25% of Americans are idiots

Hmmm...I actually learned a few things here...whether they're true or not I don't know, but...the question I asked as a little kid has never been answered: If a higher being created the universe, who/what created the higher being? And who/what created THAT higher being? And who...

They asked me not to come back to Sunday School. Originally Posted by Prolongus

Funny, the same thing happened to me when I asked them how the salt water animals survived the flood.....

Hmmm...I actually learned a few things here...whether they're true or not I don't know, but...the question I asked as a little kid has never been answered: If a higher being created the universe, who/what created the higher being? And who/what created THAT higher being? And who...

They asked me not to come back to Sunday School. Originally Posted by Prolongus

Some members of the church I went to fumbled their way through that question. Others members made it clear that those kind of questions weren't welcome.

Here is a source I quoted:
Scientific Problems With The Theories Of Charles Darwin

The Theory of Evolution
Much of the following information has been adapted from the work of Dr David Rosevear, UK, web site: www.Creationsciencemovement.co m

Charles Darwin and his book, "The Origin of the Species"

- Charles Darwin wrote "The Origin of the Species" in 1859.

- What he observed was very small variation in the length and breadth of the beaks of finches. Finches are small birds found in the Galapagos
Islands, off the Western cost of South America.

- Darwin actually noted variation within a species, or variation of a kind.

- These variations in the bird's beaks were so minor that later visitors to the Islands had trouble identifying the variations.

- What Darwin actually observed was Micro-Evolution, or variation within one species of bird, which we all see all the time.

- Darwin need not have bothered to travel to the Galapagos Islands to observe Micro-Evolution, or variation within species.

- Everyone sees evidence of variation within a species all the time.

- Darwin did not observe Macro-Evolution, the changing of one species into another, for example a lizard turning into a bird.

- Macro-Evolution has never been observed by anybody.

- Darwin observed variation of a species within a kind, namely Micro-Evolution, which is commonly observed in every country in the world.

Macro-Evolution

- Macro-Evolution is defined as the mutation of one species to another species, and has never been observed.

- Since Evolution is supposed to happen very slowly, there should be plenty of examples of Evolution all around us, with new species being
formed all the time.

- However, no evolutionist has ever actually produced one living example of a species actually changing into another species.

- A number of fossil relics and skeletons have been produced, claiming to demonstrate Macro-Evolution.

- However, these fossil remains are hotly debated, some have been shown to be frauds, and Carbon Dating itself is not accepted by many Creationists.

- If Evolution was true, the total number of species in the world should be increasing every year.

- In fact, the number of species in the world is declining every year, according to the World Wildlife Organisation.

Micro-Evolution

Micro-Evolution is defined as the variation within one kind of species. There are large number of dogs found all over the world. Dog DNA has a gene pool for long legs, short legs, long hair, short hair, large bodies and small bodies etc. Since dogs share the same common gene pool, dogs may be interbred with other kinds of dogs, and the resultant dog is called a mongrel dog, with features common to both parents. The same may be found with cats, horses, rabbits, guinea pigs, and many other animals commonly seen.

However, it is not possible to interbreed a dog with a rabbit. These different species do not share the same gene pool. In rare cases distantly related species may be interbred, such as a horse with a donkey. However, the resultant offspring is invariably sterile, and unable to continue this new "species".

In Contrast with Macro-Evolution, Micro-Evolution is defined as the variation within one kind of species and is very commonly observed. Examples of Micro-Evolution include the variation between kinds of dogs, cats, birds, horses, and ducks.

Charles Darwin need not have bothered to travel to the Galapagos Islands, he could have easily noticed Micro-Evolution amongst domestic pets in his own home, or birds in his own garden.

Charles Darwin did not observe Macro-Evolution, but Micro-Evolution, which is commonly observed on an everyday basis. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

LOL. creationistmovement.com. Yea, I'm sure they're impartial. All you've done is copy and paste for most of this thread.

LOL. creationistmovement.com. Yea, I'm sure they're impartial. Originally Posted by Roger.Smith

Wanna make a fool of a creationist with one question? Ask them to produce ANY breakthroughs that have been made by creation science or ID...EVER? The silence of the morons will be deafening. My thoughts are "how are these people even smart enough to hold a job?"

