Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Narara, Australia

#349 Oct 6, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
You also complained about finding bird footprints much earlier than we find birds. That is because we don't find bird footprints before we find birds, we find birdlike footprints. The ancestors of birds would have moved and walked very similarly to today's birds, on the ground. They already had birdlike feet for millions of years. We have fossils of the critters and if you examine the feet they are very similar to bird feet. The footprints would have been almost impossible to tell apart.
Well you had best go tell your researchers. For now, your evo researchers have invented a mythical theropod to wear these modern bird feet.

The reversed hallux has always been the signature trait of a modern bird. It is a wonderful display of handwaving and hanging onto to dead theories, that should be falsified if they were based on any science at all, and chalk up yet another anomoly to convergent evolution, the excuse of the century.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#350 Oct 6, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
So my saying the dinos went extinct before Noah is why it is a fairy tale.
I think having basilosaurus predating Indohyus is also proof of an evolutionary fairy tale but evolutionists do not seem to mind contradiction at all.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/...
Now instead of tetrapods taking 15 million years to 'evolve' they did it virtually overnight in 4my.
This is despite the fact that pakecetus is dated as recently as 49-53mya, and ambulocetus natans and Indohyus being dated to around 49mya as well.
This appears to be a real 'DAH' moment for evos.
Well done you evolutionists!
Again, you are making a number of mistaken assumptions here that indicate that you really don't have a firm grasp of how things work in reality.

#1) You seem to think that the oldest fossil of X is the first instance of that creature existing. It's not. That's not what paleontologists claim. What they say is that X existed 45 Million years ago. Did it exist 45.1 Million years ago? Probably, but they are going off the fossil they have.

I would guess that EVERY SINGLE KNOWN DINOSAUR could have its date pushed back either a little or a lot by a new fossil find.

The evidence is not "this is when this thing came into existence" its "at this time period this thing was in existence. It likely existed before and after, but we only have evidence for this particular time."

#2) You seem to think that one thing replaces another automatically as if some magical wizard were pulling a lever. Not the case.

Currently on Earth there are HUNDREDS of different species of canines and if you want to include dog breeds, that jumps into the thousands.

There are also hundreds of species of extinct canine for which we have fossils.

Now, bush dogs in South America are the most "primitive" forms meaning they are most like an earlier branch of the canine tree, where as you could argue that some highly selective breed of pet dog is the most diverse.

Both these things exist in the present.

However, if we had a complete fossil record, you would see that bush dogs exist in the fossil record MUCH earlier than pugs. Yet, they are both still here.

#3) You seem to think that because one group is "ancestral" to another group that paleontologist believe that they are a DIRECT PARENT of that other group. Also not the case.

Just because you are ethnographically anglo-saxon doesn't mean that you are a direct relative of any particular Englishman who's body is uncovered. However, you can still say "this is an ancestor of mine", not meaning "This person is in my direct lineage" but rather "This person is part of a group of people in the past to which my family belongs."

Archaeoptryx is unlikely to be a direct parent of modern birds. It is part of a group of proto-bird ancestors. One of the members of that group ultimately gave rise to modern birds. That doesn't mean that Archaeoptryx isn't related to birds. It's a cousin rather than a grandparent. Still a relative.

The problem here is primarily that most Creationists are incapable of the proper thought processes to understand biology. That's why there are so many engineers which are Creationists. It's a completely different way of thinking.

Creationists like to think that something IS a certain way and that there are clear and distinct borders which separate things.

In reality, nothing IS a certain way, it's all SIMILAR TO a certain set of characteristics.

The best way to demonstrate this:

Which of these people is human:
A black man who is bald and left handed.
A white woman with red hair.
An Asian man who is colorblind.

If they are all human, then what is the defining specific characteristic that determines that? Or is it a group of characteristics that some individuals will possess and others may not?

