nahomadis

Ok, thanks. I will get cracking right away.

I am happy to rebutt an article from the TalkOrigins site, on the condition that you chose an article that provides the best evidence for Evolution (and against Biblical creation).

I just clicked on that talkOrigins link and there is too much material. You don't seriously expect me to wage through all that material do you? You choose one article and I will work on it over the next few days and get back to you. Right now it is 1am in the morning in London....and I want to hit the sack mate! Night. Sorry if I upset anyone!

Try using a reputable source.

Perhaps they didn't evolve from pond scum.

Empty statement. Lets see you debunk it.

It is a amusing to read you deflecting the point at hand. The coelacanth is a problem to evolutionists, which they admit, but which you try to ignore. Dicks, L., writing in 'The creatures time forgot', New Scientist, (164(2209):36–39, 1999) says many creatures, including the coelacanth, 'have stayed the same' for millions of years. Story telling should be kept appart from science. Let me amuse you with one interesting fact on the matter. In 1938 Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer alerted the scientific world to the fact that the coelacanth fish was alive and well. Before that time, it had been thought extinct, having died out about ‘the time of the dinosaurs’. The species was named Latimeria chalumnae in her honour. You are guilty of Ad Hominem (against the man)....attacking the opponent instead of the argument. Anyway, the fact that living things can speciate is called 'speciation'. In your case read 'evolution'.

Antibiotic resistance is good evidence against molecules-to-man evolution. See an excellent article by Carl Wieland on this here http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/superbugs.asp tens of thousands, including all the founders of biological science.

The Coelacanth is not an intermediate form. It is a fish. It always has been a fish as far back as we can trace it in the fossil record. Evolutionists date Coelacanth fossils to 340 millions old. Yet living ones have been discovered! Think of it, they say it has not changed in 340 millions years! Other examples of 'living fossils' include the Gingko trees (fossil gingko trees are believed by evolutionists to be 125 million years), crocodiles (140 million years), horseshoe crabs (200 million years), the Lingula lamp shell (450 million years), Neopilina molluscs (500 million years), and the tuatara lizard (200 million years). Why have these life-forms stayed the same for all that time? Could it be maybe....just maybe....that they are not millions of years old?

You have comitted a logical fallacy called a priori reasoning (circular reasoning) by assuming what needs to be proved. You need to first show how you arrived at the 10,000 year old date. If molecules-to-man evolution is happening today, we would have been able to observe small scale evolution in the present. Yet no evolution happens of the kind to enable fish to change to philosophers. And all these experiments have yielded results that contradict Darwinian Evolution, and support the creation model. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp It is disturbing to see willful rejection of scientific findings of this kind.

Actually, the Neo-Darwinian theory today is really two fold: 1 - The Theory of common ancestry. This holds that all living things have a common ancestor. 2 - The Theory of descent with modification. This holds that the multitude of living things we see today have descended from a common ancestor through a process of gradual and successive genetic evolution, demonstrated phenotypically in new body plans, functions and systems. The mechanism of evolution is itself two fold. It is considered to operate due to the information-generating changes in a gene pool (mutations) bringing about new useful information, working alongside the phenotype-sifting process of natural selection. Information (from the Latin, in-(toward)+forma(form)) literally is an arrangement of data pointing towards or leading to form/structure/function. Natural Selection and mutation are observable in the present, but have not been observed to generate a new arrangement of useful data that was not already in the genome. They have, however, been observed to generate a rearrangement of the data. For this reason, some scientists doubt the ability of Natural Selection and mutation to have operated in the past as the mechanism of evolution. I don't think observing natural selection and mutation today (which does not generate new useful information) can be cited as evidence for the Theory of common ancestry or the Theory of descent with modification. Someone has tried to show (satirically) the difference of opinion that results when the evidence today (Natural Selection and Mutation) is extrapolated backwards to account for the origin of living things. See http://www.mollallegn.blogspot.com for the satire which really makes a serious point. All major view points are give a fair voice.

It is neccessary to define what you mean by Evolve in each instance when you use that term. After all, evolve actually means change (evolvere is latin for 'to unroll or to move'). But what type of change? Precisely how do chemicals change? And in what direction do they change?

Charles Darwin: None. But if it could be shown that the bulb entered the socket without a series of clockwise turns, my theory would absolutely break down. ACLU: None! We have separation of church and state in this country. Eugenie Scott: None. To say a Darwinist did it is not a scientific explanation. Panda’s Thumb: None. To say that light bulbs don’t screw themselves in is not a testable proposition. You can’t prove they don’t. That would be an argument from incredulity. You are committing a ‘Darwinist Of The Gaps’ fallacy. Carl Sagan: None. Time and chance are sufficient. Eventually it is inevitable that the bulb will be in the socket. Say, in a billion years. Darwinian College Lecturer: None. The quintessentially non-random process of natural selection is sufficient. Those objects capable of giving off light when screwed into sockets will be in sockets. Those that aren’t will be in the trash. Richard Dawkins: None. A light bulb that gives off 1% light intensity is very much worth having. A bulb sitting on the shelf at the supermarket gives off a certain amount of light. One in the cupboard at home gives off more. One five feet from the socket gives off more, and one two feet away even more. One in the socket gives off the most of all. It is therefore inevitable that the bulb will reach the socket. Stephen J. Gould: None. It’s called punctuated illumination. The bulb jumped into the socket when no one was looking. Gradually. Kenneth Miller: None. The bulb was already serving a function: providing rigidity to its corrugated packaging on the supermarket shelf. Co-option did the rest. Theistic Evolutionist: All of the above explanations are substantially correct. But the more important question is the meaning of the light. Philip Johnson: Is that the right question to ask? Maybe we should ask other questions to subject the status quo to more scrutiny than the scientific establishment would want us to. Michael Behe: The bulb could not screw itself into the socket. A working lightbulb and socket is an irreducibly complex system that begs intelligent agency. Stephen Meyer: Follow the evidence to its logical conclusion. How do you explain the explosion of fully fledged light bulbs everywhere, each fitted into its socket, with no earlier intermediate forms? William Dembski: Who knows? Mathematically, Intelligent Agency is more probable than self-screwing lightbulbs. Answers In Genesis: One. Any more questions? Steve Jones: None. Only stupid people would think otherwise. Stephen J. Gould: We can not say one or more Darwinists did it without violating the law of non-overlapping illuminarium. Discovery Institute: Teach the controversy. Students should be exposed to the scientific evidence for as well as the scientific evidence against self-screwing light bulbs. NUT: We are extremely concerned by fundamentallist sponsors of state schools who teach children to think there is a viable alternative to self-screwing light bulbs. Guillermo Gonzalez: Who knows? But isn’t it interesting that other light bulbs allowed the Darwinist to see what he was doing as he screwed in this light bulb. Darwin Chorus: Oh, yeah? Which Darwinist? What is his name? If you won’t tell us that, you’re being disingenuous, and therefore no one screwed in the light bulb! Flying Spaghetti Monster: Two. But don’t ask me how they got in there. Oh. 'Darwinists'? I thought you said 'fruit flies'. Michael Ruse: Are you trying to create a theocracy? The light bulbs in the reeducation camps will be depressingly dim. Unless they use candles. Do Creationists know how to make fire? Internet Infidel: First answer this: How many priests did it take to burn Galileo at the stake? Huh?!? Panda’s Thumb: If a Darwinist had screwed it in, it would be an efficient fluorescent, not a wasteful incandescent. Therefore no one screwed it in. Talk.Origins: We’ve observed all kinds of light bulbs in all kinds of sockets: flashlights, automobile headlights, Christmas tree lights, Las Vegas marquees. There is nothing special about this light bulb and this socket. Royal Society: We oppose the misrepresentation of lighbulbs in sockets to promote a religious alternative. The evidence for light bulbs in sockets is overwhelming. Richard Dawkins: None. Darwin made it possible to feel fulfilled sitting in the dark. Richard Dawkins: To say that it took a Darwinist to do the screwing in of the lightbulb is to explain precisely nothing. The obvious question becomes: Who did the screwing to create the Darwinist screwer? And who did the screwing to create that screwer? There would have to be an infinite regress of screwers. And if you invoke some invisible, mystical Unscrewed Screwer (for which we have no credible evidence) to start the whole thing off, why not just say that the lightbulb screwed itself in and be done with it? Eugenie Scott: No one doubts that the light bulb got screwed into the socket. The only debate is over the details. Richard Dawkins: Evolution is the study of light bulbs that look as if they’ve been screwed into their sockets for a purpose, but haven't been. Daniel Dennett: Perhaps we should keep fundamentalist light bulb inserters in cultural zoos so future generations can see how “in the dark” they really are! Eric Pianka: If we could just produce a directed surge of destructive electricity which would burn out 90% of the worlds light bulbs thereby conserving energy in the long-run and… …you… you errr… didn’t get that on tape, did you? Judge Jones: The inanity of that question is breathtaking. Sternberg at Smithsonian: I’m not allowed to question how the lightbulb is twisted into the socket now and they took the lightbulb, the switch, circuit and socket from my office. SciAm Editorial: Two MIT researchers have announced the results of a breakthrough experiment, detailed in this month's cover story. To summarize briefly, they first turned on the overhead light in the kitchen. Then one of them donned mittens, got on a chair, and very slowly rotated the bulb in a counterclockwise direction, until it just turned off. The two then proceeded to jump up and down on the kitchen floor, in order to generate random displacement perturbations at the socket site. In an astonishingly short time, the bulb relit. This experimental result powerfully establishes that lightbulbs are capable of screwing themselves into sockets with no intelligent guidance, demolishing the "one Darwinist" explanation of the creationists, which should now join epicycles, phlogiston, vital elan, and the luminiferous ether in the museum of discredited hypotheses. It is perhaps not too much of an exaggeration to say that Darwinists themselves are becoming wholly superfluous to proper scientific explanation. This important result is something to keep in mind as the nation-wide battle over school district science standards continues to rage. Ken Ham: Were you there? Let's be honest, none of us were there. But I know someone who has always been there, who knows everything, and who does not lie. He tells us who screwed-in the light-bulb. Are you interested? Michael Ruse: None. Light bulbs in sockets are a fact, fact, FACT! Richard Lewontin: None. For we take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to self-screwing lightbulbs. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a self-screwing explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to self-screwing causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce self-screwing explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that self-screwing is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Darwinist hand on the bulb. Ken Miller: None, because the bulb could be used as a drinking glass, the filament could be a spring, the screw could be used as an archimedian pump and the contacts could be used to make a dandy tie-clip! Stuart Kaufmann: None. Notice that both the screw pattern on the light bulb's base and the filament itself exhibit the form of a single helix, testifying to powerful, ubiquitous self-organizing properties in nature. Now it's your turn to contribute. How many Darwinists does it take to screw-in a light bulb?

I was not going to reply, but very quickly.... I trust the Bible's account of what I can not see. I would add that I don't distrust what I see. I rely on the bible to guide me through what I can not see, and I trust my observations on things that I can see. The two are complementary, not in opposition. I am not ignoring my own observations ecoli. I am accounting for the limitations of my observation e.g. I did not observe the formation of the first man and woman. But since God did, his observation is going to be correct. Then I add my observation to God's observation to build a more complete picture. That is correct. thanks Nahomadis