i cant resist: PEPSI!

oh and about the half monkey half man: ever heard of a creature named lucy?
no?
well...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_%28Australopithecus%29

yes, but that is still a far distance from a monkey

Please learn some things about evolution before demanding "half-man-half-monkeys" --there is no such thing. Monkeys and humans share a very ancient common ancestor, thats all.

evolution doesnt work in the way you seem to think it does.

Yep. lostclimate, please dont argue against evolution if you dont know what it says.

Here is a paper written by dr Spetner. It contains points from his book.

http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.asp

spike, if you want to argue for evolution, dont come with ridiculous 'evidence' like lucy. Dont embarrass the evolutionists camp.

It's funny the article is full of random this and random that, but selection is not random. Mutations may be random the way we perceive them, but doesn't have to be. Live a few years near a contaminated area and mutations will be the result as can be witnissed even today;

http://www.oasisllc.com/abgx/effects.htm

Quote:

---

Since Evolution A is not an observable, it can only be substantiated by circumstantial evidence. This circumstantial evidence is principally the fossil record, amino-acid-sequence comparisons, and comparative anatomy. Circumstantial evidence must be accompanied by a theory of how it relates to what is to be proved.

---

Dr. Spetner's reasoning in the mentioned article is odd by the way, basically he claims we may only 'zoom in' instead of 'zoom out' to see the bigger picture based upon the current evidence.

However evidence should be the backbone of a theory, not the other way around. Personally I wouldn't call it circumstantitial evidence, but in the case of Evolution A the evidence we are talking about is infact true evidence especially since the full process of macro-evolution is not observable. You can't reproduce that in the timespan of a humanlife or even in a dozen or perhaps even in a million lifetimes because it goes at a crawling speed, sometimes may stop when in equilibrium and after that change rapidly. This can all be seen in the fossil record, amino-acid-sequence comparisons and comparative anatomy studies. So again, infact this is evidence,

Cheers

OK. Consider this my last reply to you. I encourage you to buy dr Spetnet's book, and do some other research on sites that are not driven by the fascist neo darwin community.

This article might be very awkward to you, but please try to read it with an open mind.

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp

Cheers

I don't think he could change my view considering his little article I've just read, besides currently I'm still reading Richard Dawkins' books.

Quote:

---

This article might be very awkward to you, but please try to read it with an open mind.

---

Right ... you must be very open minded person when you consider the neo darwinian evolutionists to be fascists.

Again the people you quote seem to have little understanding of the exact theory of evolution and the creationist of the last article comes with rather pointless arguments.

He starts with assuming 'if God did xyz then ...', he talks as if thát assumption is truth and derives all arguments from that point of view and dismisses the real evidence.

Quote:

---

The alleged prediction and fulfillment are:
1. If universal common ancestry is true, then all organisms will have one or more traits in common.
2. All organisms have one or more traits in common.

---

Questioning both 1 and 2 shows that he doesn't quite understand the full effects of evolution and how it works. If a species evolves into another and into another and into another then eventually it will be alienated enough from his ancient ancestors to have become rather different, so this alleged prediction doesn't need to be as in real visible traits. Apart from that a lot of species do have a lot in common take for example universal commons like blood, bones, skin tissue, hair, eyes, ears, noses and limbs and it's functions. This may vary along certain species types, but basically there's really enough to say that a universal common ancestor is very plausible (eventhough it probably would be the very first living cell or whatever considering the many many branches of species evolution has caused).

Cheers

Having read only the first ten pages and then switched to pages 47-50, I'll just make some statement as to the "Why is earth the way it is?" thing. People tend to say that there has to be some kind of creator at work because otherwise you can't explain why earth is *just* the way it is, which seems to be *just* the only way it *can* exist. If you changed even some tiny parameters, earth becomes uninhabitable ...

Well, let me explain it this way: Take some standard-fantasy-novel about a brave young man who has to destroy some dark evil overlord despite thousands of dangerous situations and who is at the edge of dying about every half second or so.

In the end, he wins. Despite 8 thousand chances to die, he didn't. He lived. Now how unlikely is this? Why didn't he just die on his quest? You may answer it's good old "it's the way it is BECAUSE it's the way it is". But that's not the right answer.

The right answer is: There were thousends of thousands of young heroes who went out to destroy the evil overlord, but obviously the story is about the one who achieved his goals, because otherwise it wouldn't make any sense to write about it. To draw you a picture of this: Let's say you got millions of dangers on the way, for expample a hungry wolf, a poisonous snake, a crumbling cliff. And so on.

Hero #1 sets off and hey, he's lucky and passes Hungry Wolf while it's fast asleep. He accidentally steps onto the Poisonous Snakes head and gets away alive, but then he reaches for some stone at Crumbling Cliff and off he goes. Dead.

Hero #2 sets off but is somewhat unlucky as he runs straight into Hungry Wolf and gets eaten.

Hero #3 sets off but dies of lungcancer before even reaching Wolf or Snake.

[Put in Hero#4 - Hero#8394875436754348 here]

So HERE goes Hero#8394875436754349, and hey, THAT guy's a lucky bastard. Gets past thousands of dangers without taking any harm and kills the evil Overlord. Dammit, that guy's good!

Or wait - isn't he? Was he just lucky?

The reason why he managed to kill the Overlord is simple: Nature (you may call it Evolution) gave it a thousands or even a million tries. Even if try # 8 million doesn't work, maybe some future hero will achieve it. Nature will try on and on, regardless how many heroes it has to send out. And in the end, there will be one to manage it at least.
So this book you read about a hero who survives a thousand dangers is in fact not a book about a man with an unbevlievable amount of luck. It's just a book about the one man out of millions who did not fail where all the others failed.


I think you got the same type of "storytelling" on planet earth: There are millions (well, I think infinite, but let's put that aside for now) of planets in the universe that gave "Life" a try. They failed. But there are millions more on which project "Life" was a success. Now a few millions of planets gave project "Human" a try. Not all of them were successful.

Well, maybe there is only ONE planet that made it in the end (though I don't believe that).

But ONE is just enough to produce humans who will then go and ask: WHY the hell are we here? Why is everything JUST the way it is and not a tiny bit changed?

In fact, it is. But luckily not on this planet.

This is iteresting.

web page