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#351 Oct 6, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Well you had best go tell your researchers. For now, your evo researchers have invented a mythical theropod to wear these modern bird feet.
What makes you say that it had modern bird feet as opposed to birds have archaic theropod feet?

Did you just invent Jesus to teach the things that your modern Bible says?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Narara, Australia

#352 Oct 6, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
MazHere wrote:
"Tiktaalik has been knocked off its pedastal with a variety of tetrapod footprints being found dated to 400mya, on the heels of the Devonian."
The talkorigins site recognizes that finding, and is making adjustments accordingly.
The scientific field is self-correcting, it looks like.
MaxHere wrote:
"TOE has nothing of substance to offer. That is why I prefer to remain a creationist."
So everyone has a choice:
Shall we follow a science textbook which tries to get everything as accurate as possible, but might be contradicted by next year's science textbook?
Or shall we follow a scripture which stays the same year after year no matter what?
Fortunately for me I have a story to support or falsify.

Evolutionists do not have a story because they make it up as they go along.

Hence TOE remains virtually unfalsifiable.

However whales and birds dated more than half way back to the Devonian, a variety of tetrapods without tails suddenly appearing in the fossil record 400mya, the research into the overwhelmingly negative effects of epistasis, the huge differences you are finding in chimp/human dna, all align with Genesis and cause headaches for evo. Evos have to continually invent more and more stories with handwaving to keep TOE alive.

I do not need to invent mythical theropods because bird footprints that display a reversed hallux aligns with Genesis. You cannot accept the data for what it appears to be and have to wave your hands around with more convolutions.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Narara, Australia

#353 Oct 6, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you say that it had modern bird feet as opposed to birds have archaic theropod feet?
Did you just invent Jesus to teach the things that your modern Bible says?
If you use current dating then you are following dates by the birth of Jesus, like it or not. An entire dating system is based on him.

The tracks display a reversed hallux. Whether or not you like it this is the signature trait for a modern bird, that is of course until that does not suit evos anymore. So evo researchers use the term 'bird like' so they don't look quite as stupid as they otherwise would.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Narara, Australia

#354 Oct 6, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you are making a number of mistaken assumptions here that indicate that you really don't have a firm grasp of how things work in reality.
#1) You seem to think that the oldest fossil of X is the first instance of that creature existing. It's not. That's not what paleontologists claim. What they say is that X existed 45 Million years ago. Did it exist 45.1 Million years ago? Probably, but they are going off the fossil they have.
I would guess that EVERY SINGLE KNOWN DINOSAUR could have its date pushed back either a little or a lot by a new fossil find.
The evidence is not "this is when this thing came into existence" its "at this time period this thing was in existence. It likely existed before and after, but we only have evidence for this particular time."
#2) You seem to think that one thing replaces another automatically as if some magical wizard were pulling a lever. Not the case.
Currently on Earth there are HUNDREDS of different species of canines and if you want to include dog breeds, that jumps into the thousands.
There are also hundreds of species of extinct canine for which we have fossils.
Now, bush dogs in South America are the most "primitive" forms meaning they are most like an earlier branch of the canine tree, where as you could argue that some highly selective breed of pet dog is the most diverse.
Both these things exist in the present.
However, if we had a complete fossil record, you would see that bush dogs exist in the fossil record MUCH earlier than pugs. Yet, they are both still here.
#3) You seem to think that because one group is "ancestral" to another group that paleontologist believe that they are a DIRECT PARENT of that other group. Also not the case.
Just because you are ethnographically anglo-saxon doesn't mean that you are a direct relative of any particular Englishman who's body is uncovered. However, you can still say "this is an ancestor of mine", not meaning "This person is in my direct lineage" but rather "This person is part of a group of people in the past to which my family belongs."
Archaeoptryx is unlikely to be a direct parent of modern birds. It is part of a group of proto-bird ancestors. One of the members of that group ultimately gave rise to modern birds. That doesn't mean that Archaeoptryx isn't related to birds. It's a cousin rather than a grandparent. Still a relative.
The problem here is primarily that most Creationists are incapable of the proper thought processes to understand biology. That's why there are so many engineers which are Creationists. It's a completely different way of thinking.
?
Do you even know what you are talking about. When does general woffle make the criteria for an appropriate reply.

