It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in evolution debate

I would like to respond to the letter 'Recent letter offered no examples of Darwinian disingenuousness,' . He responds to an article with, 'He says evolution is 'so riddled with holes,' yet fails to provide a ... Full Story

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#105655 Dec 31, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I just agreed with you, and you still take issue with me (yourself apparently). Are you just being contrary or what?
Agreed? Yeah, right. Especially not technically astute part. Piss off, Adolf.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#105656 Dec 31, 2012
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>
I have not stated that tens of thousands of challenges to the Bible have been proven false. The list is back in your court since your side HAS stated that there are tens of thousands of errors in the Bible. It's time to prove one.
The rest of your post is a nice summary, albeit dataless, therefore worthless. One thing for you to consider tho is how much variety was already encoded in the genes of the flood survivors. Anticipating that you will state "not enough", please provide confirming data for that, or you could respond "I don't know", and I will then be encouraged to join the hunt for the correct data based answer.
Apparently it was KittenKoder who said there were 68,000 errors in the Bible. That in no way changes the falsehood of your own statement. You cannot point to tens of thousands of errors, so you cannot point to tens of thousands of debunkings.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>I just accept that tens of thousands of attempts to prove the Bible false have failed.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>Have you noticed how I always ask for data, and your side seldom provides any, and your side occasionally asks for data, and I always provide what I can find?
You demonstrate that your criteria for determining validity is entirely arbitrary and faith based. After perusing many pages, I've found that what you apparently advance as "providing what you can find" is in fact nothing but Biblical references, criticism of word choices and vague recriminations of basic facts (Whitehead and Russell proved 1+1=2 in a mere 300 pages) and non-existent data (as in flood evidence) as being unverified. In short, your posts are consistently "dataless" sniping from behind a firewall of denial and faith.
KAB wrote:
<quoted text>I accept the other flood, the world wide one which has not been debunked even after considerable concerted effort.
The world wide flood IS debunked. Pi does not equal 3. It is EXTREMELY unlikely that Jesus was born of a virgin birth, though I can think of at least one scenario (involving neither swallowing a watermelon seed nor a stork) where it could be possible. Noah could not have built a vessel to contain all the animals two by two. A man cannot survive 3 days in the belly of a live, swimming fish. Serpents and donkeys have never been able to form human speech. There is ample evidence that man and civilization existed long before the account of the Garden of Eden.

It would appear that despite professing an air of objectivity and critical thought, it's the Creationist Crowd that's got nuthin.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105657 Dec 31, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently it was KittenKoder who said there were 68,000 errors in the Bible. That in no way changes the falsehood of your own statement. You cannot point to tens of thousands of errors, so you cannot point to tens of thousands of debunkings.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You demonstrate that your criteria for determining validity is entirely arbitrary and faith based. After perusing many pages, I've found that what you apparently advance as "providing what you can find" is in fact nothing but Biblical references, criticism of word choices and vague recriminations of basic facts (Whitehead and Russell proved 1+1=2 in a mere 300 pages) and non-existent data (as in flood evidence) as being unverified. In short, your posts are consistently "dataless" sniping from behind a firewall of denial and faith.
<quoted text>
The world wide flood IS debunked. Pi does not equal 3. It is EXTREMELY unlikely that Jesus was born of a virgin birth, though I can think of at least one scenario (involving neither swallowing a watermelon seed nor a stork) where it could be possible. Noah could not have built a vessel to contain all the animals two by two. A man cannot survive 3 days in the belly of a live, swimming fish. Serpents and donkeys have never been able to form human speech. There is ample evidence that man and civilization existed long before the account of the Garden of Eden.
It would appear that despite professing an air of objectivity and critical thought, it's the Creationist Crowd that's got nuthin.
I got the number from some website, it is probably not accurate, most round numbers are just estimations. ;)

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105658 Dec 31, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Cropped your list of junk for space, not just because it's junk.
First, I asked what technology CREATIONISM has created, not what was invented by a creationist. Do you not get the difference?
Secondly, to the bit I left in:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1038
http://classes.yale.edu/fractals/CA/GA/GACirc...
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%...
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp...
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp...
There's a lot more where those came from. You should be careful making blind assertions, especially to someone who has dealt with using these algorithms in person.
OK so now you can chase in philosophy, ask questions and post links. WOW!

