Evolution vs Creationism

[AztecInca]

Debate Topic: Evolution vs Creationism, which theory best explains our existence.

abecrombi will be debating for Creationism as the superior theory while frogfish will be debating for Evolution.

This will be a 1v1 formal debate.

An Introduction, 5 bodily posts and a conclusion from each participant. No Flaming, bad manners or profantities will be tolerated.

There is a point deduction for debaters who fail to make a post within the 7 day time frame. The deductions will be 2 points for every day the participant fails to post after the 7 days.

This is to ensure that debates continue in a timely fashion. If for any reason you cannot post within the 7 days, please ensure that you let myself, Lottie or Tiddlyjen know to avoid having the points taken off your debate.

If, however the participant does not then attempt to make a post for up to 2 weeks after the 7 day rule has started an immediate disqualification will occur.

Good luck!

Edited May 6, 2006 by AztecInca

[frogfish]

Introduction

The age long question has baffled minds since the dawn of time. How did we get here? This question has been the subject of a heated debate for the last 200 years. It was widely thought that the roots of humans came from a higher power. But then a man stepped onto the scene. This man combined years of research and studies into a theory. A theory that shook religion, minds, and the earth itself to its very core. This man's name was Darwin, and he discovered the Theory of Evolution.

Evolution has been the widely accepted theory of how we got here. It is taught in schools and has been backed up by science. Creationism has too many flaws to be accepted by science. Evolution is undoubtedly the most plausible way to explain the question: How did we get here?

My 5 points will be:

1. Darwin and his studies-how evolution came to be

2. The science of evolution

3. Proof of evolution throughout time

4. Genetics and its ties with evolution

5. How evolution is a much better theory than Creationism.

[Abecrombie]

Debate

Topic :CREATION vs EVOLUTION

Side : CREATION

Debater: Abecrombie

Date 04/08/2006

_______________________________________________________________________________ C_R_E_A_T_I_O_N__I__S__M vs EVOLUTION__________________________

FROM WHERE DOES LIFE COME ?

:

Throughout history, man has looked up at the sky , stared at the stars and was mystified in its wonder.

Like those such as Galileio, Albert Einstein, Newtan , to name a few . We as well might do the same and ask ourselves this question.

“ where does life come from? “ and why do we have such the desire for the answer ?

Life as we know it wouldn’t be the experience of what we know is human . It wouldn’t be a journey

And if we wernt able to walk we wouldn’t have to choose a path. Inasmuch , if we didn’t have a bridge to cross in our experience we would not be on a path.

Just like the scientists ,mathmaticians , chemists etc above mentioned, the desire to understand ourselves and our orgin is a step in the pursuit of knowlgedge.

In my argument of this debate topic I will attempt to approach it with a variety of angles . Biblilcal refferences will be made of course but I m going to go back to the planet lifecycle . The three world ages. Scientifical , chemicaly,and biologicly.

Evelution has missing links in fact three quarters of it.

What makes us the individuals we are from one another as well as to eachother unique and with a face. A voice and a mind to do what our heart feels. Human beings have a creator, and some call him by name . were as I will try to

To breakdown and define why my thoughts are on creation not evelution in my following bodily posts..

So the intro duction as asks is this…….from where does life come from?

International bible students and tract society

Watch tower publishers. New york

“did man get here by evolution or by creation?”

[frogfish]

Post 1

Charles Darwin was a British naturalist who founded the theory of evolution. He made a voyage on the Beagle to the Galapagos, Peru, Argentina, and Chile to conduct studies. One of his most famous is his notation of the different variety of finches on each Galapagos Island, specialized for different kinds of food.

Darwin collected and described thousands of animals and plants. In South America he observed the adaptations of organisms to a variety of habitat from jungle to grassland to mountain habitats. In the temperate regions the species resembled more closely the species of the tropical regions of South America rather than the corresponding species of the temperate regions of Europe. For example, in the grasslands of Argentina there are no rabbits, however, there are rodents that resemble rabbits; these rodents are unrelated to European rabbits but are similar to other rodents in South America. Moreover, the fossils in South America are dissimilar to European fossils but have similarities with extant (i.e. currently living) plants and animals in South America

As well as drawing on his own observations, Darwin drew from the work of Linnaeus, Cuvier, Hutton, Lyell, Malthus and Lamarck. In the hierarchial classificatory system of Linnaeus there is a tacit acknowledgement of relatedness, for example, species belonging to one genus have more in common with each other than they do with species belonging to another genus. Linnaeus was a creationist -- as evidenced by his egotistical proclamation "God creates, Linnaeus arranges". Cuvier, also a creationist, was a comparative morphologist (he described the similarity/dissimilarity in anatomy of diverse animals). Cuvier founded the science of paleontology and described the differences between the fossil flora and fauna in different strata of rock: he observed that the more recent strata had fossils that more closely resembled extant organisms. Cuvier believed that the discontinuities between fossils in different strata were brought about by catastrophes such as floods which caused the extinction of many species living at a particular time. This interpretation of earth's history is termed catastrophism and was also held by many contemporary geologists. By contrast, Hutton and subsequently Lyell held that geological processes are slow and subtle but that over prolonged periods of time (millions of years) these can lead to major changes; implicit in this viewpoint is an age for the earth radically different from the 6,000 years of the biblical creationists.

Link 1

Out of this study grew several related theories: one, evolution did occur; two, evolutionary change was gradual, requiring thousands to millions of years; three, the primary mechanism for evolution was a process called natural selection; and four, the millions of species alive today arose from a single original life form through a branching process called "specialization." Darwin's theory of evolutionary selection holds that variation within species occurs randomly and that the survival or extinction of each organism is determined by that organism's ability to adapt to its environment. He set these theories forth in his book called, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" (1859) or "The Origin of Species" for short.

His findings shook his faith and compelled his to write "The Orgin of Species", one of the most influencential books ever.

This prelude will lead into the theory of evolution itself in my next post.

[Abecrombie]

3 Veiws +1st Point = 4 Creation

POST #1

_________________________________________________________________

Sir Iissac Newton once said,”

To explain all nature is too difficult a task for any one man or even for any one age. `Tis much better to do a little with certainty, and leave the rest for others that come after you, than to explain all things.”http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Quotations/Newton.htmlQuoted in G Simmons Calculus Gems (New York 1992).

Boy he couldn’t say it better, neither could I . Being that this is one of the most commonly old debates .Means to me that is his a heated one and expecialy whaen due to laws placed in U.S.A. schools , this is the exceptable form taught in science classrooms. I call it pure torture ,….mindboggling and for a reason. As I go throught my research here and do my homework . Im finding evidence that supports my side of debate CREATION overwhelming Where do I start ….{picture the tasmania devil whirling around in a tornado spinacross the page }?

I’ll begin with the three approaches that support creation against frogfish one .

1st big bag theory

2nd 1st earth age {world age}

3rd a scientists –biologist,molecular,mathmathical etc.

and what proves them to be accreddionaly correct in through-out the world and acheiviments made . therefore with each bodily post I will revenue another source of multiple refferences of material with a different topic to support that creation is the alpha as to evolution theory as so far supported by one man.

And of course an * or underlined word or source will direct reader to refference material . Addition refference I find in books as well as online classroom to articles in magazines ,so keep that in mind Any additional notes or scientists in the common subject or simularities will be added as well ….

BUT !! FIRST,….--------THIS JUST IN--------______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________[/

frogfish stated……

“Creationism has too many flaws to be accepted by science”

abecrombies counter: Melvin calvin

The oldest known rocks on Earth occur in northwestern Canada (3.96 billion years), but well-studied rocks nearly as old are also found in other parts of the world. In Western Australia, zircon crystals encased within younger rocks have ages as old as 4.3 billion years, making these tiny crystals the oldest materials so far found on Earth.

Using the carbon-14 isotope as a tracer, Calvin and his team mapped the complete route that carbon travels through a plant during photosynthesis, starting from its absorption as atmospheric carbon dioxide to its conversion into carbohydrates and other organic compounds. In doing so, the Calvin group showed that sunlight acts on the chlorophyll in a plant to fuel the manufacturing of organic compounds, rather than on carbon dioxide as was previously believed. In his final years of active research, he studied the use of oil-producing plants as renewable sources of energy. He also spent many years testing the chemical evolution of life and wrote a book on the subject that was published in 1969. Calvin also researched organic geochemistry, chemical carcinogenesis and analysis of moon rocks.

DNA and Cells

Big bang theory-Edmund Hubble prooved that to be older when thought of previously and the calculation of our galaxay betwween 9-16 billion. Hubbled studided radioactive elements in our solor system and thus the universe ,mars being the first in frozen water as to microbes here on earth comets and meteors as well. All these determined are consistant with the independently dereived estimate for the age of the univierse.

BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS

Three world ages: Eph.1:1-18 the foundation of the world what caused it and the overthrow of fallen angles

pslms 104:1-18,.

.2peter3-18- the three world ages

and acts chapter 2

genesis 6

*kabohe- hebrew meaning overthrowEph 4: and Matt 13- concerning mysteries

viod – hebrew tu’tu’ pronounciation=def. Utterly destroyed.

scientists and nobel peace prize winner “THE CHEMICAL THEORY “as above counter ….

Melvin calvin – nobel peace prize winner1965 discovered chorrophil as life on the planet earth in a chemical evolution

1962 the history of animal life was pushed back an additional 1,500,000,000 years by discovering tiny fossils in ancient sedimentray rock on the north shore of lake superior.

Dinosours ages and time periods exhisted at around the same time period as well as the earths cycles approx until the ice age and mammoths exhisted for a time after ,….then man fossils started to come up after the ice age. Approx. 6000 years scientists have known mankind has been around and took over the central theme of life. In biblical accounts in JOB 38- BOHEMETH – resembling the chief ways of god giant bronosauras type described as dinosaur

BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS

Three world ages

2ND WORLD AGE AFTER DINOSOUR PERIOD

2 PETER Chapter three explains the three world ages according to creation

3RD WORLD AGE- 2 PETER 3:13,14,15,16,17

______________CLASSIFIED ADDITION_____F.Y.I_________________________

Disproving evolution =Evolution has missing links in fact three quarters of it. "The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agrees with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms but rather, in the oldest rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower [biochemist], "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4.

[frogfish]

Post 2

BUT !! FIRST,….--------THIS JUST IN-------- ________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________[/

frogfish stated……

“Creationism has too many flaws to be accepted by science”

abecrombies counter: Melvin calvin

The oldest known rocks on Earth occur in northwestern Canada (3.96 billion years), but well-studied rocks nearly as old are also found in other parts of the world. In Western Australia, zircon crystals encased within younger rocks have ages as old as 4.3 billion years, making these tiny crystals the oldest materials so far found on Earth.

Using the carbon-14 isotope as a tracer, Calvin and his team mapped the complete route that carbon travels through a plant during photosynthesis, starting from its absorption as atmospheric carbon dioxide to its conversion into carbohydrates and other organic compounds. In doing so, the Calvin group showed that sunlight acts on the chlorophyll in a plant to fuel the manufacturing of organic compounds, rather than on carbon dioxide as was previously believed. In his final years of active research, he studied the use of oil-producing plants as renewable sources of energy. He also spent many years testing the chemical evolution of life and wrote a book on the subject that was published in 1969. Calvin also researched organic geochemistry, chemical carcinogenesis and analysis of moon rocks.

DNA and Cells

What is your point...Calvin just studied chemicals!

Big bang theory-Edmund Hubble prooved that to be older when thought of previously and the calculation of our galaxay betwween 9-16 billion. Hubbled studided radioactive elements in our solor system and thus the universe ,mars being the first in frozen water as to microbes here on earth comets and meteors as well. All these determined are consistant with the independently dereived estimate for the age of the univierse.

BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS

Three world ages: Eph.1:1-18 the foundation of the world what caused it and the overthrow of fallen angles

pslms 104:1-18,.

.2peter3-18- the three world ages

and acts chapter 2

genesis 6

*kabohe- hebrew meaning overthrowEph 4: and Matt 13- concerning mysteries

viod – hebrew tu’tu’ pronounciation=def. Utterly destroyed.

Again, what is your point...How does this prove creation? The Big Bang Theory actually is a scientific theory...it does not support creationism.

scientists and nobel peace prize winner “THE CHEMICAL THEORY “as above counter ….

Melvin calvin – nobel peace prize winner1965 discovered chorrophil as life on the planet earth in a chemical evolution

Do you have a link? Because Chlorophyll is a PIGMENT.

1962 the history of animal life was pushed back an additional 1,500,000,000 years by discovering tiny fossils in ancient sedimentray rock on the north shore of lake superior.

Source please?

Dinosours ages and time periods exhisted at around the same time period as well as the earths cycles approx until the ice age and mammoths exhisted for a time after ,….then man fossils started to come up after the ice age. Approx. 6000 years scientists have known mankind has been around and took over the central theme of life. In biblical accounts in JOB 38- BOHEMETH – resembling the chief ways of god giant bronosauras type described as dinosaur

Job 38 does not mention dinosaurs at all:

Job 38
The LORD Speaks 
 1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said: 
 2 "Who is this that darkens my counsel 
       with words without knowledge? 

 3 Brace yourself like a man; 
       I will question you, 
       and you shall answer me. 

 4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? 
       Tell me, if you understand. 

 5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! 
       Who stretched a measuring line across it? 

 6 On what were its footings set, 
       or who laid its cornerstone- 

 7 while the morning stars sang together 
       and all the angels [a] shouted for joy? 

 8 "Who shut up the sea behind doors 
       when it burst forth from the womb, 

 9 when I made the clouds its garment 
       and wrapped it in thick darkness, 

 10 when I fixed limits for it 
       and set its doors and bars in place, 

 11 when I said, 'This far you may come and no farther; 
       here is where your proud waves halt'? 

 12 "Have you ever given orders to the morning, 
       or shown the dawn its place, 

 13 that it might take the earth by the edges 
       and shake the wicked out of it? 

 14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; 
       its features stand out like those of a garment. 

 15 The wicked are denied their light, 
       and their upraised arm is broken. 

 16 "Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea 
       or walked in the recesses of the deep? 

 17 Have the gates of death been shown to you? 
       Have you seen the gates of the shadow of death [b] ? 

 18 Have you comprehended the vast expanses of the earth? 
       Tell me, if you know all this. 

 19 "What is the way to the abode of light? 
       And where does darkness reside? 

 20 Can you take them to their places? 
       Do you know the paths to their dwellings? 

 21 Surely you know, for you were already born! 
       You have lived so many years! 

 22 "Have you entered the storehouses of the snow 
       or seen the storehouses of the hail, 

 23 which I reserve for times of trouble, 
       for days of war and battle? 

 24 What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, 
       or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth? 

 25 Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain, 
       and a path for the thunderstorm, 

 26 to water a land where no man lives, 
       a desert with no one in it, 

 27 to satisfy a desolate wasteland 
       and make it sprout with grass? 

 28 Does the rain have a father? 
       Who fathers the drops of dew? 

 29 From whose womb comes the ice? 
       Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens 

 30 when the waters become hard as stone, 
       when the surface of the deep is frozen? 

 31 "Can you bind the beautiful [c] Pleiades? 
       Can you loose the cords of Orion? 

 32 Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons [d] 
       or lead out the Bear [e] with its cubs? 

 33 Do you know the laws of the heavens? 
       Can you set up God's [f] dominion over the earth? 

 34 "Can you raise your voice to the clouds 
       and cover yourself with a flood of water? 

 35 Do you send the lightning bolts on their way? 
       Do they report to you, 'Here we are'? 

 36 Who endowed the heart [g] with wisdom 
       or gave understanding to the mind [h] ? 

 37 Who has the wisdom to count the clouds? 
       Who can tip over the water jars of the heavens 

 38 when the dust becomes hard 
       and the clods of earth stick together? 