I said that many adaptations are given a new species name while many species have more variation within them.
You have ssaid nothing to refute that and have made an entire post that says absolutely nothing.
[IMG]http://i45.tinypic.com/30 adjzs.jpg[/IMG]
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68...
Many evolutionary researchers also do not accept the dino to bird theory.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/...
The track predates arch and are dated to 212mya. Archaeoptryx could be related to Santa for all I care. The point being all the woffle about it being sold as the intermediate between dinos and birds is rubbish because modern birds had already left their footprints. Arch has been knocked off its perch!

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Narara, Australia

#355 Oct 6, 2012
Nuggin said

[quote]#2) You seem to think that one thing replaces another automatically as if some magical wizard were pulling a lever. Not the case.
Currently on Earth there are HUNDREDS of different species of canines and if you want to include dog breeds, that jumps into the thousands.
There are also hundreds of species of extinct canine for which we have fossils.
Now, bush dogs in South America are the most "primitive" forms meaning they are most like an earlier branch of the canine tree, where as you could argue that some highly selective breed of pet dog is the most diverse.
Both these things exist in the present.
However, if we had a complete fossil record, you would see that bush dogs exist in the fossil record MUCH earlier than pugs. Yet, they are both still here.[/quote]

This is an example of your woffle. You begin with ridiculing me, although I appear to know more than you do about your theory.

I do not think that one thing replaces something automatically. That is the talk of desperate fools.

You have modern bird footprints that predate their supposed ancestors, you have evo scientists that also do not accept the dino to bird theory and can back their claims, you have tetrapods dated to the same time as fully aquatic basilosaurus.

These are the facts and what you have found. You invent common ancestors because you need them, not because you have found any.

How does such a long string of woffle make an appropriate reply. You woffled on so much there was not even room for me to reply without cutting half your post in my last reply.

Bla bla bla means nothing. Darwin saw birds much the same with different beak sizes and these were given different species names.

The difference between these was LESS than what is seen in breeds of dogs and races. As you said dogs are pugs to great danes and humans are pygmies to athletes of all colours and shaped noses.

What this all means is simple. Evolutionists use their taxonomy to suit themselves but in truth it is arbitrary and not based on real scientific classification system.

Evos like to give every adaptation a new species name because they have no idea what they are talking about but hope that micro adaptations lead to macroevolution even thought they have no shred of evidence to support that claim.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#356 Oct 6, 2012
MazHere: "punctuated equilibrium was not predicted..."
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop right there. Darwin himself - while not using that term - predicted it.
"The periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form." Charles Darwin, Origin of Species , 4th edition (1866)
Nice try.
Some quotes from Darwin that indicate that he acknowledged the probability of some form of punctuated equilibrium.

"Natural selection will generally act very slowly, only at long intervals of time, and only on a few of the inhabitants of the same region. I further believe that these slow, intermittent results accord well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of the world have changed" (Darwin 1872, 140-141, chap. 4).

"But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification." (Darwin 1872, 152).

"It is a more important consideration ... that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change (Darwin 1872, 428, chap. 10)."

"It might require a long succession of ages to adapt an organism to some new and peculiar line of life, for instance, to fly through the air; and consequently that the transitional forms would often long remain confined to some one region; but that, when this adaptation had once been effected, and a few species had thus acquired a great advantage over other organisms, a comparatively short time would be necessary to produce many divergent forms, which would spread rapidly and widely throughout the world." (Darwin 1872, 433).
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#357 Oct 6, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Fortunately for me I have a story to support or falsify.
Yes, and that's why you are not doing anything APPROACHING science, you ignorant f-ing Jesus Freak.