None of them demonstates that creationists are unable to present support for their view and none of those links engage my questions to you. That's what you are running from and that is the conversation I first engaged in with you this time round. If you are not prepared to address the specifics then please ignore me and keep philosophizing with the kids here. That's your niche not the scientific world of discourse.

None of you have stated why a deteriorating genome supports TOE better than creationism, nor has any evolutionist offered their speculations around their predictions on non coding dna as if evos were predictionless here in their any thing goes pseudo science. All you can do is quack, post links, and ask questions, none of which deter from the fact that I can support my view and present support for my view.

Here LOOK, I can post links too.

Researchers have used the number of mutations in DNA like a molecular clock to date key events in human evolution. Now it seems that the molecular clock ticks more slowly than anyone had thought, and many dates may need to be adjusted. Over the past 3 years, researchers have used new methods to sequence whole human genomes, allowing them to measure directly, for the first time, the average rate at which new mutations arise in a newborn baby. Most of these studies conclude that the mutation rate in humans today is roughly half the rate that has been used in many evolutionary studies since 2000, which would make genetic estimates of dates older than previously believed. The question now is how much older?
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6104/18...

Perhaps these silly algorithmic magic model links you provided should go rerun their silly magic with the latest flavour of the month for mutation rate that is halved for today......
Here's what happened with the latest flavour of the month...
For instance, the slowest proposed mutation rate puts the common ancestor of humans and orang-utans at 40 million years ago, he says: more than 20 million years before dates derived from abundant fossil evidence. This very slow clock has the common ancestor of monkeys and humans co-existing with the last dinosaurs.“It gets very complicated,” deadpans Reich.
Little concrete evidence supports this idea, says Reich. He agrees that the molecular clock must be slower than was thought, but says that the question is how slow.“My strong view right now is that the true value of the human mutation rate is an open question.”
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-h...

When are you going to learn that these researchers use whatever the heck suits them to get results they can live with.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105659 Dec 31, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently it was KittenKoder who said there were 68,000 errors in the Bible. That in no way changes the falsehood of your own statement. You cannot point to tens of thousands of errors, so you cannot point to tens of thousands of debunkings.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
You demonstrate that your criteria for determining validity is entirely arbitrary and faith based. After perusing many pages, I've found that what you apparently advance as "providing what you can find" is in fact nothing but Biblical references, criticism of word choices and vague recriminations of basic facts (Whitehead and Russell proved 1+1=2 in a mere 300 pages) and non-existent data (as in flood evidence) as being unverified. In short, your posts are consistently "dataless" sniping from behind a firewall of denial and faith.
<quoted text>
The world wide flood IS debunked. Pi does not equal 3. It is EXTREMELY unlikely that Jesus was born of a virgin birth, though I can think of at least one scenario (involving neither swallowing a watermelon seed nor a stork) where it could be possible. Noah could not have built a vessel to contain all the animals two by two. A man cannot survive 3 days in the belly of a live, swimming fish. Serpents and donkeys have never been able to form human speech. There is ample evidence that man and civilization existed long before the account of the Garden of Eden.
It would appear that despite professing an air of objectivity and critical thought, it's the Creationist Crowd that's got nuthin.
Oh dear, are we forgetting that the entire concept of evolutionary theory is based on researchers inability to poof dead elements into a complex living factory of reproduction, but a creationist has to provide a higher level of substantiation that you. I guess you got nothin' as well.

See I can post links also..

http://www.ucg.org/science/noahs-ark-was-it-p...