 39 "Do you hunt the prey for the lioness 
       and satisfy the hunger of the lions 

 40 when they crouch in their dens 
       or lie in wait in a thicket? 

 41 Who provides food for the raven 
       when its young cry out to God 
       and wander about for lack of food?

Link 1

ambercrombie said:

Disproving evolution =Evolution has missing links in fact three quarters of it. "The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agrees with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms but rather, in the oldest rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils."—*D.B. Gower [biochemist], "Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4.

Well, the oldest life on earth appeared around 3.5 billion years ago according to science, almost 1.1 billion years AFTER the formation of the earth.

Using a method never applied to rock from ancient Earth, researchers have found possible signs of biological activity dating back nearly 3.5 billion years, earlier than any other agreed-upon discovery of life on this planet.

Link 2

I can give more links if you please.

Now on with my second point, The Science of Evolution

Evolution is a complex theory that describes where animals came from. There are many parts to the theory of evolution, but five main theories are described by Darwin:

Darwin's Basic Premise 

Darwin's On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, made several points that had major impact on nineteenth-century thought:

1.That biological types or species do not have a fixed, static existence but exist in permanent states of change and flux;
 2.that all life, biologically considered, takes the form of a struggle to exist -- more exactly, to exist and produce the greatest number of offspring;
3.that this struggle for existence culls out those organisms less well adapted to any particular ecology and allows those better adapted to flourish -- a process called Natural Selection;
4.that natural selection, development, and evolution requires enormously long periods of time, so long, in fact, that the everyday experience of human beings provides them with no ability to interpret such histories;
 5.that the genetic variations ultimately producing increased survivability are random and not caused (as religious thinkers would have it) by God or (as Lammarck would have it) by the organism's own striving for perfection.

Link 3

or

Darwin's theory of evolution has four main parts: 
1. Organisms have changed over time, and the ones living today are different from those that lived in the past. Furthermore, many organisms that once lived are now extinct. The world is not constant, but changing. The fossil record provided ample evidence for this view. 
2. All organisms are derived from common ancestors by a process of branching. Over time, populations split into different species, which are related because they are descended from a common ancestor. Thus, if one goes far enough back in time, any pair of organisms has a common ancestor. This explained the similarities of organisms that were classified together -- they were similar because of shared traits inherited from their common ancestor. It also explained why similar species tended to occur in the same geographic region. 
3. Change is gradual and slow, taking place over a long time. This was supported by the fossil record, and was consistent with the fact that no naturalist had observed the sudden appearance of a new species. [This is now contested by a view of episodes of rapid change and long periods of stasis, known as punctuated equilibrium]. 
4. The mechanism of evolutionary change was natural selection. This was the most important and revolutionary part of Darwin's theory, and it deserves to be considered in greater detail. 

Link 4

Basically, Evolution works by 3 principles...Natural Selection, Sexual Selection, and Genetic Drift.

NATURAL SELECTION

-One of the prime motives for all species is to reproduce and survive, passing on the genetic information of the species from generation to generation. When species do this they tend to produce more offspring than the environment can support.

-The lack of resources to nourish these individuals places pressure on the size of the species population, and the lack of resources means increased competition and as a consequence, some organisms will not survive.

-The organisms who die as a consequence of this competition were not totally random, Darwin found that those organisms more suited to their environment were more likely to survive.

-This resulted in the well known phrase survival of the fittest, where the organisms most suited to their environment had more chance of survival if the species falls upon hard times.

-Those organisms who are better suited to their environment exhibit desirable characteristics, which is a consequence of their genome being more suitable to begin with.

Natural Selection is a process in which on the fittest survive, thus passing on the "best" (most adapted) genes/traits to their offspring. It only selects among the existing variation already in a population. It does not create new genetic varieties or new combinations of varieties. One of the sources of those new combinations of genes is recombination. It is responsible for producing genetic combinations not found in earlier generations.

The Process of Natural Selection

Natural selection is a process that occurs over successive generations. The following is a summary of Darwin's line of reasoning for how it works (see Figure 2).

If all the offspring that organisms can produce were to survive and reproduce, they would soon overrun the earth. Darwin illustrated this point by a calculation using elephants. He wrote:

"The elephant is reckoned the slowest breeder of all known animals, and I have taken some pains to estimate its probable minimum rate of natural increase; it will be safest to assume that it begins breeding when 30 years old and goes on breeding until 90 years old; if this be so, after a period from 740 to 750 years there would be nearly 19 million elephants descended from this first pair."

Figure 2: The Process of Natural Selection

This unbounded population growth resembles a simple geometric series (2-4-8-16-32-64..) and quickly reaches infinity.

As a consequence, there is a "struggle" (metaphorically) to survive and reproduce, in which only a few individuals succeed in leaving progeny.

Organisms show variation in characters that influence their success in this struggle for existence. Individuals within a population vary from one another in many traits. (Animal behavioralists making long-term studies of chimps or elephants soon recognize every individual by its size, coloration, and distinctive markings.)

Offspring tend to resemble parents, including in characters that influence success in the struggle to survive and reproduce.

Parents possessing certain traits that enable them to survive and reproduce will contribute disproportionately to the offspring that make up the next generation.

To the extent that offspring resemble their parents, the population in the next generation will consist of a higher proportion of individuals that possess whatever adaptation enabled their parents to survive and reproduce.

The well-known example of camouflage coloration in an insect makes for a very powerful, logical argument for adaptation by natural selection. Development of such coloration, which differs according to the insect's environment, requires variation. The variation must influence survival and reproduction (fitness), and it must be inherited.

During the early and middle 20th Century, genetics became incorporated into evolution, allowing us to define natural selection this way:

Natural Selection is the differential reproduction of genotypes.

Natural Selection Requires...

For natural selection to occur, two requirements are essential:

There must be heritable variation for some trait. Examples: beak size, color pattern, thickness of skin, fleetness.

There must be differential survival and reproduction associated with the possession of that trait.

Unless both these requirements are met, adaptation by natural selection cannot occur.

Some examples:

If some plants grow taller than others and so are better able to avoid shading by others, they will produce more offspring. However, if the reason they grow tall is because of the soil in which their seeds happened to land, and not because they have the genes to grow tall, than no evolution will occur.

If some individuals are fleeter than others because of differences in their genes, but the predator is so much faster that it does not matter, then no evolution will occur (e.g. if cheetahs ate snails).

In addition, natural selection can only choose among existing varieties in a population. It might be very useful for polar bears to have white noses, and then they wouldn't have to cover their noses with their paws when they stalk their prey. The panda could have a much nicer thumb than the clumsy device that it does have.

When we incorporate genetics into our story, it becomes more obvious why the generation of new variations is a chance process. Variants do not arise because they are needed. They arise by random processes governed by the laws of genetics. For today, the central point is the chance occurrence of variation, some of which is adaptive, and the weeding out by natural selection of the best adapted varieties.

[see Link 4]

The genetics will be described in more detail in Post 4.

Here's a Diagram from Link 4 to help demonstrate Natural Selection.

There are different types of natural selection. In stabilizing selection, the extremities of a frequency distribution of the trait are eliminates, making it look like the generation before it. In directional selection, induvidulas at one end of the frequency distribution do well, so the F1 progency (next generation) will be closeer towards that direction. In diversifying (disruptive) selection, both extremes are favored at the expense of intermediate varieties. This can happen when a speicies is geographically divided.

To sum it up, Natural Selection is the process in which favorable traits are passed on so that the offspring will be better adapted.

SEXUAL SELECTION

Natural Selection is when animals out-reproduce each other. Sexual Selection can fall under natural selection and is when animals produce the best offspring by mating with the best partner. Secondary sex features on animals, like the mane of a lion, the plumage of birds etc. help find the best partners. Bouts of strength also shows who's best and the better partner.

There are two types of Sexual Selection:

In one kind of sexual selection, members of one sex create a reproductive differential among themselves by competing for opportunities to mate. The winners out-reproduce the others, and natural selection occurs if the characteristics that determine winning are, at least in part, inherited. In the other kind of sexual selection, members of one sex create a reproductive differential in the other sex by preferring some individuals as mates. If the ones they prefer are genetically different from the ones they shun, then natural selection is occurring.

That second type of sexual selection, in which one sex chooses among potential mates, appears to be the most common type among birds. As evidence that such selection is widespread, consider the reversal of normal sexual differences in the ornamentation of some polyandrous birds. There, the male must choose among females, which, in turn, must be as alluring as possible. Consequently in polyandrous species the female is ordinarily more colorful -- it is her secondary sexual characteristics that are enhanced. This fooled even Audubon, who confused the sexes when labeling his paintings of phalaropes. Female phalaropes compete for the plain-colored males, and the latter incubate the eggs and tend the young.

Link

A culture of Drosophila set up with equal numbers of red-eyed and white-eyed flies of both sexes will, after 25 generations or so, end up having only red-eyed (the "normal") flies in it. This, despite the fact that white-eyed flies are just as healthy and live just as long as red-eyed flies, i.e., they are equal in terms of survival. But, as it turns out, not only do red-eyed females prefer red-eyed males, but white-eyed females do also. 

Link 5

So Sexual Selection is when the best traits are passed on by choosing the best mate.

GENETIC DRIFT

Genetic drift is an evolutionary force that can alter populations through time, and shows that the Hardy-Weinberg "equilibrium" does not hold exactly for any finite population. The amount of evolutionary change associated with random sampling error is inversely related to population size; the larger the population, the less the allele frequency will change. Hence, genetic drift is most effective as an evolutionary force when a population is small.

I will explain more in Post 4 (genetics)

Edited April 13, 2006 by frogfish

[Abecrombie]

