http://freehovind.com/watch-4308235066145651150

Evolutionists: Bring your easily refutable arguments.

Easily refutable but not scientifically refutable.

So you believe in spontaneous generation then?

A creation is not a spontaneous generation.

So you believe god created each creature? If god gave us the ability to reproduce, why wouldn't god have built in the ability to adapt? If god created us, but did not create evolution, then why do we have genes? Selection plays a role in which genes are passed on and which are not. Over time, this can lead the species in new directions. Do you deny this?

Hell KR you have stamina, the subjects around here are like groundhogd day

er!...ummm! i sense some de ja vu.please not again your set vetamur loose and you don't wanna do that!

Yes. Everytime a lion reproduces, it's going to be a lion.

But not the SAME lion, Mymeo.

Okay. I have 3 white roses and 3 red roses. In a couple of years I'll have white roses, red roses and pink roses. Why? Now, let's say red roses are recessive. Later I'll have only white roses.

Okay. Another example:
Population A is an agrarian culture that favors physical labor. However, they've had a religious schism, and are at civil war.

Population B is an information-age culture that favors education and intellect. They're at peace.

In 100 years, both populations are still human, yes. But are there differences?

Another example:
Why are human back hairs oriented to facilitate the movement of water across the back?

I could go on and on and on, and I haven't even opened with my real arguments yet. I have yet to call up the experts or websites. Why? Because evolution CAN be proved. Now, our understanding of evolution is clearly flawed, but the fact of evolution is not. Let me explain: we used to believe that neanderthals were a direct ancestor. Now we understand that this is not true. However, the fact that we were wrong about who are direct ancestor was does not change the fact that we can see evolution at work now.

Prove it.

A: I don't HAVE to prove it. It's already been proven. Haven't you ever grown roses?
B: First of all, you haven't answered my questions or addressed any of my points, so why should I? Your only strategy here is denial, to which there is no answer.
C: Because I'm patient:

http://whyfiles.org/095evolution/
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askas...logy/bio039.htm
http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/29620
http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

Finally: why do we have dogs and cats? Did you know cotton was once a tree and through selective breeding became a bush? Did you know that cotton fibres originally came in a number of colors, but through selective breeding, domesticated cotton became white? How did we get seedless grapes and thornless roses before genetic engineering? Why are salmon that live in the stream different from salmon that live in a fish farm? Why is that the American buffalo and the Siberian buffalo of essentially the same stock, but are presented differently? Why are there pigmy elephants in the jungles of Indonesia? How do you explain the blue people of troublesome creek? Why is hemophilia called "The Disease of Kings"? Why is sickle cell anemia more common in Africans? Why don't Asians have odor producing glands under their arms, why are their hairs oval instead of round like European or ribbon-like like the Africans, and why do they lack the proteins the metabolizes alcohol? Why are genetically modified foods displacing natural foods, and why are fish-farm fish displacing natural fish? I could go on.

Variation doesn't prove Evolution. Variation just proves variation.

However, you're missing the longer picture. Carry variation to its logical conclusion. I'm not saying humans developed out of monkeys. Evolution says this: things change. Things change because of environmental factors and natural selection. Over time, changes will cause the organism to become more and more different than what it was.

How can I debate evolution if you don't understand what it is?

It depends on what your definition of evolution is. "Things change" - Well DUH. That's a very vague definition of it. Monkey's don't become people. There are no little links between people and monkeys. By your definition, I can take a glass of water, take 4 sips. WOW It's evolved!

You obviously didn't read my post.
Also, your reply is needlessly antagonistic.
Since you don't want to discuss this like adults, I'll stop here.

This post has been edited by kirin-rex: Jul 5 2008, 08:47 PM

Evolution is fine so long as attributing it as a lesser adaptive trait is how it is presented in education. Evolution does (very limitedly) exist on most life forms. It is adopted by the lifeform to correct minor problems that can (and do) arise in design of the lifeform as conditions change.

I don't think I need to tell you Evolution did not create life. It did not create species nor will it change the species of Earth in and dramatic way. It at it's best can change a lifeform dramatically but as it was never intended to be a major factor this has very limited and restricting application.

Also, I started the video. I always love the question "Where do you go after you die". I find that extremely funny. The more complicated the answer presented the funnier it is.

