The Theory of Evolution is supported by the evidence.

[Orias]

Danman, I hope you are not taking the put downs to heart. I got shot down in a thread someone having cited the fruit fly was an example of evolution. My comment being that there is no evidence. Not making myself to be something I am not I went and researched it. In actual fact the fruit fly began as such and ended as a fruit fly with more wings.. which is adaptation. It never became a new species. In fact if anything, the accelerated evolution produced mostly inferior fruit flys. So it was the misinformed tryng to argue with the misinformed.
"Is the Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Really a Million Years Old?" is Copyright 1998, by Keith Swenson shows how 10 year old lava was dated at millions of years old. Yet it is the basis of scientific data.

I am pretty sure that adaptation is evolving to the enviroment around them. And what about the last bolded sentence? It is the knowledge of scientific data. What about it?


The more I read about genetics the more I see a bunch of confused scientists going around in circles. Sure poking holes in evolutionary theory does not make creation right. However poking holes in creationist ideas does not make evolution a fact either. I enjoyed your posts and understood the points you were making. [/quote]

I disagree, genetics plays a big role in produce and farm distributors. Certain bulls are bread to carry good genetics to pass on and enhance the outcome of the product.

 

[painted wolf]

Considering how central genetics is to agriculture, medicine, history and biology today it's (almost) a wonder that people still misinformed enough to post some of the things they do.

wa:do

 

[Orias]

Some people just can't accept what is...

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Not making myself to be something I am not I went and researched it.

In an effort to not further embarrass yourself, you might want to do some more research.

Oh - and next time, try something other than "Answers in Genesis" for your source. Heck - you might even try a peer reviewed article that has been published in a real science magazine, like SCIENCE (published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science).

Food for thought.

 

[newhope101]

Some forum posters come with an inquiring mind. Great! Some come thinking that another that cannot see their point of view is a moron. Pathetic.

No refute of the misguided dating on the lava flo. Don't see anyone refuting there is disagreement within the scientific communtiy on this stuff at all. Oh.. that's right you've worked out who's research is valid and that which is not. Such is the wisdom of a year 2 biology student. Get over youselves.

 

[darkendless]

Its sad to see people completely dismiss quality science because there are disagreements.

I wish people in this world would take their religion goggles off and use their gift, the gift of a brain and freedom to use the damn thing. If a man in the sky is the best they can do, then its a wasted gift.

 

[Autodidact]

Danman, I hope you are not taking the put downs to heart. I got shot down in a thread someone having cited the fruit fly was an example of evolution. My comment being that there is no evidence. Not making myself to be something I am not I went and researched it. In actual fact the fruit fly began as such and ended as a fruit fly with more wings.. which is adaptation. It never became a new species. In fact if anything, the accelerated evolution produced mostly inferior fruit flys. So it was the misinformed tryng to argue with the misinformed.
"Is the Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Really a Million Years Old?" is Copyright 1998, by Keith Swenson shows how 10 year old lava was dated at millions of years old. Yet it is the basis of scientific data.

Swenson is wrong. I think he's deliberately wrong, but in any case, he's wrong. The key is:

[FONT=Book Antiqua, Times New Roman, Times]Considering that the half-life of potassium-40 (40K) is fairly long (1,250 million years, McDougall and Harrison, 1999, p. 9), the K-Ar method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old (Dalrymple, 1991, p. 93).

I doubt that you understand the significance of this. A complete refutation is here.
This was explained to you once. It's as though they measured an atom with a butcher's scale and complained that it showed zero. They used the wrong dating method, and they should have known that.
[/FONT]

The more I read about genetics the more I see a bunch of confused scientists going around in circles. Sure poking holes in evolutionary theory does not make creation right. However poking holes in creationist ideas does not make evolution a fact either. I enjoyed your posts and understood the points you were making.

Really? You've read genetics? What have you read? What did you understand?

I'm sure you're right. Scientists are idiots. Science doesn't work. We shouldn't even bother with it.

