Post Any Evidence For God Here

[Symmetry]

There is no fossil record of transitional creatures

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

Idiot.

[Viceroy63]

The human female ovum (egg) has a shell around it to seal and protect the chromosomes from being fertilized by the wrong kind of creature. There is only one kind of creature on earth that has the proper enzyme to dissolve this shell for fertilization. It's the human male.

It would be possible for an animal of a different type to develop this enzyme due to a defect in their gene code.

Actually it is more accurate to say that every Species on the planet has the genes to potentially create the right enzyme for the purpose of impregnating any other species thus creating a kind of hybrid animal. But the genes that can do that are turned off. In each species, only the right genes that can create the right enzymes for the purpose of impregnating it's own kind is turned on. But the codes are written down into every species of the same comparable level of complexity.

We do however see this principle at work in the case of the "Liger." Half Lion and half Tiger, Ligers are born sterile and unable to create other ligers because those genes are turned off. Thus Ligers are born the last of their kind. But the genes that can create the right enzymes for the cross "kind" (I dare not use the word Species here), are apparently turned on or very much similar between Male Lions and female Tigers.



How this is done, men of science still do not have a clue. But the DNA of every Creature is like a parts list that is checked off. Yes to this one and no to that one and yes to the other one and no to that other one still. And on and on it goes down the DNA parts list as each part on the list on each DNA in every cell in every species of animal, is checked on or off for the creation of it's own kind and no other. This is truly the hand of God at work and the power of God to be able to make a species Barren or able to bare children. As it is recorded in the Bible that God opens up the womb or closes it as he desires (Genesis 49:25).

"As thou knowest not what [is] the way of the spirit, [nor] how the bones [do grow] in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all."
-Ecclesiaste 11:5

Scientist are still uncertain as to the actual act of creation in the woman's womb. How do the cells know how to divide and stop dividing and create just the right organs and such. That cells divide is common knowledge but how do they know how to divide to create the complexity of all the organs still remains a mystery to science. But the Holy Bible is very clear on this this point.

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb."
-Psalm 139:13
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no fossil record of transitional creatures

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

Idiot.

Symmetry; There are no transitional species because each species is a completely created creature. There are no half and half's in the fossil records. There are different types of dogs but they are all dogs. None are half dog and half cat.

Because an animal has a feature such as teeth or a bill similar to another creature does not make it a transitional species. It is a complete creature with those attributes. But there are no fossils in the rocks that show the transition from one species to another.

Only Darwinist would have you believe that a Duck billed Platypus is a transitional species but it is clearly a complete creature that share similar attributes of other animals. For the platypus to be a transitional species, we need to see the species that it came from. And there simply is no records in the rocks that the platypus for example, or any creature arriving from another.

[Symmetry]

The human female ovum (egg) has a shell around it to seal and protect the chromosomes from being fertilized by the wrong kind of creature. There is only one kind of creature on earth that has the proper enzyme to dissolve this shell for fertilization. It's the human male.

It would be possible for an animal of a different type to develop this enzyme due to a defect in their gene code.

Actually it is more accurate to say that every Species on the planet has the genes to potentially create the right enzyme for the purpose of impregnating any other species thus creating a kind of hybrid animal. But the genes that can do that are turned off. In each species, only the right genes that can create the right enzymes for the purpose of impregnating it's own kind is turned on. But the codes are written down into every species of the same comparable level of complexity.

We do however see this principle at work in the case of the "Liger." Half Lion and half Tiger, Ligers are born sterile and unable to create other ligers because those genes are turned off. Thus Ligers are born the last of their kind. But the genes that can create the right enzymes for the cross "kind" (I dare not use the word Species here), are apparently turned on or very much similar between Male Lions and female Tigers.



How this is done, men of science still do not have a clue. But the DNA of every Creature is like a parts list that is checked off. Yes to this one and no to that one and yes to the other one and no to that other one still. And on and on it goes down the DNA parts list as each part on the list on each DNA in every cell in every species of animal, is checked on or off for the creation of it's own kind and no other. This is truly the hand of God at work and the power of God to be able to make a species Barren or able to bare children. As it is recorded in the Bible that God opens up the womb or closes it as he desires (Genesis 49:25).

