Well. You people make me look like a complete retard in this subject. I disagree with you though. It is entirely possible that things happen by chance. If the Adam and Eve story is true. Well. There would have HAD to have been incest which God disapproves of. But I've not completely read the Adam and Eve story in the Bible. So I may be wrong.

Not sure what you mean... I made a post that still hasn't been countered.

Well tell your opinoin and what you want me to counter, then I shall do my best. Thanks

Superior-the problem with your argument is that it only works against evolutionists, which I am not.
There's nothing I have to believe yet, only things to disprove.
For all I know God created dinosours first, killed them off, then made humans.

It takes more faith to be an Athiest or Evolutionist and believe in men who aren't perfect and make mistakes, then to be a believer of Creation and a Christian and believe God who IS perfect and makes no mistakes.

For this to have a negitive rating is outstanding. The blog was made with very nice grammar, spelling, and clearly was a blog responce.

After re-reading your comment, i realised i didn't counter anything. So take that as a new topic,or simply read to learn.

-Dan

haha Okay I have something. Enjoy :b

Creationists are often asked, “How is it possible for the earth’s population to reach 6.5 billion people if the world is only about 6,000 years old and if there were just two humans in the beginning?” Here is what a little bit of simple arithmetic shows us.

One Plus One Equals Billions

Let us start in the beginning with one male and one female. Now let us assume that they marry and have children and that their children marry and have children and so on. And let us assume that the population doubles every 150 years. Therefore, after 150 years there will be four people, after another 150 years there will be eight people, after another 150 years there will be sixteen people, and so on. It should be noted that this growth rate is actually very conservative. In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so.1

After 32 doublings, which is only 4,800 years, the world population would have reached almost 8.6 billion. That’s 2 billion more than the current population of 6.5 billion people, which was recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau on March 1, 2006.2 This simple calculation shows that starting with Adam and Eve and assuming the conservative growth rate previously mentioned, the current population can be reached well within 6,000 years.

Impact of the Flood

We know from the Bible, however, that around 2500 BC (4,500 years ago) the worldwide Flood reduced the world population to eight people.3 But if we assume that the population doubles every 150 years, we see, again, that starting with only Noah and his family in 2500 BC, 4,500 years is more than enough time for the present population to reach 6.5 billion
Evolutionists are always telling us that humans have been around for hundreds of thousands of years. If we did assume that humans have been around for 50,000 years and if we were to use the calculations above, there would have been 332 doublings, and the world’s population would be a staggering figure—a one followed by 100 zeros; that is

10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000.
This figure is truly unimaginable, for it is billons of times greater than the number of atoms that are in the entire universe! Such a calculation makes nonsense of the claim that humans have been on earth for tens of thousands of years.

Simple, conservative arithmetic reveals clear mathematical logic for a young age of the earth. From two people, created around 6,000 years ago, and then the eight people, preserved on the Ark about 4,500 years ago, the world’s population could have grown to the extent we now see it—over 6.5 billion.

With such a population clearly possible (and probable) in just a few thousand years, we could actually ask the question, “If humans were around millions of years ago, why is the population so small?” This is a question that evolution supporters must answer.

SO HA consider your comment countered.

After reading your comment again, I realized something. Basically, all you said is that I have no irrefutable evidence.

Are you done?

Sorry, I forgot to repost my comment.
I said nothing of carbon dating, I was speaking of the distance underground that prehistoric fossils are found. Of course that distance varies with different areas, but when compared to human fossils/remains, which, although I'm not sure, I'm assuming, are closer to the surface you can't deny that they must have died long before human life existed.
Something else I thought of. If humans were here all this time, you'd think they'd have created a written language, and kept a record of things, such as, which animals are dangerous, what plants are safe to eat etc. Then that record would have been passed from generation to generation. Meaning that we would have known about all these things, already, rather than having to learn about them through experience. We wouldn't need fossils, we'd know everything about prehistoric creatures. We wouldn't have to guess or try to figure things out for ourselves. We wouldn't have to debate about creationism, if it were true.
Btw, I'm not supporting evolution.

It took an hour to read all the comments. I agree with this blog, no queston.

