GreedyCapybara7
Shared publicly - 2012-02-23 03:01:07
1. I guess I'll answer in sections...
fossil record: the fossil record is littered with transitions AS WE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, however what you and other creationists do is simply assert that any transition is "100% A" or "100% B" take for example tiktaalik even though it has features of lobe finned fish, lung fish and early tetrapods creationists either assert that it is either a lobe finned fish or a lung fish ignoring completely it's tetrapod characteristics and either it's lung fish of lobe finned fish characteristics. Another example is Australiopithecus Afarensis with characteristics of both Hominids and other Great Apes, however creationists either class it as either 100% "Ape" or 100% Hominid ignoring completely the characteristics held by the other classification (i.e. if one says "it's an ape" they will ignore the Hominid characteristics and vise versa), similarly Therapods (dinosaurs with two legs, "s" shaped neck, bird hip, wish bone, crocodilian spinal structure, bone structure and skull structure: commonly known as "predatory dinosaurs") and show characteristics of both Aves (Birds) and Crocodiles however depending on the sample creationists will either class it as a crocodile, a bird or place it into a third category "dinosaurs" ignoring that all members of this category hold characteristics of both Aves and Crocodiles. The fossil record supports evolution, not ID...one would expect to find all major groups appearing at once if ID were correct, or if the flood fable was correct they should be sorted by buoyancy not by evolutionary order.
"A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing."
re-no, such a find would actually act against evolution by natural selection, instead one would find parts developed and adapted for different tasks as niches become available (which is exactly what we find), remember evolution is simply mutations compiled over successive generations guided by natural selection, non-functioning parts and appendages are selected against like we discusses with whale evolution previously.
"Where are the trillions of fossils of such true transitional forms?"
re-well I just named three, if you wish to know more then just ask and I shall supply you with one if such a thing should actually exist and I also explained that creationists like yourself always dismiss transitional forms as 100% one kind or the other when there is no case for such things being all transitional forms have characteristics of both groups.
"Critics often say that creationism is simply religion, whereas evolutionism is based on science. The Bible states in Genesis I that all creatures reproduce “after their kind” (no change to another kind, i.e., no transitional forms)."
re-saying creationism isn't a religion then putting forward a case from a religious holly book doesn't help, Evolution Theory is a scientific theory, I don't know how many times we've been over this, however the “after their kind” is a blank term, because "kind" is an undefined term in itself such a statement could mean anything, unless one can define such a term (in relation to Biology) then they may/may not have a case, if every single piece of evidence from all relative fields of science didn't converge on evolution.
"If evolution is true, why don’t they give us answers to our many questions?"
re-we kinda do, however you tend to ignore my answers (I'm not sure about everyone else) and just bring up the topic again after it has already been dealt with.
"Where did all the 90-plus elements (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc.) come from? How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements?"
re- That's not evolution but I will answer anyway, all the 90+ are formed (apart from iron which is formed in nuclear fusion like other light elements) in a "supernova" when a star "dies" the heat and energy released is enough to combine the nuclei from two or more atoms making a new heavy element, a quick Google search would clear this up but I am glad that you asked instead of assuming that there simply was no answer.
As for bonds the answer lies in "Chemical Theory" which is how the periodic table's construction is based on (it will help if you are looking at one as a reference). The elements like He (Helium), Ne (Neon), Ar (Argon), etc are known as "inert" or "noble gasses" these elements are in what is known as a "stable electron configuration" which is when their respected "electron orbitals" are full, this means that they do not react with anything (with the exception of Xenon (Xe) but only under extreme conditions where an electron is physically removed/ added) all other elements seek this "stable configuration" and therefore will either "give", "take" or "share" electrons with other elements in order to obtain this configurations. The amount of electrons that an element must take/give/share in order to obtain this stable configuration determines how many bonds are available. (btw, I didn't expect you to already know this I also minored in Chemistry)
"How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?"
re- this is actually rather simple, an element is determined by the amount of "protons" in the nucleus (positivity charged heavy particles), this is given by their "atomic number" i.e. Hydrogen has 1 proton, Helium has 2, Lithium has 3 and so on. These protons are positivity charged, because of this more electrons (particles that are negatively charged) are attracted to the nucleus in order to balance this out, the amount of electrons is directly proportional to the amount of protons in a given atom (unless in part of certain chemical reactions where electrons are taken or given) because each has the same charge only reversed.
"Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from[?]"
re- compounds are a direct result of atoms taking, giving or sharing electrons in order to obtain a stable electron configuration, most (but there are a few exceptions) compounds have no net charge, because when one atom "takes" an electron from another one becomes positivity charged and the other negative (balancing out the charge) this forces them together: this is called an "ionic bond". When electrons are shared this also forces the atoms together because the electron is attracted to both nuclei forcing the atoms together; this is known as a covalent bond. Molecules are formed when one or more of these events happen, for example carbon has 4 electrons it needs to take or share and therefore can bond to a maximum of 4 other atoms, it can either do this by sharing with 2 oxygen (each oxygen needs 2 electrons to take of share) or by any other configuration, often this means that whatever bonds to the carbon still has electrons it needs to share of give away forcing another atom to join. This continues until you obtain a complete molecule, the conditions and what elements there are present determine what compound(s) are formed and in what quantities.
"They could not have developed from the elements, because elements rarely react with each other. For example, did all the salt in the ocean form by sodium reacting with chlorine (a gas)?"
re- there you are wrong, you see elements are always reacting with each other (aside from inert gasses like Helium, Argon, Neon, etc.) for example Oxygen reacts with Oxygen to form O2 or O3 (O3 only in certian conditions) or with Carbon to form CO2. But beyond that yes sodium chloride forms when sodium reacts with chlorine...however both have to be dissolved in a liquid (like water) or both have to be condensed or both have to be vaporised. Chlorine actually bonds with just about anything and so does Sodium because both construct bonds strong enough to rip electrons from the other or give them away strong enough to strip the other from whatever it is currently bonded to, this is why pure Sodium and Chlorine are toxic and sodium chloride is not.
"When did all the compounds we find in the world develop—before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang?"
re- after the big bang, because the only element capable of condensing without assistance is Hydrogen and in a universe with only Hydrogen H2 is the only possible compound, for higher elements nuclear fusion is needed, it is only after nuclear fusion can more complex compounds form.
"When evolutionists use the term “matter,” which of the thousands of compounds is included?"
re- matter means everything with mass + photons (which sometimes have mass and sometimes don't), matter at it's simplest is condensed energy (energy and matter are interchangeable E=MC^2), therefore all compounds are included because they all are constructed from atoms which are constructed of protons, neutrons and electrons which (aside from electrons) are comprised of quarks, which are comprised of those particles found in the "Standard Model" (the 12 simplest particles of matter we have found so far).
" When evolutionists use the term “primordial soup,” which of the elements and compounds is included?"
re- the "primordial soup" is primary comprised of: water, carbon based sugars, nucliodides (molecules that make up DNA and RNA) , proteins plus dissolved nitrogen, iron-oxide and hydrogen (in the form of H+ ions).
"Why do books on evolution, including grade school, high school and college textbooks, not include such important, basic information? Evolutionists are masters of speculation; why don’t they speculate about this?"
re- what basic information are you talking about? if it's the questions you've asked so far it's because none are related to Evolution Theory, they are either Physics, Chemistry or Biochemistry each of which have their own text books where this sort of thing is explained. Beyond that, what speculation? we don't speculate because none is needed, we already have explanations for all questions proposed and are actually quite simple, all are observed and documented.
"How did life develop from non-life?"
re-depending on what you mean by life it's actually quite simple, first one needs a self replicating polymer such as RNA in a nucleotide solution (this is commonly known as a Primordial Soup) which can replicate before it decomposes, then if such a molecule can attract limpid then you have what is known as a "proto-cell" (because limpid naturally form such structures due to a water repelling end and water attracting end of the molecule) this increases the length of time a RNA molecule has to reproduce before it decomposes, from there a simple protein synthesis reaction can cause the proto-cell to form proteins to do simple tasks, as soon as the proto-cell has what we refer to as metabolism where it must take in energy to have some form of homoeostasis it is considered a true cell (be it an incredibly simple one) and therefore alive.
