request for creationits

Statistics like that are meaningless. We do not determine truth by what a majority thinks. >>I never said that majority opinion determines what the truth is.<< You didn't say it but you certainly implied it. >> That is a strawman argument. However when 98% of experts are saying one thing, and have been saying that for 150 years, then there is probably really good evidence for the theory, << Then present the evidence instead of just saying there is some. It doesn't matter if 100% say it is true, they could all be wrong unless there is scientific evidence to support what they say. I will make it easy for you; present one thing the TOE preaches with the supporting evidence that can be verified. <>Only about 2% of scientists are creationists. This may be "many" compared to 2 people, but is very very small compared to the total number of scientists. Thats like saying many people live in Vatican City when only a few hundred do.<< Again the statistics are irrelevant. Verifiable evidence is necessary. Give me 3 things that provide evidence for man evolving from apes. Make that one thing. Pleas don't say man is an ape. That is an arbitary opinion made by evolutionists. >>I am going to ask you again. How does genetics refute evolution?<< I just showed you. If you don't accept it, show me where it is wrong. >> However they remain bacteria. That is not an example of evolution. There are different kinds of evolution. There is evolution of new species, and then there is the evolution of new complex abilities within a species. Both of these involve evolution through natural selection and mutations. Again, I was not trying to demonstrate the evolution of new species. I was only trying to show that complex abilities can evolve. This shows that the creationist argument that "complexity refutes evolution" is refuted by counter-example. >> For all you know they have always had that ability. They didn't use it until nylon was invented. >>Actually scientists have compared this evolved bacteria to the original bacteria and identified the exact mutations that gave them that ability.<< Mutation do not change a species into a different species. They only alter a characteristic of the offspring. Since the bacteria remained bacteria, there has been no evolution. >>This mutation was not in the original bacteria. Scientists actually got a sample of normal bacteria in a lab to evolve this ability by putting them with nylon and making that their major food source. They documented the mutations that happened and the affect of those mutations on its ability to digest nylon [1].<< Wonderful. However it they remained bacteria, there was no evolution. Do you really not understand that evolution preaches a change of species. Their basic doctrine is that all we see to day started with a single source. It is amusing that they don't even know what the original was. They start with guess and have continued guessing for 100+ years and still don't know No you don't. The fossil record has no intermediate fossils. >>I listed these intermediates in the last round and you never directly addressed them.<< You didn't provide any evidence they were intermediates. You just said they were with no supporting evidence. I We see simple sea creatures made of soft tissue before we see bony ones. It is possible that the ability to make bone came from genes that produced softer tissue that evolved to make harder tissue. You can't say it is genetically impossible without actually proving it to be impossible. Just because you can't think of a way it could have happened doesn't mean it didn't.<< It is not what I think. It is what genetics allows Ok, give me a quote from an evolutionist a long time ago who claimed that Darwin's Theory of evolution involved abiogenesis. Darwin was the one who came up with evolution, find a quote from him.<< All I am saying is that is what I was taught in high school and college. The primordal ooze is about abiogenesis >>I want to talk about how retroviruses are evidence for evolution. Some viruses when they spread through the body will attack a cell and insert their DNA into the cell's DNA. The DNA that is inserted is used to build proteins to take over the cell and use it to jump on to other cells. If these get into reproductive cells then they will be inherited [2].<< Unless the object that is attacked changes species, wich it doesn't, there has been no evolution. Give me an example what an A becomes a B. If you can't, and you can't, you have n case. >>In fact 5-10% of human DNA is retrovirus DNA and it is unlikely we would have so many if we had only been around for 6,000 years. We know they are retrovirus because they have the exact same sequence of retrovirus genes that are used to build the retrovirus, take over the cell, and take over more cells. They are bordered by identical LTR sequences which are the parts of the host cell DNA that were torn apart and rebuilt and is the collateral damage evidence of the insertion [2].<< Wonderful. Haved tehy caused a changne of species yet? >>We have found that humans share the exact same location of many retrovirus sequences with many apes and the more similar the species the less mutation difference there is between the different versions of the shared retrovirus sequences in certain shared retroviruses studied by geneticists. These mutation differences happen after the species split and the longer two species have been separate the more mutations and therefore the more difference [2].<< Wonderful. Tell me what the original life was and what it became after the retrovirus did its thing. >>Also, since only 1-2% of human DNA is different and 5-10% of human is retrovirus mathematically most retrovirus sequences have to be shared between humans and apes even if all the DNA difference was retrovirus DNA. In fact scientists have found that only 5-10% of DNA difference between humans and apes are retrovirus so only about .1% of DNA is retrovirus and different from chimps, so 99% of retrovirus DNA is shared between humans and apes in the same locations which is incredible to have such a match up in such a long DNA sequence [2]<< Still scientist can test DNA and without knowing the source, they can positively say it is from an ape or from a man. When they can't do that, you have made your case. Until they can all you hve is an unsupported opinion. I had to chop this up a bit because I ran out or characters I could use.