Prolongus, I am not trying to make this thread about religion. I simply stated there are many holes in Darwin's theory and that Noble Prize winners do not get paid 250k but more like 1.2 million.

However, Mr. Stupid has decided to take my statement to an entirely different level which I will more than happily oblige him at any time.

For Stupid:

Darwin's Theory of Evolution has faced many challenges since the theory was first presented in 1859. Intelligent Design is not even the most serious of these challenges. The most serious challenge to Darwinism was by scientists in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. It resulted in a period called the "Eclipse of Darwinism" that lasted until about 1940. During this period, Darwinism fell out of favour amongst scientists. The problems of heredity, the impasse that Darwin had recognized when he published the Origin of Species, had finally caught up with the theory. Darwin's Theory of Evolution, so often a symbol of the clash of religion and science, was rescued by incorporating the contributions of Gregor Mendel, a Roman Catholic monk. The sponsor for Mendel's research was the Order of St. Augustine in Brno.
By the turn of the twentieth century, Darwin's Theory of Evolution was already falling out of favour as an explanation for evolution. With good reason. Although Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was initially welcomed, there were two very big holes in the theory. One was the explosion of life forms in the early Cambrian period with no apparent transitional forms of life leading up to these species. The other was heredity. Darwin proposed that with the natural variations that occur in populations, any trait that is beneficial would make that individual more likely to survive and pass on the trait to the next generation. If enough of these selections occured on different beneficial traits you could end up with completely new species. But Darwin did not have an explanation for how the traits could be preserved over the succeeding generations. At the time, the prevailing theory of inheritance was that the traits of the parents were blended in the offspring. But this would mean that any beneficial trait would be diluted out of the population within a few generations. This is because most of the blending over the next generations would be with individuals that did not have the trait. Mendel had the answer to Darwin's impasse. Traits were not blended, but inherited whole. And because of Mendel's proposition of recessive and dominant traits, a trait that might disappear in one generation might reappear in the following generation. Mendel's work was incorporated into Darwin's original theory to give us our modern Neo-Darwinism.

Prolongus, I am not trying to make this thread about religion. I simply stated there are many holes in Darwin's theory and that Noble Prize winners do not get paid 250k but more like 1.2 million.

However, Mr. Stupid has decided to take my statement to an entirely different level which I will more than happily oblige him at any time.

For Stupid:

Darwin's Theory of Evolution has faced many challenges since the theory was first presented in 1859. Intelligent Design is not even the most serious of these challenges. The most serious challenge to Darwinism was by scientists in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. It resulted in a period called the "Eclipse of Darwinism" that lasted until about 1940. During this period, Darwinism fell out of favour amongst scientists. The problems of heredity, the impasse that Darwin had recognized when he published the Origin of Species, had finally caught up with the theory. Darwin's Theory of Evolution, so often a symbol of the clash of religion and science, was rescued by incorporating the contributions of Gregor Mendel, a Roman Catholic monk. The sponsor for Mendel's research was the Order of St. Augustine in Brno.
By the turn of the twentieth century, Darwin's Theory of Evolution was already falling out of favour as an explanation for evolution. With good reason. Although Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was initially welcomed, there were two very big holes in the theory. One was the explosion of life forms in the early Cambrian period with no apparent transitional forms of life leading up to these species. The other was heredity. Darwin proposed that with the natural variations that occur in populations, any trait that is beneficial would make that individual more likely to survive and pass on the trait to the next generation. If enough of these selections occured on different beneficial traits you could end up with completely new species. But Darwin did not have an explanation for how the traits could be preserved over the succeeding generations. At the time, the prevailing theory of inheritance was that the traits of the parents were blended in the offspring. But this would mean that any beneficial trait would be diluted out of the population within a few generations. This is because most of the blending over the next generations would be with individuals that did not have the trait. Mendel had the answer to Darwin's impasse. Traits were not blended, but inherited whole. And because of Mendel's proposition of recessive and dominant traits, a trait that might disappear in one generation might reappear in the following generation. Mendel's work was incorporated into Darwin's original theory to give us our modern Neo-Darwinism. Originally Posted by pwood

You think I will waste my time reading lies, I asked you to PRODUCE THE PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL THAT DISPROVES EVOLUTION IN ANY WAY...so easy making fools of morons

Prolongus, I am not trying to make this thread about religion. I simply stated there are many holes in Darwin's theory and that Noble Prize winners do not get paid 250k but more like 1.2 million.