Bodily post 2

_________________AS A MATTER ----------------------- OR FACT ? __________________

Abe’crombie

04/15/06 Consider the following

```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Q: can any process be called a fact? “ An actual happening” a “ verified statement”, when the knowledge if how, when, where, what and why is missing?

Example: If someone stated that it was a fact that a skyscraper evolved by itself from a brick on an empty lot, but that how, when, where, and why it did so, and what it looked like in the process, were not known. Would you consider the transformation a fact or just an assertion?

And this isn’t the only case in which evolution contradicts the process they call is fact,

. The encyclopedia Britannica stated

“ We are not in the least doubt as to the fact of evolution…. The evolution by now is overwhelming.”. However, few pages later it called that evidence “very imperfect and often interrupted by gaps.” It added: “Of the vital process, which brought about these changes we are yet ignorant.”

Professor Dobzhansky ‘s book “ the biological basis of human freedom wrote,

“Evolution as a historical fact was proved beyond a reasonable doubt not later than in the closing decades of the nineteenth century.”

Two pages later , he states,

“There is no doubt of the evolutionary process are far from completely known…. The causes which have brought about the development of the human species can be only dimly discerned”

On one hand, evolution is declared fact but on the other hand, it is acknowledged that the process is

“ Far from completely known” the causes “ only dimly discerned “ the difficulties “, staggering.

frogfish

QUOTE “Creationism has too many flaws to be accepted by science”

___________________________________________________________________________

abecrombies counter:

Melvin Calvin

… rocks have ages as old as 4.3 billion years, making these tiny crystals the oldest materials so far found on Earth.

Using the carbon-14 isotope as a tracer, Calvin and his team mapped the complete route that carbon travels through a plant during photosynthesis, starting from its absorption as atmospheric carbon dioxide to its conversion into carbohydrates and other organic compounds. In doing so, the Calvin group showed that sunlight acts on the chlorophyll in a plant to fuel the manufacturing of organic compounds, rather than on carbon dioxide as was previously believed. In his final years of active research, he studied the use of oil-producing plants as renewable sources of energy. He also spent many years testing the chemical evolution of life and wrote a book on the subject that was published in 1969. Calvin also researched organic geochemistry, chemical carcinogenesis and analysis of moon rocks.

DNA and Cells

_____________________________________________________________________________________

frogfish=

What is your point...Calvin just studied chemicals!

________________--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abecrombies =QUOTE

Big bang theory-Edmund Hubbell proved that to be older when thought of previously and the calculation of our galaxy between 9-16 billion. Hubbell studied radioactive elements in our solar system and thus the universe, mars being the first in frozen water as to microbes here on earth comets and meteors as well. All these determined are consistent with the independently derived estimate for the age of the universe.

__________________________________________________________________________________--

BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS

Three world ages: Eph.1: 1-18 the foundation of the world what caused it and the overthrow of fallen angles

psalms 104:1-18.

.2peter3-18- the three world ages

and acts chapter 2

genesis 6

*kabohe- Hebrew meaning overthrow Eph 4: and Matt 13- concerning mysteries

void – Hebrew tu’tu’ pronounciation=def. Utterly destroyed.______________________________________________________________________________

Frogfish=

Again, what is your point...How does this prove creation? The Big Bang Theory actually is a scientific theory.... It does not support creationism.

______________________________________________________________________________--

Abecrombie:

One thing is certain: If scientists—and the rest of us—decide not to accept the folly of evolution, the only alternative is creation. If stars, planets, plants, animals, and men did not make themselves, —then the only alternative is that God made them!

QUOTE Scientists and Nobel peace prize winner “THE CHEMICAL THEORY “as above counter….

Melvin Calvin– Nobel peace prize winner1965 discovered chlorophyll as life on the planet earth in a chemical evolution now called the Calvin theory.

frogfish=-

Do you have a link? Because Chlorophyll is a PIGMENT.

_________________________________________________________________________

http://www.chemistryexplained.com/forum/

Abecrombie=

QUOTE

1962 the history of animal life was pushed back an additional 1,500,000,000 years by discovering tiny fossils in ancient sedimentary rock on the north shore of Lake Superior.

__________________________________________________________________________

frogfish

Source please?

------------------same as calvin theory " the chemical theory ______________________________________________________________-

________________-------------------------------------

Abecrombie

."—*D.B. Gower [biochemist],"Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4."According to an article in Newsweek (November 3, 1980), at a conference in mid-October at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History, the majority of 160 of the world's top paleontologists, anatomists, evolutionary geneticists, and developmental biologists agreed to abandon Darwinian evolution, in favor of punctuated equilibria, otherwise known as the hopeful monster theory.

"Apparently, Darwin's theory had become indefensible to them, citing particularly the absence of intermediate fossils as the conflicting fact. The hopeful monster theory is a retreat to what appears to be reliable geological evidence, namely, the general stringing-out of fossils from `simple' to `complex' in the rock strata."—Randall Hedtke, "Asa Gray Vindicated," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1981, p. 74.

In addition, the Melvin Calvin article will lead you to this source

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------THIS JUST IN........

*Newsweek for November 3, 1980 carried an article on the Chicago meeting. You may wish to read it for yourself. The large majority of evolutionists at the conference agreed that professionals could no longer regard the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection as scientifically valid or tenable. Neither the origin nor the diversity of living creatures could be explained by evolutionary theory.

_______________________________________________________________________

RESULTS ARE , IN A Q: HOW MANY SCIENTISTS DOES IT TAKE TO PROVE WITHOUT CREATION WE WOULDNT HAVE SCIENCE ? ----------------------------Thus, so far we have the late Melvin Calvin,

THE CHEMICAL THEORY = CALVIN THEORY

Proves that chemicals in plant life and every other life form that has chlorophyll inside its structure exhists as life as we know. Sunlight is the cause of the reaction inside the chemicals responsible for their existence. Without out the sunlight this metamorphism could come about

Chemical reaction due to the sun in our universe, simply explains further Einstein’s theory as well

Therefore, Edward Hubbell and Galileo too are the designers after the human eye to construct their telescopes

To venture out into space for more answers of the why what how when and where to find the truth in the purpose of life.

ISSAC NEWTONS LAWS OF GRAVITY

GALILEOS SEARCH FOR THE HEAVENS

And the invention of the telescope

EDWARD HUBBLE – HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE

THE THEORY OF RELATIVITYAlbert Einstein’s “ the theory of relativity goes into this exploration and as we know him to be one of the more accurate scientists to date as well as a humanitarian. I will leave you with some quotes on insight of how perplexed the thoughts of this scientist and his quest for answers.

*“ Laws alone cannot secure freedom of expression in order that every man presents himself”

Albert Einstein

*“ Before god we are all equally wise and equally foolish “

KEEP IN MIND, THIS ALL LEADS UP TO THE CREATION THEORY. AND ALL THE SCIENTS ABOVE HAVE HAD NOBLE PEACE PRIZE AWARDS AS WELL AS MANY ACCREDENTIAL TITLES IN SCIENCE MEDICINE EDUATION AND PHYSICS JUST TO NAME A FEW OF THERE VAST GENIUS ALL OF THEM WERE.

DARWIN IS JUST ONE – WHICH LEADS ME TO ASK?

WHAT ARE HIS CREDENTIALS?

[frogfish]

Body Post 3

You have not refuted any of my comments and rebuttals.

frogfish

QUOTE “Creationism has too many flaws to be accepted by science”

___________________________________________________________________________

abecrombies counter:

Melvin Calvin

… rocks have ages as old as 4.3 billion years, making these tiny crystals the oldest materials so far found on Earth.

Using the carbon-14 isotope as a tracer, Calvin and his team mapped the complete route that carbon travels through a plant during photosynthesis, starting from its absorption as atmospheric carbon dioxide to its conversion into carbohydrates and other organic compounds. In doing so, the Calvin group showed that sunlight acts on the chlorophyll in a plant to fuel the manufacturing of organic compounds, rather than on carbon dioxide as was previously believed. In his final years of active research, he studied the use of oil-producing plants as renewable sources of energy. He also spent many years testing the chemical evolution of life and wrote a book on the subject that was published in 1969. Calvin also researched organic geochemistry, chemical carcinogenesis and analysis of moon rocks.

DNA and Cells

That is not a counter...That has nothing to do with evolution and creationism...If anything, it supports evolution to show that is was the "organic soup" that first started life, not a god.

frogfish=

QUOTE

What is your point...Calvin just studied chemicals!

________________--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abecrombies =QUOTE

Big bang theory-Edmund Hubbell proved that to be older when thought of previously and the calculation of our galaxy between 9-16 billion. Hubbell studied radioactive elements in our solar system and thus the universe, mars being the first in frozen water as to microbes here on earth comets and meteors as well. All these determined are consistent with the independently derived estimate for the age of the universe.

Again, this has no relevance to the topic! All it talks about is the age of the universe. If anything, this proves EVOLUTION as humans have not lived for 9-16 billion years! The topic does not even match my quote!

Frogfish=

QUOTE

Again, what is your point...How does this prove creation? The Big Bang Theory actually is a scientific theory.... It does not support creationism.

______________________________________________________________________________--

Abecrombie:

One thing is certain: If scientists—and the rest of us—decide not to accept the folly of evolution, the only alternative is creation. If stars, planets, plants, animals, and men did not make themselves, —then the only alternative is that God made them!

QUOTE Scientists and Nobel peace prize winner “THE CHEMICAL THEORY “as above counter….

Melvin Calvin– Nobel peace prize winner1965 discovered chlorophyll as life on the planet earth in a chemical evolution now called the Calvin theory.

Again, what does the chemical theory have to do with the Big Band AND evolution? Nothing!

BIBLICAL ACCOUNTS

Three world ages: Eph.1: 1-18 the foundation of the world what caused it and the overthrow of fallen angles

psalms 104:1-18.

.2peter3-18- the three world ages

and acts chapter 2

genesis 6

*kabohe- Hebrew meaning overthrow Eph 4: and Matt 13- concerning mysteries

void – Hebrew tu’tu’ pronounciation=def. Utterly destroyed

What is this for?

frogfish=-

QUOTE

Do you have a link? Because Chlorophyll is a PIGMENT.

_________________________________________________________________________

http://www.chemistryexplained.com/forum/

Again, you have not proven my point. Chlorophyll is a PIGMENT and has nothing to do with evolution. Calvin has nothing to do with evolution! His most respected research came in the life processes of plants i.e. the Calvin Cycle.

QUOTE

1962 the history of animal life was pushed back an additional 1,500,000,000 years by discovering tiny fossils in ancient sedimentary rock on the north shore of Lake Superior.

__________________________________________________________________________

frogfish

QUOTE

Source please?

------------------same as calvin theory " the chemical theory ______________________________________________________________-

Calvin had nothing to do with evolution! You have not refuted any of my points!

Abecrombie

."—*D.B. Gower [biochemist],"Scientist Rejects Evolution," Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975, p. 4."According to an article in Newsweek (November 3, 1980), at a conference in mid-October at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History, the majority of 160 of the world's top paleontologists, anatomists, evolutionary geneticists, and developmental biologists agreed to abandon Darwinian evolution, in favor of punctuated equilibria, otherwise known as the hopeful monster theory.

"Apparently, Darwin's theory had become indefensible to them, citing particularly the absence of intermediate fossils as the conflicting fact. The hopeful monster theory is a retreat to what appears to be reliable geological evidence, namely, the general stringing-out of fossils from `simple' to `complex' in the rock strata."—Randall Hedtke, "Asa Gray Vindicated," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1981, p. 74.

In addition, the Melvin Calvin article will lead you to this source

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------THIS JUST IN........

*Newsweek for November 3, 1980 carried an article on the Chicago meeting. You may wish to read it for yourself. The large majority of evolutionists at the conference agreed that professionals could no longer regard the neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection as scientifically valid or tenable. Neither the origin nor the diversity of living creatures could be explained by evolutionary theory.

Link 1

What the site basically says is that only 5% of scientists reject evolution and only .15% of scientists in a field related to evolution and orgins are creationist. It also says that scientists that are creationist are not that because of fact, but because of a religious faith. Also, it states the claims that scientists reject evolution are exagurrated and fraudulent. It also provides this nifty piece of evidence:

Additionally, many scientific organizations believe the evidence so strongly that they have issued public statements to that effect (NCSE n.d.). The National Academy of Sciences, one of the most prestigious science organizations, devotes a Web site to the topic (NAS 1999). A panel of seventy-two Nobel Laureates, seventeen state academies of science, and seven other scientific organizations created an amicus curiae brief which they submitted to the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard 1986). This report clarified what makes science different from religion and why creationism is not science.

[see Link 1]

RESULTS ARE , IN A Q: HOW MANY SCIENTISTS DOES IT TAKE TO PROVE WITHOUT CREATION WE WOULDNT HAVE SCIENCE ? ----------------------------Thus, so far we have the late Melvin Calvin,

THE CHEMICAL THEORY = CALVIN THEORY

Proves that chemicals in plant life and every other life form that has chlorophyll inside its structure exhists as life as we know. Sunlight is the cause of the reaction inside the chemicals responsible for their existence. Without out the sunlight this metamorphism could come about

Chemical reaction due to the sun in our universe, simply explains further Einstein’s theory as well

Therefore, Edward Hubbell and Galileo too are the designers after the human eye to construct their telescopes

To venture out into space for more answers of the why what how when and where to find the truth in the purpose of life.

ISSAC NEWTONS LAWS OF GRAVITY

GALILEOS SEARCH FOR THE HEAVENS

And the invention of the telescope

EDWARD HUBBLE – HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE

THE THEORY OF RELATIVITYAlbert Einstein’s “ the theory of relativity goes into this exploration and as we know him to be one of the more accurate scientists to date as well as a humanitarian. I will leave you with some quotes on insight of how perplexed the thoughts of this scientist and his quest for answers.

QUOTE

*“ Laws alone cannot secure freedom of expression in order that every man presents himself”

Albert Einstein

*“ Before god we are all equally wise and equally foolish “

KEEP IN MIND, THIS ALL LEADS UP TO THE CREATION THEORY. AND ALL THE SCIENTS ABOVE HAVE HAD NOBLE PEACE PRIZE AWARDS AS WELL AS MANY ACCREDENTIAL TITLES IN SCIENCE MEDICINE EDUATION AND PHYSICS JUST TO NAME A FEW OF THERE VAST GENIUS ALL OF THEM WERE.

DARWIN IS JUST ONE – WHICH LEADS ME TO ASK?

WHAT ARE HIS CREDENTIALS?

None of the scientists you have described have said anything against Evolution...What is your point?

Now on to my 3rd point: Evidence of Evolution

Evolution has many pieces of evidence, the most convincing is the fossil record.

The simple animals (unicellular algae, microbes, bacterium, protists) came before the complex animals (fish, tigers, dinosaurs, etc).

Here's a quote the shows that:

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Link 2

It also states that animals have living parents, and that some animals are different than others...

Evolution is a process in which a species get more complex and adaptive...So it makes common sense that Simpe animals would come first, then complex animals. The fossil record proves this. Invertebrates came before vertebrates...Unicellular organisms came before multicellular organisms...etc.

More proof lies in the fossil record that no evidence shows the humans existed with prehistoric creatures, like dinosaurs. For creationism to be right, humans would have existed with dinosaurs. There is just no proof to support that claim. One more score for evolution.

My next evidence that supports evolution is that humans (homo) evolved only around 2.2-1.6 MYA, not at the beginning of time. This is proof that humans evolved and descended from apes. Before humans, we were Australopithecus.

Man has been a tribal animal since he first walked erect, more than four million years ago. With the impediment of being bipedal, he could not out-climb or outrun his predators. Only through tribal cooperation could he hold his predators at bay.

For two million years, the early hominid was a herd/tribal animal, primarily a herd herbivore. During the next two million years the human was a tribal hunter/warrior. He still is. All of the human's social drives developed long before he developed intellectually. They are, therefore, instinctive. Such instincts as mother-love, compassion, cooperation, curiosity, inventiveness and competitiveness are ancient and embedded in the human. They were all necessary for the survival of the human and pre-human. Since human social drives are instinctive (not intellectual), they can not be modified through education (presentation of knowledge for future assimilation and use). As with all other higher order animals, however, proper behavior may be obtained through training (edict and explanation followed by enforcement).

The intellect, the magnitude of which separates the human from all other animals, developed slowly over the entire four million years or more of the human development. The intellect is not unique to the human, it is quite well developed in a number of the other higher animals. The intellect developed as a control over instincts to provide adaptable behavior. The human is designed by nature (evolution) to modify any behavior that would normally be instinctive to one that would provide optimum benefit (survivability). This process is called self-control or self-discipline, and is the major difference between the human and the lower order animals, those that apply only instinct to their behavioral decisions. Self-discipline, therefore, is the measuring stick of the human. The more disciplined behavior (behavior determined by intellect) displayed by the individual, the more human he becomes. The less disciplined behavior (behavior in response to instinct) displayed by an individual, the more he becomes like the lower order animals that are lacking in intellect and are driven by their instincts.

Link 3

The fact that human and ape DNA vary by as little as 2% also proves the theory of evolution.

From a genome viewpoint, the difference between modern man and the modern apes is quite small, about 2 percent. From a physical viewpoint, the greatest difference is in locomotion. The human walks upright. It is generally thought that this came about when the ancient hominid adopted the edge of the forest and plain and adapted to a life under the trees as opposed to in them. Fossil evidence shows that this bipedal adaptation was completed quite early, perhaps as early as four million years ago, long before we looked like or thought like we do today. Facial feature changes toward the modern appearance came much later. The facial characteristics of modern man are about 100,000 years old. The faces of earlier hominid were much more apelike.

[see Link 3]

Another piece off evidence are vestigial limbs/organs. Vestigial limbs/organs are evolutionary remenants that are of no use to the animals, but vital for its ancestor...Take for example the Rock Python. Close examination reveals that the Python has 2 vestigial hind limbs...This proves that snakes evolved from lizards.

In Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859) and his next publication, The Descent of Man (1871), he referred to several “vestiges” in human anatomy that were left over from the course of evolution. These vestigial organs, Darwin argued, are evidence of evolution and represent a function that was once necessary for survival, but over time that function became either diminished or nonexistent.

The presence of an organ in one organism that resembles one found in another has lead biologists to conclude that these two might have shared a common ancestor. Vestigial organs have demonstrated remarkably how species are related to one another, and has given solid ground for the idea of common descent to stand on. From common descent, it is predicted that organisms should retain these vestigial organs as structural remnants of lost functions. It is only because of macro-evolutionary theory, or evolution that takes place over very long periods of time, that these vestiges appear.

Link 4 - includes top 10 most useless vestigial limbs

This is ample physical proof that evolution is the correct theory...not creationism...But for those skeptics out there, I will delve deeper in my next post into evolution and describe/show proof for evolution's driving force-genetics.

[Abecrombie]

Post3 1 man vs 354 = 354 scientists for creation

Q:

Darwin darwin darwin is there anybody else besides darwin and where again are his credentials?

Q:What proof is there in his theory

Ive given you einstein galileo calvin plato and the list goes on …..

And on and on …

Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.

 Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist

 Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics

 Dr. James Allan, Geneticist

 Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist

 Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist

 Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist

 Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist

 Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert

 Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics

 Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist

 Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology

 Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology

 Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist

 Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology

 Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry

 Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer

 Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics

 Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)

 Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics

 Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics

 Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering

 Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering

 Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist

 Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education

 Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering

 Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist

 Dr. Bob Compton, DVM

 Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist

 Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist

 Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics

 Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering

 Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist

 Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging

 Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist

 Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany

 Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics

 Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry

 Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education

 Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience

 Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div

 Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist

 Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research

 Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research

 Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist

 Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics

 Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy

 Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology

 Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry

 Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology

 Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science

 Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research

 Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist

 Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist

 Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist

 Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry

 Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist

 Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist

 Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist

 Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher

 Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics

 Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist

 Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications

 Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist

 Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist

 Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer

 Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy

 Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist

 Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy

 Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service

 Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist

 Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science

 Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry

 Dr. George F. Howe, Botany

 Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist

 Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist

 Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology

 Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy

 George T. Javor, Biochemistry

 Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist

 Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology

 Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon

 Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist

 Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology

 Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics

 Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist

 Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology

 Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry

 Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry

 Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry

 Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science

 Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry

 Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering

 Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science

 Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering

 Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist

 Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology

 Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology

 Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry

 Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics

 Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology

 Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist

 Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics

 Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist

 Dr. Alan Love, Chemist

 Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:

 Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist

 Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher

 Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist

 Dr. John McEwan, Chemist

 Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics

 Dr. David Menton, Anatomist

 Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist

 Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist

 Colin W. Mitchell, Geography

 Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator

 Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist

 Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist

 Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist

 Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist

 Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering

 Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering

 Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher

 Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher

 Prof. John Oller, Linguistics

 Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology

 Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner

 Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist

 Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)

 Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon

 Prof. Richard Porter

 Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics

 Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist

 Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.

 Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics

 Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology

 Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist

 Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology

 Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist

 Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:

 Dr. Ian Scott, Educator

 Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist

 Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry

 Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science

 Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics

 Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist

 Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer

 Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist

 Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist

 Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist

 Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science

 Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology

 Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education

 Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer

 Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry

 Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics

 Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering

 Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics

 Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics

 Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry

 Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:

 Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science

 Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist

 Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist

 Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist

 Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer

 Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist

 Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)

 Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics

 Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist

 Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor

 Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor

 Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist

 Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist

 Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist

 Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics

 Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering

 Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics

 Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology

 Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist

 Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography

 Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp

Which scientists of the past believed in a Creator?

Note: These scientists are sorted by birth year.

Early

 Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method. However, see also

Culture Wars:

1. Part 1: Bacon vs Ham

2. Part 2: Ham vs Bacon

 Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also The Galileo ‘twist’ and The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?

 Johann Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy

 Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor

 John Wilkins (1614–1672)

 Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians

 Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer

 Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics

 Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics

 John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history

 Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics

 Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) Stratigraphy

 Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology

 Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy

 Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany

The Age of Newton

 Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997)

 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician

 John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy

 William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology

 Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician

 John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician

 John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology

 William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology

 John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology

 Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology

 Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system

 Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology

 Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy

 William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)

 James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)

 John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law

 John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)

Just Before Darwin

 The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr. Terry Mortenson

 Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator

 William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist

 Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer

 Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist

 John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry

 Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)

 Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy

 Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist

 John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry

 Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp

 Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)

 Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist

 Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)

 David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)

 William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)

 William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)

 Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)

 Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator

 Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph

 John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)

 Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)

 William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)

 Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer

Just After Darwin

 Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)

 Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)

 Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)

 Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology

 James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology

 Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology

 Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archeologist

 James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology

 James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)

 Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist

 James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics

 Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist

 Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy

 George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics

 John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)

 Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology

 Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics

 Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization

 Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects

 William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)

 William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry

 Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries

 Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery

 Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity

 James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics

 P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis

 John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist

 John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases

 Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy

 Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy

 A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archeologist

 John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve

The Modern Period

 Dr. Clifford Burdick, Geologist

 George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor

 L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology

 Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist

 Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology

 Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology

 Dr. Frank Marsh, Biology

 Dr. John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer

 Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy

 William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archeologist

 William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation

 Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist

 Dr. Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon

 Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon

 Dr. Larry Butler, Biochemist

 Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)

 Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer

 Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp________________________________________________________________________

Frogfish stated.....

SEXUAL SELECTION

Natural Selection is when animals out-reproduce each other. Sexual Selection can fall under natural selection and is when animals produce the best offspring by mating with the best partner. Secondary sex features on animals, like the mane of a lion, the plumage of birds etc. help find the best partners. Bouts of strength also shows who's best and the better partner.

Q:What about seahorses ?

______________________________________________________________________

I NEED AIR………….THIS JUST IN STUDIES SHOW THAT CHEMICAL AND HUMAN ARE REALAVENT

Plant life –without plantlife we wouldn’t be here.

The largest single manufacturing process in the world takes place in one of the smallest units of life – cells of the green plant

The mamafacturing process is photosynthesis. . each year this process accounts for the transformation of 100 billion tons of the inorgaanic element carbon into organic forms that support life. Atmosphere

This again backing up from my very first post that chemicals , such in the calvin cycle or the chemical theory goes back to the orgin of life .

There proving melvin calvin

Another form of chemicals are in the brain . the whole human brain is made up of a chemical collaboration of trillions of cells and neuron , energy and transmitters. Lets look at einsteins brain

He was cremated without ceremony on the same day he died at Trenton, New Jersey, in accordance with his wishes. His ashes were scattered at an undisclosed location. An autopsy was performed on Einstein by Dr. Thomas Stoltz Harvey, who removed and preserved his brain. Harvey found nothing unusual with his brain, but in 1999 further analysis by a team at McMaster University revealed that his parietal operculum region was missing and, to compensate, his inferior parietal lobe was 15% wider than normal.12 The inferior parietal region is responsible for mathematical thought, visuospatial cognition, and imagery of movement. Einstein's brain also contained 73% more glial cells than the average brain.

http://www.bioquant.com/gallery/einstein.html"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity."

In other words, time is dependent on certain factors. And he said like an hour and like a minute.

Examination of Some Einstein Quotes and his Relation to the Jewish Religion - It is possible that Einstein may have sympathized with the ideas that time is not absolute because of the message in Psalm 90 Verse 4. Why would a verse have inspired Einstein?

Psalms90:4 for a thousande years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.

Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth. This belief, which sometimes is termed "theistic evolution," is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines.

http://newton.nap.edu/html/creationism/origin.html

http://www.geocities.com/kmhigginson/einstien.html

concerning dinosaurs- I stand corrected it is in job 40:15

job 40:15

15 "Look at the behemoth, [a]

which I made along with you

and which feeds on grass like an ox.

16 What strength he has in his loins,

what power in the muscles of his belly!

17 His tail sways like a cedar;

the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.

18 His bones are tubes of bronze,

his limbs like rods of iron.

19 He ranks first among the works of God,

yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.

20 The hills bring him their produce,

and all the wild animals play nearby.

21 Under the lotus plants he lies,

hidden among the reeds in the marsh.

22 The lotuses conceal him in their shadow;

the poplars by the stream surround him.

23 When the river rages, he is not alarmed;

he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.

24 Can anyone capture him by the eyes, [c]

or trap him and pierce his nose?

Link 1

[frogfish]

Bodily Post 4

Post3 1 man vs 354 = 354 scientists for creation

Q:

Darwin darwin darwin is there anybody else besides darwin and where again are his credentials?

Q:What proof is there in his theory

Ive given you einstein galileo calvin plato and the list goes on …..

And on and on …

Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field.

 Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist

 Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics

 Dr. James Allan, Geneticist

 Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist

 Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist

 Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist

 Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist

 Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert

 Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics

 Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist

 Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology

 Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology

 Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist

 Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology

 Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry

 Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer

 Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics

 Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)

 Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics

 Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics

 Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering

 Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering

 Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist

 Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education

 Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering

 Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist

 Dr. Bob Compton, DVM

 Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist

 Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist

 Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics

 Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering

 Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist

 Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging

 Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist

 Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany

 Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics

 Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry

 Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education

 Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience

 Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div

 Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist

 Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research

 Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research

 Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist

 Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics

 Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy

 Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology

 Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry

 Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology

 Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science

 Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research

 Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist

 Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist

 Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist

 Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry

 Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist

 Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist

 Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist

 Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher

 Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics

 Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist

 Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications

 Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist

 Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist

 Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer

 Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy

 Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist

 Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy

 Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service

 Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist

 Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science

 Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry

 Dr. George F. Howe, Botany

 Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist

 Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist

 Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology

 Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy

 George T. Javor, Biochemistry

 Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist

 Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology

 Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon

 Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist

 Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology

 Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics

 Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist

 Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology

 Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry

 Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry

 Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry

 Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science

 Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry

 Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering

 Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science

 Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering

 Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist

 Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology

 Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology

 Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry

 Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics

 Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology

 Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist

 Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics

 Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist

 Dr. Alan Love, Chemist

 Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:

 Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist

 Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher

 Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist

 Dr. John McEwan, Chemist

 Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics

 Dr. David Menton, Anatomist

 Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist

 Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist

 Colin W. Mitchell, Geography

 Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator

 Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist

 Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist

 Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist

 Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist

 Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering

 Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering

 Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher

 Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher

 Prof. John Oller, Linguistics

 Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology

 Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner

 Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist

 Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)

 Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon

 Prof. Richard Porter

 Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics

 Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist

 Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.

 Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics

 Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology

 Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist

 Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology

 Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist

 Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:

 Dr. Ian Scott, Educator

 Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist

 Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry

 Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science

 Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics

 Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist

 Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer

 Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist

 Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist

 Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist

 Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science

 Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology

 Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education

 Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer

 Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry

 Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics

 Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering

 Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics

 Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics

 Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry

 Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:

 Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science

 Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist

 Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist

 Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist

 Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer

 Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist

 Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)

 Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics

 Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist

 Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor

 Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor

 Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist

 Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist

 Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist

 Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics

 Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering

 Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics

 Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology

 Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist

 Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography

 Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp

Which scientists of the past believed in a Creator?

Note: These scientists are sorted by birth year.

Early

 Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method. However, see also

Culture Wars:

1. Part 1: Bacon vs Ham

2. Part 2: Ham vs Bacon

 Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also The Galileo ‘twist’ and The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?

 Johann Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy

 Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor

 John Wilkins (1614–1672)

 Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians

 Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer

 Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics

 Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics

 John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history

 Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics

 Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) Stratigraphy

 Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology

 Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy

 Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany

The Age of Newton

 Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997)

 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician

 John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy

 William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology

 Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician

 John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician

 John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology

 William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology

 John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology

 Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology

 Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system

 Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology

 Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy

 William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)

 James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)

 John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law

 John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)

Just Before Darwin

 The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr. Terry Mortenson

 Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator

 William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist

 Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer

 Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist

 John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry

 Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)

 Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy

 Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist

 John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry

 Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp

 Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)

 Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist

 Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)

 David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)

 William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)

 William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)

 Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)

 Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator

 Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph

 John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)

 Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)

 William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)

 Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer

Just After Darwin

 Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)

 Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)

 Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)

 Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology

 James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology

 Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology

 Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archeologist

 James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology

 James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)

 Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist

 James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics

 Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist

 Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy

 George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics

 John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)

 Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology

 Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics

 Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization

 Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects

 William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)

 William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry

 Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries

 Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery

 Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity

 James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics

 P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis

 John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist

 John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases

 Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy

 Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy

 A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archeologist

 John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve

The Modern Period

 Dr. Clifford Burdick, Geologist

 George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor

 L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology

 Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist

 Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology

 Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology

 Dr. Frank Marsh, Biology

 Dr. John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer

 Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy

 William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archeologist

 William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation

 Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist

 Dr. Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon

 Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon

 Dr. Larry Butler, Biochemist

 Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)

 Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer

 Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.

I think you missed a previous statement I made:

What the site basically says is that only 5% of scientists reject evolution and only .15% of scientists in a field related to evolution and orgins are creationist. It also says that scientists that are creationist are not that because of fact, but because of a religious faith. Also, it states the claims that scientists reject evolution are exagurrated and fraudulent. It also provides this nifty piece of evidence:

Link 1.1

SEXUAL SELECTION

Natural Selection is when animals out-reproduce each other. Sexual Selection can fall under natural selection and is when animals produce the best offspring by mating with the best partner. Secondary sex features on animals, like the mane of a lion, the plumage of birds etc. help find the best partners. Bouts of strength also shows who's best and the better partner.

Q:What about seahorses ?

The biggest males, the most colorful, etc...What does this question imply?

I NEED AIR………….THIS JUST IN STUDIES SHOW THAT CHEMICAL AND HUMAN ARE REALAVENT

Plant life –without plantlife we wouldn’t be here.

The largest single manufacturing process in the world takes place in one of the smallest units of life – cells of the green plant

The mamafacturing process is photosynthesis. . each year this process accounts for the transformation of 100 billion tons of the inorgaanic element carbon into organic forms that support life. Atmosphere

This again backing up from my very first post that chemicals , such in the calvin cycle or the chemical theory goes back to the orgin of life .

There proving melvin calvin

Do you have any proof that Calvin said Photosynthesis was in progress at the birth of the earth? Life on Earth came from an "organic soup"...the primordial atmosphere...Not photosynthesis.

Stanley Miller, a chemist, proved this point with this experiment:

Spontaneous generation in a primeval soup: Miller's Experiment

Stanley Miller, a graduate student in biochemistry, built the apparatus shown here. He filled it with

water (H2O

methane (CH4)

ammonia (NH3) and

hydrogen (H2)

but no oxygen

He hypothesized that this mixture resembled the atmosphere of the early earth. (Some are not so sure.) The mixture was kept circulating by continuously boiling and then condensing the water.

The gases passed through a chamber containing two electrodes with a spark passing between them.

At the end of a week, Miller used paper chromatography to show that the flask now contained several amino acids as well as some other organic molecules.

In the years since Miller's work, many variants of his procedure have been tried. Virtually all the small molecules that are associated with life have been formed:

17 of the 20 amino acids used in protein synthesis, and

all the purines and pyrimidines used in nucleic acid synthesis.

But abiotic synthesis of ribose — and thus of nucleosides — has been much more difficult.

One difficulty with the primeval soup theory is how polymers — the basis of life itself — could be assembled.

In solution, hydrolysis of a growing polymer would soon limit the size it could reach.

Abiotic synthesis produces a mixture of L and D enantiomers. Each inhibits the polymerization of the other. (So, for example, the presence of D amino acids inhibits the polymerization of L amino acids (the ones that make up proteins here on earth).

Link 1.2

Abercrombie said:

Another form of chemicals are in the brain . the whole human brain is made up of a chemical collaboration of trillions of cells and neuron , energy and transmitters. Lets look at einsteins brain

He was cremated without ceremony on the same day he died at Trenton, New Jersey, in accordance with his wishes. His ashes were scattered at an undisclosed location. An autopsy was performed on Einstein by Dr. Thomas Stoltz Harvey, who removed and preserved his brain. Harvey found nothing unusual with his brain, but in 1999 further analysis by a team at McMaster University revealed that his parietal operculum region was missing and, to compensate, his inferior parietal lobe was 15% wider than normal.12 The inferior parietal region is responsible for mathematical thought, visuospatial cognition, and imagery of movement. Einstein's brain also contained 73% more glial cells than the average brain.

http://www.bioquant.com/gallery/einstein.html"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity."

In other words, time is dependent on certain factors. And he said like an hour and like a minute.

Examination of Some Einstein Quotes and his Relation to the Jewish Religion - It is possible that Einstein may have sympathized with the ideas that time is not absolute because of the message in Psalm 90 Verse 4. Why would a verse have inspired Einstein?

This has no relevance!

concerning dinosaurs- I stand corrected it is in job 40:15

job 40:15

15 "Look at the behemoth, [a]

which I made along with you

and which feeds on grass like an ox.

16 What strength he has in his loins,

what power in the muscles of his belly!

17 His tail sways like a cedar;

the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.

18 His bones are tubes of bronze,

his limbs like rods of iron.

19 He ranks first among the works of God,

yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.

20 The hills bring him their produce,

and all the wild animals play nearby.

21 Under the lotus plants he lies,

hidden among the reeds in the marsh.

22 The lotuses conceal him in their shadow;

the poplars by the stream surround him.

23 When the river rages, he is not alarmed;

he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.

24 Can anyone capture him by the eyes, [c]

or trap him and pierce his nose?

Concerning the Behemoth, scholars mostly accept it as a hippopotamus. A giant dinosaur cannot hide in the lotus reeds.

The Behemoth and Leviathan are important in Hebrew MYTHOLOGY.

Names of gigantic beasts or monsters described in Job xl. The former is from a root denoting "coil," "twist"; the latter is the plural form of "behemah"="beast."

—Biblical Data:

Ever since Bochart ("Hierozoicon," iii. 705), "behemoth" has been taken to denote the hippopotamus; and Jablonski, to make it correspond exactly with that animal, compared an Egyptian form, "p-ehe-mu" (= "water-ox"), which, however, does not exist. The Biblical description contains mythical elements, and the conclusion is justified that these monsters were not real, though the hippopotamus may have furnished in the main the data for the description. Only of a unique being, and not of a common hippopotamus, could the words of Job xl. 19 have been used: "He is the first [A. V. "chief"] of the ways of God [comp. Prov. viii. 22]; he that made him maketh sport with him" (as the Septuagint reads, πεποιημένον ἐγκαταπαιζέσΘαι; A. V. "He that made him can make his sword to approach unto him"; comp. Ps. civ. 26); or "The mountains bring him forth food; where all the beasts of the field do play" (Job xl. 20). Obviously behemoth is represented as the primeval beast, the king of all the animals of the dry land, while leviathan is the king of all those of the water, both alike unconquerable by man (ib. xl. 14, xli. 17-26). Gunkel ("Schöpfung und Chaos," p. 62) suggests that behemoth and leviathan were the two primeval monsters corresponding to Tiamat (= "the abyss"; comp. Hebr. "tehom") and Kingu (= Aramaic "'akna" = serpent") of Babylonian mythology. Some commentators find also in Isa. xxx. 6 ("bahamot negeb" = "beasts of the south") a reference to the hippopotamus; others again, in Ps. lxxiii. 22 ("I am as behemoth [="beasts"; A. V. "a beast"] before thee"); but neither interpretation has a substantial foundation. It is likely that the leviathan and the behemoth were originally referred to in Hab. ii. 15: "the destruction of the behemoth [A. V. "beasts"] shall make them afraid" (comp. LXX., "thee" instead of "them").E. G. H. K.

—In Rabbinical Literature:

According to a midrash, the leviathan was created on the fifth day (Yalḳ., Gen. 12). Originally God produced a male and a female leviathan, but lest in multiplying the species should destroy the world, He slew the female, reserving her flesh for the banquet that will be given to the righteous on the advent of the Messiah (B. B. 74a). The enormous size of the leviathan is thus illustrated by R. Johanan, from whom proceeded nearly all the haggadot concerning this monster: "Once we went in a ship and saw a fish which put his head out of the water. He had horns upon which was written: 'I am one of the meanest creatures that inhabit the sea. I am three hundred miles in length, and enter this day into the jaws of the leviathan'" (B. B. l.c.). When the leviathan is hungry, reports R. Dimi in the name of R. Johanan, he sends forth from his mouth a heat so great as to make all the waters of the deep boil, and if he would put his head into paradise no living creature could endure the odor of him (ib.). His abode is the Mediterranean Sea; and the waters of the Jordan fall into his mouth (Bek. 55b; B. B. l.c.).

The body of the leviathan, especially his eyes, possesses great illuminating power. This was the opinion of R. Eliezer, who, in the course of a voyage in company with R. Joshua, explained to the latter, when frightened by the sudden appearance of a brilliant light, that it probably proceeded from the eyes of the leviathan. He referred his companion to the words of Job xli. 18: "By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning" (B. B. l.c.). However, in spite of his supernatural strength, the leviathan is afraid of a small worm called "kilbit" (), which clings to the gills of large fishes and kills them (Shab. 77b).

