One of many problems with Evolution

[Metsfanmax]

I'm glad to read you see my point, it is good to have several different interest groups involved in interpreting observable evidence.

Actually, the only interest group that should be interpreting observable evidence is the one whose job it is to interpret observable evidence.

5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber; It rejoices as a strong man to run his course. 6 Its rising is from one end of the heavens, And its circuit to the other end of them; And there is nothing hidden from its heat. " The church missed this verse.

Pretty sure that text says the Sun revolves around the Earth.

Let me clarify, why should it bother me, when all of evolution is based on the foundation or requirement of billions of years and therefore evolutionist have no choice but to believe in billions of years for earth. It's not an option.

The theory accurately explains the distribution of observed life forms and its genetic content. It therefore implies that the Earth is billions of years old (or at least very, very old) for that to have happened. The fact that other methods of measuring the age of the Earth also agree on a very old Earth is very nice, but it has nothing to do with evolution.

Would you prefer I listed halos in granite rock from Polonium that don't have a descendant ancestral halo, i.e. they are in a primordial state, bypassing the natural decay route and therefore bypassing massive amounts of years.

Yes, please. While that would still be incorrect, it would at least be in the right field of science.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

it is in harmony with science and physics, not scientist nor physicist.

It should bother you that you think you understand "science and physics" better than the people who devote their entire lives to studying those things.

Why should it bother me, when an evolutionist is taught sciences from an evolutionist, there is no reason for a red flag there.

Doesn't bother you that a creationist is taught science by creationists though?
Science is good, needed and fun. We should always use it to learn. I hold the Bible as truth and have not seen any conflict with science and the Bible. I see conflicts with evolutionary scientist and their interpretations of observable evidence and the Bible.

Why should it bother me, when all of evolution is based on the earth being billions of years old

No, it's not.....Let me clarify, why should it bother me, when all of evolution is based on the foundation or requirement of billions of years and therefore evolutionist have no choice but to believe in billions of years for earth. It's not an option.

Why on earth would anyone believe the Rate of Decay has always been constant, when I can take mets to biomass farms near chicken farms, and let him see that we can convert algae and chicken products (e.g. veins, tendons, adipose, etc) and add high heat, and in 30 minutes get petroleum. Which is suppose to take 50 million years.

It should bother you that you think chemical reactions have anything to do with radioactive decay. Just because they're both science-y doesn't mean that you get to make shit up.

Would you prefer I listed halos in granite rock from Polonium that don't have a descendant ancestral halo, i.e. they are in a primordial state, bypassing the natural decay route and therefore bypassing massive amounts of years.
A proof text for evolution's massive amount of time are the fossil fuels, so showing scientific evidence that those processes can be accelerated from 50 million years to 30 minutes and 20 million years to 8 months respectively, flies right in the face of the natural uniformatarian slow decay process of a Constant Rate of Decay.

As I posted before when you first brought up your polonium halos argument, 1) they have never been proven to be attributed to polonium decay, that is one creationist's theory (who isn't a geologist) and 2) none of those halos are in primordial rocks.

And as mets pointed out, and I have multiple times now, nuclide decay has pretty much nothing to do with normal chemical reactions.

-TG

[universalchiro]

http://www.halos.com/
Nuclear physicist disagrees with you tail gunner.

And both of you know that the process of biomass turning into fossil fuels is based on decay. All evolutionary pro doctrine says over millions of years of time biomass decayed into fossil fuels.
Mets wants to play around with nomenclature, but decay is decay, whether its a complex molecule or a base element, the tending towards increased entropy is decay. And for this discussion the error in believing in the slow uniformatarian hypothesis that the rates of decay are always slow. Which they are not.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

http://www.halos.com/
Nuclear physicist disagrees with you tail gunner.

And both of you know that the process of biomass turning into fossil fuels is based on decay. All evolutionary pro doctrine says over millions of years of time biomass decayed into fossil fuels.
Mets wants to play around with nomenclature, but decay is decay, whether its a complex molecule or a base element, the tending towards increased entropy is decay. And for this discussion the error in believing in the slow uniformatarian hypothesis that the rates of decay are always slow. Which they are not.

I saw nothing which cited independent testing or any empirical data. All I saw were letters by creationists affiliated with a creationist organization that had its panties in a twist about the Nat'l Academy of Sciences.

