Booboocruise's Dissolvable Best Evidence

(Sorry about my delayed response--I am not on this forum 24-7).Anyway: biogeography is a far cry from evidence for evolution. The divergence of similar animals between continents can just as easily be explained by the flood as it can by evolution. You see, supposing my viewpoint be true, the waters aswaged and thus created dry bridges between many of the continents for several hundred years (also, the ice age would have decreased the size of the oceans in the years following the flood).Sorry, there is no reason to believe that biogeography automatically indicates evidence for evolution.
Paleontolofy: if your side be true, I'm still waiting for an explanation as to the polystrate fossils--there are hundreds of them, particularly in Nova Scotia, and they all indicate that the rock layers were set down at the same time. Have you ever been to Mt. St. Helens? I've seen the bases of the area, and the rock layers around the base of the mountain were created since the volcano erupted, yet they seem to represent the layers of rocks where geologists seem to claim are 'millions of years old.'Sorry, try againMolecular biology: There is no reason to believe that the molecular similarities between animals are evidence of evolution. DNA are the building blocks of life--the Governor's Palace of Williamsburg and Tradoc Headquarters of Fort Monroe are both made of brick, yet that means they have a common creator--MAN! Also, if you are so into molecular biology, and IF evolution is true, then perhaps you could explain why the fern has 480 chromosomes (evolution says it's one of the first plant forms to evolve, yet it is more complex at the molecular level than most of its "predecessors")
Sorry, try again

Also, I didn't get the idea you knew this already (though I may be misunderstanding your first comment) but they DO NOT date fossils by radiometric decay--fossils are dated based on what layer of rock they are found in (but the mere existence of the hundreds of polystrate fossils seem to give the geologists a reason to reconsider the entire theory that the different layers mean different ages). Simple: if you shake up a glass of soil and water, the sediments automatically settle into layers, yet that happens all at the same time. The layers of sedimentary rock could just as easily be evidence for the flood as it could be for evolution--we just don't know for sure, so I'm sticking with the God's word.

Sorry to sound like some of those evolutionists out there, but where are the sources?
If I'm going to see what's going on with the geologic column, I'd like to read more toroughly on that.However, the relative ages are still based off of a few assumptions.
1) that there was no flood--not even a deluge or a run-off
2) that the layers are permanent (Mt. St. Helens eruption created over 100 feet of what appeared to be "geologic strata" within a few hours)
3) that the polystrate fossils are simple glitches, and mean nothing.
Perhaps you might be able to resolve these three assumptions based on the geologic tests, since you seem to be the expert on that.
Just curious--I'm not trying to be rude: just fair and inquiringBooboo

