Evolution Disproven.

[QUOTE][b]#2 Retrograde motion has everything to do with the Big Bang. In the "Big Bang," everything went spinning in the same direction. This proves that wrong.[/QUOTE][/b]Others have pointed out that this is moot because the Big Bang was at least ten billion years prior to the origin of the Solar System but I just want to point out that the concept that "everything went spinning in the same direction" is not so. The BB was an expansion, think of it as matter/energy/space-time expanding in all directions from a point. Consider the material from the expansion forming clumps from their own gravity as they travel out from the point of origin. Some clumps are larger than others and the smaller clumps are drawn gravitationally to the large ones. Consider one large one about to encounter two smaller ones. Our viewing perspective is from above and I will explain the encounters in a two-dimensional perspective for simplicity. The first small clump encounters the large clump from behind and to our left. It enters an orbit about the large clump, which is clockwise from our perspective. The second small clump encounters the large clump from behind and a little to our right. Its new orbit is counterclockwise, retrograde to the first. So in our model one explosion produced two orbits in opposite directions.Congratulations to TC for a great post.

[QUOTE][b]I made a big mistake by saying "living organism." What I meant to say is, "No species can become superior to itself."[/QUOTE][/b]And that's scientific law right? In what textbook might I look that one up? [QUOTE][b]Ex: A dog can't make or become a human... etc, you get the point...[/QUOTE][/b]The ToE allows that that could happen given enough time. Your job is to convince us that it can't, not just to repeat what you believe without showing us any evidence. [QUOTE][b]2. Do you really think that an extremely small dot of nothing exploded and created all this intelligence[/QUOTE][/b]Of course not, the BB didn't create anything, it just was a movement of matter, just as a river is a movement of water or a gust of wind is a movement of air. [QUOTE][b]3. There is nothing wrong with Kent Hovind... fake PHD? Gimme a break..[/QUOTE][/b]Eventually someone will probably post a link to a picture of the house in Colorado where his "Ph.D." came from...or actually the split-level home where that great institution is now. It was somewhere else when he "earned" his "doctorate" via the mail. [QUOTE][b]just cause he's smart[/QUOTE][/b]We've really spent too much time making fun of Hovind here. We've discussed his mail-order degree, we've talked about his tax problems, and we have talked about that apparently non-existant panel of scientists that is supposed to judge entries to his 250k reward for proof of evolution. Some of us have even mentioned their attempts to arrange a debate with him. I would recommend finding another Creationist to get your material from and getting as far from him as possible. But that's just my advice, I'm sure you won't listen. [QUOTE][b]doesn't mean you evolutionists can insult him...[/QUOTE][/b]But we can and do because he's just such a funny character. But you can't really say much about our insulting people, eh?As for Haekel:Actually he drew the embryos, and it is impossible to 'fake' a drawing. He did exaggerate certain features to help support his own special version of evolution, that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", in other words, that every evolution step occurs in embryonic development (for example, that human embryos have gills in one step of development, an amphibian heart in the next step, etc.)The idea never really caught on because Haekel was not the only biologist that could draw embryos and other embryologists caught him at what he was doing. But it never hurt the theory of evolution itself, just the idea that *all* evolutionary change occurs in development. [QUOTE][b]6. Do you really believe that we came from something so small and dumb to something so big and intelligent?[/QUOTE][/b]Where did you come from? I came from a fertilized egg, a single cell that had no brain, no nerves, no circulatory system. It was "small" and "dumb", about as "small" and "dumb" as it gets in fact. But that's just where *I* came from. Maybe your parent divided down the middle into two clones. [QUOTE][b]I read about it in some book, can't remember its name...[/QUOTE][/b]One time a little English girl fell down a rabbit hole and was chased by a giant playing card. I know that this happened because I read in a book...can't remember the name right now... [QUOTE][b]9. There is evidence of a huge catastrophe (the Flood).. for example, there are fish in places where water has never flowed [/QUOTE][/b]How did the fish get to a place where water never flowed? Did it fall from the sky during the Flood? [QUOTE][b]there is real evidence of this.[/QUOTE][/b]Quite a few people believe that aliens are landing on this planet and giving people medical probings in strange places. They say that there is real evidence of this but never seem to provide it. [QUOTE][b]How dare you compare God with earthly things? Duh, thats why he's called God... of course he can create anything from nothing... thus the name God![/QUOTE][/b]If God can create things from nothing, God can also evolve things from nothing. [QUOTE][b]FINALLY: it is a huge mistake to even call evolution science. It is neither observable or reproducabe (or recreatable, whatever[/QUOTE][/b]The evidence it left is observable (ex: HERVs, genetic phylogeny, fossil hierarchy). Also evolutionary change is observable in the lab (ex: antibiotic resistance) and in nature (ex: the speciation of Porto Santo rabbits).But of course, you must also consider Creationism unscientific because the Creation Week and the Flood cannot be observed or reproduced.

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 06-06-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 06-06-2002]

[QUOTE][b]It's mainly filled with a bunch of ignorant, insulting evolutionists[/QUOTE][/b]You're quite the one to condemn insults, aren't you? [QUOTE][b]I have already provided the proof for you...[/QUOTE][/b]Where? All your posts were quickly devoured. [QUOTE][b]Did you observe evolution[/QUOTE][/b]See the above post, in which you were asked if you have ever observed gravity.The evidences that both (BB and evolution) occured is recreatable, evolution itself is a dynamic process that is observable and recreatable, and coherent mathematical models to explain past events have been devised. In short, yes, they are (1) observable (2) recreatable and (3) coherent with what is observed in nature. (3) basically means that we don't have to have a global Flood to miraculously put the fossils where they 'need' to be to explain the fossil hierarchy, etc.By the way, you don't like being called a little leaguer. We call you this not because you are new to the forum, but because you understand little of the nature of science and are trying to convince actual, practicing scientists that they are wrong about the *definition* of science. This is the trademark of a poorly informed Creationist new to the debate. My suggestion would be that you ask TC for advice/assistance and learn as much as you can.Now, is your flood recreatable? Observable? Is it science? [QUOTE][b]Tell me... if "apes evolved to humans", why are there apes still left?[/QUOTE][/b]If British colonists became Americans, why are there still British people left?

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 06-07-2002]

[QUOTE][b]Stop attacking him for what college he went to[/QUOTE][/b]We're not attacking the college he went to, because (1) we don't consider Patriot U. a college and (2) he didn't actually "go" there in the college sense, he got his "Ph.D." in the mail.He did attend an accredited Bible college earlier in his academic career but that is not what we are attacking. [QUOTE][b](ad hominem)... just tell me, what's wrong with him?[/QUOTE][/b]He's a liar who lacks a basic knowledge of science. One of my favorite Hovind quotes is from his "dissertation", "We don't know how many stars there are in the Solar System...."