you pick

[Necrosis]

my ignorant comments your refutation consisted of discrepancies in defintions of evolution hovind uses and things that support his theory of the flood. by that i mean petrfied trees found worldwide would indicate a flood if that is the only possible explanation in the strata.

you are ignorant my friend to space-time i can spell it out in steps for you if you want. remember you wanted me to reference the claim of photons being the first exsistence and said it doesn't state that, umm ok.

also, in your mind boggling refutation you have numerous statements in which hovind words things inappropriately and claim to refute his claim. no he is arguing for god agaisnt science which claims that evolution of nothingness to somethingness occured, this is the premise mind you, without coercion. then he debates factual evidence which contradicts evolution and i will list them to pin you down so your refutation of definitions wont seem so spellbinding.

inorganic matter into living matter, haven't been proven is a faith issue this were the relgion comes in if your not sure you have no idea how inorganic matter could form into living matter you just assume it did(abiogenesis) but not that god did it but something and this is the start of your theory, thus faith issue.

also, polonium 80 halos contradict a hot molten earth, i wont explain why.

34 phyla appear at once in the fossil record, thus the need for fast mechanism already stated twice in my posts.

all fossils appear in the record with eyes already no intermediate steps seen. could elaborate and clarify but wont.

no transitional fossils found, perhaps some were different species not intermediate steps, you dont know and i dont know, but the vestigal argument is horrible and shermers is better but inadequete.

macro speciation has never been observed, im sure with all this extinction the formation of a new class of organism from a previous organism would be seen. since this has never been observed again faith issue, you beleive it. your argument will be fossils but there are no transitional fossils, view video for explanation of this.

you used quantum fluctuation for the explanation of origin and when i claim the universe isn't superheavy you say you dont know what im refering to.

again i ask what in your estimation if not something supernatural and above the space-time continuim created the big bang or inputed the first energy?

also, did the laws invent themselves that would have to be what occured. take antony flews positon and accept the evidence. again how do you explain the laws creating themselves to maintain order, because without them this universe fails, it isn't logical they created themselves thus something above everything created them.

also why would bacteria reproduce, it is purpose driven?

the big bang had zero volume and infinite density, impossible.

natual selection what is the mechanism mutation. well read lee m spetners book which reveals this mis conception, mutations delete not improve and make organisms weaker quite a good book.

[haider]

Hovind seems like a clown of the highest order 

[Necrosis]

hovind does use jokes and such as tactics however does have some good points but some bad points.

you may answer my questions if you wish but here is the main idea i want you to take away from this argument.

space time was created, it came into exsistence, the light, matter was created yes by the big bang but by something obviously preceeding. this cosmological fact points to something creating space time and matter since it is impossible in ordinary terms ( physics states this, and im not going to state why) but this fact that it had to be created equvicates a creator. this is my main argument and the design of the laws etc points to creation,the consciousness of humans, the reproduction of bacteria the utter complexity yet simplistic nature of nature implies a creator. i have no empirical proof for that is not what spirituality is. the only explanation for creation is a miracle, i take the ontological status that a miracle is god's will. this quote will help, " someone discovered water but it wasn't the fish" i belive that is in the video or book dont know but it is metaphysical in ideology.

[Necrosis]

 Entering research of any sort without a skeptical viewpoint, properly conceived, is the equivalent of emgaging in analysis abrogating scientific clarity. The two are inextricable. What you believe is irrelevant in terms of proper investigaton; to be critical entails
suspending bias as far as possible. thus skeptic magazine has a pre dispostion of no god, and is not the best place to get information. real quality peer reviewed journals such as pubmed would be a good example and i feel bad if skeptic inquiry is your scientific hotspot.

[NeoSeminole]

my ignorant comments your refutation consisted of discrepancies in defintions of evolution hovind uses and things that support his theory of the flood. by that i mean petrfied trees found worldwide would indicate a flood if that is the only possible explanation in the strata.

