Top scientist gives up on creationists

[A+Certified]

THE EXPLAINATION OF THE BIG BANG:

(something you would know if you cared to look it up instead of just saying "you cant explain it")

In physical cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory of how the universe emerged from an enormously dense and hot state about 13.7 billion years ago. The Big Bang theory is based on the observed Hubble's law redshift of distant galaxies that when taken together with the cosmological principle indicate that space is expanding according to the Friedmann-Lemaître model of general relativity. Extrapolated into the past, these observations show that the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity (for reporting on some of the more notable speculation on this issue, see cosmogony).

The term Big Bang is used both in a narrow sense to refer to a point in time when the observed expansion of the universe (Hubble's law) began — calculated to be 13.7 billion (1.37 × 1010) years ago (±2%) — and in a more general sense to refer to the prevailing cosmological paradigm explaining the origin and expansion of the universe, as well as the composition of primordial matter through nucleosynthesis as predicted by the Alpher-Bethe-Gamow theory

One consequence of the Big Bang is that the conditions of today's universe are different from the conditions in the past or in the future (natural evolution of universe constantly takes place). From this model, George Gamow in 1948 was able to predict, at least qualitatively, the existence of cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB). The CMB was discovered in the 1960s and further validated the Big Bang theory over its chief rival, the steady state theory.

theres your proof, and its damn good, i suggest your research something before you say it cant be explained

now wheres your proof for god existing? (that can be tested and observed, none of this "bleeding statue" crap)

Edited June 1, 2006 by A+certified

[Boltwave]

theres your proof, and its damn good, i suggest your research something before you say it cant be explained

Psssssh, your so full of crap you are still avoiding my biggest question, I will ask you again:

WHAT STARTED EVERYTHING WHEN THERE WAS NOTHING?

Now before tossing even more useless brain junk please give me a logical explanation besides just saying "it was there and then this and this and this happened" because nothing just "gets there" it has to have a creator, kind of like an inventor can create something but can be the invention aye? Just because anyone for that matter can tell me how these things happened doesn't mean dip, I don't care how it works, how it "happened" I want to hear a logical explanation for one thing "how did it get there"?

God DOES exist, that can't even be questioned (though the world would like to think so)

now wheres your proof for god existing? (that can be tested and observed, none of this "bleeding statue" crap)

The fact you can't answer my biggest question says it all, God's there, you just can't see him, why? Because your not "thinking", if anyone actually thought of the theories that come up, they would see that it's right there in their faces, they just don't see it, an excellent point would be that we somehow KNOW that the wind exists, and of course we can "measure" and PROVE that the wind exists, but isn't there some "proof" of the paranormal existing? Oh but wait, that's all error! I'm going to stick by this one thing: one must except that it does exist, in order for them to see it.

As far as bleeding statues go, that can be explained, it's proof of how it's elaboratly done in this link: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_stat.htm

Anyways, I'm still waiting for the disproof of a deity, the proof is irrelevant of questioning if you can't disprove it to begin with.

[RachelM]

Okay then, please explain to me how the entire universe started, if you can't explain that, then what am I missing? Please tell me how anything comes from nothing, the "big bang theory" how does it happen if there is no God? You can't answer that question, so what's the point of listening to textbooks, the technicality of it all? That's going to change allot.

Me being rude? Hufff, I can't stand being around such annoyance, "science is the devil!" and "read the bible, you won't have to use your brain on that one!" isn't funny, it's childish and flat out stupid, because no one here as ever said those things, it gets taken too far over the edge, and then new words get invented or are apparently mis-construed.

About the word "ignoramus" as you would like to get all exact here, I missed one letter, there are two possibilities in that given scenario: one is that it could have easily been a typo, two it could have been the fact that it doesn't really matter as long as you can read it and understand what it is.

Boltwave, I suggested that you study EVOLUTION, which doesn't have anything to do with how the universe started.

I don't remember ever saying, "science is the devil", nor "read the bible, you won't have to use your brain on that one", so I don't know why you feel it necessary to relate your obvious disgust regarding them in a reply to my post.

As far as your misspelling goes, I wasn't being "exact", I just found it funny (laugh out loud, funny) that you were calling someone an ignoramus and misspelled THAT particular word.

[Boltwave]

Boltwave, I suggested that you study EVOLUTION, which doesn't have anything to do with how the universe started.