"Where did the human emotions, such as love, hate and jealousy, come from?"
re- these are caused by different neurotransmitters in the brain and are not unique to humans but found in most mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians, fish and even invertebrates to some degree. The origin of Jealousy allows for a selective advantage as it makes one protective of their mate making them more likely to breed and pass on this gene, the origin of hate is simply a modified "they are a threat" response and love is cause by three reactions in the brain (my department is currently working on this); one we experience as lust (very, very simple reaction), the other we experience as "more than a friend" (slightly modified lust reaction) and the third we experience as attachment (a modified jealousy reaction), only when all three reactions occur to you experience love.
"What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?"
re- the chances of a random process doing this...very, very low though I am not going to speculate on the figure. However as we previously discussed evolution is not a random process, due to the pressures of natural selection and events in the past, there is actually very little other paths evolution could have taken...however if say 65million years ago the dinosaurs were not wiped out or oxygen in the carboniferous didn't drop by 60% or any other huge mass extinction did not take place then things would be very different. However because of these events evolution has very little other options. I also discussed symmetrical organisms in my rant on Taxonomy all animals at some stage in their development are symmetrical, this is actually due to the limited amount of coding it takes to form an animal that has such a feature and is one reason why segmented worms do so well, it's just code for one thing mirrored.
"What are the odds that, of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate?"
re- almost 0 however this is not how evolution works if you had been paying attention to anything I have been saying. Each offspring will always bee the same species as it's parent, however if a population is separated (by say an ocean forming) then gene flow allows each population to grow increasingly different from each other, gene flow also makes sure that the chances of several new species emerging in one population is next to impossible but at the same time makes it mandatory when one population is divided (by physical or chronological separation). This is how new species are formed, not through one animal giving birth to one of a different species but successive mutations compiling in a population due to gene flow.
"Why are there two sexes anyhow?"
re- simple, because "sex" allows for mixing of genes and thus a faster mutation rate, thus faster reaction to climate changes and faster immune system development, it also allows for one gender to become specialised in performing one task and the other to perform a different task so that the two genders are not competing for food (however this only happens is certain examples).
" Is there some sort of plan here?"
re- all evidence points to no plan, no help, nothing but cold indifference.
" If the first generation of mating species didn’t have parents, how did the mating pair get to that point?"
re- a lot of organisms can reproduce both sexually and asexually, eventually sexual reproduction became more favourable and thus this is the standard for most animals and some plants. The sexes arose far before sexual reproduction was the norm, for example flat worms are both male and female but still require sexual reproduction (as a result they often fight over who gets to play the male), because of the fast mutation rate that sexual reproduction introduces in many species asexual reproduction became redundant and thus fades out entirely in most linages.
"Isn't evolution supposed to progress when an offspring of a mating pair has a beneficial mutation?"
re-no just mutations in general, asexual reproduction does not have as high a mutation rate as sexual reproduction but they still occur (and because most organisms that reproduce asexually reproduce in high numbers this is rather common to observe), natural selection operates both on beneficial and non-beneficial mutations, this is not a one way street.
"Conclusion: No parents, no evolution. A species would have to jump from a primitive form to a fully developed male and female, each with the ability and instinct to mate."
re- as I explained above, this is not the case, don't assume your conclusions before your questions are answered, that's constructing a straw-man which is deliberately misrepresenting the opposing party.