"As thou knowest not what [is] the way of the spirit, [nor] how the bones [do grow] in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all."
-Ecclesiaste 11:5

Scientist are still uncertain as to the actual act of creation in the woman's womb. How do the cells know how to divide and stop dividing and create just the right organs and such. That cells divide is common knowledge but how do they know how to divide to create the complexity of all the organs still remains a mystery to science. But the Holy Bible is very clear on this this point.

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb."
-Psalm 139:13

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/09/120921-liliger-liger-lion-tiger-big-cats-animals-science/

Google must make your life tough. I'm guessing you'll be moving the goalposts on this farce.

[crispybits]

Evolution, as scientifically described, looks like this:



Each red circle is a different genus, and between each generation of red circles on this "family tree" there may be thousands or millions of years, and hundreds or thousands of generations. Evolution doesn't predict large viable populations of cross breeds, once a branch down the tree has been taken then it's very unlikely, unless environmental factors revert back to a state they were in for the previous generation exactly, that we will move back up a branch. In that top line of red circles each species cannot interbreed because of the sperm/ova enzymes he describes, and within each of these red circles there can be massive variation of types of species within the genus.

Now what he seems to be describing is that evolution looks like this:



With the new blue lines and green circles representing cross breeds, where two different genuses have interbred and produced the new genuses indicated by the green circles. He says that the failure to find this invalidates the evolutionary theory.

Now either he (and all other creationists that use this tired argument) are due a Nobel prize for disproving one of the fundamental theories of biology, or they are talking complete nonsense and do not understand what evolution actually says (or are wilfully misrepresenting it to fit their own world views). If the argument was sound, then scientists the world over would be making it - the job of scientists is to prove other scientists wrong, and the highest accolades in science go to the scientists who disprove the most fundamental theories we have accepted over time. Give me a list of the 5 most famous scientists, and I'll either show you people who came up with the first groundings for explaining something previously mysterious, or people who took someone else's work and caused a paradigm shift within science to a whole new way of thinking about how the universe worked and proved a previously accepted theory wrong.

Dr Lawrence, I provided a post that detailed the exact problems with your theory as far as genetics go, with scientific facts to back it up, and told you exactly how to counter my argument, but instead of meeting that challenge you just went off on several other tangents about radiometric dating. Now you're back to genetics maybe you could answer it:

Well, there is no single definition of species that is universal to all arguments (click for details). Ernst May's definition, used in many textbooks, is "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups". This satisfies everything in your list, including the first 3 points which seem to be your main point of attack on the theory of evolution.

A definition of what a species is doesn't prove evolution, but if you're going to argue for an alternative then we need to crystallise where the difference is. Evolution as a theory has made predictions which have been found to be true as our knowledge of genetics and technology to allow genetic mapping have advanced. For instance, it was found that chimpanzees have 48 chromosones, and humans only have 46. Before we could fully map the genetic codes, there was a strong argument that this showed that we could not be as closely (or at all) related to chimpanzees as evolution predicted, and that evolution had failed as a theory.

With the advent of more advanced techniques, we have found a fused chromosone within the genetic code of humans. We know it's fused because a chromosone will have a certain structure. Without bombarding the thread with images, imagine a chromosone as EGGGAGGGE where the Gs are genetic information, the A is a dominant protein(?), and the Es are end markers which define where the chromosone starts and ends. We've found these in the overall chimpanzee and human genetic code:

Chimp: EGGGAGGGE EGGGAGGGE (two chromosone)
Human: EGGGGGGEEGGGAGGGE (single chromosone)

The existence of the two end markers in the middle of one of our chromosones satisfies the prediction made by evolution, before this fusing was known about. We can even identify where exactly in each genetic code the two relevant chromosones are.

Now, if humans were a separate "kind" to chimpanzees, set in stone and never able to change, then there is no reason anyone has presented (as far as I know, and I'm not claiming extensive knowledge of genetics) why there should be a fused chromosone pair there, when all of our other chromosones are unfused.

When we search for knowledge, we value that knowledge that has the most accurate explanatory and predictive power. As we can see in the example above, and that's just one example amongst many, evolution has not only described how something happened and came to be, but also predicted something that with the advance of technology was later found to be true.