I realize that, I have already stated myself in the past.

I don't remember ever saying, "science is the devil", nor "read the bible, you won't have to use your brain on that one", so I don't know why you feel it necessary to relate your obvious disgust regarding them in a reply to my post.

I was talking about Reincarnated.

As far as your misspelling goes, I wasn't being "exact", I just found it funny (laugh out loud, funny) that you were calling someone an ignoramus and misspelled THAT particular word.

And yes that is funny, whoooooooo!

[Phantm]

Isn't is so, in a way, that once, many, many years ago, people had all those gods, one for everything.

Later on, that got changed into this one and only so called almighty god. He from the bible book.

But who is to say that is correct? Maybe people who were leading the religion then, thought it easier for the world population to just worship one god in stead of all olden gods.

Personally, I do not believe in the christian god portrayed as in the bible. A lot of pain and grief has come from it. The world is still suffering under this.

Why do people need a god, who cannot be proven. A god that made the whole universe out of nothing? Then where did this god come from? Out of nothing too? That makes no sense to me.

I think there is indeed more proof for evolution than for the existance of god.

After all, in my opinion, this god is just a replcement for all olden gods the ancient people believed in.

The church, especially the catholic church, tries to keep a strong hold of their flock. Why? To be able to keep them under their control. Control means power and money, thus wealth. But power corrupts.

I much more believe we are just as the rest of Earth's living beings, spirit and energy.

How did we come to be? Evolution, I do think. It is the most logical thing if you look back in the history of all beings living on Earth.

Even the healing practises of some are a manifestation of energy, not of god particularly.

I think it all connects because life on Earth and all, consists of energy.

It is by no means proof of a creator.

[Ghidorah]

WHAT STARTED EVERYTHING WHEN THERE WAS NOTHING?

Now before tossing even more useless brain junk please give me a logical explanation besides just saying "it was there and then this and this and this happened" because nothing just "gets there" it has to have a creator, kind of like an inventor can create something but can be the invention aye? Just because anyone for that matter can tell me how these things happened doesn't mean dip, I don't care how it works, how it "happened" I want to hear a logical explanation for one thing "how did it get there"?

There has never been nothing. Something has always been here, and if there ever was nothing then god wouldn't exist because god is something and thus if there ever was nothing then god, I, or you couldn't exist, but the fact is that Me and you do exist. So that means there has always been somthing.

Unless your saying that god is nothing? And nothing means it doesn't exist.

Edited June 2, 2006 by Ghidorah

[Avinash_Tyagi]

I've never understood why christians seem to believe that evolution means there is no god.

[Boltwave]

There has never been nothing. Something has always been here, and if there ever was nothing then god wouldn't exist because god is something and thus if there ever was nothing then god, I, or you couldn't exist, but the fact is that Me and you do exist. So that means there has always been somthing.

Unless your saying that god is nothing? And nothing means it doesn't exist.

So your implying God made the universe? That would make more sense than saying everything has been here without anything really being created or "put here" for no apparent reason.

[ramster83]

Look even with the most "advanced" technology- the "smartest" scientist and the "wisest" man we will never be able to fully solve the riddle of the beginning of life- the beginning of earth or the beginning of time....At the end of the day theres no definite answer and theres no point in even CONSIDERING one "option" is more believable than the other. It all comes down to personal belief...Me? I believe in God and the wonderful works of evolution-

my belief neither proves or disproves nothing. I could be wrong. You could be wrong. Good riddance.

Edited June 2, 2006 by ramster83

[Celumnaz]

I've never understood why christians seem to believe that evolution means there is no god.

Because certain Evolutionists tell them that it means there is no god.

To me the two can coexsist without problem.

But certain parts of both sides, evos say "therefore there is no God" and creationists start arguing about things they're not qualified to argue about and make fools of themselves instead of waiting for all data to come in and Then reaching a conclusion unlike the evos who jump to the conclusion and look for evo data to support it (but know how to talk the talk).

Man, where did he come from? Evo says possible evolved from ape. Where did ape come from? Evo says from smaller life over time. Where did smaller life come from. Evo says organic compounds/abiosysthesis. Where did these chemicals come from? Here on planet. Where did planet come from? Evolved from expanding exploding universe. Where did universe come from? Singularity? Notice any conclusions that might have data in the future refute the conclusion already made?