Again, these letters did not firmly establish that the halos are caused by the decay of polonium. All of their cited work was by the one guy, Gentry. He is literally the only person who claims they are polonium halos and was willing to submit to journals. The site also misleadingly attempts to use the letters of Dr. Dalymple's letters to support their cause. Ha! He was arguing the exact opposite! It's hilarious. His point was that the creationists prey upon the scientific illiteracy of Americans by falsely using a difficult subject (like radioactive decay), throwing some big words around, and counting that the public will take their word for it.

Even if he could prove beyond a doubt that the halos are as he posits, this still does not address the issue of their placement. They are not found in primordial rock, therefore they cannot be used as the "a-ha gotcha!" he believes them to be.

I don't know why you keep believing that "decay is decay." The rot of your compost is not like the radiation of nuclides. It just isn't. One is the product of any combination of p-v-t work, organic interactions, and other mundane chemical reactions. The other is the result of internuclear forces like the strong nuclear force and z/n ratios.

Also, for like the millionth time, there are alternative methods to make products like fossil fuels. Ain't you ever heard of synthetic oils? Some are petroleum based, but some can be designed from other starting products. Chemical reactions can be brought about in faster or less energy-dependent ways by design and with alternate pathways. Similar to enzymes. A typical chemical reaction of organic life forms would take decades to thousands of years without enzymes to foster them by lowering the activation energy.

-TG

[Metsfanmax]

And both of you know that the process of biomass turning into fossil fuels is based on decay. All evolutionary pro doctrine says over millions of years of time biomass decayed into fossil fuels.
Mets wants to play around with nomenclature, but decay is decay, whether its a complex molecule or a base element, the tending towards increased entropy is decay. And for this discussion the error in believing in the slow uniformatarian hypothesis that the rates of decay are always slow. Which they are not.

So you're the one asserting that the formation of fossil fuels over millions of years and the splitting of a nucleus are related in some way simply because we often refer to both using the word "decay," and I am the one playing with nomenclature? Lol.

[universalchiro]

Lightning ionizes nitrogen to water soluble nitrogen oxide in 1 second. How long would that take under slow uniformatarian process to convert N2 into NO2.
Bacteria converts Nitrogen to Nitrates in months. That's another acceleration process. Are there not 100 lightnings around the globe every second ionizing.

@tail gunner: you said there are no empirical data, the submitted reports has empirical data. How did his evolutionary bosses respond to his evidence? They fired him. Very Stalliness and Church inquisition like.
Consider the following:

Published Reports

The following reports are in one of three formats. To view the ones in PDF format, use Adobe Acrobat Reader. To view the ones in RTF

1. Gentry, R.V. 1968. "Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of Certain Variant Radioactive Halos." Science 160, 1228. HTML PDF 2. Gentry, R.V. 1970. "Giant Radioactive Halos: Indicators of Unknown Alpha-Radioactivity?" Science 169, 670. HTML PDF 3. Gentry, R.V. 1971. "Radiohalos: Some Unique Pb Isotope Ratios and Unknown Alpha Radioactivity." Science 173, 727. PDF 4. Gentry, R.V. 1973. "Radioactive Halos." Annual Review of Nuclear

5. Gentry, R.V. 1974. "Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Science 184, 62. HTML PDF 6. Gentry, R.V. 1975. Response to J.H. Fremlin's Comments on "Spectacle Halos." Nature 258, 269. 7. Gentry, R.V. 1977. "Mystery of the Radiohalos." Research Communications NETWORK, Breakthrough Report, February 10,

8. Gentry, R.V. 1978a. "Are Any Unusual Radiohalos Evidence for SHE?" International Symposium on Superheavy Elements, Lubbock, Texas. New York: Pergamon Press. PDF 9. Gentry, R.V. 1978b. "Implications on Unknown Radioactivity of Giant and Dwarf Haloes in Scandinavian Rocks." Nature 274,

10. Gentry, R.V. 1978c. "Reinvestigation of the α Activity of Conway Granite." Nature 273, 217. HTML PDF 11. Gentry, R.V. 1979. "Time: Measured Responses." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 60, 474. PDF RTF 12. Gentry, R.V. 1980. "Polonium Halos." EOS Transactions of the American Geophysical Union 61, 514. HTML PDF 13. Gentry, R.V. 1982. Letters. Physics Today 35, No. 10, 13. 14. Gentry, R.V. 1983a. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 4, 3. 15. Gentry, R.V. 1983b. Letters. Physics Today 36, No. 11, 124. 16. Gentry, R.V. 1984a. "Radioactive Halos in a Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective." Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science 1, 38. HTML PDF 17. Gentry, R.V. 1984c. Letters. Physics Today 37, No. 4, 108. 18. Gentry, R.V. 1984d. Letters. Physics Today 37, No. 12, 92. 19. Gentry, R.V. 1987a. "Radioactive Halos: j for Creation." Proceedings of the First International Conference on