By contrast, the "kinds" argument doesn't describe scientifically how things got the way they are, God just made them that way. It doesn't predict anything except that we'll never see one species splitting into different species over time. But the evidence we're finding is that this prediction is inaccurate, as our knowledge of genetics is finding more and more evidence that this does happen. Yes a lizard splits into two lizards, but you have to remember that we're not talking about creating a brand new species outside of the lizard family, but rather just a new species of lizard. Eventually, as genetic differences accumulate over time, those two branches of the lizard family tree may become so different that some may view them as different "kinds" (like komodo dragons and slow worms for example), but we're not trying to climb back up the tree and come down a different branch, we're simply adding more branches from where we are now.

PS where do hyenas sit on the evolutionary tree relative to dogs? They must be like great danes and terriers and stuff right? Another example of variation within a kind?

[Symmetry]

Yeah dude, picking up a professorial position at Oxford University is totally something you can do on MS paint.

[Viceroy63]

Evolution, as scientifically described, looks like this:

OK, very scientific??? lol.

A bunch of lines and circles is not even worth the read. Show me the actual pics or video footage of a transitional species if you have indeed found some evidence of that.

BTW: What you are describing is merely the fact that all life have the same Creator so we share similarities. That's all. The fact that Chimps and human breathe the same air does not make us transitional species of the other. We are both created that way by the Same Creator. And that's all.

Show me the actual evidence is what I am saying.

[crispybits]

If I had needed a more professional image making software program and better artistic skills to make my point (and this forum meant so much to me to spend that money and time) then I would have provided it. The MS Paint images are enough to demonstrate a point that I clearly laid out in the text. Should we disregard all of viceroy's posts because he didn't himself make the youtube videos and images within them? (actually, that would be kinda nice wouldn't it....)

[Symmetry]

A bunch of lines and circles is not even worth the read. Show me the actual pics or video footage of a transitional species if you have indeed found some evidence of that.

I did.

But here it is again:

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

Will you ignore it twice?

[Viceroy63]

A bunch of lines and circles is not even worth the read. Show me the actual pics or video footage of a transitional species if you have indeed found some evidence of that.

I did.

But here it is again:

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

Will you ignore it twice?

I did not ignore it. I answered it. Twice now.

[Symmetry]

A bunch of lines and circles is not even worth the read. Show me the actual pics or video footage of a transitional species if you have indeed found some evidence of that.

I did.

But here it is again:

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

Will you ignore it twice?

I did not ignore it. I answered it. Twice now.

The pictures you asked for are in the link, have you tried clicking on the blue part of my post?

[Gillipig]

A bunch of lines and circles is not even worth the read. Show me the actual pics or video footage of a transitional species if you have indeed found some evidence of that.

I did.

But here it is again:

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

Will you ignore it twice?

I did not ignore it. I answered it. Twice now.

You've answered nothing.

[Viceroy63]

A bunch of lines and circles is not even worth the read. Show me the actual pics or video footage of a transitional species if you have indeed found some evidence of that.

I did.

But here it is again:

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

Will you ignore it twice?

I did not ignore it. I answered it. Twice now.

You've answered nothing.

An answer is an answer whether you choose to accept it or not.

[waauw]

A bunch of lines and circles is not even worth the read. Show me the actual pics or video footage of a transitional species if you have indeed found some evidence of that.

I did.

But here it is again:

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

Will you ignore it twice?

I did not ignore it. I answered it. Twice now.

You've answered nothing.

An answer is an answer whether you choose to accept it or not.

an answer with barely any content. This is a summary of your answers:

[Viceroy63]

A bunch of lines and circles is not even worth the read. Show me the actual pics or video footage of a transitional species if you have indeed found some evidence of that.

I did.

But here it is again:

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

Will you ignore it twice?

I did not ignore it. I answered it. Twice now.

You've answered nothing.

An answer is an answer whether you choose to accept it or not.

an answer with barely any content

OK; If you want content, then here is content...



Notice that the missing link is still missing. No intermediary species; There fore no proof of evolution.
26:40 Lucy and Australopithecus missing links
29:45 Evolution not possible

[universalchiro]

There is no fossil record of transitional creatures

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

Idiot.

