Ok with fossil records, just to debunk that entire thing there has never been an actual documentation of a full layer record.. Also the layers in the earth don't have any topsoil in them, and top soil builds up on rocks. I have many more arguements against the fossil record

About the tail bone, the tail bone is an anchor for muscles that contract when balancing upright. Mainly when you walk/sit. Also the appendix is about of your immune system.

Appendix Article

Explain this:

Back quite some time ago, Native Americans believed that sacrificing animals/humans would please the Gods thus bringing rain for their crop season.

We now know this to be false and can prove why this happens. Sacrificing the animals/humans did nothing. Science has proven this wrong.

What else can be proven wrong with science?

Debunked

Biblical floods.

Evidence PLEASE.

Evolution. Fact: We are losing the moon, the earth can not be millions of years old.

Moon Website

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

And anyone with a brain can see that site you posted is fucking trash.

Here, one example

This would imply that the moon was created when the Earth was created some 4.6 billion years ago, which is wrong, so your post is inaccurate.

No, I'm writing a large summarization on this topic.. Not disproven at all, be patient.

Edit: Dr.Dino.com has a lot on the flood, ill write the summariztion if you still dont understand.

This would imply that the moon was created when the Earth was created some 4.6 billion years ago, which is wrong, so your post is inaccurate.
[/quote]

This shows that we are losing the moon, and it was modified to show that evolution exists.. look at another website if you want. The point is, we are losing the moon and if you graph that based what is seen now, there is a colision about 100,000 yrs ago or something. Let me get another link that hasn't been theorized.

This one doesnt have the moon in it i beleive, but it has some other points.

here
sry..

Dr.dino.com

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jul 7 2008, 9:50 pm by Mini Moose 2707. Reason: Combining FOUR posts into one, removal of superfluous quotes.

Kent Hovind, HAHAHAHAHA. He's in jail.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 7 2008, 9:38 pm by Mini Moose 2707. Reason: Post cleanup crew.

Why is he in jail?

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jul 7 2008, 10:11 pm by O)Silent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_hovind#Legal_problems

wow Kent got owned that is just further proof that anyone who thinks creationism is the way we were made isnt too bright...

"Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments."

Naturalistic fallacy. This is the fallacy of trying to derive conclusions about what is right or good (that is, about values) from statements of fact alone. This is invalid because no matter how many statements of fact you assemble, any logical inference from them will be another statement of fact, not a statement of value. If you wish to reach conclusions about values, then you must include amongst your assumptions (or axioms, or premises) a statement of value. Once you have an axiomatic statement of value, then you may use it in conjunction with statements of fact to reach value-laden conclusions.

Silent, I have went though and fined you for some posts based on logical fallacy. And I was very lenient on the matter. Please stop posting websites and then discrediting the other poster's websites "because anyone can come into it and post anything." If you haven't realized, ANY ONE CAN POST ANYTHING ANYWHERE -- in books, in music, in movies, even in the holy bible. Therefor, I must ask you to stop repeating the same arguement over and over again by simply saying something isn't true.

Religion can also be false, no matter how many times you repeat it and assume its true. Please realize this.

Well if i'm not mistaken and of course sorry if i am a scientific theory is something that can be tested multiple times and find the same result for example drop a penny; it'll fall to the floor, drop another penny once again itll drop to the floor, now the theory of gravity is pretty strong of one since everyone and everything in close enough proximity to our planet and even other planets feels a constant pulling force to large and or dense objects, now evolution isnt as strong of a theory but it is still pretty strong.

Find a fossil from 1 time period of 1species, find another of the same time period of the same species it'll likely be extremely similiar besides maybe slight changed characteristics like small variations in size,facial features(assuming said species has one lol). Now go to a different time period and try to find that same species now with some things like alligators you may find basically the same thing but for quite a few species you will begin to see changes like some ape skulls beginning to flatten in the face and changing on the spin to be able to walk upright (homoerectus).

Faith = freedom of choice
Proof = coercion = no choice

D:

i was once in the state of mind you were in, Silent. Kent hovind had all of the answers right? Kent hovind is a scam artist. hes serving a sentance for 10 years in PRISON for tax evasion. he would go around preeching anti-evolution seminars and they would donate money and pay his organization. he made withdrawals from an orginization account just about 9500$ every 2 weeks. Withdrawals arent investigated unless they are of 10000 or more. a little fishy isnt it? Kent hovind wasnt employed, but he didnt pay income tax. He did have an income and he didnt pay taxes for it....