RoD put more in the comments than in the blog itself. +1
He countered almost every comment.
Very nice.

*cough* Dr.who you suck -__-

Nvm. I read what happened.... but I don't feel like retyping that on my DSi. I'll do it tomorrow.

...why was my comment deleted

Hey Gabe. I just read your comment after scrolling down for a while. Humans aren't animals. At least, I don't consider myself an evolved form of a fish.

My point is all things decompose differently. For some there wouldn't be remains at all. This is just one explanation. I do not go with this one because it could be used as an excuse for other more retarded theories...

Second... What makes you so sure the fossils you speak of are even that old? You know that the dating method used for bones is called Carbon dating? Carbon dating is the most inaccurate method of dating out there and yet it is trusted with no questions.

There are fossilized human remains out there. Plenty of them, in fact. How do you know the fossilized human remains aren't as old as the dinosaurs? Or something else, "Primitive?"

This might have confused you. I'm kinda confused. I'm tired. I've been sleep deprived for a while. I need sleep and less coffee.

I had no idea people were still commenting on this after I made a new blog.

No, Roger Ebert, the movie reviewer. I can't be silly for once?

@RoD: He did kinda make it sound "awesome", but more 4 y/o ish. XD To quote Ebert, "Thumbs Down."

I think reincarnation sounds nice. Doesn't mean I believe in it. I don't take something as true just because I like the sound of it, otherwise I'd be telling you that money grows on trees, that I own a pet dinosaur, or that I can fly.

@Night: I'd rather die alone, as intended. If people go somepkace after death, then we have no need to bury them, a waste of money and time. But, we do. Because we stay her on Earth. And that sounds terrible, that description of a Chariot. -.--

ya'll.

Answer me this: What will you say, [insert time period] from now when you are face to face with the truth. Lets face it: if "Evolution" and "Science" is the truth then the human race will end when the sun goes KA-BOOM and blows everyone up. Big whoop. Everyones dead. What know?

Now lets listen to the next story: Its the end of the world oh noes KA-BOOM... But wait... Jesus Christ came to save YOU!
. He is riding on A FRIGGEN BLINDING CHAIRIOT OF AWSOMENESS... to save you.
What sounds better? Dying alone? Or getting saved by the Creator of YOU!

Yes, im a Christan, and im proud to be one. If you have a problem with it: TAKE IT UP WITH MY HOMIE JESUS.

Lord knows how much this comment will get flamed. XD

But he hasn't replied to the part about fossils.... I wanna know what he thinks.

He's quite level-headed, and has provided his side of the story. I think he's satisfied, honestly.

And just forget it. -.-

Did RoD give up? He doesn't seem like the type that would...

ram- ...?

What aren't the chances?

Creepy, I just looked something up, and in the comments somebody used the word "juxtapose" what are the chances?

So, you're letting text anger you, even though you're much more docile? Interesting.

It's just Kendall's personality.

"insipid" is such a lovely word... almost as awesome as "juxtapose"... AlMOST.

.-. I was never angry, I'm just very literal. I also tend to examine everything as best I can, because I feel the need to correct others' mistakes. And yes, I do actually want to know nope's motivation for attempting to insult me. If you knew me in real life, you'd know it is very difficult to anger me.

@Gabe: I mean, cool it. Calm down. You're more hot-headed than me. Don't take offense at everything.

What do you mean by "cool it"?

I love your sarcasm, Panzer. oFTo

Did god just suddenly get bored of playing "Dinosaurs" with the world and think
"Hey! I'll create some supersmart animal that can solve problems and dominate the world! Then I'll turn them into my minions, make them strip the planet of its resources and build me monuments to vanity. Buuut, to make things seem real, I'll have them wprship a bunch of fake gods to add variety."

@Gabe: Sarcasm, my insipid friend. Look it up, then come back. Jeez...
Just cool it, and move on.

Damn it RoD, I'm waiting for another Blog of yours! XD

Amber, God IS science.

@nope- another thing. for what reason are you trying to insult me?

I'm not forcing you to follow any religion, am I? I stated a belief, I'm not telling anyone to do anything.

