Evolution:4-10-04 Evolution theory is rooted in the religion of atheism

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: cquark

really? like what? and i'm not talking about inbreeding things until recessive traits show up.

Why wouldn't inbreeding count? If your population interbreeds, you'll get change but no speciation. For speciation, you need reproductive isolation of one group from another. Otherwise, they'll exchange traits by interbreeding and never diverge into two species.

There's Ernst Mayr's classic example of the formation of five new species of cichlids in the wild. Speciation is shown by morphology and lack of interbreeding. Mayr, Ernst, Populations, Species, and Evolution, 1970. Speciation events have also been observed in Drosophila in laboratory experiments.

ok, maybe it is speciation, but it doesn't feel like evolution, to me at least. the genes were already there, they've just not been expressed. where do new genes come from? afaik inbreeding fruit flies in a tube until they're growing legs out of their eyes doesn't demonstrate that.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

Evolution theory is rooted in the religion of atheism

got that backward bro, the religion of atheism is rooted in the theory of evolution.

to believe in evolution is not to be an atheist, but the central atheist tenants generally demand you believe in evolution;

no matter how we all got here, which is for science to figure out, 1.) the bible isn't wrong and 2.) it was the divine will of God.

And how do you know the Bible isn't wrong?

Because every atheist who's tried to evangelize based on 'biblical contradiction' has failed to come up with one thing to show the bible to have even one contradiction. I started off thinking their where a number of contradictions, after actually being shown said 'contradictions' an honest look would show the bible to be without contradiction. Try an honest look at it yourself.

atheism isn't a religion

in and of itself the denying God's existence is not a religion, although it is a faith; But many have made the active evangelizing of new people into denial of the existence of God into a religion. One of the central tenets being the theory of evolution.

Because a thing is not self contradictory doesn't mean it is true. A tiger is a lion and a lion is a mouse. Therefore a tiger is a mouse. No contradiction, but actually these are three different things. And every atheist who tries to evangelize is not every atheist. The property of evangelism is not inherent in being an atheist. The Bible is a mechanical record of a living phenomenon that mostly died when it's central source did 2000 years ago. It is a relic that represented a once functional door or bridge to another world. There is enough left of the methodology for an occasional transformation, but mostly there are just mechanical Christians who are only mechanical machines like the members of every other extinct methodology. Only he who has gone through the door can help you to cross. You will not know them by their fruit because you will never see them. But God is walking about, somewhere, of that you can be sure.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: cquark

really? like what? and i'm not talking about inbreeding things until recessive traits show up.

Why wouldn't inbreeding count? If your population interbreeds, you'll get change but no speciation. For speciation, you need reproductive isolation of one group from another. Otherwise, they'll exchange traits by interbreeding and never diverge into two species.

There's Ernst Mayr's classic example of the formation of five new species of cichlids in the wild. Speciation is shown by morphology and lack of interbreeding. Mayr, Ernst, Populations, Species, and Evolution, 1970. Speciation events have also been observed in Drosophila in laboratory experiments.

ok, maybe it is speciation, but it doesn't feel like evolution, to me at least. the genes were already there, they've just not been expressed. where do new genes come from? afaik inbreeding fruit flies in a tube until they're growing legs out of their eyes doesn't demonstrate that.

New genes are mutations of genes that already exist. These mutations accumulate at a predictable rate. It is why humans and chimps are a % different after 6 million years or so. Dominant and recessive genes provide specie variation, but not new species. Speciation requires time or an acceleration in the rate of mutation and selection.

 

[datalink7]

in and of itself the denying God's existence is not a religion, although it is a faith; But many have made the active evangelizing of new people into denial of the existence of God into a religion. One of the central tenets being the theory of evolution.

Atheism isn't about "denying" the existence of God. Rather, it is saying there isn't proof that there exists a supernatural being, therefore they stick with the default position that there is no such thing.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: datalink7

in and of itself the denying God's existence is not a religion, although it is a faith; But many have made the active evangelizing of new people into denial of the existence of God into a religion. One of the central tenets being the theory of evolution.