There is no evidence of a worldwide flood. I provided the example of the 1993 Mississippi River flood to demonstrate how polystrate trees formed in 1 geographical location. It's illogical to conclude that all polystrate fossils were formed by a single flood.

you are ignorant my friend to space-time i can spell it out in steps for you if you want. remember you wanted me to reference the claim of photons being the first exsistence and said it doesn't state that, umm ok.

I assure you that I'm not ignorant of science. In fact, I have a bachelors degree in it. I have taken several college courses in biology, chemistry, and physics. I have also spent many hours researching the facts about evolution and the Big Bang. I find it laughable that you call me ignorant since I have refuted you plenty of times. So far, you:

- infered that a scientific theory can be proven
- thought evolution includes abiogenesis
- confused the Big Bang with the origin of the universe
- thought quantum fluctuations are involved with evolution
- said the Big Bang Theory violates the 1st law of thermodynamics
- claimed the Big Bang was an explosion
- used a god-of-the-gaps theory
- said the formation of a star is not well understood and has never been observed
- claimed design in nature proves an intelligent creator
- invented statistics
- said evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics
- claimed there are no transitional fossils
- said Archaeopteryx has been refuted
- thought the Big Bang initially produced only light beams
- claimed life began immediately after the earth cooled

I have debunked each of these claims. Furthermore, the fact you defend Kent Hovind proves that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. Look up his credentials. He's not even a real Dr. like he claims. He recieved a "Ph.D" in Christian education from a diploma mill. Hovind says that he's been teaching science for 15 yrs. However, he neglects to mention that he taught at a christian school he founded b/c no public schools would hire him.

also, in your mind boggling refutation you have numerous statements in which hovind words things inappropriately and claim to refute his claim. no he is arguing for god agaisnt science which claims that evolution of nothingness to somethingness occured, this is the premise mind you, without coercion. then he debates factual evidence which contradicts evolution and i will list them to pin you down so your refutation of definitions wont seem so spellbinding.

No, Hovind does not debate facts. He portrays his own definition of evolution and then attacks it. This is called a strawman fallacy. It would be like me saying people are evil, therefore god(s) must be evil b/c he created us. I'm sure you would be quick to chime in that god gave us free-will.

inorganic matter into living matter, haven't been proven is a faith issue this were the relgion comes in if your not sure you have no idea how inorganic matter could form into living matter you just assume it did(abiogenesis) but not that god did it but something and this is the start of your theory, thus faith issue.

Faith is the belief in something without evidence. Abiogenesis is the process by which life originated from non-living material. Although we are uncertain of the mechanism responsible, there is evidence that abiogenesis did occur. We are here, aren't we? Whether life evolved or god(s) created us is another debate.

also, polonium 80 halos contradict a hot molten earth, i wont explain why.

No, they don't. The argument that polonium halos prove a young earth have been refuted. First, the sample of rocks collected do not represent the "primordial" basement rocks of the originally created Earth. The samples came from crystallized rocks which crosscut several sedimentary rocks. Second, the geology of the sites the samples came from shows that the polonium was most likely deposited by postmagmatic hydrothermal fluids. Third, numerous erroneous generalizations were made about the origin of the rocks. Fourth, the same process of radiometric dating used to date the rocks also suggests an old earth.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/tiny.htm

34 phyla appear at once in the fossil record, thus the need for fast mechanism already stated twice in my posts.

Can you provide your source? Even if this is true, all it means is that we discovered 34 phyla that appear roughly around the same time. We cannot infer that they evolved all of a sudden. There are plenty of fossils we haven't discovered yet.

all fossils appear in the record with eyes already no intermediate steps seen. could elaborate and clarify but wont.

Eyes are composed of soft tissue, which is extremely unlikely to survive the fossilization process. A lack of fossilized intermediate eyes does not disprove evolution.

no transitional fossils found, perhaps some were different species not intermediate steps, you dont know and i dont know, but the vestigal argument is horrible and shermers is better but inadequete.