Symmetry, it is you who are the ignorant one. For the first example and stated as the best example on your precious website of transitional fossils is the Archeoraptor. You are ignorant to the fact that the evidence for Archeoraptor has been proven falsified information.

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

So who is the idiot? hhhmmm Again you have demonstrated foolish belief in an unproven hypothesis and you are unwilling to search the facts out. Which concludes you will believe what you believe even though proven wrong.

Evolution is hokum... And your faith in your religion is laughable and foolish. You came from an ape. And all life spontaneously came from dirt and primordial pool of complex chemicals, which before the pool formed, it rained on rock. Which means your heritage is descendants from rock. Simply foolishness.

[AndyDufresne]

Which means your heritage is descendants from rock. Simply foolishness.

Our heritage is in the stellar centers of stars.


--Andy

[universalchiro]

Evolution, as scientifically described, looks like this:



Each red circle is a different genus, and between each generation of red circles on this "family tree" there may be thousands or millions of years, and hundreds or thousands of generations. Evolution doesn't predict large viable populations of cross breeds, once a branch down the tree has been taken then it's very unlikely, unless environmental factors revert back to a state they were in for the previous generation exactly, that we will move back up a branch. In that top line of red circles each species cannot interbreed because of the sperm/ova enzymes he describes, and within each of these red circles there can be massive variation of types of species within the genus.

Now what he seems to be describing is that evolution looks like this:



With the new blue lines and green circles representing cross breeds, where two different genuses have interbred and produced the new genuses indicated by the green circles. He says that the failure to find this invalidates the evolutionary theory.

Now either he (and all other creationists that use this tired argument) are due a Nobel prize for disproving one of the fundamental theories of biology, or they are talking complete nonsense and do not understand what evolution actually says (or are wilfully misrepresenting it to fit their own world views). If the argument was sound, then scientists the world over would be making it - the job of scientists is to prove other scientists wrong, and the highest accolades in science go to the scientists who disprove the most fundamental theories we have accepted over time. Give me a list of the 5 most famous scientists, and I'll either show you people who came up with the first groundings for explaining something previously mysterious, or people who took someone else's work and caused a paradigm shift within science to a whole new way of thinking about how the universe worked and proved a previously accepted theory wrong.

Dr Lawrence, I provided a post that detailed the exact problems with your theory as far as genetics go, with scientific facts to back it up, and told you exactly how to counter my argument, but instead of meeting that challenge you just went off on several other tangents about radiometric dating. Now you're back to genetics maybe you could answer it:

Well, there is no single definition of species that is universal to all arguments (click for details). Ernst May's definition, used in many textbooks, is "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups". This satisfies everything in your list, including the first 3 points which seem to be your main point of attack on the theory of evolution.

A definition of what a species is doesn't prove evolution, but if you're going to argue for an alternative then we need to crystallise where the difference is. Evolution as a theory has made predictions which have been found to be true as our knowledge of genetics and technology to allow genetic mapping have advanced. For instance, it was found that chimpanzees have 48 chromosones, and humans only have 46. Before we could fully map the genetic codes, there was a strong argument that this showed that we could not be as closely (or at all) related to chimpanzees as evolution predicted, and that evolution had failed as a theory.

With the advent of more advanced techniques, we have found a fused chromosone within the genetic code of humans. We know it's fused because a chromosone will have a certain structure. Without bombarding the thread with images, imagine a chromosone as EGGGAGGGE where the Gs are genetic information, the A is a dominant protein(?), and the Es are end markers which define where the chromosone starts and ends. We've found these in the overall chimpanzee and human genetic code:

Chimp: EGGGAGGGE EGGGAGGGE (two chromosone)
Human: EGGGGGGEEGGGAGGGE (single chromosone)

The existence of the two end markers in the middle of one of our chromosones satisfies the prediction made by evolution, before this fusing was known about. We can even identify where exactly in each genetic code the two relevant chromosones are.

Now, if humans were a separate "kind" to chimpanzees, set in stone and never able to change, then there is no reason anyone has presented (as far as I know, and I'm not claiming extensive knowledge of genetics) why there should be a fused chromosone pair there, when all of our other chromosones are unfused.