Tell us, newhope, what is your hypothesis? Exactly how did God create the many species we see on earth today? Be specific.

 

[Autodidact]

Some forum posters come with an inquiring mind. Great! Some come thinking that another that cannot see their point of view is a moron. Pathetic.

No refute of the misguided dating on the lava flo. Don't see anyone refuting there is disagreement within the scientific communtiy on this stuff at all. Oh.. that's right you've worked out who's research is valid and that which is not. Such is the wisdom of a year 2 biology student. Get over youselves.

Wow, are you deliberately lying, or did you not see painted wolf's post destroying your bogus lava flo bologna?

 

[David M]

Some forum posters come with an inquiring mind. Great! Some come thinking that another that cannot see their point of view is a moron. Pathetic.

No refute of the misguided dating on the lava flo. Don't see anyone refuting there is disagreement within the scientific communtiy on this stuff at all. Oh.. that's right you've worked out who's research is valid and that which is not. Such is the wisdom of a year 2 biology student. Get over youselves.

You mean except for this refute that I posted 2 days ago? The one that you have yet to respond to.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2049812-post710.html

Want to provide any more examples of your duplicity and dishonourable behavior?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Some forum posters come with an inquiring mind. Great! Some come thinking that another that cannot see their point of view is a moron. Pathetic.

Let me apologize, newhope. I guess I didn't make myself clear. I don't think some creationists are morons because we disagree. I think some creationists are morons because of how incredibly dull their minds are. The same is true of the intellectual dishonesty. Some creationists are just ignorant, due to a lack of a solid education (but they can still be helped). On the other hand, some creationists are just lying to themselves, and they want the rest of us to act as if their lack of courage (to challenge their own belief system) is just an honest disagreement on how to interpret the evidence presented to them. That is moronic.

Hopefully, you can figure out where you fall on that continuum.

No refute of the misguided dating on the lava flo. Don't see anyone refuting there is disagreement within the scientific communtiy on this stuff at all.

Do you understand how science works? No? Should we chalk that up to simple ignorance, hoping that you will educate yourself by taking some basic classes, or have you already had them, and are just being obtuse?

Oh.. that's right you've worked out who's research is valid and that which is not. Such is the wisdom of a year 2 biology student. Get over youselves.

Being petulant when the answers don't come out the way you want them to isn't going to change the truth. That is the nature of challenging your beliefs. If you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question.

 

[Krok]

"Is the Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Really a Million Years Old?" is Copyright 1998, by Keith Swenson shows how 10 year old lava was dated at millions of years old. Yet it is the basis of scientific data.

I see that you are one of those who ignores evidence provided. Typical creationist. You have been presented the evidence of why the "study" done by the creationists on Mt St Helens was wrong. You just ignore it.

If you want to get reliable studies, you go to a scientific publication. In the case of wanting to investigate rock dating methods, you go to a Geological Journal. Studies published there are peer-reviewed by other Geologists, and studies containing basic errors like the one made in this particular Mt. St. Helens case will be rectified before it is published. That's the way all proper scientific publications work.

You, on the other hand, got your information from Answers in Genesis, a religious publication, where they only pretend to be scientific. Their scientific information is not reliable. They only use sciency sounding names to mislead people like you.

You named Keith Swenson showing how the lava was dated. He was a medical doctor, with no knowledge of Geology. Why would you believe him above real Geologists? If that's the way you go about things, you should be consistent and go see a Geologist for treatment next time you fall seriously ill.

Mount St. Helens is not the basis for scientific data at all. This statement of yours doen't make any sense.

 

[painted wolf]

Actually I (and at least one other)refuted the Lava flow bunk in another thread... to you.

Perhaps you missed it? If you didn't... reposting the argument does not make it magically unrefuted.

wa:do

 

[Krok]

Actually I (and at least one other)refuted the Lava flow bunk in another thread... to you.
Perhaps you missed it? If you didn't... reposting the argument does not make it magically unrefuted.
wa:do

Hi painted wolf

Are you adressing newhope101?

