I'm anonymous by the way. So, yeah.

Quote:

What about my examples of the coconut crab for instance, having both non-functioning gills, and air-breathing "lungs" that still need some water to function? How do you account for this unless you accept that at some point this animal's ancestors lived wholely in the water?



I love you for bringing this up. Because I'm going to once again use science to show you why your materialistic faith is unfounded.

When I first read this part I thought, 'Man, this might be pretty decent proof towards evolution if its true.' However, unlike you, I prefer to discover things for myself, and pursue the truth instead of simply letting others tell me what the truth is. No offense, but the only way you would use the coconut crab as proof of evolution is if you simply let someone tell you it was proof because in fact the coconut crab is yet another proof that not only is there no such thing as an intermediate adaptation, but there is abundant proof in nature that creatures were created to be perfectly suited to their environment. Not following me? I'll highlight exactly why you're wrong.

Here's a couple links, but don't click them yet. I'll copy and paste a few highlights from them, and then you can click the links to verify that I'm not pulling this stuff from my butt.

http://www.bespokeexperience.com/en/1/coswillancoc.mxs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coconut_crab

edit: I can't find enough information about the larval stage of crabs for now, so I have to leave this statement out. My point still stands just as strong without it anyway, so whatever.

"Afterwards, they live on the ocean floor"

The very same place where they would drown if there GILLS weren't put to good use.

Here's a bit more wisdom from scientists.

"After these 28 days, they leave the ocean permanently and lose the ability to breathe in water."

And lose the ability to breath in water. How, might I ask would they breath in water in the first place? Same as tadpoles: gills. However, unlike tadpoles, they don't completely lose their gills when they mature. So, just because the gills are useless to the adults, doesn't mean they're useless to them altogether. Without the gills, the crab would be extinct within one generation.


Now. If you'll please stop acting like Christians are ignorant and blindly faithful. My 'blind faith' led me to the truth. What did your blind faith do? It misled you.

This is why Christians who understand science find 'materialism' and evolution (not science) to be utterly ridiculous. The only way you can believe in your faith that you've chosen is if you choose to believe a lot of half truths and outright lies.

I could have let myself fall prey to the easy conclusion that the gills were useless, but I thought for a moment, "Maybe there's some point in their life cycle where they become useful." God, in all of his wisdom, adapted these animals perfectly to their environment, not random chance. Believe what you want, but this is yet another illustration of why evolution has no foundation.

Keep 'em coming. Like I said, it only takes a bit of scientific research along with common sense to find the truth that materialists hide from the general public.

You can keep believing in evolution if you want, its your choice, but don't attack christians as if you're above us. We're not the simpletons that the media loves to portray us as. We have the same desire to pursue the truth as anybody else. And I don't care if the pope or any other 'christian' believes in evolution. The Pope himself will have to answer for the lies he helps spread and the souls he's managed to turn away from God in the process, that's for him to deal with. Let's stick to the real issue.

The earth is not billions of years old, and God didn't create life simply to let us be born out of death. If that were so, the entire Bible is compromised and we may as well be animals. In that case, there are no answers in this universe and none of us are better than the most evil of humanity because God has turned his back on us. We weren't created from death, and there's more in our future than death. Nitro, don't compromise that important truth in favor of the views of so called scientists. The truth is on our side.

I challenge anyone on this forum to go back to my original post in this thread and refute ANY of those points. Materialism has no foundation, and while you all love to attack christianity, you failed to defend science on any of the points that I brought up. Quit trying to keep us on the defensive, and if you're so sure you're right, back up your faith with proof. I know you can't, and I'm so sure I'm right that I know that if you actually take the time to research anything I've said you'll realize for yourself that materialism and evolution have no foundation.

But I'm not going to keep discussing this if the only way you people will talk is if its to attack christianity. If christianity is so ridiculous, then let's stick to the scientific. Defend your faith. That's all I ask.

Quote:

So far no evidence has contradicted evolution.