Sorry, wj, but I no longer trust the science of talkorigins (or you... I have tried to remain polite and open-minded, but you are resorting to personal attacks and unscientific crap).This may come as a surprise to you (because I may not have shown it very well with a few bad examples) but I am very particular about ONLY researching legitimate science with as little bias as possible. Science up until the early 19th century was quite unbiased and generally open to all possible conclusions and observations. Now, however, the theory of evolution is shutting down the once open-minded field known as science. For instance, Ernst Mayr, Professor of Zoology at Harvard, writes: "Everything at the creation is as it is today [no need for change]" He is quite particular about keeping an anti-creation theme in his book, rather than unbiased science.
Biased opinions are, unfortunately, the basis for many modern fields of science. What is one good thing that the theory of evolution has brought to us? The theory of evolution has not helped us get to the moon, or develop cancer research, or develop the laws of thermodynamics, friction, and motion.
As for vitamin C and the GLO genes: I am not the expert on molecular biology, but I do know that this is not evidence of evolution. For instance, check this site out:http://www.biology.wustl.edu/faculty/Chilsonresearch.htmlIt reveals that the rat enzyme AMP deaminase (and the chicken AMPD as well) are more closely related to humans than that of a rabbit.
This conflicts with evolution pretty harshly.As for the biogeography: here is a possible theory (not proven but it is consistent with the Bible, most creation scientists, and has yet to be disproved) developed by a few creation scientists (listed below):
After the flood, the waters assuaged (calmed) and receded, the Bible says that the mountains arose, and the valleys sank in, creating the oceans - - (and there IS enough water to cover the globe - - in fact, if you were to raise the valleys and lower the mountains so the earth was perfectly smooth, the water would cover the earth at a depth of about 9000 feet). So, also around the time of the flood (4400 BC) a comet struck the earth. You see, the Amen-Ra of Egypt and the Stonehenge do not line up with the stars the way they were designed to. In fact, if you study the orbit of the earth and the axis, graph out the rotation, you?ll find that the earth is behaving like a spinning top that was struck by something about 44-4500 BC. Anyway, that would 1) explain the possibility that the ice age was, in fact, much sooner than originally thought, 2) explain why the Amen-Ra and Stonehenge are off course, and 3) explain why there are plants, un-decayed and un-fossilized, under several feet of ice in Antarctica (because, if the earth was not tilted on its axis, the north and south poles would be much warmer).
Anyway, during the rise of the polar ice caps, the ocean waters would sink down a few hundred feet (as the caps grew and covered much larger areas). If you lower the oceans only a few hundred feet that would 1) make it possible to WALK from Asia to Australia via the Indies, 2) make it possible to walk from Florida to Cuba, and 3) explain the beaches and apparent coastline discovered 500 feet below in the Black Sea.
So, this theory (some of which is my thoughts, although most is accepted by many creationists) is consistent with the Bible, has no apparent evidence against it, and logically explains the biogeography and why some animals are on islands that they shouldn?t technically have been on.
Here?s from where that theory came:
Dr. Hovind > The Hovind Theory
Dr. John Morris > The Young Earth
Dr. Duane Gish > ICR

Also, how is it known that the geologic column is reliable?
Try this on: the strata at Mt. St. Helens are NOT volcanic ash! They are clearly stone. First of all, ash is much softer sediment, much lighter, and would not be layered into stone the way it is (unless a catastrophe such as water buried it so that it could petrify). Also, the polystrate tree argument posted by talk origins does not explain the polystrate trees in Canadian cliffside, or in France (some areas where polystrate trees are found are far from where there used to be a swamp).
Also, things can petrify very rapidly. I have in my basement a piece of petrified would that was hand-carved on some parts of it. It only takes running water, a few years, and no open air for something to petrify. The trees that washed into Spirit Lake since Mt St. Helens are already petrifying. You see, polystrate trees and the existence of fossils are still just as easily explained by the flood. When you start LOOKING for ways to explain them (as talkorigins has) you begin to develop that close-minded evolution-philosophy that has crippled the open-minded research that science used to be.

