>>By that definition that you gave of evolution (the change of allele frequencies over time). Try looking in an old encyclopedia (ex. World Book, 1974). They don't give that definition. The definition that you gave is a new definition of evolution. When I took biology in high school, they never gave such a definition.
OMG you are actually quoting from an encyclopedia that is 3 decades old as support of your position? The only difference in the definition is that it is now more precise and uses more accurate scientific nomenclature. The meaning hasn't changed, genius.
>>And by the way, allele frequencies can change over night.
Prove it. Stop asserting crap, ie. talking out of your ass and actually try to provide evidence for the claims you make. It isn't my job to disprove what you say. If you don't bother to provide any evidence for your claims then we don't have any reason to believe the crap coming out of your mouth.
>>For example, I think it was in Africa that a species of frog had a very low population of a certain sex in their species. I can't remember which one (look it up).
Here we go again. I recall the frog stories, but you are making claims here that you are not even attempting to prove and expecting us to take your word for it? If you want to claim that these stories are a problem for evolution then provide some sort of scientific evidence why. Otherwise, stop talking out of your ass. I've already done some research on this and if and when you do I think you will be rather reluctant to try to claim that this is a problem for evolution, but hey, you've done dumber things already so who's to say?
>>I can't remember which one (look it up).
No, you look it up, dumbass. You seem to first assume it is my job to disprove all of your unproven claims and now you want me to do your job for you here as well?!? Was the bus you rode to school in very, very short?
>>Also, the change of allele frequencies can not explain the vast deference in genetic structure between humans and single-celled organisms. And why do humans have less chromosomes than the worm-- a "lower lifeform"?
Prove it. You made the claim so now you get to provide evidence for it. Do your job or leave the thinking to the people that are qualified to do it.
>>And why do humans have less chromosomes than the worm-- a "lower lifeform"?
Once again, prove it. You have failed to provide the species of worm that you claim has more chromosomes than man. You have failed to tell us how many chromosomes each one has. You have simply pulled something out of your ass and expected us to believe it. Sorry, gullibility doesn't run in my family. I don't expect you can say the same of yours.
>>Look at answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/critics.asp
If there is some specific claim that you wish to defend there then make it. I look forward to it. You might want to inquire at your local college and see if they offer a course in critical thinking skills. I've never met anyone in my life that seems so lacking in their ability to reason logically as you. Do us all a favor, but most especially to yourself, and look into it.
Can I expect you to prove any of your nonsense to me. I haven't seen any proof. All I've seen are outrageous claims. We are on a forum. Do you expect me to show you a video of a frog changing sexes? I could show you footnotes and you still wouldn't believe. I can't change the way you think, only God can. This argument has gone on too long. I'm not a scientist so I'm not good at making such arguments. But I do know it's logical to believe in creationism. Evolution is so improbable it would take a miracle for it to occur. I could try to make more arguments, but there are many other creationists who could make much better arguments. There are books full of logical arguments against evolution. I'm not good at arguments. Even if I'm right, because of the jumbled way that I present it, I'm still perceived of as wrong. Let's just move on. I'm not going to believe you, and you're not going to believe me. I'm tired of arguing.
Edited at Thu Aug 5, 2004 8:09:55 PM
OoPart: an artifact that "seems" to be out of context with the surrounding evidence.
Ex.: A fossilized footprint of a human child containing a fossil of a crushed trilobite. Pronounced O-Part.
>> Can I expect you to prove any of your nonsense to me.
Which part do you find nonsensical? What actual verifiable scientific evidence have you even attempted to present?
>>I haven't seen any proof. All I've seen are outrageous claims.
If you don't accept evidence from mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific journals then what, pray tell, are you willing to accept?
>>Do you expect me to show you a video of a frog changing sexes?
No, but you tried to make a claim about frogs changing sexes and provided absolutely ZERO evidence for it or any basis for the belief that it would somehow be a problem for evolution. Arguments by assertion are nothing more than saying,"Believe it because I say so". Stupid doesn't run in my family so arguments by assertion aren't going to sway me.
>>I could show you footnotes and you still wouldn't believe.
If you have footnotes, please present them. At least you would be making some sort of half-assed attempt at proving your claims.
>>I can't change the way you think, only God can.
Which god are you expecting to change my mind? Odin? Vishnu? Yahweh? Ra? Sociologist tell us we know the names of at least 2500 gods that man has worshipped at one time or another and each one is associated with some sort of creation myth. Why should I, or anyone else for that matter, reject verifiable scientific evidence that every single creation myth is wrong? Like I said before, stupid doesn't run in my family.
>>This argument has gone on too long.
This "argument" isn't really an argument at all. For an argument or discussion to occur, both sides need to actually provide some evidence. Up till now you have provided nothing, but arguments by assertion.
>>I'm not a scientist so I'm not good at making such arguments.
>>But I do know it's logical to believe in creationism.
Then why haven't you provided a single logical argument for it?
>>Evolution is so improbable it would take a miracle for it to occur.
Yay, argument by assertion again. Let me run this past you to see how this works. I claim, and can provide evidence from legitimate scientists, that contradicts everything you believe. You, on the other hand want me to believe that it is "logical" to believe that a being of immense power and incredible knowledge just POOFED into existence and THEN made the world as we see it. SUUUURRREE, I'm the one that believes in silly miracles.
>>I could try to make more arguments, but there are many other creationists who could make much better arguments.
And yet for some reason you haven't bothered to post a single one.
>>There are books full of logical arguments against evolution.
And yet you haven't quoted from a single one.
>>I'm not good at arguments.
Yeah, I think we figured that out already.
>>Even if I'm right, because of the jumbled way that I present it, I'm still perceived of as wrong.
You are perceived as wrong because nothing you have asserted has been shown to be correct or verifiable.
>>Let's just move on. I'm not going to believe you, and you're not going to believe me. I'm tired of arguing.
Fine, but do yourself a favor and every once in a while visit http://www.sciencedaily.com . They post something on a weekly basis concerning real lines of research by legitimate, degreed scientists on evolution. Browse their archive and look at all the research that creationists claim doesn't even exist. Ask yourself why the real scientists aren't finding all this wonderful evidence for creationism that you claim exists, but the crackpots with the diploma mill degrees claim they are finding it instead. Did Jesus speak to you and tell you to believe the idiots? No? Then why do you?