Virgin birth is possible these days with IVF but I suppose the Creator of the entire universe would not have had any clue about alternative fertilization methods.

Adam and Eve knew they were talking to the ventriloquist reflected in the snake. We are talking about a time where spirit creatures were free to take human form or any form at all. As magical as that appears to you, so was the finding that not only can matter create energy, but energy can also create matter. Spirit creatures are described as energy and light.

Now let's gat back to the fact that the entire concept of evolution is based on a myth that evolutionists have had to extract from evolutionary theory and just say 'The dirt did it".

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105660 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
OK so now you can chase in philosophy, ask questions and post links.....
You have just graduated from spammer to total moron. A dishonest moron at that. You asked for applications of evolutionary algorithms in technology, I presented, you saw that you were wrong so pulled a red herring out of you know where. Then you say I'm "chasing philosophy?" Double fail. I presented some of the projects in which evolutionary algorithms play a huge role in, as I had asserted, as evidence for my assertion. You make assertions and instead of providing evidence for them, you say "well that doesn't prove I'm wrong." No, it doesn't prove you're wrong. What proves you wrong is your complete lack of evidence.

Show evidence of an actual scientific advancement that was made using your "theory" or creationism. It would be nice if you actually gave a theory at all, so I'm being generous here since you have not stated this "theory" once, not even a hypothesis, and certainly no scientific advancements resulting from the assertion.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#105661 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh dear, are we forgetting that the entire concept of evolutionary theory is based on researchers inability to poof dead elements into a complex living factory of reproduction, but a creationist has to provide a higher level of substantiation that you. I guess you got nothin' as well.
See I can post links also..
http://www.ucg.org/science/noahs-ark-was-it-p...
Virgin birth is possible these days with IVF but I suppose the Creator of the entire universe would not have had any clue about alternative fertilization methods.
Adam and Eve knew they were talking to the ventriloquist reflected in the snake. We are talking about a time where spirit creatures were free to take human form or any form at all. As magical as that appears to you, so was the finding that not only can matter create energy, but energy can also create matter. Spirit creatures are described as energy and light.
Now let's gat back to the fact that the entire concept of evolution is based on a myth that evolutionists have had to extract from evolutionary theory and just say 'The dirt did it".
That was a load of apologetics crap, a big one too. Since it's all already been addressed, that is all I will bother saying.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105662 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
None of you have stated why a deteriorating genome supports TOE better than creationism, nor has any evolutionist offered their speculations around their predictions on non coding dna as if evos were predictionless here in their any thing goes pseudo science. All you can do is quack, post links, and ask questions
... because you insist on attacking a caricature rather than dealing with our posts.

Oh look! Here you go again!
MazHere wrote:
none of which deter from the fact that I can support my view and present support for my view.
Here LOOK, I can post links too.
Except for the part where you uh, can't actually present support for your view.

If you could you would actually have some internal consistence.(shrug)
MazHere wrote:
Researchers have used the number of mutations in DNA like a molecular clock to date key events in human evolution. Now it seems that the molecular clock ticks more slowly than anyone had thought, and many dates may need to be adjusted. Over the past 3 years, researchers have used new methods to sequence whole human genomes, allowing them to measure directly, for the first time, the average rate at which new mutations arise in a newborn baby. Most of these studies conclude that the mutation rate in humans today is roughly half the rate that has been used in many evolutionary studies since 2000, which would make genetic estimates of dates older than previously believed. The question now is how much older?
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6104/18...
Perhaps these silly algorithmic magic model links you provided should go rerun their silly magic with the latest flavour of the month for mutation rate that is halved for today......
Here's what happened with the latest flavour of the month...
For instance, the slowest proposed mutation rate puts the common ancestor of humans and orang-utans at 40 million years ago, he says: more than 20 million years before dates derived from abundant fossil evidence. This very slow clock has the common ancestor of monkeys and humans co-existing with the last dinosaurs.“It gets very complicated,” deadpans Reich.
Little concrete evidence supports this idea, says Reich. He agrees that the molecular clock must be slower than was thought, but says that the question is how slow.“My strong view right now is that the true value of the human mutation rate is an open question.”
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-h...
When are you going to learn that these researchers use whatever the heck suits them to get results they can live with.
So what you're saying is that science you don't even agree with anyway does NOT in fact put common ancestry in doubt? Why are you even talking about anything that's 39,994,000 years older than the Earth again?