20. Gentry, R.V. 1998. "Fingerprints of Creation." Creation Ex Nihilo

21. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1973. "Ion Microprobe Confirmation of Pb Isotope Ratios and Search for Isomer Precursors in Polonium Radiohalos." Nature 244, 282. HTML PDF 22. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1974. "'Spectacle' Array of Po-210 Halo Radiocentres in Biotite: A Nuclear Geophysical Enigma." Nature

23. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1976a. "Radiohalos and Coalified Wood: New Evidence Relating to the Time of Uranium Introduction and Coalification." Science 194, 315. HTML PDF

Reports Dealing with Helium and Lead Retention in Zircons

1. Gentry, R.V. 1984b. "Lead Retention in Zircons" (Technical

2. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1982a. "Differential Lead Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment." Science 216, 296.

3. Gentry, R.V. et al. 1982b. "Differential Helium Retention in Zircons: Implications for Nuclear Waste Containment." Geophysical Research Letters 9, 1129. HTML PDF

Reports Dealing with Astronomy and Cosmology

1. Gentry, R. V. 1997. "A New Redshift Interpretation." Modern Physics Letters A, Vol. 12, No. 37, 2919. (This paper was also posted in 1998 on the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive:

2. Gentry, R. V. 1998. "The Genuine Cosmic Rosetta." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: gr-gc/9806061. HTML PDF 3. Gentry, R. V. 1998. "The New Redshift Interpretation Affirmed." This paper was posted on what was then the Los Alamos National Laboratory E-Print arXive: physics/9810051. HTML PDF 4. Gentry, R. V. 2003. "Discovery of a Major Contradiction in Big Bang Cosmology Points to the New Cosmic Center Universe Model." CERN Preprint, Ext-2003-021. HTML PDF 5. Gentry, R. V. 2003. "New Cosmic Center Universe Model Matches Eight of Big Bang's Major Predictions Without the F-L Paradigm." CERN Preprint, Ext-2003-022. PDF 6. Gentry, R. V. 2004. "Collapse of Big Bang Cosmology and the Emergence of the New Cosmic Center Model of the Universe." Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 56, 4. HTML PDF

The first three astronomy and cosmology papers may also be obtained by going to the the web sites of either Los Alamos National Laboratory or arXiv.org. arXiv.org is currently

NOTE: For more information about the Big Bang's fatal flaws and "The Great 21st Century Scientific Watergate," please check out our

Polonium Halos: Unrefuted Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation

[AndyDufresne]

Polonium Halos: Unrefuted Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation

--Andy

[tzor]

The Bible says ...and it's not actually clearly stated that the original Adam was male, either).

LOL This is par from player, another statement she reveals lack of knowledge. I doubt you even read the Bible making such ridiculous claims.
Strong's Concordance #120 for man is the Hebrew word: ADAM: means a a human being, mankind, man, Adam, the name of the first man.

Did you just hoist yourself on your own petard?
Player stated that the Bible doesn't clearly state that the "original Adam was male."
You cite strong's concordance which clearly states that ADAM means "a human being" it doesn't mean "male." (zā·ḵār)
You just proved her point while attempting to ridicule it.
With that said, let's look at the footnotes of the NABRE.

* [2:5] Man: the Hebrew word ’adam is a generic term meaning “human being.” In chaps. 2–3, however, the archetypal human being is understood to be male (Adam), so the word ’adam is translated “man” here.

Now while it doesn't state it, one can assume it. After all, Genesis 1:27 does state "male and female" Since we know Eve became the mother of all living, the first human had to be male, since God made them male and female.

[tzor]

This is blasphemy. Calling the Word of God someones fictional story. There is more hope for an ice cold atheist than a luke warm "believer" as you.

Jesus said not one jot nor tittle will pass from the Law (Matt 5:18)...