"How did the heart, lungs, stomach, veins, blood, kidneys, etc. develop in the first animal by slow, minute steps and the animal survive while these changes were occurring? For example, did the first animal develop 10 percent of complete veins, then 20 percent, and on up to 100 percent, with veins throughout its entire body and brain?"
re- that's a very good question and shows that you are legitimately curious about animal development, good boy. Short answer: no. Veins probably developed as we see in flat worms with an open system rather than a closed one (simply moving blood to the general area where it is needed) or as a passive system like we see in segmented worms (where water flow moved blood like fluid throughout the body without a pump), eventually you get to more advanced flat worms there the veins are more precise in their delivery and returning of blood to and from a particular part of the body and eventually you find flat worms where the system is completely enclosed delivering blood to exactly where it is needed and returning it to the gills and "heart" where it can be pumped around again. The heart itself seems to be a modified gill "pump" converted to help the pumping of blood as these worms got larger. The Lung (even in modern mammals) is nothing more than a swim bladder modified to absorb oxygen in the same way as gills are. The stomach is actually the simplest where it is only an area where food can be stored and partly broken down prior to digestion, it's simply a cavity with acid and enzymes. Kidneys are more difficult however, they seem to be modified waste storage sacks, with the ability to filter waste from blood (originally the kidney and bladder were one origin and still are in some organisms). A brain is very simple, it is only a bundle of neurons, kind of like an analogue computer with neurons regulating input and output the organism develops what we experience as a conciseness.
"Then how did the heart slowly develop in the animal and get attached to the veins in the right spot?"
re- a muscular cavity became more robust allowing the pumping of blood around an organism, this replaced the old passive system which needed a flow of water to pump oxygen around the body, it doesn't matter where the heart is attached, it's attached where it is in vertebrates because it is close to the lungs and/or gills allowing for a strong mussel well feed with oxygen (and the protection that a rib cage provides also helps).
"How did the blood enter the system? The blood could not enter before the veins were complete or it would spill out. Where did the blood come from?"
re- actually it did, next to all insects and worms have an open system where blood or blood like fluid is simply pumped throughout the body through an osmosis effect, because there is a lack of blood in one part of the body that is where the blood will flow, gaps between cells allowed for more directed action and a faster metabolic rate. Blood probably arose as a fluid comprised of specialised cells capable to moving oxygen around the body without using a lot of it, eventually this got so extreme to the point where the nucleus was sacrificed in blood cells to prevent more oxygen being used than was absolutely needed.
"Did the blood have red corpuscles, white corpuscles, platelets and plasma? At what point in this process of development did the heart start beating?"
re- "blood like fluid" is an organic solvent capable of carrying oxygen better than water (similar to plasma), as cells started to mix with the fluid they could transport oxygen more efficiently and it goes on from there. The hart probably started beating after the development of "blood like fluid" before this a passive system was used, which I previously discussed.
"Did the animal develop a partial stomach, then a complete stomach? After the stomach was formed, how did the digestive juices enter the stomach?"
re- first of all almost all animals have a tubular digestive tract where food comes in one end and waste is expelled from the other, a stomach probably developed as a cavity in this tube able to hold food and break it down for longer made digestion more efficient. Digestive juices were present before the development of the stomach, however because the stomach plays little to no role in actual digestion these could become more potent in this area due to a protective layer (this is all seen in different flat worms).
"Where did the hydrochloric acid as part of the digestive juices come from?"
re- probably a waste product excreted from the cells lining the stomach wall (scratch that it is a waste product, it was just expelled from the body prior to this due to it's harmful nature in high quantities), because the stomach was isolated from actual digestion it could collect here without causing any harm.
"What about its kidney and bladder? The animal better not eat anything prior to this."
re- as I explained the kidney and bladder were one organ originally, but became separated in order to perform each task more effectively, prior to this digestive development the only animals that existed were things like flat worms and sea cucumbers where food is partly digested then expelled from the body along with actual waste formed from this process. This is just a simple tube, food comes in one side then exits at a slightly lower energy content, with each addition the animal became more efficient and thus each stage is shown in nature to this day.