Atheism isn't about "denying" the existence of God. Rather, it is saying there isn't proof that there exists a supernatural being, therefore they stick with the default position that there is no such thing.

it is the belief that god does not exist without proof one way or another.

beleif in something you cannot "prove" no matter what side of the fence you are on (or even why for that matter) is a position of faith.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
New genes are mutations of genes that already exist. These mutations accumulate at a predictable rate. It is why humans and chimps are a % different after 6 million years or so. Dominant and recessive genes provide specie variation, but not new species. Speciation requires time or an acceleration in the rate of mutation and selection.

how do you account for the fact that the vast majority of mutations are detrimental to the survival of the organism? what about complex apendages that require not just one but sometimes more than twenty "random" mutations to make it work? evolution also totally ignores Irreducible Complexity, not to mention so called intermediates that are pre dated by their so called "descendants" in the fossil record that are labled anomalies and forgotten about.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: datalink7

in and of itself the denying God's existence is not a religion, although it is a faith; But many have made the active evangelizing of new people into denial of the existence of God into a religion. One of the central tenets being the theory of evolution.

Atheism isn't about "denying" the existence of God. Rather, it is saying there isn't proof that there exists a supernatural being, therefore they stick with the default position that there is no such thing.

That would presuppose that God is a supernatural being and not cleaning the toilets down at the local carpenter's guild. Your idea of the supernatural and Gods idea of it may be entirely different things.

 

[cquark]

what about complex apendages that require not just one but sometimes more than twenty "random" mutations to make it work? evolution also totally ignores Irreducible Complexity

I account for it by the appendage being useful to some degree at intermediate stages. While the intermediate stages either don't work as well as the final version or serve some other purpose, they still work, much as the eye works as a light detector even without a lens or focusing apparatus.

The irreducible complexity argument is fallacious. It boils down to personal incredulity: "I don't know how it could happen, so it couldn't ever happen," and thus holds no weight whatsoever. Scientists have demolished example after example of systems that Behe claims are irreducibly complex, by showing how to get from one feature to another in the step by step manner followed by natural selection. Brown University biology Ken Miller's demolishment of one of Behe's primary examples--the evolution of vertebrate blood clotting--is available here.

 

[Moonbeam]

"how do you account for the fact that the vast majority of mutations are detrimental to the survival of the organism?"

In the billions of years that evolution has had to work, the machinery of life has become very complex. The slightest think out of wack usually leads to disaster. What always happens though is that there is genetic drift in isolated breeding populations. That means that organisms undergoe morphological drift. As long as a square and a circle can occupy an ecosystem things will become square or round. Those mutations that aren't fatal will be preserved. The changes they produce in an organism will randomly manifest and those that work will be preserved. As long as a thing can be square or round it will drift into those shapes. But if the environment changes and favors round, square and all square genes will disappear creating a new rounder form. Each aspect of an organism has a genetic code and that code is composed of many genes. Each animal is slightly different than every other and contains slightly different genes. The genes that function well in the environment which is always changing are preserved and the ones that don't are lost. In this way things get to try infinite possibilities. Of those infinite possibilities some function with greater or lesser success in this or that environmental nitch. It doesn't matter that most changes are bad. It only matters that some small number are good, bucause those are the ones that will consentrate in the gene pool and produce an evolving form. Where there is tremendous stability in the envoronment things tend to stay the same because the same is what always worked in that same environment.


"what about complex apendages that require not just one but sometimes more than twenty "random" mutations to make it work?"

As long as the first of the twenty is not harmful it can exist in the species as well as the second and third. If the twentieth mutation creates a change that is functional it will be preserved and if it renders an evolutionary advantage it will predoninate in time. The huge time that evolution has been at wlrk meant that the number of genetic combinations that gets tried is as fast as the time for them to occur in. The human brain cannot conceive of ow long is a billion years.

"evolution also totally ignores Irreducible Complexity, not to mention so called intermediates that are pre dated by their so called "descendants" in the fossil record that are labled anomalies and forgotten about."

Please be specific. If I told you that Galeop's pendaticism refutes that claim would that make it so? What is Irreducible Complexity and these intermediaries specifically?

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: cquark

what about complex apendages that require not just one but sometimes more than twenty "random" mutations to make it work? evolution also totally ignores Irreducible Complexity

I account for it by the appendage being useful to some degree at intermediate stages. While the intermediate stages either don't work as well as the final version or serve some other purpose, they still work, much as the eye works as a light detector even without a lens or focusing apparatus.