I think I should compile an entire post on the fossil record. Because I'm tired of you guys referring to it, as if the mere mention of it is proof. Use your brain, scientists can't find the real missing links. Lizards with wings? Did it ever occur to scientists that these lizards needed wings to survive? Why do wings automatically mean its intermediate?

If you understood the actual truth behind the fossil record, you would know why it disproves evolution. Go to a museum once. There are all these really amazing dinosaurs, but where are their intermediates? You NEVER see them. Because they don't exist (this is called scientific thinking). You could say that they don't exist because we couldn't possibly find every single intermediate fossil because they don't all become fossilized. Believe that if you want, but you can't form a theory on a lack of evidence. That's unscientific. You either have to find the intermediate fossils, and formulate a theory, or have no theory. You can't formulate a theory and then assume that these fossils exist. That's unscientific and actually its what we Christians love to refer to as circular reasoning.

Ask any scientist to explain to you how we have such a wide variety of these dinosaurs without benefit of a HUGE (or for that matter medium or small) trail of intermediates between them all. They can't answer that question. The lack of evidence logically points to the idea that these animals were simply living at one point, not born from non existent ancestors.

Quote:

because science and the scientific method isn't about proofs



Hmmm...That's scary. I suppose this is how scientists rationalize lying to students all over the entire country.

Quote:

he mainstream of Christians for instance, have learned to accept the Bible as an old group of texts, written and compiled by different poeple, and that many parts of it cannot be taken literally, because they are obviously untrue.



How can someone who doesn't even believe in the Word of God begin to say they understand something about it? If we're not allowed to talk about evolution because we're too ignorant to understand it, then leave the Word of God out of this.

Quote:

You dont know anything about the probabilities of this. How do you calculate this, using your special probability drive?



Actually there is a probability of proteins and amino acids randomly forming. If you compare that to the law of probability (a number set so arbitrarily high that any chance above it is considered scientifically absured), you see that the chance of a protein randomly forming is impossible. The number for the law of probability is 10 to the 51 I believe (I'm using a whole number instead of a fraction to keep things simple). The chance of a protein randomly forming doesn't even come close. Its at least three times as high. Thus making it scientifically absured. Look it up.

And by the way, that's just one protein. Now imagine all the building blocks of life randomly coming together to form a perfectly formed cell and we're talking beyond impossible. Time alone isn't the catalyst for a miracle, which is what life is.

Quote:

I would say the probability of us having evolved on earth is 100%, because it happened.



Do you not see the circular reasoning of this? If probability says we can't have randomly appeared on earth, then wouldn't it be logical to assume we didn't? Saying something had to have happened just because you think it did is, of course, circular reasoning. I could say God created us because here we are. That would also be circular reasoning. However, unlike your side of the argument, I actually have the proof to back it up.

Quote:

So far no evidence has contradicted evolution. On the contrary quite the opposite has happened-- the theory has been validated time after time by new discoveries-- in genetics, molecular, paleontolgy, and comparative anatomy.



To show you why you're wrong, you have to understand that scientists believe the theory is true before proving it. They simply ONLY find truth that collaborates their view. I'll take the theory apart slowly but surely in my posts. But I don't have the time or space on this forum to do it all at once.

The fact is, more and more scientists are starting to understand that spontaneous creation of life and therefore evolution are falling apart the more that science discovers about life. Start at the beginning. What scientists have discovered about the origin of life paints a pretty dreary picture of their theories. I'm sure you won't actually research it, because you're already sure you're right. But I'll dig up that link again anyway, in case you feel like doing a bit of critical thinking.

Here's an interesting link where a few scientists point out that not only is every experiment that attempts to prove that life started randomly failing miserably, but that science textbooks are outright lying about the results to convince our nation's youth that evolution is true.

http://www.arn.org/docs/mills/gm_originoflifeandevolution.htm

This is not only a problem, this is literally brainwashing. Thanks materialism.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 03/31/06 01:03.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."