"How did the animal survive during these changes (and over thousands of years)? Of course, at the same time, the animal’s eyes must be fully developed so it can see its food, and its brain must be fully developed so the animal can control its body to get to the food. Like the heart, brain, veins and stomach, all of the organs and systems in the first animal’s body must be fully functional in the first moments of life."
re- firstly an animal does not need to see it's food in order to eat it, most animals at this stage didn't like flat worms, sea cucumbers, segmented worms, etc are all completely blind. As for the development of an eye each stage is seen in nature to a degree unrivalled; clams have light sensitive cells so they can tell light from dark, a shallow dip like that from snails allows one to tell where the light was coming from, from that comes a simple pin hole camera seen in the shelled predicator of squid and waste excreted from the cells could and does form a lens to focus the light like in squid themselves, from that mussel control is being developed in order to move this around and the lens sharpened to get a clearer picture (often also being places under mussel control). The brain not need be fully developed either, such is the case in jellyfish, clams and some worms; simple input and response is all that is needed and this can be done by simple chemical responses no "fully developed brain" required. Functional yes, as each stage is functional... efficient in the absence of others, no. A tubular digestive tract is fine but a stomach is better, simple oxygen absorption through the skin is fine but gills are better, a simple open blood system is fine but a closed on is better (in most cases) and a simple mussel pumping blood is fine but a true heart is better.
"The preceding points indicate that evolution couldn’t occur, and the fossil record indicates that it didn’t occur! In other words, if you cannot come up with a detailed, feasible scenario of how the first animal developed, the whole evolutionary theory goes out the window, because it never even could have gotten started. Or is your attitude going to be: Don’t bother me with such details; my mind is made up."
re- no, my attitude is that such things do exist and each step is viable in nature and recorded (as detailed above) just because you lack the ability to do a simple Google search or actually look at primitive animals does not mean that such things are impossible. Actually the opposite is true, the fossil record coincides perfectly with evolutionary theory and each step to obtain mammalian organs is seen either in nature or the fossil record as I have explained above.
"Why do books on evolution, including biology textbooks, always start with a fully developed animal when attempting to explain how one species developed into another species? Why don’t evolutionists first explain how the first animal developed (an animal with a heart, lungs, brain, stomach, etc.)?"
re- high school textbooks perhaps, university textbooks never. It's actually rather simple, all animals are fully developed, however animals have succeeding stages of development of different organs, features, etc however each stage itself is fully functional just not as effective as succeeding steps, and this is explained however primarily in university level textbooks because such process are long and complicated, so much so that we don't bother trying to teach such things to teenagers but save the more complicated stuff for higher education. It's the same thing as in primary school you learn that everything fits into either a plant of an animal, then you learn about the five kingdom system and finally you learn about Taxonomy, we save the more complicated things for when they have enough intelligence to understand it.
"What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce a system in human reproduction whereby exactly 50 percent of offspring are male and 50 percent are female (based on 50 percent X-chromosomes and 50 percent Y-chromosomes)? Again, is there some sort of plan here?"
re-100% because unless there are process to stop this when you have two options to pick from (X&Y) you have a 50-50 chance of picking either, unless there is some sort of system by which one chromosome is retarded (I'm using the correct term don't get up at me for that) do other probabilities occur, humans have no such system thus there is no other option.
"To a creationist, the incredible complexity of human life, plant life and the universe is absolutely overwhelming evidence that there must have been a designer. Additional evidence for a designer: The law of gravity is basic to an understanding of the universe."
re- no, that's extrapolating from data that does not exist, i.e. matter attracts matter, therefore there is a God...your missing a step, i.e. matter attracts matter, God(s) are directly observed (which is not the case mind you) therefore God(s) exist.
"Who invented gravity? Where did the law of gravity come from? Did it have a beginning? Isn’t it reasonable to assume that when matter was created, the law of gravity was established at the same time to regulate matter?"
re- nobody invented Gravity, Gravity is a side effect of things having mass, things with mass distort space-time, this causes things with mass to attract other things with mass. Gravity does not regulate matter, are you for real? Gravity (more specificity general relativity) is the Theory by which things with mass attract other things with mass by distorting space-time, the more mass something has the more of space-time it distorts and the more Gravity it has. Gravity came with mass...sort of, things with energy also have Gravity (E=MC^2 energy and matter are interchangeable) however to a much, much smaller degree (C^2 is a very big number (C being the speed of light)).