To the lay person, that's evolution. But evos say evo has nothing to do with planets and whatnot. Keep it specialized. I agree with that too, but someone has to give between the scientific and the lay person and find some common language.

Way I see it before my 1st cuppa jo

[zandore]

Now before tossing even more useless brain junk please give me a logical explanation besides just saying "it was there and then this and this and this happened" because nothing just "gets there" it has to have a creator, kind of like an inventor can create something but can be the invention aye? Just because anyone for that matter can tell me how these things happened doesn't mean dip, I don't care how it works, how it "happened" I want to hear a logical explanation for one thing "how did it get there"?

Is this not what the Bible says.....something from nothing?

Genesis 1 (KJV)

1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

.....please give me a logical explanation besides just saying "it was there and then this and this and this happened" because nothing just "gets there" it has to have a creator,.....

And with that......who created the creator?

[zandore]

Man, where did he come from? Evo says possible evolved from ape. Where did ape come from? Evo says from smaller life over time.

Celumnaz an informed Evo will say humans and apes decended from a common primate ancestor.

[ramster83]

Please forgive me if this is stupid it very well could be- its late and im tired and blah blah OKAY theres no excuse! If everything is "changing" and something can turn from one thing to another- then why when you plant Apple seeds does it always eventually bare apples- why cant it "evolve" to something else- last time i checked apple trees were apple trees thousands and thousands of years ago- plants are living things- theres polonation and all these interesting things and i know there was different types of fauna and things but why is it that only animals seem to have evolved or be evolving and not really plant life (which seems to have remained the same for a while?). I could be wrong but at least im leaving it open to being a dumb question haha.

[zandore]

That is NOT a "dumb question"!

Thay is a very valid question.....evolution deals with plants also.

[ramster83]

Celumnaz an informed Evo will say humans and apes decended from a common primate ancestor.

Which one of these fakes would you be reffering to?

"Java Man" - Found 1891 - Claimed to be a million years old! - Actual Age - 150 Years Old (was persons skelatal remains from a fairly recenty passed volcano). Fail.

"Piltdown Man" - One of the greatest "evolutionary" hoaxes ever. Ape Bone treated with chemicals to give off an old appearance. Bones were placed in a plaster cast in the form half way between man and ape. Evolutionists got so excited! Proof is found they said. A whole new generation grew up believing the Piltdown man was real- until 1953 when 2 british scientists got their hands on the original bones. Using a fluorine test the bones were shown to be quite recent. It was also discovered that they had been carefully carved and stained with bichromate. Three years before the discovery of the hoax, British Parliament had spent a large amount of money in making the Piltdown gravel pit into a national monument to the wonders of evolution...Oh the humor. Fail.

"Rhodesian Man" - In 1921, some bones were found in an African cave,and the sensational news went everywhere. But later a competent anatomist declared the bones to be merely those of a normal human being. In addition, the "million-year-old man" was found to have dental caries, from a modern diet, and a bullet or crossbow hole in his scalp. Not so old after all. Fail.

"Taung African Man" - Taung African Man. Found, in 1924, in a cave in South Africa, this skull was proclaimed to be the missing link. However, later experts found it to be the skull of a young ape. Fail.

"Nebraska Man" - A single molar tooth was found in the Midwest in 1922, and became a key evidence at the Scopes trial in July 25 at Dayton, Tennessee. One of the discoverers was knighted by the King of England for his monumental discovery.

In 1928, it was found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. In 1972, living specimens of the same pig were found in Paraguay. Fail.

"The Guadeloupe woman" - In 1812, on the Caribbean island of Guadeloupe, a fully human skeleton was found, lacking only the head and feet. It was found inside extremely hard, very old limestone, which was part of a formation over a mile in length.

In accordance with their theory, evolutionists date that rock at 25 million years! You will not find the Guadeloupe woman mentioned in the textbooks, since this find would disprove evolutionary strata dating.Fail.

"Nutcracker Man" - This 1959 African set of bones appears to be another case of mismatched bones. The skull is ape-like, the jaw was much larger (hence the name, "nutcracker"), and some other bones nearby were human. Later, Louis Leakey, its discoverer, conceded it was just an ape skull. Fail.

Oh and im not saying every discovery is fake- but im showing to you that there have been many cases of either plain out lying or misinformation given to the public regarding these "theories" of human evolution that its hard to completely trust in it.

[ramster83]

That is NOT a "dumb question"!