In the Messianic Times.

The leviathan is prominent in the haggadic literature in connection with the advent of the Messiah. Referring to Job xl. 30 (Hebr.), "and the pious ones [] shall make a banquet of it," R. Johanan says that at the time of the resurrection a banquet will be given by God to the righteous, at which the flesh of the leviathan will be served (B. B. l.c.). Even the hunting of the leviathan will be a source of great enjoyment to the righteous. Those, says R. Judan bar Simon, who have not taken part in pagan sports will be allowed to participate in the hunting of the leviathan and of the behemoth (Lev. R. xiii. 3). Gabriel will be charged with the killing of the monster; but he will not be able to accomplish his task without the help of God, who will divide the monster with His sword. According to another haggadah, when Gabriel fails, God will order the leviathan to engage in a battle with the ox of the mountain ("shor habar"), which will result in death to both of them (B. B. 75a; Pesiḳ. p. 188b). Not only will the flesh of the leviathan furnish food for the table of the righteous, but there will be a great supply of it in the markets of Jerusalem (B. B. l.c.). From the hide of the leviathan God will make tents for the pious of the first rank, girdles for those of the second, chains for those of the third, and necklaces for those of the fourth. The remainder of the hide will be spread on the walls of Jerusalem; and the whole world will be illuminated by its brightness (ib.).

Symbolical Interpretation.

These haggadot concerning the leviathan are interpreted as allegories by all the commentators with the exception of some ultraconservatives like Baḥya ben Asher ("Shulḥan Arba'," ch. iv., p. 9, col. 3). According to Maimonides, the banquet is an allusion to the spiritual enjoyment of the intellect (commentary on Sanh. i.). The name, he says, is derived from (" to join," "to unite"), and designates an imaginary monster in which are combined the most various animals ("Moreh," iii., ch. xxiii.). In the cabalistic literature the "piercing leviathan" and the "crooked leviathan" (Isa. xxvii. 1), upon which the haggadah concerning the hunting of the animal is based, are interpreted as referring to Satan-Samael and his spouse Lilith ("'Emeḳ ha-Melek," p. 130a), while Ḳimḥi, Abravanel, and others consider the expressions to be allusions to the destruction of the powers which are hostile to the Jews (comp. Manasseh ben Israel, "Nishmat Ḥayyim," p. 48; see also Kohut, "Aruch Completum," s. v. "Leviathan," for other references, and his essay in "Z. D. M. G." vol. xxi., p. 590, for the parallels in Persian literature). The haggadic sayings obtained a hold on the imagination of thepoets, who introduced allusions to the banquet of the leviathan into the liturgy.S. S. I. Br.

—In Apocryphal Literature:

Both leviathan and behemoth are prominent in Jewish eschatology. In the Book of Enoch (lx. 7-9), Enoch says:(Charles, "Book of Enoch," p. 155; comp. "the secret chambers of leviathan" which Elihu b. Berakel the Buzite will disclose, Cant. R. i. 4).

"On that day [the day of judgment] two monsters will be produced: a female monster, named 'Leviathan,' to dwell in the depths of the ocean over the fountains of the waters; but the male is called 'Behemoth,' who occupies with his breast a waste wilderness named 'Dendain' [read "the land of Naid" after LXX., ἐν γη Ναίδ = , Gen. iv. 16], on the east of the garden, where the elect and the righteous dwell. And I besought that other angel that he should show me the might of these monsters; how they were produced on one day, the one being placed in the depth of the sea and the other in the main land of the wilderness. And he spake to me: 'Thou son of man, dost seek here to know what is hidden?'"

According to II Esdras vi. 49-53, God created on the fifth day the two great monsters, leviathan and behemoth, and He separated them because the seventh part of the world which was assigned to the water could not hold them together, and He gave to the behemoth that part which was dried up on the third day and had the thousand mountains which, according to Ps. i. 10, as understood by the haggadists ("the behemoth [A. V. "cattle"] upon a thousand hills"; comp. Lev. R. xxii.; Num. R. xxi.; and Job xl. 20), furnish behemoth with the necessary food. To the leviathan God gave the seventh part of the earth filled with water; and He reserved it for the future to reveal by whom and at what time the leviathan and the behemoth should be eaten.

In the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, xxix. 4, also, the time is predicted when the behemoth will come forth from his seclusion on land and the leviathan out of the sea, and the two gigantic monsters, created on the fifth day, will serve as food for the elect who will survive in the days of the Messiah.

Among the Gnostics.

Behemoth and leviathan form in the Gnostic system of the Ophites and others two of the seven circles or stations which the soul has to pass in order to be purged and to attain bliss (Hippolytus, "Adversus Omnes Hæreses," v. 21; Origen, "Contra Celsum," vi. 25). As if the meat of the "wild ox" behemoth and the fish leviathan were not deemed sufficient for the great banquet of the righteous in the future, a fowl was added, i.e., the "ziz" (A. V. "the wild beasts" of the field), mentioned in Ps. 1. 11 after the account of the behemoth in verse 10, and understood by the Rabbis to signify a gigantic bird (B. B. 73b). Thus the Apocalypse of Simeon b. Yoḥai (Jellinek, "B. H." iii. 76) has the three animals, the monster ox behemoth, the fish leviathan, and the gigantic bird ziz, prepared for the great banquet. This tradition, however, indicates Persian influence, for it is of the Parsee cosmology that the existence of such primeval representatives of the classes of animals is a part. There are four such species mentioned in "Bundahis," xviii.-xix.: (1) "the serpent-like Kar fish, the Arizh of the water, the greatest of the creatures of Ahuramazda," corresponding to the leviathan; (2) the three-legged ass Khara, standing in the midst of the ocean ("Yasna," xli. 28); it is mentioned in the Talmud as the "unicorn ḳeresh," "ṭigras" (i.e., "thrigaṭ" = "three-legged"), the gazel of the heights (Ḥul. 59b), and forms, under the name "Ḥarish," in Mohammedan eschatology a substitute for behemoth and leviathan (see Wolff, " Muhammedanische Eschatologie," 1872, pp. 174, 181); (3) the ox Hadhayosh, from which the food of immortality is prepared, and which forms the parallel of behemoth; and (4) the bird Chamrosh, the chief of the birds, which lives on the summit of Mount Alburz (comp. "Bundahis," xix. 15); compare also Simurgh (Avesta "Saena Meregha," eagle-bird, griffin, Hebraized "Bar Yokneh"), the fabulous giant-bird, which the Rabbis identified with ziz (see Windischman, "Zoroastrische Studien," pp. 91-93; West, "Pahlavi Texts," in Max Müller, "S. B. E." v. 65-71).

Link 1.3

Nowhere in its Hebrew orgin does it constitue as a dinosaur. It takes a more symbolic role than physical. It signifies the uncontrollable evil and apocalypse.

Now onto my next topic-Genetics and evolution

The main force behind Natural Selection is INHERITANCE. There are many kinds of Inheritance-Mendelian, Sex-linked, Autosomal, Parential, Imprinting, etc. It is these (mainly Mendelian ) that help piece together Natural Selection. The effects of genetics on a population is called population genetics. The allele frequecy can be measured through a mechanism called the Hardy-Weinberg formula.

Although Darwin was very successful at convincing his contemporaries about the fact that evolution had occurred, he was much less successful at convincing his colleagues that his mechanism of Natural Selection was the major mechanism of evolutionary change. This was mainly because there was no satisfactory explanation for inheritance, or for how variation originated. Darwin himself was plagued by his inability to understand inheritance, and was dissatisfied by his own theory of inheritance, pangenesis and blending inheritance, because blending suggested that variation should be halved each generation and would rapidly be lost. (Darwin called it his "well abused theory of Pangenesis", and postulated rapid origins of new variation. Maybe if Darwin had improved his math skills...?)

In 1883, A. Weismann (1834-1914) proposed that the germ plasm was separate from (and thus immune to influences from) the soma. Indeed, this principle is reflected in the "Central Dogma" of molecular biology. The "central dogma" of the NeoDarwinian view is that evolution can only occur by genetic change.

There are some notable exceptions, such as "gene amplification", cortical inheritance of disturbed patterns of cilia inherited in ciliated protozoa, and inherited "states of cell activation" in Daphnia.

In 1865 (only 6 years after Darwin's Origin), in an Augustinian monastery in Brno, a Czech town, Gregor Mendel discovered some of the "rules" of diploid inheritance. Mendel's work was not widely known until it was rediscovered in the 1900s.

Mendel demonstrated particulate inheritance, dispensing with the problems of blending inheritance. This mode of inheritance was initially used to argue against natural selection being a strong force: Since variants or mutants observed by early geneticists had discrete effects, and species differed discretely, species could have arisen by discrete, perhaps systemic changes (perhaps with a direction determined by orthogenesis or other mechanisms).

With the "Evolutionary (or Modern) Synthesis", Darwin's theory became reconciled with the facts of genetics, especially with the facts that (1) acquired characters are not inherited and (2) continuous variation has the same Mendelian basis as discrete variation. The theoretical foundations for evolutionary genetics were laid down in 1908 independently be Hardy, Weinberg and Tschetverikov, and subsequently developed by R. A. Fisher (1890-1962) and J. B. S. Haldane (1892-1964) in England and Sewall Wright (1889-1988) in the US. Additional work (e.g., by J. Huxley, T. Dobzhansky) brought these and other fields (like paleontology) together.

II. Major tenets of the Evolutionary Synthesis

A. Populations have genetic variation that continuously arises by undirected processes (mutation and recombination)

B. Populations evolve by changes in gene frequencies through:

1. Genetic drift

2. Gene flow

3. Natural selection

C. Most adaptive variants have slight phenotypic effects, so that phenotypic changes are gradual

D. Diversification arises by speciation (cladogenesis), usually occurring via gradual evolution of reproductive isolation

E. These processes, continued for a sufficiently long period of time, produce changes sufficient to delineate higher taxonomic levels

Link 2

To fully understand this, a background on population genetics/evolution would be helpful...This link is very useful:

Population Genetics/evolution

[Abecrombie]

Bodily post 4 -------------TO LET THE JUDGES ORGANIZERS AND MY OPPONENT KNOW ... MY COMPUTER IS NOT WORKING RIGHT HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE PROGRAMS SUCH AS THE QUOTE COMMAND AND THE BOLD ITALIC UNDERLINED ETC. ALSO IMAGES DIDNT TURN UP IN THIS POST AS THEY SHOULD OF.....CAN SOMEONE HELP ?

THE Q:’S = 8 - {for} 4 frogfish______________________________________________________________________________________THIS FIRST INN …………….Abecrombie’s Q:’S / 4 Frogfish = Y ? can U A::…

Im just a bit confused here and wonder if at all you are questioning with genuine intent.

I ve answered the questions due to this conclusion as follows…..

The bible as well as the transcribes originaly written in hebrew and greek are the bible today now in modern english, the bible . they are all the same except for concordances and of different levels and amount of information inside each kind of bible.

1}Catholic life edition

or

2}new translations of the holy scriptures

or a

3} americian standard

to

4}new revised

etc.

they all have information some more than othersPERSONAL NOTE{. A person has to spend a great amount of seriousness and with heart to draw from the knowledge that lyes from Inside the bible . prayer first .} All

things put aside ,from my studides since 1973 – present, ive found that all forms of the bible are useful and still use the variences to find answers that keep on validating the information it builds on .

there is a three world ages or earth ages and mankind is where we are all at now.

Therefore the bible as we have today , God has given to us to concern ourselfs with the present day and our future.

Per: revalation means to be revealed. So actively we are somewhere in revalations as far as a timeline goes.

There really is no reason to go into a majority of info on dinosurs if the three earth age knowledge is provived and a several texts mentioning just enough to know that dinosaurs could even be consisered as mentioned in the bible .

. some think that they are not mentioned in the bible and question god ss exhistance but knowledge of chronilogialy timed events that the bible teaches, tells us of that time period s exhistance along with the job refferences and gen esis mentions giants in those days and sea montsters .

like we apply this philosphey in modern times the saying goes like this

“ living in the present,… opposed to dwelling in the past,… we cannot go into the future realisticaly “

thinking. Same senario here god feels the information is satisfactory .

so be it. Why question the creator ,. Ill speak for myself . ive no reason to further and if my opponent wants to be convined , that could go on for a years worth of debating

The difficult thing here in this debate, is that the unseen god that speaks as of “ faith is evidence of things unseen” vs a man with a theory we came from monkeys . I have a hard time with this even if I didn’t believe . I refuse to think we all came from zapes . why would there be apes today or monkeys not transforming in a fossilized record of kept scienctific methods in resezarch?

_________________________________________________________________________

Like in my introduction I will again repeat the method of proving the creation .

ALL OF THE BELOW SCIENCE DISCOVERED FACTS ARE IN THE BIBLEThree earth ages – today we are in the second earth agew and destined to reach the third in mentions in revalations And there will be a new heaven and a new earth for the old heaven and earth are passed away

Rev 1:8 Iam the alpha and the omega says jehovah god “ the one who is and who was and who is coming “ the almighty

Rev 21: 1 and I saw a new heaven and a new earth for the former earth had passed away and the sea is no more

______________________________________________________________________

Genesis is the first book in the bible meaning the act or mode of originated . orgin

Explains the big bang theory just in a different source the bible also the calvin cycle which is the vegatation mentioned being brought fourth yeilding seed of its kind.

The alpha bet is next in which god speaks of being refered to . first his name and meaning and other words that place him as a soverion god above all creation..

I have not yet posted that part of my argument. I will do so after asking frogfish why he continues to ask over and over without reading or considering the full article before manipulating the side in wich ive already replicated prior to this post here.

In fact ill ask frogfish personaly…. Hey frogfish can you be more detailed in your questions so I can give you a more efficient answer or shall I try to show you as my questions for you that are without any real neccesity.

__________________________________________________________________________________________ proposed offer { Hulk Hogan’s voice-----“-LETS DEBATE BROTHER ….NOT MANIPULATE “

abecrmbie here just letting you know I have to throw a little cheeseball humor for anyone whom might need it.lol

___________________________________________________________________________

Q:# 1= 4 - Frogfish

As far as job goes,… how could a hippoanimus have a tale like a cedar tree.?

Do you know how big cedar trees are ?

___________CONSIDER______________________________________

the lotus trees amungst the marsh is the standard landscaping enviroment for the jurrassic period.

Hills are were he feeds……. a hippo doesn’t graise on the hillsides

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BELOW ARE 2 DIFFERENT TYPES OF BIBLES AND THEIR REFFERENC TO THE PREVIOUS JOB 40:15 BEHEMOTH POST.

1}"here is a translation from,…. the Holy Bible - catholic life edition

-------------------------------------------------------------------{actual bible as book source}

Job 40:15 see, besides you I made Behemoth that feeds on grass like an ox.

16Behold his strength in his loins, and the vigor in the sinews of his belly.

17 He carries his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his thighs are like cables.

18 His bones are like tubes of bronze: his frame is like iron rods

19 He came at the beginning of Gods ways, and was made taskmaster of his fellows:

20 For the produce of the mountains is brought to him and all the wild animals he makes sport.

21 Under the lotus trees he lies in coverts of the reedy swamp.

22 The lotus trees cover him with their shade: all about him are the poplars on the bank .

23 If the river grows violent , he is not disturbed: he is tranquill though the torrent surges about his mouth

24 Who can capture him by his eyes or pierce his nose with a trap?

Job $$5.95 an hour …no…lol…went off there….

2} New world translations of the holy scriptures reads {book source }

Job 40:15Here , now, is Be’he’moth that I have made as well as you. Green grass it eats just as a bull does.

16 Here , now, its power is in its hips,And its dynamic energyin the tendons of its belly.

17 It bends down its tail like a cedar: The sinews of its thighs are interwoven.

18 Its bones are tubes of copper:Its strong bones are like wrought iron rods.

19 It is the beginning of the ways of God. Its maker can bring near his sword.

20 For the mountains themselves bear their producefor itAnd all the wild beasts of the field themselves play there

21 Under the thorney lotus trees it lies down In its concealed place of reeds and the swampy place.

22 The thorney lotus trees keep itblocked off with their shadow .The poplars of the torrent valley surround it

23 If the river acts violently , it does not run in panic It is confident , although the Jordan should burst forth against its mouth

24 B efore its eyes can anyone take it? With snares can anyone bore its nose?

_____________________________________________________________________

Tail as a cedar ??????? INCORRECT CORRECT Tail as a cedar

___________________________________________________________________________

counter

Frogfish Quotes

Concerning the Behemoth, scholars mostly accept it as a hippopotamus. A giant dinosaur cannot hide in the lotus reeds.

___________________________________________________________________________

Counter counterattack

Abecrombie

*Lotus trees in the Funk and Wagnails dictionary define lotus trees as the old world trees which would be the first earth age

I believe the Dinosaur is best suited for this argument .

Judges ?

________________________________________________________________________________________

Frogfish

quotes

"

The elephant is reckoned the slowest breeder of all known animals, and I have taken some pains to estimate its probable minimum rate of natural increase; it will be safest to assume that it begins breeding when 30 years old and goes on breeding until 90 years old; if this be so, after a period from 740 to 750 years there would be nearly 19 million elephants descended from this first pair."

Q:# 2 –4 Whats your piont ?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frogfish

quotes

"If some plants grow taller than others and so are better able to avoid shading by others, they will produce more offspring. However, if the reason they grow tall is because of the soil in which their seeds happened to land, and not because they have the genes to grow tall, than no evolution will occur."

Q:# 3

What does this have to do with evolution ? can you explain please ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COUNTER -

Frogfish asks in this quote

"None of the scientists you have described have said anything against Evolution...What is your point?"

Counter counterattack

Abe’crombies A:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

They don’t have to. They are for creation.

Point given

quote

Which scientists of the past believed in a Creator?

Note: These scientists are sorted by birth year.

Early

 Francis Bacon (1561–1626) Scientific method. However, see also

Culture Wars:

1. Part 1: Bacon vs Ham

2. Part 2: Ham vs Bacon

 Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) (WOH) Physics, Astronomy (see also The Galileo ‘twist’ and The Galileo affair: history or heroic hagiography?

 Johann Kepler (1571–1630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy

 Athanasius Kircher (1601–1680) Inventor

 John Wilkins (1614–1672)

 Walter Charleton (1619–1707) President of the Royal College of Physicians

 Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (1623–1662) Hydrostatics; Barometer

 Sir William Petty (1623 –1687) Statistics; Scientific economics

 Robert Boyle (1627–1691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics

 John Ray (1627–1705) Natural history

 Isaac Barrow (1630–1677) Professor of Mathematics

 Nicolas Steno (1631–1686) Stratigraphy

 Thomas Burnet (1635–1715) Geology

 Increase Mather (1639–1723) Astronomy

 Nehemiah Grew (1641–1712) Medical Doctor, Botany

The Age of Newton

 Isaac Newton (1642–1727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but it’s likely he held to a heterodox form of the Trinity—See Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):57–80, 1997)

 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (1646–1716) Mathematician

 John Flamsteed (1646–1719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy

 William Derham (1657–1735) Ecology

 Cotton Mather (1662–1727) Physician

 John Harris (1666–1719) Mathematician

 John Woodward (1665–1728) Paleontology

 William Whiston (1667–1752) Physics, Geology

 John Hutchinson (1674–1737) Paleontology

 Johathan Edwards (1703–1758) Physics, Meteorology

 Carolus Linneaus (1707–1778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system

 Jean Deluc (1727–1817) Geology

 Richard Kirwan (1733–1812) Mineralogy

 William Herschel (1738–1822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth)

 James Parkinson (1755–1824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*)

 John Dalton (1766–1844) Atomic theory; Gas law

 John Kidd, M.D. (1775–1851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)

Just Before Darwin

 The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr. Terry Mortenson

 Timothy Dwight (1752–1817) Educator

 William Kirby (1759–1850) Entomologist

 Jedidiah Morse (1761–1826) Geographer

 Benjamin Barton (1766–1815) Botanist; Zoologist

 John Dalton (1766–1844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry

 Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)

 Samuel Miller (1770–1840) Clergy

 Charles Bell (1774–1842) Anatomist

 John Kidd (1775–1851) Chemistry

 Humphrey Davy (1778–1829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp

 Benjamin Silliman (1779–1864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*)

 Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) Physician; Physiologist