@nope-you didn't. did you read ram's comment? he reacted as if i was aiming my statement directly at him.

Try not to be an idiot gabe. Nobody even said, nor implied the you yourself said, "everyone must." Hurrdurr.

Although your principle is admirable, Gabe, you contradicted yourself a bit there.
First you tell us how you mustn't force your opinions on others, then say how more people should be religious.

@Gabe: When searching for something, one might throw another off-track, or offend them, inadvertantly. Cool it.

Agreed, Nope.

Stop twisting my words. I said "believe", "more", "should", not "everyone must", so stop responding in ways that imply I did. Also, I never said to believe anything. I said "because of the moral values". I follow the morals, that I know of, that are written in the bible, but my thoughts on subjects such as this are always changing. I only want to know the truth, I'm not trying to prove people wrong. Why can't others do the same?

@Nope, hear hear

I spent the first three quarters or so of my life having church forced upon me, and I never believed a word of it, even from the beginning.

Gabe, try not to glorify religion so much. There were no "moral values instilled" in to me when I followed Christianity. All that was "instilled" in to me was a consistent stream of boredom.

@Gabe: I'm offended that you suggest I re-join with Religion for "The Moral Values it instills". è3ó

DrWho, whilst I agree with the principle behind your arguments, you needn't go so far as to suggest that a person as a whole is unintelligent purely because one of their beliefs seems wrong.

Gabe, perhaps the sentiment behind some religions is righteous, but surely people shouldn't have to follow a religion to be nice? Wouldn't it be better if they were all just nice because they wanted to be, instead of being threatened with eternal damnation?

dr.who- Why are you so eager to prove these people wrong? As banman said, both are theories. So the theory of evolution is kind of like your religion. If it were proven wrong, how would you feel? I'm guessing you'd feel like an idiot. You'd feel inferior to others for ever believing such a thing. That's probably how these people would feel if their religion were proven wrong. It should not be celebrated. I actually believe that more people should turn to religion, even if they don't believe it, because of the moral values it instills.

Drwho, I already know the facts of our existance.

The laryngeal nerve is unnecessarily[sp] long like that because giraffes had shorter necks and as the necks grew so did it, otherwise it would make more sense for it to just connect directly to it's brain.. I'd love to hear how that proves intelligent design. And your giraffe argument doesn't disprove evolution..

And I don't think you know the definition of theory, since you act like it's a bad/negative thing that disproves it for some reason.

Funny that no one has said something as simple as "If humans have been here since the beginning, why is it that fossils of prehistoric creatures are so much deeper underground than any human remains?"

Sorry, second sentence. *

All theories are theories. They are not proven and are very hard to actually prove for certain. How about we stop coming up with animals that may or may not have evolved and just keep our beliefs to ourselves hmm?

Oh, also, 150 years really isn't a huge time period to be proving anything related to the origin of life or evolution etc.

I do agree on the species thing though, they have to be closely related to breed, but it has been proven that humans adapt physically according to their environment and/or lifestyle, e.g. Inuit people have a layer of fat that insulates their body. This layer is not found in most humans.

Yes I'm a hypocrite and I sort of disregarded my first sentence/statement, so sue me.

LISTEN. DX I had a discussion w/ my friend like this, Evolution Vrs Religion and i'm going to tell all yal what my momsid, "Think of it this way,god created science." So why are we all fighting about Sciene theroys and reliion. it says in the name THEROY, as in, possible answer,not definite. :T

@Ban: My mistake, O Chortley One.

@Commander:... *clap-clap*.

Ram, the -ism suffix defines a belief, therefore it is not necessary.

DrWho, you have both atheists AND christians against you.

Panzer, I'm sure animals have their own beliefs too.

Luke, school is school. Learning is learning.

Kimmy, ^^

Me, ?

HB, STILL WAITING FOR YOUR INVINCIBLE COMMENT!!!

Luke again, altering the RNA protein chain will cause mutations, therefore causing rapid evolution, sometimes within a few years. And adaptions are indeed logical. Look at us now, compared to 50 years ago. Our brains are wired differently. That is an adaption. An adaption to comprehend the modern world.
Don't believe me? Go get a CAT Scan.