The irreducible complexity argument is fallacious. It boils down to personal incredulity: "I don't know how it could happen, so it couldn't ever happen," and thus holds no weight whatsoever. Scientists have demolished example after example of systems that Behe claims are irreducibly complex, by showing how to get from one feature to another in the step by step manner followed by natural selection. Brown University biology Ken Miller's demolishment of one of Behe's primary examples--the evolution of vertebrate blood clotting--is available here.

actually ken miller got himself "demolished" in return

linky

your counter-argument to IC is what is fallacious and is a gross oversimplification most of the step by step "refutements" you mention are mere supposition. much like darwinism itself generally is if the public knew how little actual physcial evidence darwinism had they would be shocked.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam<br
Please be specific. If I told you that Galeop's pendaticism refutes that claim would that make it so? What is Irreducible Complexity and these intermediaries specifically?

one specific organism would be ecoli3 one of the "molecular machines" evolution does not explain. it has all the parts a man made electric motor has. tkae on part away the whole "contraption" does not work.

one specific intermediate would archaeopteryx with a bird having more modern features being proto avis.

i have seen the arguments regarding proto avis, they did not convince me since they were full of the usual "probobly" could be" and maybe" guesswork darwinisitic evolution is mainly built on. maybe you have a more convincing one?

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: datalink7

in and of itself the denying God's existence is not a religion, although it is a faith; But many have made the active evangelizing of new people into denial of the existence of God into a religion. One of the central tenets being the theory of evolution.

Atheism isn't about "denying" the existence of God. Rather, it is saying there isn't proof that there exists a supernatural being, therefore they stick with the default position that there is no such thing.

it is the belief that god does not exist without proof one way or another.

beleif in something you cannot "prove" no matter what side of the fence you are on (or even why for that matter) is a position of faith.

No, it's not a belief that God does not exist. It is a lack of belief that God exists.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: cquark

what about complex apendages that require not just one but sometimes more than twenty "random" mutations to make it work? evolution also totally ignores Irreducible Complexity

I account for it by the appendage being useful to some degree at intermediate stages. While the intermediate stages either don't work as well as the final version or serve some other purpose, they still work, much as the eye works as a light detector even without a lens or focusing apparatus.

The irreducible complexity argument is fallacious. It boils down to personal incredulity: "I don't know how it could happen, so it couldn't ever happen," and thus holds no weight whatsoever. Scientists have demolished example after example of systems that Behe claims are irreducibly complex, by showing how to get from one feature to another in the step by step manner followed by natural selection. Brown University biology Ken Miller's demolishment of one of Behe's primary examples--the evolution of vertebrate blood clotting--is available here.

actually ken miller got himself "demolished" in return

linky

I read the article your link points to, and it doesn't say anything about evolution of vertebrate blood clotting. I searched it for those key words and found nothing on blood or clotthing. Perhaps you posted the wrong URL?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: Moonbeam<br
Please be specific. If I told you that Galeop's pendaticism refutes that claim would that make it so? What is Irreducible Complexity and these intermediaries specifically?

one specific organism would be ecoli3 one of the "molecular machines" evolution does not explain. it has all the parts a man made electric motor has. tkae on part away the whole "contraption" does not work.

You've shifted the topic away from evolution to abiogenesis. Evolution explains how one organism becomes another, not how one organism appears out of nowhere, which is what you're asking for here. Try to find an example relevant to evolution. Pick a single feature, so the example's short enough to discuss online and we can agree on what we're discussing.

 

[Moonbeam]

cquark, you may understand him better than I. I could make no sense whatever of the following jive:

"one specific organism would be ecoli3 one of the "molecular machines" evolution does not explain. it has all the parts a man made electric motor has. tkae on part away the whole "contraption" does not work."

I assume you mean by 'tkae on part' take one part away, but what you mean by it having all the parts of an electric motor I have no idea. I didn't know ecoli had armatures and windings and magnets and things. Most organisms have a fast supply of junk dna they can do without.

"one specific intermediate would archaeopteryx with a bird having more modern features being proto avis."

i have seen the arguments regarding proto avis, they did not convince me since they were full of the usual "probobly" could be" and maybe" guesswork darwinisitic evolution is mainly built on. maybe you have a more convincing one?"

