Ive met many people like you(your an atheist right?). .But its ok.If i say or pointed to this and that.What's the point

The truth you must research for yourselves than just reading stuffs on teh internetz.Like you said 'misleading information'.The stuffs you've been reading.Don't you think too then?

i like discussions with an Atheist as they got many points to counter about.Its really interesting for me as im searching for the 'Truth' too.

or are you not?

This post has been edited by Turnip: Apr 28 2010, 07:09 PM

what's the above post have to do with your previous post?
This post has been edited by CleverDick: Apr 28 2010, 07:19 PM

its a question of course?

wiki will clarify this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_Science

This post has been edited by CleverDick: Apr 28 2010, 11:58 PM

Yes, but how it is related to your argument? More importantly what happened to your statement of incredulity about human evolution? It has evaporated into thin air?

Please try searching for Ken Ham and Dr Francis Collins, or you can look up their interviews in Religulous.

Both claim their faith to Christianity. One had absolute confidence on young earth theory, the other believes in Theistic evolution. I use to wonder what would happen if both of them met and discuss about this matter.

It seems to me that the same book that leads them to their believe/faith, does not really shows them the real truth, yet they claim they behold the truth.

Sometimes, you don't need to counter points from Atheist, there's already a lot to counter among fellow followers.

do we consider that as evolution for human? and even for animal? i dont think its consider evolution. for the reason its not consider evolution is because a species bcome extict and eventually being replaced by a species that is quite similar to the species extincted. But they both existed at different time, and doesnt show an evolution process. so for me, human is not evolution, the human look alike before us is totally a different species and its not they adapt to the environment they bcome like us.

Becoming extinct is part of the evolution process. How would a species become extinct or how would a species survive at the brink of extinction? What drives a species to become extinct is exactly the force that drives the change in a species. If not how would you explain extinction and species that managed to survive through crisis and emerged better adapted to it's environment?

what Francis Collins believe in does not conflict with scientific evidence, he dont believe in the bible creation story literally. he believe if i am not mistaken that God set the rules of physic and the universe created in a big bang, solar system and earth form following the law of physic and the life emerge and evolved following evolution. God could have intervene during some stage of the process, and there is no way to prove or disprove that god have choose two humanoid to become adam and eve.

but if you are Ken Ham, your believe in young earth creationist is against the very foundation of geology, biology and physic.

species who survive extinction still the same species as it before extinction. it does not change or adapt.

this is wrong,a species will continue to adapt and eventually evolve if the environmental condition changes,it may not evolve along the same path as the evolved species,but adaptation and hence evolution are inevitable if environmental conditions are changed...

This post has been edited by CleverDick: Apr 30 2010, 01:11 AM

people continue to think of evolution in a discrete way (like caterpilar > butterfly), when it actually is a continuous process (tadpole > frog)

this is an analogy

arent both of them the same?

If so why does the fossils show gradual change in timeline exactly as expected from the theory of evolution? Take the major transition from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. Why would we find 'transitional" fossils if what you said is correct?

no there are not. you can clearly see the stages between a caterpillar and a butterfly. if i point one out, you'd have no problem saying, yes, thats a butterfly/caterpillar.

with frog/tadpole it is not so clear. a tadpole has no feet and has a tail. at certain time, the hind feet grow out. while it is growing out, does it have hind feet or not? or at the time when it has 4 feet but still some tail, is it a tadpole or a frog?

caterpillar/butterfly represent a very discreet change. tadpole/frog represent a more continuous and subtle change.

icic thanks for the clear information, so both of them are type of evolution?

no, neither of them are evolution. its an analogy. evolution across many generation would behave more like tadpole/frog (many very very slow changes) and not like caterpillar/butterfly (1 major change)

I just remember 1 good example that show change and adaptation that you would probably understand and have some experience. It's usually known as drug resistance. It's the antiboitics that you take when you are infected with microbes. As the drug kills off the microbes some survive due to mutation. These changed/mutated microbes has developed the ability to resist the drug. The change can be traced to genetic changes in the microbe. This clearly refutes your idea that species that survives extinction is slightly different from before.

The evolution theory is still a debated topic. It is not fact. So, until there's a solid scientific proof, I won't believe it. Personally, I think that animals and humans will change and adapt to its environment but not to the extent of the animals to become another new species.

Peace..

It must be disappointing to know the theory of evolution is a solid theory with solid evidence. Evolution is a fact and the theory explains that fact, whether you believe it or not, like it or not. You must have stopped learning anything about evolution since 150 years ago because your view represents the view at the time when darwin revealed evolution through natural selection.

Even if I were to take your statement above as a valid argument against evolution, if animals and humans will change and adapt to it's environment, what is stopping it from changing to another species? Have you looked at the evidence before you decided you cannot believe in evolution?