To future comments, go ahead. Debate my reasonings. I dare you

Before I rap this up...

Kimmy,

Yes, Evolution is an edgy theory, but, so is the Theory of Creationism. I just want to point that out. It's also a personal peeve of mine, but, nobody ever calls it the 'Theory of Creationism'.

Also, I have another example against evolution here, again, all fact.

The Bombardier Beetle:
This amazing little beetle is one cool thing. It has an awesome defense mechanism. What it does is this: it shoots an explosive liquid into the fact of a predator, when threatened. It does this by mixing two very dangerous chemicals: hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide. But wait. When it mixed these two chemicals inside it... Boom! No more bug! But that doesn't happen. What the Bombardier Beetle does, is adds a thing called an inhibitor, which prevents these two chemicals from exploding. So now, the beetle can now squirt this liquid through the twin combustion tubes at it's predator... But wait! The liquid will not explode, as it has been rendered null. So, to fix this, at precisely the right moment, when firing the chemicals, it releases and anti-inhibitor. Now it can shoot away at his predator. But wait... This violent explosion would propel the bug to who knows where. So, to fix this, the beetle doesn't fire the chemicals in one burst, rather 5 or so times in a second. And all we hear is one "pop!". The chemicals is squirts can get up to 100 degrees Celsius.

Ok, so we have our amazing bug. Now let's think. How did something like this evolve? Let's say it has found the right two chemicals. Wait. It has no inhibitor. No more bug. Let's say it has the inhibitor. Wait. There is no need for it, unless you already have the two chemicals. Let's say it somehow managed to develop them at the same time. It still needs the anti-inhibitor, or the chemicals wil be rendered useless. Then, let's say, it evolved all these at once. Wait!! What about the twin combustion tubes? Oh no! The bug is exploded.

are you to say this entire mechanism evolved all at once? No way. Things in evolution take time, and are supposed to be logical and make sense.
Would someone like to explain to me how this creature evolved?

Panzer, I'm not asking you to turn to God. I'm asking you if you understand that evolution has a massive amount of errors and is literally impossible.

Panzer, I'm not sure if I understand you.

Well, the giraffe slowly adapted a longer neck but the ones who had longer necks then their predecessors would not survive unless they had the correct traits. There. Problem solved.

Neon, you didn't address MY argument, rather just came up with one of your own. Everyone seems to be avoiding my giraffe point.

I can't seriously believe in a magical guy who's existed forever and is flating above my head, but not in space or on Earth.

Also, people thought that disease was a punishment from god. Science proved that it was caused by micro-organisms. What makes you think that "God" created people? Why do we have no man-made record of dinosaurs? Why did some species suddenly come to be? Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

DrWho, I take it you don't believe a word I say? Until you clear your mind and learn to consider other possibilities other than the ones imprinted in your mind. You will never progress and come to an accurate understanding on anything. You seem to think I'm uneducated, I can understand this coming from your point of view. I'd say you will learn things as you age, but alas, this isn't always true. Remember this as long as you live. When you are on your death bed, and the fossils that were supposed to be discovered showing our evolutionary chains have yet to be found. Remember this blog. And our argument. "They will never be found, because, they do not exist."

I don't know everything, but I know enough to have come to the conclusion that evolution is impossible. I hope to some day you will too.

I'll end this conversation with a question; a fairly simple one.

What will it take for you to understand and believe that Evolution is wrong? (I'm not saying believe the Bible, this is to abandon the lie known as Evolution) What will it take?

Science has not made any significant discoveries since it was made a theory. And it won't which is why it is still a theory to this day.

Neon, maybe we should drop a whale on land and see if it grows it's legs back?

RoD, I saw it. Trust me. I am, however, running on some pizza, an Excederin, and 5 hours of sleep. No response of mine could be well thoight-out.

Ram, please read my comment to DrWho. You are smart, this I acknowledge. I want your side on this.

Hmm... Again, I miss a chunk of debate. Damn you, scheduling.

I don't even have an argument anymore, nor the idea for the Blog I planned. So, expect to see a Blog response tomorrow, RoD. It'll show my stance on the subject. To the eMac!