Now this is rich. How rich is it? First of all you cited text without surrounding text. So let's see the complete text.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. But whoever obeys and teaches these commandments will be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

* [5:17–20] This statement of Jesus’ position concerning the Mosaic law is composed of traditional material from Matthew’s sermon documentation (see note on Mt 5:1–7:29), other Q material (cf. Mt 18; Lk 16:17), and the evangelist’s own editorial touches. To fulfill the law appears at first to mean a literal enforcement of the law in the least detail: until heaven and earth pass away nothing of the law will pass (Mt 5:18). Yet the “passing away” of heaven and earth is not necessarily the end of the world understood, as in much apocalyptic literature, as the dissolution of the existing universe. The “turning of the ages” comes with the apocalyptic event of Jesus’ death and resurrection, and those to whom this gospel is addressed are living in the new and final age, prophesied by Isaiah as the time of “new heavens and a new earth” (Is 65:17; 66:22). Meanwhile, during Jesus’ ministry when the kingdom is already breaking in, his mission remains within the framework of the law, though with significant anticipation of the age to come, as the following antitheses (Mt 5:21–48) show.

So anyway, back to the topic. Jesus is talking about the commandments! Jesus isn't talking about the scientific accuracy of the first chapter of Genesis.

I'm sorry, but it's time to invoke 2 Peter 3:16 ... "ignorant and unstable"

[universalchiro]

Observable and testable evidence against billions of years in Uniformatarian hypothesis (a bedrock for evolution constructs), is Zircon crystal in black Mica.

When U238 decays to Th234, the byproduct is helium and this is in accordance with the 1st Law of Conservation. The helium gets stored often in these crystal called zircon. The problem for slow evolutionist is the concentrations of helium in zircon exceeds normal rates of decay under natural conditions by 1.5 billion years wordy of decay. Helium dissipates from the crystals at a known rate and U238 loses alpha particles at a known rate, therefore since the equilibrium of formation and dissipation of helium is out of balance by 1.5 billion years, shows an acceleration of decay of the heavy isotopes to more stable isotopes. This is observable and testable evidence that there was a global trauma on earth to accelerate the decay process, i.e. Genesis Global catastrophic flood.

Source: Encyclopedia of Creation Science, "Acceleration decay"

[universalchiro]

The Bible says ...and it's not actually clearly stated that the original Adam was male, either).

LOL This is par from player, another statement she reveals lack of knowledge. I doubt you even read the Bible making such ridiculous claims.
Strong's Concordance #120 for man is the Hebrew word: ADAM: means a a human being, mankind, man, Adam, the name of the first man.

Did you just hoist yourself on your own petard?
Player stated that the Bible doesn't clearly state that the "original Adam was male."
You cite strong's concordance which clearly states that ADAM means "a human being" it doesn't mean "male." (zā·ḵār)
You just proved her point while attempting to ridicule it.
With that said, let's look at the footnotes of the NABRE.

* [2:5] Man: the Hebrew word ’adam is a generic term meaning “human being.” In chaps. 2–3, however, the archetypal human being is understood to be male (Adam), so the word ’adam is translated “man” here.

Now while it doesn't state it, one can assume it. After all, Genesis 1:27 does state "male and female" Since we know Eve became the mother of all living, the first human had to be male, since God made them male and female.

You left out the Hebrew word for man is Adam which also means man. Now you arguing that doesn't mean male is incredulous. But consider Jesus quoting Genesis,"Have you not read, He who created them from the beginning made them male and female". I won't debate this with you further. This is silly.

[tzor]

Observable and testable evidence against billions of years in Uniformatarian hypothesis (a bedrock for evolution constructs), is Zircon crystal in black Mica.

And here is the counter argument ...

Are these young earth claims about zircons true? Not at all. Although this is a noble attempt to do some real science, they failed to consider all the variables in their studies. Here are the problems. Note that although some of these are addressed by Humphreys in a rebuttal, he fails to answer these issues.

1. In the experiments to see how readily helium diffused, they did use one variable, temperature, but they failed to use another one...pressure. Subsurface pressure is great at depth, especially 750 and 1,490 meters deep, the depth of the samples used. This increased pressure would have a great affect on the ability of the helium to diffuse. This fact alone invalidates the young earth experiments.

2. The Fenton Hill site has undergone several periods of faulting and volcanism (it is only a few kilometers from Valles Caldera). This caldera contains excess helium as well. Thus, contamination by outside helium is a real possibility.

3. In the scientific study published by Humphreys and his associates, they do not report on the variabilities and do not give measurement errors. Unlike real peer-reviewed articles, other scientists have no way of interpreting how accurate their results are.