Thay is a very valid question.....evolution deals with plants also.

Yeah but is there an answer for that? A plant is a living thing. (Not im only using an Apple Tree as one example) Apple seeds produce strictly- an apple tree. Apple trees have existed for a long, long time and have had plenty of time to "evolve" even in its slightest...but it has not. If plants are evolving then why do we fail to see it nowadays...why the sudden "stop"? Why isnt the Apple tree now a "Pineapple" tree? Know what i mean? Its confusing. lol.

[zandore]

Which one of these fakes would you be reffering to?

I was not talking about any but.....

"Java Man" - Found 1891 - Claimed to be a million years old! -

Many creationists consider Java Man to be a large ape, but it is far more humanlike and has a far larger brain size than any ape, and the skull is similar to other Homo erectus skulls. It is also frequently claimed that Eugene Dubois, the discoverer of Java Man, later decided it was only a large gibbon, but this claim is not true.

Java Man

"Piltdown Man" - One of the greatest "evolutionary" hoaxes ever.

Who committed the hoax? The most obvious suspect is Charles Dawson, Piltdown's discoverer, but virtually every person involved with Piltdown has been accused of participating in the hoax at one time or another. You can find comprehensive lists of all the accusations at the following pages by Richard Harter and Tom Turrittin.

The claim is sometimes made by creationists that 500 doctoral dissertations were written about Piltdown Man. This claim is false. If any doctoral dissertations were written about Piltdown Man, the number must have been very small. It was probably zero, based on the absence of dissertations in Piltdown bibliographies. Richard Harter discusses this claim at greater length.

Another occasional creationist claim is that the hoax was constructed in order to foster belief in human evolution. This is, at best, a guess; the motivation of the unknown hoaxer or hoaxers is unknown. (See also Richard Harter's discussion)

Piltdown Man

"Rhodesian Man" - In 1921, some bones were found in an African cave,and the sensational news went everywhere.

your source failed on this one.

Once thought to be less than 40,000 years old, the Kabwe skull (also known as the Broken Hill skull) was used at one time to validate the supposed "primitiveness" of African peoples, demonstrating that while Europeans had evolved to the "level" of Cro-Magnon, African populations still looked essentially like Homo erectus. This assumption was shown to be flawed on many accounts, most crucially in that the date for this site based on the associated animal fossils found is at least 125,000 years old, and is probably significantly older. Some researchers have proposed that Kabwe may be a member of the African population from which all modern humans descended, although this cannot be definitively proven.

The cranium shows evidence of disease and wounds that occurred in the lifetime of this individual. Ten of the upper teeth have cavities, and dental abscesses of the upper jaw are clearly visible in the upper photograph (above the right incisor/canine) and the middle photograph (above the first molar). Additionally, a partially healed wound is visible in the bottom two photographs, above and anterior of the hole for the ear. This wound measured roughly a quarter-inch across, and was made by either a piercing instrument or the tooth of a carnivore. Exactly which is unclear

Rhodesian Man

"Taung African Man" - Taung African Man. Found, in 1924, in a cave in South Africa, this skull was proclaimed to be the missing link. However, later experts found it to be the skull of a young ape.

Not what I found.

Taung African Child

BTW: It was a child not a man

"Nebraska Man" - A single molar tooth was found in the Midwest in 1922, and became a key evidence at the Scopes trial in July 25 at Dayton, Tennessee.

The imaginative drawing of Nebraska Man to which creationists invariably refer was the work of an illustrator collaborating with the scientist Grafton Elliot Smith, and was done for a British popular magazine, not for a scientific publication. Few if any other scientists claimed Nebraska Man was a human ancestor. A few, including Osborn and his colleagues, identified it only as an advanced primate of some kind. Osborn, in fact, specifically avoided making any extravagant claims about Hesperopithecus being an ape-man or human ancestor:

"I have not stated that Hesperopithecus was either an Ape-man or in the direct line of human ancestry, because I consider it quite possible that we may discover anthropoid apes (Simiidae) with teeth closely imitating those of man (Hominidae), ..."

"Until we secure more of the dentition, or parts of the skull or of the skeleton, we cannot be certain whether Hesperopithecus is a member of the Simiidae or of the Hominidae." (Osborn 1922)

Creationists often claim that Nebraska Man was used as proof of evolution during the Scopes Monkey Trial in 1925, but this claim is apocryphal. No scientific evidence was presented at the trial. (Some evidence was read into the trial record, but even this did not refer to Nebraska Man.)