And furthermore, just how the hell did you and I start an Evolution Vs. Creationism debate, when my Blog was about freaking Atheism? The two aren't always hand in hand, y'know. I love the debates going on, but... Really?

Great, but they don't have hind legs. And there have never been any skeletons in history found that have legs. Point?

How does a ridiculously long nerve which would make more sense to be shorter "intelligent" design? And 1-in "something" (forget the figures) whales are born with bones for hing legs, or something..

Before you start making attacks against Christianity, learn what it actually is. Until you can literally preach to me about what is, you don't know what it truly means.

Keep religious comments out of this please. If you want to argue about that, create a blog on it yourself.

DrWho, I've mentioned this before, I'll say it again. I provide you with actual scientific fact and you provide me with petty insults to my religious views, complete and utter opinion, and bluntly retarded remarks. (Not aimed at you directly, but to all commenters in general.)

If you want to try and shove stuff you learned in sci-fi up my ass. Do it with evidence. I don't want to see,"Durr well whales have genetics for legs but don't have em..."

Bah, it's like talking to a toddler. If you understand anything about Genes. You can't have genetics for a third nipple and not have a damn third nipple. That's not how nature works. If your mom has three nipples, that's a mutation, and not genetic material that can be passed on.

If a whale has a rather large hip that points out oddly, that doesn't mean it ever had legs at any point in time. All it means is it has a large hip bone.

Here is the one question that stumps even the smartest of evolutionists. This is the one question that can never, and will never be answered. If you actually respond to this directly, that would tell me you know even less than I thought.

I have intimate knowledge of both sides of the story. You don't think I understand things? I was once like you, grasping onto the impossible. I could have believed anything if it wasn't related to God. The reason I WILL NEVER stop this argument is because I have all the proof in the world. I see the fabric of life, how it works, and all it's complexities. That alone is enough proof to me this, the world and myself was NOT made by an accident. Accidents don't have a purpose, or any importance. There is so much evidence disproving evolution and yet that's what people believe because they don't want to believe anything else. People love the freedom of no responsibilities and cares. You don't want to believe you have a creator, because that means someone has authority over you. I'm not brainwashed. God fuels me and the overwhelming evidence that disproves evolution is fueling me. I want people to be as happy as I am every day and night.

If, creatures evolved. If Atavism exists. If evolution is true. Why is there no fossil any where on the earth. And any fossil ever found, that shows the process of evolution. If Evolution or evolving is true. Why is there is no scientific proof ever found that actually shows a Hen with teeth. Or a whale with legs. The reason is simple. They were made the way they are, there never was any evolving.

@drwho Quit making so many posts. Contain your comments in less posts.

Alrighty, friends. I realize most of you have been checking back for updates on this to check for my responses. So here it is. I'll try to address as many comments as possible that were aimed at me.

Commander, just because you go to school doesn't mean you'll learn anything there.-fact

Neon, Laryngeal neve proves intelligent design more than evolution. Thank you for a new argument point.

BanMan, it takes more faith to believe in Evolution than in Intelligent design. Read the last two paragraphs of this blog.

Hero, you give me fact. I like that. Thank you for sharing. See guys, HeroElkabong shared a point that disproves evolution as well as providing evidence to back it up. This is what I was expecting to see in comments. Not a bunch of of crap that was shoved up your (Censored for your own health) by someone else who doesn't know anything.

Adaption? Well, I did some studying. This stuff can't happen. Period. If you all so strongly believe that adaption is possible, I dare you to attempt to grow your arm in order to reach that bag of half eaten potato chips 4 feet away from your computer. Won't ever happen, not a million years, 4 billion years, 4.5 billion years, or even 65 million years.

DrWho, Atavism is a lie. If a hen has genetics for teeth it will have teeth. That's how genes works. Now if you meant Recessive and Dominant genes than the answer is still no.