"The earth receives an incredible amount of energy from the sun, even though the sun is 93,000,000 miles away. Yet the earth only receives one part in two trillion of the sun’s total energy. And since the sun is only an average star among the 100 trillion billion stars in the universe, the total energy in all these stars is absolutely beyond human comprehension. (It has been written that the number of stars is greater than the number of grains of sand in every beach and desert in the world!)"
re- I know this isn't your point but I should put something up here, our sun is not an average sized star, it's a very small star, and prior to our suns birth stars could grow even bigger (because there was to helium yet they could grow to huge sizes). That is all.
"Where did this energy come from? Isn’t the only reasonable answer that it was the result of a creative act by an almighty designer/creator?"
re- no, remember our equation E=MC^2? where energy and matter/mass are interchangeable and our principal of nuclear fusion? well it's a fusion of these two principals, when a star combines two elements, say two hydrogen nuclei mass is lost, this little bit of mass (M) is concerted into a lot of energy (energy=mass x the speed of light^2), this is the energy a star releases in the form of heat, light particle radiation. A simple Google search would clear this up as well, i.e. "how to stars work?".
"Why do evolutionists summarily dismiss the evidence of design without any serious consideration?"
re- they don't because what you claim is evidence is not, it's called a testimony. Evidence is testable, repeatable, verifiable and falsifiable; God(s) are not and it is impossible to give credit to any particular tale over another because each has equally weighted testimony accompanying it with no evidence accompanying any. Therefore it is impossible to distinguish anyone's God(s) from the beings some bronze age desert dwellers seemingly made up.
"Professor D.M.S. Watson, zoologist and Chair of Evolution at University College London, has given us some insight as to why this is so. He said, “Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” This, of course, is an admission that the foundation of evolution is not science, but a rejection of the supernatural."
re- The Creationist Quote mine, do yourself a favour and actually read the rest of the paragraph, I think you'll be surprised. Science is a rejection of the supernatural because magic is not testable and therefore unverifiable and therefore it is impossible to distinguish anyone's tale from someone making shit up, we can't have that in science, evolution is science because it is testable, retestable, verifiable and falsifiable all four criteria for something to be considered scientific.
"Evolution then is simply the best alternative anyone has been able to come up with. This also means that evolution is the only field in science where one decides on the answer first, and then looks for evidence to support that predetermined answer."
re-as we discussed before at length, evolution is the opposite. Evolution Theory is developed directly from the observed evidence, it is not as you claim "unscientific" because it meets all criteria to be scientific and is not as you claim a "religion" because it does not require faith...please don't bring up this point again, it has been dealt with, you lost, your wrong, get the fuck over it.
"Other than rejection of the supernatural, how else can one explain the steadfast adherence of evolutionists to this theory even though they do not know the origin of the three main bases of evolution: the origin of matter, the origin of energy and the origin of life?"
re- evolution is none of those things, we've covered this. Evolution Theory covers the diversity of life and the Origin of new Species nothing more, origin of matter and energy is physics and the origin of life is abiogenesis. Science is a rejection of the supernatural because the supernatural is untestable, otherwise it is considered natural, I have a feeling now that you've simply copied this from somewhere as we have covered almost all of this before...I would appreciate it if this is the case that you proof read what you paste before doing so because of this outcome.
2.I will reason that you are listening to me the second that you bring up something that has not been dealt with or acknowledge something that has been dealt with as opposed to pretending that it never happened.
3.not a single thing in that entire paragraph was even remotely correct
4.no it not need be intelligent, for example if you have a dry environment then genes will be selected that are better suited for the climate, this does not mean that there is an intelligent process only that natural selection works, that is the entire point of natural selection is that evolution is not blindly nor intelligently guided but guided by changes in the environment and other selective pressures. Your stupidity known no bounds.