Nebraska Man

"The Guadeloupe woman" - In 1812, on the Caribbean island of Guadeloupe, a fully human skeleton was found, lacking only the head and feet. It was found inside extremely hard, very old limestone, which was part of a formation over a mile in length.

In accordance with their theory, evolutionists date that rock at 25 million years! You will not find the Guadeloupe woman mentioned in the textbooks, since this find would disprove evolutionary strata dating.

I think I found your source (since you did not provide one) for this one. Did it have this part in it?

When the two-ton limestone block, containing Guadeloupe Woman, was first put on exhibit in the British Museum in 1812, it was displayed as a proof of the Genesis Flood. But that was 20 years before Lyell and nearly 50 years before Darwin. In 1881, the exhibit was quietly taken down to the basement and hidden there.

Guadeloupe Woman

"Nutcracker Man" - This 1959 African set of bones appears to be another case of mismatched bones.

Not what I found

Nutcracker Man

Oh and im not saying every discovery is fake- but im showing to you that there have been many cases of either plain out lying or misinformation given to the public regarding these "theories" of human evolution that its hard to completely trust in it.

OKAY.......

[ramster83]

LOL Zandore thats exactly my point - there's two or more versions of every story. So whats truth exactly? It was very good to see the other perspective as well. People want to prove creationism and evolution so so badly that its hard to tell whos really telling the truth. So do you have any answer to my apple tree question? lol thats one im still trying to solve.

[zandore]

LOL Zandore thats exactly my point - there's two or more versions of every story. So whats truth exactly? It was very good to see the other perspective as well. People want to prove creationism and evolution so so badly that its hard to tell whos really telling the truth.

The sources I cited are not a biased nature.

I am still waiting for your sources.

So do you have any answer to my apple tree question? lol thats one im still trying to solve.

I am not sure exactly what the question was.....

[Raptor]

Psssssh, your so full of crap you are still avoiding my biggest question, I will ask you again:

WHAT STARTED EVERYTHING WHEN THERE WAS NOTHING?

Quite frankly, no one knows yet. But that does in no way indicate that there must have been a God. Not so long ago people didn't know how the Earth was created other than to go by religion, science has now explained the formation of the Earth and could well explain the formation of the universe.

For now, peoples main dispute is that the big bang doesn't make sense, it doesn't coincide with the laws of physics. Something can not come from nothing, right? On a macroscopic (not to be confused with microscopic) that it correct; But on the Quantum scale it is not necessarily true. On the quantum scale random events can take place with no apparent trigger, and if the big bang theory is correct that everything came from one singular point, than that would definetely be on the quantum scale.

Presumably your logic is that there must have been a God because the universe is here and something had to create it. Well that in itself is a paradox; what created God? If God could have just always been, than why couldn't the universe also just have always been?

Do some research on Quantum Physics, you might learn a thing or two that surprises you.

If everything is "changing" and something can turn from one thing to another- then why when you plant Apple seeds does it always eventually bare apples- why cant it "evolve" to something else- last time i checked apple trees were apple trees thousands and thousands of years ago- plants are living things- theres polonation and all these interesting things and i know there was different types of fauna and things but why is it that only animals seem to have evolved or be evolving and not really plant life (which seems to have remained the same for a while?). I could be wrong but at least im leaving it open to being a dumb question haha.

One of the main differences between animals and plants is the way in which they reproduce. Animals reproduce sexually, this involves half of the DNA from two organisms (of the same species) merging to create a whole different set of DNA to what the parents had; this is called variation, and it's what allows evolution to take place because the offspring that has the best suited features for the environment is the offspring which survives to reproduce and pass it's DNA on to the next generation.

Many different plants reproduce asexually, this means that they do not reproduce with a partner, but instead essentially create clones of themselves, so the offspring has the exact same DNA as its parent without variation.

I hope that makes sense, let me know if it doesn't.

Edited June 3, 2006 by Raptor X7

[helion]

Quite frankly, no one knows yet. But that does in no way indicate that there must have been a God. Not so long ago people didn't know how the Earth was created other than to go by religion, science has now explained the formation of the Earth and could well explain the formation of the universe.

