brother bob wrote:My book discusses the concepts of evolution vs. creationism and its essesntial knowledge needed to overcome false concepts. DNA does not confirm evolution! But I will give you a means to prove your point.

go . . .

Evolution vs. creationism. Because it's got to be one or the other, right?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... -evolution

I guess there's always an easy out for creationists. Why do more closely related species have more DNA in common? Well duh, God made it that way. Why would he make it appear that species evolved if they didn't in fact evolve? Maybe to test your faith in creationism?

Wherein Geo fails to make the case that intelligent life developed from dead matter.

Attempt: We are here and that truism is good enough for me.

Why is the ability to map the density of the universe a product of natural selection, Geo?

ant wrote:Why is the ability to map the density of the universe a product of natural selection, Geo?

Wait, what?

Bob specified creationism vs. evolution. No one claims that science can tell us everything about the universe, including abiogenesis, but the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Oh give me a break; your "the evidence for evolution is overwhelming" mantra is an old trojan horse placed in the camp of religious fundamentalists.
It's the ffavorite choice of Richard Dawkins "philosophical" school of thought(lessness).

Ant "Oh give me a break; your "the evidence for evolution is overwhelming" mantra is an old trojan horse placed in the camp of religious fundamentalists."

That is one of the dumbest statements I have ever heard.

1) DNA evidence that no matter or being reproduces anything OTHER THAN THEMSELVES.
2) The Law of Thermal dymanics ll teaches that all matter breaks down instead of getting better (trees, burned, charcoal, dust, nothing).
3) uniquely complex beings can't reproduce a different animal because they would have to die if left with their present complex abilities. (i.e. Giraffe, bombardier beetle).
4) Man has never observed evolution.
5) Animals may slightly modify without becoming a totally different being (dog, cats, donkeys, finches).
6) Proof of a Young Earth is overwhelming with the over 70 "clocks" measuring the age of the earth.
7) Carbon dating has been proven to be inaccurate.
8 +) biblical creation is proven to be accurate when fully understood and explained.

How about some answers that makes evolution true?

ant wrote:Oh give me a break; your "the evidence for evolution is overwhelming" mantra is an old trojan horse placed in the camp of religious fundamentalists.
It's the ffavorite choice of Richard Dawkins "philosophical" school of thought(lessness).

Are you back to being a sort-of-evolution-skeptic?

This isn't an "old trojan horse," and has nothing to do with Dawkins, it's called the current state of science.

Do you want to defend brother bob's list of scientific ignorance?

brother bob wrote: 1) DNA evidence that no matter or being reproduces anything OTHER THAN THEMSELVES.
2) The Law of Thermal dymanics ll teaches that all matter breaks down instead of getting better (trees, burned, charcoal, dust, nothing).
3) uniquely complex beings can't reproduce a different animal because they would have to die if left with their present complex abilities. (i.e. Giraffe, bombardier beetle).
4) Man has never observed evolution.
5) Animals may slightly modify without becoming a totally different being (dog, cats, donkeys, finches).
6) Proof of a Young Earth is overwhelming with the over 70 "clocks" measuring the age of the earth.
7) Carbon dating has been proven to be inaccurate.
8 +) biblical creation is proven to be accurate when fully understood and explained.

No one has time to teach you all of science. Luckily for you, if you ever wanted to learn, there are plenty of resources out there.

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

I like to go back and read about the Pre-Darwinian beginnings of evolutionary theory. Nothing else makes it quite as clear that, merely by the act of systematically studying the natural world, the early scientists began to amass the data, and make the connections, needed to set the stage for the full expositions of evolution by Darwin and Wallace. Figures like Linnaeus, Lamarck, and Cuvier, and indeed like the young Darwin himself, might have said they were filling in the details of biblical creation, but their work inevitably brought science into new territory, whereby the processes of life's development were laid out. By not obsessing on Darwin as a radical, pivotal figure (he was anything but radical), we can better see how he was part of the succession from classification of nature in Linnaeus, to explanation of the myriad differences in forms in Darwin.

In the view of many Americans, it is a violation of the moral foundation of sanctity to assert that life developed naturally. I'm referring to Jonathan Haidt's classification of the moral foundations. That strong moral objection is all that's necessary to understand what could make otherwise rational people reject 200 years of human endeavor to understand the world.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_1.htm