Oh, right. You're a hypocrite. Carry on.
LowellGuy

United States

#105663 Dec 31, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>What kills me is no matter what the evidence shows....it supports human from non-human evolution and they make things up as they go and slap the label "Scientific evidence on it" The scientific method be damned!!
"Evolution takes millions and millions of years to occur"....."What? The Cambrian explosion??"....Well, PUNCTUATED EQUALIBRIUM!!!! Even though PE has never been observed or tested.......The origin of life?.......Life is much to complex to have evolved naturally?.....PANSPERMIA!!!!! Which has absolutely no scientific evidence to back it up!!!!
Welcome to the group!
As though the scientific opinions of some backwoods stone fondler who thinks he can see electrons and observe theories should mean anything to anybody. Still the champ!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105664 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Oh dear, are we forgetting that the entire concept of evolutionary theory is based on researchers inability to poof dead elements into a complex living factory of reproduction, but a creationist has to provide a higher level of substantiation that you. I guess you got nothin' as well.
Don't need researchers to do that, life is capable of doing that all by itself. But if it's abio in particular you're referring to (probably) remember that the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. It's not a problem for the theory, never has been, never will be. Like I explained months ago, abio could be magical poofing for all we care. Makes no difference.
MazHere wrote:
Whoa, LOOK OUT MAZ! You just contradicted yourself again.

In multiple different ways no less. Of course you're the big brain who knows more about biology than the researchers themselves, right? Therefore you already know EXACTLY what I'm referring to and already have a devastating rebuttal up your sleeve!!!

It's New Years Eve in a bit. I'm clean shaven.

I'll have surpassed ZZ-Top in beard-length before you have anything.

In fact I've been waiting since the other freakin' thread.
MazHere wrote:
Virgin birth is possible these days with IVF but I suppose the Creator of the entire universe would not have had any clue about alternative fertilization methods.
I'm sure it would. But in that particular case it had something to do with rape via magical poofing.

However can you provide any objective scientific evidence that this creator of yours exists?

(tumbling tumbleweed rolls by in the wind)
MazHere wrote:
Adam and Eve knew they were talking to the ventriloquist
BWAAAAAAAAA HAAA HAAA HAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

Bub, you've been arguing for GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC for all this time, now you have to resort to appealing to ventriloquism as your apologetics? Srsly?
MazHere wrote:
reflected in the snake.
What snake? There was no snake! Have you not read the Bible?
MazHere wrote:
We are talking about a time where spirit creatures were free to take human form or any form at all.
Uh, no, VENTRILOQUIST spirit creatures, remember?
MazHere wrote:
As magical as that appears to you
No SHITE Sherlock.
MazHere wrote:
so was the finding that not only can matter create energy, but energy can also create matter.
Until we had scientific explanations for such phenomena. By the way, matter IS a form of energy.
MazHere wrote:
Spirit creatures are described as energy and light.
Yes, rather nebulous, eh?
MazHere wrote:
Now let's gat back to the fact that the entire concept of evolution is based on a myth that evolutionists have had to extract from evolutionary theory and just say 'The dirt did it".
Actually it's based on the observable fact of change in allele frequencies over time. The hypothesis being common ancestry supported by BILLIONS of facts and independent lines of testable evidence such as these right here which you still have yet to get to grips with:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105665 Dec 31, 2012
Also can someone tell me that if spirit creatures could take ANY form at all then what the FRAK would they need ventriloquists for?