For now, peoples main dispute is that the big bang doesn't make sense, it doesn't coincide with the laws of physics. Something can not come from nothing, right? On a macroscopic (not to be confused with microscopic) that it correct; But on the Quantum scale it is not necessarily true. On the quantum scale random events can take place with no apparent trigger, and if the big bang theory is correct that everything came from one singular point, than that would definetely be on the quantum scale.

Presumably your logic is that there must have been a God because the universe is here and something had to create it. Well that in itself is a paradox; what created God? If God could have just always been, than why couldn't the universe also just have always been?

Do some research on Quantum Physics, you might learn a thing or two that surprises you.

One of the main differences between animals and plants is the way in which they reproduce. Animals reproduce sexually, this involves half of the DNA from two organisms (of the same species) merging to create a whole different set of DNA to what the parents had; this is called variation, and it's what allows evolution to take place because the offspring that has the best suited features for the environment is the offspring which survives to reproduce and pass it's DNA on to the next generation.

Many different plants reproduce asexually, this means that they do not reproduce with a partner, but instead essentially create clones of themselves, so the offspring has the exact same DNA as its parent without variation.

I hope that makes sense, let me know if it doesn't.

[helion]

i happen to be someone who does not beleive in the christian god but i do think your torturer makes a valid point on how the universe started. What frustrate me is how science has become as dogmatic as religion and any "unconventional explanation" is ridiculed by those who has appointed themselves the high priests of science. I certainly have never heard scientists says they do not know and leave it at that. Just look how long it took for you to admitted that you do not have an explanation for his question. The point i am making is that nobody knows for sure so why don't we all accept that and try to find out.

[SoulSearcher]

science is the devil!

[SoulSearcher]

WOW xtorsionist, did you pay attention in science class!

EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION:

Morphological evidence

Fossils are important tools for estimating when various lineages developed. Since fossilization of an organism is an uncommon occurrence, usually requiring hard parts (like teeth, bone or pollen), the fossil record only provides sparse and intermittent information about the evolution of life. Fossil evidence of organisms without hard body parts is rare, but exists in the form of ancient microfossils and the fossilization of ancient burrows (trace fossils).

Fossil evidence of prehistoric organisms has been found all over the Earth. The ages of fossils are typically synchronized with the geologic context in which they are found; many of their absolute ages can be verified with radiometric dating. Some fossils bear a resemblance to organisms alive today, while others are radically different. Fossils have been used to determine at what time a lineage developed, and transitional fossils can be used to demonstrate continuity between two different lineages. Paleontologists investigate evolution largely through analysis of fossils such as the fossils of the Burgess Shale which tell us more about how animal life appeared on Earth than any other fauna in the fossil record.

Phylogenetics, the study of the ancestry of species, has revealed that structures with similar internal organization may perform divergent functions. Vertebrate limbs are a common example of such homologous structures. Bat wings, for example, are very structurally similar to hands. A vestigial structure may exist with little or no purpose in one organism, but a clear purpose in ancestral species. Examples of vestigial structures in humans include wisdom teeth, the coccyx and the vermiform appendix.

Genetic sequence evidence:

Comparison of the genetic sequence of organisms reveals that phylogenetically close organisms have a higher degree of sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. For example, neutral human DNA sequences are approximately 1.2% divergent (based on substitutions) from those of their nearest genetic relative, the chimpanzee, 1.6% from gorillas, and 6.6% from baboons. Genetic sequence evidence thus literally provides a picture of the "missing link" between humans and other apes. Sequence comparison is considered a measure robust enough to be used to correct erroneous assumptions in the phylogenetic tree in instances where other evidence is scarce.

Further evidence for common descent comes from genetic detritus such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA which are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration.

Since metabolic processes do not leave fossils, research into the evolution of the basic cellular processes is done largely by comparison of existing organisms. Many lineages diverged when new metabolic processes appeared, and it is theoretically possible to determine when certain metabolic processes appeared by comparing the traits of the descendants of a common ancestor.

Hawthorn fly

A clear case of evolution as an ongoing, observable fact involves the hawthorn fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Different populations of hawthorn fly feed on different fruits. A new population spontaneously emerged in North America in the 19th century some time after apples, a non-native species, were introduced. The apple feeding population normally feeds only on apples and not on the historically preferred fruit of hawthorns. Likewise the current hawthorn feeding population does not normally feed on apples. A current area of scientific research is the investigation of whether or not the apple feeding race may further evolve into a new species.