This post has been edited by ScottMan: Jul 5 2008, 11:23 PM

You fail to understand what evolution is, i guess the reason for this is because you take in blindly the lies of Hovind. I have now watched part 1-6 of his seminar, and just as him, you are not seeing evolution as a whole. No, a lion will not give birth to anything else then a lion, but there can be changes, and over time there will be more and more changes, eventually there have been so many changes that it can no longer be classified as a lion, it has changed into another "kind" of animal. Take the whale as an example, they have found several fossils of whales where the transition from "land based" ear to "water based" ear happened. In other words, they can see how the whales evolved from being a land mammal, to a sea mammal. One of the things about creationist is that you seem to refuse to keep updated on the science, you just stay locked on to the past errors, not taking into consideration that there have been a massive amount of scientific evidence for evolution that can not be refuted. I recommend you look up the newest evidence of whales in evolution, i find that to be some of the more compelling evidence.

I watched like..uhm.. 1 minute of the video (until I started getting flashbacks from mission school..but even the Catholics admit the earth is old and evolution happens).

I am under the impression the video is mostly about age of earth. Rather than write the whole damn explanation again I am just going to give you a link and watch you try to "easily refute" it. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

Next.. if we are going to talk evolution.. I will just go lightly at first.

If you admit that evolution causes change.. and you know the change is caused by genetic change.. then how can you then not see that over longer periods of time larger changes occur? Genes are part of a digital code..quite literally. There is nothing that tells them "Oh! YOu cant change any more because if you do, that will be too much, we wont be able to breed with others any more thus becoming a different species!". THere is no magic (or theological) stop sign in the genetic code.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. Today evolution is the bedrock of biology, from medicine to molecular studies.. from AIDS to zebra research. Biologists cant afford to ignore the interconnectedness of all life. Cosmetics are safe because research done (whether you agree with it or not) on animals is applicable to people because we are related. Medicines are trialed on animals closer and closer to us on an evolutionary scale exactly because..evolution is sound. As organisms, products of evolution, humans live and die in a biological world that has evolved and continues to evolve. Our lives depend on foods genetically modified by our Neolithic ancestors.. Our sufferings and deaths are often caused by microbes that have evolved resistance to our drugs. The implications of human evoulation for law, medicine, agriculture, and biotechnology are vast and our futures are tied to emergent diseases and changing climates. You ignore this reality to your peril.

Here's a quote from a publication by Richard Dawkins that I believe has some relevance here. It explains (far better than I could even if I tried) how species exist on a continuum of interrelatedness, and how species are not defined in any absolute biological sense, but rather, that we as human beings place populations of organisms that we observe to be sufficiently distant in in terms of their relatedness into different categories. These categories, however, fail to accurately represent the degree of relatedness species have to one another, as this degree is never a constant.

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldO..._the_mind.shtml

"Recently, after giving a public lecture, I was cross-examined by a lawyer in the audience. He brought the full weight of his legal acumen to bear on a nice point of evolution. If species A evolves into a later species B, he reasoned closely, there must come a point when a mother belongs to the old species A and her child belongs to the new species B. Members of different species cannot interbreed with one another. I put it to you, he went on, that a child could hardly be so different from its parents that it could not interbreed with their kind. So, he wound up triumphantly, isn't this a fatal flaw in the theory of evolution?

But it is we that choose to divide animals up into discontinuous species. On the evolutionary view of life there must have been intermediates, even though, conveniently for our naming rituals, they are usually extinct: usually, but not always.

The lawyer would be surprised and, I hope, intrigued by so-called 'ring species'. The best-known case is herring gull versus lesser black-backed gull. In Britain these are clearly distinct species, quite different in colour. Anybody can tell them apart. But if you follow the population of herring gulls westward round the North Pole to North America, then via Alaska across Siberia and back to Europe again, you will notice a curious fact. The 'herring gulls' gradually become less and less like herring gulls and more and more like lesser black-backed gulls until it turns out that our European lesser black-backed gulls actually are the other end of a ring that started out as herring gulls.

At every stage around the ring, the birds are sufficiently similar to their neighbours to interbreed with them. Until, that is, the ends of the continuum are reached, in Europe. At this point the herring gull and the lesser black-backed gull never interbreed, although they are linked by a continuous series of interbreeding colleagues all the way round the world.

The only thing that is special about ring species like these gulls is that the intermediates are still alive. All pairs of related species are potentially ring species. The intermediates must have lived once. It is just that in most cases they are now dead.

The lawyer, with his trained discontinuous mind, insists on placing individuals firmly in this species or that. He does not allow for the possibility that an individual might lie half-way between two species, or a tenth of the way from species A to species B" (Dawkins, 1993).

Very interesting post, SA