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Could you please lay out the case. And the fact that something doesn't convince you is nothing to be alarmed about. As I've quoted before, "You can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much." Your religious conviction stands in the way of your reason.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Because a thing is not self contradictory doesn't mean it is true.

The spiritual inerrancy is aparent in both contemplation and aplicaiton.

And every atheist who tries to evangelize is not every atheist.

such is why i pointed out the difference between people who are atheists and people who subscribe to the religion of atheism.

mostly there are just mechanical Christians who are only mechanical machines like the members of every other extinct methodology.

without baptism in the Holy Spirit, a death of self reborn in the inner light of God, then a Christian isn't a Christian. Christians aren't as rare as you think, though 'most' may unfortunately be apt.

But God is walking about, somewhere, of that you can be sure.

More of a universal singularity, and in the inner light of every human... if they would die to the flesh and be reborn in the spirit.

 

[Moonbeam]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because a thing is not self contradictory doesn't mean it is true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The spiritual inerrancy is aparent in both contemplation and aplicaiton.

==============
Not scientifically testable and meaningless to a rational mind. A simple case of seeing what you want to see.


Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And every atheist who tries to evangelize is not every atheist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

such is why i pointed out the difference between people who are atheists and people who subscribe to the religion of atheism.
===============
Such types are not religious atheists they are simply atheist bigots.


Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mostly there are just mechanical Christians who are only mechanical machines like the members of every other extinct methodology.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

without baptism in the Holy Spirit, a death of self reborn in the inner light of God, then a Christian isn't a Christian. Christians aren't as rare as you think, though 'most' may unfortunately be apt.

===================
Scientifically untestable. The religious experience can produce various kinds of people, some who are clearly insane and some who may be, well, God. We will know them by their fruits but possibly only if we are fruit-bearers ourselves. The problem with mechanicality is that the machine does not know he is a machine. "I am a reborn machine. I am a reborn machine. I am a reborn machine." Oh really.


Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But God is walking about, somewhere, of that you can be sure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More of a universal singularity, and in the inner light of every human... if they would die to the flesh and be reborn in the spirit.

-------------------------

Look up Avitar or see Meher Baba for an example of one. You'll have lots of fun.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
cquark, you may understand him better than I. I could make no sense whatever of the following jive:

"one specific organism would be ecoli3 one of the "molecular machines" evolution does not explain. it has all the parts a man made electric motor has. tkae on part away the whole "contraption" does not work."

I assume you mean by 'tkae on part' take one part away, but what you mean by it having all the parts of an electric motor I have no idea. I didn't know ecoli had armatures and windings and magnets and things. Most organisms have a fast supply of junk dna they can do without.

"one specific intermediate would archaeopteryx with a bird having more modern features being proto avis."

i have seen the arguments regarding proto avis, they did not convince me since they were full of the usual "probobly" could be" and maybe" guesswork darwinisitic evolution is mainly built on. maybe you have a more convincing one?"

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Could you please lay out the case. And the fact that something doesn't convince you is nothing to be alarmed about. As I've quoted before, "You can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much." Your religious conviction stands in the way of your reason.

you asked for specific examples, i gave them to you.

as far as "You can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much." i was not aware that just because i am a christian i am by default a bigot, which seems to be the implication anyway. if that is the case it would seem your more a bigot than i am.

regarding ecoli3, "junk" dna is not relevant to the workings of the biochemically powered electric motor that provides the rotational motion to the flagella though a driveshaft and u-joint system...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
cquark, you may understand him better than I. I could make no sense whatever of the following jive:

"one specific organism would be ecoli3 one of the "molecular machines" evolution does not explain. it has all the parts a man made electric motor has. tkae on part away the whole "contraption" does not work."

I assume you mean by 'tkae on part' take one part away, but what you mean by it having all the parts of an electric motor I have no idea. I didn't know ecoli had armatures and windings and magnets and things. Most organisms have a fast supply of junk dna they can do without.

"one specific intermediate would archaeopteryx with a bird having more modern features being proto avis."

i have seen the arguments regarding proto avis, they did not convince me since they were full of the usual "probobly" could be" and maybe" guesswork darwinisitic evolution is mainly built on. maybe you have a more convincing one?"