4. When examined, the Q/Q0 values (fraction of helium retained) contain math errors, and report values too high.

5. Humphreys did give their total data in the study, in Appendix C. However, when you total them for the 750 meter deep zircons, the helium greatly exceeds the amount that would be expected from 1.5 billion years of uranium decay. This clearly indicates an outside source which provided excess helium to the rocks in question.

6. The most damaging information to the young earth theory is not even addressed here. The RATE group acknowledges that billions of years of radioactive decay has occurred, however, they feel that it occurred within two time frames...during the creation week, and during the year-long flood. However, condensing that much radiation into a one-week period, or into a year-long flood, would produce enough heat to vaporize the earth! Humphreys does recognize this heat problem, but provides no solution.

7. Helium is a gas, and it diffuses, or passes through the rocks. Referring to the original studies, zircons from a depth of 1,000 meters had 58 percent of their total helium (total being the amount produced by 1.5 billion years worth of accumulation), and rocks from 2,900 meters deep had 42 percent. Since helium rises, one would expect as the helium navigates upwards, that the shallower rock would have more helium present, which is what they found. Helium which formed from radioactive decay at 2,900 meters deep would rise, and it would enter other zircons on its way to the surface. One cannot assume that the helium in a particular zircon was only formed within that zircon.
DeYoung says this higher level is expected at the top due to lower temperature. He is partially right. With lower temperature, you may reach the closure temperature. However, you also have less pressure, which must be considered also.

8. A point not even addressed by Humphreys in his rebuttal (he fails to provide rebuttals for several critiques) has to do with secular equilibrium. Basically, as uranium decays to thorium, it reaches a point at which the rate of thorium decay equals its production, after which its concentrations remain constant. Uranium decays in a series of events, from uranium to the final product of lead. This series contains elements with half-lives of well over 10,000 years. If these decay rates changed suddenly (i.e. the young earth theory of accelerated decay), then we would not expect to see these elements in secular equilibrium. However, uranium ores do indeed show secular equilibrium, and clearly indicate they have been in a fixed, constant decay rate for at least the last two million years (the extent of the current research goes back this far).

These points are merely a summary of the complete rebuttal done by Henke and others. As you have time, I urge you to investigate this matter for yourself.

Old earth creationists can rest assured that none of the evidence concerning helium diffusion in zircons indicates a young earth.

[tzor]

You left out the Hebrew word for man is Adam which also means man.

In my younger days that would have gone right to my Sig line. Boy is that so Sig worthy.

Jesus was quoting from chapter one which does say "male" and "female." But we are talking about chapter 2. Note in chapter one the male and female are both made before God rested, on day six. But pointing out the details is totally useless for someone who thinks man also means man.

[AndyDufresne]

Source: Encyclopedia of Creation Science

**In a car mechanic voice** "Well there's your problem."


--Andy

[PLAYER57832]

decay is decay, whether its a complex molecule or a base element, the tending towards increased entropy is decay.

Where do you GET this information?

[universalchiro]

UC, I challenge you to find one statement in the Quran that is incorrect.

Nice try young man. This is a discussion about evolution, go start your own thread to discuss the Qu'ran. Since you believe in evolution and you brought up the Quran, how about you go to a Muslim in the Middle East and try pushing your hypothesis on them and calling them names in person as you do Christian behind your keyboard.

[Metsfanmax]

UC, I challenge you to find one statement in the Quran that is incorrect.

Nice try young man. This is a discussion about evolution, go start your own thread to discuss the Qu'ran. Since you believe in evolution and you brought up the Quran, how about you go to a Muslim in the Middle East and try pushing your hypothesis on them and calling them names in person as you do Christian behind your keyboard.

This is not a discussion about evolution. It is a discussion about religion.

[universalchiro]

UC, I challenge you to find one statement in the Quran that is incorrect.

Nice try young man. This is a discussion about evolution, go start your own thread to discuss the Qu'ran. Since you believe in evolution and you brought up the Quran, how about you go to a Muslim in the Middle East and try pushing your hypothesis on them and calling them names in person as you do Christian behind your keyboard.

This is not a discussion about evolution. It is a discussion about religion.

For once we agree and the first horizon of truth from you.
Religion: #4 of Merriam-Webster Dictionary: a belief held to with faith and ardor, i.e. evolution hypothesis.

[shickingbrits]

UC,

I repeat my question in regards to not one iota of the law being lost:

How about the other gospels?

[Metsfanmax]

UC, I challenge you to find one statement in the Quran that is incorrect.