Plenty of transitional fossils have been discovered but you are blinded by ignorance. You are confusing transitional fossils with intermediate fossils. By the way, I never mentioned vestigal organs.

macro speciation has never been observed, im sure with all this extinction the formation of a new class of organism from a previous organism would be seen. since this has never been observed again faith issue, you beleive it. your argument will be fossils but there are no transitional fossils, view video for explanation of this.

Macroevolution has been observed. For example, a new species of mosquito, the molestus form, has speciated from Culex pipiens. Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy such as Primula kewensis. There is also evidence of macroevolution from transitional fossils.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

you used quantum fluctuation for the explanation of origin and when i claim the universe isn't superheavy you say you dont know what im refering to.

I never proposed quantum fluctuation as an explanation for the origin of the universe. I said quantum fluctations were involved in the early moments of its formation. You keep misunderstanding me.

again i ask what in your estimation if not something supernatural and above the space-time continuim created the big bang or inputed the first energy?

Nobody knows. I fail to see how you jump to the conclusion that god(s) must have created the universe.

also, did the laws invent themselves that would have to be what occured. take antony flews positon and accept the evidence. again how do you explain the laws creating themselves to maintain order, because without them this universe fails, it isn't logical they created themselves thus something above everything created them.

Why isn't it logical the natural laws formed on their own after the creation of the universe? Please explain.

also why would bacteria reproduce, it is purpose driven?

I'm not sure.

the big bang had zero volume and infinite density, impossible.

Can you provide your sources? The Big Bang Theory does not make such claims; it describes the expansion of space-time.

natual selection what is the mechanism mutation. well read lee m spetners book which reveals this mis conception, mutations delete not improve and make organisms weaker quite a good book.

Further proof that you don't know what you are talking about. Mutations can be beneficial, harmful, or neutral. Nowhere in scientific literature does it says mutations only "delete" and "make organisms weaker."

[Necrosis]

ok read lee m spetners book about mutations for an eliquette run down.
-you proposed quantum fluctuation as a argument for origin in another theard and claim i did for some reason, yet you dont know what  a superheavy universe is.
-i never said abiogenesis is a part of evolution, you have no clue how it occurs yet you state it did because we are hear, that is so convaluted i wont bear to argue it.
-big bang was a explosion by definition from a point of infinite density and zero volume this is common sense if you know about the big bang.
-again you show your complete lack of knowledge by again stating that matter and not photons was the first emittence from the big bang. i can do a run-down of the first three minutes of space-time if you like since you seem to make your own model.
-my claim life began after the life cooled is based on dr gary schoeders book, unless he is a gross liar
- invented no such statistics, i have a degree in psychology and have done advanced level statistics, such as computer models manipulations of anova'a, ancova's and models of regression. my statement of dna came from sci america if you would like to do some reading.
-the fact that the big bang occured does violate the law, you keep jumping into the big bang but what happened before it and it's cosmological proof is non-debateable of violation of this law. ok here big bang would have to come into exsistence from nothing, energy, the photons can not be created from nothing thus violation for the big bang to occur what do you keep missing. you twist and contort my statements but you say no faith is involved in abiogenesis because we are hear you say inorganic to living( with no shred of evidence) and i say god, yet my is faith and yours is science. get real lack of proof equals faith, thus my belief there is a god is faith see the logical sequence.
-you may post something about the possible process of abiogenesis and i will not help you in finding the proper catalysis.
- the polonium 80 argument while you've done a good google is not confined only to the samples argued by skeptic sources which are atheist, and biased as my religion lovers.
- change from species is not macroevolution, stick to one def. they are the same kind of animal( yes hovind) but others argument also. show me a carrot turning into a dog. not a bird making micro changes and beign classified as a new animal. this is a definition barrier, again show me how all animals came from a single bacteria, or a totally opposite creature forming into another.