 

[painted wolf]

Hi painted wolf

Are you adressing newhope101?

Yup.

wa:do

 

[Orias]

Some forum posters come with an inquiring mind. Great! Some come thinking that another that cannot see their point of view is a moron. Pathetic.

Who are you to judge us?

The error of your ways.
Is blinded by the madness of your creation.

All we do is seek knowledge and rational prove of your disagreements.

No refute of the misguided dating on the lava flo. Don't see anyone refuting there is disagreement within the scientific communtiy on this stuff at all. Oh.. that's right you've worked out who's research is valid and that which is not. Such is the wisdom of a year 2 biology student. Get over youselves.

More like you, get over yourself. You don't know any of us.

To make such an ill-witted statement is asinine.

What makes you better?

It is the simple argument of Evolution vs. Creationism.

Here is something for you to look at...

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/ardipithecus/ardipithecus.html

 

[newhope101]

I'll only slap someone that slaps me first. After initially coming here for a chat with others that have not totally worked it it out, i find many that are prepared to be condescending to those that know less than they. I saw no criterion for one to be 132 club member or portray some intellectual advantage over others.

Hey...one thing granted I came to forum very uneducated in relaton to recent data. And hey... that's what I was doing here. What about you?? But the rudeness and lack of ability to provide information repectfully to the less educated makes this not the forum to learn. So I went and looked at what's out there as best as I could understand.

So some of what I learned was this. Scientists believe that evolution is a fact because humans have very similar genetics to primates and we were not created so we had to come from somewhere. I read of scientific debates around Neanderthal being no more different to us than we are to each other. Which makes sense seeing as humans were already here and bred with neanderthal to make humans. How's that for logic. Others assert we are closer to apes than neanderthal. Others say neanderthal were human others say not. Older research purports we came from Africa other research that maintains we did not. Research that suggests chomosome 2 was present in neanderthal. Two versions of how we got chromosome 2 both requiring a successful mutation of a gene that does not appear to have any advantage..yet proliferated, junk DNA MAYBE not so junky....and so the saga goes on. This info was not gleaned from creationist sites.. SOME evolutionists are too narrow minded to even admit there is debate around.. so I ask you who is uninformed.. as this is the idea I had initially anyway. It really appears to be a case of whose version you wish to accept given most of us are not scientifically educated to a degree as to debate research findings.

Pretty much all that appears to be agreed on by scientists is that we were not created and the most likely scenario is we evolved from primates because they have the most similar genes. How, when, where and why is still being heatedly debated in the scientific community. So this is what calling evolution a 'fact' is all about. Are you serious? Or perhaps not so open minded as you would like to think you are!

It seems after looking deeper and trying to educate myself I still see no reason to call or insinuate anything a creationist has to say is stupid or not based on evidence. If anything I feel you have less to sprooke about than before I had a read.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'll only slap someone that slaps me first. After initially coming here for a chat with others that have not totally worked it it out, i find many that are prepared to be condescending to those that know less than they. I saw no criterion for one to be 132 club member or portray some intellectual advantage over others.

If I were capable of feeling shame, I would feel it. I was astonished too that you were given the choice of being stupid, dishonest or both. I am a fire breathing take-the-lord's-name-in-vain heathen who sees evolution as factual, but gosh darn golly, we need to treat you guys with civility, lest interesting discourse be chased away. Many of my respected friends are creationist fundies, & we don't let a disagreement about things which don't exist get in our way. It's our job to explain why we see evolution as a very useful theory, not to berate you. I don't know what gets into people when they're on internet forums. Personally, I don't see creationists as stupid or dishonest (although some of youz guyz are, just as we are), but rather you start with a very very different way of seeing & thinking about things. Some people are so sure they're right, that holding contrary views is a personal affront to them. If you ever find a cure for this, please let me know.