When we search for knowledge, we value that knowledge that has the most accurate explanatory and predictive power. As we can see in the example above, and that's just one example amongst many, evolution has not only described how something happened and came to be, but also predicted something that with the advance of technology was later found to be true.

By contrast, the "kinds" argument doesn't describe scientifically how things got the way they are, God just made them that way. It doesn't predict anything except that we'll never see one species splitting into different species over time. But the evidence we're finding is that this prediction is inaccurate, as our knowledge of genetics is finding more and more evidence that this does happen. Yes a lizard splits into two lizards, but you have to remember that we're not talking about creating a brand new species outside of the lizard family, but rather just a new species of lizard. Eventually, as genetic differences accumulate over time, those two branches of the lizard family tree may become so different that some may view them as different "kinds" (like komodo dragons and slow worms for example), but we're not trying to climb back up the tree and come down a different branch, we're simply adding more branches from where we are now.

PS where do hyenas sit on the evolutionary tree relative to dogs? They must be like great danes and terriers and stuff right? Another example of variation within a kind?

This was a well written post. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your mind putting thought to pen. This maybe one of the best written posts and let this be a standard to other evolutionist who think they can post one website address with proven false information and a pithy one liner that only reveals your ignorance.

First let me address the genetic coding, the DNA mapping. Humans have not mapped out the DNA sequence of every creature on earth, but the ones we have mapped, the information provided is misinterpreted. For example: Chimpanzees have similar strands of genetic coding as humans do. At first glance this seems to support that humans evolved from the primates. But with closer inspection, humans have similar strands of genetic coding to many creatures, not just the chimp and not just primates. Why? There are similar functions of the different kinds. such as breathing oxygen, uterine embryo production, breast mammary glands for milk, skin, nails, hair, teeth, digestive tracts, blood, liver, hormones, etc...

So similar strands of genetic coding doesn't demonstrate that we evolved from primates, for then we wouldn't have associated strands of genetic coding with any other creature. What this demonstrates is there was one factory that produced different kinds from the same dirt. The Bible calls this factory God. Evolution calls this factory Chance/natural selection. It's Okay, it's fine for us to see the same thing a different way. But just don't call the faith based unproven hypothesis of evolution fact.

It's common for evolutionist to see similarities and say "ah ha" one came from the other. But the logic is not sound. For humans have similarities with other creatures as well. Even none living things such as bananas.

Summary: There are similarities of strands of DNA sequences of many fauna and flora with humans, this can equally mean we were created by the creator. To exclusively jump to this means we evolved is faith based logic.

Chromosomes: Humans have 46 chromosomes and an antelope has 46 chromosomes. Lots of similarities. But you know what there are hundreds of creatures that are close in chromosome count or have the same count. So this doesn't prove or disprove anything. But since evolution proclaims we are evolving to more complexities, then this is contrary to humans having 46 chromosomes and White Ash having 138 chromosomes. Or a fern having 480 chromosomes for they proceeded humans on the evolutionary tree. Seems more like entropy rather than evolution. [Entropy is LAW that all goes from order to disorder, unless a designed force is applied-- opposite of evolution].

You wrote, "evolution has not only described how something happened and came to be, but also predicted something that with the advance of technology was later found to be true." This is simply not an accurate statement at all. Evolution predicted there would be a fossil record of transitional creatures. They couldn't find any, so they falsified Archeoraptor.
Evolution predicted that there would be similar embryonic development. They couldn't find it, so Earnst Haekel falsified his drawings of developing embryos. Evolution predicted that life spontaneously evolved from nothing. This has been proven false by Louis Pasteur. Evolution predicted there would be billions of years to allow chance/natural selection enough time to evolve. There is ample evidence, and I presented several, that life on earth is not billions of years old, but 1,000's. The matter is that evolution is simply scientist who believe this so much, that what ever evidence is found, it's twisted and interpreted to support evolution as fact, when alternative interpretations on the same evidence is equally valid.


Simply put, all information that evolutionist present has an alternative interpretive view that they are unwilling to explore. Why? Because it's faith based, they can't change their minds even when their faith is proven wrong.

[waauw]

[size=150]OK; If you want content, then here is content...



