where did your universities originate?, who brought teaching to the masses?.
Give me one other example were the Catholic Church has denied anything scientific.
The Catholic Church does not oppose evolution.
The person who you posted your response to is a nothing more than a bigotted, close minded, secterian who made that post without thinking first.

"Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth"

Pope Pius IX

In other words if it goes completely against dogma of the Church it must be wrong. The Church in her wisdom is infallible when it comes to dogma. For an example if science were to say tommorrow we know for a fact God does not exist. The Catholic Church would have to say no this is wrong, that science is only purporting something as fact when it is not. The Church would will and has done on many occassions change it's mind regarding certain things, but not whn it comes to doctrine. Science has made mistakes before and has reported things as fact when they were not. The Church maks mistakes and science makes mistakes. When science has proved 100% that something is tru the Church accepts it, but science has claimed things to be true in the past when they were not true. Anything that is fact will not contradict Church doctrine because it is an impossibilty, something in error however could possibly contradict the doctrine of the Church.

Name a theory in all of science capable of "proving" anything.

Also, you do know "man was not specially created" was against church doctrine, right?

It would no longer be a theory if it had proof, I do not get your point. Also man is specially created, why do scientists now believe we are not special?, if so then science is in error. Human kind is special. That is exactly the type of thing the Church speaks of when science says things as if it is truth when in fact it is not true. Like when science claims to know where man came from, or the origin of the species, we simply know this is not true, science has not yet answered these questions.

A theory never graduates from a theory. A theory will never be anything more than a theory. A theory will always be a theory. Proof, evidence, only confirms that a theory is accurate, but its not like more evidence or more proof makes a theory into something else.

The fact that you said this, shows that you have a fundemental misunderstanding, an ignorance of science and what constitutes as a theory.

Also, how is man special, and how do you know that when science claims to know where man came from or the origin of species, that this is not true? Science has answered these questions.

Where has man came from then?. What is the origin of species?. For I bleieve I know, but I cannot prove it, nor can science.

Man came from an ape-ancestor. The origin of species is natural selection, mutation.

That answers nothing were did the ape ancestor come from? you have not given me the origin.

What do you mean by "The origin"? Are you talking about the ultimate origin of ALL life?

Mutated from what?.

From previous organisms. It depends on which species youre talking about. The evolution of the horse, for example, shows the diversity of the "Horse" species from the "Dog" species. The Horse evolved, mutated from a previous horse-like species that shared more characteristics with Dogs than with modern horses.

Yes, the origin of all life, it was you who told me science had answered these questions. I said it had not and that I believed I knew the answers though I could not prove them, nor could science. I was informed that science had answered the question of the origin of man, and the origin of species.

At 5/19/2012 2:59:10 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/19/2012 2:22:38 PM, tkubok wrote:

At 5/19/2012 12:49:33 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/19/2012 12:20:27 PM, tkubok wrote:

At 5/18/2012 3:15:57 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/18/2012 2:08:57 PM, tkubok wrote:

At 5/18/2012 12:12:53 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/18/2012 9:43:45 AM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/18/2012 6:38:07 AM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/17/2012 6:30:46 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 5/17/2012 6:04:33 PM, SeanMichael wrote:

At 5/13/2012 3:13:09 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

At 5/8/2012 12:55:23 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:

Catholics. They hate science - always have. Remember how they persecuted Galileo?

They don't move with the times when it comes to sexual practices either, although, ironically, the Catholics are the one's that go around preaching chastity and sexual probity but, in many of their churches, behind the vestry's closed door the priest is queering up a choirboy.

1992: Catholic Church apologizes to Galileo, who died in 1642. Clearly, the Catholic Church isn't against science, they're just 350 years behind it's advances. All Catholics will accept evolution in 2209, which will be 350 years after the publishing of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species in 1859.

The Catholic Church has provided many great scientists. Galileo was Catholic and remained one until he died. Where did your universities originate?, who brought teaching to the masses?.
Give me one other example were the Catholic Church has denied anything scientific.
The Catholic Church does not oppose evolution.
The person who you posted your response to is a nothing more than a bigotted, close minded, secterian who made that post without thinking first.

"Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth"

Pope Pius IX

In other words if it goes completely against dogma of the Church it must be wrong. The Church in her wisdom is infallible when it comes to dogma. For an example if science were to say tommorrow we know for a fact God does not exist. The Catholic Church would have to say no this is wrong, that science is only purporting something as fact when it is not. The Church would will and has done on many occassions change it's mind regarding certain things, but not whn it comes to doctrine. Science has made mistakes before and has reported things as fact when they were not. The Church maks mistakes and science makes mistakes. When science has proved 100% that something is tru the Church accepts it, but science has claimed things to be true in the past when they were not true. Anything that is fact will not contradict Church doctrine because it is an impossibilty, something in error however could possibly contradict the doctrine of the Church.