Recessive and Dominant genes are like this. Let's say your mom has blue eyes? And your daddy has brown eyes. You have brown eyes. You inherited your fathers brown eyes because they were the dominant gene. Your Mother's blue eyes were the recessive gene which means, you have the genetics for blue eyes somewhere in your DNA. They will show up at some point in your family tree so they are only Recessive for a limited time. You can't have a gene that never shows up in your family tree, it is impossible. It would show up sooner or later Guaranteed. A lost gene is actually disproving evolution. So that can't be used as an excuse unless you want to.

Half time announcement: "You all say stop reading out of a book. What the hell are you doing then? Where did you get your information? A scientist told you? Did you know that wrong people exist in the world? And don't say I'm looking at wrong books or something idiotic like this. I'm providing you all with PROVED scientific fact. Not bull crap someone fed me.

Panzer, study some plants bro. Even the simplest of creatures are complex. There is no such thing as a simple being. In fact, a lot of Biological Scientist who were once Evolutionists became leaders for Intelligent design because they saw how complex even the simplest of creatures are. More evidence disproving evolution if you ask me.

Time to refuel! This ones for Ram, but you all feel free to listen in on this.

Ram, I've been waiting for someone to pull the Lucy card. The best known fossil "Ape men" are extinct australopithecines. If you know your branches, you'll know what that is. It basically mean,"Southern Ape."

Also known as Lucy. Many scientists disagree with the supposed lost branch of humans. For example, Donald Johanson Oxnard, the discoverer of Lucy. Hell yeah, if the actual Anatomist isn't enough... Dear lord... We've got some trouble on our hands here don't we, comrades? Anatomist and discoverer of Lucy, Donald Oxnard performed a detailed analysis of different bones of Africanus. Africanus is the supposed branch of apes that lead to the human race, just so you know. He concluded that it did not walk upright in the human manner and was more distinct from both humans and chimpanzees than these are from each other.

Lot to take in... Breather.. "Phew!"

Would you like one of Oxnard's comments on it?

"It is now recognized widely that the astralopithecines are not structurally closely similar to humans, that they must have been living at least in part in arboreal (Arboreal means tree for those of you out there who might have latin root experience like myself) Environments, and that many of the later specimens were contemporaneous or almost so with the earlier membors of the genus Homo."

Yeah, Oxnard is an evolutionist. In fact, this guy is one of several experts who do not believe that Lucy had any affiliation with the human line. Scientifically, Australopithecines did not lead to the human race.

Also, just to tap the pile of sand called evolution, Lucy's shape and entire genetic design was determined by only 1 bone.

Feel free to comment back guys, I'll be waiting.

Google "Laryngeal nerve Giraffe"

So this boy needs to also study his world history too.
Isn't it sad, that I have not been to school in 10 years, and I probably know more that all of you?
Just comes to show how crappy the school system is these days.

BanMan actually said it best. All of these things are purely theoretical. There is really no true way to actually prove any of this without going back how many thousands/millions/billions of years and witnessing it first hand. Until someone can find some way to do that, people will only have theories.

And everyones "evidence" and "facts" are either circumstantial, coincidental, or theoretical. There is no true definitive proof for either side.


TL;DR: Nobody knows a damn thing, so let people believe what they want.

I'll give a little input on this, although it's far from what I've got.

First off, look at either view. You obviously can't go back to when the earth started up to prove your view. So this leaves both at a belief, rather than fact.

Take the Creation standpoint first. Without humans interfering with their own 'possible' explanations, twisting what the Bible says, it has remained unchanged.

Now let's see what evolution has in store. This theory is often thought scientific, therefore disproving the Biblical creation. However, in order for a theory to become scientific, it must be able to be experimented with and be repeatable. This is clearly impossible in a lab environment or otherwise, as it would supposedly take millions of years to do. This theory's timespan is also changed frequently to suit the evolution that needs to fit in it.

That's all for now.