 Thomas Chalmers (1780–1847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*)

 David Brewster (1781–1868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth)

 William Buckland (1784–1856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*)

 William Prout (1785–1850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth)

 Adam Sedgwick (1785–1873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)

 Michael Faraday (1791–1867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator

 Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) Telegraph

 John Herschel (1792–1871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*)

 Edward Hitchcock (1793–1864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)

 William Whewell (1794–1866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*)

 Joseph Henry (1797–1878) Electric motor; Galvanometer

Just After Darwin

 Richard Owen (1804–1892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*)

 Matthew Maury (1806–1873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*)

 Louis Agassiz (1807–1873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*)

 Henry Rogers (1808–1866) Geology

 James Glaisher (1809–1903) Meteorology

 Philip H. Gosse (1810–1888) Ornithologist; Zoology

 Sir Henry Rawlinson (1810–1895) Archeologist

 James Simpson (1811–1870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology

 James Dana (1813–1895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*)

 Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (1817–1901) Agricultural Chemist

 James Joule (1818–1889) Thermodynamics

 Thomas Anderson (1819–1874) Chemist

 Charles Piazzi Smyth (1819–1900) Astronomy

 George Stokes (1819–1903) Fluid Mechanics

 John William Dawson (1820–1899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*)

 Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902) Pathology

 Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) (WOH) Genetics

 Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization

 Henri Fabre (1823–1915) Entomology of living insects

 William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*)

 William Huggins (1824–1910) Astral spectrometry

 Bernhard Riemann (1826–1866) Non-Euclidean geometries

 Joseph Lister (1827–1912) Antiseptic surgery

 Balfour Stewart (1828–1887) Ionospheric electricity

 James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics

 P.G. Tait (1831–1901) Vector analysis

 John Bell Pettigrew (1834–1908) Anatomist; Physiologist

 John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases

 Sir William Abney (1843–1920) Astronomy

 Alexander MacAlister (1844–1919) Anatomy

 A.H. Sayce (1845–1933) Archeologist

 John Ambrose Fleming (1849–1945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve

The Modern Period

 Dr. Clifford Burdick, Geologist

 George Washington Carver (1864–1943) Inventor

 L. Merson Davies (1890–1960) Geology; Paleontology

 Douglas Dewar (1875–1957) Ornithologist

 Howard A. Kelly (1858–1943) Gynecology

 Paul Lemoine (1878–1940) Geology

 Dr. Frank Marsh, Biology

 Dr. John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer

 Edward H. Maunder (1851–1928) Astronomy

 William Mitchell Ramsay (1851–1939) Archeologist

 William Ramsay (1852–1916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation

 Charles Stine (1882–1954) Organic Chemist

 Dr. Arthur Rendle-Short (1885–1955) Surgeon

 Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon

 Dr. Larry Butler, Biochemist

 Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)

 Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer

 Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp

, Frogfish in reguards

to his quote

_______________________________________________________

SEXUAL SELECTION

"Natural Selection is when animals out-reproduce each other. Sexual Selection can fall under natural selection and is when animals produce the best offspring by mating with the best partner. Secondary sex features on animals, like the mane of a lion, the plumage of birds etc. help find the best partners. Bouts of strength also shows who's best and the better partner."

Q: : #4 =4 , What about seahorses ? theryre a sexual so ..

Still waiting a answer ?

from ABECROMBIE.....

COMMENT ON SEXUAL SELECTION- theyre are only two kinds male and female and without the two different opposiite genders,…. multplying in any species in order to survive,.. is not possible due to obvious purposely not exhist.

Q: #5 – 4 Frogfish

What other selection would one have but their counterpart ?If it has to do with survival that is just natures way to exhist , instinctivley ,. Right

Q: #6 - 4 Frogfish

How would that explain or prove the evolution theory ?

_________________________________________________________________________-

Abercrombie said:

QUOTE

Another form of chemicals are in the brain . the whole human brain is made up of a chemical collaboration of trillions of cells and neuron , energy and transmitters. Lets look at einsteins brain

He was cremated without ceremony on the same day he died at Trenton, New Jersey, in accordance with his wishes. His ashes were scattered at an undisclosed location. An autopsy was performed on Einstein by Dr. Thomas Stoltz Harvey, who removed and preserved his brain. Harvey found nothing unusual with his brain, but in 1999 further analysis by a team at McMaster University revealed that his parietal operculum region was missing and, to compensate, his inferior parietal lobe was 15% wider than normal.12 The inferior parietal region is responsible for mathematical thought, visuospatial cognition, and imagery of movement. Einstein's brain also contained 73% more glial cells than the average brain.

http://www.bioquant.com/gallery/einstein.html

"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S relativity."

In other words, time is dependent on certain factors. And he said like an hour and like a minute.

Examination of Some Einstein Quotes and his Relation to the Jewish Religion - It is possible that Einstein may have sympathized with the ideas that time is not absolute because of the message in Psalm 90 Verse 4. Why would a verse have inspired Einstein?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frogfish says......

This has no relevance!

then asks

Explain please ?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

counter:Abecrombie answers......

Explains that 1st albert einstein who as a perfect candidate , I was able to link you to the autopsy of his brain.

Being that he donated for scientific studies and science deals with chemical elements to biologicaly experiment theory to proven source, basicaly the body is made of h2o iron in the blood the brain has many energy based chemicals per neurons that can only be active as living due to O –oxygen = Gods active force the breathe of life to make man a living soul.

TO SUM IT ALL UP FOR YOU IM TRYING TO EXPLAIN THE ANSWER YOU HAVE BEEN ASKING ,…HOW IT IS ALL RELAVANT .

Through science based therory proven by these scientists of asking where did life come from? Proved through experiments and years of work and journals to put into mathmatical equazions for explaining haow certain compounds came to be , how they work etc. the credentials and awards they held and hold. There famous and commonly wide world recognition having to due with their contributions to humanity through nobel peace prize awards …. Showing where to go for refference in the bible for all of the accounts listed above from chemical theory to big bang theory to from plato and galileo as inventors of the telescope and microscope not to mention the similarites of thir questions of lifes orgin . all of these men leaned on the very science of creation being the answer and still pondering its mystery of divine authority over science itself . they prove to be noble and wise men that could have taken science in a direction of wrong motives. Scientists take oathes too as well as doctores . so to win a nobel peace prize is to be recognized as a great and humane science acheiver. And science is still finding that creation is the logical based intellect behind our exhistance. With great enlightenment of course.

Which perplexes me further to ask a third time

3x Asked by abecrombie_________________________________________________________________________

Q: #7 – 4 frogfish -- what credentials does Darwin have to back his theory ?

________________________________________________________________

counter by frogfish

Nowhere in its Hebrew orgin does it constitue as a dinosaur. It takes a more symbolic role than physical. It signifies the uncontrollable evil and apocalypse.

Counter counterattack

abecrombie

the real physical role dinosurs play in our lifetime is the fossil records that keep expanding

that is proof they exhisted.

But as you well know Im supporting the creation science not the the other texts that are not in the bible or have no biblical refference . the bible was once of my resources ,.i never stated from the material you have put out by mythological literature .

From the bible the hebrew word denotes the meaning as beast,. Beast is also refered to as the devil that ol serpent they call the dragon and satan.

Job 41:whole chapter is soooo long ill give you a few to pinpoint the description as this naughty beast called leviaethan is rendered as a dragon or giant reptillian of emense feiceness and abilities .

Job 41:1 Can you draw out Leviaethan with a fish hook?Or with a rope can you hold down its tounge?

Job 41:3 will it make entreaties to youOr will it say soft words to you?41:8 put your hand upon it . Remember the battle . Do not do it again .41:9 Look ! Ones expectation about it will certainly be dissapointed . One will also be hurled down at the mere sight of it . 41:10 None is so audacious that he should stir it up.And who is it that can hold his ground before me?41:15 Furrows of scales are its haughtiness Closed as with a tight seal41:16 One to the other they fit closelyAnd not eeven air can come between them41:18 Its very sneezes flash forth light And its eyes are like the beams of dawn 41:19 Out of its mouth there go lightning flashes Even sparks of fire make their escape 41:20 Out of its nostrils smoke goes forth Like a furnace set alflame even with rushes 41:21 its soul itself sets coals ablaze And even a flame goes forth out of its mouth 41:22 In its neck lodges strength And before it despair leaps 41:24 Its heart is cast as stone Yes cast like lower millstone41:26 Overtaking it the sword itself does not prove equal Nor spear ,dart , or arrow head41:27 It reguards iron as mere straw Copper as mere rotten wood 41:29 A club has been reguarded by it as mere stubbleAnd it laughs at the rattling of a javelin41:30As pointed earthenware fragments are its underpartsIt spreads out a threshing instrumentupon the mire41:31It causes the depths to boil just like a pot:It makes the very sea like a ointment pot.41:32 behind itself it makes a pathway shineOne would reguard the watery deep with grey headiness41:33 upon the dust there is not the like of it The one made to be without terror41:34 Everything high it sees it is king over all the majestic wild beasts

Genesis 3 :1 Now the serpent proved to be the most cautious of all the wild beasts of the field that jehovah god had made So it began to say to the woman “ Is it realy so that god said you must not eat from every tree in the garden ?

Genesis 3:14 And jehovah god proceeded to say to the serpent Because you have done this thing you are cursed one out of all the domestic animals and out of all the wild beasts of the field. Upon your belly you will go and dust is what you will eat all the days of your life.

Abecrombie asks why

Hey Frogfish …………

Q:#8 }

Is there a reason why you havent posted the monkey to man transformation?

That has been the icon for the evolution theory in schools the poster child for our human ape ancestors . right ?Insight on this please . thanks

[frogfish]

Bodily Post 5

There really is no reason to go into a majority of info on dinosurs if the three earth age knowledge is provived and a several texts mentioning just enough to know that dinosaurs could even be consisered as mentioned in the bible .

Dinosaurs have never been implied once in the bible. Other than your INFERENCE, the Levaiathan and Behemoth of HEBREW mythology were created for evil, and to utmostly destroy the world in a tremendous battle.

Gunkel ("Schöpfung und Chaos," p. 62) suggests that behemoth and leviathan were the two primeval monsters corresponding to Tiamat (= "the abyss"; comp. Hebr. "tehom") and Kingu (= Aramaic "'akna" = serpent") of Babylonian mythology. Some commentators find also in Isa. xxx. 6 ("bahamot negeb" = "beasts of the south") a reference to the hippopotamus; others again, in Ps. lxxiii. 22 ("I am as behemoth [="beasts"; A. V. "a beast"] before thee"); but neither interpretation has a substantial foundation. It is likely that the leviathan and the behemoth were originally referred to in Hab. ii. 15: "the destruction of the behemoth [A. V. "beasts"] shall make them afraid" (comp. LXX., "thee" instead of "them").E. G. H. K.

[...]

On that day [the day of judgment] two monsters will be produced: a female monster, named 'Leviathan,' to dwell in the depths of the ocean over the fountains of the waters; but the male is called 'Behemoth,' who occupies with his breast a waste wilderness named 'Dendain' [read "the land of Naid" after LXX., ἐν γη Ναίδ = , Gen. iv. 16], on the east of the garden, where the elect and the righteous dwell. And I besought that other angel that he should show me the might of these monsters; how they were produced on one day, the one being placed in the depth of the sea and the other in the main land of the wilderness. And he spake to me: 'Thou son of man, dost seek here to know what is hidden?'"

According to II Esdras vi. 49-53, God created on the fifth day the two great monsters, leviathan and behemoth, and He separated them because the seventh part of the world which was assigned to the water could not hold them together, and He gave to the behemoth that part which was dried up on the third day and had the thousand mountains which, according to Ps. i. 10, as understood by the haggadists ("the behemoth [A. V. "cattle"] upon a thousand hills"; comp. Lev. R. xxii.; Num. R. xxi.; and Job xl. 20), furnish behemoth with the necessary food. To the leviathan God gave the seventh part of the earth filled with water; and He reserved it for the future to reveal by whom and at what time the leviathan and the behemoth should be eaten.

In the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, xxix. 4, also, the time is predicted when the behemoth will come forth from his seclusion on land and the leviathan out of the sea, and the two gigantic monsters, created on the fifth day, will serve as food for the elect who will survive in the days of the Messiah.

If the Leviathan and Behemoth were dinosaurs, why are there just 2? The fossile record indicates there were MILLIONS of induvidula dinosaurs.

By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning" (B. B. l.c.). However, in spite of his supernatural strength, the leviathan is afraid of a small worm called "kilbit" (), which clings to the gills of large fishes and kills them (Shab. 77b).

This implies that Leviathan was actually a great fish.

Link 1.1

In fact ill ask frogfish personaly…. Hey frogfish can you be more detailed in your questions so I can give you a more efficient answer or shall I try to show you as my questions for you that are without any real neccesity.

What questions do you need clarification on? I am pretty sure I explained them all.

As far as job goes,… how could a hippoanimus have a tale like a cedar tree.?

Do you know how big cedar trees are ?

___________CONSIDER______________________________________

the lotus trees amungst the marsh is the standard landscaping enviroment for the jurrassic period.

Hills are were he feeds……. a hippo doesn’t graise on the hillsides

Hippos do wander quite a way from land to graze. The Lotus tree (actually a date palm) cannot hide a giant dinosaur still. It is more likely a mytholgical animal as suggested by Link 1.1. The Bible also never implies that it's tail was like a cedar tree.

Frogfish

quotes

"

The elephant is reckoned the slowest breeder of all known animals, and I have taken some pains to estimate its probable minimum rate of natural increase; it will be safest to assume that it begins breeding when 30 years old and goes on breeding until 90 years old; if this be so, after a period from 740 to 750 years there would be nearly 19 million elephants descended from this first pair."

Q:# 2 –4 Whats your piont ?

If you read more of the link instead of random snippets, you would understand. It is showing how natural selection and breeding (genetics) are interconnected.

"If some plants grow taller than others and so are better able to avoid shading by others, they will produce more offspring. However, if the reason they grow tall is because of the soil in which their seeds happened to land, and not because they have the genes to grow tall, than no evolution will occur."

Q:# 3

What does this have to do with evolution ? can you explain please ?

Natural selection and genetics! If the taller plants are more suited to their environment, they will breed more and pass more of their genes on to the F1 generation. Then in the future, plants would be generally taller...Evolution!

Abercrombie insists that scientists believe in creation other than evolution. She has failed to refute my point against this which I have posted in Post 3 AND 4.

Q: : #4 =4 , What about seahorses ? theryre a sexual so ..

Still waiting a answer ?

Seahorses are not asexual. The reproduce sexually.

Link 1.2

Also See Post 4...under link 1.1

from ABECROMBIE.....

COMMENT ON SEXUAL SELECTION- theyre are only two kinds male and female and without the two different opposiite genders,…. multplying in any species in order to survive,.. is not possible due to obvious purposely not exhist.

Asexual reproduction doesn't need a partner. The reason for Sexual reproduction is that it diversifies the population, making survival and evolution EASIER than asexual animals.

Q: #5 – 4 Frogfish

What other selection would one have but their counterpart ?If it has to do with survival that is just natures way to exhist , instinctivley ,. Right

Q: #6 - 4 Frogfish

How would that explain or prove the evolution theory ?

What is your question?

Explains that 1st albert einstein who as a perfect candidate , I was able to link you to the autopsy of his brain.

Being that he donated for scientific studies and science deals with chemical elements to biologicaly experiment theory to proven source, basicaly the body is made of h2o iron in the blood the brain has many energy based chemicals per neurons that can only be active as living due to O –oxygen = Gods active force the breathe of life to make man a living soul.

WTF, what does oxygen have to do with God? Nothing! Animals need O2 to survive...It comes naturally, NOT FROM GOD.

the real physical role dinosurs play in our lifetime is the fossil records that keep expanding

that is proof they exhisted.

But as you well know Im supporting the creation science not the the other texts that are not in the bible or have no biblical refference . the bible was once of my resources ,.i never stated from the material you have put out by mythological literature .

Since when have dinosaurs lived past 65 MYA ago or when have humans evolved before 100,000 years? Since when does the fossil record indicate humans coexisted with dinosaurs? Do not make up false information.

Abecrombie asks why

Hey Frogfish …………

Q:#8 }

Is there a reason why you havent posted the monkey to man transformation?

That has been the icon for the evolution theory in schools the poster child for our human ape ancestors . right ?Insight on this please . thanks

See Post 3

Now onto my point-Why evolution is better

Faults with creationism

Creationism has many faults. Nowhere in the fossil record does it have humans coexistsing with dinosaurs or other prehistoric animals tha lived more than 100,000 years ago.

The Earth's estimated age is 4.6 Billion years. Humans only evolved 100,000 years ago.

For creationism to be correct, God would of created every animal that ever walked the earth at the same time...No way the earth could handle that. It would cause mass extinctions!

God was not needed to create life. Stanley Miller proved that life can create itself with an organic soup.

This is a good site for an overview of what I said in all my bodily posts.

Link 2

[Abecrombie]

Bodily post # 5

_____Who brew u - brew ? me -brew ?= we-brew ? ___________________________________________________________________________

CLOSE EN- COUNTERS FOR UM LEAUGE MEMBERS ….

___________________________________________________________________________

Frogfish

Quotes

:Nowhere in its Hebrew orgin does it constitue as a dinosaur. It takes a more symbolic role than physical. It signifies the uncontrollable evil and apocalypse.

Abecrombie response : :That’s because dinosaur fossills werent found , from anywhere time now

So the hebrew word used to describe this creature is behemoth . the apocalyse is the event of the last part of battle between satan and his angels against Michael the morning star in heaven and his angels

Language has changed tremendously through the beginning of man .Today the modern english language is still changing as new things are discovered so are words to be created to define that person place or thing . in Revalation the dragon is another word for decribing a leviathen type beast because animals are were and still becoming symbols for all sorts of other things to explain the qualities of and likenesses.

Because of behemoth mntioned on job 40, and then leviathen in job 41 behemoth is likened in the ways of god therefore it makes sense that leviathen would be likend to the devil even though it is describing here jehovahs sovernty he tells job where were you when I made the earth and the dinosurs per: behemoth and leviathen one on earth the other in the sea. Also mentioned giants in those days and sea monsters .

Reffences below- I urge anyone reviewing if they have a bible to look at these themselves to make there own conclusion.

Gen 3:14 and god proceded to say to the serpent :” because you have done this thing , you are the cursed one out of all the domestic animals and out of all the wild beasts of the field. Pon your belly you will go and dust is what you will eat all the days of your life.

Rev 12: 7-9 and war broke out in heaven , Michael and his angels battled with the dragon and its angels battled,8 but it did not prevail, neither was a place found for them any longer in heaven .9 So down the great dragon was hurled , the original serpent , the one called Devil and Satan .

___________________________________________________________________________

…..SPECIAL REPORT ………SECRETS of the Oegin of Life STILL HIDDEN …..INFORMATION AND PROGRAMS FROM NASA

____________________________________________________________________________

In spite of the highly speculative nature of all origin of life theories, and the utter hopelessness of ever testing, let alone establishing, any comprehensive origin of life theory, a not insignificant proportion of our nation's scientific resources is being devoted to exploring these speculations. Much of the rationale for the design and objectives of our space program is related to this purpose. Thus, a recent publication of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration states"Recognizing that many scientific secrets still lie hidden throughout the solar system, NASA has a program of solar system exploration aimed at answering the following questions: 1) How did our solar system form and evolve? 2) How did life originate and evolve? 3) What are the processes that shape our terrestrial environment?"3 Instructional material for high schools published by NASA include sections on chemical evolution.4,5

