scientific theories taught as factual

Hi Percy, Percy considering it took 2.5 billion years to get from single cell life form to multi-cell microscopic life forms I would say compared to that almost anybody would think 2 to 3 million years was sudden. Why would anyone want to accept his ideas?If he is right Darwin is wrong.That would mean that evolution as taught is a lie.Heaven forbid.Have fun,
Guys it is your theory I am just along for the ride.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

S.O.P. -- willful ignorance. Another write off.

As I said, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just helping you show the readers how utterly bankrupt your position is. Irrelevant. It only has to be possible for one to be possible. Just like evolution only has to happen once. There's no "statement" there. It's a question. You claim there's a barrier. I'm saying, "Show me." Of course I did. I said, "Show me the barrier." The barrier would be evidence. Your lame-assed "reasons" have no value whatsoever. I most certainly have not. All I've done is ask for evidence that it's impossible. Thank you. You could have admitted that right from the beginning and saved a lot of wear and tear on my keyboard.

---

“If you had half a brain, wouldn't you have realized after the second time, that it was you, not God?” -- riVeRraT“The endearing controvertist! One needs to become acute in the ploys of his kind.” -- ThreeDogs

Hi RAZD, I'm not I keep getting bombarded with questions and I don't have any better sense that try to answer them.BTW you totally missed my message on the beautiful photo. I was trying to point out that the picture is someone's rendition of what he\she thought the animal would look like.Now let me try to put that on topic.You flash this picture and expect people to believe that is exactlly what that animal looked like.That is a lie because no one knows what that animal looked like.
The trail of horses you like to point to and are point to in:
See "something"
Is not now accepted in the same progression as it has been in the past.Now we have a 3 toed horse after we have a two toed horse not before.
Something got messed up there. But not to worry just keep preaching it as usual nobody will notice.Have fun,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Regardless, you have been shown that Chen believes it was more like 40-55 Million years, so why do you continue to repeat known falsehoods? No, even if it were just 2-3 million years that would not show Darwin to be wrong. Why do you continue to repeat known falsehoods?Do you intend to ever present anything on topic or simply continue to post falsehoods and misrepresentations?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Hi Guys and Gals,I am so glad to see that you missed me but I had some free time and thought I would give you somebody to beat up of for a little while.Sorry though I got to go won't be around much for awhile.Enjoy.

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Take 5 minutes to breath. Read the thread and try to respond to the issue and not your cognitive dissonance reactions. Take a day to formulate a rational response if you need to, instead of just posting some silly knee-jerk reaction. In other words you never got to the issue of dog vs eohippus skeletons. We do know what the skeletons look like, and we can compare those skeletons to the skeletons of modern animals and other fossils, we can see the hereditary traits that are common from one to another. This is what the skeleton of phenocodus looks like:Rather more like a dog than even eohippus eh?At least go to message 12 on the thread to see the actual skeleton of dog and eohippus rather than the artist rendering of phenacodus, an ancestor of eohippus (ie even older). Irrelevant. You still go from A to B, and B to C, and C to D ... and Y to Z by the process of changes in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation ... and any detours on the way from a direct path from A to Z only demonstrate evolution - and lack of 'design' (couldn't he make up her mind?) - even more.Trust me, thinking you have found some horrendous error in evolutionary thinking is only because you don't understand the way evolution works - it is not linear.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : expanded evolutionary pathEdited by RAZD, : added phenocodus skeleton

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

EVO: gosh, look at the evidence ...CREO: gosh, look at the time ... gotta go ...Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Oh, I see. My apologies, in your post you mentioned your father represented "50% human and 50% spiritual". I took that to mean a person didn't always have to be 100% human or 100% spiritual. So yes, my examples no longer apply. I do feel sort of bad for your father though... being all snubbed out of existance like that on a simple re-definition. Sucks.

Let me make it even simpler: If you have a son, he's transitional. More accurately, assuming he eventually has children of his own, he's transitional between you and your grandchildren.Given perfect reproduction, then your son would only possess exact copies of gene alleles from you and your wife. But reproduction is not perfect, and so some of those gene alleles will contain copying errors and hence no longer exactly match any gene allele that you or your wife possess.These copying errors, mutations, accumulate over time, and that is why it is impossible for any species to remain static, no matter how stable their environment. This is called genetic drift.Interestingly, recently discovered genetic evidence indicates that the human race is evolving more rapidly during the past few thousand years than at any time previous. This is an unexpected finding, since there is thought to be an inverse relationship between population size and the rate of evolutionary change. Given the huge size of the world's population, the expectation would be that the recent rate of evolutionary change would be extremely slow.The speculation is that this is because we originally evolved as hunter/gatherers, and that the more sedentary contemporary lifestyles exert tremendous selection pressures.--Percy

It *was* sudden. The Cambrian Explosion is actually thought to have taken at least 20 million years, and evolutionists consider even that to be sudden. The suddenness is what caused the coining of the term "Cambrian Explosion".But what you said back in Message 138 was this: It can be seen that you were arguing against the possibility of gradual transition through tiny evolutionary steps, instead asserting that it happened suddenly. We agree about the word "suddenly", but because "suddenly" in this context means at least two to three million years, and more likely at least 20 million years, there was plenty of time for huge, tremendous numbers of tiny transitional steps.--Percy

quote:

---

The speculation is that this is because we originally evolved as hunter/gatherers, and that the more sedentary contemporary lifestyles exert tremendous selection pressures.

---

Cool, I've wondered for years if that wouldn't be a major source of evolutionary change for humans, and now it seems that some people in the know think so.

Hi Stile, You don't have to feel sorry for my father If I am right he is 100% spiritual now and awaiting my arrival.Enjoy,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Hi RAZD, What evidence?Have fun,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

I see you are pulling the classic Biblical Creationist tactic of pretending the past never happened.Do you ever plan on posting something related to the topic?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!