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Could you please lay out the case. And the fact that something doesn't convince you is nothing to be alarmed about. As I've quoted before, "You can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much." Your religious conviction stands in the way of your reason.

you asked for specific examples, i gave them to you.

as far as "You can tell a bigot, but you can't tell him much." i was not aware that just because i am a christian i am by default a bigot, which seems to be the implication anyway. if that is the case it would seem your more a bigot than i am.

regarding ecoli3, "junk" dna is not relevant to the workings of the biochemically powered electric motor that provides the rotational motion to the flagella though a driveshaft and u-joint system...

I called you a bigot because you are bringing preconceived notions to the table, specifically the notion that evolution must be wrong because it contradicts your notion of Christian theology. It weems that it is that which makes it difficult for you to be sursuaded by mor or less obvious evidence. But lets go on. I asked for specific examples in the form of arguments, not by the names of case studies. What are you talking about when you speak of ecoli and archaeopteryx. I have no idea and so there is nothing I can say in return. All I know is that the scopes monkey tiral proved creationism wrong. Or I have it written on my left hand. You are not making a case, you are just throwing out subterfuge.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I called you a bigot because you are bringing preconceived notions to the table, specifically the notion that evolution must be wrong because it contradicts your notion of Christian theology. It weems that it is that which makes it difficult for you to be sursuaded by mor or less obvious evidence. But lets go on. I asked for specific examples in the form of arguments, not by the names of case studies. What are you talking about when you speak of ecoli and archaeopteryx. I have no idea and so there is nothing I can say in return. All I know is that the scopes monkey tiral proved creationism wrong. Or I have it written on my left hand. You are not making a case, you are just throwing out subterfuge.

ROFL! your making a huge assumption there! we can move on to archaeopteryx and protoavis later.

as far as ecoli3 goes i have pretty much explained it..it has a biochemically powered electric motor that transmits power to a rotating flagella via a u joint and driveshaft system these are mechanical parts with the same function as thier man made counterparts traditional darwinism has no explanation of this and other "molecular machines" simply saying "well it eveolved from something else" is not an explanation,it is circular reasoning.

first off, ID is not based on any religious view. secondly many evolutionists fit that description you just provided:

read this article by johnathan well of berkley(that is right there are even professors at berkley of all places that think traditional darwinism is hooey) it will explain much it shows how evolutionism is itself relying on "subterfuge" including known fraudulent information stil in textbooks today. some of it will be very familiar to you.





link does no good if you do not read it!

 

[LordMagnusKain]

called you a bigot because

no you call him a bigot because you have a warped perspective that denies the connotative meaning of statements.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

called you a bigot because

no you call him a bigot because you have a warped perspective that denies the connotative meaning of statements.

Well to be truthful I'm not sure he is a bigot but I know you are. And you of course are in a state of translucent menopause. If that went over your head, please just explain what you mean by warped perspective that denises the connotative meaning of statements. You have a fancy way of saying nothing while pretending to do so. Put down them abstractions and come out and fight.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I called you a bigot because you are bringing preconceived notions to the table, specifically the notion that evolution must be wrong because it contradicts your notion of Christian theology. It weems that it is that which makes it difficult for you to be sursuaded by mor or less obvious evidence. But lets go on. I asked for specific examples in the form of arguments, not by the names of case studies. What are you talking about when you speak of ecoli and archaeopteryx. I have no idea and so there is nothing I can say in return. All I know is that the scopes monkey tiral proved creationism wrong. Or I have it written on my left hand. You are not making a case, you are just throwing out subterfuge.

ROFL! your making a huge assumption there! we can move on to archaeopteryx and protoavis later.

as far as ecoli3 goes i have pretty much explained it..it has a biochemically powered electric motor that transmits power to a rotating flagella via a u joint and driveshaft system these are mechanical parts with the same function as thier man made counterparts traditional darwinism has no explanation of this and other "molecular machines" simply saying "well it eveolved from something else" is not an explanation,it is circular reasoning.
------------------------
ecoli leave no fossiles in the fossile record so the nature of their evolution is unknown. What we do know is that life in general evolved and there is therefore no good reason to assume that God allowed humans to evolve but did a special number on ecoli. It is not circular reasoning at all. It's just the reasoning that if things fall down on Broadway they fall down on Main. And as amazing as ecoli motors may be why aren't they nuclear powered. I'm sure God could create one that way, no, and that would really have people scratching their heads.
-----------------

first off, ID is not based on any religious view.
-------------------
Hog pucky if it isn't.
--------------
secondly many evolutionists fit that description you just provided:
--------
That just makes them scientific bigots; it doesn't disprove the Theory of Evolution.
-------------

read this article by johnathan well of berkley(that is right there are even professors at berkley of all places that think traditional darwinism is hooey) it will explain much it shows how evolutionism is itself relying on "subterfuge" including known fraudulent information stil in textbooks today. some of it will be very familiar to you.

link does no good if you do not read it!