Name a theory in all of science capable of "proving" anything.

Also, you do know "man was not specially created" was against church doctrine, right?

It would no longer be a theory if it had proof, I do not get your point. Also man is specially created, why do scientists now believe we are not special?, if so then science is in error. Human kind is special. That is exactly the type of thing the Church speaks of when science says things as if it is truth when in fact it is not true. Like when science claims to know where man came from, or the origin of the species, we simply know this is not true, science has not yet answered these questions.

A theory never graduates from a theory. A theory will never be anything more than a theory. A theory will always be a theory. Proof, evidence, only confirms that a theory is accurate, but its not like more evidence or more proof makes a theory into something else.

The fact that you said this, shows that you have a fundemental misunderstanding, an ignorance of science and what constitutes as a theory.

Also, how is man special, and how do you know that when science claims to know where man came from or the origin of species, that this is not true? Science has answered these questions.

Where has man came from then?. What is the origin of species?. For I bleieve I know, but I cannot prove it, nor can science.

Man came from an ape-ancestor. The origin of species is natural selection, mutation.

That answers nothing were did the ape ancestor come from? you have not given me the origin.

What do you mean by "The origin"? Are you talking about the ultimate origin of ALL life?

Mutated from what?.

From previous organisms. It depends on which species youre talking about. The evolution of the horse, for example, shows the diversity of the "Horse" species from the "Dog" species. The Horse evolved, mutated from a previous horse-like species that shared more characteristics with Dogs than with modern horses.

Yes, the origin of all life, it was you who told me science had answered these questions. I said it had not and that I believed I knew the answers though I could not prove them, nor could science. I was informed that science had answered the question of the origin of man, and the origin of species.

You said the origin of species and where man came from. You didnt say the origin of life.

Do you understand the difference between "Origin of species" and "Origin of life"? One is the origin of life, the other is the origin for the diversity of the species, which does not require an explanation to the origin of life.

Yes, science has answered the question of the origin of man and the origin of species. Science has not answered the origin of life. Those are fundementally different things. One is abiogenesis, the origin of life, and the other is evolution, the origin of species and of man.

At 5/19/2012 2:23:40 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
When has a animal turned into a different species we have seen?

Speciation has been observed.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

I understand it well you seem not too.

Okay. Then please present your evidence or arguments that demonstrate how this is impossible.

It is the truth. It is documented by people viewing it and observing it.

Well, its not necessarily the truth, but sure.

And guess what. The earth documents the past too. We dont need a direct observer to conclude what happened.

Take this as an example. Pluto has an orbiting period(Completes a full orbit around the sun) of 250 years. But we have only known about its existance for about 100 years. So, how would we know that Pluto has completed a full orbit around the sun, or that it ever will?

Are you serious?you are playing right?

No, im not.

IDK the word speciation is not evolve, is it? BTW speciation is simliar to speculation.

Speciation is the same as the word Evolve. Just like a Rose is a flower. BTW why would it matter, Manslaughter is similar to Mans Laughter, what does any of that have to do with our discussion.

It is like evolution. Though it is not evolution. Specaition is a small scale compared to the large scale origin of species. Also when proving or making claims about the physical do not say compputer antimation as if that will prove anything. And still you do not use impossible correctly. I say God created everything and it is possible. Yoy say that before there was man and after man we will become a entirely new and different species that is impossible. Because as example: A dog cant become a cat. A giraffe can not become a man. These are known impossibilities. It is impossible for me to be a flying reptilian whale in millions of years.

At 5/19/2012 5:34:07 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
It is like evolution. Though it is not evolution. Specaition is a small scale compared to the large scale origin of species. Also when proving or making claims about the physical do not say compputer antimation as if that will prove anything. And still you do not use impossible correctly. I say God created everything and it is possible. Yoy say that before there was man and after man we will become a entirely new and different species that is impossible. Because as example: A dog cant become a cat. A giraffe can not become a man. These are known impossibilities. It is impossible for me to be a flying reptilian whale in millions of years.

Speciation is evolution.
The fact that you are genetically different from your parents is evolution.
Any descent with modification is evolution.

At 5/19/2012 8:15:18 PM, drafterman wrote:

At 5/19/2012 5:34:07 PM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
It is like evolution. Though it is not evolution. Specaition is a small scale compared to the large scale origin of species. Also when proving or making claims about the physical do not say compputer antimation as if that will prove anything. And still you do not use impossible correctly. I say God created everything and it is possible. Yoy say that before there was man and after man we will become a entirely new and different species that is impossible. Because as example: A dog cant become a cat. A giraffe can not become a man. These are known impossibilities. It is impossible for me to be a flying reptilian whale in millions of years.

Speciation is evolution.
The fact that you are genetically different from your parents is evolution.
Any descent with modification is evolution.

I understand that evolution happens on a scale but were we differ is the magnitude of that scale.