Nice try young man. This is a discussion about evolution, go start your own thread to discuss the Qu'ran. Since you believe in evolution and you brought up the Quran, how about you go to a Muslim in the Middle East and try pushing your hypothesis on them and calling them names in person as you do Christian behind your keyboard.

This is not a discussion about evolution. It is a discussion about religion.

For once we agree and the first horizon of truth from you.
Religion: #4 of Merriam-Webster Dictionary: a belief held to with faith and ardor, i.e. evolution hypothesis.

I have no faith or ardor in the evolution hypothesis. I agree with it because it is consistent with the evidence. If the fossil rabbit in the Precambrian shows up, I'll drop my agreement with it promptly*. Can you say the same about your beliefs?

*That is the real problem here. This whole thread is about how you personally find evolution to be unlikely. That is really irrelevant. It explains all of the data we have, so it is the best theory that exists. To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, no matter how improbable evolution may be, if it is the only possible explanation, then it must be the right one.

[Gweeedo]

UC, I challenge you to find one statement in the Quran that is incorrect.

Nice try young man. This is a discussion about evolution, go start your own thread to discuss the Qu'ran. Since you believe in evolution and you brought up the Quran, how about you go to a Muslim in the Middle East and try pushing your hypothesis on them and calling them names in person as you do Christian behind your keyboard.

This is not a discussion about evolution. It is a discussion about religion.

For once we agree and the first horizon of truth from you.
Religion: #4 of Merriam-Webster Dictionary: a belief held to with faith and ardor, i.e. evolution hypothesis.

I have no faith or ardor in the evolution hypothesis. I agree with it because it is consistent with the evidence. If the fossil rabbit in the Precambrian shows up, I'll drop my agreement with it promptly*. Can you say the same about your beliefs?

*That is the real problem here. This whole thread is about how you personally find evolution to be unlikely. That is really irrelevant. It explains all of the data we have, so it is the best theory that exists. To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, no matter how improbable evolution may be, if it is the only possible explanation, then it must be the right one.

You would rather believe that you ascended from an ape rather than the written word, passed down from the history of the world.

[Metsfanmax]

You would rather believe that you ascended from an ape rather than the written word, passed down from the history of the world.

No. (Also, even in evolutionary theory, humans didn't "ascend" from apes.) My existence would make a lot more sense to me if it were the result of some sort of higher power, because I am at a complete loss to explain my own self-consciousness. So it is a nicer story for me, personally. However, I choose to believe what the facts support, not what the nicer story is.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

UC, I challenge you to find one statement in the Quran that is incorrect.

Nice try young man. This is a discussion about evolution, go start your own thread to discuss the Qu'ran. Since you believe in evolution and you brought up the Quran, how about you go to a Muslim in the Middle East and try pushing your hypothesis on them and calling them names in person as you do Christian behind your keyboard.

This is not a discussion about evolution. It is a discussion about religion.

For once we agree and the first horizon of truth from you.
Religion: #4 of Merriam-Webster Dictionary: a belief held to with faith and ardor, i.e. evolution hypothesis.

I have no faith or ardor in the evolution hypothesis. I agree with it because it is consistent with the evidence. If the fossil rabbit in the Precambrian shows up, I'll drop my agreement with it promptly*. Can you say the same about your beliefs?

*That is the real problem here. This whole thread is about how you personally find evolution to be unlikely. That is really irrelevant. It explains all of the data we have, so it is the best theory that exists. To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes, no matter how improbable evolution may be, if it is the only possible explanation, then it must be the right one.

You would rather believe that you ascended from an ape rather than the written word, passed down from the history of the world.

As a hypothetical, yes.

That's not to mention that your written word of the history of the world is rife with inaccuracies, but if presented with two options, (1) evolutionary theory, held to be accurate, or (2) the Abrahamic religions creation story, held to be accurate, I would pick (1).

-TG

[PLAYER57832]

UC, I challenge you to find one statement in the Quran that is incorrect.

Nice try young man. This is a discussion about evolution, go start your own thread to discuss the Qu'ran. Since you believe in evolution and you brought up the Quran, how about you go to a Muslim in the Middle East and try pushing your hypothesis on them and calling them names in person as you do Christian behind your keyboard.

No, you are mostly wrong on that, though a few extremists do oppose evolution, it is, ironically enough, in the context of opposing ALL western science. Opposing evolution because that is "what the Bible says is solely a new Christian phenomenon.

[Pirlo]

This is not evolution:


This is evolution:


And one problem with evolution: poor education + narrow-minded religious organizations = pointless arguments