[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]