Notice that the missing link is still missing. No intermediary species; There fore no proof of evolution.
26:40 Lucy and Australopithecus missing links
29:45 Evolution not possible

I would like to thank you for posting this video. It was very interesting and actually somewhat enlightening. I made some notes below and gave 'm some of remarks:

• dating techniques aren't entirely accurate(unconstant rate of decay)
  ==> As said before, it is rational to assume that it is indeed possible. However the scientist himself mentions it himself that it diminishes the chances of darwinism being true, it doesn't disprove it.
  
• The earth could be younger than is generally accepted
  ==> This is true again, yet one should not therefor assume that the earth is only a few thousand years old as your Bible states and which has been much proclaimed on this forum by theists.
  
• One of the arguments the scientist mentions is helium which could be used to determine the age of the earth too. This element would record the earth only a few hundred thousand years old.
  ==> I've been doing some research on the internet just now and it would seem that depending on the material and depending on the technique, you get a very wide variation of possible ages for the planet. Combining this with the argument of an unconstant rate of decay and you really can not know the age of the earth(or not for the moment anyway). Making any assumptions based on Darwinism or christianism is therefor absurd. We shall just have to wait until we have a better understanding of it. This means thus that nor Darwinism nor creationism can be disproven nor proven by current dating procedures. This is confirmed by the scientist talking your documentary. He keeps using words like "It may be", "it's possible that", etc. He does not make any exact statements, he only states hypotheses.
  
• Evolution can not work without a world being billions of years old
  ==> This is not per sé true. It all depends on the assumed speed of evolution. According to some other recent findings evolution may happen faster than is currently thought. Some researches even point to the fact that the speed of evolution can change.
  http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/1294/20130409/evolution-hapfaster-think-study.htm
  http://unews.utah.edu/old/p/120607-1.html
  
• Darwinism is based on very solid and rational conjectures, but not on empirical evidence
  ==> I agree with this. Darwinism is a very plausible theory, but not a fact yet.
  
• Many current day people aren't as open-minded as Darwin himself was
  ==> That is most probably true. It is in the nature of most humans to be conformist, institutionalist and optimist. It is human nature to be biased in some way. Everybody is biased to some degree. However keep in mind that this principle goes both ways. This is applicable on both theists and atheists. It does however not exclude rationality as long as it is kept restricted.
  
• Modern Darwinian views depicts life being mechanical, restricted by genes and soulless(no own will or own moral views)
  ==> this is of course not the only view of Darwinism. There is absolutely no reason why genes should restrict people of not having an own will or morality.
  
• Common belief is that creationism is the only alternative to evolution, but that is not true
  ==> Just wanted to highlight this, so people don't mix up evidence against darwinism as proof for creationism anymore
  
• Darwinism and creationism can co-exist
  ==> This is a very true statement, it can't however co-exist with the Bible when interpreted litteraly.
  
• There is evidence of there having been a great flood
  ==> and just as he also states somewhat and as I've stated before there is no proof of a great flood being as described in the Bible(destroying life everywhere, flooding the entire earth) . As as recent findings go, the great flood seems to have been local and not global.
  
• many of the fossilized trees needed to be burried quickly to be able to get fossilized(by catastrophe for example)
  ==> This is probably true again, but I have to accentuate yet again that this does not prove that all animals on earth died all at once as claimed by the Biblical great flood.
  
• Evolution from animal to animal is impossible according to observations of the past 500 years in breeding. There is a limit to the extent an animal can be changed. Animals eventually turn sterile
  ==> This is not entirely true, there are plenty of cases of hybrids(who are considered a different species) for example to be fertile. There are also some issues in some of the breeding circumstances. According to some theories species will only undergo major changes genetically when major changes in the environment are found. Another limitation to these tests over the past 500 years is that breeding animals isn't as fast moving and as large in scale as necessary to make any rash conclusions. In flora on the other hand there are plenty of cases of plants being selectively bred into different species.
  https://sites.google.com/site/selectivebreedingofplants/

[crispybits]

But with closer inspection, humans have similar strands of genetic coding to many creatures, not just the chimp and not just primates. Why?