[Necrosis]

Okay, let's take a look at your original post since you think you merely "simplified" science.

The Big Bang Theory makes no such claim. It describes the expansion of space-time. There is no mention of light beams in the theory.

Ignorance must be bliss!

this my friends is the most ignorant comment ever muttered from a science scholar who even posted a link refuting him and he didn't even know it.

the big bang emitted electromagnetic radiation first or photons. your argument of my simplification of the expansion of space time was chosen to be more complex but not more accurate.

[NeoSeminole]

ok read lee m spetners book about mutations for an eliquette run down.

No thanks. According to you, his book says mutations only "delete" and "make organisms weaker." This is not true. Mutations can be beneficial, harmful, or neutral.
 

you proposed quantum fluctuation as a argument for origin in another theard and claim i did for some reason, yet you dont know what a superheavy universe is.

I never proposed quantum fluctuation as an explanation for the origin of the universe. I said quantum fluctations were involved in the early moments of its formation. You keep misunderstanding me.

i never said abiogenesis is a part of evolution, you have no clue how it occurs yet you state it did because we are hear, that is so convaluted i wont bear to argue it.

Yes, you did say abiogenesis is part of evolution.

i think parts of evolution like abiogenesis, etc.. do have their place although proving evolution does not infer lack of design, just the method in which he/she/it did so.

big bang was a explosion by definition from a point of infinite density and zero volume this is common sense if you know about the big bang.

Please show me where you read this. I've already told you the Big Bang was a rapid expansion of space-time; it was not an explosion like a bomb.

again you show your complete lack of knowledge by again stating that matter and not photons was the first emittence from the big bang. i can do a run-down of the first three minutes of space-time if you like since you seem to make your own model.

I never said that. Here is my exact quote: "Furthermore, the "light energy" you speak of is one of the products that was released from the initial expansion. Matter was also present in the form of protons and neutrons." If you carefully read my post earlier, I said photons and matter co-existed during the initial expansion. You keep saying that "light energy" was the first to form. That is incorrect.

my claim life began after the life cooled is based on dr gary schoeders book, unless he is a gross liar

His observations are most likely biased. There is absolutely no evidence that life began immediately like you say. Furthermore, radiometric dating shows the earliest signs of life didn't begin to appear until 100 million years after the earth cooled. So there is no discrepancy in the scientific community.

invented no such statistics, i have a degree in psychology and have done advanced level statistics, such as computer models manipulations of anova'a, ancova's and models of regression. my statement of dna came from sci america if you would like to do some reading.

I have asked you numerous times to cite the source of your DNA statistic. You still haven't provided a source, yet you keep using this statistic in your arguments.

the fact that the big bang occured does violate the law, you keep jumping into the big bang but what happened before it and it's cosmological proof is non-debateable of violation of this law. ok here big bang would have to come into exsistence from nothing, energy, the photons can not be created from nothing thus violation for the big bang to occur what do you keep missing. you twist and contort my statements but you say no faith is involved in abiogenesis because we are hear you say inorganic to living( with no shred of evidence) and i say god, yet my is faith and yours is science. get real lack of proof equals faith, thus my belief there is a god is faith see the logical sequence.

The Big Bang Theory does not violate any laws. If it did, the theory would have been disproven. You seem to think there is a conspiracy to keep teaching evolution and the Big Bang. I assure you that if a scientists could refute either theory, they would win the Nobel Prize. The promise of fame and money if they can disprove evolution or the Big Bang would discourage any scientists from keeping their evidence hidden. I have never twisted or contorted your statements. In fact, I quote you verbatim in my posts. Nice try!

you may post something about the possible process of abiogenesis and i will not help you in finding the proper catalysis.

Abiogenesis is the process by which life originated from non-living material. Although we are uncertain of the mechanism responsible, there is evidence that abiogenesis did occur. We are here, aren't we? Whether life evolved or god(s) created us is another debate.

the polonium 80 argument while you've done a good google is not confined only to the samples argued by skeptic sources which are atheist, and biased as my religion lovers.