Answers on a postcard to: Dr Chase Meridian, Arkham Asylum, Gotham City, USA.

Whacko. Is that a technical term?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Iquique

#105666 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet I a can present numerous peer reviewed articles that speak to a deteriorating genome and the negative effects of epistasis.
All I can hear you offering is a justification for your existence.
Evolutionists publish, therefore evolutionists exist, even when they don't know what they are talking about, and they can prove it.
Evos wish they had a scientific method but all you actually have is a peer review process of ego stroking.
So, is the scientific method a philosophy? Yes it is. And when a philosophy is elevated to the level of dogmatism, then truth suffers.
http://carm.org/scientific-method-philosophy
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3...
I am just waiting for you to deny that the data I spoke to can be presented outright so I can show everyone how smart some evolutionists are!
Then I am going to ask what is the 'how' to the reasonings and why thses are based on more than faith.
Data was requested and data can and has been given. Unfortunately for evolutionists, although they would love to be the ones that determine what creationists think and accept, they aren't.
Certainly I am not after converts. Look at it this way. If you are right we'll die and that will be that. If I am right I get to say "I told you so" in the next world. In the long-term I am on the winning side.
You really need to calm down and not be so confrontational.

Arguing against evolution is pointless...its been picked at by both scientists and creotards for over a 150 years now and it still stands strong, whether you think it should or not.

The Bible keeps getting eaten away at by scientific findings, and more and more people think religion is a fraud....which it it, by the way.

In short, your arguments are pointless.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105667 Dec 31, 2012
LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
As though the scientific opinions of some backwoods stone fondler who thinks he can see electrons and observe theories should mean anything to anybody. Still the champ!
Man, I forgot those classics! But I dunno, I think metamorphosis ventriloquist spirit creatures are worthy competitors, no?
LowellGuy

United States

#105668 Dec 31, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>Adam and Eve knew they were talking to the ventriloquist reflected in the snake.
Prove it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105669 Dec 31, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You really need to calm down and not be so confrontational.
Arguing against evolution is pointless...its been picked at by both scientists and creotards for over a 150 years now and it still stands strong, whether you think it should or not.
The Bible keeps getting eaten away at by scientific findings, and more and more people think religion is a fraud....which it it, by the way.
In short, your arguments are pointless.
Didn't we tell her that last quarter?

For if we pretend for a moment if evolution is false, since her "scientific alternative" is GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC all we need to do is also invoke magic to solve any and all problems just as she does.

She can't win. Stalemate could be the best she could ever hope for. She may as well go home.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105670 Dec 31, 2012
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
IF is a very large word, and upon that word rests the entirety of the tale. "IF God exists" could he not also create and employ a process by which different kinds of living organisms might develop and diversify from earlier forms? Where is your faith?
i'm sure he could but what is our source of information concerning GOD's attributes? For me it's the bible and it is perfect, and GODs instruction book and gift to his creation n the meaning of life and how to live it. OF course that is a faith mstter, faith being from the greek word pistis, which is a verb, not a noun. Faith is action. You don't have biblical faith, you "do" biblical faith. So my faith is that the bible is GOD's word, and his word tells us he created ex nihilo with his word, and that he created living things after their own kind. Could he have done it through evolution? Sure he could...but what I believe is is very words say he didn't.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105671 Dec 31, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
On MazHere Number 1:
If I understand MazHere correctly, she is arguing that humans carry more functional DNA than previously believed.
Therefore, the trend can be expected to continue to the point that junk DNA will be dismissed altogether.
I don't know how much of the cited study is true discovery and how much is mere deceptive word play, but let's give MazHere the benefit of the doubt and say that the research team has truly found important functions for DNA which had hitherto been dismissed as junk.
That still won't prove that junk DNA doesn't exist at all.
It would take more than that one study to prove that.
There is a biologist who claims to have bred birds with teeth by awakening DNA inherited from their reptilian ancestors.
If junk DNA doesn't explain this biologist's findings, I would like to know what does.
The extrapolation fallacy--I just love it.
On another forum in which I used to participate, there was a Creationist who gleefully reported to us any finding that a species was older than previously believed.
Apparently, if enough of these reports accumulated, that would prove that mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and birds all date from pre-Cambrian times.
What I want to see is an observation of how random, haphazard without aim or method natural occurrences can produce the origin of DNA.
marksman11