Newsflash: The Genesis myth is SO FAR off the mark it isn't even funny. For one thing, we know from science that there never were, nor could there have even been, two distinct "first humans." Bye, bye Adam and Eve. Gee, your silly Fall/Redemption theology isn;t standing on ANYTHING real, is it?
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolutionists do not have a story because they make it up as they go along.
Close. Science doesn't hold to an a priori belief and then try to twist and fashion and distort every evidence to make the preconceived story true. We leave that you Jesus Freaks.

Science goes where the evidence leads. In the 19th century, most of the scientists working on the age of the earth and on evolution were European Christians by background. When they realized that the evidence pointed solidly away form the childish myths of the Bible, they went with the evidence, rather than closing down and playing defense of the indefensible, like you do.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#358 Oct 6, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
If you use current dating then you are following dates by the birth of Jesus, like it or not. An entire dating system is based on him.
So what. You Jesus Freaks had enough political power to make this happen for a number of centuries and you enforced you will (and your hands are COVERED in blood from all that enforcing, aren't they?)

Doesn't mean anything other than that.

And most educated people use CE and BCE now, rather than the antiquated BC and AD.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#359 Oct 6, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Tiktaalik is obviously not the transitional form.
The point of the Tiktaalik story, and one which you cannot refute, is that it's presence in the geological column on Ellsmere Island in northern Canada was successfully PREDICTED using the Theory of Evolution.

In layman's terms, there were early fish fossils found at the base of that particular column and amphibians found near the top, so they PREDICTED that, according to the well-known principles of evolution, if they dug around the middle, they would find intermediate "fishbian" fossil forms.

Voila! Tiktaalik was uncovered.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Narara, Australia

#360 Oct 6, 2012
Gillette wrote:
MazHere: "punctuated equilibrium was not predicted..."
<quoted text>
Some quotes from Darwin that indicate that he acknowledged the probability of some form of punctuated equilibrium.
"Natural selection will generally act very slowly, only at long intervals of time, and only on a few of the inhabitants of the same region. I further believe that these slow, intermittent results accord well with what geology tells us of the rate and manner at which the inhabitants of the world have changed" (Darwin 1872, 140-141, chap. 4).
"But I must here remark that I do not suppose that the process ever goes on so regularly as is represented in the diagram, though in itself made somewhat irregular, nor that it goes on continuously; it is far more probable that each form remains for long periods unaltered, and then again undergoes modification." (Darwin 1872, 152).
"It is a more important consideration ... that the period during which each species underwent modification, though long as measured by years, was probably short in comparison with that during which it remained without undergoing any change (Darwin 1872, 428, chap. 10)."
"It might require a long succession of ages to adapt an organism to some new and peculiar line of life, for instance, to fly through the air; and consequently that the transitional forms would often long remain confined to some one region; but that, when this adaptation had once been effected, and a few species had thus acquired a great advantage over other organisms, a comparatively short time would be necessary to produce many divergent forms, which would spread rapidly and widely throughout the world." (Darwin 1872, 433).
Look Gilette, This has gotten to the point where you evos do not even know what you are saying or what you are talking about.

I have no doubt that you can provide mountains of woffle about regions and advantage and bla bla. It changes from day to day and is all flavour of the month.

It is to be sucked up by the gullible.

Here is some more..

Epistasis has substantial impacts on evolution, in particular, the rate of adaptation. We generated combinations of beneficial mutations that arose in a lineage during rapid adaptation of a bacterium whose growth depended on a newly introduced metabolic pathway. The proportional selective benefit for three of the four loci consistently decreased when they were introduced onto more fit backgrounds. These three alleles all reduced morphological defects caused by expression of the foreign pathway. A simple theoretical model segregating the apparent contribution of individual alleles to benefits and costs effectively predicted the interactions between them. These results provide the first evidence that patterns of epistasis may differ for within- and between-gene interactions during adaptation and that diminishing returns epistasis contributes to the consistent observation of decelerating fitness gains during adaptation.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

These data support models in which negative epistasis contributes to declining rates of adaptation over time.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

Hence the variations are limited, not increased, with the accumulation of beneficial mutations Great then, all the talk about beneficial mutations is also as clear as mud...not that any evo or nature or TOE knows exactly what is beneficial at any time because we all know survival of the fittest is rubbish. It is more about survival of the luckiest.