By "adaption", do you mean the way in which creatures adapt to their surroundings? If yes, I am not even talking about adaption. I am disagreeing with evolution, with evidence to back it up

Ok, here is part of my argumemt.
The giraffe. The creatures with those huge necks. They are a common, everyday sight (if you live in Africa, or in a zoo). Nothing special. Right? Wrong. Giraffes disprove evolution, and here's how...
Giraffes, as we know, have huge necks. As one would imagine, the giraffe would also need an abnormally strong heart, to pump the blood all the way up to the neck. Which it does. The problem with this is: what happens when the giraffes needs to take a drink? When it bends it's head down, the pressure of the blood forcing it's way down the neck would give it a brain anuerysm (spelling?), killing it. Obviously, since there are giraffes around, ths is not the case. When the giraffe bend it's head down, valves close down the giraffes neck, protecting it from the violent surge of blood. All good, right? No. What happens after the giraffe has finished drinking? It would pass out from lack of blood to the brain. Again, this is not the case, as we don't see giraffes dropping after they take a drink. What happens is this: the giraffe has a small sponge-like material behind the brain, which soaks up blood while the giraffe is drinking. When the giraffe lifts it's head, this blood is used, preventing it from passing out. All quite elaborate nd ingenious, no? Almost as if someone designed the giraffe.

Explain to me this: how could the giraffe come about through evolution, taking the facts above into account?

Everytime I see someone say "the Earth is [insert lifetime which is truly beyond human comprehension] years old, fact, I sincerely wish they'd actually look how scientists "determined" that information. Here's something you may find interesting: when determining the age of a fossil buried in rock, a scientist will say that said fossil is say, 60 million years old, which is supposedly gathered from the approximate age of the rock. Yet, that is literally impossible through any known means, including various dating techniques such as carbon dating, since the rock is abiotic.

And on the note of scientific dating techniques: we've known for quite some time now that they are innacurate. For example, while carbon dating may give us an approximate age of a few hundred million years, another dating technique (whose name escapes me) gives us an age which is so far off the previous dating to be ludicrous.
Basically, the 3 "dating" techniques aren't really valid.

Drwho - Hmm, funny you should mention giraffes. They put a hole in evolution. as does the woodpecker, and the Bombadyer (spelling?) Beetle. I'll have a full argument for you soon.

Well, A lot of scientists and intelligent people believe in evolution. Don't you think if it was this easy to disprove it, they wouldn't?

And aren't these inter-species breeding?
tiger/lion=liger/tigon
horse/donkey=mule
dolphin/whale=wolphin
zebra/donkey=zonkey
wolf/dog= ...
etc.
And there have been cases of polar bears breeding with grizzly bears I think..

Wth, I tapped +1. -.- Must recalibrate...

Drumroll, please! The Ram has arrived!
After a 10min read of the comments, and Ironically, a trip to the [bField Museum[/b], I went to the evolution exhibit.

I am on DSi still, so, this can't be mmy best response.

Okay...

By inter-species breeding, I mean, one variation of cells, breeding, thus mixing together the DNA, equaling: Boom. A new type of cellular structure, which could lead to a new species.

Now, why are you looking for evolution ONLY in the 150 year range? Hm? The Earth is roughly 65million years old, and furthermore, the first Hominid[named 'Lucy'], from which we get our Genus, Homo from, was discovered to be alive roughly 3 million years ago.

Hell, I'm full of energy, sorry. I'm not able to address every bit at the moment, and thus, I might just write a Counter-Blog tomorrow.

@Commander: True...

The reason people bring up Religion, is because my Blog, which is being Countered by your Blog, is about Religion.

@Blood: I don't feel like going to a bunch of child 'loving' Priests, thanks. And no one started out 'with' God, so, no one should have to go 'back' with him.

I love how RoD is so gung-ho about all of this.
+1

Adaption is logically possible.
As it mutation.
Study your chemistry, son.

Scientists observing bacteria have proven adaptation to be true.

Also, looking at how there are billions of planets in the universe, a life supporting planet with all of te right specifications would probably come to be eventually.

All organisms have the same genes, but the amount that each has differs. Water-borne pathogens have less genes because they are less complex, but they are what they are because when certain gened mix, it creates that.

Ok, DrWho mentioned Atavism before along with Adapting or something like that. I did some research and I found some interesting facts. I'll post them here tomorrow.

This is an interesting structure for a blog, using a compilation and all. Nice blog, too.

DrWho, the most smart men in history were religious.

Kimmy, I'll look into thanks.