Because the primates are part of a bigger set. The species "homo sapiens" sits within the genus "homo" which in turns sits within the tribe "homininae" which in turn sits within the family "hominidae" which in turn sits within the order "primates". This order is the set that includes both human beings and chimpanzees (and used to include things like neanderthal man before it became extinct). The amount of species still alive today within that order is huge (437 species).



Now your assertion would be fine if the line stopped there and every other branch was separate, but that's not what evolution says, it's a straw man. Because the order "primates" sits within the class "mammalia", and this class includes all dogs, cats, cows, horses, whales, dolphins, mice, bears, otters, bats, etc etc. Evolution doesn't say we came from monkeys and that's where it started, it says that at some point we had a common ancestor with ALL of these other animals. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable that there would be properties in common with these other creatures, including genetic coding.

Therefore this is false:

So similar strands of genetic coding doesn't demonstrate that we evolved from primates, for then we wouldn't have associated strands of genetic coding with any other creature.

Moving on....

Or a fern having 480 chromosomes for they proceeded humans on the evolutionary tree. Seems more like entropy rather than evolution. [Entropy is LAW that all goes from order to disorder, unless a designed force is applied-- opposite of evolution]

Ferns did not precede humans on the evolutionary tree, they are on a different branch entirely. Lets go back to that picture from earlier, but I'll add a few letters in (and remember this is horrifically oversimplified but still accurate within the bounds of what I'm demonstrating):



Humans are at B on the tree, ferns are at D. Ferns did not precede humans. The genus at point A preceded humans.

Besides which, I've already demonstrated, in the very post you quoted, that sometimes evolution can lead to a drop in the number of chromosones as well as a rise in the number of chromosones.

And finally for this section, entropy is a natural law that within a closed system the state of that system will move towards disorder over time. This would mean that unless we can find some external source of energy, then life on Earth would never have been possible to be created, as more complex molecules could not have formed without this energy input. In a closed system, none of this is possible.

Now where would we look to find such a source of energy, something massive enough to have provided the energy for those complex organisms to develop and evolve and become even more complex over time? Where could we possibly find something that heats the entire planet by around 285 degrees celsius above the temperature of deep space? Here's a hint, go outside on a cloudless day and look up (but careful, don't look right at it, or it'll blind you). The Earth is not a closed system, the energy output of the sun is a massive factor which means that evolution doesn't break the law of entropy.

Evolution predicted there would be a fossil record of transitional creatures. They couldn't find any, so they falsified Archeoraptor.

Nobody falsified Archeoraptor. Archaeopteryx is a bone (pun intended) of contention in creationist circles, but it is not claimed that it is an ancestor of anything around today (that's the creationist straw man argument), but instead that is has features one associates with both later and earlier life forms. This is what is meant when evolution predicted transitional species, not species that directly link A to B in a descendant lineage, but species that have features in common with both A and B.

Regardless of Archaeopteryx, there are several other transitional species that do not court the same controversy:

- Sinosauropteryx prima. A dinosaur covered with primitive feathers, but structurally similar to unfeathered dinosaurs Ornitholestes and Compsognathus
- Ornithomimosaurs, therizinosaurs, and oviraptorosaurs. The oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx had a body covering of tufted feathers and had feathers with a central rachis on its wings and tail. Feathers are also known from the therizinosaur Beipiaosaurus. Several other birdlike characters appear in these dinosaurs, including unserrated teeth, highly pneumatized skulls and vertebrae, and elongated wings. Oviraptorids also had birdlike eggs.
- Deinonychosaurs (troodontids and dromaeosaurs). These are the closest known dinosaurs to birds. Sinovenator, the most primitive troodontid, is especially similar to Archaeopteryx. Byronosaurus, another troodontid, had teeth nearly identical to primitive birds. Microraptor, the most primitive dromaeosaur, is also the most birdlike; specimens have been found with undisputed feathers on their wings, legs, and tail. Sinornithosaurus also was covered with a variety of feathers and had a skull more birdlike than later dromaeosaurs.
- Protarchaeopteryx, alvarezsaurids, Yixianosaurus and Avimimus. These are birdlike dinosaurs of uncertain placement, each potentially closer to birds than deinonychosaurs are. Protarchaeopteryx has tail feathers, uncompressed teeth, and an elongated manus (hand/wing). Yixianosaurus has an indistinctly preserved feathery covering and hand/wing proportions close to birds. Alvarezsaurids and Avimimus have other birdlike features.