Asheville, NC

#105672 Dec 31, 2012
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Two points.
1. The Cambrian was revealed, for a long time, through the exclusive window of the Burgess Shale. Just because that is the only window, does not mean that all the creatures revealed there suddenly appeared at once.
2. PE was alluded to even by Darwin in his first book (though not by that name). So you can cut the crap. The first time I told you this over a year ago, I bothered to find the actual quotation supporting it. But since you repeat the lie, I cannot be bothered again. Gould made a lot of the point and brought it to the attention of evolutionary theorists, but it was already embodied in the theory.
Listen, why do you think it is called the cambrian Explosion? It is because these fossils showed up suddenly without evidence of any ancestors! PE as unscientific as it is, was fabricated to explain it. I don't care who came up and "alluded" to it. It is an unscientific explanation to support an unexplanable observation that doesn't support evolution, but does creationism!!!!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105673 Dec 31, 2012
Are any of you going to explain how the deteriorating genome supports TOE better than a creationist pardigm? I guess not and that can go off into the too hard basket. Don't feel bad though, because your well credentialled researchers also have no clue.

I am confrontational because I can't believe I am talking to adults.

Every time I get on here the same crap ensues. An allegation is made that creationists can't support their view, a creationists provides their support, then evos go into melt down asking for a theory of everything. We surely get sick to death of it.

This is on top of the fact that TOE is entirely based on the myth that life can arise without the hand of deity and one that you have not repeatedly demonstrated in a lab. You actually do not have a theory of evolution because your failed attempts are kinda making it look impossible. Do you understand this at all?

Most of you are not here to engage in scientific discourse. Many are here as an excuse for their sorry lives and an open opportunity to ridicule a creationist. This fact is further exemplified by evos not addressing any questions creos ask even though I have attempted to address theirs.

One point at a time you will not refute me with any substance.

Now again after weeks we are back to the same thing with evos sprooking hot air ad nauseum at JWs.

The genome is deteriorating and I have presented data in support of that claim. That data supports the concept that the genome was once 'perfect' and now isn't. That is also an interpretation of the data based on an assumption of no common ancestry and a biblical scenario that can be supported or falsified. The data indicates deleterious mutations are accumulating in the genome, the interpretations come later. Is that simple enough?

How does this data align with TOE? What mechanism has been proven or demonstrated to address this? Why or how are any assumptions evos have made any more 'scientific' than my claims that a deteriorating genome can be interpreted as evidence for the fall of man?

If you want to be specific and defend TOE I suggest one of you rise to the occasion with links to your support.

If you can't then that says it all...evos want to post and publish and demand more substantiation than they themselves can present, but really can't defend themselves at all.

The evolutionist penchant....I publish, therefore I exist, even though it appears that I do not know what I am talking about. Show me I am wrong!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#105674 Dec 31, 2012
marksman11 wrote:
<quoted text>What I want to see is an observation of how random, haphazard without aim or method natural occurrences can produce the origin of DNA.
You will be waiting a long time. Don't hold your breath in expectation!

"The dirt did it"

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 8 min DanFromSmithville 117,497
Darwin on the rocks 12 min replaytime 190
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 9 hr Bluenose 659
Humans DID evolve from apes! 13 hr Daz Ma Taz 3
Why are there no dinosaur pen is fossil? 14 hr John K 3
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 18 hr Dogen 174,462
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 20 hr The Dude 14

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE