Originally posted by tim88
3 science magazines! 60min! and they have their supporters - but you just keep believing all the propaganda

Great information and it just goes to show how much we don't know about the earth. Evolutionist wil argue with you for eternity and boast how intellegent they are and how straw like we are, but that's their problem and a sad one at that. Supposedly so smart but still unwilling to look and learn at the true evidence.

Originally posted by galveston75
Great information and it just goes to show how much we don't know about the earth. Evolutionist wil argue with you for eternity and boast how intellegent they are and how straw like we are, but that's their problem and a sad one at that. Supposedly so smart but still unwilling to look and learn at the true evidence.

Alright, let's look at some of the evidence.

The OP link has some misconceptions about Mitochondrial Eve.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html

For starters, even if ME was somehow only 6000 years old, it is likely she was not the only woman on earth at the time.

Originally posted by galveston75
Great information and it just goes to show how much we don't know about the earth. Evolutionist wil argue with you for eternity and boast how intellegent they are and how straw like we are, but that's their problem and a sad one at that. Supposedly so smart but still unwilling to look and learn at the true evidence.

i can't remember the last time you looked at and learned about true evidence. have you read an introductory book on evolution yet? last time we had a conversation on the topic, you demonstrated that your knowledge on evolution was squat nil. my guess is that you still know squat nil about the topic.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
i can't remember the last time you looked at and learned about true evidence. have you read an introductory book on evolution yet? last time we had a conversation on the topic, you demonstrated that your knowledge on evolution was squat nil. my guess is that you still know squat nil about the topic.

So even if I do know only squat, that amount of that squat is all thats needed to see the MAJOR holes in evolution. Lots of opinions and ideas and theories do not make a fact. Sorry buddy.

Originally posted by galveston75
Great information and it just goes to show how much we don't know about the earth. Evolutionist wil argue with you for eternity and boast how intellegent they are and how straw like we are, but that's their problem and a sad one at that. Supposedly so smart but still unwilling to look and learn at the true evidence.

The following seems very descriptive of the evolutionary scientists:

Nobel laureate James Watson stated, “In contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid”
(The Double Helix, p. 14).

Originally posted by galveston75
Great information ......

Are you willing to defend it against criticism, or is it just 'great' because it contradicts what you see as a threat to your religion?

Originally posted by galveston75
So even if I do know only squat, that amount of that squat is all thats needed to see the MAJOR holes in evolution. Lots of opinions and ideas and theories do not make a fact. Sorry buddy.

Very odd then that you are totally incapable of explaining where those major holes are and substantiating those claims with anything significant. Instead everyone who is against evolution on this forum seems to play the hit and run game of posting links to what they know to be nonsense, refusing to discuss it or admit the errors, and then posting some more links.
Not one of you is willing to pick a 'problem' you see with evolution and really explain it to the rest of us and prove your case.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are you willing to defend it against criticism, or is it just 'great' because it contradicts what you see as a threat to your religion?

I'll put it this way. There were two posts in reply to his. One was name-calling, and the other contested the evidence. Guess which one he responded to?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Very odd then that you are totally incapable of explaining where those major holes are and substantiating those claims with anything significant. Instead everyone who is against evolution on this forum seems to play the hit and run game of posting links to what they know to be nonsense, refusing to discuss it or admit the errors, and then posting some mor ...[text shortened]... 'problem' you see with evolution and really explain it to the rest of us and prove your case.

"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) or adaptation is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few.

Do these big changes (macroevolution) really happen? Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly. A human generation takes about 20 years from birth to parenthood. They say it took tens of thousands of generations to form man from a common ancestor with the ape, from populations of only hundreds or thousands. We do not have these problems with bacteria. A new generation of bacteria grows in as short as 12 minutes or up to 24 hours or more, depending on the type of bacteria and the environment, but typically 20 minutes to a few hours. There are more bacteria in the world than there are grains of sand on all of the beaches of the world (and many grains of sand are covered with bacteria). They exist in just about any environment: hot, cold, dry, wet, high pressure, low pressure, small groups, large colonies, isolated, much food, little food, much oxygen, no oxygen, in toxic chemicals, etc. There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations (in fact, evolutionists say that smaller organisms have a faster mutation rate than larger ones16). But they never turn into anything new. They always remain bacteria. Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria. Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Originally posted by twhitehead
Are you willing to defend it against criticism, or is it just 'great' because it contradicts what you see as a threat to your religion?

he doesn't need to prove it! the criticism was already proved to you, it was not biofilm? it was a blood vessel and it wasn't contaminated proved by testing on other samples! “oh, I almost forgot to tell you it also made news headlines

Originally posted by tim88
he doesn't need to prove it! the criticism was already proved to you, it was not biofilm? it was a blood vessel and it wasn't contaminated proved by testing on other samples! “oh, I almost forgot to tell you it also made news headlines

But we know they must censor such things. I think the following is very true.

Darwin is liked by evolutionists because he liberated science from the straitjacket of observation and opened the door to storytellers. This gave professional evolutionists job security so they can wander through biology labs as if they belong there.

--- David Coppedge
Speaking of Science, Creation Matters, May/June 2003

Originally posted by galveston75
So even if I do know only squat, that amount of that squat is all thats needed to see the MAJOR holes in evolution. Lots of opinions and ideas and theories do not make a fact. Sorry buddy.

coming from squat, you don't have the background to make informed decisions. so you remain squat and your opinions amount to worthless drivel.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The following seems very descriptive of the evolutionary scientists:

Nobel laureate James Watson stated, [b]“In contrast to the popular conception supported by newspapers and mothers of scientists, a goodly number of scientists are not only narrow-minded and dull, but also just stupid”
(The Double Helix, p. 14).[/b]

watson here is describing cantankerous fools who go against the grain of common knowledge, like the minority of biological scientists who still support creationism. narrow-minded, dull and yes, also just stupid.

here, instead of quote mining, read the book. douche.

http://books.google.com/books?id=CESjmRQtfrUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Originally posted by RJHinds
"Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) or [b]adaptation is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches. Creationists have always agreed that th ...[text shortened]... d shows that evolution is not happening today.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html[/b]

some real science mixed in with presumptuous nonsense. this is what we call pseudo-science.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
watson here is describing cantankerous fools who go against the grain of common knowledge, like the minority of biological scientists who still support creationism. narrow-minded, dull and yes, also just stupid.

here, instead of quote mining, read the book. douche.

http://books.google.com/books?id=CESjmRQtfrUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

When looking at your reference to Watson's book I noticed this statement:

"With humility unspoiled by false modesty, Watson relates his and Crick's desperate efforts to beat Linus Pauling to the Holy Grail of life sciences, the identification of the basic building block of life."

This made me wonder who this Linus Pauling was, so I googled his name and found this interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling

"He did not have enough credits for two required American history courses that would satisfy the requirements for earning a high school diploma. He asked the school principal if he could take these courses concurrently during the spring semester, but the principal denied his request, and Pauling decided to leave the school in June without a diploma. His high school, Washington High School in Portland, awarded him the diploma 45 years later, after he had won two Nobel Prizes."

I guess one Nobel Prize was not good enough to earn a high school diploma.
A very tough High school, don't you think?

He was the only person to get two unshared Nobel Prizes and Watson and Crick were making sure he did not get another one.