What ever happened to "Give unto Ceaser that wich is Ceasers" Jesus said that if you were wondering. If he knew that he wouldnt have been stealing from the government.

------
(for silent)
one of the things i have been seeing is "micro" and "macro" evolution...
From what i have seen, "micro" is evolution that has been observed. small changes that anti-evolutionists are willing to accept, thus labeling it micro. Macro is the complete "absurdity" in their point of view. its the change of one animal to another over time. Well, heres the problem. in the animal kingdom there are VARIATIONS complete and utter variations of every species. to try and organize them all with black and white tags is ignorant. I believe kent talked about "Kinds" of animals. how do you distinguish one species from another? noticable differences in DNA? well.. my DNA is different then yours... so does that mean that im a different species? There are to many shades of grey when it comes to animalia. you cannot just say This over here, That over there.

-----

One of the problems i have with evolution is the history lesson. You cant prove what has or has not happened, even with what you have in the present. you cant prove world war 2, you can have alot of evidence for it but really you weren't there so you cant say with 100% accuracy that ww2 happened. It is not required to know that (under assumption) there was a biogenesis to learn about evolution. its not needed to know that the earth is "4.5 billion years old" to learn about evolution. its not needed to know the (hypothetical) evolution of the bacterial mitochondria. all of the "what happened" and the "was" and "were" arent required. What is required to teach evolution is "This is how it works", "This is how its happening today", "these are some examples... ect". One of the problems i think religious people have with evolution is the amount of time required for the process, 3 billion years i think it is. and that is in conflict with the "6000 year theory". well, those history lessons arent required in the first place. i dont believe in the 6000 year process, honestly i dont know what i believe but the history lesson isnt needed.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jul 8 2008, 8:28 pm by midget_man_66.

The 6000 year idea is popostrious anyway. Just because a group of people believed that 2000 years ago doesn't mean we should believe it now. That's the most annoying thing about die-hard religious fanatics -- time goes on and what people thought to be true 2000 years ago does not mean that it is still true today.

So this thread is interesting. Lets just go the route and say you can't prove/disprove anything like evolution or how the earth was formed because we weren't there.

Anyway I'll give you some evidence (yes, evidence) I remember from biology class.

Our DNA is all made up of the same things DNA->nucleotides->nucleic acids, the evidence factor is low, but it can imply that life was started and changed and built of the bases of how it started, or evolution. (dont bitch about grammar)

Bio genesis, I think this can be considered evidence, living things come from living things. So if we have all these different species and such we can assume evolution.

Personal thought: If evolution doesn't exists, and god doesn't exist, how do you explain it? I'm not sure if silent (or whoever disagrees with evolution) what you believe in, but If its god I have to say that Noahs Arc story is bullshit. All the sudden peoples boats didn't work?

Fossil records, this is good evidence. We can see by rock layer that we have fish and some sea weed, next layer land shrubs and crabs, then flowering plants and lizards, etc... like i said none of this proves anything it just provides reason to believe in evolution.

analogous and homologous structures, animals of different family trees or just species with similar structures. Kind of like a wood pecker and a chicken have wings but a chicken cant fly for shit. Implying evolution like the you have a common bird that evolves one way to a wood pecker another way to a chicken. Similar structures different use.

Vestigial structures, whales have some kind of pelvic bones that they dont use at all, i know pelvic sounds like its for swimming but they don't use it. Its pretty much extra organs or stuff on an animal that it doesn't need or use. Kind of like the human appendix.

The symbiosis theory and how life started theory. How life started, certain gases and chemicals were in a puddle by chance and lightning hit it changing the chemicals and creating a simple organelle for a micro organisms. The symbiosis part, the organelles came together to form a functioning organism. That explains how life started, and if you introduce evolution into that you can explain roughly how we got here today. (thats a really rough explanation you'd have to look up exactly how it goes)

Micro organisms today, i already said this but yea. MO's have short life spans and multiply rapidly which mean they would mutate or evolve faster than multi-cellular organisms would. Example: We first found penicillin and it was the "wonder drug" because it killed the shit out of bacteria and stuff. We killed all the vulnerable MO's leaving only mutant MO's resistant to penicillin so only they multiplied and the others just died. Now penicillin is way less effective because by mutation, luck, whatever. Same idea goes for bugs and pesticides.

So there you go. Here is the belief system. God, evidence - slim to none, enough beyond a reasonable doubt - no. Evolution, evidence - lots, enough beyond a reasonable doubt - yes.