First of all, wj, if you want a decent, logical debate you'll have to be patient--I have better things to do than parade around on the internet all do, so don't expect me to just spit out a reply immediately for you, because I know that it is wrong to just parade around on forums (although I regretably have done a little when I first applied for membership here).
Anyway, I realize what you're doing. By stumping me or showing me that I'm incompetent you think you can make yourself look good on this forum. As I have said before, (and for the LAST TIME) you need to cut the childish CRAP> Just how old do you want me to believe you are when you can't even hold a debate with me without personal attacks, which are neither appreciated nor called for.
As for the pseudogenes:
I have done a little reading on pseudogenes, and it turns out that the evolutionists? argument that the pseudogene-argument is a sorry 'excuse' to claim evolution is a fact. Here is a sum-up of Ashby Camp, courtesy of trueorigin.org (not talkorigin)"
1. "If universal common ancestry is true, then the same pseudogene will exist in the same chromosomal location in two or more species.
2. The same pseudogene exists in the same chromosomal location in two or more species.
Since this is the concept of 'shared errors' applied to pseudogenes, much of the preceding response is applicable. It is not a prediction of the hypothesis of universal common ancestry or the more specific hypothesis of Neo-Darwinism that the same pseudogene will exist in the same chromosomal location in two or more species. Evolution does not even predict the existence of pseudogenes, much less that they will be found at the same location in two or more species. After all, pseudogenes were not discovered until recently, the first published report being in 1977. (Gibson, 92.) Evolutionary theory managed just fine without them for more than a century. Thus, pseudogenes are not confirmation of an evolutionary prediction but observations that are given an evolutionary explanation.
Moreover, pseudogenes are inadequate in principle to support Dr. Theobald?s claim of universal common ancestry, because they are not shared by all groups of organisms. To repeat the quote from Dr. Max, 'Another limitation [of this argument] is that there are no examples of 'shared errors' that link mammals to other branches of the genealogic tree of life on earth. . . . Therefore, the evolutionary relationships between distant branches on the evolutionary genealogic tree must rest on other evidence besides 'shared errors.'
The claim here is that common ancestry is the only viable explanation for "finding the same pseudogene in the same chromosomal location in two species." But classic duplicated pseudogenes "are usually found within clusters of similar, functional sequences on the same chromosome." (Gibson, 93.) That is, they are found close to the genes of which they are believed to be duplicates. So if the same gene (or a member of the gene family) were duplicated independently in separate species, it would not be surprising to find it at the same chromosomal location.
Dr. Theobald apparently considers it too unlikely that the same gene (or a member of the gene family) would be duplicated in separate species because he believes that 'gene duplication is a rare and random event.' According to Dr. Max, however, the presumed duplication of blocks of sequences has been observed frequently in the DNA of a variety of species. Indeed, gene duplication is the most popular explanation for the formation of the new genes believed necessary to fuel evolution, so evolutionary theory is committed to the frequency of the process.
Again, it is an unprovable theological assertion that God would not place the same nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species. He may have a purpose for doing so that is beyond our present understanding. The objection that placing nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species would make God guilty of deception is ill founded. God cannot be charged fairly with deception when we choose to draw conclusions from data that contradict what he has revealed in Scripture (see Gibson?s comments from the preceding section).
But even if one assumes that God would not place the same nonfunctional sequences in different species, it is by no means certain that pseudogenes are nonfunctional. Even the staunchest critics of creation theory recognize that "it is impossible to prove absence of function for any region of DNA." The recent indication from the Human Genome Project that the way genes work is "far more complicated than the mechanism long taught" only increases the possibility that pseudogenes are functioning in some way we do not appreciate.
Back in 1994 Gibson reported that 'some pseudogenes are believed to function as sources of information producing genetic diversity [citations omitted], possibly involving a process similar to gene conversion. It is thought that partial pseudogene sequences are copied into functional genes, producing variants of the functional sequence.' (Gibson, 102.) He also noted that 'some pseudogenes have been implicated in gene regulation' [citations omitted]. (Gibson, 103.) Just last year, Petrov and Hartl wrote, 'The problem is that generally one does not know whether a pseudogene has any noncoding phenotypic effect and whether the effect is deleterious or advantageous.? (Petrov and Hartl, 222.)
Moreover, the ?failure to observe pseudogenes coding for a product under experimental conditions is no proof that they never do so inside an organism.'" (2001 Ashby L. Camp)

All in all, the GLO pseudogenes are neither good evidence for evolution OR creation. You see, just because the GLO genes are not working in primates like they are in other mammals, that would easily be explained by the notion that God made us this way so that we would rely on other areas of creation for certain vitamins (Genesis 1:29).
Hasn't it ever occured to you that your argument using GLO pseudogenes, no matter how scientifically-true, would not prove ANY aspect of evolution. The lug-nuts of a chevy will fit on a pontiac, but that just proves they have a common creator.Truly, I DO agree that the GLO-gene argument is scientifically-based, the similarity does not demonstrate that we share a common ancestor with apes--we simply share a defective gene. Also note that, in the fall of man, in Genesis chapter 3, The LORD God commanded that man was to rely on the land and to eat bread. Genesis 1:29 says that man are to eat herbs, fruit, and seeds. You see, the GLO pseudogene argument is just as easily explained by the creation story as it is by evolution thinking.
I'm sorry, but if wj is going to place evidence to support evolution in this forum, it should not be easily explained by creationism as recorded in the Bible. That is because the fact that man and primates are to rely on sources of food for many vitamins, and the Bible says that man are commanded by God to eat fruit and seeds!
Sorry, try again.