I already refuted your polonium argument. Please see the links I provided for more proof.

change from species is not macroevolution, stick to one def. they are the same kind of animal( yes hovind) but others argument also. show me a carrot turning into a dog. not a bird making micro changes and beign classified as a new animal. this is a definition barrier, again show me how all animals came from a single bacteria, or a totally opposite creature forming into another.

Just b/c you are not satisfied with the definition of speciation does not mean it didn't occur.

[Necrosis]

oh brother, you twist what im saying so much it is laughable. the fact that the big bang occured( energy was created) is a violation, do you follow, im not saying the big bang is a violation but it's exsistence per se is. this is not hard to grasp and the only explanation is a miracle, and that leads to god my friend.

you are incorrect again about the big bang matter came from the energy provided by the photons. here you go the first three minutes of your life.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/early.html

read some cosmology before you speak here is a good start my friend
http://www.arxiv.org/, or you can stick to skeptic journal, ahhahahha it has an agenda just like religious sites.

again i state there is no transitional fossils, fossil do not indicate wether anything is transitional or another species all together. could be extinct species but you jump to conclusions such as ahh a monkey skull this was the intermediate stage, nope sorry that is one way of looking at it. look at a platupus for gods sake, this is an old argument but what species did it evolve from? macro evolution is a religion my friend and you are a priest.

again what is morality and why do bacteria reproduce. why did the bible predict the roundness of the earth, the hydrologic cycle and numerous other occurences, perhaps by chance because you like beleiving in utter improbabilities. you didn't know what puntuated equilibrium was, and how it is a sad excuse to hang on to the theory or how fossils are always fully formed never intermediate as expected. new phlya show up in the fossil record abruptly thus they needed punctuated equlibria, and not one shred of evidence is around for it's exsistence.

yes we are here but what makes you think inorganic matter formed into living matter, nothing you just like the idea because it suits your agenda( you said i dont know, but we have ideas, ok so it is faith, the fact we are here provides the same evidence for god). atheism is stupid because you absolutely dont know if god exsists and agnostic stance is at least intelligent. i have more if you like about your theory. did you ever read darwins original book and his doubts and inferences and do you know it's routes, i think not.

i enjoy this debate because i am slicing the neck of your sacred cow.

[Necrosis]

agian just so you can reply directly to this, no matter was initial after the big bang or the big "expansion". also, we were arguing evolution and did indeed use a somewhat hovind style definition, as it was going back and forth between biological and cosmic etc.. still proves nothing ad hominen.

[Necrosis]

watch this video with quotes from my side and your side as it pertains to evolution.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2783773121996810582&q=god+and+evolution

i think they even have a rundown of the big bang, which gasp says light was first.

[Necrosis]

also, do you beleive that supernatural occurences are not possible. how do you explain telepathy, remote viewing and the fact that consciousness can exsist outside the body?

[Necrosis]

http://evolution-facts.org/Appendix/a05.htm

here ya go, you did not refute polonium halos you merely choose which ones have possible explanations something skeptic digest like to do to prove that god doesn't exists.

[NeoSeminole]

oh brother, you twist what im saying so much it is laughable. the fact that the big bang occured( energy was created) is a violation, do you follow, im not saying the big bang is a violation but it's exsistence per se is. this is not hard to grasp and the only explanation is a miracle, and that leads to god my friend.

How am I twisting your words if I'm quoting you verbatim? Laugh all you want, but your comment makes no sense. I've already explained to you the Big Bang was a rapid expansion of space-time. It cannot violate the 1st law of thermodynamics b/c it has nothing to do with the origin of the universe.

you are incorrect again about the big bang matter came from the energy provided by the photons. here you go the first three minutes of your life.

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/early.html

do you even bother to read your links? Nowhere does it say matter came from photons. Here is what it does say.