4 F. S. Ruth, Ed., Space Resources for Teachers: Biology, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C., 1969.

5 R. M. Lawrence, Ed., Space Resources for Teachers: Chemistry, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C., 1971.

COUNTERS BEFORE CLOSEING ================= the 5TH BODILY POSTS _______-__-

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Frogfish

Quotes

: Concerning the Behemoth, scholars mostly accept it as a hippopotamus. A giant dinosaur cannot hide in the lotus reeds.

Abecrombie responds

quote : re-read job 40 it mentions trees like I mentioned in my previous post and lotus trees were exhisting in the “ old world “

frogfish stated

The Behemoth and Leviathan are important in Hebrew MYTHOLOGY.

Abecrombie replies”: also myths are considerd to be orgins and orgins –beforehand meaning original source

Frogfish:

QUOTE

Names of gigantic beasts or monsters described in Job xl. The former is from a root denoting "coil," "twist"; the latter is the plural form of "behemah"="beast."

—Biblical Data:

Ever since Bochart ("Hierozoicon," iii. 705), "behemoth" has been taken to denote the hippopotamus; and Jablonski, to make it correspond exactly with that animal, compared an Egyptian form, "p-ehe-mu" (= "water-ox"), which, however, does not exist. The Biblical description contains mythical elements, and the conclusion is justified that these monsters were not real, though the hippopotamus may have furnished in the main the data for the description. Only of a unique being, and not of a common hippopotamus, could the words of Job xl. 19 have been used: "He is the first [A. V. "chief"] of the ways of God [comp. Prov. viii. 22]; he that made him maketh sport with him" (as the Septuagint reads, πεποιημένον ἐγκαταπαιζέσΘαι; A. V. "He that made him can make his sword to approach unto him"; comp. Ps. civ. 26); or "The mountains bring him forth food; where all the beasts of the field do play" (Job xl. 20). Obviously behemoth is represented as the primeval beast, the king of all the animals of the dry land, while leviathan is the king of all those of the water, both alike unconquerable by man (ib. xl. 14, xli. 17-26). Gunkel ("Schöpfung und Chaos," p. 62) suggests that behemoth and leviathan were the two primeval monsters corresponding to Tiamat (= "the abyss"; comp. Hebr. "tehom") and Kingu (= Aramaic "'akna" = serpent") of Babylonian mythology. Some commentators find also in Isa. xxx. 6 ("bahamot negeb" = "beasts of the south") a reference to the hippopotamus; others again, in Ps. lxxiii. 22 ("I am as behemoth [="beasts"; A. V. "a beast"] before thee"); but neither interpretation has a substantial foundation. It is likely that the leviathan and the behemoth were originally referred to in Hab. ii. 15: "the destruction of the behemoth [A. V. "beasts"] shall make them afraid" (comp. LXX., "thee" instead of "them").E. G. H. K.

—In Rabbinical Literature:

According to a midrash, the leviathan was created on the fifth day (Yalḳ., Gen. 12). Originally God produced a male and a female leviathan, but lest in multiplying the species should destroy the world, He slew the female, reserving her flesh for the banquet that will be given to the righteous on the advent of the Messiah (B. B. 74a). The enormous size of the leviathan is thus illustrated by R. Johanan, from whom proceeded nearly all the haggadot concerning this monster: "Once we went in a ship and saw a fish which put his head out of the water. He had horns upon which was written: 'I am one of the meanest creatures that inhabit the sea. I am three hundred miles in length, and enter this day into the jaws of the leviathan'" (B. B. l.c.). When the leviathan is hungry, reports R. Dimi in the name of R. Johanan, he sends forth from his mouth a heat so great as to make all the waters of the deep boil, and if he would put his head into paradise no living creature could endure the odor of him (ib.). His abode is the Mediterranean Sea; and the waters of the Jordan fall into his mouth (Bek. 55b; B. B. l.c.).

The body of the leviathan, especially his eyes, possesses great illuminating power. This was the opinion of R. Eliezer, who, in the course of a voyage in company with R. Joshua, explained to the latter, when frightened by the sudden appearance of a brilliant light, that it probably proceeded from the eyes of the leviathan. He referred his companion to the words of Job xli. 18: "By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning" (B. B. l.c.). However, in spite of his supernatural strength, the leviathan is afraid of a small worm called "kilbit" (), which clings to the gills of large fishes and kills them (Shab. 77b).

In the Messianic Times.

The leviathan is prominent in the haggadic literature in connection with the advent of the Messiah. Referring to Job xl. 30 (Hebr.), "and the pious ones [] shall make a banquet of it," R. Johanan says that at the time of the resurrection a banquet will be given by God to the righteous, at which the flesh of the leviathan will be served (B. B. l.c.). Even the hunting of the leviathan will be a source of great enjoyment to the righteous. Those, says R. Judan bar Simon, who have not taken part in pagan sports will be allowed to participate in the hunting of the leviathan and of the behemoth (Lev. R. xiii. 3). Gabriel will be charged with the killing of the monster; but he will not be able to accomplish his task without the help of God, who will divide the monster with His sword. According to another haggadah, when Gabriel fails, God will order the leviathan to engage in a battle with the ox of the mountain ("shor habar"), which will result in death to both of them (B. B. 75a; Pesiḳ. p. 188b). Not only will the flesh of the leviathan furnish food for the table of the righteous, but there will be a great supply of it in the markets of Jerusalem (B. B. l.c.). From the hide of the leviathan God will make tents for the pious of the first rank, girdles for those of the second, chains for those of the third, and necklaces for those of the fourth. The remainder of the hide will be spread on the walls of Jerusalem; and the whole world will be illuminated by its brightness (ib.).

Symbolical Interpretation.

These haggadot concerning the leviathan are interpreted as allegories by all the commentators with the exception of some ultraconservatives like Baḥya ben Asher ("Shulḥan Arba'," ch. iv., p. 9, col. 3). According to Maimonides, the banquet is an allusion to the spiritual enjoyment of the intellect (commentary on Sanh. i.). The name, he says, is derived from (" to join," "to unite"), and designates an imaginary monster in which are combined the most various animals ("Moreh," iii., ch. xxiii.). In the cabalistic literature the "piercing leviathan" and the "crooked leviathan" (Isa. xxvii. 1), upon which the haggadah concerning the hunting of the animal is based, are interpreted as referring to Satan-Samael and his spouse Lilith ("'Emeḳ ha-Melek," p. 130a), while Ḳimḥi, Abravanel, and others consider the expressions to be allusions to the destruction of the powers which are hostile to the Jews (comp. Manasseh ben Israel, "Nishmat Ḥayyim," p. 48; see also Kohut, "Aruch Completum," s. v. "Leviathan," for other references, and his essay in "Z. D. M. G." vol. xxi., p. 590, for the parallels in Persian literature). The haggadic sayings obtained a hold on the imagination of thepoets, who introduced allusions to the banquet of the leviathan into the liturgy.S. S. I. Br.

—In Apocryphal Literature:

Both leviathan and behemoth are prominent in Jewish eschatology. In the Book of Enoch (lx. 7-9), Enoch says:(Charles, "Book of Enoch," p. 155; comp. "the secret chambers of leviathan" which Elihu b. Berakel the Buzite will disclose, Cant. R. i. 4).

"On that day [the day of judgment] two monsters will be produced: a female monster, named 'Leviathan,' to dwell in the depths of the ocean over the fountains of the waters; but the male is called 'Behemoth,' who occupies with his breast a waste wilderness named 'Dendain' [read "the land of Naid" after LXX., ἐν γη Ναίδ = , Gen. iv. 16], on the east of the garden, where the elect and the righteous dwell. And I besought that other angel that he should show me the might of these monsters; how they were produced on one day, the one being placed in the depth of the sea and the other in the main land of the wilderness. And he spake to me: 'Thou son of man, dost seek here to know what is hidden?'"

According to II Esdras vi. 49-53, God created on the fifth day the two great monsters, leviathan and behemoth, and He separated them because the seventh part of the world which was assigned to the water could not hold them together, and He gave to the behemoth that part which was dried up on the third day and had the thousand mountains which, according to Ps. i. 10, as understood by the haggadists ("the behemoth [A. V. "cattle"] upon a thousand hills"; comp. Lev. R. xxii.; Num. R. xxi.; and Job xl. 20), furnish behemoth with the necessary food. To the leviathan God gave the seventh part of the earth filled with water; and He reserved it for the future to reveal by whom and at what time the leviathan and the behemoth should be eaten.

In the Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, xxix. 4, also, the time is predicted when the behemoth will come forth from his seclusion on land and the leviathan out of the sea, and the two gigantic monsters, created on the fifth day, will serve as food for the elect who will survive in the days of the Messiah.

Among the Gnostics.

Behemoth and leviathan form in the Gnostic system of the Ophites and others two of the seven circles or stations which the soul has to pass in order to be purged and to attain bliss (Hippolytus, "Adversus Omnes Hæreses," v. 21; Origen, "Contra Celsum," vi. 25). As if the meat of the "wild ox" behemoth and the fish leviathan were not deemed sufficient for the great banquet of the righteous in the future, a fowl was added, i.e., the "ziz" (A. V. "the wild beasts" of the field), mentioned in Ps. 1. 11 after the account of the behemoth in verse 10, and understood by the Rabbis to signify a gigantic bird (B. B. 73b). Thus the Apocalypse of Simeon b. Yoḥai (Jellinek, "B. H." iii. 76) has the three animals, the monster ox behemoth, the fish leviathan, and the gigantic bird ziz, prepared for the great banquet. This tradition, however, indicates Persian influence, for it is of the Parsee cosmology that the existence of such primeval representatives of the classes of animals is a part. There are four such species mentioned in "Bundahis," xviii.-xix.: (1) "the serpent-like Kar fish, the Arizh of the water, the greatest of the creatures of Ahuramazda," corresponding to the leviathan; (2) the three-legged ass Khara, standing in the midst of the ocean ("Yasna," xli. 28); it is mentioned in the Talmud as the "unicorn ḳeresh," "ṭigras" (i.e., "thrigaṭ" = "three-legged"), the gazel of the heights (Ḥul. 59b), and forms, under the name "Ḥarish," in Mohammedan eschatology a substitute for behemoth and leviathan (see Wolff, " Muhammedanische Eschatologie," 1872, pp. 174, 181); (3) the ox Hadhayosh, from which the food of immortality is prepared, and which forms the parallel of behemoth; and (4) the bird Chamrosh, the chief of the birds, which lives on the summit of Mount Alburz (comp. "Bundahis," xix. 15); compare also Simurgh (Avesta "Saena Meregha," eagle-bird, griffin, Hebraized "Bar Yokneh"), the fabulous giant-bird, which the Rabbis identified with ziz (see Windischman, "Zoroastrische Studien," pp. 91-93; West, "Pahlavi Texts," in Max Müller, "S. B. E." v. 65-71).

Link 1.3

Q____the INDEFINETE AND QUESTIONABLE REPEATED QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ______________________???????????????

Abecrombie , thats me ...Again I must ask for the credentials for Darwin ,….right ? yeh just Darwin ………………?__________________________________________________________________________________________-

LOOKING FORWARD TO FROGFISHS’ CONCLUSION -__ _______ FROM ABECROMBIE

.

[frogfish]

Conclusion

Now you know that all life cxame from one-another. from the marvelous theory of evolution. Point after point proves evolution and disproves creationism. The fossil record, animal behavior today. Even viruses are evolving before our eyes.

I hope you all have made the correct choice for the age-long question: How did we get here? Evolution can finally put that to rest.

[Abecrombie]

Creation – abecrombies conclusion

___________________________________________________________________________

top story

__________________________________________________________________________

Now your speaking my language

The word of god, the holy scriptures the bible, goes back in the days when “the word” was with gad {Jesus} and the new testament the word was made flesh due to the sacrifice he paid with his life. Out of love this source ive found personally to answer life’s question and from where we came, is truly inspired by god and the history of how it was brought down as it progressed is a lifelong learning process. It is very involved and I feel all seriousness should apprehend its knowledge with sincerity in heart.

God says the bible is the word made flesh and therefore after the resurrection we were given a comforter along with the bible the help us figure out our position with this world age and doing so if we choose so now or then the third world age new heavens and new earth for the old earth has passed away. Originally there was and is a arrangement

The dinosaur I as well applied what ive come to know as of this day to be written in the bible where most might not of even considered that to be in the book at all.

God’s personal name and the different world power throughout the bible publications to its completion. Hebrew Greek Latin English.

God also say I am alpha and omega the first and the last the beginning and the end.

Rev 1:8 I am alpha and omega, the one is and the one who is coming, the almighty

Rev 21:6and he said to me “ they have come to pass am the alpha and the omegathe beginning and the endto anyone thirsting I will give from the fountain of the water of life free.

Rev22: 13 I am alpha and omega the first and the last the beginning and the end.

When I first studied this I relay looked at what is alpha?

Alpha- in the dictionary I looked up and it was a. the first letter of the English alphabet. Therefore, I researched the letter a – z …to my delight this is how I realized that there is language that we were given. We are more intelligent with the freedom to choose what actions we wish. Not like the animal kingdom. Do not get me wrong I am not knocking the animals at all here. What I’m saying actually is the the animal kingdom unfortunalty is under our mercy and as the world goes on by mankind is not very good at managing the planet as a world with our own directions against god because face it if every body kept the mosaic laws we would be in sync with one another. In agreement and the kingdom of gods, arrangement would be a little less drawn out. However, he is a god of love and because of that, we are not enslaved to him forced to believe or love him if we did not. That is the beauty of love unconditional. It is an individual choice for each human to choose for him or herself. What can best describe the nature of man? Intelligent and free to choose we are uniquely loved and different as personality from one another

I recommend you look up the letter a. it initself is a music sound a scale a note in chemical is a argion

Also means a number a letter a pronoun and plural and acts with the same type of who what where when

I would not want to liken to a monkey where would we have discovered all the diversity between people if we came from the same monkey bushiness.

Creation is a much more hopeful and plausible way to go if the only other choice we did have was this old Darwin evolution theory.

Frogfish is one heck of a debater and here’s to you froggie baby two thumbs up my friend. It was quite challenging and ___________________________________________________________________________________________

This is the Hebrew English version of job added language to provide texts in Hebrew of topic behemoth as dinosaur

__________________________________________________________________________________BELOW

טו הִנֵּה-נָא בְהֵמוֹת, אֲשֶׁר-עָשִׂיתִי עִמָּךְ; חָצִיר, כַּבָּקָר יֹאכֵל. 15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

טז הִנֵּה-נָא כֹחוֹ בְמָתְנָיו; וְאוֹנוֹ, בִּשְׁרִירֵי בִטְנוֹ. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the stays of his body.

יז יַחְפֹּץ זְנָבוֹ כְמוֹ-אָרֶז; גִּידֵי פַחֲדָו יְשֹׂרָגוּ. 17 He straineth his tail like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are knit together.

יח עֲצָמָיו, אֲפִיקֵי נְחֻשָׁה; גְּרָמָיו, כִּמְטִיל בַּרְזֶל. 18 His bones are as pipes of brass; his gristles are like bars of iron.

יט הוּא, רֵאשִׁית דַּרְכֵי-אֵל; הָעֹשׂוֹ, יַגֵּשׁ חַרְבּוֹ. 19 He is the beginning of the ways of God; He only that made him can make His sword to approach unto him.

כ כִּי-בוּל, הָרִים יִשְׂאוּ-לוֹ; וְכָל-חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה, יְשַׂחֲקוּ-שָׁם. 20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, and all the beasts of the field play there.

כא תַּחַת-צֶאֱלִים יִשְׁכָּב—בְּסֵתֶר קָנֶה וּבִצָּה. 21 He lye under the lotus-trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

כב יְסֻכֻּהוּ צֶאֱלִים צִלְלוֹ; יְסֻבּוּהוּ, עַרְבֵי-נָחַל. 22 The lotus-trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

כג הֵן יַעֲשֹׁק נָהָר, לֹא יַחְפּוֹז; יִבְטַח, כִּי-יָגִיחַ יַרְדֵּן אֶל-פִּיהוּ. 23 Behold, if a river overflow, he trembleth not; he is confident, though the Jordan rush forth to his mouth.

כד בְּעֵינָיו יִקָּחֶנּוּ; בְּמוֹקְשִׁים, יִנְקָב-אָף. 24 Shall any take him by his eyes, or pierce through his nose with a snare?

כה תִּמְשֹׁךְ לִוְיָתָן בְּחַכָּה; וּבְחֶבֶל, תַּשְׁקִיעַ לְשֹׁנוֹ. 25 Canst thou draw out leviathan with a fish-hook? Or press down his tongue with a cord?

כו הֲתָשִׂים אַגְמֹן בְּאַפּוֹ; וּבְחוֹחַ, תִּקֹּב לֶחֱיוֹ. 26 Canst thou put a ring into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a hook?

כז הֲיַרְבֶּה אֵלֶיךָ, תַּחֲנוּנִים; אִם-יְדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ רַכּוֹת. 27 Will he make many supplications unto thee? or will he speak soft words unto thee?

כח הֲיִכְרֹת בְּרִית עִמָּךְ; תִּקָּחֶנּוּ, לְעֶבֶד עוֹלָם. 28 Will he make a covenant with thee, that thou shouldest take him for a servant for ever?

כט הַתְשַׂחֶק-בּוֹ, כַּצִּפּוֹר; וְתִקְשְׁרֶנּוּ, לְנַעֲרוֹתֶיךָ. 29 Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? Or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?

ל יִכְרוּ עָלָיו, חַבָּרִים; יֶחֱצוּהוּ, בֵּין כְּנַעֲנִים. 30 Will the bands of fishermen make a banquet of him? Will they part him among the merchants?

לא הַתְמַלֵּא בְשֻׂכּוֹת עוֹרוֹ; וּבְצִלְצַל דָּגִים רֹאשׁוֹ. 31 Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish-spears?

לב שִׂים-עָלָיו כַּפֶּךָ; זְכֹר מִלְחָמָה, אַל-תּוֹסַף. 32 Lay thy hand upon him; think upon the battle, thou wilt do so no more.

NEWS UPDATE___________________________________BOOK REVEIWWS __________________________________________________________________________

The Top 10 Best-selling Books of All Time:

1. The Bible

“No one really knows how many copies of the Bible have been printed, sold, or distributed. The Bible Society’s attempt to calculate the number printed between 1816 and 1975 produced the figure of 2,458,000,000. A more recent survey, for the years up to 1992, put it closer to 6,000,000,000 in more than 2,000 languages and dialects. Whatever the precise figure, the Bible is by far the best-selling book of all time.”

http://www.ipl.org/div/farq/bestsellerFARQ.htm

Scientists of every sort support the creatism theory over evolution and keep to the humanities in which they took oath to.

SIMON SAYS SCIENCE _____________________________________________________________________________

Albert eistin and Edward Hubbell says it all

When I asked about the credentials or award that whereto NOT given in this debate to even prove Darwin was qualified among his peers, it failed to prove him as such an accredited scholar. I asked a question four times without reply.

That in itself besides our own level to determine which theory either evolution or creation is up to the individual and therefore my supporting evidence I feel in the debate given was without monkeying around

I thoruraly enjoyed this debate and frogfish is the challenger whom I was challenged manners were kept I respect him for that immensely. In addition, as I end with that note I wish this was a good debate for the judges to dissect.

Good luck frogfish and thanks to the the general league

Abecrombie

Can I take off my monkey suit now? Breaktime. Lol

[frogfish]

Congrats Abercrombie to a great debate.

[AztecInca]

Thank-you to both our debaters, you both did an excellent job!

I shall now hand this debate over to the judges.

[Kryso]

Great debate to both of you!

Debator 1 - frogfish

Relevancy: 9

Countering: 9

Style: 8

Persuasiveness: 9

Total: 35

Debator 2 - abecrombi

Relevancy: 9

Countering: 8

Style: 6

Persuasiveness: 8

Total: 31

Sorry that your style is only 6 abecrombi, but having the long lines made the screen expanded and made it a little annoying to scroll sideways with every line! And a lot of your text seemed to look like maths homework! (No offence meant, just explaining your Style points.)

Look forward to read other debates from you both!

[__Kratos__]

Great debate from the both of you. I do agree with those long unnecessary lines that messed up the screen from abecrombi. Other then that it was a well researched debate and you guys seem to know what you're talking about.

Debator 1- frogish

Relevancy: 9

Countering: 9

Style: 8

Persuasiveness: 7

Total: 33

Debator 2 - abecrombi

Relevancy: 8

Countering: 8

Style: 5

Persuasiveness: 8

Total: 29

I hope to see you two in the future debates.

Edited April 24, 2006 by __Kratos__

[thebarman]

I'm afraid my morals will not allow me to be as kind as the previous two judges. Style suffered on both sides I'm afraid, I found abecrombis' posts somewhat muddled with it being difficult to establish what was being quoted, what was written and what was a source.

Frogfishs' general style was absolutely fine but I felt it unecessary to quote such large passages from abecrombie which were pointless the first time around let alone posting them again. Also it would have been better if some of the information was summarised in your own words rather than quoting large passages from sources.

Frogfish stayed relevant throughout but a significant portion of abecrombies' debate seemed to be about photosythesis which was odd.

I felt that abecrombi could have done a better job countering frogfishs' posts, some of the counters even went so far as to support the wrong side. Also seahorses are not a-sexual, they are unusual because it is the males who get pregnant rather than the females.

All of the above is relevant to the persuasiveness scores, which speak for themselves.

frogfish

Relevancy: 9

Countering: 8

Style: 7

Persuasiveness: 9

Total: 33

abecrombi

Relevancy: 6

Countering: 5

Style: 2

Persuasiveness: 4

Total: 17

Apologies for seeming unkind, but I feel being a judge is more about being fair rather than being nice.

[AztecInca]

Frogfish wins this debate with a final score of 33.6.

abecrombi finishes this debate with a final score of 25.6.

Well done to both our debaters, I hope to see you debating again!