Some evidence, such as the fact that six out of thirteen alozyme loci are different, that hawthorn flies mature later in the season and take longer to mature than apple flies; and that there is little evidence of interbreeding (researchers have documented a 4-6% hybridization rate) suggests that this is indeed occurring. The emergence of the new hawthorn fly is an example of macroevolution in process.

and as for your "gimmie one animal that has evolved" junk:

HUMANS

not physically but mentally:

how can you deny our mental evolution when its quiet obvious:

we went from "the cresent nile" region with mere stones, and eventually developed cultures

then to eygyt where we became more handy with stones, and whatnot.

then to rome, and greece when we became thinkers

then to european literary thinkers

then to industrial revolutions

then to technology like the vaccum tube for computers

and here we are with advanced computers, and technology

and once again i find it simply ignorant that you truely believe that there is no evidence for evolution.

[SoulSearcher]

First of all "Since fossilization of an organism is an uncommon occurrence, usually requiring hard parts (like teeth, bone or pollen), " Pollen is not hard. I eat it almost every day.

Radiometric dating is flawed. It has been used to date freshly made volcanic material, and dated it to several thousand years old when it was days old.

Because something is "structurally simular to hands" is not proof our hands came from bat wings. It might be logical to ASSUME so, but in no way proves it. I could make the same assumption about a palm leaf being the common ancestor to our hand.

The fact that our DNA may closely resemble a chimpanzee's is not proof we had common ancestor. An assumtion has to be made to come to that conclusion too.

Your example of macroevolution with the Hawthorn Fly is called mircoevolution. It's still a fly. Show how it evoled into say a bird or a beetle. It as to be a different life form to be macro, not a different species of the same thing.

Evolutionists always try to throw in microevolution as evidence for macroevolution. Reason: because they can't in ANY way prove macroevolution.

I find it amazing how evolutionists (most at least) claim to be intelligent, free thinking, open minded, and willing to admit when they're wrong. If that was really true, they would admit they have no proof for macroevolution. If evolutionists really were intelligent free thinkers they would see the GAPING holes in their THEORY. They would realize it is a religion based on faith in something they can't prove.

OK now lets say everything you said was true. You still haven't (and no evolutionist will) addressed the fact of how everything except for a few mammals that managed to live under ground, & survived the distruction of the dinosaurs, managed to evolve into everything we see on Earth in 65 million years. Evolution is based on the BELIEF/ASSUMPTION that it takes millions of years for ONE life from to evolve into another. Now multiply that by all the life forms on Earth now, and there is'nt enough time for all that to happen in 65 million years. Not even close.

I don't even have to address all the anomilies evolutionists try to keep swept under the carpet, hidden from view. And also all the dogma in science in general.

Now, the most current thought from physicists & astrophysicists say everything made out of matter in this universe comes from something that is not made out of matter. They say there are MANY universes (at the minimum of 12) right next to us where anything possible. The universe is way more strange and unexplainable than ever thought before. 96% of the universe isn't even made of matter, and pulses in and out of existance. The universe is expanding at ever faster rates. All this goes against the laws of physics.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in evolution and God. The fact is neither is totally right currently. Evolution didn't happen like evolutionists say it did, and creation didn't happen like the Bible says. The truth is inbetween. Both science and religion need each other and compliment each other. They are both movig closer to each other, and when the wall is broken down between the two sides the truth will be found. Everyone is looking at the same thing from two different perspectives, but they will wind up at the same place. God. Evolution is just one of God's tools.

Have you heard about the book called Flatland? Abbott (the author) described in humorous detail a world of creatures who live in 2-D space. They were unable to percieve the thrid deminsion of height. Science is just now starting to see past our three demisional world.

Although we can not experience these other environments directly, the great enlightened religious leaders and mystics must have been able to do so. The Western World has pursued the development of rational thought. It allows us to understand the laws that govern reality, without perceiving the reality directly. So we understand for instance that the earth rotates around the sun, although we cannot see this directly. In the same manner it is possible to penetrate reality. We can learn to understand it, though we cannot perceive it directly.

The part I don't like is, science is so far behind religion we have to sit around and wait and put up with the foot stomping, kicking, scratching, and crying from "scientists" as they stumble along the same trail Jesus already traveled down a long time ago and said "Come Follow Me."

Take Care,

SoulSearcher