 

[newhope101]

So Revoltingest, I have been trying to find a little more about these humans that were about at the same time as neanderthals and mated. This was meant to explain neanderthal genes in us and to account for a larger brain. This sounds confusing. Can you or anyone explain this pitched at a not too technical level? From what I have read neanderthals could get about today in a suit. No doubt there is a refute to this also but this has been postulated quite a bit within the scientific community. To a degree one can assume that if mating occurred the neanderthal would not have looked too different to the human (otherwise it's beastiality). So neanderthal & human mated to evolve into humans. I understand chromosome 2 was already in situ with both species. It appears to me that both were human with less difference than maybe you and I.

To creationists neanderthals explain the nephelim that were on the earth prior to the flood. They are said to be the men of fame and were stronger, smarter... pretty well in line with what has been found by scientists. Just a creationists interpretation/hypothesis of the evidence. They disappeared suddenly which of course is explained by the flood.

 

[painted wolf]

So after looking at the research on the net It apears that the only thing scientists agree on is that humans came from primates because our genes are very similar and we had to come from somewhere.

And thanks to a pretty good fossil record, and similarities in anatomy, protein structure, disease vulnerabilities, molecular analysis, and so on. But genetics is a solid start.

I've read about neanderthal and humans mating to produce a human(oh that makes sense), some disagree,

Nothing that is yet proven, but there is some interesting work that will be done now that we have the Neanderthal genome sequenced.
Neanderthal genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

some say we came from Africa but a Romanian find changed all that.

No, not really... you must have misread. The oldest modern humans in Europe were found there (as well as a probable new hominid), but not the oldest ever.. those are still African.
Oldest Human Fossils Identified

Some scientists claim neanderthals were human or Neanderthals are no more different to humans than we are from each other,

Now that we have the Neanderthal genome mapped, we know they were a distinct species.
Neanderthal genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

a chromosone mutation gave us a lesser chomosome count and chomosone 2,

yup
Chromosome fusion

and this mutant offspring was fortunate enough to survive against the odds and proliferate although the mutation appears to have no advantage,

There was no disadvantage either.

there are 2 ways chromo 2 may be explained,

Orly?

junk DNA is not so junky,

actually it is. Broken genes, while they may have once worked, are still junk. Introns, ERV's and Pseudogenes especially.

bone material can be contaminated by human touch and bacteria

.

Good thing we have sterile techniques.

Scientists continue to have heated debate over the how, when , where and why of evolution.

that is a good thing.. they have these debates about gravity too. This is what happens in science.

So this is the 'fact' of evolution.

I think you have some facts mixed up.

No evolutionist has the right to have a go at a creationist and say they are silly for believing in myth. I'm more convinced of this after having a read of what's out there than before.

Agreed... they should call them silly for saying they are scientific when they are not. Then politely point out where they are wrong about science, the scientific method and help them find out what the actual facts are.

wa:do

 

[Revoltingest]

So Revoltingest, I have been trying to find a little more about these humans that were about at the same time as neanderthals and mated. This was meant to explain neanderthal genes in us and to account for a larger brain. This sounds confusing. Can you or anyone explain this pitched at a not too technical level? From what I have read neanderthals could get about today in a suit. No doubt there is a refute to this also but this has been postulated quite a bit within the scientific community. To a degree one can assume that if mating occurred the neanderthal would not have looked too different to the human (otherwise it's beastiality). So neanderthal & human mated to evolve into humans. I understand chromosome 2 was already in situ with both species. It appears to me that both were human with less difference than maybe you and I.

To creationists neanderthals explain the nephelim that were on the earth prior to the flood. They are said to be the men of fame and were stronger, smarter... pretty well in line with what has been found by scientists. Just a creationists interpretation/hypothesis of the evidence. They disappeared suddenly which of course is explained by the flood.

Alas, I'm not familiar with humans back then. I can barely cope with modern ones. the forum at The History Channel has some posters who'd likely know much more.
But it seems clear that Neanderthals weren't smarter than humans.