The list goes on beyond that, I'm sure with google you could find all the information you need.

In addition to this, because one scientist falsified something does not discredit the entirity of science. If I went to a priest tomorrow and he lied to me about the interpretation of some biblical passage, or about what the bible teaches about a certain subject, would that prove religion false? No. It proves that one person has lied. Who uncovered the various frauds perpetrated by unscrupulous scientists over time? Other scientists. And what happened when those frauds were uncovered? Science struck them from the record books and stopped teaching them. You'll certainly find older science books written before the fraud was uncovered that perpetuate the fraud, but in modern, current science journals and papers nobody is presenting Piltdown Man (for example) as evidence of anything.

There is ample evidence, and I presented several, that life on earth is not billions of years old, but 1,000's.

You have presented no evidence. You have presented a series of what if hypothetical statements that could possibly show that the science is flawed, but for evidence you need something other than this. You need actual real data or material that conclusively shows why current timelines for global evolutionary history are wrong. You need to demonstrate why radiometric dating of heavier elements like uranium 238 to lead 206, which only form in neutron rich environments like inside stars or nuclear rectors is flawed (as in none of this "man made coal / Mt St Helens argument because that wouldn't do a thing to relative uranium isotope concentrations). You need to show the mechanism by which small changes get prevented at a certain point from turning into large changes (as in sperm/ova don't cut it because your small changes could add up to a 2 legged animal becoming 4 legged without any change necessary in the acrosome reaction - there needs to be some other barrier to these larger changes). You need to figure out a whole lot of reasons why modern science has got it wrong, and not just with "not uh" flawed arguments that you have been using, but with real scientific proof. If you can do that, I'll nominate you for the multiple Nobel Prizes you'll deserve myself.

[BigBallinStalin]

A bunch of lines and circles is not even worth the read. Show me the actual pics or video footage of a transitional species if you have indeed found some evidence of that.

I did.

But here it is again:

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

Will you ignore it twice?

I did not ignore it. I answered it. Twice now.

You've answered nothing.

An answer is an answer whether you choose to accept it or not.

Ah, so you are a troll... but still the debate rages: perhaps you could be this stupid.

It's a tough call to make.

[BigBallinStalin]

Which means your heritage is descendants from rock. Simply foolishness.

Our heritage is in the stellar centers of stars.


--Andy

Rocks, elements created from supernovae, whatever, you're wrong because the Doctor of Something Irrelevant says so.

[Viceroy63]

So let me see if I have this right? It's perfectly reasonable to believe that we came from rocks. Or star stuff?

But that a God created that very same star stuff, well, "That's just plain preposterous!"

If you follow that reasoning to it's logical conclusion then we came from nothing. Because once upon a time there was nothing. Then nothing, exploded???

And they call me stupid???

[crispybits]

Only when you spout ridiculous straw man arguments like that Viceroy.

Science doesn't say that nothing exploded.

And science also doesn't say that some sort of God type thingamibob didn't make everything - that's still possible - just that your particular bunch of stone age fairy tales is false, along with your delusions about worldwide floods and a 6000 year old human race that started with a guy made from dirt and a woman made from a rib...

[Gillipig]

So let me see if I have this right? It's perfectly reasonable to believe that we came from rocks. Or star stuff?

But that a God created that very same star stuff, well, "That's just plain preposterous!"

If you follow that reasoning to it's logical conclusion then we came from nothing. Because once upon a time there was nothing. Then nothing, exploded???

And they call me stupid.

And you are.

[Viceroy63]

Only when you spout ridiculous straw man arguments like that Viceroy.

Science doesn't say that nothing exploded.

And science also doesn't say that some sort of God type thingamibob didn't make everything - that's still possible - just that your particular bunch of stone age fairy tales is false, along with your delusions about worldwide floods and a 6000 year old human race that started with a guy made from dirt and a woman made from a rib...

as opposed to "star stuff and rocks" that came from nothing?

BTW: Science does concur that once there was nothing. That all of the space, matter and time that composes our universe, had a beginning and that before then there was nothing. No space, matter or time.