"The Grand Unification Epoch

At t=10-43 sec, T=1032 K:

Gravity separates from the Superforce
Strong & Electroweak Forces unified into the GUTs force.

2 forces rule physics: Gravity & the GUTs force

The Universe at this phase is a hot, dense particle soup of quarks, antiquarks, & photons in equilibrium with each other."

This confirms what I said earlier. I said photons and matter co-existed during the initial expansion. You keep saying that "light energy" was the first to form. That is incorrect.

read some cosmology before you speak here is a good start my friend
http://www.arxiv.org/, or you can stick to skeptic journal, ahhahahha it has an agenda just like religious sites.

You are the one in need of reading scientific literature my friend, not me. So far I have refuted each of your bogus claims using science websites similar to the link you provided.

again i state there is no transitional fossils, fossil do not indicate wether anything is transitional or another species all together. could be extinct species but you jump to conclusions such as ahh a monkey skull this was the intermediate stage, nope sorry that is one way of looking at it. look at a platupus for gods sake, this is an old argument but what species did it evolve from? macro evolution is a religion my friend and you are a priest.

We've already discussed this before. Plenty of transitional fossils have been discovered.







The definition of a transitional fossil is one that displays a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism. It does not mean a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil. It had many dinosaurian characteristics which are not found in modern birds while having certain characteristics found in birds but not in dinosaurs.

again what is morality and why do bacteria reproduce. why did the bible predict the roundness of the earth, the hydrologic cycle and numerous other occurences, perhaps by chance because you like beleiving in utter improbabilities.

If believing in a magic fairy in the sky helps you sleep at night, that's your personal choice. This does nothing to disprove the Big Bang Theory or evolution.

you didn't know what puntuated equilibrium was, and how it is a sad excuse to hang on to the theory or how fossils are always fully formed never intermediate as expected. new phlya show up in the fossil record abruptly thus they needed punctuated equlibria, and not one shred of evidence is around for it's exsistence.

How is punctuated equilibrium a "sad excuse?" What's your proof? Just b/c you say so doesn't mean it is. You probably assume that punctuated equilibria is mutually exclusive of phyletic gradualism. However, it's not.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

yes we are here but what makes you think inorganic matter formed into living matter, nothing you just like the idea because it suits your agenda( you said i dont know, but we have ideas, ok so it is faith, the fact we are here provides the same evidence for god).

Round and round we go. Faith is the belief in something without evidence. Abiogenesis is the process by which life originated from non-living material. Although we are uncertain of the mechanism responsible, there is evidence that abiogenesis did occur. We had to come from somewhere.

atheism is stupid because you absolutely dont know if god exsists and agnostic stance is at least intelligent. i have more if you like about your theory. did you ever read darwins original book and his doubts and inferences and do you know it's routes, i think not.

i enjoy this debate because i am slicing the neck of your sacred cow.

Oh really? It seems to me like your arguments are full of shit.

[NeoSeminole]

http://evolution-facts.org/Appendix/a05.htm

here ya go, you did not refute polonium halos you merely choose which ones have possible explanations something skeptic digest like to do to prove that god doesn't exists.

The link you provided is a religious website with a clearly anti-science agenda. It doesn't disprove the Big Bang Theory or evolution. Here are a few quotes from the site.

"Can anyone, viewing a hummingbird in action and knowing that all its hundreds of organs are packed inside something the size of a marble, believe the myth that, way back, it originated when a lightning bolt hit some dirty seawater? Come now, not even a four-year-old would believe that one."

This is an argument from personal incredulity. It does absolutely nothing to disprove evolution or prove creationism.

"Not evolution, but a creative act of God brought everything into existence."

This is a pretty bold claim when you consider there is no shred of evidence that proves the existence of god(s) let alone the Christian god.

"In addition, according to the Bible, sin and death began after the fall of Adam and Eve. But that important truth would be negated by the theory that savagery, violence, and sudden killing reigned for millions of years on our planet before Adam and Eve came into existence."

I feel sorry for you if that's the best source you can come up with.

[Necrosis]

if i prove to you that photons were first not matter will you apologize and say your ignorant.

great argument about the polonium by the way, pick the quotes you want. i posted the first three minutes for you to understand the laws refer to matter formation but i will spell it out for you, i will get you a link.

you keep saying were here so abiogensis occured, ok were here so god created us, why is mine faith but yours science, convulution at it's finest.

ok a platapus exhibits reptile, mammal, bird like features is it a intermediate form of all these species, could it be possible that your bird, reptile is a different species and not a transitional or intermediate fossil-yes, do you know it is a intermediate fossil no. do bannas turn into dogs nope. most of your transitional fossils are pieced together like lucy by over zealous people with agendas from bones found in huge areas. again there is no such thing as a transitional fossil and you cant prove it, it could be a different species altogether like an ape but you just assume it is turning to a human.

[NeoSeminole]

if i prove to you that photons were first not matter will you apologize and say your ignorant.

If you can provide a credible source that says matter came from photons, then I will apologize.

great argument about the polonium by the way, pick the quotes you want. i posted the first three minutes for you to understand the laws refer to matter formation but i will spell it out for you, i will get you a link.

I'm not sure what quotes you think I picked. I cannot reply if I have no clue what you are talking about. Also, what did you "post the first three minutes" of? I don't know what you are referring to.

you keep saying were here so abiogensis occured, ok were here so god created us, why is mine faith but yours science, convulution at it's finest.

You misunderstand what abiogenesis means. Abiogenesis is the process by which life originated from non-living material. There are several theories that attempt to explain this process. Whether these theories are correct or not is irrelevant. The fact remains abiogenesis did occur. We had to come from somewhere. Abiogenesis and god are not mutually exclusive of each other.

ok a platapus exhibits reptile, mammal, bird like features is it a intermediate form of all these species, could it be possible that your bird, reptile is a different species and not a transitional or intermediate fossil-yes, do you know it is a intermediate fossil no. do bannas turn into dogs nope. most of your transitional fossils are pieced together like lucy by over zealous people with agendas from bones found in huge areas.

From what I gathered, the platapus is considered an intermediate. This is not to be confused with transitional. There is a difference between transitional and intermediate. Transitional refers to those forms which do not have a significant amount of unique derived traits the derived relative doesn't possess as well (i.e. a transitional fossil is morphologically close to its common ancestor and the derived relative). Intermediate refers to those forms that do have a large number of uniquely derived traits not connected to its derived relative. According to this definition, the platapus is an intermediate b/c it still retains certain reptilian traits no longer found in modern mammals while simultaneously possessing a lot of derived traits of its own.

again there is no such thing as a transitional fossil and you cant prove it, it could be a different species altogether like an ape but you just assume it is turning to a human.

I already defined a transitional fossil and provided several examples. You can stomp your feet and cry all your want, but this doesn't make them go away.

[Necrosis]

i just want you to answer one question if you will, simply the fact that the big bang happened and that it came from nothing is in fact logically repugnant. to honest and tell me any natural explanation and if you think us being here had to be created or is there some law which we dont know about which says energy can be created as it would have to have been. not asking if you think god did it but it is logically repugnant to assume nothing made something without supernatural input.

[NeoSeminole]

There is evidence that something does indeed come from nothing. Look up "vacuum fluctuations." It is also possible for the Big Bang to circumvent the 1st law of thermodynamics if the energy beforehand is the same as the energy afterwards. In layman's terms, the law is only violated if the energy of the universe is non-zero. However, there is reason to believe the energy of the universe is still zero.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#firstlaw

[Necrosis]

i wont get into vaccum fluctuations right yet, i would ask you read this thread for me from people with a iq over 160 and there opinions on evolution and creationism. some support creation some dont, not my point. read any material within and you will find why evolution is not a thoery but based on plausibilities and sloppy logic like they've proved everything. anyway i ask you read the thread and understand my point of view and those who think that plausibility is not proof and demand better science. yes mine is a faith component but is based on philosphophical and logical inferences, while still faith.

http://www.avantlabs.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=15753

[NeoSeminole]

The link you provided doesn't talk about why evolution is not a theory. Are you sure you sent me the right link? It discusses the ethics of zealous proponents who choose a side and leave it at that without further investigation.