However, Mr. Stupid has decided to take my statement to an entirely different level which I will more than happily oblige him at any time.

For Stupid:

Darwin's Theory of Evolution has faced many challenges since the theory was first presented in 1859. Intelligent Design is not even the most serious of these challenges. The most serious challenge to Darwinism was by scientists in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century. It resulted in a period called the "Eclipse of Darwinism" that lasted until about 1940. During this period, Darwinism fell out of favour amongst scientists. The problems of heredity, the impasse that Darwin had recognized when he published the Origin of Species, had finally caught up with the theory. Darwin's Theory of Evolution, so often a symbol of the clash of religion and science, was rescued by incorporating the contributions of Gregor Mendel, a Roman Catholic monk. The sponsor for Mendel's research was the Order of St. Augustine in Brno.
By the turn of the twentieth century, Darwin's Theory of Evolution was already falling out of favour as an explanation for evolution. With good reason. Although Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was initially welcomed, there were two very big holes in the theory. One was the explosion of life forms in the early Cambrian period with no apparent transitional forms of life leading up to these species. The other was heredity. Darwin proposed that with the natural variations that occur in populations, any trait that is beneficial would make that individual more likely to survive and pass on the trait to the next generation. If enough of these selections occured on different beneficial traits you could end up with completely new species. But Darwin did not have an explanation for how the traits could be preserved over the succeeding generations. At the time, the prevailing theory of inheritance was that the traits of the parents were blended in the offspring. But this would mean that any beneficial trait would be diluted out of the population within a few generations. This is because most of the blending over the next generations would be with individuals that did not have the trait. Mendel had the answer to Darwin's impasse. Traits were not blended, but inherited whole. And because of Mendel's proposition of recessive and dominant traits, a trait that might disappear in one generation might reappear in the following generation. Mendel's work was incorporated into Darwin's original theory to give us our modern Neo-Darwinism. Originally Posted by pwood

The Jeopardy theme is playing for you now, you're on the clock, and failing MISERABLY

I doubt you can read let alone know the diference between truth and lies. That came from a scientific source.

I'll tell you what find a peer reviewed scientific journal supporting Darwin in his entirity.

BTW Stupid I never said his theory had no merits I stated their are holes in it which have been proven, and I am not discussing religion but scientific facts.

I doubt you can read let alone know the diference between truth and lies. That came from a scientific source.

I'll tell you what find a peer reviewed scientific journal supporting Darwin in his entirity.

BTW Stupid I never said his theory had no merits I stated their are holes in it which have been proven, and I am not discussing religion but scientific facts. Originally Posted by pwood

No, foolish child, it did not, you are merely ducking and dodging like a child, scared to delve in and find out what real truth is, why is why you run like a pussy from answering my question...either that or you're just too stupid to know what role peer reviews play in the scientific process.....which is it? and keep crying like a little bitch since you cannot back your lies, it's just the best you can do, isn't it?

Now I am done with this as I am not going to get pulled in any farther than I already have by an obvious coward who hides behind a keyboard calling people names.

You know how to find me if you would like to discuss this matter in person

Have a nice day

Now I am done with this as I am not going to get pulled in any farther than I already have by an obvious coward who hides behind a keyboard calling people names.

You know how to find me if you would like to discuss this matter in person

Have a nice day Originally Posted by pwood

You're far too stupid to even address me, I will be at Buffalo Wild Wings Waxahachie tonight. I am very easy to spot, 6'1" about 200 pounds, will have a white UNT cap on..and I have no idea how to find you, my best bet would be in a mental institution for the educationally challenged....run off, you'd been made a fool and I will make you a bigger one if u stay

My bad one last scientific fact for Stupid

Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500 genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution.

BTW it's 72.3 miles from my hme to Buffalo Wildwings that would be the farthest drive I've made for pussy

BTW it's 72.3 miles from my hme to Buffalo Wildwings that would be the farthest drive I've made for pussy Originally Posted by pwood

LOL!

BTW it's 72.3 miles from my hme to Buffalo Wildwings that would be the farthest drive I've made for pussy Originally Posted by pwood

You mean the farthest drive you have ever made to get your pansy ass handed to you? And you have no scientific facts little one, you do not even understand what peer review is you're so shit stupid