[/caption]
Here is the the background for this post. I posted a video called Debunking Evolution I opened up the comments section on the video and started some interesting conversations with a biology professor called GreedyCapybara. We argued back and forth about whales, Noa's Flood, and other things. The conversations were getting long and YouTube only allows 500 letters in their comment section and the professor started to email me on YouTube. I stated that I had a website with a feedburner that displayed all the comments because I like the open forum atmosphere. So here we are with his first email that he sent me at YouTube
He Writes:
You are starting with a question and science only can deal with natural subjective issues. The background research that you are doing is usually dependent on subjective sources. The hypothesis is obviously subjective as well as the conclusion. It is impossible to remove people from the data and theories are open to interpretation as illustrated here in the scientific method.
I would have to say that your argument defeats itself every time someone is born. Actually I think it is god messing with you and with good reason ;)
3) Taxonomy, lets put the creation of god in a box shall we? lol. Well I think that you guys will be abandoning a lot more theories and methods in the future because they just don't add up. As soon as you think you get it figured out then BOOM right up the waazoo it goes. The term "Kinds" is a lot better because it refers to what we can observe in the present and does not require our imagination like Taxonomy. When we say "Kinds" we can say that cats are the same kind meaning that they share features in common that other "kinds" dont. I don't know what so hard about that.
4) I wish you would answer the question about the stupidity problem. Why do you choose to ignore most of the evidence? Because you think people are idiots and unreliable? Where does that leave you and your reporting of the science to others? Your logic makes no sense at all. On one hand you tell me to listen and on the other hand you tell me everyone is an idiot and should not be listened too. Now we get to the real problem. If they don't agree with you and the evolution theory then they should be considered stupid idiots and not listened too. Thank you for proving my point.
5) I know science changes, no problem here. Science is a great subject, its the evolution theory that I have a problem with. Not all of it, just some of it. I know what I have a problem with and I am not taking it on faith either way. This is more of an emotional issue for the evolutionist not the creationist. When you quit prescribing intelligence to evolution I will quit calling it a faith thank you very much!
The so called transitional forms that you are pointing out were fully functioning creatures. You brought it out before that everything is a transitional form. If a part of an organism is "developing" there are stages where it is useless, kind of like your claims of vestige parts! Why would evolution keep a part that is in development? That is too much like intelligence anyway! Like I illustrated to you before, just because we want or need wings to fly does not mean that we are going to evolve them. Your evidence does not show this at all and the theory is flawed!
Species is an undefined term and is always changing so I do not see why it is a better term than kind. Sounds like personal preference to me. Creationism points to a creator that is true and that is why there are religious implications, so what!
About your answers... I don't want religious answers that have to do with a fantastic imagination like most of your answers are. However I do like the explanations of the compounds, chemicals and gases all coming from a dying star. There are a lot of processes there and I especially liked at the end where you say that "There you are wrong" what, for asking some questions? You think all those processes just go all by themselves with no programmer, that is remarkably STUPID!
So there is not speculation in evolution? How about the feet on Lucy's feet above? There are tons of speculation in the evolution theory, your just lying now and we cannot trust anything you say. Life does not develop from non life you have not seen it or observed it, here is more speculation on your part!
Your a real nut job especially when you come to explain human emotion scientifically. I love your answers on evolution not being a random process. Your speculation is a win win situation for you, isn't it? If I tell you that if its an intelligent process you will say no, its a random process no intelligence involved. Then if I bring up my arguments about random would not "choose" beneficial mutations and keep it because its random then you will prescribe some sort of intelligence to it. This is remarkably idiotic!
Paying attention? I have payed attention to you and I am amazed that you knowing some of the processes that you do cannot see that you are indoctrinated or just anti-religiously motivated. I have no problem with the facts its your conclusions that I find remarkably stupid. Like 2+2=9 this is what I feel like when I read your words. I have no problem with the 2 or even the other 2 these are facts, when you come to the equals part I have a big problem with you. You don't even realize this is speculation on your part, that is even more remarkable.
LOL, Nothing but cold indifference when it comes to sex? Hopefully you are single!