[Necrosis]

if you did not see how the discussion is about the how evolutionists take what the want from plausible sources and extract "facts" then i dont know what to say. here is a better papar outlining some of his thoughts more clearly.

http://www.fredoneverything.net/EvolutionMonster.shtml

[NeoSeminole]

Your previous link addresses laymen evolutionists, not PhDs. It talks about the ethics of choosing a side without investigation simply b/c a bunch of men in white coats say so. I have a feeling you don't understand what it says. I read your second link. The guy tries to disprove the theory of evolution by attacking abiogenesis. Unfortunately for him, evolution and abiogenesis are 2 different theories. He demonstrates his ignorance of the subject by some of his comments. Moreover, he doesn't include any references. So his whole essay is speculative at best.

[Necrosis]

i understand it full well, i just took an aggregate meaning from the thread from both the creationist and evolutionist side. the paper expressed strats point perfectly, creationist have no proof and evolutionist dont either, yet i know mine is faith. you keep saying we are here, thus abiogenesis occured, this is a perfect example of your sloppy logic and less then full investigation of the topic. abiogenesis hasn't been proven-god hasn't been proven-yet abiogensis occured because it fits the evolution model. this is an example of plausibility taken to far with horrible logic. the abruptness in the fossil record disputes you also so you invented punctuated equilibrium with no proof, again it supports your side with no proof so is accepted. the whole argument isnt against evolution per se but the argument is summed up in the paper i gave you which is what he quoted from. i understand the theard is not directly attacking evolution, but it supports my point that you guys use no science in some instances and expect me to accept it because you say so. i dont care were you choose to place abiogenesis but anyone with logic can see it is the start of evolution of inorganic to living and evolution entails the evolution of this living matter. thus i along with others, namely fred, consider it within logic to include the start of your mechnism within evolution or at least to provide a logical explanation on how evolution is possible. the point of me posting the thread was to show that your half logic and plausibilities doesn't equate science just like my theory of god doesn't equate science, this was exemplified in freds paper, and along with some of the others comments. i understand what they are arguing about but it personifies my points exactly.

[NeoSeminole]

How can you say evolutionists have no proof? There is a wealth of evidence supporting the theory of evolution. I have cited several examples like transitional fossils and documentation of speciation. Evolutionists use the fossil record, stratigraphy, radiometric dating, embryology, comparative homology, and molecular biology to study evolution. Each of these fields of science arrived at the same conclusion independently of each other. You keep saying there is no proof even when it's staring you right in the face.

Furthermore, you have repeatedly tried to debunk evolution by attacking abiogenesis. They are 2 separate theories. Even if you disprove abiogenesis, it would do nothing to weaken evolution. You also keep suggesting that it is not scientific. This is untrue. I acknowledge that our current knowledge of how abiogenesis works is limited. However, there are several different hypothesss relating to abiogenesis which can be tested and disproven. The ability to test a hypothesis is the cornerstone of science.

Your comments about punctuated equilibrium reflect a misunderstanding of what the theory says and the scientific process in general. The theory was proposed to explain the relatively sudden appearance of new species in the fossil record. In science, there is nothing wrong with proposing theories to fit the data. Punctuated equilibrium is based on positive evidence from independent geological sites. It was not invented to explain a lack of transitional fossils like you say. The theory is supported by the relative stability of morphology in widespread species, the distribution of transitional fossils, and the apparent morphological differences between ancestral and daughter species.

http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~theobal/PE.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html