----------------------------
If you notice I never ask anybody to read anything from anybody else. I defend all my own positions in my own words. I would ask that you do the same. Who cares what some fruit loop at Berkeley thinks. You are real and he is but a dream. I'm going to assume that when the falsity of evolution reaches mainstream science and the theory is replaced with something else it will make scientific news. There are always the kooks in any field, not that I don't love them.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

called you a bigot because

no you call him a bigot because you have a warped perspective that denies the connotative meaning of statements.

Well to be truthful I'm not sure he is a bigot but I know you are.

why thank you.

I'm just saying that the word 'bigot' has a lot stronger connotative meaning than what you seem to ascribe to it.

let me show you
Bigot:a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

the the connotative definition of 'prejudice' as used with the word bigot: an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics.

Neither he nor i have expressed any particular hostility toward any individual, group, or race because of our ideas.

although another definition of prejudice is: preconceived judgment or opinion

simply coming to the table with an opinion does not a bigot make;

Unless all matters of politics are simply those of bigotry from both sides.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

ecoli leave no fossiles in the fossile record so the nature of their evolution is unknown. What we do know is that life in general evolved and there is therefore no good reason to assume that God allowed humans to evolve but did a special number on ecoli. It is not circular reasoning at all. It's just the reasoning that if things fall down on Broadway they fall down on Main. And as amazing as ecoli motors may be why aren't they nuclear powered. I'm sure God could create one that way, no, and that would really have people scratching their heads.

actually we do not "know" that and you did just exactly what i thought you would "well evolution says things evolved so this evolved too" i bet you even gave yourself a pat on the back for such a display of brilliance!



link does no good if you do not read it![/quote]
----------------------------

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If you notice I never ask anybody to read anything from anybody else. I defend all my own positions in my own words. I would ask that you do the same. Who cares what some fruit loop at Berkeley thinks. You are real and he is but a dream. I'm going to assume that when the falsity of evolution reaches mainstream science and the theory is replaced with something else it will make scientific news. There are always the kooks in any field, not that I don't love them.

let me get this straight, your saying that i should not quote a source and provide a link to it? seems like a good excuse to avoid having your bubble burst to me. if your going to go to this length to protect yourself from evidence contrary to what you beleive an actual dialogue is not possible so this will be my last post on the matter.

here are the name some more "kooks" from many "mainstream" universities and research labs..not that it means anything of course.

?Henry F.Schaefer: Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia
?Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U.
?Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member
?Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U.
?Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U.
?Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U.
?Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois
?Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College
?Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U.
?Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK
?Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville
?David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico
?James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida
?Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan
?Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U.
?Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder
?Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College
?William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago:
?George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida
?Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U.
?James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah
?Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington
?Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories
?Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universit&auml;t M&uuml;nchen
?Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis
?Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member
?Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho
?Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho
?David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U.
?Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T.
?Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia
?Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M
?Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada)
?Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School
?Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories
?Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences
?William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens
?Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia
?Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U.
?Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College
?Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin
?Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U.
?Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College
?Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College
?William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U.
?Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia
?Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine
?Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U.
?Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U.
?Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T.
?Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor
?John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico
?Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin
?Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia
?Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U.
?David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author
?Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland
?John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U.
?James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm
?John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory
?Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa
?Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U.
?Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City
?Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington
?Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute
?Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U.
?Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U.
?Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior
?James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U.
?Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm
?Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas:
?Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U.
?Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School
?William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City
?Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico
?Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U.
?Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago
?Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology
?Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College
?Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U.
?David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U.
?Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA)
?Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute
?Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington
?Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U.
?Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan
?Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College
?Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley
?Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina
?Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U.
?James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center
?Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha
?Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U.
?David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U.
?Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U.
?Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of California, Berkeley:
?James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U.
?Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A & M