Let me be clear. TOE is as clear as mud and that is the basis for evos saying they 'know' TOE is 'right'.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#362 Oct 6, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Well you had best go tell your researchers. For now, your evo researchers have invented a mythical theropod to wear these modern bird feet.
The reversed hallux has always been the signature trait of a modern bird. It is a wonderful display of handwaving and hanging onto to dead theories, that should be falsified if they were based on any science at all, and chalk up yet another anomoly to convergent evolution, the excuse of the century.
Wrong. Here is a link that describes perhaps a dinosaur that was "preavian" that had a reversed hallux:

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

And if I remember correctly you told a story of bird like footprints. Were they birdlike because the hallux was not quite reversed yet?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#363 Oct 6, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I just lost an entire reply for some reason.
Anyway, here is a link.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n72...
Tiktaalik is obviously not the transitional form.
The footprints did not have tail drag marks. They say this is because the tail was floated in water. I contest this also by reasoning if there was deep water the footprints would not have survived.
Not necessarily so. There is no reason that Tiktaalik could not be the forerunner of footed life. There could have been several times that sea life evolved to land life. Some of them probably died out.

I tell you what. Why don't you firmly state what you believe. How life came about and we can check and see if that can be explained by the fossil record. It seems that you believe that your god had to reach down countless times to change life on Earth, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

It is a simple question that most creationists refuse to answer: What do you believe and why.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#364 Oct 6, 2012
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
The point of the Tiktaalik story, and one which you cannot refute, is that it's presence in the geological column on Ellsmere Island in northern Canada was successfully PREDICTED using the Theory of Evolution.
In layman's terms, there were early fish fossils found at the base of that particular column and amphibians found near the top, so they PREDICTED that, according to the well-known principles of evolution, if they dug around the middle, they would find intermediate "fishbian" fossil forms.
Voila! Tiktaalik was uncovered.

I think it funny that he said "Tiktaalik is obviously not the transitional form." Who said it was THE transitional form? It is *A* transitional form. Demonstrating the existence (once again) of transitional forms and bringing us closer to understanding how life evolved.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#365 Oct 6, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
If you use current dating then you are following dates by the birth of Jesus, like it or not. An entire dating system is based on him.
Actually, that's not true.

Though the Gregorian calendar uses BC and it's a common cultural term, science uses BPE (Before Present Era). That's because China and Israel also have scientists and neither of them observes the Gregorian Calendar.

Further, if you want to cite the calendar as evidence of Jesus, then you need to explain your days of the week. In particular the pagan days "Sunday", "Moonday" and "Saturnday". Also it would be helpful if you also could explain your use of the Norse days "Tyrsday" "Odensday" "Thorsday" and "Fyrsday"

Then, of course, you have to address the months of Julius and Augustus Caeser both non-Christians, and explain why the months named "8" "9" and "10" are actually 10th, 11th and 12th.

Then, for kicks, give us a reason behind yule logs, Christmas trees, wreaths, easter eggs, easter bunnies... Starting to see the cultural bleed over?
The tracks display a reversed hallux. Whether or not you like it this is the signature trait for a modern bird, that is of course until that does not suit evos anymore. So evo researchers use the term 'bird like' so they don't look quite as stupid as they otherwise would.
So, your argument AGAINST evolution is that an ancestor of moderns birds had a trait which was then later present in modern birds.