Weird, I have not mentioned religion in the past 5 comments. But, you all continue to bring it back. Rather annoying! This is a blog for evolution discussion. Leave the religion comments out guys.

I'm trying to press facts, stop bringing up religion as some form of excuse for writing this blog.

Waste, I'm not seeking attention or trying to prove intelligences. I shouldn't need to prove intelligence. No one should. Well, unless you made a horrible impression on someone important... That's not my point, though. And if the way I write makes you believe I think less of everyone around me. Try to interpret what I write in a different way.

Ok DrWho, I see your point. Though I have never seen any evidence of traits coming back (And I believe we never will). I do see your point and how it may be logical.

But Atavism alone does not provide a method by which a species of animal can change or evolve over any period time into something else. Surely, you who are so knowledgeable in this field can understand that.

No books, little quotes, and no notes. All of this is from what I've learned in the most highly looked upon novels, books, and experience.

DrWho, pleasure arguing with you. Please understand this blog was created as a blog response merely because I wanted to further express my views in an effort to separate fact from fiction.

Though, it seems like a failure. No matter how many facts I throw out, they just bounce off the blind folds around your brains.

Raptor, I just got off from angruing with some other idiot, I just got annoyed cus I saw you on your high horse. So I decided to comment on it.

No one will take you seriously if you're so desperate to prove you're so smart, which I don't doubt.


I just pointed out my stance, not trying to debate it.

Waste, my good comrade, no need to be hateful. I look past the petty insults and look deeper into the meaning.

I think that comment was inspired by hatred or something similar.

You shoot down the foundation, and they all call you names.

Monkeys are here because they are a separate species. Like cats, dogs, and cows. You know? Meow, ruff, and moo? I don't think I've even really mention Creationism... But, feel free to criticize it.

What was the point of your comment anyway? I suppose if you're pissed enough, anyone can comment with little in mind.

Really, Raptor? You seem like an idiot desperate to see if people find you so smart.

Yes, you know about biology, no need to have the need to flaunt it. You clearly want attention with all those exclamation marks on the title. This is also supported by your way of debating with others.

Creationism is something I don't believe in. It's such an easy convinient thing to pull out in an argument. I believe in evolution.

(I can already hear some idiot say "Wel y r der still monkies!?!?1"

Let's keep it going bro!

That stuff does not prove evolution, in any way. Explain how Atavism is linked to Evolution.

So? A hen has genetics that include teeth. It has no teeth. This proves nothing.

Oh dear lord, the missing link right? Oh my! Lost in evolution... If it was lost in evolution, can that be proved? I'd love to see a skeleton of a hen with teeth.

We will never see that will we, though?

And Genes for features are passed down. DNA determines everything you are.


This is your argument. This is Evolution.

Macroevolution: The hypothesis macroevolution assumes that a given life form has an unlimited ability to change. This means that some process must exist to ADD information to the creature's genetic code. After all, a creature's ability to change is limited by the information iin the genetic code. There are only a certain number of genes and alleles of those genes. There is therefore only a certain number of possible variations in genotype and therefore a limited number of possible phenotypes. Thus, in order to get an unlimited amount of change, a creature must somehow find a way to add genes and alleles to its genetic code! Which is impossible.

DrWho, LOL.

More studying to do? I feel like I will have to start quoting myself and using lines already stated above as responses.

Read the blog, there's enough information in there to counter any and all of what you claim as valid points.

Adaption is not a theory nor an actual reason that supports Evolution. Adaption is real, but it is not by any means provide a way to add to the genetic code, thus no species change, EVER. I believe that adaption is something already in the animals genetic code. Certain cats and dogs grow winter-coats because winter is approaching. That is adaption.

And if you so strongly believe Genes can be added to the genetic code naturally, show your proof. I provide you with fact, you provide me with insults and fiction.

Feel free to continue posting, I love this.

Neon, if you agreeing with the blog. Than you only need to look deeper to see where this ties in with things. If we weren't here by water born pathogens... How then did our existence come into being? Not trying to support Creationism, but this is the question that I explored in the past.

Exactly.. we're here because earth is right for us.. hence why most planets don't have life on them. I don't get why that proves creationism.

Nice way to express your opinion!