I guess the fact that you have your grandmothers nose means you aren't related to her either.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#366 Oct 6, 2012
MazHere wrote:
I said that many adaptations are given a new species name while many species have more variation within them.
Which is why we switched from species to cladistics nearly 50 years ago. The problem is that the general public hasn't caught up. See "The Metric System" as another example of the public being behind the science.
You have ssaid nothing to refute that
I don't need to refute it, because what you are saying is archaeic.

This is exactly like you claiming there is no airforce because in the past the military planes were part of the Army.

Yes, in the past that's how it was. In the present, it's different.

If you had gotten an education on the subject you would know that. You don't have that education, therefore you criticisms are out of date.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Narara, Australia

#367 Oct 6, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Here is a link that describes perhaps a dinosaur that was "preavian" that had a reversed hallux:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scansoriopterygi...
And if I remember correctly you told a story of bird like footprints. Were they birdlike because the hallux was not quite reversed yet?
I am going shopping because I have had enough of you lot for the time being.

Your link, Scansoriopterygidae, is a great example of the flavours of the month. My link was to 212myo avian footprints with a reversed hallux whcih this thing does not have.

What ever makes any evo think any current flavour of the month is the last word on anything. One single fossil could change it all again. Some evo researchers don't swallow the dino to bird deal at all. You lot present these links and then go "OH woopie". You can post as many of them as you like. They are all the same. They are based on algorithmic magic, have 'may' and 'possibly' as key words, change like the wind, at times on the back of one single fossil, eg Ardi killed human knuckle walking ancestry that evos could 'prove' via human wrist bones, once upon a time.

You evos are trying to turn your philosophy of naturalism into a science. TOE requires too many assumptions so evos do not produce empirical evidence.

So again, YES YES YES, the track displayed a reversed hallux, dated to 212mya.

LOOK>>>>>

Here are the footprints clearly and plainly demonstrating a reversed hallux.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68...

Again, my point is, TOE is as clear as mud. You cannot 'know' it is right.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#368 Oct 6, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, my point is, TOE is as clear as mud. You cannot 'know' it is right.
No, actually your mendacious Jesus Freak agenda is to muddy our understanding of evolution, presumably to promote your despicable BuyBull beliefs.

While new details are being discovered all the time and integrated into our understanding, there is NO QUESTION in the mind of modern science that all species, including human beings, evolved one from another in nested hierarchies by means of mutation and other genetic change (drift, sexual recombination) PLUS the filtering action of natural selection.

This has been known for 150 years.

Your Buybull is allegory at best, and not very good allegory at that.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Narara, Australia

#369 Oct 6, 2012
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
No, actually your mendacious Jesus Freak agenda is to muddy our understanding of evolution, presumably to promote your despicable BuyBull beliefs.
While new details are being discovered all the time and integrated into our understanding, there is NO QUESTION in the mind of modern science that all species, including human beings, evolved one from another in nested hierarchies by means of mutation and other genetic change (drift, sexual recombination) PLUS the filtering action of natural selection.
This has been known for 150 years.
Your Buybull is allegory at best, and not very good allegory at that.
I love seeing boofheads like you fall to pieces and resort to ridicule as your great reply.

Then woffle on in generalities because you can't win a point on specific.

I have lots to say about your crappy tree of life and the changes you have had. The nested hierarchies that contradict each other.

The problem is it would likely be boring because you would have no idea of recent findings.

Do you remember single LUCA the queen of irrefuteable evidence for the connection of all life? Well, she suffered a violent death at the hands of HGT.

Did you know they are about to suggest a 4th domain of life becuase they have found yet another anomoly? So 2 to 3 and maybe 4, and they are still arguing.

Seeing as you are gobsmacked in discussing what is on the table at the moment please present what you reckon is so great. Watch me give it a hiding and expose it for the rubbish it truly is !!!!!!!!

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) 22 min Subduction Zone 133,032
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 1 hr Charles Idemi 576
Science News (Sep '13) 3 hr positronium 2,938
How would creationists explain... 4 hr TurkanaBoy 364
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 6 hr Chimney1 13,624
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Sat nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
More from around the web